View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted June 30th, 2000).
All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don’t know from what you do; that’s what I call “guessing what was on the other side of the hill”.
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
To live in the Diocese of New Westminster is somewhat akin to visiting never-never land. It has hardly been a challenge to discern that the whole purpose of the mandated dialogue process has been to lay the groundwork for effecting and justifying a break with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, in May 2001. The fascinating part of the process has been the way those conducting it assume a posture of splendid isolation from the rest of the world, and events in it.
As July approaches, the Episcopal Church, USA, faces the prospect of fission over the same issue – blessing same sex “unions”, – through the same mechanism – local option. The frustrating part of the process has been the way in which the means to the known end have been disguised and spun by those who control it. Blind man’s bluff, though perhaps enjoyable for children (I never liked it), is not the preferred methodology for Christian growth. Slowly but surely, however, the means to the sought-after end are becoming more visible.
The dialogue coordinator has sent a letter to all parishes in the Diocese, where he sets out how he interprets the turn of events so far. It is a pretty letter, and one that would be certainly praised and lauded in never-never land. Believing Christians in the Diocese of New Westminster, though, by inspecting and unspinning it, can get a glimpse at the ways and means being employed by those seeking to separate the Diocese from the Church of Jesus Christ. We should perhaps be thankful for the opportunity to do so at this point, since, as the letter points out, the process is only half over.
Two paragraphs in the letter are particularly helpful in revealing the means resorted to by those controlling the process. The first pertains to liturgy:
I have been pleased with the effect of the Opening and Closing Rites provided to us by the Liturgical Commission. These rites have helped to place the dialogues firmly within the worship life of our faith community, and have enabled us to invite the presence of God's spirit, clearly helping us to dialogue with mutual respect.
This liturgy, first of all, has its origins not in Anglican tradition, but in the same Liturgical Commission, which is busily beavering away to produce a rite to be used in blessing same sex unions. Should we be overly surprised, then, that the liturgy has its focus on something other than the praise and worship of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
As a Lay Administrator, I have led the congregation in the renewal of the baptismal promises many times. In Anglican liturgy, the profession of faith, following the form of the Apostle’s Creed, always precedes this renewal. It is in that context that the renewed promises have Christian meaning. But, the profession of faith is pointedly absent from the liturgy the commission has crafted for the purposes of the purveyors of this exercise. Clearly, we are being nudged towards looking elsewhere for meaning to the promises.
Whatever that meaning may be, it includes dialogue as an integral part of worship. One can only ask, “On what basis!?” For centuries, Christians have praised God, petitioned God, thanked God in their worship, but they have never found, in scripture or tradition, a basis for including a conversation among themselves as a substitute for any of these. But then again, perhaps we are invoking some other God?
Apparently, this vacuous renewal of promises bereft of Christian meaning “enabled us to invite the presence of God's spirit”. This reference is telling. It sets aside an unambiguous reference to God the Holy Spirit in favour of a rather non-specific reference to some spirit or another, somehow or another of “God”. I am hard put to see how this is appropriate in the context of a renewal of baptismal promises. One is, after all, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, just as Jesus commanded. Where the profession of faith is included in the renewal of the baptismal promises, there is no such ambiguity. The question is put: “Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?” The answer begins: “I believe in God the Holy Spirit, …”. Are we given, perhaps, some insight into why the profession of faith was left out?
Now, as for inviting God the Holy Spirit, the record should reflect that it is not a ritual that enables us to do so. Perhaps the members of the liturgical commission can look up what does when they get home.
With this crafted liturgy as background, we proceed to the next pithy paragraph. Now we get an insight into the place where we are being coaxed into moving.
While this process has an end point at Synod 2001, the discipline of dialogue and mutual discovery is one that provides an opportunity for us to grow spiritually, and I have heard a lot of comments that this is, in fact, happening. This is particularly important when we accept that we can grow spiritually, regardless of whether we agree of disagree on some issues.
I always am moved by the wish expressed in the closing blessing that prays that we may grow in the knowledge and love of God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. We are, it seems, to accept “the discipline of dialogue and mutual discovery” as a substitute for this, to the end of growing spiritually. Once again, the bland and non-specific is substituted for the salvific and specific.
The truly sinister part of the scheme, though, is the urging to accept spiritual growth, in and of itself, as a good thing. This hearkens back to the situation surrounding meditation. This summer, our cathedral will host a Buddhist meditation. (No kidding!) It, like the New Age, urges us to concentrate on nothing at all during the exercise. For the Christian, on the other hand, meditation is a discipline with a specific focus: the Word, and the Word made flesh. It is a tremendous (and spiritually ruinous) error to substitute the method for the end it seeks. Spiritual growth, like velocity in physics, is a vector quantity. It has both magnitude and direction. The call to disregard issues and accept “growth” is a siren sound, which leads Christian souls to the rocks of eternal ruin. Accepting such an urging is comparable to putting the gas pedal to the floor and letting go of the steering wheel while driving one’s car, and agreeing to do so because the car will surely speed up.
George Bernard Shaw once received a manuscript for comment from an aspiring writer. He sent it back with none too kind comments. The writer though had used the old trick of gluing a few of the pages together, to see if they had really been read. They hadn’t, and Shaw received a letter chiding him for unfairness. Shaw, on the bottom of the letter he received, wrote back in reply, “You don’t have to eat the whole apple to know that it is rotten.”
The believing Christian, reading the letter to the parishes, is still left with many questions regarding the specifics of the agenda being thrust upon him in these parts. But he should be grateful to its writer for giving him sufficient insight to see that, whatever the specifics may be, they lack grounding in either Christian theology or Anglican liturgical tradition. And, there will be an end to it all in May, 2001.
And yet, the prospect of an end point is only a limited comfort. If the controlling organizers of the exercise have their way, what then? To whom can believers turn? A House of Bishops that provided members to the council of advice that preceded this whole thing, and remains mute as it unfolds? A national church, whose central body may no longer exist, except as the purview of a receiver? Not likely. Perhaps, then, to the wider Anglican Communion, which may well be moved to action by what happens in Denver this July? Perhaps. Yet comfort there is, because God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, will be there, in spite of all efforts to place him in the background.
And He will not be mocked. His kingdom is forever-land, not never-never land.
Parish Letter to all Parishioners re Dialogue on Same-Sex Unions
[Retyped to make it available to all on NWnet]
Dear friends in Christ,
I am sending this communication with the encouragement and support of both the Dialogue Steering Committee and the Dialogue Facilitators, as we are about half-way through the dialogue process.
With a few exceptions, most twinned groups will have completed Dialogue #4 (Visit from the Members of the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Voices) by the end of June. Also, it is expected that dialogues will not occur during the summer period, as this is a time when many of you will be away on holiday and otherwise enjoying the summer.
I have been impressed with the level of commitment you have made to this dialogue, both by your attendance, and more specifically by your attention and focus to the issues presented for discussion.
I have been pleased with the effect of the Opening and Closing Rites provided to us by the Liturgical Commission. These rites have helped to place the dialogues firmly within the worship life of our faith community, and have enabled us to invite the presence of God's spirit, clearly helping us to dialogue with mutual respect.
While this process has an end point at Synod 2001, the discipline of dialogue and mutual discovery is one that provides an opportunity for us to grow spiritually, and I have heard a lot of comments that this is, in fact, happening. This is particularly important when we accept that we can grow spiritually, regardless of whether we agree of disagree on some issues.
Most of you have found the first 2 papers from the Commission on Faith and Doctrine difficult to read and understand; and your feedback to the commission has been consistently passed on to them and graciously received. This Commission has a difficult task, and while we hope for greater readability in the remaining papers from this Commission, I also want to challenge each of us to do the hard work of studying these papers in order to increase our understanding, and enable us to engage in the dialogue effectively.
I would like to acknowledge the wisdom and guidance offered to this process, and to me personally, by the Dialogue Steering Committee. I also want to thank each of the Dialogue Facilitators who have volunteered much time and energy in managing this process at the parish level. They are the ones who have made it work; with their impartiality and sensitivity making the dialogues a "safe place" for your participation. And finally, a special thank you to the members of the Commission of Gay and Lesbian Voices, who have taken great risks in sharing their "faith and life journeys" with us. The contribution of each of these groups has given integrity to this process.
At the "debriefing" sessions with Dialogue Facilitators this past week, Bishop Michael shared stories from people across Canada, affirming support for this model of addressing controversial, sensitive, and potentially conflictual issues within the faith community. This was an encouragement to all of us.
I would like to invite each of you to "stay the course" in your participation in the dialogues as we resume this fall. We have 2 more important papers coming from the Commission on Faith and Doctrine, and one form the Liturgical Commission. As slightly revised sequence of dialogues is attached, anticipating that we will be able to do Dialogues #5 and #6 between September and the end of November 2000, and Dialogue #7 and #8 between February and April 2001.
And finally, as Bishop Michael said in his memorandum of August 15, 1999, launching this dialogue, "...don't forget the Holy Spirit ... it is the Spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness and understanding...". And to add the Apostle Paul's reminder, "...Make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3).
I am privileged to be your servant in this process, and ask you to pray that God will be honoured through this work, making us more loving, understanding, caring and supportive of each other. In Christ,
John Konrad, Dialogue Coordinator