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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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

"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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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.

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

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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: 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.

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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.

Originally Posted by suzer1013

...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:

Originally Posted by MLK Jr.

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

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

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