Thinking Anglicans has linked to my essay on an alternative Anglican province. In response to comments on that site, I wrote:
In deciding how to respond to the turmoil roiling the Episcopal Church, we Episcopalians need to ask ourselves: What type of person do I want to be, one who insists on my rights or one who seeks to walk in love, offering myself as an offering and sacrifice to God for others? In other words, What would Jesus do? While I cannot definitively answer that question, Jesus would certainly prioritize people and relationships ahead of property.
The analogy of a thief breaking into the house seems inapt to me. The dissidents, with whom I have very strong disagreements, are not unknown thieves but my brothers and sisters in Christ. Views about the morality of same-sex relationships, the correctness of ordaining women, or any of the other issues dividing the Anglican Communion are not constitutive of Christian identity. A more apt analogy is that of a divorce, in which the family (the Episcopal Church) divides while all remain part of the larger community (the Anglican Communion and the body of Christ).
My article intentionally avoided offering proposals for resolving property issues. A necessary preliminary step is to treat one another with love, or, at a minimum, civilly. Treating family members with whom we disagree in any other way demeans us and dishonors Christ. Love and grace, not property and possessions, must take priority in our dealings with our sisters and brothers, even those from whom we are estranged. After that preliminary step, interested stakeholders can employ reason and prayer to discern the best division of assets. What I am suggesting is analogous to when two people divorce: They divide their assets based on who brought what into the relationship, who contributed what over the course of the relationship, the needs/responsibilities of each, and perhaps future earning power. Experience in helping hundreds through the painful process of divorce has firmly convinced me that mediation invariably achieves better results for all parties than does litigation. Litigation generally results in higher legal fees that diminish the assets available for each partner. More importantly, court battles increase animosity rather helping partners to reconcile themselves to the reality of the split and the benefits peaceful coexistence.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl
Three weeks ago, I served as a judge for the Southeastern Regional Intercollegiate Ethics Bowls held at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Sixteen teams of five students from fourteen colleges and universities competed. Contestants argued about a randomly selected issue from among the fifteen issues distributed to the schools prior to the Bowl. After three rounds, the teams with the best records progressed to the regional semi-finals and finals. Later this academic year, the four teams with the best records will participate in the nationals.
I found the experience both encouraging and discouraging. The cases, all real-world issues, were interesting and focused on a wide range of issues, e.g., the morality of outsourcing medical care to other countries and poverty tourism. Many contestants had researched the questions prior to the actual bowl. Enthusiastic fans – fellow students – accompanied some teams. Although I had never heard of an ethics bowl before, the idea has clearly resonated among at least some students, encourages the study of ethics, and will benefit government, business, non-profits, and – hopefully – the level of ethics found in public discourse in the U.S.
However, the level of ethical discourse at the Bowl was somewhat disappointing. Students mostly seemed unfamiliar with the principal theories of ethics, defaulted to utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number, the default for most people), and preferred to focus on facts rather than ethics. As an ethicist, I can only lament that ethics is not as popular as football or prime time TV shows!
I found the experience both encouraging and discouraging. The cases, all real-world issues, were interesting and focused on a wide range of issues, e.g., the morality of outsourcing medical care to other countries and poverty tourism. Many contestants had researched the questions prior to the actual bowl. Enthusiastic fans – fellow students – accompanied some teams. Although I had never heard of an ethics bowl before, the idea has clearly resonated among at least some students, encourages the study of ethics, and will benefit government, business, non-profits, and – hopefully – the level of ethics found in public discourse in the U.S.
However, the level of ethical discourse at the Bowl was somewhat disappointing. Students mostly seemed unfamiliar with the principal theories of ethics, defaulted to utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number, the default for most people), and preferred to focus on facts rather than ethics. As an ethicist, I can only lament that ethics is not as popular as football or prime time TV shows!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Another Anglican Province?
Until two weeks ago, I strongly advocated the Anglican Communion refusing to establish a new province in North America and mandating that provinces cease violating provincial boundaries by conducting ministries or establishing congregations within the Episcopal Church’s jurisdiction.
Then I read that the Episcopal Church had spent in excess of $1.9 million in 2008 on lawsuits connected to the departure of parishes and dioceses from this Church. Daily I read about critical needs for healthcare, food, sanitation, and shelter in the United States and abroad. I see the spiritual illness and death that afflict so many. I remember that Anglicans have wisely never claimed to be the only branch of the Christian Church.
I started to wonder, Was I wrong? Why not another North American province?
Geographic boundaries, I realized, are not as sacrosanct as we who value tradition might wish they were. Within the Anglican Communion, geography has historically defined provinces and dioceses. The same is true of Anglican parishes in England, although not in most other provinces. Yet nowhere in Scripture can one find a God-given plan for the organization of parishes, dioceses, and provinces. Indeed, the whole concept of provinces seems extra-biblical. The geographic model for parishes and dioceses emerged naturally because of physical proximity, administrative practicality, and political identity.
Modern transport has invalidated the first of those three reasons why the Church adopted geographic boundaries to define parishes, dioceses, and provinces, i.e., so people could conveniently participate. The disestablishment of the Church, which characterizes most of the Anglican Communion, voided the second reason for geographic boundaries. The internet and development of online communities are diminishing the importance of political boundaries for defining ecclesial identity. All of these changes bring the Church closer to becoming more fully a seamless community of God's people.
The reality, as much as I or anyone else may not like it, is that geographical boundaries are no longer functionally definitive of Episcopalian identity. Four dioceses have already voted to disassociate themselves from the Episcopal Church and to associate with another Province. At least several dozen parishes have done the same. Numerous individuals have more quietly departed, often for a congregation that advertises itself as “Anglican.” In other words, the geographic model is irretrievably broken in the United States. Those who have left believe the divisions that were the catalyst for their move are too deep, too significant to permit dissidents to continue their Christian journeys within the Episcopal Church. One can no more coerce ecclesial unity than marital unity. Even as the Episcopal Church rightly recognizes its understanding of the Bible, theology, and ethics must change with the continuing unfolding of knowledge and moving of the Spirit, so should the Church be open to revising its thinking about ecclesial structures and polity.
A non-geographic model actually offers some advantages. In England, many communicants ignore parish boundaries to attend a parish that has the style of churchmanship or offers the programs the communicant desires. Latin American dioceses, for various reasons, have chosen to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. In the United States, parishes openly “compete” with one another, and with congregations of other Christian Churches, to attract communicants. This competition promotes quality programming, can better ministers to individual needs, and partially explains why Christianity flourishes more strongly in the U.S. than in England. Admittedly, like most things, ecclesial competition can have negative dimensions including promotion of ecclesial consumerism and clerical careerism at the expense of fidelity to the gospel.
Acknowledging the reality of multiple Anglican bodies within the geographic boundaries of the Episcopal Church would introduce refreshing notes of honesty and grace into the present turbulent controversy. This step might preserve Anglican unity by abandoning the dishonest hubris of insisting that the Episcopal Church is the only Anglican presence in the United States. Recognition of another Anglican province could provide an option for individuals, parishes, and dioceses to transfer, even as clergy now transfer from one province to another. A minority who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church but are part of a parish that wishes to transfer could establish a new parish or affiliate with an existing parish. Similarly, those in a diocese who wish who remain in the Episcopal Church after the diocese voted to realign could affiliate with an adjoining diocese that extends its borders or reconstitute the disassociated diocese.
My prognostication is that regardless of what the Episcopal Church may think or do, formal recognition by the Anglican Communion of a new province, perhaps co-terminus with the Episcopal Church or also including Canada, is inevitable. Alternatively, if that does not happen, then the Anglican Communion will persist in a state of denial, formally fracture, or authorize provinces to engage in extra-provincial ministries in the United States and perhaps elsewhere. Any new (or adapted) structure will launch with a brief surge, quickly plateau, and then linger, slowly losing relevance and impact. Those who wish to disengage from the Episcopal Church are wrong: gender does not determine suitability for ordination; gender orientation does not determine eligibility for receiving God's blessing of a faithful, monogamous relationship; etc. Truth, not error, will prevail.
Who – other than Anglicans (and only a minority of us) – cares about the structure of the Anglican Communion? Who else cares if the Episcopal Church is the sole Anglican body in the United States or if other provinces also function in the States? I honestly cannot think of any non-Anglicans who might care. Consequently, I recognized that my fighting about Anglican jurisdictional boundaries is a red herring that distracts me (and the larger Church) from the much more difficult task of the Church’s real mission, i.e., engaging in creative, life-transforming ministry. For the most part, whether a Christian belongs to the Episcopal Church, a different Anglican province, or another Church is relatively unimportant when millions are dying of physical needs and spiritual hunger. We must again move forward and cease waging an already-decided, rear-guard action.
Then I read that the Episcopal Church had spent in excess of $1.9 million in 2008 on lawsuits connected to the departure of parishes and dioceses from this Church. Daily I read about critical needs for healthcare, food, sanitation, and shelter in the United States and abroad. I see the spiritual illness and death that afflict so many. I remember that Anglicans have wisely never claimed to be the only branch of the Christian Church.
I started to wonder, Was I wrong? Why not another North American province?
Geographic boundaries, I realized, are not as sacrosanct as we who value tradition might wish they were. Within the Anglican Communion, geography has historically defined provinces and dioceses. The same is true of Anglican parishes in England, although not in most other provinces. Yet nowhere in Scripture can one find a God-given plan for the organization of parishes, dioceses, and provinces. Indeed, the whole concept of provinces seems extra-biblical. The geographic model for parishes and dioceses emerged naturally because of physical proximity, administrative practicality, and political identity.
Modern transport has invalidated the first of those three reasons why the Church adopted geographic boundaries to define parishes, dioceses, and provinces, i.e., so people could conveniently participate. The disestablishment of the Church, which characterizes most of the Anglican Communion, voided the second reason for geographic boundaries. The internet and development of online communities are diminishing the importance of political boundaries for defining ecclesial identity. All of these changes bring the Church closer to becoming more fully a seamless community of God's people.
The reality, as much as I or anyone else may not like it, is that geographical boundaries are no longer functionally definitive of Episcopalian identity. Four dioceses have already voted to disassociate themselves from the Episcopal Church and to associate with another Province. At least several dozen parishes have done the same. Numerous individuals have more quietly departed, often for a congregation that advertises itself as “Anglican.” In other words, the geographic model is irretrievably broken in the United States. Those who have left believe the divisions that were the catalyst for their move are too deep, too significant to permit dissidents to continue their Christian journeys within the Episcopal Church. One can no more coerce ecclesial unity than marital unity. Even as the Episcopal Church rightly recognizes its understanding of the Bible, theology, and ethics must change with the continuing unfolding of knowledge and moving of the Spirit, so should the Church be open to revising its thinking about ecclesial structures and polity.
A non-geographic model actually offers some advantages. In England, many communicants ignore parish boundaries to attend a parish that has the style of churchmanship or offers the programs the communicant desires. Latin American dioceses, for various reasons, have chosen to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. In the United States, parishes openly “compete” with one another, and with congregations of other Christian Churches, to attract communicants. This competition promotes quality programming, can better ministers to individual needs, and partially explains why Christianity flourishes more strongly in the U.S. than in England. Admittedly, like most things, ecclesial competition can have negative dimensions including promotion of ecclesial consumerism and clerical careerism at the expense of fidelity to the gospel.
Acknowledging the reality of multiple Anglican bodies within the geographic boundaries of the Episcopal Church would introduce refreshing notes of honesty and grace into the present turbulent controversy. This step might preserve Anglican unity by abandoning the dishonest hubris of insisting that the Episcopal Church is the only Anglican presence in the United States. Recognition of another Anglican province could provide an option for individuals, parishes, and dioceses to transfer, even as clergy now transfer from one province to another. A minority who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church but are part of a parish that wishes to transfer could establish a new parish or affiliate with an existing parish. Similarly, those in a diocese who wish who remain in the Episcopal Church after the diocese voted to realign could affiliate with an adjoining diocese that extends its borders or reconstitute the disassociated diocese.
My prognostication is that regardless of what the Episcopal Church may think or do, formal recognition by the Anglican Communion of a new province, perhaps co-terminus with the Episcopal Church or also including Canada, is inevitable. Alternatively, if that does not happen, then the Anglican Communion will persist in a state of denial, formally fracture, or authorize provinces to engage in extra-provincial ministries in the United States and perhaps elsewhere. Any new (or adapted) structure will launch with a brief surge, quickly plateau, and then linger, slowly losing relevance and impact. Those who wish to disengage from the Episcopal Church are wrong: gender does not determine suitability for ordination; gender orientation does not determine eligibility for receiving God's blessing of a faithful, monogamous relationship; etc. Truth, not error, will prevail.
Who – other than Anglicans (and only a minority of us) – cares about the structure of the Anglican Communion? Who else cares if the Episcopal Church is the sole Anglican body in the United States or if other provinces also function in the States? I honestly cannot think of any non-Anglicans who might care. Consequently, I recognized that my fighting about Anglican jurisdictional boundaries is a red herring that distracts me (and the larger Church) from the much more difficult task of the Church’s real mission, i.e., engaging in creative, life-transforming ministry. For the most part, whether a Christian belongs to the Episcopal Church, a different Anglican province, or another Church is relatively unimportant when millions are dying of physical needs and spiritual hunger. We must again move forward and cease waging an already-decided, rear-guard action.
Monday, November 24, 2008
U.S. - Iraq Troop Agreement
The Iraqi Parliament, especially the bloc of members from the party Moqtada al Sadr controls, is resisting pressure from the United States and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to approve an agreement to authorize the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq until 2011. According to news reports, objections at first centered on the mere presence of U.S. forces, then expanded to include concerns about potential seizure of Iraqi oil revenues to pay Saddam era debts. Public protesters against the agreement, numbering in the tens of thousands, burned an effigy of George Bush.
Concurrently, the media reports that the Kurds have received weapons shipments from abroad; presumably obtaining additional arms in case someone wishes to challenge the de facto Kurdish autonomy that now exists. The Kurds can also employee the weapons in the ongoing hostilities waged against Turkey to incorporate Turkish Kurds into a fully independent Kurdistan.
Taken together, the Parliamentary debates and arms purchases by Kurds bode ill for the continued existence of Iraq as a single nation. The United States cannot impose either democracy or national identity on people who prefer something else. In this, the ethical aligns with the practical: imposing a government and national identity on another people is at best demeaning and paternalistic and at worst dehumanizing.
Concurrently, the media reports that the Kurds have received weapons shipments from abroad; presumably obtaining additional arms in case someone wishes to challenge the de facto Kurdish autonomy that now exists. The Kurds can also employee the weapons in the ongoing hostilities waged against Turkey to incorporate Turkish Kurds into a fully independent Kurdistan.
Taken together, the Parliamentary debates and arms purchases by Kurds bode ill for the continued existence of Iraq as a single nation. The United States cannot impose either democracy or national identity on people who prefer something else. In this, the ethical aligns with the practical: imposing a government and national identity on another people is at best demeaning and paternalistic and at worst dehumanizing.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Proposed Iraq - U.S. agreement
If news summaries are correct, the proposed agreement between Iraq and the United States to permit the U.S. military to remain in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires on December 31, 2008, is notable for three reasons. First, the agreement stipulates that all U.S. military forces will exit Iraq by December 31, 2011. This means that the Bush administration will have failed to achieve one of its post-invasion goals: gaining permanent military bases in the Middle East that are not located in Saudi Arabia.
Second, the agreement presumes that Iraqi forces, police and military, will maintain domestic order after the summer of 2009 when U.S. forces stop operating in towns. In other words, the U.S. surge, lasting less than two years, was able to accomplish what the U.S. occupation could not accomplish in the three prior years. Intuitively, that conclusion seems wrong. Putting Sunnis on the U.S. payroll (the Awakening movement), sectarian segregation of Sunnis and Shiites, and temporary truces between various Shiite factions achieved far more to diminish violence in Iraq than did the relatively small increase in U.S. force levels known as the “surge.” Tellingly, publicly disclosed details of the draft agreement do not address possible U.S. responses should the level of violence in Iraq again trend upwards. I sadly but confidently predict that violence will trend upwards in 2009 as Iraqi ethnic, tribal, and religious tensions again come to the fore. Neither the Kurds nor the Sunnis want to live under Shiite dominance; the Shiites want to flex their muscles and even the score for a century of abusive Sunni rule. None of those dynamics has changed in the last two years. The triggers for the increased violence will likely be the Shiites refusing to pay the Awakening payroll (which worsening economic conditions in the U.S. makes the U.S. eager to shed) and wanting to disarm thereby disempowering Sunnis who are not part of a Shiite controlled police or military.
Third, recognizing Iraqi sovereignty in Baghdad’s green zone, over U.S. military logistics shipments, and U.S. operations in Iraq (e.g., trying U.S. military personnel for serious crimes committed on or off base and needing to obtain a court order before searching an Iraqi house) appears to be an important, positive step forward. However, that step will clash with the U.S. military’s training in warfighting and prevailing ethos. Most U.S. military personnel (military police are the primary exception) are trained to fight wars, not to conduct police operations. In war, one uses overwhelming force, rapidity of operations, stealth, and mobility to attain the objective. For example, soldiers shoot to kill; police generally shoot to disable; in warfighting, an enemy’s suspected position is destroyed (with artillery or airpower) whereas police, having identified a suspect’s probable hideout, obtain a warrant and then conduct a search. In other words, the agreement’s provisions imply a greatly diminished role for U.S. forces, create the potential for increased animosity between Iraqis and the U.S. when U.S. forces do conduct operations, and leave unanswered the question of what happens should the Shiite dominated Iraqi police and military misuse their authority and power. The prevailing ethos among U.S. military personnel and contractors is one of being shielded from Iraqi law and free to operate as deemed necessary. That ethos has certainly caused problems. Yet imposing new restrictions amid widespread suspicions about an unfamiliar foreign legal system generally thought incapable of administering justice will add to the stress many of these individuals experience while serving in Iraq.
The bottom line issue is that the United States persists in regarding Iraq as a battlefield, a view that demeans Iraqis and their cultures. Real progress toward building peace in Iraq must begin by the United States viewing Iraqis as autonomous individuals capable of determining and constructing their own future, e.g., choosing to live in three separate nations rather than coerced by external (mostly U.S.) pressure to remain a single nation. Prompt, orderly withdrawal of the U.S. and its allies is an early step in that process, a goal that most Iraqis, regardless of whether they supported the U.S. invasion, have desired since shortly after Saddam’s fall.
Second, the agreement presumes that Iraqi forces, police and military, will maintain domestic order after the summer of 2009 when U.S. forces stop operating in towns. In other words, the U.S. surge, lasting less than two years, was able to accomplish what the U.S. occupation could not accomplish in the three prior years. Intuitively, that conclusion seems wrong. Putting Sunnis on the U.S. payroll (the Awakening movement), sectarian segregation of Sunnis and Shiites, and temporary truces between various Shiite factions achieved far more to diminish violence in Iraq than did the relatively small increase in U.S. force levels known as the “surge.” Tellingly, publicly disclosed details of the draft agreement do not address possible U.S. responses should the level of violence in Iraq again trend upwards. I sadly but confidently predict that violence will trend upwards in 2009 as Iraqi ethnic, tribal, and religious tensions again come to the fore. Neither the Kurds nor the Sunnis want to live under Shiite dominance; the Shiites want to flex their muscles and even the score for a century of abusive Sunni rule. None of those dynamics has changed in the last two years. The triggers for the increased violence will likely be the Shiites refusing to pay the Awakening payroll (which worsening economic conditions in the U.S. makes the U.S. eager to shed) and wanting to disarm thereby disempowering Sunnis who are not part of a Shiite controlled police or military.
Third, recognizing Iraqi sovereignty in Baghdad’s green zone, over U.S. military logistics shipments, and U.S. operations in Iraq (e.g., trying U.S. military personnel for serious crimes committed on or off base and needing to obtain a court order before searching an Iraqi house) appears to be an important, positive step forward. However, that step will clash with the U.S. military’s training in warfighting and prevailing ethos. Most U.S. military personnel (military police are the primary exception) are trained to fight wars, not to conduct police operations. In war, one uses overwhelming force, rapidity of operations, stealth, and mobility to attain the objective. For example, soldiers shoot to kill; police generally shoot to disable; in warfighting, an enemy’s suspected position is destroyed (with artillery or airpower) whereas police, having identified a suspect’s probable hideout, obtain a warrant and then conduct a search. In other words, the agreement’s provisions imply a greatly diminished role for U.S. forces, create the potential for increased animosity between Iraqis and the U.S. when U.S. forces do conduct operations, and leave unanswered the question of what happens should the Shiite dominated Iraqi police and military misuse their authority and power. The prevailing ethos among U.S. military personnel and contractors is one of being shielded from Iraqi law and free to operate as deemed necessary. That ethos has certainly caused problems. Yet imposing new restrictions amid widespread suspicions about an unfamiliar foreign legal system generally thought incapable of administering justice will add to the stress many of these individuals experience while serving in Iraq.
The bottom line issue is that the United States persists in regarding Iraq as a battlefield, a view that demeans Iraqis and their cultures. Real progress toward building peace in Iraq must begin by the United States viewing Iraqis as autonomous individuals capable of determining and constructing their own future, e.g., choosing to live in three separate nations rather than coerced by external (mostly U.S.) pressure to remain a single nation. Prompt, orderly withdrawal of the U.S. and its allies is an early step in that process, a goal that most Iraqis, regardless of whether they supported the U.S. invasion, have desired since shortly after Saddam’s fall.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Time for Loyalty
While making one of my occasional visits to Thinking Anglicans (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/), I was startled to read that Jack Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, has written an article in the September edition of his diocesan paper, “10 Reasons Why Now Is the Time to Realign.” How can a bishop who openly advises his or her people to depart from The Episcopal Church (TEC) in good conscience remain a bishop of that same Church?
Bishop Terrence Kelshaw earned my respect, and that of many others, when he submitted a letter of renunciation of ministry in TEC after the Province of Uganda had received him. His actions honored both is commitment to TEC and to his own beliefs.
Anyone who remains in TEC when doing so violates his or her beliefs lacks either the courage or integrity to act upon his or her convictions. Financial or employment ties to TEC may cause a lack of moral courage. Inertia, which besets us all, may have the same effect because change is often difficult. Emotionally laden changes are the most difficult. I know that in my life I have on occasion failed to act with appropriate moral courage and can appreciate the difficulties in mustering sufficient moral courage to take the big step of leaving the Church that nurtured one and in which one has ministered for many years.
However, I have far less patience with leaders who openly attempt to subvert an organization after promising to uphold that organization. Bishop Iker’s statement clearly shows that he believes TEC has become apostate. He should have sufficient knowledge of Church canons and history to know that no mechanism exists by which a parish or diocese can depart from TEC. Only individuals, as in the case of Bishop Kelshaw, may depart. Parish and diocesan structures exist as extensions or local expressions of TEC; these structures are not independent free agents.
Integrity demands that Bishop Iker affiliate with the Province of his choosing and renounce his ministry and membership within TEC. The genuinely pastoral response to Bishop Iker, should he fail to take those steps, would be to help him follow the journey of his choosing by deposing him. The deposition should not be vindictive but loving. Sadly, he no longer believes that TEC is faithful. No amount of cajoling, compromising, or patience seems likely to change his mind. Pursuing any of those options dishonors the depth of Bishop Iker’s beliefs. Thus, it seems to me, that TEC has no option but to aid the Bishop in his journey. Allowing him to remain within TEC continues to compromise his integrity and will cause TEC further hurt and difficulties.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes observed,
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose; …
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak… (3:5-7)
The time has come when TEC needs to refrain from attempting to embrace those who want to leave, sadly but with heartfelt blessing lose those who insist on departing, and to speak the message of God's inclusive love without temporizing. In failing to move bravely into the future, TEC compromises its own integrity and dishonors the call from God it has heard.
Bishop Terrence Kelshaw earned my respect, and that of many others, when he submitted a letter of renunciation of ministry in TEC after the Province of Uganda had received him. His actions honored both is commitment to TEC and to his own beliefs.
Anyone who remains in TEC when doing so violates his or her beliefs lacks either the courage or integrity to act upon his or her convictions. Financial or employment ties to TEC may cause a lack of moral courage. Inertia, which besets us all, may have the same effect because change is often difficult. Emotionally laden changes are the most difficult. I know that in my life I have on occasion failed to act with appropriate moral courage and can appreciate the difficulties in mustering sufficient moral courage to take the big step of leaving the Church that nurtured one and in which one has ministered for many years.
However, I have far less patience with leaders who openly attempt to subvert an organization after promising to uphold that organization. Bishop Iker’s statement clearly shows that he believes TEC has become apostate. He should have sufficient knowledge of Church canons and history to know that no mechanism exists by which a parish or diocese can depart from TEC. Only individuals, as in the case of Bishop Kelshaw, may depart. Parish and diocesan structures exist as extensions or local expressions of TEC; these structures are not independent free agents.
Integrity demands that Bishop Iker affiliate with the Province of his choosing and renounce his ministry and membership within TEC. The genuinely pastoral response to Bishop Iker, should he fail to take those steps, would be to help him follow the journey of his choosing by deposing him. The deposition should not be vindictive but loving. Sadly, he no longer believes that TEC is faithful. No amount of cajoling, compromising, or patience seems likely to change his mind. Pursuing any of those options dishonors the depth of Bishop Iker’s beliefs. Thus, it seems to me, that TEC has no option but to aid the Bishop in his journey. Allowing him to remain within TEC continues to compromise his integrity and will cause TEC further hurt and difficulties.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes observed,
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose; …
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak… (3:5-7)
The time has come when TEC needs to refrain from attempting to embrace those who want to leave, sadly but with heartfelt blessing lose those who insist on departing, and to speak the message of God's inclusive love without temporizing. In failing to move bravely into the future, TEC compromises its own integrity and dishonors the call from God it has heard.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Voting
In 2004, the National Council of Churches issued a Voter’s Guide that included ten principles to help Christians decide for whom to vote. Those principles are worth quickly reviewing in 2008. The annotations following each principle are mine.
1. War is contrary to God's will. What does this mean for the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?
2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. This year’s election rhetoric heavily emphasizes the rich and the middle-class. Which candidate will do the most to help the poor, those who live in the inner cities, the emerging permanent underclass?
3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well-being of our global neighbors. Many candidates have emphasized their Christian faith. Sadly, none of those candidates has publicly emphasized that he or she considers the well-being of non-Americans of equal importance to the well-being of Americans.
4. God calls us to be advocates for the most vulnerable in society. Too many people regard this unfavorably; we tend to ignore God's preferential option for the poor and out of favor. Heeding this principle helps to understand the importance of equal rights for all, health care for all, concern for immigrants, etc.
5. Each human is created in the image of God and of infinite worth. Does the candidate you favor truly treat everyone in a manner appropriate to a child of God? Too often, politicians (and the rest of us!) view those accused or found guilty of crimes as second-class people.
6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. Using energy from sources that emit green house gases or otherwise pollutes the earth is to deface God's property. Which candidate seems most likely to work not for energy independence but clean energy, and to work assertively and consistently against pollution?
7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are first and foremost possible messengers from God, perhaps even God himself in our midst. What immigration policies reflect that attitude?
8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. Healthcare for all must become a national priority. That the world’s richest nation does not provide healthcare for all and, in spite of spending more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, consistently achieves worse results, should be a national embarrassment.
9. Because of the transforming power of God's grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with one another. Which candidate is most likely to create a society of justice and mutual respect for all people?
10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God's children is a moral imperative. No Child Left Behind has proven a disastrous failure. Which candidate appears most likely to offer creative leadership to develop the gifts of all children, regardless of race, gender, religion, immigrant, status, or any other characteristic?
Americans have a wonderful opportunity to exercise leadership through the political process. Voting is an important element of that process. Take time to vote, but picture Jesus standing with you, watching as you mark your ballot. Asking for whom Jesus would vote, or how he would vote on referendum, should not be an idle question but a helpful heuristic in living well.
1. War is contrary to God's will. What does this mean for the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?
2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. This year’s election rhetoric heavily emphasizes the rich and the middle-class. Which candidate will do the most to help the poor, those who live in the inner cities, the emerging permanent underclass?
3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well-being of our global neighbors. Many candidates have emphasized their Christian faith. Sadly, none of those candidates has publicly emphasized that he or she considers the well-being of non-Americans of equal importance to the well-being of Americans.
4. God calls us to be advocates for the most vulnerable in society. Too many people regard this unfavorably; we tend to ignore God's preferential option for the poor and out of favor. Heeding this principle helps to understand the importance of equal rights for all, health care for all, concern for immigrants, etc.
5. Each human is created in the image of God and of infinite worth. Does the candidate you favor truly treat everyone in a manner appropriate to a child of God? Too often, politicians (and the rest of us!) view those accused or found guilty of crimes as second-class people.
6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. Using energy from sources that emit green house gases or otherwise pollutes the earth is to deface God's property. Which candidate seems most likely to work not for energy independence but clean energy, and to work assertively and consistently against pollution?
7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are first and foremost possible messengers from God, perhaps even God himself in our midst. What immigration policies reflect that attitude?
8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. Healthcare for all must become a national priority. That the world’s richest nation does not provide healthcare for all and, in spite of spending more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, consistently achieves worse results, should be a national embarrassment.
9. Because of the transforming power of God's grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with one another. Which candidate is most likely to create a society of justice and mutual respect for all people?
10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God's children is a moral imperative. No Child Left Behind has proven a disastrous failure. Which candidate appears most likely to offer creative leadership to develop the gifts of all children, regardless of race, gender, religion, immigrant, status, or any other characteristic?
Americans have a wonderful opportunity to exercise leadership through the political process. Voting is an important element of that process. Take time to vote, but picture Jesus standing with you, watching as you mark your ballot. Asking for whom Jesus would vote, or how he would vote on referendum, should not be an idle question but a helpful heuristic in living well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)