Archbishop of Canterbury Meets with AMIA leadership

I keep finding this story intriguing.

I'd like to be a fly at Lambeth.

Even given my previous post (among others), I think it’s important to be realistically positive about the Anglican Communion as a whole. Here is an excellent, balanced piece from Bill Atwood of Ekklesia.

It gives you some of the reasons why I find myself as attracted to the Anglican Communion as I am repelled by the ECUSA.

About Episcopal “Discourse�

In Presiding Bishop Griswold’s statement mentioned yesterday and elsewhere, you hear much from the national ECUSA leadership about how much they value and are engaged in “discourse� and “dialogue� over homosexuality and related contentious issues. You would think discourse was a sacrament or something.

Well, here’s what Episcopal “discourse� looks like:

First, you ignore pleas from the faithful in the U. S. and from around the world that the actions you are about to take violate scripture and will tear the Anglican Communion apart. Oh, you might sign a statement with the other Primates, but you then tear it up before the ink is dry.

Then, without even waiting to allow the Communion an opportunity to decide how they are going to deal with the issue, you cram your desires down the throats of conservatives, electing a bishop who left his wife and kids to pursue a homosexual lifestyle and putting further blessings on homosexual unions. You and your allies rig the vote while you’re at it. All 11 representatives from the Diocese of Missouri, for example, voted to consecrate Gene Robinson. Unless Missouri Episcopalianism is a hotbed of lavender Communism, the fix was on.

Then, having succeeded in your divisive schismatic acts, you urge against division and schism. Having steamrollered the opposition, you say you are engaged in dialogue with them.

Oh, and if the opposition tries to pass resolutions denouncing your actions at the diocese level, your allied bishops don’t even allow those resolutions to come to a vote. See Bishops Wimberley in Texas and Lee in Virginia among others.

And if parishes ask for Adequate Episcopal Oversight from orthodox bishops they can conscientiously submit to, screw them! If the rest of the Anglican Communion Primates instruct you that there should be AEO for those parishes that ask for it, you ignore them. If parishes become convinced by your actions that they can no longer faithfully stay in the ECUSA, your bishops don’t negotiate with them in good faith over property issues. No, they sue them to take it all from the parish faithful. Some bishops even take preemptive action, dismissing rectors and vestries and installing puppets, driving the faithful out.

Of course, the puppets then hand over all the parish property and money to the bishop. And that’s what’s important, isn’t it? Who gives a flying fajita about conservatives being driven out? As one nice Episcopal lady said to one of them, “Why don’t you just leave so our church could be inclusive?� But you gotta keep that property. Money is a sacrament in the ECUSA.

And then you keep on issuing nice statements about how much you value “dialogue� and “discourse.�

If you want an idea why ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold gets so little respect, why the Archbishop of Nigeria won’t even be in the same room with him, read his latest statement opposing a Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to between one man and one woman. You can find it with some commentary here and here.

Griswold’s statement reminds me of the sort of hypocritical oh-so-nice-sounding doublespeak that comes from my former denomination. Do you have to learn to lie write statements this way to become a leader in a U.S. mainline denomination?

FLASH
What?!

I’m floored to just find out that Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA, celebrated (i.e. led) communion this morning at Canterbury Cathedral.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury wants conservatives to keep hope and stay in the Anglican Communion, allowing this is NOT the way to do it.

Expect outrage to come from conservative Anglicans from all over the world. If you think I’m upset . . . oh, boy.

I think one outcome of The Passion, one you don’t hear much speculation of, will be further reconciliation between Catholics and Evangelicals.

Catholic-Evangelical relations have improved in recent decades. One reason has been the abortion issue bringing them together on the same side. Another: the continued liberalization of mainline Protestant denominations combined with Pope John Paul II’s leadership has brought more Evangelicals to the place where, like me, they find they have more in common with conservative Catholics than with mainline Protestants.

I’m convinced The Passion is further accelerating this trend. Why and how?

There is the well publicized traditional Catholicism of Mel Gibson. His popularity combined with the popularity of his movie is making Evangelicals among others more sympathetic to his religious background, even if they disagree with it.

Catholics and Evangelicals once again find themselves on the same side of a cultural issue. Most Catholics and Evangelicals support the Passion while many liberal Christian and non-Christian spokesmen and pundits are critical, often caustically so. (That is not to say there aren’t a number from non-Christian backgrounds who applaud the movie. There are.)

But there is a deeper reason The Passion is bringing Evangelicals and Catholics closer together. The Passion as portrayed in the movie is a profoundly Marian one. One could almost call it The Passion of Mary as well as The Passion of the Christ. Much of the movie focuses on Mary and her suffering. Much of it views the Passion through her eyes.

The movie gives Mary an exalted role in the Passion. Yet is does so without contradicting the Biblical narrative as Evangelicals see it. Mary is made a focus of the Passion, but in a way very few Evangelicals find objectionable. Moreover, only the callous, of any background, can’t sympathize with her and feel her pain as her Son suffers.

And who can forget the masterful pieta scene when Mary, holding Jesus, lifts her eyes from Him and looks directly at the audience, putting responsibility on us for what Christ went through and for what our response now will be.

My primary response to The Passion was a deeper, much deeper, appreciation of what Jesus went through for me, an appreciation beyond words. But I also came away with a deeper appreciation for Mary and her passion. And, yes, while remaining quite Protestant in my view of Mary, I understood better why Catholics venerate her so.

I suspect I’m not alone.

I’m hesitant to mention this because some may find it more amusing, or even irreverent, than edifying. But the next day, I prayed something like, “Lord, I’m not going to pray to Mary. I think she wouldn’t want me to anyway. But would you tell her I appreciate her and what she went through?�

That’s the first time this Fundamentalist Protestant ever prayed anything like that.

Church Music: Less is More?

I intend to discuss church music at a later date. But my experience yesterday was a textbook case of its pitfalls. I want to get it off my chest out there while it’s fresh on my mind.

In the morning, I went to my current church, which I still love, by the way. There was a string ensemble up front. I enjoyed listening to them before the service. And their music put me in a good peaceful worshipful mood.

But then the service began. Oi vey! The vocalist who led the congregational singing was fine. The thing is his mike was as hot as a fire cracker. I must have grunted from the pain inflicted on my ears.

The sound guys do this to us all the time, unfortunately. I think they must have high-frequency hearing loss. In any case, I had to close my right ear (which is very sensitive to high, loud noises) a lot. Needless to say, I could barely hear the excellent strings. The vocalist and his over-amped mike drowned them out.

My ears were so assaulted, it took me a while to get my bearings back and concentrate on the sermon, much less worship. Sadly, I didn’t, really couldn’t, worship much at all.

Late in the afternoon, I went to St. David’s, a traditional Episcopal church. As I walked in, quiet organ music was playing.

The service was very liturgical – Rite I Evening Prayer with Communion. It was the first time I’ve participated in Evening Prayer. The service, especially the liturgy and taking communion, really helped me worship.

Now, the music was very spare. There was no singing at all and no instruments other than the small, very traditional pipe organ. I can remember that being played only before and after the service and during the offering and communion. And even then, it was played in a restrained manner. Nothing really fancy or complex. It was played very well, but not in a way to grab your attention.

In a modest way, the organ helped me to worship. It certainly did not distract me from it, very much unlike my experience that morning. And yes, I liked it. I even lingered behind to hear the organist play the postlude.

I mentioned my first Ash Wednesday service (also at St. David’s) had no music at all. I liked that, too.

I guess I’ve been bombarded with so much bad church music that I enjoy restraint, even a complete lack of music. Instead of being helped to worship, I find myself having to overcome a lot of church music in order to worship. So the musical restraint at St. David’s is very refreshing to me. It really is music to my ears, you might say.

Now, I’m not a scrooge when it comes to music. Heck, I have 3 gigs of (legal) music on my hard drive, ranging from speed punk to techno to classical. I enjoy playing with my new Garage Band software with my non-existent keyboard skills. But...

[rant mode]
It’s become clear to me that many (most?) churches need to rethink how they handle music. So much of it is so awful or performed (or amplified) so poorly that it is a serious distraction from worship. No music at all would be better.

Many churches wouldn’t dream of worshipping without music. But maybe some should try that or at least less music for a time as they rethink the role of music in worship. The need for change is that great in some churches.
[/rant mode]

Like I said, I’ll rant even more about music sometime. Feel free to flame me comment.