June 18, 2010

To the Editor:

In response to Dr. Lyman:

1. Labels are always a problem — at best they are a sort of short hand. I use the term “progressive” because I find that it is generally less pejorative than terms like “liberal,” “revisionist” or the unwieldy “reappraiser” — and most especially because this is usually how my more liberal colleagues refer to themselves.

2. I prefer not to think of myself as a theological traditionalist, since I agree with Karl Barth that the Word of God is new every morning, and hence, just trotting out the same formulas is not enough. I also think that Newman's notion of “Development of Doctrine”, shorn of its Roman Catholic apologetic, makes a lot of sense. Serious theological reflection must engage the “signs of times.” This does not, however, amount to an endorsement of the glib assertions of continuing revelation by the Holy Spirit that are so prominent of late.

. . . more from The Ven. Canon Dr. Christopher Brown

June 18, 2010

To the Editor:

Okay — “theological progressivism” sounds utterly opportunistic as so defined. But we could also say that “theological traditionalism is self-satisfied spiritual inertia, largely defensive and closed minded.” Neither defines “liberal” or “orthodox”, but are polemics, not analysis.

Rev. Dr. Rebecca Lyman
Professor Emerita, Church Divinity School of the Pacific

June 16, 2010

To the Editor:

It is good to see this post-Convention exchange of thoughts and feelings. It is my hope to offer some of my own in a helpful way.

My basic point will be that there is reason for all of us to find meaning and value in the Covenant, but also to speak to the matter of mutual respect and truth-telling. Following Archdeacon Christopher Brown, I would like to enumerate those points should others wish to engage them.

. . . more from The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

June 16, 2010

To the Editor:

I ask, again, who and where is the “Anglican center” that inspired and now promotes the Covenant? It looks as if this new “Instrument of Unity” is fast becoming an instrument of mass destruction.

Bob Dodd

June 15, 2010

To the Editor:

Canon Brown's comment causes one to wonder: What should be the appropriate course of action for the “Anglican center” in response to the covenant?

Dr. Brown describes some conservatives as thinking the Covenant "so watered down as to be ineffectual." This is the opinion that he attributes to The Rev. Ellen Neufeld. That description of the Covenant is not one that might sway a thoughtful Anglican toward its endorsement.

And, if the Rev. Neufeld holds the opinion that Dr. Brown asserts, then I suppose her conscientious course was to vote no, but I fail to understand why, given that the endorsement was very likely to pass, she seemed antagonistic to AVM's effort to delay action.

John White

June 15, 2010

To the Editor:

1.  I agree with Bob Dodd that the Covenant presents a “teaching moment.”

2.  I also agree that the West Texas approach was exemplary.

3.  And I agree that we in the Diocese of Albany missed the boat in regard to the invitation to offer a response to the Covenant Design Group.

4.  I do think, however, that there was significant opportunity within the Diocese of Albany to address the issue of the Anglican covenant …

. . . more from The Ven. Canon Dr. Christopher Brown

June 15, 2010

To the Editor:

In response to Archdeacon Brown's comment, I apologize for mischaracterizing [Ed.: as pro-Covenant] the priest who truncated our discussion on Saturday. Of course there are many Anglicans, including most of the Global South primates, who condemn the current version of the Covenant as too weak.

It is not clear to me, though, how Fr. Brown leaps from that to the conclusion that “the Anglican Covenant comes from the Anglican center.” Who and where would that be? Among the 18 provinces that ignored the Covenant Design Group's request for comments on Ridley-Cambridge? (So, incidentally, did many dioceses, Albany included.) Among the seven (of 11) Communion Partner dioceses that have taken no official position on it? If the Covenant really expresses a majority view in the Communion, best the center speak up.

The proposed Covenant offers an invaluable opportunity for all sides to consider what it means to be Episcopalian and Anglican. This is a teaching moment. One Communion Partner diocese, West Texas, took full advantage of it: At its annual synod, it offered extended position statements separated by extended discussion periods. That method honored an important issue that deserves careful, balanced discussion. I find Albany's three-bishops-and-sound-bites approach to the Covenant question embarrassing: far too little and much too late.

Robert T. Dodd

June 14, 2010

To the Editor:

Actually, the delegate who called the question was not a “pro-person.” She was a conservative who thought the Anglican Covenant so watered down as to be ineffectual in addressing the real issues before the Church. Nor was she alone in this respect. There were other conservatives who voted their conscience with her. All of which strengthens my contention that the Anglican Covenant comes from the Anglican center, while it is those on either end of the ideological spectrum who are leery of the covenant.

Fr. Christopher Brown+

June 13, 2010

To the Editor:

Some thoughts about the ruling by Father Charles King to call the motion to table out of order at the Diocese of Albany's 142nd Annual Convention on Saturday, June 12, 2010:

. . . more from Joseph Liotta

June 13, 2010

To the Editor:

Albany's diocesan convention has come and gone, leaving some folks spiritually renewed and others deflated. Those of us who hoped Albany would not pre-emptively endorse the Anglican Covenant were disappointed, though hardly surprised, when a resolution to endorse prevailed by 314 votes to 76. During the convention, there were three extended pro-Covenant statements, by +Love, ++Drexel Gomez of the Covenant Design Group, and — via DVD — +++Rowan Williams. No one was able to speak against the Covenant at any length. What passed for discussion — an exchange of alternating two-minute pro and con statements — was cut off when a pro person called the question.

Despite fatigue and disappointment, we came away from Speculator with memories of several new acquaintances who share our commitment to the Episcopal Church and our determination to keep knowledge and reason flowing in a diocese that is clearly short of both. Some are now and others soon will be AVM members.

Bob Dodd

June 9, 2010

To the Editor:

A hearty “Amen!” to John White's clear, forceful statement of the Diocese of Albany's real purpose in hustling to endorse the Covenant.

It is interesting that very few “Communion Partner” dioceses are rushing to sign on. A tour of their websites shows that most are content to wait for TEC to act.

I like a resolution that is now before the Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. It proposes that the ACoC act on the Covenant after the Church of England does so. It's by no means clear that Abp. Williams will be able to herd even his local cats!

Bob Dodd

June 8, 2010

To the Editor:

In his letter to the editor of May 26, The Rev. Michael Shank upholds the right of a Diocese to vote on the Anglican Covenant before the respective Province has decided. He states: “Such a vote would be unofficial, but it would tell General Convention how at least one Diocese feels about the Covenant.” But let's be honest, the intent of the vote at diocesan convention is not to send General Convention our advice as to how TEC should decide. The vote is intended to set the Diocese of Albany apart from TEC, and to somehow align this diocese separately with other “orthodox” dioceses of the Communion. Bishop Love himself has signalled this intention by saying we should strenthen our bonds with similarly conservative dioceses, and by inviting guest speakers from the Global South. The upcoming vote on the covenant has nothing to do with showing solidarity and support, or even giving advice to General Convention. The purpose of the leaders of the diocese is to increase our distance from TEC, and invite closer ties with extra-provincial groupings.

John White

June 2, 2010

To the Editor:

Fr. Hartt's most recent letter on the indelibility of orders continues the discussion by noting that there are apparently four possible views about the indelibility of holy orders:

…

He states that our tradition is number 3, and that he agrees with this view.

Fr. Hartt goes on to ask “Who is the Church?” — What is the Church that has the authority to give and take away the authority to exercise orders?

. . . more from Allison de Kanel

May 31, 2010

To the Editor:

I again want to thank Allison de Kanel for bringing up this most interesting topic. It seems some further clarification to my letter is needed.

The initial point about the non-indelibility of orders appeared to be predicated on two connected notions: holy orders are a revocable gift of the Church and not a possession of the individual. I mentioned that the idea that orders could never properly be held to be a possession over and against the Church — a kind of personal property — was attractive. It does, however, have implications worth exploring.

It seems there are logically four possible views:

. . . more from the Rev. Paul J. Hartt

Editor's note: A communication on June 1 from Fr. Hartt responds to the editor's annotation at the end of this letter.

May 29, 2010

To the Editor:

In his discussion of Archbishop Rowan Williams's Pentecost message at Episcopal Café on 28 May, Andrew Gerns closes with the following statement:

“Archbishop Williams has drawn two pictures of the Pentecost church that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, he reminds us of the church that was drawn together by the power of the Holy Spirit and spoke to the whole world in many tongues. On the other hand, we have the church of the muted voice, whose pace is established by the comfort-level of the most cautious members of the body and where the Spirit only speaks what is agreeable to all. He paints a picture of a church that is defined by what it is not, what it will not do, and where it will not go.” (Emphasis added.)

As presently conceived, the Anglican Covenant would lead the Communion straight to Gerns's “church of the muted voice.” Because the mute switch is built into its Section 4, I hope Albany's Convention follows the lead of New Zealand's recent synod. It endorsed Sections 1 to 3, but withheld judgement on Section 4 pending further discussion.

“Measure twice, cut once” is good advice and not just for carpenters.

Robert T. Dodd

May 26, 2010

To the Editor:

I am frankly confused! AVM says don't vote on the Anglican Communion Covenant till after General Convention. AVM also is opposed to any strict rules or boundaries limiting the freedom of TEC. Sounds like you all can't make up your minds. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Dioceses can vote on the Covenant. Such a vote would be unofficial, but it would tell General Convention how at least one Diocese feels about the Covenant. If enough Dioceses vote on the Covenant it would make it plain to General Convention what the mind of the several dioceses really is. Or does AVM think that General Convention has the right to vote just the way it wants to? Wouldn't that be unfair?

Grace and Peace in Jesus,
Father Michael Waverly-Shank

Editor's Note: Fr. Waverly-Shank is referring to the statement, published May 26, from the Albany Via Media Board.

May 24, 2010

To the Editor:

In his recent letter, Fr. Hartt responded to my earlier letter asking about the indelibility of orders.

Every priest I have ever encountered who used the phrase “indelibility of orders” used it because they believed in it. Not just believed in it, but took it for granted to such an extent that the indelibility of clerical orders was used as a foundation for arguments on all sorts of other subjects. I expected that any response to my earlier letter would be a response defending the indelibility of orders. Indeed, I expected shock at the very idea that some Anglican theologians might deny the indelibility of orders.

. . . more from Allison de Kanel

May 14, 2010

To the Editor:

I am grateful to Allison de Kanel for her letter and the opportunity to share some thoughts on the interesting topic she raises on the indelibility of orders.

There is a great deal that is attractive about the basic thesis of The Cyprus Agreed Statement. (The Statement rightly notes it “…carries only the authority of its [committee] members.”) What is most attractive is the understanding that there is something perverse about ordination as a “personal possession.” Clearly, ordination is not something a bishop, priest, or deacon “has” over and against the Church. There is indeed a wonderful sense in Anglicanism of orders holding genuine weight without being a weight of imposition or entitlement. Clearly, anything to the contrary could hardly be “holy” orders.

. . . more from The Rev. Paul J. Hartt

May 7, 2010

To the Editor:

Apparently, some influential theologians in the Anglican Communion do not believe in the indelibility of orders. At least, that's the way I read a document that was presented at the last Lambeth Conference. I'm surprised it hasn't attracted more comment.

. . . more from Allison de Kanel

April 23, 2010

To the Editor:

The Fourth Anglican Global South to South Encounter, just concluded in Singapore, raised yet again the possibility that the Anglican world will soon divide into two Communions. It is not surprising that the attendees included ACNA's Bishop Bob Duncan. It is surprising, and unsettling, that two of Bishop Love's Communion Partners, Bishops Marc Lawrence and John Howe, were also present. These erstwhile Network bishops continue to dance between South and West, while showing an obvious preference for the former.

Bishop Love has said, often and emphatically, that he intends to remain in both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. But what if he must choose between two Communions, one based in Canterbury and the other in Alexandria?

A Mexican proverb counsels against trying to ride two donkeys at once. Archbishop Peter Akinola gave the same advice to Pittsburgh's dissidents when he asked the Duncanites, "Are you Episcopal or Anglican?" (He also told them not to worry about property!) What would the Nigerian Lion say about trying to ride three donkeys?

Robert T. Dodd

April 20, 2010

To the Editor:

Please Take Notice

Below is a copy of the current “Parish Choice” form which is sent to the parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Albany in the late fall.

I cannot assure you that all parishes received this exact form. I do know that this is the one sent to my parish: Church of St. Luke the Beloved Physician in Saranac Lake.

I understand that the Diocese of Albany had a tradition of supporting The Episcopal Church with a 21% designation/donation from our annual parish assessment.

This tradition has been changed.

Does this form provide our national church the support that you, the parishioner in the pew, expect?

C. R. Touby

April 5, 2010

To the Editor:

We have watched Fr. Christopher Brown's DVD. It contains much interesting background information about the Anglican Communion and its proposed convenant, and it includes an almost line-by-line description of that covenant.

Should you watch it? If you are a priest, deacon, or Convention deputy, yes, for you will be asked to approve the covenant this summer. Pay particular attention to the document's fourth section, which would, if enacted, restrict the provincial autonomy that has always been a feature of Anglicanism. If you will have neither voice nor vote in Speculator, you may want to view Fr. Brown's address anyway, to be better able to advise those who will speak for you there.

Discussion of the covenant is going on throughout the Episcopal Church. General Convention 2012 will decide whether our Church should accept it or not. It is unlikely that premature acceptance by Albany will influence that decision. It would, like the 2004 decision to join the Anglican Communion Network, widen fractures within this diocese and push Albany further away from the national Church. Do you want that?

Bob and Marya Dodd

Mar. 25, 2010

To the Editor:

I'm sure other AVM members were as delighted as I was to learn that the Rev. Diane Jardine Bruce and the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, newly elected bishops suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles, have received consents from the majority of diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction. These exceptionallly well qualified women will be consecrated in May, with our Presiding Bishop serving as the chief consecrator.

The Episcopal Church's approval of Bp. Glasspool, an openly partnered lesbian, has disappointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Communion Partner Bishops, one of whom is our Diocesan. They hoped that our Church would retreat from its decades long march toward inclusion of all baptized persons at every level of church life. It has instead pressed onward, despite unremitting opposition from sources at home and abroad.

May God bless our faithful, loving, courageous Episcopal Church!

Robert Dodd

Mar. 12, 2010

To the Editor:

I read with great interest the recent address by the Bishop of Liverpool to his diocesan synod (equivalent to our diocesan convention). In his address, Bishop James Jones discussed the challenge of maintaining unity with fellow Christians who profoundly disagree on an ethical issue. He suggested we consider adopting the attitude that allows Christian pacifists and soldiers to "drink from the same cup of salvation." Most of us will probably find something in his address to disagree with, but I thought his approach was both pragmatic and compassionate. It might be useful for us in the Diocese of Albany.

Allison de Kanel

Jan. 7, 2010

To the Editor,

Two recent letters mention some legislation that has been proposed in Uganda. As Canon Brown notes, the Ugandan anti-gay legislation is draconian; the provision of the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" is flagrantly inhumane.

It has not been as widely discussed, but the proposed bill also requires anyone in authority ("a person who exercises religious. political, economic or social authority") who becomes "aware of the commission of any offence under this Act" to report that knowledge within 24 hours, or face a fine or imprisonment up to three years. In other words, the bill would require a Priest to violate the Seal of Confession if the priest heard a confession of any of the offenses against this Act. I cannot imagine that any member of any Church that practices sacramental confession and absolution could or would support any bill, regarding any offense, that included such a provision.

I have seen recent reports that indicate the President of Uganda has assured the US State Department that he will veto this bill, should it reach his desk. I hope these reports are accurate.

Allison de Kanel

Jan. 7, 2010

Let's agree that the anti-gay laws proposed in Uganda are awe fully extreme. But, why is no one pointing out that among all these sex laws there is one we should applaud. It is also being proposed that female circumcision be outlawed. Shouldn't we be in favor of this propsal??

Grace and Peace,

Jan. 6, 2010

To the Editor:

In my letter of 4 December, I recommended a Convention address by our Presiding Bishop as “a very good step toward healing” our divided diocese. I neither said, nor do I believe, that her appearance would magically “heal Albany's divisions.” However, It would make Convention attractive to those moderates and progressives who resent a steady diet of conservative-evangelical speakers and who therefore vote with their feet. It might even persuade some conservative attendees that the Presiding Bishop's “reckless theological statements” (Fr. Brown's words) deserve thoughtful discussion, not dismissal out of hand.

Fr. Brown claims that our Presiding Bishop has become “an increasingly polarizing figure.” If that's so, it owes much to the spin that others put on her words. Brown's immoderate reaction to her 4 December statement on the noxious Ugandan legislation is a case in point. She said:

“We note that much of the current climate of fear, rejection, and antagonism toward gay and lesbian persons in African nations has been stirred by members and former members of our own Church.”

Fr. Brown's reaction to this sentence — “I find Katherine Schori's implication that various orthodox Episcopalians are behind these laws to be so slanderous and outrageous” — misses her point. She does not accuse any Episcopal group of being “behind” the Ugandan laws in the sense of creating or promoting them. Rather, she indicts those who contribute, by thought, word, deed, or money, to the social and religious environments in which such laws arise.

Given the chance, the Presiding Bishop might well widen her indictment to include those Episcopal and Anglican leaders who know full well what is afoot in Uganda but avert their eyes and say nothing. Silence implies consent.

Robert T. Dodd

Jan. 4, 2010

Has Bishop Love spoken out against the Ugandan anti-gay legislation linked to the presence of US Evangelicals in that country?  If not, why not?

(The Rev.) Glen Michaels
Plattsburgh, NY

Earlier Letters