Help Create our Petition to Launch Later This Week

[Jamie McDaniel]

Today, the New York Times printed an article titled Gay and Dissident Bishops Excluded From '08 Meeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/us/23anglican.html?ex=1180584000&en=1166322a6800b567&ei=5070&emc=eta1).

The archbishop of Canterbury sent out more than 800 invitations yesterday to a once-a-decade global gathering of Anglican bishops. But he did not invite the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire and the bishop in Virginia who heads a conservative cluster of disaffected American churches affiliated with the archbishop of Nigeria.

Soulforce is working on a petition with regards to this news. The staff has some general ideas, but it was suggested that we use another valuable resource -- our members -- in the brainstorming and creation of this petition. I said the forums would be ideal for that.

Here is what is needed:


Two to three paragraphs effectively describing the situation. It needs to be understandable by both Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians and contain a call to action (signing the petition).

The actual petition text.

The follow-through plan. What will Soulforce do with the petition signatures?


Example to get the ball rolling:

I __________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude both the oppressed and the oppressor from important and historic church gatherings. I call upon the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to do the right thing and invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the 2008 meeting in London.

This thread is for submitting and developing ideas for this upcoming petition.

[Dash]

After reading the article in The New York Times, I have that all-too-familiar feeling of having the wind kicked out of me. The Archbishop wants the global conference to be a time of prayer and reflection rather than making policy, but what a blow to every gay and lesbian Anglican! In one cruel stroke we are cut out from representation--even in the communion's prayer and reflection.

If the Archbishop will not reflect together with gay people on the faith they share with him, what hope is there of reaching any positive resolution? If he will not see us, how will he ever understand our heart and our humanity? If the Archbishop will not gather to pray with gay people, what hope do we have of finding welcome in that Church?

We have already met with Anglicans and given them our love, our talents, and our treasure. We are their organists, their singers, their readers, their faithful parishioners, and yes their rectors and their Bishops. We serve alongside everyone else, and in doing so we are doubly faithful; for knowing we are only half welcome, still we return. We kneel at the same altar, speak the same creed, make the same confession, pray to the same Father, and partake of the same bread and wine.

And now Canterbury would not have us join them?

[antonyh]

I added Dash's words to Jamie's words because I think they are powerful and heartfelt. I feel that Dash's words reflect the spiritual violence of this action by the Archbishop:

"I __________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude both the oppressed and the oppressor from important and historic church gatherings--especially meetings of prayer and reflection.

If the Archbishop will not reflect together with gay people on the faith they share with him, what hope is there of reaching any positive resolution? If he will not see us, how will he ever understand our heart and our humanity? If the Archbishop will not gather to pray with gay people, what hope do we have of finding welcome in that Church?

We have already met with Anglicans and given them our love, our talents, and our treasure. We are their organists, their singers, their readers, their faithful parishioners, and yes their rectors and their Bishops. We serve alongside everyone else, and in doing so we are doubly faithful; for knowing we are only half welcome, still we return. We kneel at the same altar, speak the same creed, make the same confession, pray to the same Father, and partake of the same bread and wine.

I call upon the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to do the right thing and invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the 2008 meeting in London."

[keltic63]

I added Dash's words to Jamie's words because I think they are powerful and heartfelt. I feel that Dash's words reflect the spiritual violence of this action by the Archbishop:

"I __________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude both the oppressed and the oppressor from important and historic church gatherings--especially meetings of prayer and reflection.

If the Archbishop will not reflect together with gay people on the faith they share with him, what hope is there of reaching any positive resolution? If he will not see us, how will he ever understand our heart and our humanity? If the Archbishop will not gather to pray with gay people, what hope do we have of finding welcome in that Church?

We have already met with Anglicans and given them our love, our talents, and our treasure. We are their organists, their singers, their readers, their faithful parishioners, and yes their rectors and their Bishops. We serve alongside everyone else, and in doing so we are doubly faithful; for knowing we are only half welcome, still we return. We kneel at the same altar, speak the same creed, make the same confession, pray to the same Father, and partake of the same bread and wine.

I call upon the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to do the right thing and invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the 2008 meeting in London."

that's good stuff, antony

[dsdrane]

We, who are many, are one body, because we all share one bread, one cup.

Either this means something...or it doesn't.

[dsdrane]

Integrity, as many of you know, is the GLBT group within the Episcopal Church. The following link will take you to their official blog Walking With Integrity, where you can read the orgnaization's reaction to this and other issues facing the church:

http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/

[Dash]

Bishop of California Stands in Solidarity With Snubbed Gay Bishop, Prepares to Welcome Nigerian Gay Rights Activist (http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_57670.shtml)

"Following the announcement that openly gay bishop Gene Robinson would not be invited to attend an important conference of Anglican bishops next year, the Episcopal bishop of California, Marc Andrus, has declared his support for Bishop Robinson."

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I noticed in the article just posted by Dash that Archbishop Williams is planning on coming to the U.S. in September in New Orleans.

An opportunity for a Soulforce action?

Seems to me that the right thing for U.S. Bishops to do is to refuse to attend as long as any of them is denied admittance.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I don't think it's quite right to say that both oppressed and oppressor are being disinvited from the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria will be at Lambeth and he is the leading voice of anti-LGBT oppression in the Anglican Communion.

Bishop Minns' status as an Anglican Bishop is legally questionable, it seems, because he's leading a schism against the U.S. Episcopal Church. I don't think it is fair to compare Bishop Robinson with Bishop Minns. Robinson has a more legitimate claim to be a Lambeth.

Steven Webster

[suzer1013]

Robinson has not been issued an "official" invitation, but I understand that Williams may invite him as a "special guest", who could still come and participate, but not on an official level.

The whole mess is just stupid. Everyone should be invited -- Robinson and Minns as well -- and let the individual bishops accept or decline. Williams is scared some bishops may not come if Robinson is invited, I guess. Well, too bad for them. If we can't all gather around the communion table as Anglicans, then perhaps those who can't come to the table should swim the Tiber and become Roman Catholic. Their theological stance aligns more closely with the RCC anyway.

I think any statement by Soulforce should be clear that both Robinson and Minns (as much as I disagree with Minns' actions) should be invited.

Susan

[dsdrane]

If we can't all gather around the communion table as Anglicans, then perhaps those who can't come to the table should swim the Tiber and become Roman Catholic. Their theological stance aligns more closely with the RCC anyway.

:eek: But you get hepatitis if you swim in the Tiber!!

;)


I think any statement by Soulforce should be clear that both Robinson and Minns (as much as I disagree with Minns' actions) should be invited.

Susan

I think I understand what you're saying here, Susan, and I respect where I think you're coming from; however, I cannot agree with you. Minns and Robinson are not even apples and oranges; they're more apples and, you know, things that are not even fruit...maybe not even a foodstuff. :rolleyes: As Steven pointed out above, Robinson is a duly-elected and, I might add, fully-recognized by the ABC, Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Minns' position is the result of Akinola's confrontational interloping in direct violation of the ABC's call against such action, as well as church tradition.

This is not a petty point. Until this potential schism thing is fully hashed out, Minn's position is tenable at best. In all fairness, to my mind, Robinson should be invited without qualification and Minns as a guest.

-d.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I don't think it's quite right to say that both oppressed and oppressor are being disinvited from the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria will be at Lambeth and he is the leading voice of anti-LGBT oppression in the Anglican Communion.

Bishop Minns' status as an Anglican Bishop is legally questionable, it seems, because he's leading a schism against the U.S. Episcopal Church. I don't think it is fair to compare Bishop Robinson with Bishop Minns. Robinson has a more legitimate claim to be a Lambeth.

As Steven pointed out above, Robinson is a duly-elected and, I might add, fully-recognized by the ABC, Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Minns' position is the result of Akinola's confrontational interloping in direct violation of the ABC's call against such action, as well as church tradition.

This is not a petty point. Until this potential schism thing is fully hashed out, Minn's position is tenable at best. In all fairness, to my mind, Robinson should be invited without qualification and Minns as a guest.

These are very good points. Is there a suggestion for tweaking or changing the petition text here? As it turns out, Soulforce needed to respond quicker than this thread developed. The press release about the petition went out already, though we have not yet promoted the petition with an email alert or a link on the homepage. Still, we've already received some signatures and the only way you can change petition text after launch is to notify all signers and have them ok their signature on the revised one.

[suzer1013]

Minns and Robinson are not even apples and oranges; they're more apples and, you know, things that are not even fruit...maybe not even a foodstuff.


I'm actually in agreement on this point. I definitely see the difference between Robinson and Minns and it is comparing apples to oranges. But I think it plays into the schismatics' hands to insist on inviting Robinson (who they won't recognize as a duly elected bishop -- even though he was, we know that), while at the same time accepting that Minns was not invited. Some question Minns' status just as others question Robinson's. Williams could avoid the whole problem by simply inviting everyone, then let the chips fall where they may.

Personally, I liked Mad Priest's suggestion (http://revjph.blogspot.com/2007/05/madpriest-thought-for-day_22.html): Invite every bishop in every religion all over the world, let 'em all come and fight like schoolchildren, while Williams absents himself to go cut his toenails or something or other. :lol:

[suzer1013]

I don't think it's quite right to say that both oppressed and oppressor are being disinvited from the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria will be at Lambeth and he is the leading voice of anti-LGBT oppression in the Anglican Communion.

I have heard that Akinola issued a statement saying that if Minns is not invited, the Nigerian bishops will refuse to attend in protest.

I am not sure Soulforce should have issued a statement so quickly. I don't think the dust has settled enough yet to really ascertain what is going to happen. I understand the need to say something, but it seems people are rushing quickly to take a stand on one side or the other before we really know all the facts.

Oh well.

[suzer1013]

For you musical theatre fans out there, I offer this.

This whole mess over Lambeth invitations and the Anglican schism circus has this song going through my head. (The song is about the civil war, and has been on my mind lately because of Iraq, but also seems appropriate whenever we rush to take sides.) From Shenandoah:


Stand and show your colors
Let's all go to war
The Lord will surely bless us
I've heard it all before

I’ve heard it all a hundred times
I’ve heard it all before
They’ve always got some holy cause
To march you off to war

Tyranny or justice, anarchy or law
We must defend our honor
I’ve heard it all before

I’ve heard it all a hundred times
I’ve heard it all before
They’ve always got a holy cause
That’s worth the dying for

Someone writes a slogan
Raises up a flag
Someone finds an enemy to blame
The trumpet sounds, the call to arms
To leave the cities and the farms
And always, the ending is the same
The same,
The SAME!
The same…

The dream has turned to ashes
The wheat has turned to straw
And someone asks the question
“What was the dying for?”
The living can’t remember
The dead no longer care
But next time it won’t happen
Upon my soul, I swear

I’ve heard it all a hundred times
I’ve heard it all before
Don’t tell me it’s different now!
I’ve heard it all
I’ve heard it all
I've heard it all before


I wonder if, after those who leave the Anglican communion (or are kicked out) do so, we will ask "what was the schism for?" We will stand around and still the poor will be with us, the hungry will not be fed, and the ragged will be unclothed. But, dammit, "we" (on whatever side) will be "right"!!!

[dsdrane]

Are you suggesting that there are no occassions when the situation warrants drawing a line and saying no more...?

The Episcopal Church is not pushing this fight, nor is it seeking to leave the Communion; if it does leave, it will have been pushed out.

At the same time, it is drawing a line. It must.

Exactly what more dust has to settle? This invitation brouhaha was completely to be expected, based on how things have transpired recently.

-d.

[dsdrane]

...and we are right, (dammit).

[suzer1013]

Being the hopeless Libra that I am, I am simply trying to see things from the other side. I am seeking balance. There may be no balance to be found in this situation, but if there is, I don't think it will be found by not inviting all parties to the table.

Susan

[Jamie McDaniel]

I am not sure Soulforce should have issued a statement so quickly. I don't think the dust has settled enough yet to really ascertain what is going to happen. I understand the need to say something, but it seems people are rushing quickly to take a stand on one side or the other before we really know all the facts.

...also seems appropriate whenever we rush to take sides.

Hummm. Does the language of rushing to take sides fit here? And the poem with its imagery of yet another "call to arms," "war," and afterwards wondering "What was the dying for?" That seems very out of place to me.

From time to time we all get weary of the struggle for our equality and long for it to end, but by rejecting violence (of the fist, heart, and tongue) and committing to nonviolence, doesn't that wash away our doubts surrounding conflict that arises over this (and other justice issues for that matter)? Doesn't that provide an assurance that one can stand up, again and again, whenever someone in power tries to make LGBT people less-than?

Gay Christians, actually all LGBT people, celebrated when Robinson was elected bishop in 2003. At last, a gay church leader who could serve openly. We had a real representative, not just someone we knew was "family" but could never speak of it outside of our circles.

With Robinson's election, those who harbored prejudice against gays understood what had just happened and their resistance to equality magnified. They have been using their power and leverage to cause progressive leaders to second guess one of the biggest justice issues of our time.

It is good and right that we stand for Robinson's full participation.

From the poem:

"The dream has turned to ashes"

Yet when you seek justice through nonviolent means, you can proclaim:

"I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream."

[suzer1013]

Hummm. Does the language of rushing to take sides fit here? And the poem with its imagery of yet another "call to arms," "war," and afterwards wondering "What was the dying for?" That seems very out of place to me.

...........

It is good and right that we stand for Robinson's full participation.


I agree, the song is not a perfect fit for this situation. It just started going through my head as I read this stuff and I thought I'd share it for what it's worth. There is a rush to take sides, at least from what I've been reading on the internet. That was the part of the song that popped into my head and that's why I shared it.

I agree completely with Robinson's full participation. I'll say it again -- I agree completely with Robinson's full participation. All I'm saying is, though I believe Minns is wrong in what he's doing, he should be invited, too. He is, in the eyes of many, a bishop of the Nigerian church and should be invited in that capacity.

I get a sense, sometimes, when I post here, that even when I agree with Soulforcers, how can I say it -- I feel just a tiny smidgeon attacked even when I agree!!! Now, maybe that's my own stuff getting in the way, I don't know. But I feel that on the very few times when I question whether something may indeed be the best course of action, what I say isn't heard. And maybe I'm not expressing myself well enough, I don't know.

So, I'm feeling a bit angry and attacked, and I'll take a break from posting today until I cool down a bit.

Susan

[Zerbie]

I get a sense, sometimes, when I post here, that even when I agree with Soulforcers, how can I say it -- I feel just a tiny smidgeon attacked even when I agree!!! Now, maybe that's my own stuff getting in the way, I don't know. But I feel that on the very few times when I question whether something may indeed be the best course of action, what I say isn't heard. And maybe I'm not expressing myself well enough, I don't know.

So, I'm feeling a bit angry and attacked, and I'll take a break from posting today until I cool down a bit.

Susan

I understand. Really I do. I know exactly what you mean, because in similar situations I've felt unheard before also, and even on occasion, totally dismissed. Not sayin' this forum, just organizing in general. It can happen in any well-meaning group, and there's no question all of us here are well-meaning. Our passions are colliding. That's all.

Take a break from the forum and enjoy your day. Then come back, because your insights are deeply appreciated here and we would miss you if you stayed away.

:love:

[Jamie McDaniel]

I'll say it again -- I agree completely with Robinson's full participation.

Oh there wasn't any doubt there, Susan. I came across far too strong if I put you in a position where you felt you had to reaffirm that in the discussion. I'm sorry.

...I thought I'd share it [the song/poem] for what it's worth.

I get a sense, sometimes, when I post here, that even when I agree with Soulforcers, how can I say it -- I feel just a tiny smidgeon attacked even when I agree!!! Now, maybe that's my own stuff getting in the way, I don't know. But I feel that on the very few times when I question whether something may indeed be the best course of action, what I say isn't heard.

Feeling that my post was too long, I edited out the part where I expressed appreciation for the poem when contemplating the war in Iraq, America's foreign policy, and nationalism. Still, I think the imagery it creates is not what I would hope people would think of when it comes to the schism in the Anglican community and their continual confronting of anti-gay prejudice as activists. So I wanted to post my reasoning.

...your insights are deeply appreciated here...

Very true. I can go back and find them. :agree:

[keltic63]

I understand. Really I do. I know exactly what you mean, because in similar situations I've felt unheard before also, and even on occasion, totally dismissed. Not sayin' this forum, just organizing in general. It can happen in any well-meaning group, and there's no question all of us here are well-meaning. Our passions are colliding. That's all.

Take a break from the forum and enjoy your day. Then come back, because your insights are deeply appreciated here and we would miss you if you stayed away.

:love:

Funny how we view our own participation and others' reactions to our posts. I often feel that I've posted something that has been ignored, then a few posts later, someone says essentially the same thing that I did, and everyone congratulates them for their excellent insight. i end up sitting here saying "but I said the same thing just 3 posts ago!!!"

/return to your regular posting

[dsdrane]

Susan, I felt bad just now reading your last post.

I have no desire to attack you whatsoever, and I do believe I'm hearing you as you wish to be heard...I just disagree. Simple as that.

You believe Minns should be there, too, and I do not. That's all.

I can see how your point of view might be the most diplomatic, but I do not believe it is right or just...and, right now, I would prefer right and just over diplomacy.

Don't stay away too long, please.

:cookie:, -d.

[revtj]

Tell them all to go and sell everything they have and give it to the poor. Then invite all the poor to a lavish church conference and keep the bishops out. I got the idea from this friend of mine, Jesus.

[dsdrane]

RevTJ --

I think you know I love you more than my luggage, but...huh?

I know it's tempting to take an elephant gun and BLAST the issue to smithereens; and I know it's fun to wag a puritan-turned-progressive finger at the silly Anglicans (I was raised, in part, Congregationalist, so I know) with the funny hats and clothes; but would it be rude to point out that your Maoist suggestion, however seemingly Christ-esque, solves nothing, smacks of hypocrisy and is, frankly, rude.

Unless, of course, your post was supposed to be read as dada-esque, in which case: Hahahaha...quite right!

:cool:, -d.

[suzer1013]

Thanks, y'all, for having patience with me. I needed to step away for a moment. I've been a bit overly sensitive lately, and sometimes I don't know if it is how I'm interpreting something, or how it's actually being said. :)

Part of the reason I think both Minns and Robinson should be invited is because that way no one can claim to have been excluded. If Robinson is invited, but Minns is not, then the entire Nigerian delegation will feel justified in boycotting the event because one of their bishops was excluded.

If, on the other hand, both were invited, and the Nigerian delegation boycotts the event because they cannot tolerate sitting at the same table with Robinson (or Jefferts-Schori for that matter), then they are excluding themselves, and that speaks volumes about them. But it could not be said, at that point, that they are victims because they were excluded by the "liberals" or "apostates" or whatever other pet names they have for those who disagree with them.

(And, as an aside, it's so hard to talk about this without "us" and "them" kind of language, so I apologize for that.)

You see, I think this would have been a better strategy. Instead of Williams treating the bishops like naughty children (though undoubtably some of them are acting that way), act like an adult and invite everyone. Then, for those who refuse to come for one reason or another, they are the ones who look bad, not Williams. And they are the ones that will have to take steps to leave the Anglican Communion. And they would be the ones appearing self-righteous and overly pious in the puritanical witch hunt against homosexuals and whomever else they decide is not doctrinally pure enough for them.

Instead of doing that, Williams' choice, as I see it, is to exclude two "troublesome" bishops (troublesome in his eyes, I mean) which really just furthers the division and schism. This is not to say the division and schism isn't going to happen anyway, I just question why Williams seems to be fomenting it.

I wonder what Jesus or MLK, Jr. would have done in this situation?

Of course, I have to agree with TJ about what Jesus would have done! Take the money it would cost to bring 800 bishops to Lambeth, and use it to feed and clothe the poor -- and, I think, to have a kick-ass party for the homeless at Canterbury Cathedral. Yes, that would do quite nicely. :)

[kara speltz]

Tell them all to go and sell everything they have and give it to the poor. Then invite all the poor to a lavish church conference and keep the bishops out. I got the idea from this friend of mine, Jesus.


I have to agree with TJ. This reminds me of the apostles arguing over who will sit at the right and left hands of Jesus. Jesus was clear as a bell - the first will be last and the last will be first.

[dsdrane]

I have to agree with TJ. This reminds me of the apostles arguing over who will sit at the right and left hands of Jesus. Jesus was clear as a bell - the first will be last and the last will be first.

Guys...this is about the central tenets of a very old church and is something very emotional for a lot of people in this church (some of whom happen to be participants on this site, myself included). To infer that it is so much bickering about who sits where at the big, expensive "party" is quite insulting and displays either a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge about what is going on.

If you don't think Soulforce should be taking a position one way or the other, say so. Glib critiques are not helpful and take us down a very dangerous road in terms of inter-denominational and inter-faith relations.

[antonyh]

Tell them all to go and sell everything they have and give it to the poor. Then invite all the poor to a lavish church conference and keep the bishops out. I got the idea from this friend of mine, Jesus.

If you have ever read the Book of Common Prayer, it will leave you speechless with it's beauty. I attended an Episcopal Church in Bloomington, IN for a year and used to love the Thursday night Evening Prayer. The robes, ritual, the sense of God's presence in that stone church. And the priest and her passion for justice and for the liberation of all people, LGBT included.

The Anglican Church is a gift to the modern world. This issue is so important.

[BenL]

DISCLAIMER: None of this is meant to criticise the action of Soulforce or the opinions of others expressed on this thread. My remarks are solely the result of my turning over recent events in my mind.

What is missing in this discussion, in my opinion, is time for the reality to unfold. Remember earlier this year how upset we were that the Presiding Bishop signed the communique at Dar es Salam? Then how elated we were when the House of Bishops told the rest of the Communion in no uncertain terms that they would not abandon GLBT folks to satisfy someone else's notion of what it means to be Anglican (or Christian)?

It took time for those events to play themselves out. Similarly, the issuance of invitations is just the opening gambit in a whole series of events that need to proceed for us to learn exactly where the Anglican Communion stands vis a vis gay people.

The Lambeth confab isn't until late 2008. Long before that, in September 2007, the Archbishop of Canterbury will meet in the U.S. with the House of Bishops to hear in person why they find themselves unable to adopt the terms of the Dar es Salam communique. After Archbishop Williams was invited, he initially refused. But now he's coming.

Nor is the Episcopal Church alone in the Communion, no matter what the Nigerian delegation would have us think. The Anglican Churches of Canada, Australia and New Zealand support us. The Church of England is grappling over it. I can't help but wonder if the quest for Anglican unity that the C of E seems intent on pursuing is less about Christian unity and more about preserving the last vestiges of empire. But I fully acknowledge that is my American mentality interpreting their struggle.

The good thing about Anglican polity can also be very trying and seem to be the worst thing. The polities of the U.S. church and the Anglican Communion don't lend themselves to instant decisions. The U.S. church can only speak authoritatively at General Convention every three years. Revtj, I'm with you, but I'm afraid it wouldn't change much. We'd still be divided between those of us who support GLBT persons and those who condemn them.

So, thanks to the leaders of Soulforce for addressing our cause in the Episcopal Church. SF's voice is an important one and needs to be heard. But don't expect instant results. The best you can hope for is acknowledgement and maybe thanks for your concern. It's important, though, for them to know that lots of people represented by Soulforce feel strongly about what happens.

[suzer1013]

Guys...this is about the central tenets of a very old church and is something very emotional for a lot of people in this church (some of whom happen to be participants on this site, myself included). To infer that it is so much bickering about who sits where at the big, expensive "party" is quite insulting and displays either a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge about what is going on.

If you don't think Soulforce should be taking a position one way or the other, say so. Glib critiques are not helpful and take us down a very dangerous road in terms of inter-denominational and inter-faith relations.

I don't think anyone here means to make such inferences. I think there is a bit of tongue in cheek in some of these comments, but also a powerful reminder about Jesus' teachings.

I am a cradle Episcopalian (minus a few years foray into the UMC), and this matters a great deal to me. But I don't see TJ or Kara and my support of TJ's comment as lacking knowledge or disrespectful. But I can see how you might have read it that way, as I know you care deeply about TEC.

Make no mistake -- what is happening in the Anglican Communion is about power, pure and simple. The schismatics would have us believe it is about orthodoxy, homosexuality, women, doctrine, etc. But it is really about power. And I think the assessment of bishops jockeying for power, much as the apostles argued over who would sit at Jesus' right hand (as Kara mentioned), is quite apt. Which again is why I think the better thing for Williams to do in this situation would just have been to invite EVERYONE.

I have to add one thing to this, though. It's not JUST about power, but it's about money also. And nothing corrupts more than power and money.

Throughout all of the drama of "As the Anglican World Turns" (as Susan Russell, President of Integrity likes to call it), we sometimes lose sight of the REAL message of Jesus. I don't think it's disrespectful to mention that, though I do hear you that it got under your skin a little. Please know that, at least among the Soulforce regulars that I know here, no one would ever make light of the situation meaning to be disrespectful.

I hear your pain about this situation. I am pained by it, too, and that's why I've put so much time and thought into following the news about TEC and the Anglican Communion. What I wish could happen is that, if there is to be a separation, that we could separate amicably. But, from my point of view at least, it appears the schismatics don't want it that way. They want to take the property of TEC, screaming "heretic" and "apostate" at us as they leave.

It breaks my heart. I never thought this kind of thing would happen in my church. I also care about these folks who are feeling like they need to leave. These congregations have been led astray, I think, by folks calling themselves "traditionalists" who are really Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics in Episcopal robes. But, you know, I'm only 37. TEC, as I have known it all my life, has been more on the "liberal" side, and in fact one of the first women ordained in TEC was from my church!

I am too young to remember the growing pains the church suffered when considering the ordination of women. I hear that there were many conservatives upset then, too. Which is part of the reason I posted the "I've heard it all before" song. We've been through this, and I wonder if we (liberal and conservative) learned anything from it, or if we're just destined to argue it out until we part ways.

It makes me sad.

Susan

[kara speltz]

I don't think anyone here means to make such inferences. I think there is a bit of tongue in cheek in some of these comments, but also a powerful reminder about Jesus' teachings.

I am a cradle Episcopalian (minus a few years foray into the UMC), and this matters a great deal to me. But I don't see TJ or Kara and my support of TJ's comment as lacking knowledge or disrespectful. But I can see how you might have read it that way, as I know you care deeply about TEC.


I have to add one thing to this, though. It's not JUST about power, but it's about money also. And nothing corrupts more than power and money.

I hear your pain about this situation. I am pained by it, too, and that's why I've put so much time and thought into following the news about TEC and the Anglican Communion. What I wish could happen is that, if there is to be a separation, that we could separate amicably. But, from my point of view at least, it appears the schismatics don't want it that way. They want to take the property of TEC, screaming "heretic" and "apostate" at us as they leave.

I am too young to remember the growing pains the church suffered when considering the ordination of women. I hear that there were many conservatives upset then, too. Which is part of the reason I posted the "I've heard it all before" song. We've been through this, and I wonder if we (liberal and conservative) learned anything from it, or if we're just destined to argue it out until we part ways.

It makes me sad.

Susan

Dear Susan: Your right, I surely meant no disrespect. I'm Roman Catholic and truthfully, I wish that our American bishops would separate from the Vatican at this point. So, some of where I was coming from was that experience. And truthfully, I don't believe any church on this planet is following Jesus at this point. I wish that weren't true. But it's the way I have experienced the way power corrupts people.

kara

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I respect Susan's intention to be even-handed when it comes to the Nigerian Anglican Bishop of Virginia (or is he Bishop of all North America?), Bishop Minns. But Minns raises issues that go way beyond the LGBT issue. For a certain faction in the Episcopal Church AND the United Methodist Church (and other denominations) the issue of homosexuality is only a wedge issue used only to achieve power. It seems to me that anti-gay Bishops are not being denied invitations to Lambeth--there will be plenty of them. Minns is not invited because he lacks legitimacy.

If Minns is officially recognized as a legitimate North American Bishop, then the power-players will have achieved their goal of creating an "alternative" Anglican Church in the U.S. in competition with the Episcopal Church. Some could even argue that Archbishop Akinola aims to set himself as an alternative head of Anglicanism in competition with Canterbury.

Soulforce probably should steer clear of the bigger power-struggle and keep it's focus on LGBT equality. Let's not mention Minns or take a position on Minns. Let's just speak to the issue of the denial of an invitation to a legitimate U.S. Episcopalian Bishop who is being excluded for no reason except his sexual orientation.

If we are going to broaden our focus, it should be to make it more global, to address oppression of LGBT people on other continents. I really applaud U.S. Episcopalians who are bringing a Nigerian gay activist to the U.S. to speak to church people here. I'd like to hear him!

While I respect Susan's desire to be even-handed (and I believe in her sincerity and integrity), the Archbishop of Canterbury is also employing a certain "even-handedness" by refusing invitations to both Minns and Robinson. That way he can say to liberals and conservatives that he is even-handed in refusing to invite one bishop from each side. I think that is a phony kind of "even-handedness." There will be plenty of anti-LGBT Bishops at Lambeth and openly LGBT Bishops are completely barred.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I'm a United Methodist. I've been following the Episcopal Church controversy closely because it is has relevance to my own denomination. In both the Episcopal and United Methodist Churches we have the same power play going on. Some may view it has a power struggle between America-Europe and the rest of the world, but it is really a power game being played by the Washington-based political/religious think-tank, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).

IRD's goals are to further the political power of the same factions that put George W. Bush in power. They back the Iraq war as a "just war." They attack Christian initiatives for the environment (even evangelical ones) as "anti-business." They seek to undermine every progressive Christian public policy initiative, constantly beating the drum against "liberalism."

IRD is that part of the Christian Right which operates in the mainline denominations. For them the LGBT issue is their most powerful wedge-issue used to divide and conquer the mainline Protestant denominations and make sure they will never again have the kind of influence they had back in the Viet Nam and Central American Contra War eras.

IRD has had operatives at the major Anglican meetings continually advising and consulting with folks like Archbishop Akinola. They play much the same game with United Methodist African Bishops and General Conference delegates.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Soulforce probably should steer clear of the bigger power-struggle and keep it's focus on LGBT equality. Let's not mention Minns or take a position on Minns. Let's just speak to the issue of the denial of an invitation to a legitimate U.S. Episcopalian Bishop who is being excluded for no reason except his sexual orientation.


I agree.

Politicians and the religious right are experts, it seems, on staying 'on message'. My sense is that, all things considered, this is one thing we can learn from them.

[antonyh]

Funny how we view our own participation and others' reactions to our posts. I often feel that I've posted something that has been ignored, then a few posts later, someone says essentially the same thing that I did, and everyone congratulates them for their excellent insight. i end up sitting here saying "but I said the same thing just 3 posts ago!!!"

/return to your regular posting

I chalk it up to forum success...there are just too many posts to reply to everything. Slow down people LOL

[suzer1013]

If Minns is officially recognized as a legitimate North American Bishop, then the power-players will have achieved their goal of creating an "alternative" Anglican Church in the U.S. in competition with the Episcopal Church. Some could even argue that Archbishop Akinola aims to set himself as an alternative head of Anglicanism in competition with Canterbury.

That's a very good point, Steven, and I will probably need to ruminate over it a bit more. Having thought about it overnight, part of me feels that the horse is already out of the barn, so to speak. The schismatics are doing what they please already, and we really can't stop them from breaking away from TEC. What I would like to see some resolution on is the property issues, and that is very complex as each side feels they have a "right" to the property. (I feel that the property is clearly that of TEC, and those who break away shouldn't be able to take it with them. But the issue is too complex to go into here, I think.)

I do worry that an invitation to Lambeth could signal "legitimacy" for CANA in the eyes of many. However, many of those same people don't view Gene Robinson as a "legitimate" bishop because he is in a same-sex relationship (they try to skirt around the orientation issue by saying they'd be o.k. with Gene if only he were single and celibate -- which I highly doubt they'd really be o.k. with anyway). This all despite the fact that Robinson was duly elected according to the rules of the church. So, if Williams invites Robinson to Lambeth, that could signal his "legitimacy" in the eyes of Robinson's detractors as well, couldn't it?

I don't know -- the politics of the situation makes me want to throw up my hands and take TJ's suggestion quite literally! The money we are spending to send the purple shirts to Lambeth could certainly do much more good elsewhere.

I'm sure TEC will weather the storm. And whether we remain part of the Anglican Communion or not is sort of secondary to me. I love TEC and am proud that my church does its best to carry out Jesus' teachings, and holds fast to love and inclusion against the louder voices of right-wing fundamentalism.

Susan

[dsdrane]

I don't know -- the politics of the situation makes me want to throw up my hands and take TJ's suggestion quite literally! The money we are spending to send the purple shirts to Lambeth could certainly do much more good elsewhere.

I'm sure TEC will weather the storm. And whether we remain part of the Anglican Communion or not is sort of secondary to me. I love TEC and am proud that my church does its best to carry out Jesus' teachings, and holds fast to love and inclusion against the louder voices of right-wing fundamentalism.

Susan

Throwing up our hands is not an option. And sending our Purple Shirts to Lambeth is something, of course, we must do. This is how our church functions.

Suggestions to the contrary are simply childish.

Susan, I want to thank you for understanding my meaning and my...our pain. There's a part of me that cannot tolerate "outsiders" commenting on our family's dysfunction. I'd love to be more mature about it, but it strikes me as opportunist and extremely rude.

For me, I know TEC will weather this, in- or outside the communion. And Steven makes some very good points about us not being alone. To be very frank, I don't really care if this is about empire or Akinola wanting his own church or what have you; it's about GLBT people participating fully in the body of Christ...or not. That's it. The ABC can worry and fret all he wants about whatever, but this is the issue at hand. Without this, Akinola would be just another bishop and CANA (probably) wouldn't exist.

Steven and Daniel are right; this is the only issue for us, and we should stay on message.

Whatever happens, I appreciate and am grateful for knowing you and I share something bigger than we, something in which we both take tremendous pride. I feel it even more so today...on Pentecost.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Ok, the current petition text (http://www.soulforce.org/petition/3) is:

"I ____________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude both the oppressed and the oppressor from historic church gatherings--especially meetings of prayer and reflection.

I call upon the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to do the right thing and invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the 2008 meeting in London."

However, based on this discussion, it seems like the petition text could use a revision before being widely promoted. As of now there have been 193 people sign it. On Tuesday we will announce it in an email alert and on our homepage, so it will get a surge of signers. A revision will mean we have to contact all those who have signed it prior to the revision and get their signature approval. So obviously any revision needs to be done soon.

Considering the previous criteria (able to be signed by both Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians) and the suggestions to keep the focus on Bishop Robinson's exclusion, how about:

"I ____________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders in the Anglican Communion to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude rightfully elected bishops who belong to the oppressed group from historic church gatherings.

I call upon the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in 2008."

[antonyh]

Ok, the current petition text (http://www.soulforce.org/petition/3) is:



However, based on this discussion, it seems like the petition text could use a revision before being widely promoted. As of now there have been 193 people sign it. On Tuesday we will announce it in an email alert and on our homepage, so it will get a surge of signers. A revision will mean we have to contact all those who have signed it prior to the revision and get their signature approval. So obviously any revision needs to be done soon.

Considering the previous criteria (able to be signed by both Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians) and the suggestions to keep the focus on Bishop Robinson's exclusion, how about:

Looks like a good rewrite to me.

[Progo35]

I signed such a petition shortly after I joined the forum. Is is still being worked on? If not, I feel that I might be able to offer some suggestions, but if it's taken care of than that isn't necessary. :)

[Jamie McDaniel]

Is is still being worked on?

The petition was launched last week and can be found at www.soulforce.org/petition/3

This was the first one we revised after launch and that was a bit of a pain, but I think it was worth it for the improvement.

We will probably mail it out to the archbishop when we reach 2,000 signatures. (Then again, the conference is not until 2008) This petition is not doing quite as well as our previous Dobson/Time Magazine petition. Maybe because some folks who aren't Episcopalian don't realize their voices are needed too. 1,615 signatures currently.

[antonyh]

The Times reported this today:


The head of the Anglican Church in Nigeria says that his 120-plus bishops will boycott next year’s Lambeth Conference unless the US Church halts its liberal agenda.

In an interview with The Times published today, Dr Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria and Archbishop of Abuja, says that he has lost faith that the Episcopal Church of the United States, which precipitated a schism with the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, will ever listen to the conservative evangelical leaders of the Global South churches of Africa and Asia.

His nearly 130 bishops meet in September to decide whether to attend the conference, the ten-yearly meeting of the Anglican Communion’s 800 bishops. Other provinces in the Global South grouping are also expected to vote soon on whether to boycott Lambeth, in the first formal mark of schism in the Anglican Church.

The failure of Nigeria to attend Lambeth would be a severe blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who has always said that unity was his priority in trying to resolve the battle between evangelicals and liberals over homosexuality. The Church of England General Synod, which meets this weekend, will debate the new “covenant” drawn up to try to reach worldwide agreement on a common doctrine.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2028610.ece

[BrentRichards]

The Times reported this today:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2028610.ece

The cynic in me says "Boycotting? Well, sounds like a good year for some LGBT-affirmative votes!"

[u-dog]

The cynic in me says "Boycotting? Well, sounds like a good year for some LGBT-affirmative votes!"

The Lamdeth conference isn't really a legislative body. The bishops just hang out together and make statements, go clubbing, wind surfing. do a few holes of Golf... that kind of thing.

Honestly, I think the conservatives WANT to split the Anglican Communion... they are clearly NOT in a cooperative mood. I don't think Rowan can do anything to stop whats about to happen. he should just do what he knows is right and let the chips fall where they may.

[BrentRichards]

The Lamdeth conference isn't really a legislative body. The bishops just hang out together and make statements, go clubbing, wind surfing. do a few holes of Golf... that kind of thing.

See, I'm thinking like a Presbyterian again ... we never get together without having a couple good votes.

Honestly, I think the conservatives WANT to split the Anglican Communion... they are clearly NOT in a cooperative mood. I don't think Rowan can do anything to stop whats about to happen. he should just do what he knows is right and let the chips fall where they may.

That would be SO un-British (and you know I love the Brits ... Rowan is even Welsh, but truth hurts)