Posted at 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Yesterday morning, my mother called me with a word from the Lord, for me, for us. It came through a daily devotional she reads by the Rev. Charles Stanley at In-Touch Ministries...Food for thought, friends!
READ | Deuteronomy 1:20-31
In 1991 I preached a sermon comparing my church family’s situation to that of the Israelites on the edge of the Promised Land. We desperately needed a larger facility and toward that end acquired land a few miles from downtown Atlanta. We had three years to complete two overwhelming tasks: to raise the entire purchase price for a new building and to ensure that the church was ready for occupancy on the appointed date.
What I told my flock that day also applies to individuals. God has given His people a commission—to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19). The Father gives different opportunities to each believer so we all can fulfill His command in unique ways. Since He never flings a door wide open unless He intends for us to go through it, stopping on the threshold is disobedience.
Sometimes what little we can see on the other side looks frightening. But if the Lord is calling, then you need to do what He asks instead of dithering in the doorway. He assumes full responsibility for properly equipping you and guiding you to complete the task.
Which brings me back to my earlier story. You may already know how it ends: God provided every cent—no bank loan was necessary—and the building was completed on time. From that new home base, the ministry expanded in our city and across the globe.
Are you standing in a doorway, too scared to move on? Step forward in faith. God made the opportunity, and He is faithful to see you safely through it, regardless of the obstacles.
Posted at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner writes on recent events in Colorado. The editorial is well worth the read, especially as it touches on what bishop O'Neill's commitments had been, why he may have changed now, and regardless, how O'Neill's actions are symtomatic of a larger disease contributing to the further dissolution of the body of Christ in the Anglican Communion.
Theron
"But we have nonetheless come to a common understanding of the needs of the Communion with respect to the imperatives of common life in Christ. So why would someone like Bp O’Neill go forward in contradicting these affirmations and at this time, given his previous willingness to hold back in the context of these kinds of common views? What has changed? Certainly not the “mind” of the Communion as earlier articulated; nor the burdens of common life within the Communion. "
Posted at 12:32 PM in Anglican Files | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In Romans 12, St. Paul talks about the humility that comes with understanding all of life as a gift. I get that a bit more this week. When we think about gifts, the usual thing is, am I willing to receive your gifts. Since your gifts are different than mine, the logic goes, I have to go out of myself to appreciate you. That is true.
Posted at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Colorado Unrestrained
Part III: Questions for Personal and Parish Faithfulness
The parish I serve, St. Philip-in-the-Field is 132 years old. The facility sits amidst a large graveyard. There are more parishioners buried there than are living (our Sunday average attendance is 81). Fortunately, many of the living in the parish are the descendents of the dead. The place isn’t just a building; it’s a kind of sacrament of the generations. Our vision is: From this Sacred Place: Lift Up Christ, Build Up People, Share the Light.
Here is how we, a community that is largely conservative, are attempting to wrestle with the questions posed by the bishop’s decisions, and the direction of the diocese.
The Big Question: Can we Fulfill the Vision in this Context?
The Setting: What has Changed in the Diocese?
New Policies:
Ordination
Same Sex Blessings
Re-commitments:
Delegated/Restricted Giving
Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.
What Challenges does this change present to your ability to share your gifts and
receive gifts from the bishop/diocese, and to share your gifts and receive gifts from this parish?
In what ways can you personally, and we as a congregation, differentiate ourselves
from the bishop and diocese while remaining in the diocese?
What commitments are you willing to make to fulfill the vision of St. Philip’s?
To this Sacred Place:
To Lift up Christ:
To Build up People:
To Share the Light:
So far, part of the community has discussed the changing context. People seem to be both relieved, and dismayed. Relieved because it finally happened, clarity has arrived. Dismayed because it changes our relationship with the bishop and diocese. We don’t want “space,” we want to love and respect him! There is also a bit of anger—how can a bishop turn his back on our traditions, on reason, and on Scripture? Why did he leave us all hanging for so long? Why didn’t he at least let us know before he did it?
For over a decade we’ve have been working on building a new facility. We’re running a pastoral sized congregation in an 850 square foot church (seats 55) and a 1350 square foot hall. We’re beyond full. This very week we’re to receive bids from contractors. We’ve already raised three times our annual budget, and another two times our budget is still pledged to come in. We’ve spent a wad on “soft costs” (why do soft costs hit so hard?). Needless to say, there’s a good deal of anxiety about going out on a limb! Often, the issue is posed as, “Why are we going to spend so much money on something the diocese could take from us?” This most recent turn in events will certainly sharpen that point!
Now, our tough, soul-searching work begins. We, as individuals and as a parish must move beyond “him” and “them”, beyond blame and anxiety, into personal choices, accountabilities, and commitments. Hence, the big question: Can we fulfill the vision given this context?
It’s really quite difficult to shift the focus away from the situation and onto one’s choices. “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2-4). I am among those who feel relieved that the bishop has finally showed his hand. I knew what cards he was holding, but wow, he sure held that Queen of Spades for a long time! I’ll always prefer open debate and engagement than all this subtle stuff!
Next Sunday (18th), during our formation time, we’ll start in on the second question: What Challenges does this change present to your ability to share your gifts and receive gifts from the bishop/diocese, and to share your gifts and receive gifts from this parish?
I hope the parish and I can do some steadfast thinking and praying on the nature of the church. Even if some decide its time to walk on, I hope they do so with a much deeper understanding of what it means to be a member of the body of Christ. Whatever the outcome, if one isn’t growing through this, but only becoming cynical and angry, the problem isn’t the trial, the problem is we’re not letting steadfastness have its full effect!
Anyway, the church exists by and through the giftings of the Holy Spirit. Our oneness, holiness, catholicness, and apostolicity all are gifts. These are virtues that we come into as we receive them, and share them. The gifts are not static; they cannot be stored away or owned. They, like the Holy Spirit who gives them, are always on the move. As we give our gifts to one another through Christ, they increase exponentially (this is the logic of 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9).
Thus, the church is an economy based on gifts, not on commerce or coercion. Sarcastically, one parishioner quipped, “What gifts do we get from the bishop?” That question was actually a commerce question, not a gifts question. The questioner was saying, what products do we get back for paying into the diocese? Well, we don’t get a lot of products.
However, what gifts is a bishop supposed to offer to the churches and people in his charge? Not only do bishops confirm and ordain, they embody diocesan unity. In the same way that a parish becomes a Eucharistic fellowship as its offerings go through a priest’s hands and back again, parishes become a diocese as they offer themselves through the bishop. Bishops are the ministers of our communion beyond ourselves, but also with the Anglican Communion, and the church catholic stretching over time. A parish becomes one with other parishes and with the Church through the bishop. Bishops are also guardians of the faith. A parish and its people know if they are in or out of communion with the larger body because they are in communion with their bishop.
With our bishop openly teaching and promoting innovation and moving the diocese into a sectarian ecclesiology, how can we receive his gifts for unity and truth? Granted the validity of sacraments isn’t determined by the quality of the bishop. Practically, one can be baptized or confirmed or receive communion from the hands of someone living outside of normative Christianity. At the same time, the sacraments aren’t magic. To accept a gift from someone is to accept them, which binds the receiver to the giver in an informal but real obligation. Someone who is confirmed by a heterodox bishop is really confirmed, but do they really want to be obliged to such a person? Sacraments and the Body of Christ are not products that we can buy and the person involved is irrelevant. Conversely, if one hands their life and labor over to such a bishop, one is aware that their gifts, instead of returning to the community, will be spent on activities that tear down the body. Hence, the practice of designated giving. Its not that the bishop puts on a poor confirmation service (he doesn’t), or is a spendthrift (he isn’t); it’s that people are hesitant to enter into the mutual obligations of giving and receiving from one another.
What may you, and what may we accept from the bishop? What gifts would it be wrong for you, and for us to receive from him?
What may you, and what may we offer to him? What gifts would it be wrong to offer him because they would not build up the body, but would further tear it down?
Posted at 09:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Colorado Unrestrained
Part II: Questions for the Bishop
One, with whom?
A constant them of bishop O’Neill’s episcopacy is unity. The key chapter of the theme is John 17, specifically verses 11 and 21: “…that they may be one, even as we are one,” and “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Time was, the bishop used this passage not just in the context of the diocese, but in the context of the Anglican Communion. That is no longer the case because, “I have less confidence in the Windsor process now more than ever because I’ve been in it, and people don’t keep their commitments. Its just time to move ahead here, in this context.” So now, if we are to follow our bishop, we are to understand that Christ calls us to the cross inside the diocese, but the cross is not prudent in the Communion?
Here’s the rub for me: Our bishop is invoking his Episcopal authority, using his pulpit to call his diocese to be one even as it moves away from the Communion, and the greater church as well. This definition of one and catholic appear to be on a collision course.
Doesn’t a diocese, by embracing doctrinal innovation, become a sect? Isn’t it innovative theology to square sectarian unity with classical Anglicanism’s catholic unity? One, yes, but with whom?
The gift of each-other?
A constant sub-theme of bishop O’Neill’s episcopacy is the gift of each-other. This language harkens to St. Paul’s “body-of-Christ” language in Corinthians and Ephesians. It is a way of framing the issues as non-essential, secondary to the mission. We must hold our convictions fully while respecting those of others. We must take intentional delight in one another.
Let’s consider the specific gifts we might offer each-other, the actual content of what we might give each other. Here are our gifts as questions:
Are same-sex attractions a gift from God? Are same-sex partnerships a gift from God? Do deacons and priests living in same-sex relationships show us a fuller, complementary ministry as having men and women in these orders do?
Let’s turn it around. Is healing of same-sex attraction a gift from God? Is the absolute and unwavering commitment to the sacrament of marriage a gift from God? Is faithfulness in marriage and celibacy for those not married a gift from God?
It is not logical to believe that same-sex attractions are a gift from God and believe that God can graciously bring healing to same-sex attractions. It is not logical to believe that marriage is the only “office” in which sex is blessed, while believing that other sexual relationships also may be blessed. It is not logical to believe that married and faithful, single and celibate is the definition of chastity, while believing that same-sex, sexual relationships are also “wholesome examples.”
It seems that in this disagreement, A+B does not equal a higher union (D), but rather, A+B=0. In other words, if we truly gave equal weight to both positions, we would not come to missional union. We would, in fact, be stuck. Can you show me how these differences specifically, can lead to a more perfect union?
Posted at 09:02 PM in Anglican Files | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
My purpose in this essay is to briefly sketch the policies and practices of diocese of Colorado since the advent of bishop O’Neill, culminating in this policy change that came into effect on January 10, 2009, with the ordination of an individual living in a non-chaste same-sex partnership.
In 2003, the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado elected Robert O’Neill as its bishop. During his campaign, he was very clear about his commitments to the gay cause. In Massachusetts, besides spearheading the new diocesan camp, he led his parish into accepting his associate rector’s new lesbian “partnership.” Since there is no provision in the Episcopal Church for these things, her ceremony happened in another denomination.
A lot has happened between his election and now. O’Neill convened a task force in 2004 to examine the issues. “How will we choose to live together given our differences? What is our common ground? What are the limits? What is the highest degree of communion possible?” The end result was a recommendation from the Task Force for restraint, which has been followed till this new turn of events.
In Colorado, there already were partnered homosexuals and lesbians in orders. Also, provision had been made for some sort of thanksgiving in a liturgical context, but it wasn’t supposed to look like a wedding: no vows, no rings, no invitations, etc… According to O’Neill, great license had been taken with his predecessor’s pastoral permissiveness. The modest thanksgivings looked like weddings.
So, upon his election, O’Neill suspended the pastoral provisions for liturgical recognition of homosexual relationships. He also suspended the ordination process of at least one partnered lesbian. He did not let partnered clergy into the diocese, even though certain parishes wanted it. There were three basic reasons: 1) O’Neill hoped to find some way to keep the diocese together. 2) The Anglican Communion’s value to us was of utmost importance. 3) The Episcopal Church had not yet authorized same sex blessings through its General Convention, being the proper, ordered place, where such changes happened. We in Colorado were called, on the left and the right, to restraint for the sake of unity.
That was then, this is now. What changed? A second task force was convened, but reached a different conclusion. It reached no consensus, and had no recommendations. The diocese is split deeply, it said, but we had to find a way to stay together, to not act out on the left or the right. That report has been on the shelf for eighteen months. The bishop tipped us off, obliquely, during diocesan convention in October, and during clergy conference in November, that it was time to have conversation about the new report.
On December 14, the bishop invited the active clergy of the diocese to mandatory regional meetings, held between January 6 and 13. Events in the diocese and communion had made things urgent, what with the lawsuit, and the upcoming general convention. Given the tenor of the letter, I fully expected to talk about things. I had heard that a partnered lesbian was coming into the diocese, and expected an explanation. It promised to be an interesting day!
January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany, I attended the first of the bishop’s meetings. The day began with some lectio divina on John 17. Unity is mandatory; it’s not an option. The operative premise, then, as stated by the Primates back in October of 2003, “That which binds us together is greater than that which divides us.” The basis for all that follows is this indivisible unity, a unity that must be discovered, not made. We must, the bishop sermonized, accept a posture of receptivity and trust toward one another.
Next, he laid down the principles the Task Force followed. #1: Biblical Principles: we must (1) keep God’s Mission in the center of everything, (2) Primacy of the Unity of the Body (unity is not an option—it is mission), (3) Resist Conventional Wisdom (political factions, division, painting one’s opponents in the worst possible light). Here, the bishop invoked the concept of “adaptive change,” (4) Have a willingness to discover a more transcendent way. With this, he cited Archbishop Ramsey’s idea that the church should be the model for the culture on how to live life, especially on how to work through times of trial.
#2: Ecclesiological Principles: Our decisions together must (1) be consistent with the decisions of General Convention; (2) be consistent with the statements and actions of the House of Bishops; (3) fit the polity and ecclesiology of the Episcopal Church. We must, in short, “work within the structure.”
#3: Desired Outcomes: Since we are in a time of adaptive change, it is desirable to handle things provisionally and pastorally. The aim is negotiated engagement, not settlement, not mere agreement to disagree. We need practical ways so we don’t need to act out or split off. Our future lies not in a path of détente or toleration, but in complimentary diversity. In order to stay together, we must create space so all can exercise their ministry with integrity. We must create missional space for one another.
#4: Task Force II Report: Bishop O’Neill began his comments on this section acknowledging that the new practices going on in TEC are innovations. Still, the report laid down our common bonds: authority of Scripture; Common confession in Creeds, Sacramental life in baptism and Eucharist, a commitment to the Episcopal leadership of our bishop in concert with clergy and laity. Next came our core values: “Intentional Delight” in one-another. The gift of communion is to hold our convictions fully while respecting that of others. In this context, he remarked, a bishop must be a bishop for the whole diocese, he must be, citing Rowan Williams, “An Unreliable Ally.”
Now we come to the changing practices of the diocese under the heading “Pastoral Options.” Bishop reminded us that provisions for allowing same gender blessings, deployment, and ordination were all taken off the table after the first task force. The second task force agreed that the bishop should have pastoral flexibility, but no agreement was reached on what that meant. So, here’s where the rubber meets the road:
1. Deployment: After the Task Force 1, no partnered gays and lesbians were deployed in the diocese, or came into the diocese from another one. Several congregations had questioned him on this, repeatedly. Could they even consider such a person? And here’s the money quote, bishop said, “I always knew I wouldn’t do this [practice restraint] forever.” So, in the spirit of respecting local communities, both liberal and conservative, now he is saying “yes.” St. Paul’s, Fort Collins has called a partnered lesbian, the Rev. Bonnie Spencer. Bishop was very clear; this was his decision, and his alone. When his reasoning on this was questioned, he responded by saying this choice is his as the ordinary, that it’s a choice open to him within the constitution and canons of the church.
2. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight: Some may feel a need for space from the bishop, i.e., “DEPO.” He is more than willing to do it if it will help, but there must be a mutual conversation about it.
3. Same Sex Blessings: The Book of Common Prayer is clear about marriage; it’s doctrine (if not core doctrine, its still doctrine). TEC has not approved a new rite. Many bishops are saying it’s a matter of local option. He disagrees. Therefore, there still will not be same sex blessings in this diocese. However, there can be things done to recognize and affirm such relationships. But the guidelines must be followed—not a marriage rite, no vows, no rings, etc…
4. Restricted giving: This practice currently costs the diocese $290,000 annually. This practice will be respected because we must respect individual consciences. However, the money should stay in the diocese and regions. So, the practice should be rethought, but it will be essentially left alone.
5. Ordination: The Task Force was deeply divided. Essentially, because we baptize lesbians and gays, if they live a life that exhibits a calling to ministry, and the community recognizes that calling, they should be ordained. So, he has chosen to open the ordination process to all. This should not happen under the old “don’t ask, don’t tell” system. It should be, and now is “out.” Thus, the ordination of January 10, and the upcoming ordination of another partnered lesbian in June.
Posted at 08:34 PM in Anglican Files | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
