Exploring the Connections

Have you ever been curious about …

… what kind of a preacher the Right Reverend Gene Robinson might be? Maybe, as you sat in church this past Sunday, you were struck by the thought: "How would the Bishop of New Hampshire have handled today's Gospel reading?  I mean, is there anything new to say about the story of  'the good Samaritan?'"

O.K. … so you didn't have questions within a million miles of those just posed but, now that I've suggested them, aren't you just a teeny-weeny bit intrigued? No? O.K. …  I guess you're the winner of this little contest.

Oh … just one thing before you go. What if I told you that you'll hear the best story you've ever heard illustrating the meaning of the 'good Samaritan'—one that you'll never forget? Just go here and find out.

Letter from Presiding Bishop to the Bishop of San Joaquin

[Episcopal News Service]  Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori -- concerned by current affairs in the Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin, California -- has written to its bishop, the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. The diocese, which is scheduled to meet in convention December 1-2, includes an estimated 10,000 Episcopalians in some 48 congregations. The text of Jefferts Schori's November 20 letter follows.

November 20, 2006

The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield
Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 E. Dakota Avenue
Fresno, California 93726

My dear brother:

I have seen reports of your letter to parishes in the Diocese of San Joaquin, which apparently urges delegates to your upcoming Diocesan Convention to take action to leave the Episcopal Church. I would ask you to confirm the accuracy of those reports. If true, you must be aware that such action would likely be seen as a violation of your ordination vows to "uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." I must strongly urge you to consider the consequences of such action, not only for yourself but especially for all of the Episcopalians under your pastoral charge and care.

I certainly understand that you personally disagree with decisions by General Conventions over the past 30 and more years. You have, however, taken vows three times over that period to uphold the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church." If you now feel that you can no longer do so, the more honorable course would be to renounce your orders in this Church and seek a home elsewhere. Your public assertion that your duty is to violate those vows puts many, many people at hazard of profound spiritual violence. I urge you, as a pastor, to consider that hazard with the utmost gravity.

As you contemplate this action I would also remind you of the trust which you and I both hold for those who have come before and those who will come after us. None of us has received the property held by the Church today to use as we will. We have received it as stewards, for those who enjoy it today and those who will be blessed by the ministry its use will permit in the future. Our forebears did not build churches or give memorials with the intent that they be removed from the Episcopal Church. Nor did our forebears give liberally to fund endowments with the intent that they be consumed by litigation.

The Church will endure whatever decision you make in San Joaquin. The people who are its members, however, will suffer in the midst of this conflict, and probably suffer unnecessarily. Jesus calls us to take up our crosses daily, but not in the service of division and antagonism. He calls us to take up our crosses in his service of reconciling the world to God. Would that you might lead the people of San Joaquin toward decisions that build up the Body, that bring abundant life to those within and beyond our Church, that restore us to oneness.

I stand ready for conversation and reconciliation. May God bless your deliberation.

I remain

Your servant in Christ,

+Katharine

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate

Verna J. Dozier; D. C. Teacher, Episcopal theologian (from The Washington Post)

[From The Daily Episcopalian, September, 3, 2006] 

The Washington Post's obituary on Verna Dozier appeared in this morning's editions, along with this nice photograph by her friend Dee Hahn Rollis (click picture for a larger view). The obit was prepared by Bart Barnes, former head of the Post's obit desk. He is a parishioner at St. Mark's, Capitol Hill, just as Verna was. 

An excerpt:

"She taught us to understand the ministry of the laity," the Very Rev. Martha Horne, dean and president of Virginia Theological Seminary, wrote about Ms. Dozier in a 1999 article in the Living Church magazine. "In her speaking and writing, she challenged people to accept the authority they received in baptism, and to live out their faith in their homes and offices."

"With a beautiful speaking voice, imbued with the cadences of the Bible and Shakespeare, and a vivid personality, she was able to express then-radical thoughts with tact," said friend Dee Hahn-Rollins. She said Ms. Dozier insisted that "what we did from Monday to Saturday was most important and we come to our Sunday experience to be refueled."

Open hearted, Open Minded Christianity

by The Right Reverend J. Jon Bruno and The Reverend Bryan Jones

In recent years the Episcopal Church has acted from a firm foundation of biblical, historic faith, not on “whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct” as contended by Charlotte Allen in her diatribe against the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins” (Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 9, 2006).

Episcopalians seek to follow Jesus’ own understanding of scripture when he identified two commandments from the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” as greater than any other portions of Scripture (Matthew 22:36-40). We believe that the central biblical mandates are clear: to love, welcome, and include all people into an egalitarian Christian fellowship, in which “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). It is in these overarching commandments and central mandates from the Bible as a whole that we find the authority of Scripture. We do not look for that authority in any handful of scattered, isolated passages selectively gathered to rationalize intolerance, cruelty or unfairness.

This basic call of God in Christ leads Christians in each age to new awareness of still unresolved divisions and unaddressed exclusions in the Church and in society. In our own times, this dynamic has led the Episcopal Church and many other American churches into conflicts over injustice and oppression against people of color, the poor, and immigrants, as well as over the equality of women and the full humanity of gay and lesbian people.

Our current conflicts are real but should not be overblown. Out of more than 7,000 congregations nationwide fewer than 150 have sought to leave the Episcopal Church. Out of 111 dioceses, seven are seeking ecclesiastical oversight from someone other than our newly elected Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, while making it clear that they do not wish to leave the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church is open to all people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Within the broad parameters of essential Christian conviction and practice, it celebrates a diversity of opinions and positions on many issues. We are bound together by common prayer and shared worship, so we have no need to impose uniformity in thought and doctrine. At our best we are open-hearted and open-minded followers of Christ. We democratically elect our bishops, priests, and lay leaders at all levels of the church. We respect each person’s right to conscience. We know our understanding is limited and often mistaken but we strive together to hear God’s voice in Scripture, in the tradition of the Church and in our God-given capacities to think and feel, to reflect and to learn.

In her article, Charlotte Allen paints a picture of the Episcopal Church in particular and the American religious landscape in general that is simplistic and inaccurate. In her view churches can be neatly divided into denominations which are declining because of their liberalism and denominations which are growing because they are conservative. Reality, as usual, is a bit more complex. The Episcopal Church was never simply “the Republican Party at prayer.” It always has been and still is home to people who are both theologically and politically conservative, moderate and liberal. It is the church of Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, but also of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a life long active Episcopalian whose social conscience was formed by the Episcopal schools of his youth. Even the Southern Baptists are more diverse than their commonly assigned caricature. The last three Baptist Presidents were named Truman, Carter and Clinton.

Declining Church membership and attendance is a broader phenomenon as well. The Southern Baptist Convention now publicly worries that its plateaued membership numbers and declining baptism rates augur future decline. Some recent studies reveal that attendance has started to decline in evangelical congregations and conservative mega churches as well. It is true that the overall membership of the Episcopal Church has declined since the 1960’s. But it also true that a majority of its dioceses experienced increases in their active members (communicants) between 1993 and 2003. For example here in California the “liberal” diocese of Los Angeles and the “conservative” diocese of San Joaquin grew at nearly equal rates. (13.9% with 1,018 new communicants for San Joaquin and 12% with 5,869 new communicants for Los Angeles.)

Christianity in North America is moving through a great historic transition which may have first expressed itself among mainline denominations, but is not stopping there. We have moved into an era where, regardless of nominal identifications, only a minority of Americans are active, church-going Christians of any stripe. The rivers of societal sanctions and cultural norms no longer flow through church doors depositing people in the pews. Today the majority of Americans no longer fear either social ostracism or eternal damnation when they choose not to go church. The palpable tone of hostile resentment in so many public voices of American Christianity today arises out of grief at the passing of that socially conventional church. But we are convinced that its passing is all to the good. Too often the motivation of religious fear bore the bitter fruit of anxious lives and judgmental communities, hardly the joyous fruits of the Spirit which the poetry of St. Paul sings praises to (Galatians 5:22-23). Far better for churches of any size to be filled with people who have consciously chosen to sing praises faithfully and gratefully towards the loving God they find there.

And while we are at it, let’s sing a few praises for Katherine Jefferts Schori, newly elected as the first woman Presiding Bishop in the Episcopal Church. Her ministry continues to embody what Christian churches in the 21st century should be about. Her vision for the Church calls us beyond the current disputes to Christ’s call to comfort the mourning, feed the hungry, and preach good news to the poor.

Every week in tens of thousands of churches, including Episcopal congregations, people are quietly living into that vision by caring for their neighbors. A recent study from the University of Chicago revealed that presently 50% of Americans report they have fewer than three people in their lives they can confide in. Twenty-five percent report they have no one to confide in at all. In such unprecedented social isolation, loneliness may be the hunger and poverty that is shared most often by people at all levels of our society. Although we make no claims that it is the only place where a life different from this can be found, we know the local Episcopal congregation offers a blessed alternative. There you will find a faith community where people know and care for each other; respect differences, and share the presence of God, whose love passes all our understanding.

J. Jon Bruno is the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. Bryan Jones is Rector of St. Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church in Long Beach.

Office of Communications & Public Affairs
Diocese of Los Angeles
840 Echo Park Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90026

Website: http://www.ladiocese.org
email: news@ladiocese.org

Co-dependence day

Harold Meyerson

The right wing of American Episcopalianism wants the Archbishop of Canterbury to save it from its crazy modernist brethren.

July 5, 2006 03:54 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/harold_meyerson/2006/07/so_much_for_the_fourth_of_july.html

Maybe it's just the timing - the proximity to July 4, the day Americans celebrate their independence from Britain - that makes the sudden rebellion of half a dozen conservative dioceses within the US Episcopal church appear so, well, un-American.

But the spectacle of the leaders of the right wing of American Episcopalianism clamouring for the Archbishop of Canterbury to save them from their crazy modernist American brethren is about the closest thing to a revocation of the spirit of 1776 that we Americans have seen in a very long time.

Like most old-line Protestant churches in the US whose roots lie outside the South, the Episcopal church here has been growing steadily more liberal for a number of decades. In a sense, this evolution parallels some broader political shifts in American politics during the past 40 years, as both accredited professionals and moderate Republicans of the now-defunct Rockefeller wing of the party have tended to transfer their allegiance to the Democrats. And while not all professionals or Rockefeller Republicans were once Episcopalians, it is certainly true that Episcopalians were disproportionately one or the other or both.

America, of course, was always a land of many faiths. But by that most crucial of theological indices, highest median income of congregants, Episcopals came out on top for several centuries running. By the early 70s, this probably was no longer the case, as evidenced by the crack going around New York at the time that Jews had the income of Episcopalians but voted like Puerto Ricans. Today an apparent majority of Episcopal prelates vote like Puerto Ricans, too - that is, distinctly on the liberal side.

Three years ago, a decisive majority of the American church's bishops voted to accept the New Hampshire diocese's election of an openly gay bishop. Then, on June 18 of this year, the church's general convention elected Nevada's Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori to a nine-year term as the church's presiding bishop. Not only is Jefferts Schori the first woman to head a branch of the Anglican communion (the name for all the national churches affiliated with Anglicanism; if you're more comfortable with Marxist parlance, call it the Anglican international), but she has also allowed the blessing of same-sex couples within her diocese (in which, keep in mind, the largest city is that bastion of traditional morality Las Vegas).

Jefferts Schori is the very model of a modernist Episcopal. She entered the priesthood just 12 years ago, at age 40, after a career as an oceanographer. (Her husband is a theoretical mathematician.) As a young woman, she told the Washington Post, her religious faith deepened while she was reading "Heisenberg and Bohr and Einstein and the great physicists who talk about mystery". Studying marine invertebrates, she added, had heightened her awareness of "the great wonder and variety of creation".

All this has been too much for conservative Episcopals. Within a couple of weeks of Jeffert Schori's designation, six of 111 dioceses within the American church announced that they had rejected her authority, chiefly over the issue of her stance, and the church's, on gay marriage and ordination. Another five or so dioceses may follow, as well as some individual parishes.

Bishop Robert Duncan of the Pittsburgh diocese, one of the dissident six, told the post the traditionalists weren't leaving the church but were asking the Archbishop of Canterbury for "alternative primatial oversight" - that is, to designate some church leader from another country to oversee them for now.

It's this calling on Canterbury that seems so literally (or perhaps ancestrally) un-American. For even as the Church of England grew out of the political dispute between the Tudor monarchs and the Pope, so the Protestant Episcopal church in the US is a direct artefact of the American revolution. Two-thirds of the signers of the declaration of independence, whose anniversary we celebrate this week, were active or nominal Anglicans, and in rejecting the political authority of the king of England they could hardly have been expected to affirm the ecclesiastical authority of the king of England. The Protestant Episcopal church in America emerged in lockstep with the new nation.

Interstate conventions of the various dioceses began in 1784 and 1785, just as Americans were beginning to talk about drafting a real constitution for the fledgling confederation of states. The US denomination was formally organised in 1789, the year George Washington became the country's first president, and the first elected House of Representatives and Senate were seated.

In more recent times, Anglicanism, like many western religions, has experienced its greatest growth in the developing world - in Anglicanism's case, particularly in Africa, where cultural mores are not exactly in sync with those of the US. Nor are the African churches all that different from many of their more traditionalist western counterparts. Of the 38 national churches in the Anglican communion, only 13 ordain women as priests, and only three - the US, Canada and New Zealand - ordain them as bishops. Conservative church leaders from many nations have already made clear that they don't want the Rt Rev Rowan Williams, who as the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican communion, to invite Jefferts Schori to the next gathering of the 38 nations' church leaders, scheduled for 2008.

And last week, Williams himself upped the ante with a "theological reflection" asking all 38 national churches to agree to a new covenant in which they would sacrifice some of their autonomy to the communion. Failure to do so, he added, could result in the relegation of the headstrong churches to a secondary status. This could conceivably lead to the creation of two separate and unequal Episcopal churches within the US - a dominant branch with Canterbury and a splinter that doesn't have many actual existing members but can nevertheless sit at the archbishop's elbow and yak into his ear.

None of this amounts to that consequential a story within the US, where the entire church, in all its wings and proto-wings, encompasses no more than 2.3 million Americans in a nation of 300 million. It matters because it reflects the tensions within the larger society (though time itself is impelling us towards the elimination of discrimination against gays and lesbians: among younger Americans, acceptance even of gay marriage now registers clear majority support in the polls).

What's really interesting about this story, though, is that 230 years after America announced its break with England, a group of what to the naked eye appears to be relatively normal Americans is not simply breaking with its church but appealing to the authority of the Church of England for a rescue. That's just not how we do it here. When Americans dissent, they walk; they devise indigenous (which should not be confused with ingenious) solutions; they form their own thing. How else could we have assembled the vast proliferation of sects, cults and loony ideas that are the very fabric of our land?

But instead of doing that, instead of establishing their own genteel, homophobic church like any good Americans, these guys are returning to the bosom of the Church of England? Where is the House Un-American Activities Committee when you really need it?

It's time to act locally to help people solve real problems

Tom Ehrich*
Indianapolis Star, July 1. 2006
July 1, 2006

Now that Episcopalians and Presbyterians have allowed homosexuality to dominate their national conventions yet again, is it time for rant, lament, serious analysis?

No, it is time to do what Jesus did: "Turn the other cheek."

Literally, turn away from overwrought national assemblies and manufactured alarms, and look instead at forces that truly shape human life and hope.

If a few partisans believe that the future of Christianity depends on homosexuality, fine, let them fight about it. If some want to worry about a late 19th-century construct called the Anglican Communion as if it were a divinely inspired source of global norms, fine, let them worry about what a Nigerian archbishop thinks.

It is time for serious people to focus on serious matters.

It is time for the "common-sense middle" to chart local courses that deal with real people, real pain and real possibilities, including the lives (as opposed to doctrinal symbolism) of gays and heterosexuals. It is time to do what Jesus did -- namely, ignore the Temple in Jerusalem and go instead to where people's lives were at stake.

In central Illinois, Episcopalians told me their bishop is obsessed with homosexuality. Fine, let that be his obsession. Serious people will look at continued decay of the region's industrial base, massive joblessness, retraining of factory workers and opportunities for young technology workers.

Serious people will look at failing marriages, loneliness, a coarsening of the culture and an atmosphere of dread.

At their recent General Convention, Episcopalians stirred hope among those frustrated by institutional paralysis when they elected a new presiding bishop who comes from outside the mainstream. Katharine Jefferts Schori is relatively young, serves a small diocese (Nevada) in the West, has little experience in the concerns of the national church, is described as smart and independent, and happens to be female. Much was made of her gender, but my hunch is that her election actually signaled a turning away from what one delegate called the "old and tired."

And yet, days later, delegates found themselves once again trapped in relentless partisanship over homosexuality. The air turned sour, and people left Columbus, Ohio, muttering.

It is time, I think, for the serious to expect even less of their paralyzed national bodies and to recognize that faith, like politics, is profoundly local.

Many people live nervously paycheck-to-paycheck, send children off to inadequate schools, go to jobs they could lose tomorrow.

It isn't all dire, of course. People fall in love, start families, learn skills, succeed in the small ways that matter, have wonderful school experiences with inspiring teachers, and look across the table at the remarkable gift of a faithful partner.

Good or bad, daily life is the business of Christian faith. It's why Jesus wasted no breath on promulgating doctrine or establishing an institution.

People have opinions and preferences, of course; but the heart of faith looks like this: When a family member dies, church friends bring food, not doctrines. When a woman weeps in church because her marriage is failing, church friends hold her close. When a man loses his job and fears his house is next, church friends give comfort and help him find another job.

Those faith-driven instincts happen locally and have little to do with denominational politics.

*Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest, writer and consultant, and a former staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal. His Web site is www.onajourney.org

Bishop Wimberly: Response to General Convention 2006

The Gift of the Diocese of Texas

By way of beginning I just want to say that the Gathering and Ordination of our 13 transitional deacons were nice bookends to General Convention.

It was a wonderful thing to have the Gathering under us as we entered General Convention.  The energy really did carry me through most of my time there.  I kept thinking what a wonderful place to do ministry – the Diocese of Texas.

And, of course General Convention would eventually do what General Conventions do – wear you down.

And, I have to tell you that I was visiting with the Canon and Bishop designate about our time today and press releases and the such and I walked in to the room where we were holding orientation for the Deacons and there were 13 fine young men and women with bright ministries ahead of them looking at me. It was stunning. And to ordain them the following day with a huge crowd at your cathedral was just a wonderful reminder of the hope Jesus Christ has for the Church.

Our Calling

I believe God calls the Diocese of Texas and her bishop’s to a particular witness at this very moment in our communion’s history.  I want to take just a moment to repeat what I have already said before.

• Let me begin by saying: we are called to bear witness within the Anglican Communion.  The cultural pluralism of America and the ethnic and theological diversity of the Anglican Communion create an atmosphere whereby divisions like the ones we now face are inevitable and will continue. 
• However, these very divisions are occasions upon which the church, if it is obedient to Christ’s charge to be one, can enter more deeply into the unity to which it is called.  You have heard me say it over and over again: “We are One Church.”  We must be obedient to Christ’s charge to be one even as Jesus and the Father are one.
  
  • We are One Church.  Jesus himself gathers us, calls us, and sends us forth to share the Good News of salvation.  Secondly, I believe we are called to bear witness to the fact that the Windsor report calls Anglicans within the Episcopal Church and the entire Anglican Communion:
  • to a process of reconciliation
  • into a covenant intended to bring about processes for overcoming division and maintaining unity that allows Anglicans throughout the world to claim membership in a Communion of churches
• I will say some more about the specific steps we’ve taken and the process outlined by the Archbishop in a moment.
• I believe and continue to maintain, that in the midst of a long period of conflict and uncertainty, the Diocese of Texas is called to make a witness that as One Church our divisions are properly settled not by decisive, principled action that brings separation, but by means of charity.
• You need to know that I intend to lead by following the Windsor Report and the Archbishop’s most recent statements.
• As a bishop in the House of Bishops and in relationship to The Most Reverend Right Honorable Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, I intend to be vocal that I support a view of the Anglican Communion upheld by the Windsor Report.
• As many of you know prior to General Convention I met with the Archbishop along with a number of other bishops from a wide spectrum of diocese, all of which support the Windsor Report.  These bishops are:
  • Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas; the Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida; the Rt. Rev. Edward Little II, Bishop of Northern Indiana; the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana; the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of South Carolina; the Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas; the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson, Bishop of the Rio Grande; and the Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island. I intend to share with you my thoughts about what went on at General Convention, and my thoughts about the future. But I am going to tell you again: I intend to remain within the Episcopal Church. 
• A number of you have told me or had public conversations regarding my statements about remaining in ECUSA and charting a course in line with the Windsor Report – and you believe it is impossible.  You are mistaken.  I am an Episcopalian and I intend to remain in this church.
• You know the church is my home. You know I have spent much of my life as an Episcopal priest and Bishop.  You know I love our Anglican heritage.  More importantly though, I intend to remain in this church because I believe that the Diocese of Texas is called to witness to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion that we may be unified beyond differences into a church that is about the work of the Gospel of Christ. 
• I believed it before convention and I believe it today.
• I am going to hold onto the central importance of “communion” and I refuse to trim the notion either by moralizing it or identifying it with confessional agreement.
• I am not going to contribute to further division within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion by leaving.  I will stay the course we are on and together we are going to bear both a truthful and charitable witness.
• I will continue to work with those people and dioceses that believe that the Windsor Report is the way forward.
• Some individuals, aware of Fort Worth’s request and a number of other actions through the Church, have asked if I will request “alternative primatial oversight”? First, I am the senior bishop in the House of Bishops. While I have different views regarding the church than Bishop Jefferts-Schori, I have a good working relationship with her and believe that will continue. Further, I have a healthy relationship, a communion relationship, with the Archbishop of Canterbury and do not feel it necessary to make such a request.

What did we actually do at Convention?

This is an important question and one that I want to walk you through step by step.

From Resolution A159:
“The Episcopal Church reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible “The Episcopal Church is in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”

That the Episcopal church “join with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council in making a commitment to the vision of interdependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commend the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening our understanding of that commitment.”

From Paragraph 134 of the Windsor report came Resolution A160:   
“The Episcopal Church, mindful of ‘the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ,’ express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of  communion one with another.”

From Resolution A165:

“The Episcopal Church commend the Windsor Report ‘as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion’ (Primates’ Communiqué), and as an essential and substantive contribution to the process of living into deeper levels of communion and interdependence across the Anglican Communion.

That the “Episcopal Church [commit] to the ongoing ‘Windsor Process,’ a process of discernment as to the nature and unity of the Church, as we pursue a common life of dialogue, listening, and growth, formed and informed by the bonds of communion we share; and urge all members of this church to commit themselves to the call of greater communion and interdependent life”

A166 Stated that:

“The Episcopal Church, as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores   our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission.”

“ That the 75th General Convention direct the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council and the Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council to follow the development processes of an Anglican Covenant in the Communion, and report regularly to the Executive Council as well as to the 76th General Convention”

I was satisfied with each of these resolutions:

• The statement of regret
• The statements of interdependence
• The statements of the essential nature and contributions of the Windsor Report
• And the statements regarding our participation in the development of an Anglican Covenant.

A161 as you well know was the resolution that received the most press and really was an essential ingredient to how serious General Convention took these four commitments. It failed and B033 was proposed during the special joint session of both houses.

B033 states:

“That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation.”

”That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

I voted in favor, as did your deputation.

You should know that I was not satisfied with the final language in B033 because the language of “moratorium” was dropped, as was the language of “refrain from.”

As you may know this was a very tough battle.  It was my perception from listening to those who were speaking against B033 that both ends of the spectrum attempted to defeat B033.

Two very different groups comprising 22 Bishops (out of the 167 Bishops present or 13% of the whole) made remarkably similar statements regarding B033 that really highlighted, for me, the division those on the furthest ends of the spectrum were feeling, and it showed their ultimate disregard for the leadership of the whole.

One Group of 7 bishops:

Questioned the integrity of our process; and dissented
from the resolutions course of action.

A second group of 15 bishops on the opposite side:

Questioned the integrity of B033 stating it was misleading; and then, disassociated themselves with those actions they do not feel comply with the Windsor Report.

It is rare that I agree with Frank Griswold but I believe he was accurate in portraying the two political groups:

“…we need to be mindful of the dynamics that have brought us to where we are.  Some among us feel that expressions of restraint with regard to the office of bishop demean the dignity of those among us who are gay and lesbian.  Others among us may be opposed to expressions of restraint, which would make it more difficult for them to justify their apparent need to establish a separate ecclesial body.  Nothing would better serve such purposes than to be able to say that we, because of our action or inaction, have chosen to walk apart from the rest of the Communion.  In a strange way, those with very different views are able to vote on the same side of the question.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Response

I have said again and again that I will follow the lead of the Archbishop.

So, before I give you my view of our work into the future, I would like to give you a few points made by the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding these resolutions and a matter I have not yet mentioned – the election of Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori as Presiding Bishop.

Reflecting upon the election, consent and consecration of Gene Robinson Archbishop Williams said,

"…whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches."

Affirming the fact that some diocese and provinces within the communion may indeed live into a communion covenant and some may not, Williams reflected:

"Those churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness: some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion and not sharing the same constitutional structures".

Regarding the local diocese and church which is out of sync with its province, the Archbishop said,

"It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between constituent and associated elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but that of 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians."

Archbishop Williams stresses that the matter cannot be resolved by his decree:

" …the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may…outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion."

Reflecting on the process ahead, which he admits will take some time, the Archbishop stated:

"That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony."

As many of you know more than half of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion have women priests with a number of the provinces having women bishops.

Regarding the election of Bishop Schori as Presiding Bishop, Williams stated:

“There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible.”

Regarding the consecration of practicing gay bishops and our General Convention resolutions, Williams makes two points:

“On the issue of practicing gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practicing gay partnership.”

And,

“The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.”

Regarding breaking from communion and with one another Williams writes:

“It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practicing gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognize when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognize that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right.

“But let's suppose that there isn't that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth ('only the whole Church knows the whole Truth' as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple - and indeed desirable - to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.

“First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don't run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn't just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone's interest - recognizing that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, 'let each local church go its own way'; but once you've lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?

“Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other's life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges.

“These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

“Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. 'You have not chosen me but I have chosen you', says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, 'Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?'

Regarding long-term development of structures to support this idea of Communion or as we say in the diocese One church:

“But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out - not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we're still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like.”

“The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonizing the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter.

Regarding our moment of history the Archbishop states:

“There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are.

“The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism…To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognized in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Waiting

In his letter to the Primates the Archbishop has outlined in fuller detail what I have given you only samplings of here.

The Primates of the Anglican Communion will meet early next year to consider the matter.

In the meantime, a group appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates will be assisting Archbishop Williams in considering the resolutions of the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) in response to the questions posed by the Windsor Report.

Our Futures

As far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, in a small way, we will have to wait and see how the Archbishop and ACC respond to General Convention.

As the Archbishop has stated there are many who want him to act now or to make a decision immediately. This is not going to be the case.  Actions trying to foretell what the Archbishop and Communion will do seem premature.

I believe that I as your Bishop, remaining firmly rooted in the Windsor Report documents and the Archbishop’s most recent statements, and having visited and been clear with the Archbishop regarding our relationship to Canterbury, we will remain in full communion with the Archbishop and Communion – irregardless of the satisfaction with the General Convention actions.

I believe this will move forward, as the Archbishop has described, through the development of a covenant process providing a way in which we will be afforded a Communion relationship without fracturing our relationship within the Episcopal Church.

I intend to remain in The Episcopal Church and the Communion and I believe there is a path forward.

As for the Diocese of Texas, we will continue our One Church missionary work of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- transforming lives.

We have a great deal of work to do and I want us to continue to keep our hands and hearts deep in the ministry God has blessed us with in the diocese of Texas.

Another Piece by Tobias Haller, SBG

What should have happened

a Swiftian catena

The General Convention should have listened to the clear directions of the Primates and repented and repudiated all that had been done to offend.

The Episcopal Church should have ignored the tradition of national church polity and remained as a missionary arm of the Church of England even after the Revolution.

The Church of England should have listened to the pope and never separated from Rome.

The Eastern Orthodox should have done the same and submitted to Rome so as not to sever communion.

The martyrs should have followed Saint Paul’s advice to obey those in civil authority.

Saint Paul, in the interest of not tearing the fabric of the early church, should have acceded to the circumcision party instead of trusting to his own private interpretation of Scripture.

The Jerusalem Council should have ignored the anecdotal evidence of Paul and Barnabas — which could only serve to make Law-abiding Jewish converts uneasy.

Saul should have ignored his personal “experience” on the road to Damascus and followed his orders from the Sanhedrin.

The other apostles should have ignored Peter’s “dream” and stuck to the letter of the Law.

Jesus should have heeded Peter’s advice and turned back from Jerusalem.

He might also have considered more seriously the various options presented to him in the Wilderness Report.

Joseph should have ignored the “personal revelation” he received — again in a dream, no less — and acted in accordance with the Law, and when he found Mary to be with child by someone other than himself, had her stoned to death, and her unborn child with her.

Then we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the Anglican Communion.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

Yet Another Interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

Interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
June 21, 2006    Episode no. 942
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week942/exclusive.html

[A video of this interview can be viewed here. Click on picture below to enlarge it]

RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY correspondent and program managing editor Kim Lawton spoke to Presiding Bishop-Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori on June 20 in one of the first in-depth interviews the bishop has given since her landmark election. Excerpts from this conversation will be included in this week's edition of the show (to be distributed Friday, June 23) as part of a larger story on the convention.

KIM LAWTON: You mentioned right away after your election that you saw the church as having an opportunity to be the vehicle for the reign of God. And I just wanted you to tell us a little bit more about what you see, what is that vision of the church?

Bishop KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI (Presiding Bishop-Elect, U.S. Episcopal Church): Well, the church is a community that is really called to transform the world around it. That takes different forms in different places. Each one of us has got a piece to play in that kind of work. And the fact that this General Convention has adopted justice and peace as its first priority for mission in the coming triennium, particularly focused on the UN Millennium Development Goals, gives us an enormous opportunity to be part of building something that looks very much like the reign of God that's achievable in our own day.

LAWTON: Are you very mindful of the magnitude of what you are lurching into?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: Probably not fully. I'm sure that I will have much to learn that I don't even know about. But I think life is meant to be challenging. If we're going to use the fullness of the gifts that we've been given, it means we have to continue to be stretched. And I look forward to that.

LAWTON: What message does your election send to all the quarters of the Episcopal Church?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: This is not your grandmother's church anymore. When I was growing up, girls and women could only do things like sing in the choir and serve on the altar guild. And singing's not my great strength, so I had no concept of being active in leadership in the church when I was growing up.

LAWTON: And what about for the rest of the communion? What message, what signal do you hope this sends to other members of the Anglican Communion?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: I hope that our decisions at this General Convention send several messages to the rest of the communion: that we are incredibly anxious to be, to continue to be, part of the communion; that we are fully committed to partnerships across the globe; that we firmly believe that all people need to be included in the reign of God that is being built; that people of all colors and races and nations and language groups and sexual orientations are fully part of this creation that God has blessed us with.

LAWTON: What do you anticipate saying to some of the primates at your first meeting, including some that you know have problems with women being ordained? What can you imagine yourself saying to them?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: One would probably begin with "hello," to begin to build some kind of relationship, speaking about each other's contexts, who am I, where do I come from, what kind of history do I bring, what kind of theology do I understand that this church is being called to? And we cannot have substantive conversations until we know each other as human beings.

LAWTON: Some people say that this has been a real crucial time for the Anglican Communion just in terms of reexamining what Anglicanism means today in this world. Do you think that is going on right now?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes it is, and I think it goes on in every age. Anglicanism has grown out of a history of struggle and tension. The great Elizabethan compromise that produced the Church of England was born out of incredible strife, but it has been a gift to many, many people around the globe.

LAWTON: And so in what way do you see, you know, what are some of the critical issues that global Anglicans need to be examining right now?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: We need to be examining the poverty that is real around the world. We need to be examining the fact that our brothers and sisters, Anglican and not, in places like Africa and Asia don't have enough to eat. Their children don't have the opportunity to go to school. AIDS and tuberculosis and malaria are rampant in many parts of this world and people with those diseases don't have access to adequate health care. That's where our focus needs to be.

LAWTON: Clearly, one of the big challenges, the big issue is the sexuality debates. What message do you hope that this convention sends to people who are very upset about the consecration of Gene Robinson and are really opposed to same-sex, the blessing of same-sex unions? What signal do you hope they get from this convention?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: That there is room for them at this table as well.

LAWTON: And what about for gay and lesbian members of the church who are concerned that maybe there is a backing away, that maybe they're being, in some way being called to make sacrifices for the sake of unity that aren't just, for a church that's emphasizing justice? What do you hope they hear from this?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: The same message, that there is room for them at this table as well, that God calls all of us to this bountiful table to share in the riches of creation that were given for all.

LAWTON: There've been some pretty pointed statements publicly from some of the conservative bishops and other leaders of that wing of the church, really raising questions about whether indeed everybody can stay at the table and whether this is a time when that is no longer possible. Do you feel that reconciliation is still possible, and what will you do to try and make that happen?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: Reconciliation is always possible. The Christian faith is about the eternity of hope. Once we give up hope, I think we cease to become active, engaged Christians. If we have no hope, we have repudiated the basis of our faith. There is always the possibility of reconciliation, resurrection, renewal. And once we lose a sense of that in a very deep way, we have challenged the very foundations of our faith. If -- if the resurrection, the reconciliation may come beyond the grave, but we insist that it is always possible.

LAWTON: Talk about the transition, oceanographer turned bishop. What led to that?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, I knew I was supposed to go fishing, and it took me a while to figure out just what for. Christians often talk about being sent to fish for people; the gospel is about drawing all people into the reign of God. When it became apparent that I was not going to be able to continue to be an active oceanographer, that if I wanted to continue in the field it was going to be as a grants writer and hustling grant money, right at the very same time, three people in my congregation asked me if I'd ever thought about being a priest, just out of the blue. It seemed absurd, it seemed unfitting to the gifts that I recognized at the time. But I went and spoke at great length with the priest in that congregation and came to the conclusion that, at least, the time wasn't right. But five years later, I was asked to preach on a Sunday morning when he wasn't going to be there -- a new rector. And that experience and the response that I had to that experience finally let me say yes. And I was in seminary the next fall.

LAWTON: Describe some of your emotions on Sunday [the day she was elected the first female presiding bishop]. What gamut did they run?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: It was a long and challenging day -- to sit waiting, to recognize that this election might possibly call me into this office. I think we were all surprised, all of us.

LAWTON: And I have a personal question for you. Just, a lot of people have different practices to maintain their own spiritual spark, you know, and to maintain that, and I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to share what's most meaningful for you? How do you get your best connection with God?

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: I've always found a great sense of spirituality in the out-of-doors. I ground myself as a creature in the midst of the natural created order. And taking Sabbath time is exceedingly important to me, taking time away, and I bring all of those together in seeking solitude in the wilderness. The wilderness is a place of great gifts. It may be threatening to some people; it ought to be threatening, I think, in some important way. But it is a place where I discover God, and what God is calling me to do and be.

© 2006 Educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.   

Atlanta Pride Sermon

[Reprinted from the Rev'd Susan Russell's blog An Inch At A Time: Reflections on the Journey. Among oher things, Susan is President of Integrity]

It was a great joy to be able to finish the General Convention Marathon with the good people of Atlanta at their Friday Night Gay Pride Eucharist Celebration. I was also so very happy to be able to "reprise" the story of Bishop John Krumm in preaching to a congregation -- and a preacher! -- very much in danger of being disillusioned by the church! SR

===============

Proper 7B: All Saints, Atlanta, June 23, 2006

I want to begin by saying how very grateful I am to be present with you tonight for this worship and celebration. I bring you greetings from our national Integrity Board, from our Claiming the Blessing partners and from my parish community: All Saints, Pasadena. It is a great privilege to be part of your witness of God’s love here in Atlanta and I thank you for making me so very welcome.

I also want to begin by being honest about the fact that there were moments towards the end of the long and eventually bloody General Convention when I looked at the itinerary taking me home to Los Angeles via Atlanta and wondered “What was I thinking?” I wondered if I’d have anything left after nine 18-hour days in a row -- if I’d have anything at all to bring to this pulpit – to bring to this assembly.

And at the end, as I watched the church that had so courageously stepped out in faith by electing the first-ever woman Presiding Bishop on Sunday step back in fear by passing a resolution restricting access to the episcopate to those “whose manner of life poses a challenge to the church and would lead to further strains on communion” I wondered if I’d stepped through the looking glass like Alice and should be on the watch for the Red Queen after my head! In a nutshell, General Convention agreed on Wednesday to a standard for bishops that called into question the election on Sunday we were still celebrating – for anyone who doesn’t think a woman Presiding Bishop won’t lead to “further strains of the communion” isn’t paying attention.

The ugly bottom line is that succumbing to threats, blackmail and bullying the bishops and deputies who had worked for eight days to offer a balanced response to the Windsor Report that affirmed our commitment to the wider Anglican Communion AND to the LGBT faithful fell like a house of cards under extraordinary pressure from the Presiding Bishop. And in place of the honest, faithful response to Windsor we were on the verge of offering the Communion we ended up with an eleventh hour cop-out that, in words from an email correspondent, “betrayed what we know to be the truth: that God is calling gay/lesbian people to full-inclusion in the life of the Church, including the episcopate.”

And rather than leaving Columbus with a mandate to move on with the mission of the church the storm rages on. The actions of General Convention please no one.

Liberal bishops dissented from the decision declaring “language that … singles out one part of the Body by category is discriminatory.” Conservative bishops dissociated themselves from the decision because it fell short of being “Windsor compliant.” And gay and lesbian people were left feeling that once again their lives, their relationships and their vocations were somehow negotiable in the game of global Anglican politics.

What a mess.

And so it was with some degree of irony that as I flew to Atlanta yesterday, tossed about a bit by the thunderstorms between here and Columbus, and turned to the lessons appointed for this sermon that I realized we had selected this particular portion of the Gospel of Mark: Jesus Stills the Storm.

“Peace. Be still,” Jesus said – to the storm, to the disciples and to me. And I found, once again, the power of what we claim as the Living Word – the power of the one whose love for us can reach through the centuries through the Holy Scriptures. I found that the power of the one who stilled the storm that swirled around the disciples’ boat can also still the storm what swirls inside our souls tonight as the dust starts to settle from General Convention 2006.

Listen again to the Collect of the Day that began our worship this evening:

“O Lord, make us have perpetual love and reverence for your holy Name, for you never fail to help those whom you have set upon the sure foundation of your loving-kindness.”

Not the sure foundation of theological consensus. Not the sure foundation of constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. Not even the sure foundation of resolutions passed at General Convention. The sure foundation is still the same as it was when I memorized all five verses of what is still one of my favorite hymns back in my junior choir days:

The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord
She is his new creation by water and the word
From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride
With his own blood he bought her and for her life he died.

“The Church’s One Foundation” is not any particular creed or doctrine or theology or agreement on who should be ordained to what … nope “The Church’s One Foundation Is Jesus Christ our Lord ” – the one who incarnates for us the sure foundation of God’s loving-kindness which we claim for ourselves today and will proclaim for others this weekend as we become outward and visible signs of God’s love and care to the LGBT community in the Pride events ahead: evangelists for the Gospel.

“Evangelists?” Why yes, my dear, evangelism is all the rage – hadn’t you heard? Of course, it hasn’t always been so. I’m one of those cradle-type Episcopalians -- and so I remember jokes like “Evangelize? Whatever do you mean? Everyone who should be an Episcopalian already is one.” I grew up in a church where I couldn’t imagine what on earth “evangelism” could have to do with us – with me. But that church has changed – and so have I – and I guess the response to that versicle is “thanks be to God.”

The awesome truth is that we have MUCH good news to tell … and we live and move and have our being in a culture literally dying to hear it. To hear that they are loved. To hear that they are welcome. To hear that they are called to “go and do likewise.” That’s the Good News of God in Christ Jesus AND the Episcopal Church that we have each and every one of us been commissioned to proclaim and that is the work to which we have been called.

And it is hard, sometimes, and for many of us this is one of them – to separate the Gospel we have been given to share from the church intended to be vehicle for that Good News when it becomes a roadblock instead. It is hard, sometimes, to find God in the church.

I hold in particular mind tonight Bishop John Krumm – the former bishop of Southern Ohio who retired to Los Angeles. At his memorial service I had the privilege of hearing Bishop George Barrett reminisce about their 60-year friendship in the homily he offered at our diocesan Cathedral Center. “John,” he said -- stabbing his long, boney finger into the air for emphasis, “was never disillusioned by the church because he never had an illusions about the church!”
Yet John Krumm loved this church -- served it joyfully and well. Because he had no illusions he was free to focus on the ideal. Because he had his feet firmly planted on the rock, the shifting sands did not overwhelm him. I’ve thought a lot about John Krumm in these last few weeks. I thought about his long and faithful life and the many changes he must have seen over the course of it.

I thought about his willingness to be an agent of change -- to venture into the unknown future God called him to. And I thought about the many fears he must have overcome in order to respond to that call so bravely and faithfully. And I prayed for leaders who would call us to follow in his footsteps – to call us to walk in love rather than retreat in fear: the fear that in the end dominated the decisions of this General Convention – the fear that Episcopal theologian Verna Dozier has named as the opposite of faith.

“Doubt is not the opposite of faith,” she writes. “Fear is. Fear will not risk that even if I am wrong I will trust that if I move by the light that is given me, knowing that it is only finite and partial I will know more and different things tomorrow than I know today, and I can be open to the new possibility I cannot even imagine today.”

It is absolutely true that the church has disappointed us. We are treated as imposters and yet are true; as unknown and yet are well-known; as dying yet we are alive; as punished and yet not killed; as sorrowful yet always rejoicing; as having nothing and yet possessing everything.

And it is absolutely true that God never will disappoint us. For now IS the acceptable time. Now IS the day of salvation. If we can trust that promise, then we CAN move by that finite and partial light and continue to be agents of change – voices of hope – moving forward into God’s future – in spite of the challenge, in spite of the fear, in spite of the church who forgets sometimes where her true foundation lies.

Mid toil and tribulation and tumult of her war
She waits the consummation of peace forevermore
Till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blessed
And the great Church victorious shall be the Church at rest.

And the storm will finally be stilled. And all will be well. And all manner of things shall, indeed, be well. Amen.