Showing posts with label Anglicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglicans. Show all posts

Anglican women in authority

From the Episcopal blog, Telling Secrets:
I am reminded of a (perhaps apocryphal) story from the Diocese of Western Michigan where, so it is said, there was a diocesan convention floor debate on what to call women priests.
In frustration, someone said, "Well, what DO Anglicans call women in authority?"
And someone else said, "Your Majesty."
Works for me.

New member and observers in the Porvoo Communion

The Church of Denmark has ended years of separation from Anglican Churches in northern Europe by signing the Porvoo Agreement. The Agreement underscores the Porvoo Communion of Evangelical-Lutheran Churches in northern Europe and Anglican Churches in Britain and Ireland.
Although the Church of Denmark participated in the discussions that in 1996 led up to the Porvoo Agreement, it never signed the document because of differences over the status of women. With women now being accepted into the priesthood by the Anglican Churches in the Porvoo Communion, the Church of Denmark announced in 2009 that there was no longer any barrier to becoming a full member.
The Agreement was signed on 3 October 2010 at a service in Copenhagen Cathedral by Hanna Broadbridge, chairman of the Council of International Relations of the Danish Church, and Bishop of Viborg, Karsten Nissen.

The Church of Denmark has thus far had observer status within the Communion, together with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia. In 2010, the Communion received two new observers: the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad (LELCA) and the Lutheran Church in Great Britain (LCiGB; not to be confused with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England, ELCE, that I've had occasion to comment on earlier, and which decidedly is not a Porvoo church).

Since I myself serve and live in the city (Porvoo in Finnish, Borgå in Swedish) that has given the Porvoo Agreement and the Porvoo Communion their names, they are, of course, of special interest to me. I cordially welcome the new member and the new observers!

The Church of Denmark signs Porvoo (The Porvoo Communion 3.10.10)
Danmark med i Borgågemenskapen (Kyrkpressen 5.10.10)
Church of Denmark signs Porvoo Agreement (Christian Today 5.10.10)
The LELCA a new observer in Porvoo (The Porvoo Communion 6.10.10)
New observer in the Porvoo Communion (The Porvoo Communion 6.10.10)
Porvoon kirkkoyhteisö sai kaksi uutta tarkkailijakirkkoa (Kirkon tiedotuskeskus 13.10.10)
The Scottish Episcopal Church in full communion with the Church of Denmark (The Scottish Episcopal Church 20.10.10)

Uganda: David Kato

On Wednesday 26th January, 2011, gay rights activist David Kato was murdered in his house in Kampala, Uganda. He had been hacked on the head with a hammer.
Kato’s murder comes only weeks after the Uganda Supreme Court told the local magazine Rolling Stone (not to be confused with the music magazine) to stop publishing names of prominent Ugandan alleged homosexuals and calling for them to be hanged. It now seems someone apparently took up the magazine’s call and David Kato, who was out already as gay man and LGBTI activist, has become the first lethal victim of the magazine’s hate call.
Kato said in an interview last year: "I can’t run away and leave the people I am protecting. People might die, but me, I will be the last one to run out of here."
He did not run, and he died.
David Kato was arrested three times for his activism and faced innumerable other forms of harassment and assault. A long-time activist, Kato had earned the title of ‘grandfather of the kuchus’ – as gay men in Kampala call themselves – for his work on behalf of people in the LGBT community. In the past he has sheltered many people in his home, visited them in prison and worked for their release. He worked as the advocacy and litigation officer for SMUG, Sexual Minorities Uganda, Uganda’s main LGBTI Rights group. David Kato’s murder ironically comes on the same day that United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon made the strongest call ever by the UN for an end to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

At David Kato's funeral on Friday, January 28, there was a sad turn of events. Since Kato was an Anglican, the local parish church of Nagojje was responsible for his funeral rites to be read from the Book of Common Prayer. Although tributes have been pouring into the Kato family from President Barack Obama and other international leaders, the Church of Uganda sent no priest, no bishop, but a Lay Reader to conduct the service.
Bishop Christopher Senyonjo arrived in his purple cassock accompanied by his wife Mary and let the master of ceremonies know he would like to say a few words at some point in the service. He was going to read a message from Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) where David worked tirelessly since 2004. As an excommunicated bishop of the Church of Uganda, Senyonjo has no standing in the official hierarchy of the church.
The Lay Reader, Thomas Musoke, began to make inappropriate remarks condemning homosexuality quite graphically and stating the Church of Uganda’s position that homosexuality was a sin and against the Bible. The crowd began to cheer him on and the event was turning into an anti-gay rally. The bishop was never called upon to speak. He felt for the LGBT community having to suffer yet another public humiliation. The (Anglican) Church of Uganda took a pastoral opportunity for healing and reconciliation with family members and LGBT people and allies and turned the event into an anti-gay political rally. Musoke was, however, finally thrown out from the funeral.
Following this horrific incident, Bishop Senyonjo, as a bishop of the church and wearing his purple cassock, walked behind the coffin carried by Kato’s friends and family to the graveside. There, although he was disinvited by the Church to speak at the funeral, he found a way to bring words of comfort to the mourners and said the final blessing over David’s battered remains.

In this one sad occasion, we can see there are two churches in Uganda and indeed elsewhere - one following the love of the law, and the other following the law of love.

R.I.P. DAVID KATO (symbolic event)
COMMENTARY: David Kato's funeral illustrates schism of Anglican Church (San Diego Gay and Lesbian News 28.1.11)
Which side are you on? or - They fucked up the Anglican Communion for this? (OCICBW 28.1.11)
MadPriest's thought for the day (OCICBW 29.1.11)
Präst utkastad från Katos begravning (Dagen 29.1.11)

Politics and economics as Christian duties

The Switzerland-based news agency Ecumenical News International recently published a couple of pieces that show that we as Christians have a responsibility for more than just the salvation of souls. As these Asian church leaders show, we must also take a stand in fields like politics and economics, in order to battle injustice, poverty, and over-exploitation of natural resources.
Thank you, Rev. Tabo-oy and Ms. Chhungi, for your inspiring example!

Privatisation deters poor's access to water, say Asian church leaders
Manila (ENInews 1.12.10). More and more poor people in Asia are being deprived of what was once seen as a free "God-given resource", as water has become a paid-for asset controlled by private companies in recent years, say Asian church leaders. "Now considered as a commercial commodity rather than as heritage and a natural resource that should be protected, water … is now being increasingly controlled by private corporations," said the Rev David Tabo-oy, evangelism officer of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of the Philippines.Tabo-oy was reflecting on "Water as a gift from God and as a human right" during the second day of a 28 November to 3 December consultation on "communities' rights to water and sanitation in Asia" held in Manila.

Wrong reading of Bible story 'legitimises' earth's exploitation
Manila (ENInews 3.12.10). Asian Christian leaders have challenged what they describe as a distorted interpretation of the Bible's Genesis story about God telling Adam and Eve to "subdue" the earth and to "have dominion" over other living species and non-living resources on the planet. "The misinterpretation, which has been blamed on Christians, has helped legitimise the wanton profit-oriented exploitation of the planet and its resources," said Hrangthan Chhungi of the Presbyterian Church of India. She said that the more appropriate translation from Hebrew, the language in which Genesis is written, is "to over-see and take care, rather than to subdue and have dominion".

Previously published on my political blog.

Archbishop Elvis

This is actually rather funny:
Elvis may have long ago shuffled off this mortal coil, but his spirit still has a home at a Newmarket veterans' hall that stands in as a church.
That's where Archbishop Dorian Baxter has channelled the King of Rock `n' Roll each Sunday for seven years. An eclectic mix of more than 300 people gathered Sunday to mark the breakaway Anglican church's anniversary and celebrate what would have been Elvis's 75th birthday on Jan. 8.
But as Baxter, who also performs as impersonator Elvis Priestley, is quick to point out, the main reason they assemble in the Spartan surroundings of the Royal Canadian Legion hall is to praise God.
"We honour Elvis's commitment to the Lord," said Baxter, 59, who explained he first heard Elvis when he was 5 and has been "trying to sing like him for 54 years.
"Like Elvis, the King of Rock 'n' Roll, we worship Jesus, the King of Kings."
It's perhaps not my cup of tea, to quote MadPriest, but at least it's not boring...
The report came from The Star (Canada), that published it on January 18.

Bishop Spong's Manifesto

Bishop John Shelby Spong:
A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!
I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant."
I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.
I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves.
I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.
I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged.
In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.
I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude.
I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population.
I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.
I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won.
There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be.
· Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us.
· Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church.
· "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed forces.
We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled, whether voting privileges should be offered to women?
The time has come for politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a "mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.
I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.
The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.
I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union.
I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.
Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.
This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it, but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it.

- John Shelby Spong

The Church of Sweden will perform same-sex weddings

The (Lutheran) Church of Sweden decided yesterday, 22.10.09, to allow same-sex weddings to be performed within the Church, starting as (surprisingly) early as November. The decision does not mean, however, that pastors that are consciencous objectors are forced to perform such weddings against their beliefs.
This decision has, not unexpectedly, kindled much critizism both from within and from without. Catholic and Orthodox groups have expressed their "sadness" in a joint statement, and the (Anglican) Church of England is worried about what this will do to the Porvoo Communion.
They are, of course, entitled to their opinions. This is, however, just that - a difference of opinion. There are many others that have been overcome or are ignored - sacraments, priesthood, apostolic succession, the role of the Bible and of tradition, the institution of the Pope, the roles of the Virgin Mary and the other saints etc. This one - the embracement, acceptance, non-acceptance or damnation of non-heterosexuals - is cumbersome because it is new, nothing more.
I welcome the Swedes' decision!
Ja till samkönade äktenskap (Kyrkpressen 22.10.09)
Svenska kyrkan godkände vigsel för par av samma kön (Kyrklig tidningstjänst 22.10.09)
Samaa sukupuolta olevien parien kirkollinen vihkiminen hyväksyttiin Ruotsissa (Kirkon tiedotuskeskus 22.10.09)
Sweden allows gay couples to marry in church (PinkNews 22.10.09)
Wejryd: Inga präster ska tvingas att viga (Dagen 23.10.09)
Homoäktenskap i Kyrkan #1: Länkar (Antigayretorik 23.10.09)
Homoäktenskap i Kyrkan #2: I väntan på katastrofen (Antigayretorik 23.10.09)
Homoäktenskap i Kyrkan #3: Varför splittring just nu? (Antigayretorik 23.10.09)
Katolsk-ortodox reaktion på svenska kyrkans beslut (Charlotte Therese 23.10.09)

Sweden: Many "No":s to same-sex weddings in church

The Swedish Pentecostal newspaper Dagen ("The Day") has made a survey of what the different religions and denominations will do with same-sex couples coming to them, asking to be married. Not surprisingly, most didn't want to perform such a ceremony. The by far largest denomination in the country, the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, is, however, positive to this development. And then there is the third group, who haven't made their minds up yet.
The list of the different religious groups can be found here in Swedish, but to mention some:
YES:
The Church of Sweden
The Jews
The Quakers
NO:
The Roman Catholic Church
The different Orthodox churches
The free churches, including e.g. Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventist, Methodists, the Salvation Army and some Lutheran organisations
The Moslems
The Mormons
The Jehovah's Witnesses
DUNNO:
Anglicans
Baptists
Baha'i
The Scientology Church
Some Lutheran organisations
There is also the question what to do with consciencious objectors, i.e. pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples.
In many of the above religious groups, there is an ongoing discussion about the right to perform marriages - should our church retain that right or give it up? Does the right to perform marriages include an obligation for the individual pastor to do so? Should the right to perform marriages no longer be a question for a whole denomination, but rather given individually to those pastors who have no objections to marrying anyone that the state deems worthy? These questions are far from being solved.

Anglicans and GLBT

Last week, two sets of news concerning Anglicans and GLBT hit the world.
The first one dealt with a letter sent by two English bishops, Christopher Hill and John Hind, to the Swedish archbishop, Anders Wejryd. ++Anders had sent a letter informing the Porvoo churches about the Church of Sweden's stance on gay marriage, and the English letter was a response to this.
In effect, the bishops Hill and Hind (oh, so diplomatically!) threatened the Church of Sweden with ecumenical repercussions if the Swedes wouldn't desist accepting gays as Christians and full members of the Body of Christ. This has created quite an uproar in Sweden, where some see it as an interference in internal matters, while others (happily saying "I told you so") predict the downfall of the Church of Sweden and of the Porvoo Communion.
I think the English bishops have every right to communicate with the Swedes and inform them of their thoughts in a matter where the Swedes first took the initiative. The Swedes, however, have an equal right to ignore the English, if they choose to do so. Ecumenism doesn't mean that everyone should do the same thing, but that we all should look to what unites us, rather that to that which divides us.
The other Anglican news was that on 17 July, the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA), which is part of the Anglican Communion, authorized bishops to bless same-sex unions and research an official prayer for the ceremonies. This moved the church closer to accepting gay relationships despite turmoil over the issue in the Anglican family. The Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has struggled to keep the communion unified.
Anglican leaders had pressed the ECUSA for a moratorium on electing more gay bishops than Gene Robinson, elected in 2003, and asked the church not to develop an official prayer for same-gender couples. But the measure adopted Friday by the Episcopal General Convention noted the growing number of U.S. states that allow gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and gave bishops in those regions discretion to provide a “generous pastoral response” to couples in local parishes.
The 2 million-member Episcopal Church earlier in the week approved a resolution opening the doors to ordain gay men and women as clergy. These and related issues have already prompted some congregations to leave the Episcopal fold and form the rival Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) that claims 100,000 believers. Anglican churches in regions like Africa have broken ties with their more liberal U.S. brethren.
Here, too, the split is unfortunate, but the Episcopalians must do what they think is right. As must their opponents, of course.
The Bishops' letter, dated 26th June 2009
Engelsk oro över svensk äktenskapssyn (Kyrkans Tidning 15.7.09)
USA-kyrka bryter anglikanskt löfte (Kyrkans Tidning 15.7.09)
Gay clergy eligible for all Episcopal ministry (365 Gay 15.7.09)
Episcopal Church USA to ordain homosexual bishops (Spero News 16.7.09)
"Vi kan vara på väg att bli isolerade" (Kyrkans Tidning 16.7.09)
Anglo-Swedish rift over church gay marriage (The Local 16.7.09)
”Klipp banden med England” (Svenska Dagbladet 16.7.09)
Chans till besinning (Dagen 16.7.09)
Könsneutralt äktenskap (Från prästgårdsfönstret 16.7.09)
Engelska kyrkan i genuspanik mot Sverige (Trollhare 16.7.09)
Gay bishops more likely after US passes ‘nuanced’ motion (Church Times 17.7.09)
English bishops say Swedish proposal redefines marriage (Church Times 17.7.09)
Koskinen svarar på "anglikanattacken" (Kyrkans Tidning 17.7.09)
”Vi viker oss inte men bör ändå be Engelska kyrkan om ursäkt” (Dagen 17.7.09)
Episcopal Church moves toward blessing gay unions (Reuters 17.7.09)
Vad är viktigast? (Karin Långström Vinges blogg 17.7.09)
The Church of England Condemns the Church of Sweden (Aqurette 17.7.09)
Auf Wiedersehen! (Dagblogg 17.7.09)
Brevdebatt förvånar anglikansk biskop (Kyrkans Tidning 18.7.09)
Episcopalians: Bishops can bless same-sex unions (AP through 365 Gay 18.7.09)
Den västerländska kyrkan splittras (Dagen 21.7.09)

LGBT bishops - ecumenical problems or possibilities?

Now, there are two of them.
In 2003, Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire within the Episcopal Church in the USA (TEC), and a couple of weeks ago, Eva Brunne was elected Bishop of Stockholm within the Church of Sweden. Both +Gene and +Eva are homosexuals.
This has created quite an uproar in some circles, and many arguments have been used in attempts to show how wrong this is. I won't bore you with them all; my readers are surely well aware of them.
One argument does have some merit to it, namely the argument that this will impede ecumenical relations between churches, especially between Protestant and Orthodox churches, but also between Western and Third World Protestant churches. The Danish Christian newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad published an article about the issue on June 6, and the Swedish blogger Per Westberg commented on the article the same day.
There is, admittedly, a rift between the Orthodox and many Protestant churches. This rift has, however, officially been in existance since 1054, even before any Protestant churches existed, and unofficially several centuries longer. This is, of course, a shame. During the ecumenical processes of the last half-century or so, attempts have been made to bridge the gap, but success has only been minor and has concerned details. The main achievement of the ecumenical discussions have been the discussions themselves. And I'm not running them down; being able to sit at the same table and discuss issues calmly is a very good thing in itself.
But when Conservatives on either side accuse proponents of female clergy or homosexual rights of sabotaging the ecumenical relations, they are, surely, exaggerating. Far greater questions lie on the table - the Eucharist (or Communion, if you prefer), the Filioque dispute, the status of the Saints etc. Since we haven't been able to solve these - or even make a dent - why protest so vocally over the minor questions that have been raised now?
I doubt that the real issue at hand is Ecumenism; Ecumenism is apparently only being used as yet another argument in the attempt to bury the questions of women's and LGBT rights.
The relations between Protestant churches can also be affected. This is already the case within the Anglican community, where several African church leaders, notably the Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, are actively working against TEC and +Gene. ++Peter is even leading a secessionary movement, taking seceding American parishes and dioceses under his wing, in open defiance of Anglican structure and tradition.
African Lutherans are probably in the same mind frame. This was seen in 2005, when bishop Walter Obare of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya ordained a Swede, Arne Olsson, as bishop of the splinter movement Missionsprovinsen (the Missionary Province), which had come into being as a reaction to the alleged liberalism of the Church of Sweden. No big reactions on the election of +Eva have yet been heard, but it's probably just a matter of time.
The problems have been there all along, but the development during the last decades have been detrimental, I must admit.
What is, however, the core issue here? Can ecumenical relations exist, if they mean that one of the churches involved has to pretend to be something it isn't? Shouldn't we rejoice in that which is common to us all, and agree to disagree about that which is not? Shouldn't the love of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus be enough as common ground for us to stand on?
Why should the relatively minor questions about human sexuality be elevated to such heights, and be allowed to carry the blame for wrecking the relationships between Christians? That is absurd. At the bottom of it all lies different attitudes toward those who are different, different attitudes with mainly cultural, not religious, background. If these questions are raised now, instead of being swept under the rug as before, is it the question raiser or the rug sweeper that should be blamed for the increased tension?
Neither, I hope - since they both should sit at the table addressing these issues, too...

Priests coming out of the closet

Last week, two ministers came out of the closet, one in Finland, the other in Alaska, USA.
On April 8, 2009, pastor Laura Mäntylä came out as a lesbian in the TV talk show Inhimillinen tekijä ("The Human Factor"). Her bishop, Eero Huovinen of Helsinki, issued a press release supporting her decision. More (in Swedish) on my blog Kalles kyrkliga kommentarer.
On Good Friday, April 10, father Robert Thomas came out on his blog Musings of an Episcopal padre.
Thank you, both, for giving a face to the plight of our non-heterosexual sisters and brothers in Christ! Blessings and strength to you both!

Faith is not central to Christianity

If the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a reality then faith is not a requirement of the Christian religion. If it was then nobody would have met the risen Christ in the days following his crucifixion.
Faith is necessary because of how the universe works (or, at least, appears to work), especially in respect of time and distance. Therefore, faith is accidental not central to our religion.

A blessing by +Gene


The blessing given by the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire (ECUSA), at the end of services at All Saints Church Pasadena on Sunday, July 15, 2007.
I found it on the blog An Apple Not Far from the Tree, through a hint by MadPriest. Thank you!
May we all share in the blessing that +Gene gives us!

The immorality of moralism

In a Church of England newspaper, the south London priest Giles Fraser writes under the heading Beware of the morality of legalism (Church Times August 1, 2008). It was very interesting to read his text. He argues that it is a great mistake to turn "gospel faith into moral uprightness," and that the conservatives within the Anglican communion are trying to do exactly this.
This is very reminiscent of one of the first texts I wrote on Kalles kyrkliga kommentarer, There is no Christian ethics (May 9, 2006), based on some thoughts by the influential Swedish Christian writer Peter Halldorf. My conclusion there is "... to confuse faith with ethics leads to moralism, phariseeism and many other tragedies."
All the more interesting to read Fraser's article.

"No homosexuals in the Sudan" - oh, really?

Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul Yak, primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and bishop of Juba, said at the Lambeth conference on July 22, 2008, that there are no homosexuals in the Sudan. "They have not come to the surface. We don’t have them." The Anglican Journal (of Canada) reported this.
Is the archbishop being obtuse, is he stupid, or is he deliberately twisting things, I wonder? If I were gay and Sudanese (like the blogger, Ali), I would not come "to the surface" or "out of the closet" either - it would simply not be healthy!

Theologian vs. church leader?

The Archbishop of Canterbury ("ABC"), the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, presided at the Lambeth conference this summer. He made it clear that gay inclusiveness was to be regarded as a kind of splinter movement and that the (mainly North American) church provinces that engaged in gay marriages and the like were to cease doing so, in order to preserve the unity of the Anglican communion. The African and South American provinces that are actively creating parallel structures in North America were also to subside. Neither group has reacted favorably to his request.
When Williams was elected ABC five years ago, he was Archbishop of Wales, and known as a fairly liberal theologian. Today's the Times published an article, Rowan Williams: gay relationships 'comparable to marriage', by its Religion Correspondent, Ruth Gledhill, where she quotes some private correspondance shown to her by Williams. In an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written some eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature. The letters, written in the autumn of 2000 and 2001, were exchanged with Dr. Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian living in his former archdiocese in South Wales, who had written challenging him on the issue. [Update: Another article by Gledhill, New light on Archbishop of Canterbury's view on homosexuality, was published later the same day.]
Williams told Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had "definitely come to the conclusion" that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay. In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.
That is all well and good. Liberals have, however, been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.
In a recent interview, the Archbishop said: "When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
I wonder. His statement seems to mean, as one commentator put it: "If I’m asked for my views, as a church leader rather than a theologian, I have to be dishonest."
As a pastor, I have the same responsibility regarding Church teachings as the ABC, although not the same visibility or influence. My view is that I will teach "mainstream" Christianity as long as it does not clash with my own considered opinions. I will not lightly deviate from Church dogma. If I find myself in opposition to the dogma, however, I have a responsibility to follow my conscience and be true to what God has revealed to me, be it through the Bible, through tradition, through my intellect or through my conscience.
Then, of course, I'll have to bear the consequences of my stance - if my church finds that I deviate too much, it will discipline me in some way, I suppose. So far, it has refrained from doing so; instead, I have been exonerated by the Diocesan Chapter of Porvoo.

Different kinds of exclusion

... at the end of the day, there is an ontological difference between feeling excluded because you're disagreed with and being excluded because of who you are. Brother and sister Anglican walking away from the table because they've been disagreed with is a painful thing. The church walking away from the gay and lesbian baptised is a sinful thing.
- Susan Russell
in A flock abandoned (the Guardian 31.7.08)

Tutu does it again!

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a person I have the utmost respect for. He has been stalwart in battling for human rights and human dignity, first during the apartheid regime of South Africa, and now during the homophobic regime of the leaders of the Anglican church. For the first, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the second, he also recieved a prize last spring.
A report states:
The former Archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu is to be honoured by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. [...]
He will [...] accept the OUTSPOKEN Award "in honour of the unprecedented impact of his leadership as a human rights advocate."
In November 2007 Archbishop Tutu told the BBC that if he believed that God was homophobic, he wouldn't be a Christian. The Nobel Peace Prize winner said he was ashamed of his church because of its treatment of gays. [...]
"Our world is facing problems, poverty, HIV and AIDS, a devastating pandemic, and conflict," Tutu said. "God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.
"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."
[...] "If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn't worship that God."
"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual.
"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race infected society."
In December he apologised to gay people all around the world for the way they have been treated by the Church.
When he accepted the award in April,
Archbishop Tutu said that for his part it was impossible to keep quiet "when people were frequently hounded ... vilified, molested and even killed as targets of homophobia ... for something they did not choose - their sexual orientation."
Archbishop Tutu has vocally challenged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a 2004 article in The Times of London, he condemned persecution on the basis of sexual orientation, comparing it to apartheid.
"We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about - our very skins," he wrote. "It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups."
Amen to that! Thank you, Archbishop!
Tutu calls on Ugandans to protect LGBT community (PinkNews 27.2.08)
Tutu to accept award from LGBT rights group (PinkNews 29.2.08)
Tutu Speaks Out On Gay Civil Rights (365gay 9.4.08)
Tutu inspires gay audience in San Francisco (PinkNews 10.4.08)

News from ENI

Differ, but stay together, says gay U.S. bishop
Hong Kong (ENI 24.10.07). The first Anglican bishop to live openly in a same-sex relationship has described his consecration as a "remarkable experiment", and said it offered the worldwide Anglican Communion a chance to show that people with different experiences could coexist. "In this global village, while we have different experiences and histories, how are we going to live together?" Bishop V. Gene Robinson said in a speech in Hong Kong on 20 October. Robinson's consecration in 2003 by the US Episcopal (Anglican) Church as a bishop in the state of New Hampshire triggered the ire of many Anglican leaders particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Study by church-backed group links freer rice trade to hunger
Geneva (ENI 5.11.07). Trade liberalisation in rice has led to more hunger and poverty among subsistence farmers in at least three developing countries, the Geneva-based Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance has found in a study it carried out. The study into the effect of decisions to open national rice markets to foreign imports in Ghana, Honduras and Indonesia was released to coincide with a critical stage in world trade talks that continue in Geneva this week. "Access to adequate food and the means to acquire it are a basic human right which virtually all countries have agreed to defend," said Linda Hartke, the EAA coordinator. "This study confirms what we have suspected, that trade liberalisation has been used to create unfair conditions that directly violate this right which is fundamental for life."
Anglican leaders praise religion decision by Chinese communists
Hong Kong (ENI 7.11.07). A group of Asian and African Anglican leaders recently returned from a visit to China have praised a decision by the country's ruling Communist Party to include the word "religion" in its constitution. "This is a recognition of the increasing role that the Church plays in the nation's economic and social development," the Anglican leaders said in a statement issued after their 21-30 October visit. State media said the change had been made to meet the demands posed by the "new situation and new tasks". The Communist Party for a long time discouraged religion, because it was officially atheist. In recent years, however, Chinese leaders have said that religion can play an important role in creating a "harmonious society". The term is used by the Chinese leaders to refer to the need for economic growth to be accompanied by social cohesion.
Polish Protestants deplore posters denouncing Luther
Warsaw (ENI 7.11.07). Protestant leaders in one of Poland's largest cities have condemned a poster campaign denouncing Martin Luther, the 16th century German Protestant leader, as a blasphemer and heretic. "What would happen if someone hung placards outside a Catholic church attacking the 'blasphemy and heresy of John Paul II,' or the 'blasphemy of Muhammad' at a mosque? These actions are clearly illegal, yet the local council has said and done nothing," said Mariusz Maikowski, a pastor with the Seventh-day Adventist church in Lublin in eastern Poland. The posters were displayed throughout Lublin to advertise lectures by Ryszard Mozgol, an official with Poland's National Remembrance Institute, the body charged with dealing with the records of the communist-era secret police.
Churches must offer hope says HIV-positive Zimbabwe pastor
Harare (ENI 8.11.07). The Rev. Maxwell Kapachawo is the first known religious leader in Zimbabwe to declare publicly that he is living with HIV and he is using radio and television to spearhead a campaign to combat stigmatisation of those who have the disease. The pastor is national coordinator of the Zimbabwe Network of Religious Leaders Living with or Personally Affected by HIV/AIDS (ZINERELA). It has 181 members but Kapachawo is the only one to have publicly declared his HIV status.

ENI Online - http://www.eni.ch/