Bishop Gene Robinson: What's Christian About Christian Leadership?

Does the American Anglican Council Even Care About Fact?

And the misrepresentation continues.

In the July 30, 2010 newsletter penned by the Rev. Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council, the July 18 visit of Bishop Gene Robinson to Foundry United Methodist Church was summarized in this way: "Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire preached at Foundry United Methodist church in Washington, DC, and urged them to 'get in trouble' by conducting same-sex marriages to show 'God's limitless, boundless and unimaginable love.'"

Again, this is not what Gene said - what he said was, ""When I ordain deacons, I tell them that I expect them to get into some Gospel trouble. If they're not in trouble, I wonder if it is the Gospel that they are preaching." This misrepresentation of his remarks perpetuates the incorrect information floating around. I can only assume at this point that those in the AAC don't have any interest at all in knowing the facts; it seems that all that is important to them is what THEY think, and facts be damned...

A Response to the Reformed Pastor

As I wrote yesterday, I had been very charged up by a post on the site The Reformed Pastor discussing Bishop Robinson's appearance at Foundry United Methodist Church. Initially, I felt that I would stay out of the debate and talk about it just on my blog; however, in rethinking the situation, how fair or honest am I being about my own views on this situation if I'm not willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue when given the opportunity? Every debate has two sides, and both should be represented.

So today, I went back to his site and took advantage of the opportunity he gives to his readers to post comments. I'll be curious moving forward to see if there is any response or continuation of what I think could - in any circumstance - be a constructive dialogue.

My response:

"One of the great things about our country is the ability to engage in civil debate, and I appreciate having the opportunity to read your views here. However, I (and I should point out that I am a cradle Episcopalian) was in attendance at Foundry UMC when Bishop Robinson spoke, and I am curious as to whether you listened to his sermon in its entirety (which is available on the church's website). I have concerns that much of the anger and pain that people feel about his consecration as a bishop is perpetuated by offering only selected excerpts of sermons, talks, etc.; in reading this post, it appears you relied on a single source - Jeff Walton's piece - and excerpted selectively from that.

"Second, I must take issue with your understanding of the situation in the ECUSA where 'congregations, priests and members are fleeing in droves.' Of the 7,100 individual parishes in the ECUSA, 83 have left - that's 1.1 percent.

"In the comment above, Undergroundpewster refers to feeling that Bishop Robinson has discovered truth and is operating under self-delusion. I would contend that it is not delusion or the discovery of truth, but an understanding of the Bible as he has arrived at it. One of the marvelous things about any Christian denomination is that, for millennia, Christians have engaged in deep study of the Bible and n the area of scriptural interpretation. Just as you and I may disagree over whether the Bible is literally the word of God or rather man's understanding of God's word, our understanding of the Bible and the meaning that we get may also differ. I'm confident that Undergroundpewster would be offended if someone felt that his understanding of the Bible was wrong and called him deluded. No matter our differences of opinion, any debate - in the realm of theology or anywhere else - should always be tempered with respect. My wife and I have differences of opinion from time to time on church issues, but we view each other's opinions - and always those of others - with respect.

"Finally, with regard to your last paragraph, a listening of the complete sermon would clarify the use of Acts 3. I agree completely that God healed the man through Peter and John, but it was not God that allowed the newly-healed man into the Temple - it was that he finally met the rules of man that finally allowed him into the Temple. It was not just healing, however, but a new view of this person by the Temple officials - just as the view of the ECUSA towards ALL of our brothers and sisters has changed and they are being welcomed.

"The sign which hangs outside of each Episcopal parish reads, "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" - there are no asterisks, no conditions, and no requirements. I believe that we are living into that promise through the inclusion of everyone in the various aspects of life in the church.

"Again, thanks for providing a place for this debate."

Attacks on Gene Robinson Are Off the Mark

At some point during the past few days, I heard someone make the comment that unlike 40 years ago, when we had just three main television networks which each tried to provide a balanced presentation of the daily news, we now have a wide variety of networks that take a much more partisan approach in the presentation of the news. Viewers can now turn to Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any of a number of other channels which present the news in a way they feel most closely reflects their personal political beliefs.

I'm no longer surprised at the political approach these networks take in doing their jobs - but what I do find disappointing even now is that this style of reporting, both broadcast and internet-based, extends to the coverage of major events in the area of religion. Not only can this coverage also be very slanted to one side of the political spectrum or the other, it is often incomplete, lacking the complete details for readers to make up their own minds, or taking things out of context to achieve the desired effect. Consider how Noah and the flood would be reported today - a story with which nearly everyone is familiar: Noah is told to build an ark, take his entire family and two of every living thing inside, and ride out the 40 days of rain that killed every living thing on earth. In today's news, you would find the headlines for this story in completely new versions: "Noah and family flee flood, ignore cries of neighbors", or "Noah lacks focus on environment, fails to stop melting of ice caps and global flooding", or even "Animal cruelty - Noah locks animals in overcrowded ark; poor living conditions mark 40-day journey".

I suppose this has all come to mind over the past four days as I've read some of the media reports and blog posts based on Gene Robinson's visit to Foundry United Methodist Church on July 18 (see blog post of that same day). To a large extent, much of what I've seen to this point has taken incomplete quotes or material from his sermon and question-and-answer session out of context - obviously in a blatant attempt to curry favor with one demographic of reader or another. Some of the pieces have been composed based on other stories with no research, perpetuating the bias from one post or article to another.

The one that really triggered my negative response was a post by David Fischler on the blog of The Reformed Pastor with the headline "Robinson Tells Methodists: 'Follow Me!'" The opening line reads, "Not content with having brought his own denomination to the brink of schism and collapse, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson toddled into Washington to spread the joy to the United Methodists." The writer then goes on to say that "Robinson and his fellow gay activists have turned the Episcopal Church's canon law into a hunk of Swiss cheese" and have led the church into a position where "congregations, priests and members are fleeing in droves."

By this point, I was already deliberating whether to respond directly on the blog and engage or not - and I was a bit hot under the collar. What folks like Mr. Fischler (or is it Reverend Fischler? His blog purports to present "daily thoughts on Christian faith and life in the world from an Evangelical Presbyterian church planter", and yet I saw very little evidence of faith or even of a Christian mindset in the post) don't take into account is that there were many people in the congregation that Sunday, including me. I heard for myself what Bishop Robinson said and how he responded to the questions posed by the parishioners, and I even downloaded the podcast of the sermon so that I can listen to it whenever I feel the urge. I have the facts, and the facts are these:

(1) Never once did he tell the congregation to "Follow me!"; he commented on his understanding of the situation and period of discernment in which Foundry currently finds itself, and stated his hope that they approach their decision prayerfully.

(2) The phrase "brink of schism" has been applied so many times to the Episcopal Church in the last 40 years that it is becoming tiring; does anyone recall the changes to the Book of Common Prayer in 1982, or the Philadelphia 11, or the ordination of women, or the consecration of Barbara Harris? Every time, there was talk of schism - and yet we're still here. Additionally, Bishop Robinson cannot be blamed for anything - he was elected overwhelmingly on the second ballot of his diocese, and his election was consented to by majorities of the House of Deputies and House of Bishops at the 2003 General Convention; if you're going to accurately point the finger of blame, shouldn't you be pointing it at a majority of the Episcopal Church?

(3) Fleeing in droves? Out of 2.8 million members and 7,100 parishes throughout the United States, a total of 83 parishes - that's about 1.1 percent, Mr. Fischler - have left. 1.1 percent. Doesn't a "drove" constitue a higher percentage than that?

I cannot help if the folks over at The Reformed Pastor have taken the time to listen to the sermon or do any independent reading, rather than continuing to spout the same tired lines of fear and hatred that we've been hearing for the last seven years. Based on what I've seen, I think the answer is no - and I certainly didn't see much of the Christian attitude that I've come to know from people over the years anywhere in his post.

I don't begrudge Mr. Fischler the opportunity to say whatever he wants - that's the great joy of having a blog; I enjoy it because it allows me to talk about what I would like and hopefully engage some dialogue. However, I would hope that he - and all media, for that matter - would at least try to be accurate and original in what they say.

Most importantly, shouldn't Christians of all denominations be focused on the larger picture of our world today, rather than on an election of a bishop - most obviously one that the Diocese of New Hampshire wanted - seven years ago? Aren't there more pressing problems in the world? On this note, I would end with the words of the Bishop himself in this regard:

"...the thing that concerns me, from those who want to leave this church in America, or leave it worldwide, is that they're saying that this one thing that divides us is more important than all the other things that hold us together. This one thing. It's more important than the creeds that we've held up for, what, 1,700 or 1,800 years; it is more important than our baptismal covenant; it's more important than the doctrine of the Trinity - the list goes on forever, of the things that hold us together. And these people are saying this one thing trumps all of that. And I just don't believe that for a minute."

Neither do I, Bishop. Neither do I.

Dancing in the Temple: A Morning with Gene Robinson

Over the years, I've listened to numerous sermons by and interviews with Bishop Gene Robinson and have read much of his book, In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God. Since his election and consecration as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in New Hampshire in 2003, many millions of people here in this country and around the world have come to know this man as a friend, a faithful servant, and a Spirit-filled priest - something which his friends in New Hampshire have known for quite some time.

Today, I was privileged to experience that faith and friendship first-hand when I attended two services at Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington. The Bishop had been invited to participate in the church's Summer in the City - Outstanding Preacher Series after the church's senior minister, Dean Snyder, had heard him preach as part of the 2009 Lenten series at a church in Memphis. (As Snyder noted, his response after hearing Bishop Robinson's sermon was, "Oh, my Lord! An Episcopalian who can preach a sermon!" - a line that got a tremendous laugh at both services.)

Both services - which were geared for very different interests, the first a more praise-and-worship style for the younger crowd and children, and the second more traditional - were very crowded. More importantly, I was so overjoyed to see a tremendous amount of diversity in the congregation; young, old, families, singles, black, white, gay, straight - perhaps the most comprehensive cross-section of the community I've ever seen in any Sunday service. The music ranged from the spiritual "Plenty Good Room" to an arrangment of a piece by Gustav Holst, and performances by the nine-person Jubilate choir, the 21-person chancel choir, the pianist/organist, and a guest flutist. All in all, something to appeal to everyone.

The Bishop's sermon was based on the two readings he had selected for today: Acts 3:1-10, which tells of the healing of the lame man at the Temple by Peter and John; and Luke 4:16-30, which tells of the first time Jesus spoke at the synagogue in Nazareth and was both admired for his ability to preach and reviled because he pointed out that Elijah and Elisha were sent by God not to the Jews, but to Zarephath in Sidon and Namaan the Syrian. He told all of us that the passage from Acts should be the one that speaks to everyone in the LGBT community - just as the lame man was prohibited from entering the Temple because of his infirmity, the LGBT community knows what is like to be barred at the door and prohibited from entering the sanctuary. And just as the man was healed by Peter and John and allowed at that point to walk into the Temple ("dancing in the temple"), those who have been discriminated against by many in today's world have also heard the call of God and now know what it means to celebrate in the center of the church.

As he said, the church is in chaos right now - which is to be expected when there is any sort of change, particularly in the area of the acceptance of the LGBT community over the past 20 years (and after millenia of the status quo). When a child goes to his or her parent to come out, there is a bit of chaos as the parents take it in and determine how to react; Robinson used this as a lead-in to his own situation, which he described as going to his father - the Archbishop of Canterbury - and saying, "Dad, I'm gay." Just as in the family, there is similar chaos as the church determines how to respond (although he feels that it is by and large over, and that we'll gradually see that we're moving on).

The Bishop also talked about the disparity between those who preach fear - the televangelists who use words like "abomination" and "Satan" to describe the LGBT community and are rewarded with increasing contributions - and others "who preach the limitless love of God and get into trouble". He said, "When I ordain deacons, I tell them that I expect them to get into some Gospel trouble. If they're not in trouble, I wonder if it is the Gospel that they are preaching." Later in the sermon, the Bishop said, "At the end of the day, we need to decide if we're going to be admirers of Jesus - or disciples. And Jesus doesn't need more admirers."

The question-and-answer session held after the second service was also very good, and the Bishop was very honest and straightforward in his answers (although as he pointed out, "Now you can see why I can't necessarily talk about this in the pulpit."). It is worth noting at this point that the clergy and congregation at Foundry have been in deep discussion throughout the summer over how they react to Washington's decision to allow same-sex marriage; Reverend Snyder said that the rules of the Methodist Church prohibiting the blessing of same-sex rites on church property or by Methodist clergy are in direct conflict with the constitution of the Methodist Church, which call for service to all regardless of race, status, background, or financial position. Snyder said that he finds himself in a position of being unable in good conscience to continue abiding by the rules of the Methodist Church, and that while the congregation as a whole must vote to determine how they will respond they should do so without worrying about getting him into trouble ("Whether or not I get into trouble is between me and Jesus."). Snyder went on to say that it may come to a point where he must continue his ministry outside of Foundry if he is to continue honoring his conscience.

Because of this, many of the questions directed at the Bishop concerned how the church should respond if they are punished for going against the Methodist rules, whether there are similar circumstances with any congregation in the Episcopal Church, and why the Washington-area clergy - indeed, churches around the country - are the ones speaking most loudly against the LGBT community. The Bishop, response to the variuos questions he received, responded in part: (1) if Foundry is precluded from a relationship with the Methodist Church because of the vote of the congregation, and if Snyder is stripped of his certification/pastoral license, they should continue paying their dues, continuing participating in the life of the national church, and continue speaking up - because of their importance nationally, they should serve as a beacon and speak up; ultimately, another voice at another church will speak up, and it will continue to the point where "the trickle will become a waterfall"; (2) as he looks at those who are critical of those of the LGBT community and who insist on taking an "us versus them" approach, the Bishop wonders, "Is there not as much diversity in the straight community as there is elsewhere? I think people focus on homosexuality so they don't have to focus on themselves."; (3) "Death is not the worst thing; not living your life is the worst thing."; and (4) in dealing with Peter Akinola and the other African bishops who feel that the Bishop's consecration allowed Satan to enter the church, he said, "My job is to love them; how I am treated in return is not important."

At some point during the day, Robinson mentioned some of the controversy going on at the time of his election, and how there was an investigation of false charges that put off the final vote. While these charges were being examined, and he and his family were sequestered, a friend gave him a small piece of calligraphy which read, "Sometimes, God calms the storm - and sometimes, God allows the storm to rage and calms the child." Gene Robinson's visit today was to me an example of God calming "we children" by allowing us to witness the life and example of another of his children. I don't think anyone in that room would argue that we were the recipients of a tremendous gift indeed.

A Few Thoughts on This Inauguration Day

Eight years ago today, and again four years ago today, I was one of the tens of thousands who ventured onto the grounds of the United States Capitol (with prized tickets in hand) to witness history as President Bush took the oath of office. Both were extremely exciting events and it was an honor for me and A. (she attended the 2001 inaugural with me) to be able to witness the ceremony and the continuation of a tradition that started with George Washington in 1789.

Today, the tradition will be continued as Barack Obama takes the oath of office and begins his four-year term as president. This time, I won't be out on the Capitol grounds or on the National Mall -- not because I don't think this is historic, but because it's a lot more difficult contending with two million people than it is with just 300,000. No, this year we'll be watching from our comfortable and heated den as power is transferred peacefully from one administration to another. Having been there, though, I get some sense of the excitement the men, women and children who have been crowded into Washington since before dawn are feeling to be a part of a historic event.

But there's a lot more to the excitement to which I will never fully be able to relate. Obama's inaugural marks more for so many people than just a simple handover of power; it marks a massive racial and generational step forward that even forty years ago was almost unthinkable. I don't think that anyone present for Dr. King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 could in their wildest dreams imagine that a young African-American -- not much older than Dr. King was on that August day -- would return to the steps of that memorial just 46 years later to give a speech, not as a minister or politician but as the president-elect of the United States. Even one of my heroes, John Lewis, one of the icons of the Civil Rights movement, still seems stunned by how far this country has come, and how quickly it has done it. (One of the best Capitol Hill newspapers, Politico, ran a great story about Lewis in today's edition: "A 'Down Payment' on the Dream.")

The generational change is more apparent to me. In fact, I've seen this change at work for a few years; it was always a sign to me of getting older that, while working in the House of Representatives, I saw more members of Congress and many more staffers who were nearly a decade younger than me. After getting over the shock of recognizing that I was getting older and that politics was getting younger, I also recognized how far we've come since the days of the Sam Rayburns and the Tip O'Neills and the Dwight Eisenhowers, days when you couldn't be taken seriously as a politician or a leader if you didn't have the age and experience to reinforce the perception that you should in fact be in charge. I get a sense of how the young voters of the 1960s felt when John Kennedy was elected, that they were finally being represented by someone who understood them and was one of them (in terms of generation, not money).

I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I took the time to look at him and his candidacy. The photo above, which regular readers of this blog will recognize, was taken at a rally I attended at American University in January of last year (the day he was endorsed by Ted Kennedy). On that day, when nearly 30,000 people crowded into back-to-back events at that college, I got a glimpse of the excitement that Obama was generating -- not just among black Americans, young Americans, or Democrats, but across all racial, political and generational lines.

Today, I have moved beyond watching Obama as a Republican or as an opponent; today, I will be watching as an American hopeful that things will be better for his daughters in the future. I will be watching on television with my daughters as they experience for the first time the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another. I will try and answer the questions that I know my oldest will inevitably ask about the day. And I will watch the faces of the men and women, young and old, black and white, who have traveled from near and far, from the United States and from overseas, as they celebrate the change in their lives and in the life of the country.

The election is over, and it is time to once again try and come together. I have friends and acquaintances who want Obama to fail -- little recognizing that if he fails, the country fails. There will be time enough to try and seat a new president in four years; until then, I think we should keep in mind the words of Bishop Gene Robinson from the invocation he delivered at the Lincoln Memorial just a few days ago:

... God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

The Falls Church (Episcopal) -- Alive and Well

Several years ago, when A. and I had first moved back to Northern Virginia from Alabama, we went through a pretty intense process of trying to identify the Episcopal Church that we wanted to make our home. One of those that we visited was The Falls Church, a suburban Washington parish located in the city of the same name. While we enjoyed our visit, a combination of a small Sunday congregation (typical for Episcopal churches headed into the summer months), a guest minister (preventing us from getting a feel for the full-time clergy), and a lack of young couples/families (at least on that particular Sunday) led us to continue searching -- and after visiting other area churches we selected Christ Church in Alexandria.

As you're probably well aware from the news, The Falls Church was one of the earliest congregations in the Diocese of Virginia to vote to abandon the diocese as a result of the election of Gene Robinson in New Hampshire (in fact, 90 percent of the nearly 1,350 eligible voting members of the congregation voted to leave) and align itself with one of the Anglican dioceses in Africa. The minority portion of the congregation was forced to leave the property (the subject of an ongoing lawsuit that is still in the early stages of being resolved), but they were not without a home for long. A large Presbyterian church in Falls Church invited them to use space in the parish house for Sunday services, nursery, and classes for the kids; adult education forums and other activities are hosted in different homes of members of the congregation, which I think is a wonderful way to hold these activities.

For the past two weeks, members of the clery at Christ Church have been filling in while the priest-in-charge at The Falls Church - Episcopal (as it is now known) has been recovering from back surgery, and my family and I have been acting as unofficial missionaries from our church to support our priests and the small but very much alive congregation. I'm sure part of it comes as a result from my recent reading of Sundays in America, but I have noticed I've become very aware of the way parishioners in various places welcome visitors -- and I have to say that my family has been warmly received by TFCE.

Our large parish home encourages folks to wear nametags each Sunday so that people can greet each other by name, but it seems to meet with mixed results; I have to admit that I rarely if ever do it. The past two weeks, however, I have enthusiastically put on a tag as I've walked through the door and have been greeted by numerous folks before even getting completely into the room. We were welcomed as if they hadn't seen us in one week, not as complete strangers; one gentleman even recognized me this morning and gave me a hearty "It's great to see you again!" The congregation each week has only numbered about 40, but they're lively, engaged, and genuinely enjoying the time together and the time to worship.

The focus on fellowship is there; the focus on worship is there; the focus on education is there. Above all, the congregation possesses and incredible optimism about the future and warmth about the present. I think they have a bright future ahead of them, and depending on the outcome of the lawsuits regarding ownership of the church property tremendous potential for growth and an increased impact in the community.

They've certainly made an impact on us...
-------------------------
As an aside, I wanted to quickly mention a project underway at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Chatham, NJ. Gene Robinson, despite being un-invited to attend the upcoming Lambeth Conference, will nonetheless be in England to meet with anyone willing to sit and engage him in conversation. However, because of the ongoing threats against his life, this will be a dangerous time for him.

Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton, rector of St. Paul's, has established a fund to help defray the costs of security for Gene during his trip. To date, the "Christmas in July" fund has raised around $3,000, and there's still time to contribute. Rev. Kaeton's blog, "Telling Secrets," includes a link to a Paypal account where contributions can be made. Aside from that, her blog is definitely worth the visit in its own right -- fascinating content.

Lambeth Conference is Just Around the Corner

The once-a-decade gathering of nearly 800 bishops of the Anglican Communion, the Lambeth Conference, is only about eight weeks away, and I've been thinking for many days now about how the global Anglican family will look at the end of the 14-day event. The picture I've chosen to include with today's post, a photo of several of the bishops in attendance at the 1998 conference, displays a great deal of warmth and good humor that I feel is going to be missing this year.

The biggest cause for concern for many, as I've touched on in a few posts over the past few years, is the 2003 election of Gene Robinson as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire (an election I supported of a priest that I support). Before that had even completely sunk in on folks, the Episcopal Church elected Katharine Jefferts Schori as the first female presiding bishop (another election and another priest I support). I've been very proud of the church for some of the actions it has taken in recent years, and in the process have discovered that have a much more moderate-to-liberal view of events in the ECUSA than I had ever realized -- something that I think would have shocked my late friend Sheldon Vanauaken, who once told me in a letter that had Jack Spong (another bishop who has opened my eyes to a lot in the church) been Catholic, he would have excommunicated. No telling what he would think of my opinion on recent events!

In looking at the official website for the Lambeth Conference, I was immediately struck by the opening paragraph on the main page: "The Lambeth Conference is one of the global Anglican Communion's Instruments of Communion. It takes place every ten years at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is the one occasion when all bishops can meet for worship, study and conversation. Archbishops, diocesan, assistant and suffragan bishops are invited." The implication here is that the Archbishop invites ALL bishops to attend every ten years for a variety of educational and spiritual events -- and yet this year, he has opted to dis-invite Gene because of the ongoing controversy resulting from his election. What he didn't do, however, is dis-invite anyone else involved in the dispute -- such as Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the diocese that many of the breakaway parishes here in the U.S. have joined -- and will stand by and watch instead as Akinola and a group of other bishops stage a boycott of the conference.

So let's recap: Rowan Williams would rather keep one duly elected member of the House of Bishops away from a conference that by all rights associated with his position he should be able to attend, so that he can avoid a larger protest by a group of fringe bishops who are going to be boycotting Lambeth whether Gene is there or not.

And the logic in this would be where?

As I've heard Desmond Tutu say many times (and I've paraphrased here), it's astounding that the church has so completely lost sight of its mission in the world and is more concerned about who is living with who rather than who is feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, and loving those who feel unloved and neglected. And in addition to all of this, what really pains me is the fact that I can no longer drive by some of the grand old parishes here in Northern Virginia and see what I used to see -- old, historic roots of the churh in this country; instead, I look at places like the Falls Church and only see a brick building that, instead of a church, is now merely an object in a court battle, and what was once a home to a great congregation that has now been torn apart at the seams.

In the all the reading I've done over the past several years as things within the Anglican Communion have gotten rockier, it seems that I've found that people are letting the media drive the story and overplay that we are all losing sight of the big goal of trying to keep the communion together. No, I'm not saying that folks are avoiding the issue; I know there are countless people who pray daily that a resolution can be found so that the church can be held together, or short of that at least be healed. Court battles, amicus briefs, and the "join this diocese -- our bishop isn't an abomination" statements are everywhere, and all I seem to see Rowan doing is trying to keep the extreme ends of the argument happy (or is the correct word pacified?) without paying much attention at all to what the middle wants: peace and unity.

Peace and unity -- two words that I fear won't be the end result of this conference. Gene will still be in England, preaching and lecturing in whatever churches welcome him; Spong and Tutu will be at Lambeth, fighting the good fight and working with their brother and sister bishops to keep the communion together.

And in the meantime, I'll continue driving by a church building that should be a welcoming sight, but right now comes more and more to represent intolerance, fear, and a judgemental attitude towards a group -- a bishop -- that they refuse to accept. I suppose the next step will be removing the sign that says "The Episcopal Church welcomes you;" for many, "This Episcopal Church may welcome some of you" is much more accurate.

Lambeth may end with a photograph of smiling bishops -- but will God be smiling?

The Episcopal Church - A Historic Time

Once again, the Episcopal church is breaking new ground, this time with the election of the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of Nevada, as its 26th presiding bishop. It's remarkable how far the role of women in the church has progressed in the past three decades; Jack Spong did a fine job in his autobiography of outlining the process through several general conventions of finally permitting women to seek positions in the ordained priesthood. Then -- as now -- there are many individuals who think that women shouldn't be allowed to don clerical attire and preach from the pulpit, let alone be the highest official of the denomination in the United States.

I know the months ahead will be difficult as those groups who were having a difficult time coming to terms with either the confirmation of Gene Robinson's bishopric in New Hampshire or the increasing role of women in the church grapple with this latest event. Already, within minutes of the announcement of Bishop Schori's election, several diocesan representatives labeled her choice a grave mistake and one that will further damage the church internally and in its relationship with the mother church in England.

The difficult decisions aren't over just yet, and more will be made during the final days of General Convention that will also have a tremendous impact on the future of the church. The one I am watching most closely is the resolution introduced (and being strongly supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury) which, if passed, would require the church to formally issue a statement of regret over their actions of three years ago. In my mind, we have done nothing to regret -- and a move to disavow decisions already made would take the church back further than just the 2003 General Convention.

But with Bishop Schori, I am particularly excited about what her election means for my daughter's life in the church in the years ahead. More and more during the course of my life, I have watched as women have taken more important leadership roles in the life of individual parishes, dioceses, and the national church. I never want my little one to grow up thinking that she can't do anything simply because of her sex, and I know my wife and I will make sure she knows all about the women who have succeeded in business, industry, politics, education, and any number of other areas.

More important than any of those areas, however, she will know that she has a place where she can do whatever she wants in the church: member of the vestry, committee chairperson, convention delegate, deacon, priest, bishop -- and yes, even the presiding bishop.

Episcopal General Convention - Some Challenges

The triennial convention of the Episcopal Church is underway, and once again the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire -- something that happened several years ago -- is still very much at the forefront of the debate.

Larry King is even at this moment devoting an entire broadcast to the debate between hardline traditionalists from the Catholic, Baptist, and Episcopal churches and those who are being placed in the spotlight because of their sexual identities. It's the sort of debate I would expect, although I have to say it is the first time I've heard Bishop Robinson speak, and I am very impressed with the grace he is displaying under all of this pressure. In fact, his answer to King's question about whether Jesus would accept him today was tremendous; he reminded viewers that Jesus spent his entire ministry spending time with those who had been marginalized and pushed to the fringes of society, and in violating ancient Jewish law so often that it brought him into conflict with the authorities and put him in an extremely dangerous position.

One thing I'm intrigued by was Andrew Sullivan (columnist for Time magazine) pointing out to Father Michael Manning that, if you adhere strictly to Old Testament law, then he should -- by virtue of being a homosexual -- be put to death. Father Manning's response was that the death of Jesus atoned for all sins, but he didn't address Sullivan's comment. It also seemed that, in the way he couched his answer -- and I wish I had written it down -- he seemed to wave off the importance of the Old Testament. By doing this, isn't he somehow discounting the importance of our Jewish heritage? I agree that the life and death of Jesus is important to Christians because it is viewed -- the resurrection, particularly -- as the moment where sin and death were conquered. Shouldn't we remember our Jewish heritage before making comments that cast aside the law and the prophets?

And I would hardly think that -- as one of the other guests attested -- 35,000 people each year are saying "no" to Gene Robinson and "no" to the episcopacy of Frank Griswold. How can it be a condemnation of the presiding bishop when Robinson's election as bishop in New Hampshire was done by a sizeable majority in the House of Bishops?

My mother told me a story recently about a couple at the church where she works who said that they were leaving the Episcopal Church because of Robinson's election. However, the very next Sunday, there they were, back in their pew. A lady sitting near them leaned over and asked quite simply, "So, has anything changed here? Is anything different here because of Gene Robinson?"

I think that's a powerful statement, and one that many people should take to heart. Shouldn't we as Episcopalians be concerned first with our relationship with God and Jesus, second with our relationship with our families, and third with the health of our home parish? Shouldn't we worry about about our own household before we worry about someone else's household?

My wife and I have had a big difference of opinion on the Robinson ordination, and she has fallen on the side of the opponents. We haven't had a very deep discussion on it to this point, and the silence between us seems in my mind just an agreement to disagree on the issue. However, in our adult class this past Sunday, one of our fellow parishioners, Dr. Bob McCann, discussed the background and motivation for writing his new book, Justice for Gays and Lesbians. There is so much more to Gene Robinson's background that people either don't know or haven't discussed, and it's one of the reasons I look forward to reading this book.

As Jack Spong has said so often, and as Gene Robinson just concluded, "There is a sign hanging outside of the Episcopal Church that says, 'The Episcopal Church welcomes you.' It doesn't say, 'The Episcopal Church welcomes some of you, or welcomes you if.....'"

I am proud to be an Episcopalian, and I am proud of what my church has done over the years. My wish at this point is that we don't reverse course; I fear that doing so will alienate far more people than it will to keep a minority happy.

Jack Spong at the National Cathedral

As many opportunities as there are in the D.C. area for great lectures, concerts, and other cultural events, it's not too often that I'm able to get out and enjoy any of them. However, I was able to go out last week and attend a lecture given by the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Newark (NJ), which was hosted by the Cathedral College of Washington National Cathedral. He's definitely been a controversial figure, and I really wanted to take the chance to hear what he had to say. I didn't have any opinions already formed before I went, since I've read little of what Jack has written and only knew him from what my parents told me about him from his time as rector of St. John's in Lynchburg (VA).

There was a fairly sizeable crowd in attendance, and I was curious from the outset to see how folks would react to what he had to say. I sat next to a young, second-year seminarian from Virginia Theological Seminary with whom I had a very pleasant chat. While we agreed on much -- the importance of outreach in the life of Episcopal congregations being the largest topic of discussion -- I could tell that we had a difference of opinion regarding the recent ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. In fact, Jack's position on the ordination of gay and lesbian priests over the years has been the source of a great deal of controversy. I was pretty sure that some folks in the audience might seize on that when it came time for questions and answers at the end of the lecture.

I was amazed by Jack's lecture, the topic of which was billed as "The Promise of Jesus: Abundant Life for All." He had said that he was going to take examples from three of his books, but in fact he focused a lot on his life and on those points where he wondered whether the church was headed down the right path (points that he referred to as pebbles in his shoe). He definitely made some powerful points -- talking about how he was raised in a time and in a place where people were anti-Semitic, anti-women, homophobic, and racist. The "pebbles" to which he referred were points where he began to confront each of these -- both through incidents in his own life as well as in the life of the national Episcopal church.

I do have to agree, after having listened to him, that undoubtedly many of the folks who have criticized him over the years have never taken the time to read what he has written or listened to what he has to say. I've been prompted to buy several of his books (aside from the ones I already owned and which were sadly gathering dust on my shelves) and intend to read more fully his opinions on a variety of topics that I know are impacting the church. I may even decide to chat more about some of that in future posts. But there was one really powerful statement that I took away from all of this: "If truth can destroy faith, you never had any to begin with."