August 2, 2008 The Church at its best relates to one another when we see our brother or sister face to face. When we make decisions for those who are far away, we get a bit less life-giving and more death-dealing. At our worst, we do this knowingly, belligerently, and with a vengeance that is not ours to give. At our best, we make our decisions locally without realizing the full extent of the consequences of those decisions for those far away. None of this is a particularly new insight, but it is an insight with much evidence to back it up as I participate with bishops from around the world at this Lambeth Conference.
In most cases, I believe Christians of good will are trying to act out of our best motives in serving Christ and our neighbor. This is apparent in the passion and concern represented relative to the discussions and pleadings for forbearance for the wide range of “issues” we are discussing. The problem is that the “issues” are people’s lives, and the leadership we as bishops will give when we return to our own little patches of God’s green earth will touch not “issues” but real flesh and blood human beings. This is true whether we are speaking of the lives of gay and lesbian brothers and sisters or of those in the Sudan who have been killed because of their association with Christianity in general and, more recently, with the Anglican Communion specifically. This reality has led to the discussion of sacrifice.
Something has to be sacrificed. Let me say first and unequivocally that there is a difference between “counting the strokes and taking the beating.” The problem appears to be that some are asked to take the stokes while others, myself included at this time, are being asked to “sacrifice” by counting the strokes. As with a discussion of “issues” what we are talking about here is that somebody will have to sacrifice.
This idea of “sacrifice” is not a new Christian virtue. It is the very witness of love for the sake of the world that Jesus himself offered in the name of God. What he offered, lest I forget, was his life. The difficulty is the willingness of those of us who are “far away” to talk of the sacrifice the “other” person needs to make. This may be the best as “organization” such as the Church can do. But I still believe that there must be some “organic” way of being in common union as members of the Body of Christ that honors differences and stays faithful to core beliefs that, at times, compete and even seem to contradict.
I write this after a particularly difficult morning of reflections in which I took active participation. It started with Eucharist this morning. It was offered by the Churches of Kenya. The liturgy, on the printed page, was one of the most joyful and engaging ones we have employed with which to worship. The internal reality for me was one of disconnection. I felt that the words were “right” in the Eucharist and the music, and yet, at least for me, there was not coherence between the words and the sense that I was experiencing. It felt as if I was attending the funeral mass of a very close family member. It put me in something of a funk for much of the morning.
Being a people of resurrection, the unfolding events of the remainder of the day offered some solace and hopefulness. Our Bible study group, now close and caring strangers-made-friends, shared at length reflections around John 18:1-18. Following this, we had Indaba groups dealing with the various salient points of the proposed Covenant, an idea with more merit than I had first anticipated, but with real issues to resolve around what kind of covenant we want to have and what kind of Communion we want to be as “Anglicans.” The Indaba experience was followed by a quick run into Canterbury by Jeannie and me to mail back all the stuff we have been given, bought or picked up as a result of meandering with the Communion through the course of Lambeth (and that would not fit in our suitcases for the trip back.)
All this is to say that a day that began with a sense of great division was ended on a much more hopeful note as a result of two things. First, our evening worship was offered by the Churches of Ireland. My Irish roots glowing with some pride, my soul was bolstered when we sang a song I have grown to love over the years. It rings true to my belief in Christ, and it came as water to a thirsty soul on this particular day. If you will indulge me, I’ll share the text and reserve my sung rendition until I return, God willing, to be in your midst. It goes like this:
In Christ alone my hope is found; He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground, Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all – Here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone, Who took on flesh, Fullness of God in helpless babe !
This gift of love and righteousness, Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev’ry sin on Him was laid – Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay, Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day, Up from the grave He rose again !
And as He stands in victory, Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine – Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death – This is the power of Christ in me;
From life’s first cry to final breath, Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow’r of hell, no scheme of man, Can ever pluck me form His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home – Here in the pow’r of Christ I’ll stand.
In fairness and in consideration of civil law, the words and the music were written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. However, had I not known who wrote this music, I would have responded to the sentiment this hymn conveys. It was life-giving to me in the same way that I want the Covenant to be life-giving to all who come to know Jesus through our ministrations. Until then, let us cling together less out of fear and more out of hopeful commitment.
The second element that I found gave me hope today was this evening’s plenary session. At this time we gathered in plenary for a presentation of the “stewards,” the young adults from around the Communion who have the unenviable task of “herding bishops from place to place” as one steward noted in a short morning video of what various ministries of the various persons making Lambeth “work” had to say.
Four “stewards” spoke about their respective experiences of Lambeth. I will share more details of their energy and commitment once Jeannie and I return. However, to close out tonight’s reflection, let me tell you a life changing observation that happened for me after the meeting with these young adults. I went by the bar in the dormitory where we were staying. Waiting in line, I mentioned that it would be a good idea if the young adults would write the covenant for us. Another bishop from New Zealand said, “They are the covenant.”
Think of this. “They” (the next generation) are the covenant. Even while we, the current bishops of the Anglican Communion, have more work to accomplish before we hang up our ecclesiastical track shoes, we have already been superseded by the next generation. They are the covenant because they have already had the seeds of the gospel of Jesus’ love planted and growing in their hearts. I am not fearful for the Anglican Communion because I have already seen that the next generation has taken up the banner for the sake of Christ. My job now is to help them be better equipped to do their work as witnesses to the risen Christ. In the meantime, we move to our final day at Lambeth. Because of this day’s ending, I move there with confidence and hope. Pray for and encourage the young adults in your congregation. They are wanting to lead even now. Let us look for ways to make this happen in worship, education, governance and outreach. They have much to teach us. You see, they are the bearers of Christ’s Word to the world as it is becoming. Let us trust them to lead us as we offer our insights to assist them in this eternal task of bearing witness to Christ’s love.
+Don
Monday, August 4, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Reflections on Living Under Scripture
My contention is that each preacher has one sermon. It is the same gift we give each week, but we wrap it up in different paper. We may call it our favorite Bible passage or person, but its themes seem to appear again and again in our preaching and teaching. My one “sermon” comes from Jesus’ promise to his disciples in the High Priestly prayer of John’s Gospel. The promise in John 18:14 is this, “I will not leave you orphaned.” Those of us who were brought up on the King James Version would know this as “I will not leave you comfortless.” While this promise is a mighty one, I believe Jesus’ promise to not abandon, leave fatherless or reject any of those who seek to follow him is a promise mightier still.
In my diocese, I regularly and frequently refer to “the eleven words.” It is my belief that these represent God’s calling to us as a people. While they remain imperfectly realized, they continue to be the “vision glorious” for which we strive. The eleven words for The Diocese of West Tennessee are that we will become a place “where God’s promise in Christ is good news for all people.” For me, I understand this to capture the essence of God’s way revealed in Jesus’ promise: I will not leave you orphaned.
Yet this promise in this imperfect yet “kingdom-near-us” moment must be lived out in community and not just hoped for in some distant future of God. For this to happen, the promise must be lived out by the Church, Christ’s body for the world today, if in him the World is to continue to find the one on whom its salvation rests. This understanding stands in contrast to the “pay day some day” form of Christian promise that suggests that if we don’t love too inadequately, God may blink long enough at the back gate of heaven and let us in as our pay for not getting it all bollixed up too badly.
Yet the more radical call, the more root call of the Church as Christ’s body, is to claim and proclaim even now his promise begun today. Through our action of radical love to all who seek to be members of the family of God, we bear witness to the promise of Jesus: I will not leave you orphaned. How will this promise change the way you think of yourself as Christ’s own child even in this moment? How will it change the way you respond to the next person you meet who, in this broken and sinful world, has not yet come to know Christ’s promise? How will it change the way you see another who claims to seek to follow Jesus, but does so in a different way than you would choose to do? What will change if we all are children of the promise?
In my diocese, I regularly and frequently refer to “the eleven words.” It is my belief that these represent God’s calling to us as a people. While they remain imperfectly realized, they continue to be the “vision glorious” for which we strive. The eleven words for The Diocese of West Tennessee are that we will become a place “where God’s promise in Christ is good news for all people.” For me, I understand this to capture the essence of God’s way revealed in Jesus’ promise: I will not leave you orphaned.
Yet this promise in this imperfect yet “kingdom-near-us” moment must be lived out in community and not just hoped for in some distant future of God. For this to happen, the promise must be lived out by the Church, Christ’s body for the world today, if in him the World is to continue to find the one on whom its salvation rests. This understanding stands in contrast to the “pay day some day” form of Christian promise that suggests that if we don’t love too inadequately, God may blink long enough at the back gate of heaven and let us in as our pay for not getting it all bollixed up too badly.
Yet the more radical call, the more root call of the Church as Christ’s body, is to claim and proclaim even now his promise begun today. Through our action of radical love to all who seek to be members of the family of God, we bear witness to the promise of Jesus: I will not leave you orphaned. How will this promise change the way you think of yourself as Christ’s own child even in this moment? How will it change the way you respond to the next person you meet who, in this broken and sinful world, has not yet come to know Christ’s promise? How will it change the way you see another who claims to seek to follow Jesus, but does so in a different way than you would choose to do? What will change if we all are children of the promise?
Friday, August 1, 2008
Lambeth nears its close
July 30, 2008 When I last left you, Jeannie and I were out the door heading for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s second Presidential Address to the Conference. This took place last night in “the big top” where we hold our combined plenary sessions. Prior to his address, we joined in a moving worship service led by our friends from Myanmar (Burma). This worship was particularly poignant given the fact that the three bishops who officiated are in my daily Bible study group. In all, a group of about a dozen bishops and spouses from the region offered sacred music from their homeland, and it is a homeland that needs to sing in order not to weep. The service was punctuated by a DVD of the destruction from the recent killer cyclone. It was so reminiscent of the Katrina footage we had grown to see with unshielded eyes. However, I must say that the raw nature of the destruction in Myanmar was not sanitized as was the powerful pictures we saw of Katrina’s aftermath. Bodies of people and animals were indiscriminately scattered like fallen dolls across the landscape of destruction. That these dear souls could sing in the face of what they had lost is itself a tribute to their faith.
Following worship, the Archbishop spoke and did a masterful job in saying, in my own words, the following: Dear Not so Traditional brothers and sisters gathered here at Lambeth, I want you to hear my concerns when you make your decisions. He spelled these out in a fair and comprehensive way. Then he reversed field and did the same for the “Dear Traditional brothers and sisters.” By doing so, I think he began to put to rest the need for those most concerned to be heard that they no longer had to jump up and down on the sidelines and shout back and forth their claims of being misunderstood. It is my hope that this contribution of noting what we have heard from one another will free us now to say, having been heard, what can we do to stay in communion while staying faithful as Christ has led us.
Following the presentation, my ongoing back home support and education group decided we would enjoy an evening of one another’s company. Off we went to Canterbury to a lovely Belgium restaurant. Having our own Presiding Bishop and her husband as part of our dinner party added to the festivities.
Having noted all this, I finally arrive at Wednesday, July 30. It was a profound day for me. I have the sense that the Conference is beginning to be in a new place, having done the slow and sometimes tedious work of first building relationships. Our theme for the day was “Living under Scripture: The Bishop and the Bible in Mission.” Our Bible study was on Jesus’ claim to be the way, the truth and the life. We all saw the unique claim of Jesus in this passage, and our Bible group was quite animated in engaging the text from as many different points of view as there were members present. Ten different readings and variations on the same theme seemed to ring particularly “Anglican.”
Following the Bible study, we finally got to the “big topic” many had been waiting to engage: human sexuality. The traditional Christian perspectives regarding marriage as being between a man and a woman were clearly recorded. Other voices spoke strongly in favor of loving all God’s children without regard for their sexual orientation, and yet not being able to accept the blessing of relationships between any other than heterosexual persons. For others, the sexual orientation and the blessing issues were less problematic and should not be a reason to break communion. I was particularly listening for this voice from other than the Episcopal Church and Canada, and it was to be heard not infrequently. This let me know that whatever the outcome of this Conference with regard to these matters, the issues under consideration are going to go on a long time. It is as if waves are stacking up to hit the shore. In some parts of the world, the waves are so far off they have not even been heard much less seen. In others, they have already crashed against the sand and are withdrawing for their next re-formation in the future. Overall, however, I think it accurate to report that the traditional interpretation of marriage as being between a man and a woman was the strongest perspective presented. Within this context, consistent affirmation of "loving all people who come to Christ" was often stated. Yet this voice was clear that it did not see gay and lesbian Christians as appropriate leadership models for Christian ministry. The reasons for this were biblical, cultural, political and evangelical.
Many dioceses desire to have partnerships established in formal and informal ways. I have been privileged to have conversations with a number of bishops from Tanzania, one from Sudan, one from Northern India and our bible study group of bishops from Myanmar. Their needs are great and their faith stories are a witness to their love of God in Christ. I will continue to be in touch with these and a number of other bishops with whom I have met in hope of finding ways to stay connected across the miles and cultural differences. Staying in touch is a good metaphor for my hopes for this conference. We in our different settings are more and more aware of how much alike and how very different we are. Our differences are not in our humanity but in our understanding of how to live it out humanely in our respective settings. My prayer for now is that we find a way to stay in touch as a visible symbol of our love for one another in Christ and in the service of God’s witness to his all-embracing love.
July 31, 2008 We are drawing to a close at this Lambeth Conference. Your generosity as a diocese has made it possible for Jeannie and for me to attend. We are grateful. Truth be told, what we put aside was not sufficient to cover the actual cost given the exchange rate of pounds to US dollars. I want to thank Jim McGehee who generously offered to make up the difference. It was a great time and an experience that has expanded my horizons as a bishop of the Anglican Communion. I will be sharing with you in more detail what this has meant to me. I hope you will see it as a good investment of your resources as well.
Regarding the complexity of the issues we face across the Communion, it has driven some to a concern that we will not have a clear and measurable statement of what the Anglican Communion requires for “sufficient” membership before we leave this place. The tension between the desire for clarity and the desire for grace (itself a false dichotomy but one that seems to be operating here none the less) is evident throughout our conversations today. Our theme is “Fostering our Common Life: the Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process.” The day’s conversation was as convoluted as the theme. Nonetheless, I found the conversation, the listening and speaking to be nuanced, inspirational and greatly desirous of finding a way forward together that is authentic. There is also a desire that I understand to have a Covenant, if we are going to have one, that will have enough teeth so that those who do not abide by it will be, by their own decision, separating themselves from affiliation from the Anglican Communion as it is presently constituted. We shall see.
Our Bible study focused today on Jesus as the “vine”. This particularly speaks to me given the fact that it was this verse from John 15 that I chose to be emblematic of the bishopric to which I felt called among you. My pectoral cross, bishop’s ring and crozier all have on them the theme of the vine who is Christ inscribed. Discussions regarding the meaning of being engrafted into the Vine of Christ’s life permeated all of the afternoon discussions.
Both in the Bible study and in the Indaba group, we discussed how we could be in the vine together while at the same time bearing different fruit on the vine given our many different settings for ministry. This was a wide-ranging discussion that moved us beyond sexuality issues to those other issues that define for us what it means to be a responsive Church within a communion of churches who each seek to offer God’s love where we have been planted.
The evening ended with a final plenary session that sought to review comments gathered from the two Indaba groups for today. For three hours we discussed matters related to the possibility of developing an “Anglican Covenant.” I anticipate that while this process has many positive things to commend it that we can affirm as the things we hold in common, the document draft as it is currently prepared will in fact cause more division than the unity it is intended to accomplish.
At the end of the day, Jeannie and I went back to the Thomas Becket Inn with a couple of friends with whom we had not had the opportunity to visit in depth until this evening. Good food and drink, serious opportunities for sharing, and a great way to end a full, challenging and tiring day was provided.
August 1, 2008 Today our theme was “Fostering our Common Life: the Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Report.” First a disclaimer: we never got to the Windsor Report as such. Our time was spent on the Covenant. I also spoke but it was to a more general issue we were facing back home after the conference was finished. My hope was that we should have as our agreed upon statement something to the effect that while the Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed that “the basic unit” of the Church is the diocese, the basic unit of the “Communion” is the Province. If this is picked up and recorded in our report, I will be somewhat surprised but, at the same time, very encouraged. If not, such a statement about the basic unit of the Church being the diocese leaves much to be debated as to the significance of this statement. Luckily, this is a decision the drafting group will have to address, and I do not.
We spent some three hours in Indaba, an hour and a half in Bible study, and an additional hour and a half in the hearings for those who wished to say what they would about the latest proposed text we seek to sign off on at this Conference (as highly unlikely as this is at the present moment.) Following worship by the Province of South East Asia, Jeannie and I went out to dinner with friends in Canterbury. It was a good time to visit.
+ Don
Following worship, the Archbishop spoke and did a masterful job in saying, in my own words, the following: Dear Not so Traditional brothers and sisters gathered here at Lambeth, I want you to hear my concerns when you make your decisions. He spelled these out in a fair and comprehensive way. Then he reversed field and did the same for the “Dear Traditional brothers and sisters.” By doing so, I think he began to put to rest the need for those most concerned to be heard that they no longer had to jump up and down on the sidelines and shout back and forth their claims of being misunderstood. It is my hope that this contribution of noting what we have heard from one another will free us now to say, having been heard, what can we do to stay in communion while staying faithful as Christ has led us.
Following the presentation, my ongoing back home support and education group decided we would enjoy an evening of one another’s company. Off we went to Canterbury to a lovely Belgium restaurant. Having our own Presiding Bishop and her husband as part of our dinner party added to the festivities.
Having noted all this, I finally arrive at Wednesday, July 30. It was a profound day for me. I have the sense that the Conference is beginning to be in a new place, having done the slow and sometimes tedious work of first building relationships. Our theme for the day was “Living under Scripture: The Bishop and the Bible in Mission.” Our Bible study was on Jesus’ claim to be the way, the truth and the life. We all saw the unique claim of Jesus in this passage, and our Bible group was quite animated in engaging the text from as many different points of view as there were members present. Ten different readings and variations on the same theme seemed to ring particularly “Anglican.”
Following the Bible study, we finally got to the “big topic” many had been waiting to engage: human sexuality. The traditional Christian perspectives regarding marriage as being between a man and a woman were clearly recorded. Other voices spoke strongly in favor of loving all God’s children without regard for their sexual orientation, and yet not being able to accept the blessing of relationships between any other than heterosexual persons. For others, the sexual orientation and the blessing issues were less problematic and should not be a reason to break communion. I was particularly listening for this voice from other than the Episcopal Church and Canada, and it was to be heard not infrequently. This let me know that whatever the outcome of this Conference with regard to these matters, the issues under consideration are going to go on a long time. It is as if waves are stacking up to hit the shore. In some parts of the world, the waves are so far off they have not even been heard much less seen. In others, they have already crashed against the sand and are withdrawing for their next re-formation in the future. Overall, however, I think it accurate to report that the traditional interpretation of marriage as being between a man and a woman was the strongest perspective presented. Within this context, consistent affirmation of "loving all people who come to Christ" was often stated. Yet this voice was clear that it did not see gay and lesbian Christians as appropriate leadership models for Christian ministry. The reasons for this were biblical, cultural, political and evangelical.
Many dioceses desire to have partnerships established in formal and informal ways. I have been privileged to have conversations with a number of bishops from Tanzania, one from Sudan, one from Northern India and our bible study group of bishops from Myanmar. Their needs are great and their faith stories are a witness to their love of God in Christ. I will continue to be in touch with these and a number of other bishops with whom I have met in hope of finding ways to stay connected across the miles and cultural differences. Staying in touch is a good metaphor for my hopes for this conference. We in our different settings are more and more aware of how much alike and how very different we are. Our differences are not in our humanity but in our understanding of how to live it out humanely in our respective settings. My prayer for now is that we find a way to stay in touch as a visible symbol of our love for one another in Christ and in the service of God’s witness to his all-embracing love.
July 31, 2008 We are drawing to a close at this Lambeth Conference. Your generosity as a diocese has made it possible for Jeannie and for me to attend. We are grateful. Truth be told, what we put aside was not sufficient to cover the actual cost given the exchange rate of pounds to US dollars. I want to thank Jim McGehee who generously offered to make up the difference. It was a great time and an experience that has expanded my horizons as a bishop of the Anglican Communion. I will be sharing with you in more detail what this has meant to me. I hope you will see it as a good investment of your resources as well.
Regarding the complexity of the issues we face across the Communion, it has driven some to a concern that we will not have a clear and measurable statement of what the Anglican Communion requires for “sufficient” membership before we leave this place. The tension between the desire for clarity and the desire for grace (itself a false dichotomy but one that seems to be operating here none the less) is evident throughout our conversations today. Our theme is “Fostering our Common Life: the Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process.” The day’s conversation was as convoluted as the theme. Nonetheless, I found the conversation, the listening and speaking to be nuanced, inspirational and greatly desirous of finding a way forward together that is authentic. There is also a desire that I understand to have a Covenant, if we are going to have one, that will have enough teeth so that those who do not abide by it will be, by their own decision, separating themselves from affiliation from the Anglican Communion as it is presently constituted. We shall see.
Our Bible study focused today on Jesus as the “vine”. This particularly speaks to me given the fact that it was this verse from John 15 that I chose to be emblematic of the bishopric to which I felt called among you. My pectoral cross, bishop’s ring and crozier all have on them the theme of the vine who is Christ inscribed. Discussions regarding the meaning of being engrafted into the Vine of Christ’s life permeated all of the afternoon discussions.
Both in the Bible study and in the Indaba group, we discussed how we could be in the vine together while at the same time bearing different fruit on the vine given our many different settings for ministry. This was a wide-ranging discussion that moved us beyond sexuality issues to those other issues that define for us what it means to be a responsive Church within a communion of churches who each seek to offer God’s love where we have been planted.
The evening ended with a final plenary session that sought to review comments gathered from the two Indaba groups for today. For three hours we discussed matters related to the possibility of developing an “Anglican Covenant.” I anticipate that while this process has many positive things to commend it that we can affirm as the things we hold in common, the document draft as it is currently prepared will in fact cause more division than the unity it is intended to accomplish.
At the end of the day, Jeannie and I went back to the Thomas Becket Inn with a couple of friends with whom we had not had the opportunity to visit in depth until this evening. Good food and drink, serious opportunities for sharing, and a great way to end a full, challenging and tiring day was provided.
August 1, 2008 Today our theme was “Fostering our Common Life: the Bishop, the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Report.” First a disclaimer: we never got to the Windsor Report as such. Our time was spent on the Covenant. I also spoke but it was to a more general issue we were facing back home after the conference was finished. My hope was that we should have as our agreed upon statement something to the effect that while the Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed that “the basic unit” of the Church is the diocese, the basic unit of the “Communion” is the Province. If this is picked up and recorded in our report, I will be somewhat surprised but, at the same time, very encouraged. If not, such a statement about the basic unit of the Church being the diocese leaves much to be debated as to the significance of this statement. Luckily, this is a decision the drafting group will have to address, and I do not.
We spent some three hours in Indaba, an hour and a half in Bible study, and an additional hour and a half in the hearings for those who wished to say what they would about the latest proposed text we seek to sign off on at this Conference (as highly unlikely as this is at the present moment.) Following worship by the Province of South East Asia, Jeannie and I went out to dinner with friends in Canterbury. It was a good time to visit.
+ Don
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)