Here’s the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s article.
News coverage of the Presiding Bishop’s Visit to the Diocese of Milwaukee
1
Category Archives: Anglican
The Presiding Bishop’s visit to the Diocese of Milwaukee
This weekend was Annual Convention for the Episcopal Diocese of Milwaukee. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefforts Schori and her husband Richard Schori were in attendance. Yesterday morning, the PB spent two hours with diocesan clergy while her husband met with clergy spouses. She began her session with us by asking us to meditate on the words Jesus heard as he came out of the Jordan River after being baptized, “You are my Beloved. In you I am well pleased.” After meditation and conversation in small groups about what we heard during our time of meditation, and how we responded to those words, we had the opportunity to ask questions of her.
During that time, and later in the afternoon during an open conversation with clergy, lay delegates, and other interested people, the Presiding Bishop spoke about what she saw as she traveled around the church in the US and the world. One of the things she stressed repeatedly is that the Episcopal Church is a world-wide church. It is not just an American, or even North American denomination.
She was honest about all of the ways Episcopalians do mission, both here and abroad, and she had a lot of positive things to say about the impact of the emergent church on our denomination. But she was also honest about the challenges facing us. One of the greatest may be demographic. According to her, while the average age for Americans is 37, the average age for Episcopalians is 57. Another theme that came back both in her remarks and in questions from the floor was the challenge we face with our aging physical infrastructure. To one question, she answered bluntly that some buildings need to be abandoned, given over to other purposes, while others can be revitalized and can continue to be the focal point of ministry. She also stressed that we have to get out of our buildings to do ministry in new places and in new ways. “Those churches that thrive,” she said, “are more than a worship space; meaningful to the larger community; while some of them are albatrosses.”
There were questions concerning the Anglican Covenant, to which she pointed out that “covenant” can mean very different things in different cultural contexts. For the Maori of New Zealand, who were victimized by a treaty that the settlers labeled a “covenant,” the term is deeply painful.
It was a good visit, an opportunity to hear from someone who has a much wider perspective on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion than we can have in the local parish. It was also a powerful reminder of the challenges that we face as well as the world of possibilities that lies before us.
Media’s unequal treatment of conflict among Episcopalians and Lutherans?
Everyone knows the conflict over sexuality within the Episcopal Church has been a media favorite at least since General Convention 2003. Last year the ELCA (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country) voted to all partnered gays and lesbians to serve as clergy. It seemed to me at the time that for all the media coverage of our conflict, there was relatively little coverage of the parallel debate among Lutherans. I assumed it was because there was simply less controversy and fewer dissidents among the Lutherans. I may be wrong. Here’s an interesting take on the different treatment of the two denominations.
What’s most interesting to me is that in the comments following this article, various Episcopalians, and former ones, air their grievances and revisit the controversy. I’m wondering whether the difference in media coverage is in part due to the vitriol that passes back and forth between the two sides. Perhaps Lutherans are just too polite to lock horns in public as Episcopalians are wont to do.
The Resurgence of Calvinism
The Episcopal Cafe points to a lengthy article in the Christian Science Monitor that discusses the increasing appeal of Calvinism among some contemporary Christians. The article appeared some months ago and focuses on the appeal of certain Calvinist tenets for contemporary Americans seeking deeper religious experience and formation.
I first encountered this phenomenon some years ago when I was living and teaching in upstate South Carolina. One of the local papers did an article on the controversy between 5 point (TULIP) and 7 point Calvinists that was leading to division within denominations, especially among Baptists. The CSM article claims that as many as 1/3 of recent Southern Baptist seminary grads identify themselves as Calvinist.
The article also observes that this development, however strong it may be, goes against two other powerful strands in contemporary American religion. One is the “prosperity Gospel” of many Evangelicals. The other is the flattening out of religious difference and the fact that according to the Barna survey, only 9% of Americans hold to what the survey calls a “biblical worldview.”
What interests me most is the reference to this article at this late date on the Episcopal Cafe, and to the comment thread that has ensued. It was correctly observed that despite the presence of Martin Luther in Holy Women, Holy Men there is no commemoration for Jean Calvin, even though Calvin exerted a much greater influence on the development of the Protestant Reformation in England.
Most of the comments decry Calvin’s influence in Anglicanism and in larger Christianity. I’m no Calvinist, by any means, and I don’t find his theology particularly compelling, either in its take on Christianity or as an intellectual exercise. Still, he was a brilliant theologian, and it is fascinating to follow his logic to its conclusions. And I should think that if we commemorate all those other folk in our church calendar, there ought to be room for him.
The ABC on Anabaptists and Mennonites
Inhabitatio Dei points to a passage in Rowan Williams’ address to the Lutheran World Federation. The LWF is officially repenting for the persecution of Anabaptists by Lutherans in the sixteenth century. Williams said:
One other crucial focus today is, of course, the act of reconciliation with Christians of the Mennonite/Anabaptist tradition. It is in relation to this tradition that all the ‘historic’ confessional churches have perhaps most to repent, given the commitment of the Mennonite communities to non-violence. For these churches to receive the penitence of our communities is a particularly grace-filled acknowledgement that they still believe in the Body of Christ that they have need of us; and we have good reason to see how much need we have of them, as we look at a world in which centuries of Christian collusion with violence has left so much unchallenged in the practices of power. Neither family of believers will be simply capitulating to the other; no-one is saying we should forget our history or abandon our confession. But in the global Christian community in which we are called to feed one another, to make one another human by the exchange of Christ’s good news, we can still be grateful for each other’s difference and pray to be fed by it.
As a former Mennonite, and as a former scholar of Anabaptism (in particular their treatment by other confessions in the sixteenth century), I have been thankful that it is no longer required of ordinands that we swear our commitment to the 39 Articles, which include in them a strong repudiation of adult baptism and other practices associated with sixteenth-century Anabaptists.
I’m unaware of any similar movement, either within the Episcopal Church or in wider Anglicanism, to address the historical condemnations by our tradition of Anabaptists.
The full text of Williams’ address is here.
Often, the disagreements among Christians that occasionally culminated in violence are now viewed by most contemporary Christians as quaint and misguided. But dismissing them masks the real theological differences that underlay those conflicts, as well as the long-term effects on both sides. As Williams states, the Anabaptist tradition confronts us “as we look at a world in which centuries of Christian collusion with violence has left so much unchallenged in the practices of power.”
Women Bishops in England!
Well, not quite so fast. General Synod today voted to accept the plan for implementation of women bishops. It now goes to the dioceses for comment and input, and will come back before General Synod in 2012, I believe. There is much consternation among conservatives and speculation among some observers that a mass exodus will ensue. Truth be told, all I know about the Church of England is what I read in blogs, so I’m hardly an expert prognosticator.
Much of the news in the past few days has had to do with the defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment, which would have provided for something of a two-track episcopacy, in deference to those who refuse to believe women can be bishops (or priests, for that matter). Many think that the amendment’s defeat, coming on top of the disastrous outcome for the renewed push to appoint Jeffery Johns (gay, but celibate) as Bishop of Southwark, has dealt a body-blow to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s prestige and authority. I have no idea if that’s true. I do know that the ABC has lost considerable support on this side of the Atlantic.
I find two things surprising. First is that the Archbishops’ Amendment was defeated by votes from the clergy (it had to pass in all three orders–bishops, clergy, and lay). Second, the overwhelming majority by which the overall measure passed: 374 in favor, 14 against, 17 abstentions.
I’m all for trying to accommodate, and indeed retain minority viewpoints within the larger church, but the noes and abstentions amount to less than 10% of the total votes cast. That’s not a minority. All of the years of bending over backward to accommodate oponents of women’s ordination is little more than allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Let’s see how many clergy actually swim the Tiber.
More on the Anglican Covenant
Today came word that the Church in Mexico has approved the Anglican Covenant. The Bishops of the Church of England have commended it to the General Synod for approval.
Provocative comment in The Guardian today that describes the proposed covenant as a “power-play.”
Meanwhile, Presiding Bishop Jefforts Schori is visiting Australia, where she has received a hearty welcome from the Primate of [All] Australia.
#mitregate
If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be amusing. Clearly the Archbishop of Canterbury (or someone in his office) stepped way over the line. They’re back-pedalling now, promising an “investigation” of the Presiding Bishop’s treatment, although they aren’t moving as fast as the GOP did after Representative Barton’s “apology” to BP yesterday. Still both are public relations disasters.
Various sites are keeping track of those women bishops who have preached and celebrated in England while wearing their mitres. Among them:
The Rt. Rev’d Mary Tottenham, Area Bishop of the Credit Valley Diocese of Toronto (Canada), who preached and celebrated at Southwark Cathedral on November 9, 2002. More on that here.
Presiding Bishop Jefforts Schori did the same in 2008 at Sudbury Cathedral. More on the issue at the Episcopal Cafe and Preludium. Plus, Diana Butler Bass has comment on Beliefnet.
Now we learn that the Bishop of El Camino Real, the Rt. Rev’d Mary Gray-Reeves, is currently visiting the Bishop of Gloucester and is reported to have worn a mitre.
It was clear at Clergy Day yesterday in our diocese that many of those in attendance were outraged by the treatment of the Presiding Bishop and that whatever sentimental attachment that many of us had to Anglicanism, and the respect we had for the Archbishop of Canterbury is quickly dissipating. If the goal was to get the Episcopal Church to leave the Anglican Communion on its own, it may be in sight.
Anglican Diversity
No this isn’t another post about our current troubles. Rather, today we are talking about diversity within the historical tradition of Anglicanism.
An interesting pairing of commemorations on June 15 and June 16. Yesterday was Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941), the great English spiritual writer. Today is Joseph Butler (1692-1752), theologian and Bishop of Durham. They express two very different strands in Anglicanism. Butler was one of the most important theologians of his day. An apologist, he sought to explain Christian doctrines in ways that would make sense to contemporary thinkers, especially to skeptics. The eighteenth century was dominated by Deism, which sought to develop a religion consistent with reason and with natural law. Butler saw his task as explicating the ways in which Christianity met that standard.
Evelyn Underhill was a writer and a mystic. Apparently as a child or youth she had profound experiences that she sought to understand. Eventually through the help of Baron Friedrich von Huegel, she began learning about mysticism. In 1911, she wrote Mysticism, which is one of the most important English-language works on the topic. Full of scholarly erudition, it also expresses her reflections on her own spiritual experience. Indeed, she criticizes William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience because James denies any personal leanings toward such experience.
Underhill describes the various mystical stages that culminate in “unitive life.” As she describes it: “The Mystic Way has been a progress, a growth, in love: a deliberate fostering of the inward tendency of the soul towards its source, an eradication of its disorderly tendencies to “temporal goods.” But the only proper end of love is union.”
Quoting Walter Hilton, she explains: “it is a perfect uniting and coupling together of the lover and the loved into one.”
But it is not just about the fusion of I and God: “We find as a matter of fact, when we come to study the history of the mystics, that the permanent Unitive State, or spiritual marriage, does mean for those who attain to it, above all else such an acess of creative vitality. It means man’s small derivative life invaded and enhanced by the Absolute Life: the appearance in human history of personalities and careers which seem superhuman when judged by the surface mind.” (Mysticism, pp. 428-9)
Her work still bears reading, both by the individual seeking a deeper spiritual life and by the scholar attempting to understand mysticism.
Together Butler and Underhill point to two very different approaches in Anglicanism: one the intellectual, the rational, the other the experiential. Though Underhill is probably closer to contemporary Anglican sensibilities with her careful theological and historical analysis of the spiritual life.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that Underhill was powerfully attracted to Catholicism and considered conversion. It may be that her husband prevented her from going over to Rome.
Perhaps it is all about Katharine Jefforts Schori
There’s a report making the rounds that during her visit to England, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori was asked by the ABC not to wear her mitre while preaching and celebrating the Eucharist at Southwark Cathedral. Apparently there were hisses from the reactionaries while she preached. Apparently, too, she carried her mitre with her. The Bishop of Southwark, who extended the invitation comments here.
No doubt the ABC is concerned about what will transpire when the Church of England’s General Synod meets soon to discuss (again) the ordination of women to the Episcopate. It is a very sensitive issue with both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals resistant to change. But it seems quite an affront to our Presiding Bishop, and to the American Church, that our chief representative not be allowed to wear the symbols of her office.
And if he’s willing to do that, it’s likely he’s willing to sacrifice all of us to appease opponents of women’s ordination.
Preaching Grace on the Square 