Anglican Communion Rift

Anglican head warns against conservative challenge

Published: 6/30/08, 5:06 PM EDT By MEERA SELVA

LONDON (AP) - The spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans raised questions Monday about the legitimacy of plans to create a global network of conservative Anglicans that would challenge his authority and the teachings of liberal North American churches.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the proposal to form a separate global council of conservative bishops who will train priests and interpret Scripture would create more problems than it solves.

A council "which consists of only a self-selected group ... will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion," he said.

The plan emerged from a weeklong meeting in Jerusalem of conservative Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people from Africa and some north American and British churches. In a declaration Sunday, they announced plans for the fellowship as a "church within a church," stopping short of a complete break with the communion.

Conference participants expressed outrage at what they consider a "false gospel" that has led churches in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere to accept gay relationships. Long-standing divisions over how Anglicans should interpret the Bible erupted in 2003 when the U.S. Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

On Monday, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, said that "much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission" from the Jerusalem conference.

"Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable," she said. "This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers."

In recent years, overseas conservatives have taken leadership of the more than 60 Episcopal parishes that have split from the denomination. The Episcopal Church includes more than 7,000 parishes.

As part of their new fellowship, the conservatives said they would continue to take in breakaway churches.

Williams warned that the conservatives' plans to intervene when congregations or priests around the world complain about the teachings of their local bishops would lead to the church being used to settle personal scores.

"How is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where are underlying non-theological motivations at work?" he said.

In their official statement from the conference, the conservative groups said they "do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the archbishop of Canterbury." They also called the current setup for the communion, with the archbishop of Canterbury at its center, "a colonial structure."

The Anglican Communion is a 77 million-member family of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. It is the third-largest grouping of churches in the world, behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and has always held together different views.

The Jerusalem meeting was held just ahead of a once-a-decade gathering of all Anglican bishops, called the Lambeth Conference. Some of the more than 200 bishops in Jerusalem plan to boycott Lambeth, which begins July 16 in England.

___

AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll in New York contributed to this report.

Sermon by Bishop Gene Robinson

THE GOOD SAMARITAN

A sermon preached by Bishop Gene Robinson at

All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena, CA

15 July, 2007

It's important to remember that, though this is called The Good Samaritan, no word like "good" appears in this parable. It's our tendency to rush to judgement about something. It reminds me of the cartoon where the dog is lying on his therapist's couch, and the dog is saying, "It's always 'good dog' or 'bad dog'! Why can't it just be judgement free?"So I think we rush to label things good and bad. And part--maybe even most--of what this story is about is that this is actually about three good people.

The priest and the Levite, who come off looking pretty awful, are actually *very* good people. They are religious people, they are upstanding, they take their religion seriously, they know all the right answers to things, they can recite the creeds--they do all of that exactly right. They "get it" intellectually and theoretically. Even, perhaps, theologically. And it seems that Jesus tells this story in order to show us that it is not 'right belief", it is not "right thinking" that gets us to the heart of God, but actually doing the will of God. That's what actually gets us to know the heart of God.The priest and the Levite actually had very good reasons not to take care of this fellow on the side of the road. First of all, this road, which still exists--it's the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is at about 2500 feet above sea level, and Jericho is at 800 feet below sea level, near the Dead Sea. And it was a very crooked road, it was a very dangerous place. There were robbers all along it, and to slow down for anything was thought to be terribly dangerous. And indeed, this could well have been a trap. It was not unknown that people would fake being hurt, and the unsuspecting traveler would stop and try to do something, and in doing so would be robbed and mugged, and perhaps killed. Not only that, but the priest would have been expected to go to Jerusalem as every priest did, and serve for two weeks in the temple. And he know, being a student of the law, that if he touched a dead body, he would be ritually unclean, and it would take quite a lot of purification rites to make him capable of performing the service that he was due to give. And so, why would he risk touching this comatose traveler, only to discover that he was dead, and in doing so, defile himself, and delay his service in the temple? These were good people. These were good people. And then, of course, along comes the Samaritan. And Luke, as you know, is the outsider writing a Gospel for people on the outside. And Luke understands that this Gospel of Jesus Christ turned the whole world on its ear. Turned the world upside-down. And so, sure enough, as in so many of Luke's stories, it's the Samaritan who actually does the will of God. It's the priest and the Levite who know the will of God, but seem unable to do it.It's almost as if, when the lawyer asks the question "What must we do to gain eternal life?", and then he gives the right answer. His head knows the right answer--it's to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And Jesus says, "A+, very good!" And then he pushes the point and asks about the neighbor, and Jesus tells this story, I think, to show what love of God looks like detached from love of neighbor. They got the "love of God" part. They understand that. But the priest and the Levite didn't connect that to the love of neighbor, which is really the heart of the Gospel.

You know, more and more, I am convinced that the Christian life is not about life after death--it's about life before death. What God does for us after death, God will take care of. But what we do with life before death is up to you and me. That's the real reward of Christianity, isn't it? Not so much life after death, but life before death. It's not an accident that in our confession now, and in the absolution which follows, we don't say "and may God *bring* you to everlasting life", but keep you in everlasting life. It gets to start now...if we are awake. If we understand that in the doing of God's will, we already participate in everlasting life.

So, it is right action, not right belief, not right thinking, that gets us to the heart of God.A little while ago, in the only time that the Archbishop of Canterbury ever deigned to see me, we were having a little "chat", and at one point in our conversation, he was explaining to me that, actually what the Episcopal church should have done prior to electing and consecrating me, was that we should have figured all this out theologically and intellectually... We should have come to a common mind, and then passed canons and and then done this thing. And I said to him with as much respect as I could, "Your Grace, it seems to me that all of the great steps that has taken, have been as a result of our doing the right thing, and only then, "thinking" our way to what we did. It's not the other way around. I mean, if we had waited for instance in this country for everyone to have been on the same page about civil rights, there would still be separate drinking fountains, wouldn't there? And if we had waited until women were valued as equal and full members of society and the human race for goodness sakes, all of that discrimination would still exist.And, does anyone think that if those 11 women hadn't been "irregularly" ordained in Philadelphia, that we would be ordaining women yet? I'm not sure we would! And it seems that all the great steps forward we have made have been a result of our doing the right thing, and then thinking our way theologically to how that was the right thing. He didn't have a really good response. (Laughter) So, this lawyer (no lawyer jokes!) this lawyer then pushes the point and says, "So then, what must I do?" And Jesus' answer in this story seems to be "love that costs". Love that actually costs us something--costs us time, costs us money, costs us focus, costs us convenience, love that actually costs us something. There was a young seminarian who one summer worked with an old priest at a homeless shelter, and they had a feeding program at noontime. A lot of people, and on this particular day, there just seemed to be an unusual amount of people who came. And they were *just* exhausted, and it was nearly 3:00 before the last person left. The old priest asked the seminarian to go and close up the front door and shut down for the day, and just as this young seminarian got to the front door, thinking that this long and difficult day was about to be over, saw yet one more homeless man making his way up the front walk. And in his exhausted state, and thinking he had nothing left to give, he said, "Jesus Christ!" And the old priest said, "It just might be. "Love that costs, even when we think we're depleted, I'm always reminded--you know how when you throw away an old tube of toothpaste that's done, and then you go to the closet, and you've forgotten to buy another one? And so you reach into the trash can and you haul out the thing? Every time you can make one more toothbrush full of toothpaste--yeah? But isn't that the way God is--just when we think there's nothing left to give, if we make but the simplest effort, God provides. God provides manna in the desert--and maybe just enough for that day--but it's enough. God gives us what we need to respond in the way the Good Samaritan responded. That's the real miracle of life in God.And this is really important: we must do the work of ministry--not just give a nod to it. Louie Crew, who I think was here not to long ago, was the one, I believe, who discovered this mistake in our prayer book. It's in the catechism--it's the only real mistake that I know of in the prayer book, and it's in the section on the Hebrew covenant. And it says "What must we do to please God?" And the answer, in the prayer book, which means to be a quote from Micah, the prophet. It sayw that we must love justice, do mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Well, that would all be very nice, except that's not what Micah said. Micah said we must do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. And it strikes me, maybe you're like me, we just looove to love justice, don't we? And even an astounding witness to justice, like All Saints Pasadena can so love to love justice, and sit around, and form committees, and talk about it all day, that we forget that what Micah said is that we must do justice and walk humbly with our God. I think that what Jesus is teaching in this story about the Good Samaritan is that it's not enough to be good. It's not enough to know the creeds and say you believe all the things that you're supposed to believe.Remember that our baptismal covenant, which is as close to a purpose statement as we have in the Episcopal church, are all action verbs. Right? They're all action verbs. It's not about which doctrines you ascribe to, but will you love and serve one another, will you respect the dignity of every human being, if you make mistakes, will you repent and come back to God? It's all about doing. It's not about ascribing to the right tenets and the right doctrines. That stuff is dry. It's important, but it's not the most important. Because what we see in the story of the Good Samaritan, is the danger of loving God separate from doing the work of loving our neighbor. So it seems to me, that the real question, the challenge, really, of this story for you and me, is whether or not we want to be admirers of Jesus, or disciples. It's easy to admire Jesus--to think he was a nifty guy with really wonderful ideas. Following Jesus is a whole lot harder. Doing the work of ministry and doing justice--getting into some "Gospel trouble" is what we are meant to do.You know, this Lent, I realized for the first time that this symbol, this cross, is such a political symbol. Now, let's be clear: the Jews did not kill Jesus. That's a bunch of anti-semitic stuff that runs throughout some of the Gospels, especially John, and it is not true. The Romans killed Jesus. Now, the Romans killed lots of people, but they saved crucifixion for a very specific kind of criminal. And it was the one who challenged the Powers That Be. Who took on the government, who threatened the Pax Romana with their notions of turning the world upside-down like Jesus did. And they didn't put them all high and lifted up like Cecil B. DeMille--I realize that criticizing Cecil B. DeMille in Los Angeles is...(laughter). But, crosses were actually quite low to the ground, so that as people died and began to rot away, the dogs could eat their flesh, and there would be almost nothing left to bury. They wanted to make a real example of anyone who challenged the Powers That Be. And it is an indictment of you and me that we can wear this symbol around, and it doesn't threaten anybody. When we wear a cross, it ought to scare people to death! And the more powerful they are, the more it ought to scare them. We should be being followed around by the F.B.I.--I know you're being followed by the I.R.S. (laughter). You've got a good start on this one! But really, really--shame on us that this doesn't threaten anybody! When we put this on, when we put on the cross of Christ, we are saying that it's not just religion that we are about. We are about changing the world, as Jesus changed it. We are about loving the people that Jesus loved--those in the margins. And it doesn't mean sitting in a committee room somewhere talking about loving those people, but actually loving them, and doing the hard work of justice.Are you and I going to be admirers of Jesus only, or are we going to be disciples? You know how an innoculation works, right? You don't want to get chicken pox, so you go to the doctor, and they give you just enough chicken pox to make your body form antibodies to it, so you never get a full-blown case of chicken pox. God help us if we come here on Sunday mornings just to get enough religion to keep us from having a full-blown case. It is so easy, isn't it, to come here, isn't it? It feels so good, and you see people you know, and the music's great, and the preaching is good. It just all works! But if we leave here, and it causes us to not do anything any differently, then this is nothing but a religious theme park. Really! We have to be out there doing the work that God has given us to do, or else it is all ultimately just self-serving. And it'll be hard work! When Jesus says "Take up your cross and follow me", he means it's going to be tough. It's going to be very hard--it means taking risks, it means loving that costs. But the miracle, the miracle is that when we do that, and we face that trouble, we come to know the very God who is at the center of all that is. It's the only way we get to know him--we don't get to know him by memorizing the creed. We get to know him by doing the work that he did. So, you and I can do that--especially if we do it with him, that he can work in and through us, to do the work that he has given us to do. So the question for you and me today is, do we just come here for an innoculation? Or do we come here for a full blown infection of God's love? Because it's only when you are fully infected yourself with the love that simply know no bounds, can you go out there and love the world, and God's children, in God's name. And this God promises to be with you and me from now on! There is no better news than that, on this, or any Sunday. Amen.

ANSWER END THE WAR IN IRAQ RALLLY AT THE PENTAGON

South Carolina Friends, Tim and Terry

I found myself at the Episcopal Peace Fellowship brunch sitting with a group of really nice folks. Among them were Tim and Terry. The three of us left together after the brunch to go down to the staging area for the march across the bridge to the Pentagon. It was SO cold and windy. I had my thermal underwear on and wool socks. I'm SO glad I prepared for the weather.

En route from the staging area, pro-war supporters were in bleachers on one side of us and lined up on the other side. It was probably meant to intimidate us but it didn't. They yelled obscenities and we gave them the peace symbol in return. We listened to a few of the speakers at the Pentagon Rally. The sound system was excellent. But it was so cold that after about an hour we left, walked back across the bridge and caught a cab to the Luna Diner at Dupont Circle to get something to eat and get warm. We met some Viet Nam veterans sitting at the table next to us. They had attended the rally as well. Above are just a few of the collection of pictures I took at the rally.

Episcopal Peace Fellowship: Our Presence at the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq: March 16, 2007, Washington, DC

Training at St. Mark's, Washington, DC

Training

Waiting for the service to begin

Sign I made for the Event

Many denominations were represented Episcopalians from all over the country joined other denominations in Washington, DC for a service at Washington National Cathedral on Friday evening followed by a 4 mile candlelight walk from the cathedral to the White House. More than 2,000 attended the service and march. Among the speakers was a Dominican Nun from Baghdad and Jim Wallis of Sojourners. It was a wonderful service which ended with us receiving our torches and begin our march down Massachusetts Ave to the White House. It was snowing and really cold outside. It was great to see all of the supporters waving from their houses and apartments, giving the peace sign. One family came out into their driveway and offered folks hot chocolate and the use of the bathroom in their home. Training in preparation for the evening event was held at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church the morning of the event. St. Mark's is located to the southeast of the Capital Bldg. It's a beautiful old church built in the 1800s. This was an experiential training in nonviolence. The training lasted for two hours and consisted of role playing and ways to express ourselves in non-confrontational ways.

PARLIAMENT ENTERS ANGLICAN FRAY

Pew, what a scorcher: gay schism startles Speaker Simon Hoggart Tuesday March 6, 2007 The Guardian Questions to Stuart Bell, the MP for Middlesbrough who represents the church commissioners in parliament, come round every month. The atmosphere in the chamber subtly changes. There is a hush. The sunlight splashes into the chamber and onto the woodwork as if through stained glass. It takes little imagination to hear the faint sound of organ music, to see the floral offerings on the despatch box. Normally the questions are routine, about funding for church restoration or pensions for retired clergy. Very rarely, there is a small controversy. One was about whether bishops should have their own chauffeurs, or be obliged to drive themselves - whether with the help of SatNav or divine guidance (£249.99 from Halfords) was not clear. But normally nothing disturbs the marmoreal calm. Yesterday however was different. Chris Bryant, a gay Labour MP and former vicar, asked how much it had cost to send the archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Anglican bishops' conference in Dar es Salaam last month. This was the gathering meant to prevent the church's expected schism over the ordination of gay clergy. A compromse was reached, but, as we were to learn, it did not satisfy Mr Bryant. For what it's worth, it turned out that Cantuar's trip cost £2,094, while Ebor came in at a pricier £2,866. This was not, however, the point of Mr Bryant's question. He was furious. It was as if the vicar had asked if anyone knew any just cause or impediment, and someone at the back of the church had started yelling, "Yes, stop! She is married to me!" 'It is particularly depressing," he said, loudly, "that the two British archbishops chose to side with the fundamentalist BIGOTS from other parts of the Anglican communion, rather than representing the ordinary faith of most Anglicans in this country, who are entirely tolerant and decent!" A great "whoooh!" went up, slightly shocked and a little camp. No one was supposed to talk like that. The Speaker was startled. He told Mr Bryant that he should not stray from his question, which was about the costs, not the content of the meeting. But he was not half as cross as Mr Bell. The money had been well invested and well spent, he said. "If he wanted to talk about bigotry and extremism, he could not have done better than he did today!" That was the cue for another "whooo!" Contrary to what Mr Bryant said, the conference had had a good result because it produced an agreed communique on the subject of gay bishops. Mr Bell, who I am sure sounds pious when he is abusing the ref at a Middlesbrough match, concluded "blessed are the peacemakers". Mr Bryant sat on his pew - sorry, bench - fuming. I hoped he would - condemn Mr Bell's reply as a load of old cassocks, but the discussion had moved on.

Praise Jesus! Now The Church of England Can Get Some of the Heat

Jonathan Petre On religion

From the blogs of telegraph.co.uk 02 March 2007 Now that the dust is settling, is it possible to make any sense of what happened last Wednesday evening at the Church of England’s General Synod?

The Church’s “Parliament”, which gathered in the Church’s ivy-veined headquarters in Westminster this week, held two debates on contrasting private members’ motions on homosexuality on what was dubbed “gay” Wednesday.

The first represented a mild shift towards the liberal position by accepting that homosexuals should be included as equals in further dialogue about their place in the Church. But the outcome of the second, initiated by the Rev Paul Perkin, an evangelical from south west London, was so ambiguous that even Synod members were initially left shaking their heads in bewilderment.

Mr Perkin’s motion denounced the House of Bishops’ 2005 pastoral guidance on civil partnerships as a “recipe for confusion” by appearing to lend moral credence to such partnerships even though they are widely regarded as the equivalent of gay marriage. The guidance allows clergy to enter into civil partnerships on the proviso that they first reassure their bishop that they would abstain from sex, thereby remaining faithful to Church teaching. But the bishops have since failed to discipline anyone who has breached their guidance. The thrust of Mr Perkin’s motion was designed to expose their impotence and to try to provoke a more virile approach.

But this did not happen. The House of Bishops’ tabled a blander, more acceptable alternative, aimed at winning an endorsement of its pastoral guidelines while neutralising any significant criticism of them.

Sadly for the House of Bishops, however, its strategy also backfired. An unholy alliance of liberals and conservatives amended its amendment, removing its self-congratulatory if modest description of its own guidance as a “balanced and sensitive” attempt to square Church teaching with the law.

The final motion adopted by the Synod merely acknowledged “the diversity of views within the Church of England on whether Parliament might better have addressed the injustices affecting persons of the same sex wishing to share a common life had it done so in a way that avoided creating a legal framework with many similarities to marriage”. It also noted “the intention of the House to keep their Pastoral Statement under review”.

On the face of it, this does not seem to say very much, though it leaves the bishops’ guidance in a more than questionable state. The conservatives clearly didn’t get their way, but nor did anyone else. Surely, then, the only conclusion is that nothing really substantial had happened. However, the tone of the debate has left conservatives seething and liberals celebrating. What really angered conservative evangelicals was the way that openly gay clergy, whose behaviour appears to be in blatant breach of official Church policy, felt able to stand up in the Synod and talk publicly and unapologetically about their physical relationships with no fear of retribution. To the conservatives, no clearer indication of the bishops inability or unwillingness to act could be imagined.

One evangelical member of the Synod, Alison Ruoff, has reflected this strand of thinking in a letter to the Daily Telegraph. “For me, Wednesday in General Synod was a grim day for the Church of England,” she writes. “Although on the face of it, things might have been worse, when looking at the texts that have come from the debates.

“However, some of the speeches that were made, particularly from members of the clergy, were in many ways truly shocking. No longer is there any shame about anything. Descriptions of ‘loving partnerships’, including the mention of sex, was par for the course. The bishops sat there unmoved. Yet some 10 years ago clergy would have not only have been disciplined but ‘unfrocked’”.

Other evangelicals commented that the Church of England was now heading inexorably down the same path as the liberal Episcopal Church, a somewhat paradoxical situation given the firm stance adopted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, following Tanzania. Liberals also sensed a real shift in the Church of England’s mood on gays and civil partnerships in their direction.

InclusiveChurch, the liberal pressure group, issued a press release under the heading of “a good day for the Church of England”, saying that it hoped that the debates reflected “a new understanding and respect for differing theological positions about lesbian and gay people within and outside the Church”.

It said that the motion on civil partnerships showed that “the present arrangements are not working”, and called for same-sex blessings and the appointment of gay bishops. The Rev Giles Fraser, the liberal vicar of Putney in south London, summed up this view. “It seemed to me that the ground shifted,” he said. “There was no appetite in the Synod for going back.”

So what seemed on the surface to be a confusing stalemate might in fact have been be a paradigm shift. It will be fascinating to see how the tectonic plates collide in the coming months, and whether the House of Bishops can contain the shockwaves.

Posted by Jonathan Petre at 02 Mar 07 20:21

Is A DIVORCE LOOMING OVER THE EPICOPAL CHURCH & THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION?

I found this great NY Times Op-Ed piece which explains the history of the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion. In the grand scheme of things, if the U.S. Church and the Anglican Communion divorce, it can actually free up The Episcopal Church to utilize the $750,000 + that it spends on the Anglican Communion to further it's ministry so important to Episcopalians. These would include more funding for the United Nations Global Millennium Fund, Episcopal Relief and Development Fund, the ability to fund more missionaries and last but not least, the ability to continue its ministry of social justice. March 1, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor A Divorce the Church Should Smile Upon By JACK MILES Los Angeles THE decision of the global Anglican Communion to threaten the Episcopal Church, its American affiliate, with expulsion is about much more than the headline issue of homosexuality. Yes, the impending divorce has been precipitated by the decision of the Episcopal Church to consecrate a gay bishop and to allow individual congregations to decide whether or not to allow gay marriages. But as so often in religious history, the deeper issue is one of church governance. In effect, the Episcopalians left the Church of England more than two centuries ago. The problem dates back to the time of the American Revolution, when the Church of England in America was just what that name says: it was the Church of England, merely in America. Since the 16th century, when King Henry VIII made himself, in effect, the pope of England, the English king had been the supreme church authority. Time had somewhat eroded this authority by 1776, thanks in part to the Puritan revolution in the mid-17th century. Nonetheless, the authority structure within the church remained officially monarchical. More Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01miles.html?ex=1173416400&en=11054ed115380b35&ei=5070&emc=eta1

A WORD OF HOPE & A RESPONSE TO OUR PRESIDING BISHOP FROM BISHOP ROBINSON

I met Bishop Robinson three years ago this month when I had the privilege of meeting him when I went to New Hampshire for his investiture as Bishop of New Hampshire. He autographed my prayer book with the following inscription: "For Gordon-Blessings on you and your ministry of inclusion."

I was wearing my inclusion button and had taken the few I had left with me to New Hampshire. That was before we had our own button machine. Folks from St. Mark's and St. Andrew's Episcopal churches contributed to the fund to be able to have a local company make them.

When Bishop Robinson gave me a hug that evening and commented on the button and wrote what he wrote in my prayer book, a light went on in my head and realized that no, I'm not a member of the clergy, I'm not an elected official, but I do have a ministry which I didn't realize at the time.

I wondered what Bishop Robinson has been thinking about since the Episcopomess our Presiding Bishop brought home with her from Tanzania.

The Gentle Bishop has made TWO statements which I am proud to post here. Please keep Bishop Robinson in your prayers. There are very mean people who wish him harm.

A Word of Hope to my lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters in Christ:

From: +Gene Robinson

In light of the recent Primates Meeting and our Presiding Bishop’s communication to the Church, I received the following plea from a dear and trusted sister:

“Gene, I don't know how you are this night, or if you can summon a word of hope, but the eyes of many LGBT people and our faithful allies are looking to you, tuning the ears of our hearts to hear where you see the hand of God in what feels like deep, deep betrayal.”

After a good number of sleepless nights and prayerful days, let me tell you where this gay man and Bishop of the Church stands, with respect to our beloved Church and our trustworthy and faithful God:

Let’s remember that, for now, nothing has changed. The Episcopal Church has been bold in its inclusion of us, “risking its life” for us in dramatic ways over these last few years. Not perfect, but bold. Just because The Episcopal Church has been invited to subvert its own polity and become a Church ruled by bishops-only, a Church that is willing to sacrifice the lives and ministries and dignity of its gay and lesbian members on the altar of unity, does not mean that we are going to choose to do it. That is yet to be determined. Let’s not abandon hope simply because that is possible. The Primates have the right to make requests of us (nevermind the threatening tone of those requests). We do not have to accede to those requests in exactly the terms in which they are made.

Nothing is surprising in this development. None of us thought this issue was settled, did we? None of us expected our detractors to stop their efforts – whether their goals be genuinely about the authority of scripture and its playing out in our lives as Christians, or whether those goals have more to do with power and money and influence. (BOTH are represented in the actions taken.) We are fighting a larger battle here. As you have heard me say before, we are engaged in the beginning of the end of patriarchy. Did any of us believe that such a battle would be won without resistance? Did any of us believe there would be no more bumps in the road? Did any of us foresee smooth sailing into the future?

We still have countless allies. We are not engaged in this struggle alone. There are countless heterosexual members of this Church who now “get it.” They have heard our stories, felt our pain and taken up our cause as their own. There are countless heterosexual families who have joined The Episcopal Church (they are numerous in my own diocese) because they want to raise their children in such an inclusive Church. There are countless lgbt people who have come to our churches for the comfort and solace and grounding in Christ that we offer – and we dare not lose hope or momentum for them as well as ourselves.

Most importantly, God is still with us. And by “us,” I don’t just mean gay and lesbian people. God is still with God’s Church – frail, cowardly and misguided as it can sometimes be, human nature being what it is. The Church is not ours to save or lose – the Church belongs to GOD, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I believe that we are meant to use the institution of the Church – yes, even boldy risk its existence – to further NOT our own agenda, but the agenda of God. I do not equate the two. Our vision of the Church is only partial; our grasp of what God wants is as susceptible to our self-focused distortion as anyone else’s. But we are called to witness to OUR vision of God’s will and combine it with all the other imperfect visions of God’s will (yes, even those of our detractors), and come up with as perfected a vision as we can muster. The Church has been wrangling over those different visions since its inception – and that will never change. The question for US, however, is: Will we continue to put forward faithfully and respectfully and tenaciously OUR vision into that mix, or will we be intimidated into doubting our own vision of God’s will for the Church – or worse still, leave?

God will continue to show forth God’s glory and God’s goodness in our lives. The reason that we have made progress with our brothers and sisters in the Church is that GOD has shown forth God’s glory and goodness in our lives so strongly, that God cannot be denied at work in us. Many of the faithful have changed their views on homosexuality because they see GOD showing up in our lives, our ministries, our relationships and our families. That is the witness we can and must continue to make to the Church – not pointing to ourselves, but to the God we know in our lives. As I have said before, and will continue to say: JESUS is our agenda – the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins, and the sins of the whole world, so that we might know God’s love and goodness in our lives. In the end, God will reign, and all will be well. I believe that with my whole heart.

Lastly, I give thanks every day to God for the fellowship we share. Part of what gives me relentless hope is my fellowship with YOU. What an honor and privilege it is to hold you in my heart as brothers and sisters in the faith, colleagues in ministry and faithful members of the Church. Can you imagine a more wonderful, fun and courageous group of “companions along the way?” Let our joy, our humor, our devotion to the Lord and to His Church be signs of the abundant life given to us in Christ. Let gay and lesbian people everywhere witness our joy, let them wonder how we can be so hopeful in the face of such overwhelming odds against us, that they want what we’ve got – a relationship with the living God that brings deep joy and abiding peace. Let us be ready to tell them the story of our own salvation at the hands of a loving God. And let us welcome them into our blessed fellowship, the Church.

I don’t know if this is the “word of hope” my friend asked for. It has little to do with events in Tanzania or even the Episcopal Church, and everything to do with God. But it is the hope that keeps me going. My faith is not in myself or in our “cause.” My faith is not in the House of Bishops or the General Convention to get it “right” anytime soon. It is, rather, the faith that people of countless generations and innumerable circumstances have found in our loving and trustworthy God. It is the faith Jesus said it was “blessed” to be persecuted for. It is the faith that Christians have always found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – and God’s desire, willingness and power to bring an Easter out of ANY Good Friday. It is the faith that in and through the Holy Spirit, God continues to fulfill God’s promise “to lead us into all truth.”

I may utterly fail; I will undoubtedly disappoint God in my inability to be the person God created me to be; I will predictably confuse my own will with God’s will. But whatever the next weeks, months and years may bring, whether the Episcopal Church “comes through” for us or not, GOD will not fail, GOD will never disappoint, and GOD will never cease to pursue God’s will for my life – and yours – and for the world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A Response to: A Season of Fasting: Reflections on the Primates Meeting, the Presiding Bishop’s message to the Church

FROM: The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire

I have the utmost regard and respect for our new Presiding Bishop. Her leadership in these difficult times, not to mention her sheer courage, continues to inspire me.

As I vowed at her investiture as Presiding Bishop, I will do everything I can to support her in this ministry. That includes disagreeing with her views when I think it would build up the Body. What follows are my responses to those portions of her communication to the American Church dealing with the demands/threats made to The Episcopal Church related to those members of Christ’s Body who happen to be gay. Allow me to offer a different reading/critique of our Presiding Bishop’s words, and then propose a different way forward.

“What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting – from authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan boundaries on the other.”

I am reminded of the joke about the chicken and the pig, each asked to contribute to breakfast – the chicken’s eggs require a significantly smaller sacrifice than the pig’s bacon! Let us be clear: what is being asked of both parties is “a season of fasting from” accepting the Church’s gay and lesbian people as full members of the Body of Christ, a season of fasting from “respecting the dignity of every human being.” If The Episcopal Church decides to do that, let’s call it what it is: a sacrifice borne most sacrificially by its gay and lesbian members.

[In citing the early church’s debate over dietary laws] “The needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.”

If there ARE “needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured,” they belong to the faithful members of the Church – in The Episcopal Church AND around the Anglican Communion – who are being denied full membership in the Body of Christ because of their same gender love. Is there even a single instance in which Jesus was willing to forego ministry, love and inclusion of the marginalized in order to protect the “sensitivities” of the Pharisees and Sadducees?! What would Jesus’ reaction have been to those same Pharisees and Sadducees if THEY had claimed to be the victims of Jesus’ insensitivity?“

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the main stream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.”

There are MORE than TWO parties here. I would maintain that NEITHER the Episcopal Church NOR the vast majority of the Churches represented by the Primates are the “weaker members.” Rather I would say that the “weaker members” are those gay and lesbian members of the Church of Nigeria, whose Church is supporting the criminalization of all association between them in their country. The “weaker members” are the gay and lesbian members of the Episcopal Church, who have to go looking – sometimes in vain – for a congregation who will accept them as full members of the Body of Christ. The stronger/weaker dichotomy is NOT between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion, but between the Anglican Communion in all its manifestations and the gay and lesbian Christians around the world trying to find a place within it. For the first time in its history, and at the hands of the larger Communion, The Episcopal Church may be experiencing a little taste of the irrational discrimination and exclusion that is an everyday experience of its gay and lesbian members.

“Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the other, to consider that the weakness or sensitivity of the other is of significant import, and therefore to fast, or ‘refrain from eating meat,’ for a season. Each is asked to discipline itself for the sake of the greater whole, and the mission that is only possible when the community maintains its integrity.”

I certainly believe Paul when he says that no part of the Body can say to another, “I don’t need you.” On the other hand, I don’t ever recall Jesus saying that the “greater whole” is the be all and end all. Doesn’t Jesus challenge the greater whole to sacrifice itself for those on the margins? Preaching good news to the poor, binding up the broken hearted, releasing the prisoners and proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor involves SACRIFICE on the part of the greater whole. That’s part of what angered his own hometown synagogue when he preached these powerful words from Isaiah. Touching the leper required SACRIFICE of ancient and firmly held beliefs. Eating with sinners was a SACRIFICE of the greater whole’s sensitivities. I would humbly submit that such sacrifice is the only way that our “community maintains its integrity.”

“Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season.”

Where is the “justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy” for the Church’s gay and lesbian people in this threat from the primates? While the vast majority of the Anglican Communion AND the vast majority of Episcopalians may be willing to “forbear for a season,” the world’s gay and lesbian Anglicans long to hear the words spoken to Jesus at his baptism: “You are my beloved. In you I am well pleased.” Who will speak those words to them, while the rest of the Church forbears for a season? How will we explain this “forbearance” to all those gay and lesbian Christians who have come to The Episcopal Church because, for the first time ever, they have believed that there is a place for them AT God’s table, not simply BENEATH it, hoping for fallen scraps? Are THEIR souls not worthy of salvation too? Does anyone relish the notion of trying to explain all this “forbearance” to GOD?

Allow me to offer an additional reading of scriptural references to “fasting.” In addition to St. Paul's “pastoral” fasting, should we not also consider Isaiah’s notion of “prophetic” fasting?

4Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist.Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high.6Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke,to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house;when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? (Isaiah 58: 4, 6-7, NRSV)

Fasting that focuses only on the self is not, in Isaiah’s mind, the most pleasing to God. For the past many months, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion has spent far too much time and money and focus on this debate. I believe that the majority of us – certainly in The Episcopal Church, and possibly in the Anglican Communion as well – want to set this aside and get on with the work of the Gospel. What would it be like if we fasted in the way that God, through Isaiah, suggests: to fast from our internal squabbling for a season, and turn our focus to the world’s homeless, hungry and poor, in this and every land? What if we focused on what we say is our top priority – ministry to a world in pain through the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals – and simply fasted from this self-focus?

The changes in our polity proposed by the Primates can only properly and canonically be responded to by the laity, clergy and bishops gathered in General Convention in 2009. The Primates’ demands can be seriously, prayerfully and thoughtfully considered at that time. What if we stated, simply and calmly, that the Primates’ September deadline is impossible under our polity, and pledge ourselves to feeding, housing, and clothing the poor and binding up the physical and spiritual wounds of the world’s neediest for this season, until 2009? What if we gave up our internal squabbling for a season, took no precipitous action, and turned our focus to the world that Jesus Christ gave his life for?

This way forward may not be acceptable to many in the Communion who want this settled now, once and for all. So be it. Nothing we do will settle this once and for all. Does anyone believe that our full compliance with the Primates’ demands, our complete denunciation of our gay and lesbian members, or my removal as bishop would make all this go away?! We cannot determine what the response to our actions will be. We can only decide what our faithful response will be to the demands made of us.

If the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury to our prophetic fasting should result in our not being invited to the Lambeth Conference, then let us offer that denial as part of our fasting. Let us dedicate the diocesan and personal resources that would have been spent on Lambeth to projects involved in furthering the Millennium Development Goals.

During the debate over the consent to my election, I am told that the Bishop of Wyoming noted that not since the civil rights movement of the 60’s had he seen the Church risk its life for something. Indeed, I think he is right. This is such a time. A brief quotation hangs on the wall of my office: “Courage is fear that has said its prayers.” Now is the time for courage, not fear.

I pray that in the days ahead, as the Executive Council meets in Portland, the House of Bishops meets in Texas, and the General Convention (the ONLY body which has the authority to respond to the demanded changes in our polity) meets in 2009, that we contemplate our call to “proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” to those who have been denied it for so long and commit ourselves to the kind of fast that is pleasing to the Lord.

A WORD FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Why the Anglican Communion matters

By Dr Rowan Williams

In some people's eyes, keeping the Anglican Communion together as a worldwide institution looks like prolonging the life of a dysfunctional or abusive marriage; isn't it more honest and humane to head for the divorce courts?

Why should we be mortgaged to other people's prejudices - if we're liberal - or other people's irresponsibility - if we're traditionalist? Isn't what matters the life and vigour, and indeed the integrity, of the Church on our doorstep?

There were moments in the meeting of Anglican leaders in Tanzania when I guess most of those present felt a bit like this. The fact that they weren't prepared simply to leave things there suggests, though, that more needs to be said. There remains a strong belief that this kind of worldwide Christian institution means we all agree to take responsibility for each other in some way, and to recognise that none of us has ultimate interests and concerns that are exclusively local or personal.

So what is the problem at the moment? When Anglicans in America decided, in 2003, to appoint as a bishop someone in an openly gay partnership, the widespread reaction was that there hadn't yet been the kind of discussion in the worldwide setting that might convince others of the rightness, in principle, of blessing same-sex relationships - and that this discussion needed to happen before anyone decided whether an active gay person might be a candidate for being a bishop. Not too surprisingly, most in the Communion felt that the conclusion had come before the argument.

This created two sorts of difficulty. One was the question of limits. For most Anglicans, questions about sexual ethics belonged in that category of teaching that was not up for negotiation as a result of cultural variation or social development. As with the central doctrines of the Creed and the biblical world view, people could only say: "This isn't mine to give away."

They needed more than an assurance that it had been thought about in America and that a lot of people there had concluded it was all right. The other question followed on: if an issue just might be in the "not mine to give away" category, how did the Church as a whole decide whether it really was in that category or not? How did it decide as a Church, not as a conglomerate of local independent bodies? And if it couldn't decide as a Church, how could it carry on talking with other worldwide Christian bodies on the same foundations?

Not a wholly new question: the often bitter controversies over women's ordination had already raised some of these matters. But at least on that, a conviction had emerged that it was possible to treat it as something people could disagree about and still leave intact the basics of common faith. For a variety of reasons, this current question has not felt like that for many. And - worst of all in some ways - the possibility of detailed and patient scrutiny of the underlying question about sexual ethics was rather derailed by the feeling that the outcome had been decided in advance by one group in the Communion. Trust suffered badly.

To digress for just a moment: one of the hardest things in all this has been to keep insisting on the absolute moral imperative of combating bigotry and violence against gay people, and the need to secure appropriate civic and legal protection for couples who have chosen to share their lives. These are different matters from whether the Church has the freedom to bless same-sex unions. A negative or agnostic answer to this latter question is frequently heard as a negative attitude to the imperatives of care and respect - and sometimes that perception is sadly accurate, judging from the postbag that arrives here. Yet they are different, and quite a lot of Christians know it and try to act accordingly.

What happened in Tanzania in the last week or so represents an effort to define what could restore trust - all round, since the point is made that interventions from overseas in the American Church also have destructive effects in some ways. What has come to be called the "Listening Process" was discussed and strongly affirmed the continuing work on finding means for homosexual men and women in the Communion to speak about their experience in a safe environment.

This work has not been restricted to the West, and shows surprising signs of vigour. The outline of a "covenant" document for local Anglican Churches suggests ways in which we could commit ourselves to a future process where consultation was fully built in. The requests to the American Church for further clarification and a moratorium on certain actions while the covenant process is going forward are essentially requests to show that their desire to stay with the Communion is strong enough to cope with a halt for the sake of continuing to move and work together. The suggestion of a structure in America to care for the minority tries to remove any need for external intervention.

Whether it can all come together remains to be seen. But the leaders of the Communion thought it worth trying - not because enforced unanimity matters more than anything, but because the relations and common work of the Communion, especially in the developing world, matter massively. And also because the idea that there might be a worldwide Christian Church that could balance unity and consent seems worth holding on to, for the sake of the whole Christian family and even for the sake of human society itself.

I think that those who gathered in Tanzania believed that their vocation was to look for a way of embodying this balance. Losing that possibility is not a small matter. Working for it (when I think back to the painful intensity of some of our discussions) is not looking for an easy option. THE GUARDIAN END Interpretation: Blah, blah and blah,blah. The Archbishop is continuing his trying to make nice and reconcile everybody. But he really wants the gay folk and their supporters to shut the hell up and stop asking the Anglican Communion for inclusion. Many in the AC don't want non-heterosexuals included in all matter of church life. So according to the Archbishop, we can all do our social justice thing in civil life and in the courts, but keep your homosexual crap out of the church. But he's got it all mixed up. The Anglican Communion is NOT a church, but a rather loosly knit body of Anglicans who agree on some things and don't agree on others.

A Franciscan Prayer

Bishop Suffragan (ret) John Said

Gordon and Bishop Said

Bishop Said confirmed me at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 10 years ago. He's been really great coming to the aid of our congregation in the last month of being without a rector for 3 years. He kept office hours at the church, lead an Adult Forum, provided pastoral needs, preached and was just wonderful. I've always liked Bishop Said. I consider the picture above taken two weeks ago, my 10 year anniversary of my confirmation.

Last Sunday, he closed the service with a beautiful prayer which I wanted to share with my readers:

May God bless you with discomfort ... at easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart.

May God bless you with anger ... at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom, and peace.

May God bless you with tears ... to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy.

And may God bless you with enough Holy foolishness ... to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done! Amen!

The Tasmanian Devil Awaits Anglicans in Tanzania

The Tasmanian devil has gone to Tanzania. He's roaring mad and wants something done with these wayward American Anglicans. Tasmanian Devils take on an offensive odor when stressed. They're extremely bold and and get really loud. They exhibit a horrid screech and are quite vicious. They are known to prey and scavenge but sometimes they eat with other devils.

Read on and learn why he's mad: Changes in the Episcopal Church -- such as the selection of a woman to be the primate of the denomination and prior to that electing an openly gay man Bishop Gene Robinson as bishop in New Hampshire is causing an uproar in my denomination that is as old as our the U.S. herself. T And now the primates are having their meeting in Tanzania--or if you read some of the news reports, non-meeting. First, Bishop Akinola made it known last week that he and his buddies don't plan to sit in the same room as the new U.S. Primate, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori let alone talk to her. Oh well, so much for communicating with each other ,Christian charity or acting like adults instead of spoiled brats. Are they afraid they're going to get the cooties?

The pre-meeting was supposed to have started Tuesday and main meeting Wednesday. So far nothing seems to be happened other than Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh lost or had his lap top stolen. The red tops are surrounded by security guards to help with keeping their privacy.

It is unknown if anything will come out of these meetings. I don't think that the American church will back down from continuing on the path of full inclusion of gay people in the life of our church. And the conservatives aren't going to back down from their literal interpretation of the scripture. Add into the mix the 500 Church of England priests who signed a statement of support for the American Church. Then we have to add into this mix the evangelical Anglican priests both in the U.S. and U.K. who are of the opinion that the conservatives in the Global South are even too conservative for them and way too nasty to provide them much support.

The worst that could happen is that The Episcopal Church gets thrown out of the Anglican Communion. Since TEC pays millions of dollars to support this club, those dollars could provide a great deal of financial support for TEC 's support of the United Nations Millennium Development Fund to feed the hungry, care for the health of women, children and families and strengthen ALL of God's people.Sounds like a good idea to me! And if the worldwide primates decide to throw the U.S. church out of the communion, won't they have to put out the Anglican Church of Canada and the Church of England?

And last but not least, the screeching of the Tasmanian Devil might be silenced.

American Boychoir Presents Concert at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

February 3rd, 2007 St. Mark's Episcopal Church was blessed with a concert by the American Boyschoir. It was a wonderful concert with a diverse repertoire. It was a world class performance under the fantastic direction of Fernando Malvar-Ruiz, Music Director. The reception afterward gave concert goers an opportunity to meet some of the choir members and the choir staff. A good evening was had by all.

OPEN LETTER TO THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND PETITION FOR U.S. EPISCOPALIANS

Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

The ABC has been suffering with a terrible disease for many years. For a long time, there was not a diagnosis. In more recent years he' s finally got a diagnosis:

Spinelessflipflopanglicanosis.

Next week the Anglican Communion Primates are having a primates meeting in Tanzania. Some of the global south primates have there underwear all in a wad because the ABC decided to invite the primate of The Episcopal Church (well, yeah. TEC pays a lot of money to the coffers of the Anglican Communion.) The global south primates are furious with him for inviting her without their permission. They just can't stand the thought of being in the same room with the American Primate, PresidingBishop Katharine Jefferts -Schori.

So much for the Anglican principals of discernment and listening.

Last night I received an email from Jeff Martinhauk, seminary student and computer whiz.

Being a very active social justice person, I was thrilled that Jeff had taken on the task of writing an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury with a petition for folks to sign. I'm not going to explain all of what Jeff says when I can put it here in Jeff's own words.

Link to Jeff's Blog: http://leaningtowardsjustice.wordpress.com/about

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 6th, 2007 An Open Letter to His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury Prior to the Meeting of the Primates in Tanzania February 6, 2007 Your Grace, I write to you not as a part of any organization or group, but on my own accord as a member of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion. As a gay man in this great church, I am slowly realizing the mistakes we in the gay and lesbian community have made in our efforts to bring our unique perspective on the Gospel message to our brothers and sisters in Christ within this church. Perhaps in an effort to assimilate into heterosexual society, we have been overly prepared to make apologetic arguments based on similarities with our straight counterparts. We seem to have placed our trust in the established leaders and processes of the church, hoping that if our arguments are strong enough that our case will be heard with a sympathetic ear. Of course history has never, to my knowledge, shown that the oppressed have made much progress by placing hope in the powers of the institutions that oppress them. We cannot make progress with apologetic arguments, attempting to assimilate into institutions held by primarily heterosexual males who have never experienced our oppression. Isn’t that why the high priests rejected the message of Jesus, a fellow Jew? I need not remind Your Grace that the fear of change is a powerful resistance to the prophetic voice, as it was for Caiphus. “What will it do to our institutions?” “What will it do to our own positions?” “How will we be remembered as leaders?” These must have been difficult questions for the Sanhedrin as they conspired against Jesus. Questions with answers that Jesus apparently felt were worthy of martyrdom.

Some argue that the “nature or nurture” discussion has an impact on our fate. I say to them that being “gay” or “lesbian” in the U.S. is a social construct. Sexual attraction is not something we choose, but claiming our identity as “gay” or “lesbian,” is. Just because our identity is a social construct does not de-value it. Gender roles are social constructs. There are, I hope, few that would say that the gender roles of women in the patriarchal society of the Old Testament (or even the New Testament) should be held up in today’s society—although, as Your Grace knows well, exactly which gender roles are appropriate today is still a heated topic in the Communion, depending on the cultural context of the discussion. Just as racism is a social construct with very real consequences, gathering its existence from the brokenness of humanity, those suffering from the oppression of racism must claim their identity and move forward shining light into the blindness of their oppressors that they may see, and in so doing freeing themselves from the chains of oppression. So too we gay and lesbians, as a distinct people of God, must claim our identity and move forward, letting our own light shine with the light of the Gospel that we might be free in Christ Jesus, even as we struggle to loosen the blindfolds within our own church that others might see.

What has been lost in the discussion in the Communion is how our identity is directly tied to the debates we are having. It seems to me that discussions about whether or not to have gay and lesbian bishops and whether or not to have gay and lesbian marriages, have been removed from the point at hand—what it means to gay and lesbian people.

We need gay bishops because of the significance of having prominent, Christian leaders who can speak out about our lives. They can rid us of the closet. They can prevent oppression. When a young man is attacked because he is gay and left for dead, strung up on a fence in Wyoming by his murderers, would his attackers have known better had they seen an active gay Christian, preaching and teaching the Gospel? When a young teenager stands in the bathroom of her parents’ house, contemplating suicide because she knows that she is the only one in the world that feels the way she does, might she feel different if she had a role model providing a healthy Christian model of living, who also happened to be a lesbian? When an aging gay couple must face life or death decisions and have only each other for family but are denied the same decisions as a heterosexual couple in the hospital, with the state, and in the church because they were not able to get married and so now prepare for death as single people, they face an unnecessary and terrible agony. The list goes on. If the church in any way judges our lives differently, the church participates in the violence that is perpetrated against us. If the church sends our culture a message that it is ok to discriminate against gay and lesbian people—whether through the rites of the church or in its theology—then it also tells the straight people in our culture that it is ok to perpetuate violence, agony, and suffering upon us. Love and discrimination simply are not compatible. Our culture has learned that. Separate is not equal.

Though I have already said that appealing to a position of power from a position of oppression has historically been fruitless, I still write in the spirit of God’s eternal hope for the hopeless. Will Your Grace be an instrument of hope for ALL of us? Will Your Grace help create a Communion in which difference does not diminish under a central authority, but thrives because it is cherished and celebrated as the diversity of God’s full creation?

As the Focus of Unity for our Communion, I beg Your Grace not to appeal to irrelevant procedural issues which may or may not have been followed, nor to the red herring of possible communication difficulties in other parts of the church. Rather, I beg you, to consider those of us within your care as the Focus of Unity who are marginalized, who deserve God’s love, who are part of this great diverse Creation, and who need to hear what we have not heard directly yet: namely that God loves us, that God does not endorse violence against us, and that the way to prevent that violence is through Jesus Christ as our liberator and savior. Can the Anglican Communion be a place where all of the Body of Christ is welcome?

Yours in Christ, Jeffrey J. Martinhauk Please sign the Petition to the Archbishop here or

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/archbishop/