Help Create our Petition to Launch Later This Week

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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.

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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

Very true. I can go back and find them.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

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.

, -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!

, -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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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 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."