Letters from the laity

If you want to ask a real question, or a rhetorical question, or express an insight or opinion, please send an e-mail, here's the place! It's kind of like letters to the editor, but with a little more flexibility. We don't promise to display all such letters in this place, nor would long letters be appropriate, nor do we promise to answer all the questions, but ... We'd like to try this out and see how it goes.

PS: These need to be signed, but if you request that we withhold your name from publication on the website, we'll comply.

The following are the personal opinions of the writers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Albany Via Media Board.

May 3, 2008

"How long, O Lord...?"

Three and a half months have passed since our meeting with Bonnie Anderson, at which Bp. Love was asked to deal with noxious blogsites that are linked to the diocesan website. Still no response, despite several reminders.

As I said in a previous letter, there are two issues: One is the presence of Stand Firm and Virtueonline, the other the absence of moderate to progressive blogs. Are Albany Episcopalians so faint of faith that they must be shielded from those with different views? How insulting!

Robert Dodd

April 6, 2008

Dear editor,

At the April 5th AVM meeting we were made awate of the fact that many of our parishes are listed as being associated or " members" of the Common Cause Partnership through our Diocesan assosciation to the Anglican Communion Network. It was strongly suggested , as one local parish recently did, to check on that website map ( www.united-anglicans.org) and see if your parish is listed and then to try to have it removed if the parish is not interested in being assosciated in that way.

Richard Angelo

St Andrews, Albany

March 30, 2008

Dear Mr. Dodd,

You wrote:

"Can we talk?" Bonnie's title was my idea, but I'm afraid it asked the wrong question. "Will you hear?" would have been nearer the mark. So far, it looks like the answer is "No!"

I believe that you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that one cannot talk with those who truly only want to be heard.

In my first letter, I remarked on this problem of monologue. Hearing begins when there is a genuine predisposition that the other has something worthwhile to say. For the most part, we treat one another as those who need instruction and correction. Not a good place to begin.

We can talk when the subject matter is what actual matters to the other, when hearing is more than a therapeutic gesture or posture, but an actual engagement with the substance and argument of the other. This is derailed when we play the offense card or the numerous others that get pulled from the deck to achieve domination of the topic.

We can talk. It means responding to what the other person is actually saying and trying to make clear by means of cogent arguments; and to do so not as a gesture, in order to get heard ourselves, but because there is truth beyond what we think and what we would want if we were making the world to suit ourselves.

Thus far the conversation has too many cultural muzzles that discourage frank discourse, too many unexamined motives and preconceptions, and too little discussion of what counts as Christian Truth.

Faithfully,

The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

March 25, 2008

Dear Editor:

More than two months have passed since 250 to 300 of us gathered at St. Andrew's, Albany, to hear Bonnie Anderson try to answer the question, "Can we talk?" At that time, several people complained about the blog list on the diocesan website, noting that some listed sites -- notably Stand Firm and Virtue Online -- often include abusive language. At first, Bp. Love advised those who are offended by the sites not to read them. After that suggestion went down poorly with the audience, he apologized for it and said that he would look into the problem.

Evidently, he did not. The offensive sites are still listed on the diocesan website. So is Albany Intercessor, which, as some of us have noted elsewhere, serves up at least as much anti-Episcopal propaganda as saving grace.

It is bad enough that offensive material lurks on what purports to be a Christian website, worse that the Albany site lists no blogs to the left of the conservative Titus One-Nine. By contrast, the national church's blog site, Episcope, provides links to blogs on the left, right, and center. Even the extremely conservative Diocese of South Carolina does better than Albany: Its website includes a link to AVM's sister organization, Episcopal Forum!

Bp. Love's failure to follow through on the blog issue is a small matter, but it recalls the diocese's refusal to put Bonnie Anderson's visit on its calendar. It is also of a piece with refusing AVM space at the diocesan Convention and loading that meeting with speakers -- e.g. Nazir-Ali, Miller, Kwashi -- whose common denominator is a low opinion of the Episcopal Church. Is it any wonder that many Albany Episcopalians, conservatives included, feel like strangers in our own diocese?

"Can we talk?" Bonnie's title was my idea, but I'm afraid it asked the wrong question. "Will you hear?" would have been nearer the mark. So far, it looks like the answer is "No!"

Robert Dodd

March 12, 2008

Dear Editor:

I would also invite The Rev. Hartt and any other interested readers to visit the new blogsite, Openly Episcopal in Albany, to post their comments, suggest other topics of conversation, and be informed of news coming out of The Episcopal Church (TEC). Surf over to: http://drbones.typepad.com/.

John White

March 11, 2008

Dear Editor:

Following the AVM Annual Meeting I am hoping that the Board will begin to initiate some new ways to get the message out to as many as possible. It seems to me that after the meeting with Bonnie Anderson as well as the AVM Board Meeting held recently that we need to find additional ways to continue the conversation in the Diocese. Suggestions were made that we make efforts to reach out to as many parishes and individuals as possible. Perhaps by networking with persons from parish to parish or other types of communications can be arranged so that upcoming events can be announced without relying on the Diocesan Office, Diocesan Website or Diocesan Newspaper, all of which more than likely will not publish or promote anything about AVM. The suggestion that AVM sponsor several big events each year with guest speakers from around the Episcopal Church is also a wonderful idea. We need to hear from people in the wider Episcopal Church, we need to learn what the "real" Episcopal Church is all about and since we most likely won't get that from Albany we need to do it ourselves. Certainly invite the Bishop, but if he chooses not to attend, so be it!

At our AVM-sponsored meeting with Bonnie Anderson, Bp. Love agreed to look into the diocesan website's links to sites that use abusive language. More than three weeks on, those ultra-conservative sites are still there and moderate to liberal sites are still absent. Even Episcopal Life doesn't make the DoA's list of acceptable periodicals.

Episcope, which comes from the Episcopal Church, lists websites from left, right, and center, including some that regularly attack our Church. TEC isn't afraid to acknowledge other views, even hostile ones. Why can't the Diocese of Albany do as much for us?

Letters concerning the recent AVM Meeting in Albany, N.Y.
Presented in chronological order

Jan 21, 2008

Dear Editor-
Following yesterday's AVM event at St Andrews in Albany I visited the Albany Episcopal Diocese website.. On it under "Online Resources " listed under " Our Ministries" , I found the " Anglican News and Resources" section. Listed under BLOGS are such " right wing/conservative" blogs as Stand Firm, Virtuosity, Viirtue on line as well as our " own" Diocesan Intercessor.. If Bishop Love is true to what he said yesterday each of those sights should be removed OR AVM sights as well as blogs by progressive Episcopalians added. As busy as the Bishop is perhaps he has not had time to be aware of what is on the Diocesaan website.. It's time he was aware!!

Sincerely.
Richard Angelo
Albany

Jan. 24, 2008

I want to personally say " Thank You" to Albany Via Media for the
event on Saturday,January 19 at St Andrew's Church. It was a landmark
event in the current life of the Diocese of Albany. Although we may
not have made deep inroads into the real issues facing the Diocese
I am hopeful and prayerful that we may be able to begin a
conversation with our Bishop. We need to keep this going and not let
the momentum drop. The St Andrew's Integrity/Congregational Circle
will be seeking ways to keep the conversation going.

Rich Angelo
Albany NY

Jan. 24, 2008

Yesterday's gathering, sponsored by Albany Via Media, held at St. Andrew's Church, Albany with guests Bonnie Anderson, President of the Episcopal Church’s House of Deputies and Albany Bishop William Love was an informative experience. I make 2 points:

1) I experienced another side to Bp. Love at this meeting. His tone was judgmental and his patience short. Figuratively, he slapped Bonnie Anderson in the face more than once. He expressed disappointment with members of Albany Via Media and more than once became angry with people who asked questions. On one occasion, when asked why there was a link on the diocesan website to VirtueOnLine and not to Albany Via Media, he denied it. When pressed by the questioner, he said "If it offends you, don't read it." The questioner broke into tears and left the room.

2) There were 225 Episcopalians from the Diocese of Albany present as well as an Episcopalian who came to support ALBANY VIA MEDIA from the DIOCESE OF OHIO! Bishop Love sat stone cold on the panel which included Bonnie Anderson and my Rector, The Rev. Dr. James R. Brooks-McDonald, of St. Stephen's, Schenectady I believe that Bp. Love received a rude wake up call yesterday--for the FIRST TIME in his EPISCOPATE and for the first time since 1998--when Herzog's Episcopate began. Those folks in the Diocese of Albany who were aligned with Mr. Herzog DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE AGENDA YESTERDAY

WE, THOSE OF US, WHO HAVE IN MANY WAYS BEEN SHUT OUT FROM THE COUNCILS OF THIS CHURCH (Councils of the Church in ALBANY--not ECUSA) were HEARD AND LISTENED TO... WE HAD OUR TURN

I felt proud to be an EPISCOPALIAN yesterday, more so than on most days! After having been silenced by Mr. Herzog for years, we finally had the opportunity to voice our concerns publicly. I believe we spoke truth to power.

Dennis Wisnom, layperson St. Stephen’s, Schenectady & Member of AVM II Epiphany January 20, 2008

Jan. 30, 2008

Dear Via Media,

As a priest in the Diocese, and not in my elected position, I wish to share my thoughts on the recent gathering at St. Andrew's sponsored by Albany Via Media with the theme “Can We Talk?”

It is my great and heartfelt hope that we can talk. As Bishop Love said, the definition of a real conversation or of being heard cannot mean that someone will come to agree with us. Nor can a real conversation be a monologue. It involves give and take. With the divisive issues at hand, there has been a tendency in kindness to expect that our homosexual and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ can report their feelings, experiences, and thoughts without the process truly working in reverse. But this is unsustainable in genuine conversation. It is akin to allowing only one side of a marriage to report on how it is going.

Our Bishop comported himself with humility, gentleness, love, compassion, depth and care. It is amazing to ponder that he was able under such dynamic and difficult circumstances to do so continuously. It would be uncharitable in the extreme to micro-analyze his comments. At no point was his tone or love in question. He may, here or there, as we all would, wish he could rephrase this or that. As Christians, we do not engage in a “gotcha” game in such discussions. We do not wait to pounce or grab a thread to spin it into a portrait of a person undeserved. It is regrettable that the media is inclined to do so, which brings me to that matter as well.

Also uncharitable is the presence of media at all at such events. What is their purpose? Is it to intimidate and make nervous? We all know that there is considerable cultural and media support for the positions taken by Via Media and the broader Episcopal Church. Is the hope that the pressure will either create an impulse to cater to those cultural sympathies or perhaps to catch someone in an embarrassing statement or two? Either is unchristian and a playing politics with the free working of another Christian's conscience.

It is worse, of course, if one is taken by surprise. Bishop Love had no idea in coming that cameras would be rolling or that he would be participating in a “panel discussion.” If this was a miscommunication, I suggest greater care be taken in the future. If it is an intended practice, I must, in my elected capacity, counsel our bishop not to attend future events of this kind. It is no way to have a discussion, or treat a guest. It should be added here that Bishop Love has no relation to the writing of this letter whatsoever.

Our panel discussion's chairman did an admirable job. He deserves our thanks. My attention was drawn to his many references to John Lennon and “a little help from my friends.” I found myself pondering the John Lennon generation and its effect on our Church.

There is so much to be commended in that generation's engagement of the Civil Rights Movement and elsewhere. There is much to examine, also, in the broader impact of the John Lennon generation.

We need to face into the fact that it is this generation who has held the leadership reins of the Episcopal Church for some time and our Average Sunday Attendance is now less that 800,000. Likewise, the overall attendance patterns of this generation's children are most discouraging. What were they taught? How were they raised? This generation's certainty in their own rectitude on issues of controversy has divided our Communion and our Church and created an enormously negative ecumenical impact. It has been noted that one of the problems with the “protest generation” is that they are use to pointing the finger elsewhere. It's intoxicating, but it can lead to blindness. Could we talk? Could we spend some time examining the values and attitudes of this generation and its effects on our Church, both good and ill –from the sexual revolution to church attendance? I'd say this is a most pressing matter, for we are drifting numerically, in the words of our own Church's official analysis, toward “irrelevance and death.” (Standing Commission on Domestic Mission and Evangelism's report on 20/20.)

The fact that this decline is generally true of the Mainline churches suggests even more so that it is about the overall culture of the John Lennon generation, which holds the reins of leadership there also. Such cultural values were perhaps well summed up in Ms. Anderson's embrace of “meeting beyond the place of right and wrong.”

Could we also talk about that? Isn't Ms. Anderson's appeal that “we meet beyond a place of right and wrong” a self-contradiction? Why? It assumes that it is “right” and good to go there. It also assumes what in fact needs to be proved, namely, that there is such a place at all, and that, if there is, God would have us go there.

It hardly seems that Jesus, who tells us that those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” shall be blessed, or “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” is keen to have us go to a place where such righteousness allegedly does not exist or is operative. Clearly, Jesus is no petty moralist nor in sympathy with those who are, but that hardly means he resides in a place “beyond right and wrong.” This expression is a good example of the fuzzy sixties' thinking that will not advance discussion, especially in light of the fact that those who advance it know perfectly well that they believe it will help lead others to the “right view” on issues surrounding us today. So, in fact, it is both self-contradictory and dishonest. Bonnie Anderson's other remarks were most helpful in matters of polity. Nonetheless, they could not escape their jumping off point.

In sum, there has become something of a playbook for these events, and that playbook needs to go, so we can truly talk. What must go are media games, surprise panels, orchestrated questions, emotional confrontations, accusations of bad motives, and one-sided conversations. I want us all to talk. Let's do it differently and broaden the agenda.

Perhaps we will find the irony is that we are in the place we are as a Church because something was accomplished by political action which can only respond to genuine conversation.

Yours in Christ,

The Rev. Paul J Hartt

Jan. 31, 2008

Dear Rev. Hartt,

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of Bonnie Anderson’s presentation to the diocese. The fact that our conclusions coming out of the meeting are so far apart is less important than the goal of establishing a way of talking about our different conclusions.

Bonnie Anderson was speaking, of course, about the barrier to dialogue that is erected when one side feels it is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong. The “place beyond right and wrong” is not a valueless place, but a stance that does not claim pure righteousness for oneself or impute wrongness to the other. This position seeks a spirit of discernment to arrive at a knowledge of what is right at this time and place through the very act sharing and conversation. To assert this position is obviously not the same as denying the existence of right and wrong. Your argument causes confusion by seeming to conflate the two positions.

You suggest that “we spend some time examining the values and attitudes of this generation and its effects on our Church.” I for one welcome the suggestion of this or any topic of conversation. By all means, “let’s broaden the agenda” and proceed without “a playbook.” Since we have just met under the auspices of Via Media, I hope that the diocese will soon propose a venue to which the Bishop and all interested parishioners can gather to continue the dialogue on topics important to our diocese.

John White

St. Andrew’s, Albany

Feb. 1, 2008

To the Editor:

Fr. Hartt’s January 30 letter contains much that is worth pondering, but it also paints a false picture of our recent meeting with Bonnie Anderson and Bishop Love’s role in it. I hope a summary of the history of this important event will set things straight.

On November 21, when we were first sure that Bonnie was coming to Albany, we invited Bishop Love to our meeting and asked him to be the celebrant at our Eucharist. We did not ask him to preach, for we hoped Bonnie would give a brief homily on the timely subject of unity. At Christmas, we learned via the grapevine that Bp. Love would, indeed, attend our meeting but wanted to preach as well as celebrate. Rev. Mary White, the host rector, asked him to speak for no longer than 20 minutes because of our crowded agenda.

After some difficulty making contact, Bonnie spoke with Bp. Love on January 9 and suggested that they “co-facilitate” the discussion on the 19^th. However, it was still unclear by the 17^th whether +Love would or would not share the dais with Bonnie and Fr. James Brooks-McDonald. If Bp. Love had been uncertain of his role, he could have spoken to me about it. He did not.

The Bishop’s decision to preach was his right, but it shortened our exposure to Bonnie. So did his 45 minute sermon. That and an all-stops-out Eucharist severely shortened the following discussion and offended many who had come to St. Andrew’s chiefly to hear Bonnie.

Apparently, Fr. Hartt and the Bishop were surprised by the media’s prominence at our gathering. Fr. Hartt invokes dark motives – a liberal bias, a desire to embarrass the Bishop – to explain it, but the reason is both simple and obvious: As President of the Episcopal House of Bishops, Bonnie Anderson is big news wherever she goes. Although news people were present too, the conspicuous videographers were St. Andrew’s people who were making a video of the meeting to share with those who could not attend it.

St. Andrew’s was crowded for our visit with Bonnie: between 250 and 300 people were present, a result, I think, of good press coverage before the event. I found the crowd both inspiring and a bit daunting. Bp. Love may have felt the same.

Ironically, the church might have been standing room only – and we could have heard more conservative voices -- if the diocese had honored AVM’s request to have the meeting listed on its website’s calendar. Alas, it did not.

Robert Dodd

Feb. 1, 2008

Dear Mr. White,

Thank you for your thoughtful clarifications and kind response.

It is probably the case that Bonnie Anderson will need to offer her own explication of her words. I confess that my instinct remains that she was speaking of “a place beyond right and wrong” which implied somehow meeting in our humanity rather than our morality. My objection would be that the two are never detached in the generous Kingdom sense nor are they mutually exclusive.

Your own interpretation of her remarks would certainly shed new and positive light on the matter. Thank you. I can only say that if Ms. Anderson’s intention was as you described it would be helpful for her in the future to unpack the phrase “beyond a place of right and wrong” exactly as you did.

In our efforts at mutual understanding, it is good to know that such turns of phrase as “beyond a place of right and wrong” are likely to trigger bad reactions. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, many feel that there tends to be a desire to have these discussions with few solid reference points other than a culturally conditioned view of experience and reason.

The other reason touches upon what you put so well: “Bonnie Anderson was speaking, of course, about the barrier to dialogue that is erected when one side feels it is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong. The “place beyond right and wrong” is not a valueless place, but a stance that does not claim pure righteousness for oneself or impute wrongness to the other.”

It is hard for many witnessing “the full steam ahead” stance of 815 to believe that such openness is in fact present. There is nothing more annoying than a discussion that pretends that it “does not claim pure righteousness for oneself or impute wrongness to the other” when in fact it is actively behaving to the contrary. In my view, we need to have our discussion on the level of our honest convictions, whatever they may be, and patiently make a case for them in terms recognized by the Church as credible. Again, it is my view that we are in the mess we are because our Church did not do so. It was thought easier to bring change politically.

In terms of an on-going discussion in the Diocese, it is important to recall that the Bishop made himself available just recently in every Deanery for such discussion with both laity and clergy. Many folks attended those meetings and felt they went quite well.

I want to thank you once more for your thoughtful and kind comments. It is my hope that Bonnie Anderson gets the last word on her intentions. Perhaps we will hear from her on this forum.

Faithfully,

The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

February 2, 2008

Dear Mr. Dodd,

Thank you for your comments. I also appreciated our earlier exchange by email.

There are several points in your letter that would be helpful to clarify. Firstly, who contacted the Albany Times Union to promote the event? Was it Via Media? If so, it accounts for the other media being present that day considerably more than Bonnie Anderson alone. Someone alerted them to her presence. My question is only, who did so? It is important to be clear about who encouraged the media's presence in the first place. Otherwise, we are muddying the waters.

Regarding Bishop Love and the panel, if no one had received clear indication about Bishop Love's being willing to sit on a panel, how did it come about that the Times Union published that he would do so in an article that appeared that day? Who suggested to them that he would do so? (By the way, I saw the article only the mid-morning of the event.) Likewise, as you note, the cameras rolling were not all in-house. Let us be clear about that as well. The real question is, why seek the media at all for a family discussion?

This is a serious question, and one much more to my overall point. In the end, there is a decision to make. What is most important? Do we promote attention to ourselves or our positions, or do we want to promote discussion? The event was entitled, “Can We Talk.” My comments, while far from perfect and from one who is weary, reflect why the media tend to promote causes and personalities rather than discussion. It will be a sacrifice to some, but it is well worth it. It is important to note the media problem because the media themselves have become a part of the package of division in the Diocese and the Church.

I stand by my view that the media are most unhelpful at these events. Bishop Love did not have media present at his recent Deanery meetings with laity and clergy. They do intimidate. It is hardly a stretch to say that there is considerable media support for the positions of Via Media and the broader Episcopal Church on matters of controversy. As with the Times Union article, there is a tendency to pounce on any verbal misstep and stoke the fire as much as possible. It does not promote free and thoughtful discussion to feel that pressure.

As for Bishop Love's interaction with you prior to this event, it is for Bishop Love to speak for himself. I do know that inviting a prominent person into the diocese who will focus on issues of controversy without first speaking to the Bishop would be cause for a hesitant reaction on almost anyone's part. I am not assigning a bad motive here -- as I know how these things happen -- but only making a suggestion. If there is to be a new spirit, it will require having such conversations prior to setting things in place. Again, these are my views only.

In any case, my hope would be to focus on the generational question that was mentioned in my first letter. When our own Church's analysis says we are drifting numerically toward “irrelevance and death,” that is what I would call a heart attack. We need to look at root causes of our condition. Any thoughts? My own thoughts begin with the sense that our commitment to the core proclamation of the Gospel has become increasingly embarrassed, marginalized in our institutional message, and anemic.

Faithfully,

The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

Fe. 3, 2008

Dear Rev. Hartt,

Thank you for responding so promptly to my letter, which in fact crossed with the copy t that I posted to you in the mail. Until then I did not know that you paid such notice to the Via Media website. We are all gratified by the attention you give to this forum.

Frankly, it is disheartening to hear of your own disinclination to believe that the openness of which Bonnie Anderson spoke does in fact exist in our conversation together. I heard that very openness expressed by Ms. Anderson and repeated in the remarks of panel participants and members of the congregation. Openness expressed seeks openness in return. Likewise, it is puzzling that you find “few solid reference points” in our dialogue so far. In any conversation among Anglicans there exists that solid three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Bonnie Anderson’s remarks were placed solidly on that stool, and her invitation to us was to continue along the same path.

I thank you for your acceptance of my interpretation regarding some of Ms. Anderson’s comments. She may well decide to further “unpack” her thoughts, but that is of course up to her. Her words must stand as given, and we must proceed to “broaden the agenda” beyond a mere assessment of what she said on the occasion of her visit. The responsibility is ours to determine how we will continue the conversation among ourselves, including every member of the diocese in the discussions. And yes, the deanery meetings initiated by the Bishop were generally helpful, and he rightly deserves credit for his initiative, as you suggest. But I for one never considered these visitations a one-off. We are invited to a banquet and his visits were a savory hors d’oeuvre, leaving us hungry for further dialogue and sharing, leading to the piece d’resitance of mutual understanding.

You suggest a discussion of the “generational question” as it affects the Episcopal Church. I assume that this means a critique of “the fuzzy sixties' thinking” that you attribute to what you call the “John Lennon generation,” and for which you cite a decline in Episcopal Church membership. I commend your suggestion of a conversation starter. But in an effort to further concretize the idea, I would urge the topic of how we can both increase membership and appeal to younger believers by evangelizing in a meaningful way through the established initiatives of our Episcopal Church, TEC. Believe me, such a discussion would yield wide-ranging ideas of value to our diocese and the national church, while directly responding to Bonnie Anderson’s call to be an example of constructive conversation.

Any discussion of issues important to the diocese would be much more meaningful with the full participation of the Bishop. That is why the suggestion that you would advise him not to joint future public forums based on the natural interest of the press in our deliberations is disturbing. You know well that the Bishop was uniformly praised in the press for participating in the recent discussion. There is no reason to believe that Bishop Love would not gain even more public credit for continuing the engagement. Please forgive my forwardness in asking that you urge the Bishop to name a date and venue, and soon, for the next diocesan conversation.

There is a banquet awaiting us. Be the guest or the host, but don’t stay away from the table.

John White

St. Andrew’s, Albany

Feb. 4, 2008

Dear Mr. White, February 4, 2008

I thank you for your letter.

It seems to me that at almost every point in which it would have been possible to respond to the substance of my letter your letter failed to do so or simply misapplied my remarks.

Yes, I do believe that Ms. Anderson's offer to “meet beyond a place of right and wrong” and impute neither righteousness nor certainty to either party seems disingenuous in our present context in the Episcopal Church. TEC is in a “full steam ahead” mode on all fronts and hardly appears lacking in conviction in their own rectitude, including lawsuits. Your letter took my comment about TEC and applied it to the meeting on January 19th. The tone of our meeting on Saturday was not my point. My point was the meaning of Ms. Anderson's words in light of her official position and the actions of our Church. How am I to make sense of that offer? It is really a stretch and a great disservice to imply any lack of charity on the receiving end of those present.

I regret that your letter did not respond to any of my many reasons for finding the media unhelpful. I believe these reasons are quite sound. They all have to do with promoting conversation. Again, “Can We Talk” was the theme. The willingness to surrender media attention for all the reasons I suggested seems hardly a high cost. What is it about their attention that so appeals? After all, it is a family discussion. Politics and personality play to media, not genuine conversation. My fear is that the affection for media presence is about advancing causes not conversation. I fear that the desire for media presence is considerable because some believe they have a friend there or that it is useful to a bigger picture than conversation itself. If that is so for some, it is not so for others in the discussion. At best, the media have been a major facilitator of the division in the Diocese and the Church. Most of all, they have a highly reductionistic view of the issues that stifles real discussion and keeps us stuck.

My comments about our bishop had a particular context that was not honored in your remarks. You make it seem that I am hostile to continued conversation, when my concern is only media use. I would be happy to encourage the Bishop to further discussions, which of course is up to him, if others are happy to leave the media piece out of it. It would perplex me why you wouldn't want to do so with the stated goal of talking. Media presence does not promote a positive climate. As to the media's natural interest, I usual find it is enhanced when they are contacted and encouraged to be present by those who wish to promote events. They are not mind readers or psychic. They usually show up when someone waves a flag. Stop waving it, and it will promote excellent conditions for exchange.

The fact that the “John Lennon generation” have long held the leadership reins of a seriously declining Church does warrant examination. I used the term “John Lennon” generation because John Lennon was repeatedly invoked by our chairman that day. The use of the “fuzzy sixties' thinking” quote is an effort at being dismissive of my core point. The decline in our Church under this generation's leadership is a crisis. We are moving toward “irrelevance and death” according to TEC's own study. We need to look at why.

I am perplexed by the notion that we should look at our Church's own initiatives as meaningful while they are, by their own admission, failing. We need to look at why. I think it has to do with the issues that I mentioned in my last letter. It would perhaps be a good discussion to take each of the three points at the end of my last letter.

The “fuzzy” part was about “beyond a place of right and wrong.” It does sound, sixties style, pretty “relative.” Again, your explication of Ms, Anderson's remarks was helpful and encouraging. Nonetheless, as I said, I remain concerned by it.

Finally, as to my remarks about the “lack of solid reference points,” I was explicit about what I meant. It is the tendency to take up these discussion on the basis of a highly culturally informed sense of experience and reason alone. It may not surprise you that I believe we need to work from Scripture and tradition into reason and experience. These three legs of the stool have never, until the last thirty years, been regarded as of equal length. It's quite unAnglican in fact to do so. As I said, I do remain interested in also discussing experiences – as long as those experiences come from all of us and not just some.

My fear is that “Can We Talk” will not look at the harder questions. I mean the ones that challenge our presuppositions. In order for us to get there, the few suggestions made in my letter could be regarded as both charitable and reasonable.

Faithfully,

The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

Feb. 6, 2008

Dear Via Media:

I would like to suggest a media-free debate between Rev. Hartt and John White, where each tries to restate and then argue the others' position. I believe these two reasonable and charitable gentlemen might set a wonderful example for us and begin to establish a common foundation for moving forward.

Thank you.

Andy Genovese

St. Andrew's, Albany