Katrina's Dream

Liberty and Justice for All

George’s Blog

Torture’s Political Invisibility

That U.S. military personnel — and their superiors — supported the torture of enemy combatants elicits disturbingly little outrage among most voters. Human beings seldom torture those they regard as like themselves. Humans need and crave community, but throughout history narrow definitions of community and exaggerated claims on its behalf have occasioned grave injustices.

The most widely accepted defense of torture is a limited one: a nation possesses a sovereign right to torture a terrorist who purportedly knows the whereabouts of a ticking time bomb. If authorities had solid reason to know that an individual possessed such knowledge, it would present a serious moral dilemma.

Torture, however, has been employed well beyond those extreme parameters. Jane Mayer argues in her new book “The Dark Side” that after 9-11 the government emphasized “interrogation over due process to pre-empt future attacks” even before any ticking bombs were even being made.

In Portland Phoenix articles, Lance Tapley points out that about 35,000 U.S. citizens are held in solitary confinement at “Supermaxes” (including Maine’s). Many are subjected to torture in the form of beating, sleep deprivation and mental abuse that rival practices at Guantanamo, according to Tapley.

Torture’s political invisibility is remarkable given its counterproductive consequences. Tapley points out that the torture of Supermax prisoners, most of whom are mentally ill, leads to high rates of recidivism and poses great public risk.

Frank Rich, commenting on Mayer, suggests: “torture may well be enabling future attacks… false confessions and [an] avalanche of misinformation since 9-11… compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases.”

Some Americans do oppose torture, but even many who are opposed won’t acknowledge that “we” torture individuals not privy to secret bomb information. For example, prison authorities, major media and political leaders have not challenged Tapley’s specific factual assertions. Nonetheless, none have acted on his findings. Many national leaders even engage in tortuous redefinitions of torture.

These responses may have deep origins. Our world now presents shrinking employment options, rapid changes in neighborhoods and complex interdependence. Social turmoil leads many Americans, steeped in traditional notions of the U.S. as “a city upon a hill” in possession of unique truth, to embrace a problematic conviction: individuals whose differences in religion, lifestyle or ethnicity pose no direct threat really are dangerous.

The world is seen as irrevocably divided between a virtuous “us” and a dangerous “them.” We would never torture or would do so only for overwhelming reasons. When victims of our torture attack or murder us, their actions merely confirm our conviction that they are “basically evil.”

Greater equality and adequate security might blunt xenophobic responses to economic crisis. Nonetheless, especially in a world becoming ever more multicultural, achieving progressive reforms is unlikely without also challenging some prevalent forms of fundamentalism. These dogmatic and exclusionary creeds blind us to the limits of our own intelligence, deny opportunities for full self-development, and preclude social justice movements across racial and religious lines.

For the sake of others and ourselves, we need dialogues to explore sympathetically the deeper — and inherently contestable — assertions about God, truth and morality that underlie major religious, national and ethnic communities. Nations also must acknowledge that they can no longer manage all that goes on even within their own borders. “Multinational” corporations constrain national governments.

Nations should acknowledge the contributions that transnational labor and environmental activists can make by adding labor and environmental standards to the corporate protections in trade agreements. Our willingness to articulate, collectively revise and live by international civil liberties standards would also lead more of the world’s people to disclose terrorist criminal conspiracies.

What if, as James Der Derian, director of the Global Security Program at Brown University, has argued, “border guards, concrete barriers and earthen levees not only prove inadequate but act as force multipliers, producing automated bungling that transform isolated events and singular attacks into global disasters.” We must, he argues, “ask if such mega-catastrophes are no longer an exception but part of densely networked systems that defy national management.”

Our support of torture and our desperate efforts to deny its prevalence — like defenses of slavery — bespeak an arrogant disregard of humans who may be different but are no less worthy. They also emanate from and intensify a false sense of security that poses increased risks to us all.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers may contact him at jbuell@acadia.net.

© 2008 The Bangor Daily News

The Real Saint

Tradition has is that George was born in about 280 AD in Turkey (Cappadocia). A Roman Army Officer, some suggest that he had Christian parents, others that he converted to Christianity after sheltering a Christian.
Christians were a small, but growing minority in the Empire. They faced periods of intense persecution. They often saw themselves as aliens in a foreign land. Things came to a head for George, quite literally, when Diocletian unleashed his terrible persecution of the Christians in 303 AD. He is said to have divested himself of his rank and worldly possessions and journeyed to Nicomedia to plead with Diocletian. He didn’t raise an army, but confessed to his faith and challenged the Emperor’s authority without force of arms. It was an action that he paid for with torture and decapitation.
It is suggested that the witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom. His body was returned to Lydda for burial, where Christians soon came to honour him as a martyr.
Eusebius of Caesarea, writing c. 322, tells of a soldier of noble birth who was put to death under Diocletian at Nicomedia on 23 April 303, but makes no mention of his name, his country or his place of burial. The historicity, or otherwise, of this story may never be known.

A new painting of St George by Scott Norwood Witts is to be unveiled at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St George, Southwark London on April 23rd, 2008, St George’s Day.
“St George and Dead Soldier” was stimulated by the deployment of British forces overseas and the historical misrepresentation of St George. The patron saint of soldiers and England is shown battle weary, identifying another fatality of war - exploding the contrived mythical identity developed during The Crusades, to reveal a man in mourning. As a high ranking soldier of the Roman Empire converting to Christianity was extremely dangerous, yet his faith inspired him to put down his weapons and personally confront the Emperor Diocletian over his persecution of Christians. The life-sized, but intimate portrait shows the ‘dragon slayer’ as a saint of peace and one who chose debate over violence.

The painting may be seen by clicking HERE.

Tar Sands:
Environmental justice, treaty rights and Indigenous Peoples

Clayton Thomas-Müller,
March/April 2008,
Canadian Dimension magazine

The application of treaty rights as a legal strategy implemented by the First Nations themselves must be the key focus in efforts to challenge Big Oil in Alberta. Resources and effort must be placed into building the knowledge and capacity amongst First Nations and Métis leadership, including grassroots, elders and youth, to engage in both an indigenous-led corporate-finance campaign and in decision-making processes on environment, energy, climate and economic policies related to halting the tar-sands expansion. Canadian policy makers need to understand that there is an inextricable link between indigenous rights and energy and climate impacts.

The Tar Sands: What, How, For Whom?
The tar sands lie beneath more than 141,000 square kilometres (54,000 square miles) of northern Alberta forest. In 2003, thirty square kilometres (160 square miles) of land had been disturbed by tar-sands development. By the summer of 2006, that number had grown to 2,000 square kilometres (772 square miles) — almost five-fold within three years. These tar sands are the second-largest oil deposit in the world, bigger then Iraq, Iran, or Russia, and exceeded only by Saudi Arabia. If current, approved projects go forward, 3,400 square kilometres (1,312 square miles) will be strip-mined, destroying a total area as large as the state of Florida. The current process limit of 2.7 million barrels of oil per day is estimated to increase to six million barrels per day by 2030. Current and future high oil prices make the extraction and processing of bitumen very profitable.

Tar sands are a mixture of sand, clay and a heavy crude oil or tarry substance called bitumen. To get the oil out of the ground, the tar has to be superheated with steam in “cookers” to make the oil flow. For each barrel of tar-sands oil produced, between two and 4.5 barrels of water is required. In 2007, Alberta approved the withdrawal of 119.5 billion gallons of water for tar-sands extraction, with an estimated 82 per cent of this water coming from the Athabasca River, a major tributary in northern Alberta.

The extracted bitumen is later processed in industrial facilities called “upgraders” into synthetic crude oil to be piped to the U.S. for refining. These upgrader facilities look like “refinery cities,” with smokestacks bellowing polluting emissions and wastewater emptied into toxic tailings ponds. Recently, in sutu technology is being used to pump steam under the earth in order to make the bitumen flow through wells. By 2010, the industry is projected to generate eight billion tons of waste sand and one billion cubic metres of wastewater — enough to fill 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Some of these toxic tailings ponds are located next to the Athabasca. The tar sands are also a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions and a major contributor to climate change and global warming.

The oil from the tar sands is going south in order to satisfy U.S. energy needs. The U.S. has reorganized its long-term plans for petroleum energy: It has set a new goal that requires satisfying up to 25 per cent of its daily oil needs from tar-sands operations. This involves massive pipeline construction and expansions running from northern Alberta down through Minnesota to refineries in Wisconsin and Chicago, through North Dakota, South Dakota, down to Oklahoma and Texas. Pipelines will also go through British Columbia to ship the oil overseas.

Blue River, Brown River
The exploitation of the tar sands is a human-rights issue, an environmental-justice issue and an indigenous treaty-rights issue. For the most part, however, the public in Canada and the U.S. has not been made sufficiently aware of what is going on in northern Alberta. The public still does not understand that the indigenous First Nations communities are the populations most negatively affected. Dene and Cree First Nations and Métis live close to or actually in the midst of these tar-sand deposits, mostly along the Athabasca River basin area. These are the indigenous communities of Fort McMurray, Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan.

The tar-sands development around Fort McMurray and Fort McKay is located upstream along the Athabasca River basin. Current tar-sands development has completely altered the Athabasca delta and watershed landscape. This has caused de-forestation of the boreal forests, open-pit mining, de-watering of water systems and watersheds, toxic contamination, disruption of habitat and biodiversity, and disruption of the indigenous Dene, Cree and Métis trap-line cultures.

“The river used to be blue. Now it’s brown. Nobody can fish or drink from it. The air is bad. This has all happened so fast,” says Elsie Fabian, 63, an elder in a Native Indian community along the Athabasca River.

From the perspective of many concerned First Nations and citizens of northern Alberta, the government has given over the responsibility of environmental monitoring and enforcement to the corporations. But the tar-sands development has completely outstripped the ability of the corporations and the provincial and federal governments to provide either management or protection.

A recent health study commissioned by the Nunee Health Authority of Fort Chipewyan provides evidence that the governments of Alberta and Canada have been ignoring the evidence of toxic contamination on downstream indigenous communities. The people most at risk of health effects are those who eat food from the land and water. The Dene, Cree and Métis communities continue to subsist on a diet of fish and wild game. The remote Fort Chipewyan community, for example, has an eighty-per-cent subsistence diet. According to many Fort Chipewyan residents, the tar-sands mining is the principle cause of both the toxins in the water and the recent dramatic increases in the number of cancers and other diseases.

The Mikisew Cree First Nation is located within Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan. Chief Rozanne Marcel of the Mikisew Cree has declared, “Our message to both levels of government, to Albertans, to Canadians and to the world who may depend on oil sands for their energy solutions, is that we can no longer be sacrificed.” But the governments of Alberta and Canada have so far refused to listen.

The areas of concern fall under Aboriginal Treaties 8 and 11. These are treaties that ensure that lands of First Nations should not be taken away from them by massive, uncontrolled development, threatening their culture and traditional way of life. But the de-watering of rivers and streams to support the tar-sands operations now poses a major threat to the cultural survival of these indigenous peoples. The battle over the tar-sands mining comes down to the fundamental right to exist as indigenous peoples.

“If we don’t have land and we don’t have anywhere to carry out our traditional lifestyles, we lose who we are as a people. So, if there’s no land, then it’s equivalent in our estimation to genocide of a people,” says George Poitras of the Mikisew Cree First Nation.

Big Oil vs. Indigenous Rights
The first tier of tar-sands development came into a region mostly inhabited by Indigenous peoples. As with many historical instances of the colonization of indigenous peoples and their lands, the Alberta and Canadian governments enticed First Nations governmental leadership to lease their treaty reserve lands to the tar-sands industry as a means for economic development.

Now, however, the oil industry and the Alberta government want to expand even further. With an anticipated $25-billion expansion of the Athabasca tar-sands underway, First Nations leadership and community members are being pressured by Canada, Alberta and the oil industry to partner with the world’s largest tar-sands corporations. These giant developers include Mobil Oil, Shell, Syncrude Canada, Petro-Canada and Suncor Energy.

Many grassroots First Nation members have not been part of these negotiations, however, and most silently oppose tar-sands expansion. The problem is that most of these members feel disenfranchised. They lack knowledge and skills in organizing on energy- and climate-related issues. Many of the elected First Nations leaders are also feeling torn between the need to bring economic prosperity to their people and the need to protect the health and environment of their communities. The stakes have been set high by petro-politics and the money that flows from it.

The ability of First Nations to retain their inherent sovereignty rights to protect their lands and culture, and to maintain economically sustainable and healthy communities has been hampered by the Canadian and Alberta governments. According to many elders and land-based community members in the tar-sands area, concerns for jobs, housing, income and economic development are being prioritized over the traditional indigenous values of respect for the sacredness of Mother Earth and the protection of the environment.

A moratorium on further tar-sands expansion must be implemented in northern Alberta. Since the tar-sands expansion is within First Nations’ territories, any effective strategy must acknowledge Aboriginal title and treaty rights. This will require an urgent, coordinated, collective response, led by First Nations and Métis.

A moratorium on development is required until the concerns of First Nations and Métis regarding the many serious issues that have been raised by this breakneck industrial development are addressed. These include the human-rights abuses; the human and ecological health crisis; the climate-change implications; the water- and air-quality implications; the treaty-rights implications; the tribal sovereignty and self-determination implications; as well as the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on the health and way of life of indigenous peoples. Each of these serious issues must be responded to, respected and protected in a permanent, traditional, Indigenous framework, in compliance with the spiritual and natural laws, treaties and inherent rights of indigenous peoples.

A solemnly professed solitary directly responsible to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Maggie Ross will lead days of contemplation and worship in Hulls Cove and in Portland in Maine:

Saturday, March 1
10-3 at the Church of Our Father, Hulls Cove, Mt. Desert Island.

Saturday, March 8
10-3 at St. Luke’s Cathedral, Portland.

Bread and Silence is an extended meditation on the Eucharist that emphasizes the priesthood of our baptism. The process takes from three to five hours, depending on the number of participants. This is an opportunity to go deeply into the heart of Christianity; the rite draws on the most ancient Christian traditions. There is nothing else like it available in the church, and many people have found it to be a life-changing experience. Clergy and religious are asked to please wear ordinary clothes so as not to distract from the focus of this event.

Attendance is strictly limited to 45 persons. Everyone is welcome (up to a total of 45.) To reserve a place − please register in advance by email to George Swanson at george@katrinasdream.org. In your email please mention which day you wish to attend − March 1 or March 8. The cost is $35. Checks may be made out to Katrina’s Fund and mailed to George Swanson at 349 Seawall Road, Manset, ME 04679. Scholarships are available.

Seabury Press just republished Ross’s Pillars of Flame: Power, Priesthood, and Spiritual Maturity. The Archbishop of Canterbury says the book “unsparingly sets the Gospel in judgment over the popular Christian idolatries of our time.”

The National Catholic Reporter comments, “The questions the author raises come from scriptural and patristic thought.”

In the foreword, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu says, “Maggie Ross argues cogently and persuasively that we should provide the world with the paradigm of the self-emptying leadership of Christ – not self-serving, not self-aggrandizing, but poured out in selfless service of others.”

Seabury Press says “…we sense what a truly Christian Church would be.”

Maggie Ross – Pillars of Flame: Power, Priesthood, and Spiritual Maturity   $20

Maggie Ross – The Fire of Your Life   $15

Martin Laird – Into the Silent Land   $20

Beverly Lanzetta – The Other Side of Nothingness   $20

Garry Wills – What Jesus Meant    $15

James Alison – Knowing Jesus   $15

Second hand copies of two other books by Ross: 1) The Fountain and the Furnace: The Way of Tears and Fire and 2) Seasons of Death and Life: A Wilderness Memoir are available from Amazon.com, alibris.com, abebooks.com, and biblio.com. Also try the Anglican Bibliopole by phone at (518) 587-7470 or by email at AnglicanBk@aol.com. I found both of these books very powerful. George

In August Jean Rorher, a friend at St. Saviour’s Parish, Bar Harbor, emailed me a flier from “Troops Out Now.” It is at

http://troopsoutnow.org/S29now.pdf

After some phone and email conversations with the folks at Troops Out Now, I decided to go to the September 22-28 Encampment by the Capitol and the September 29 March to end the war. I cannot believe that one day longer in Iraq will do any good.

Years ago, Katrina and I lay down on the sidewalk in front of the South African Embassy in New York City with twenty or thirty other protesters. Mandela was still on Robin Island and apartheid was in full swing. We were arrested, loaded into paddy wagons, and sang “God Bless Africa” as we bounced along. We were held at the station for a few hours after we were booked. It seemed a long time. We were finally released. The arrests were a daily event for a few years, as I remember. At our trial the judge asked, “Was there any violence that day?” One of our attorneys answered, “Not here in New York, Your Honor.” “Case dismissed,” said the judge.

Getting ready to drive to Washington I felt a desire to pray with other protesters by the Capitol. I wanted to listen to their ideas, their God given ideas about peace and war. That was the holy writ I wanted to understand. I wanted to listen to their prayer, the people and places that they would ask God to touch. I wanted to receive Jesus’ bread and wine with them — Bread and Wine of a political and religious prisoner who was brutalized by the occupying soldiers and tortured to death. That Friday was just one more bloody day in the Middle East. I wanted to give and receive strong abrazos/hugs of peace: Of your peace, Jesus, of your peace.

So I wondered, “Should I attempt to say a Mass for Peace outside the Capitol every day?” But hey, who do I think I am, Daniel Berrigan?

I emailed the Bishop of Washington and asked how I should ask his permission to say the Eucharist every day at the anti war protest by the Capitol. I wasn’t sure if I would obey an order not to say mass there. So I thought I wouldn’t ask permission. His assistant emailed me back conveying the bishop’s full approval. I took his approval and the assistance of two parishes near the Capitol as encouragement enough to go ahead.

I began to ask people to pray that this might serve God’s purposes rather than my desire for publicity. The Sunday before I drove south, people at the 7:30 a.m. Eucharist joined our rector in Bar Harbor, Jonathan Appleyard, in laying their hands on me and praying for me. I received a blessing I really needed.

In Boston en route I visited one of the groups that was sponsoring the encampment and the march. I met Gerry and other dedicated activists. They were involved in a handful of justice actions including the Jena Six. At the end of the meeting I asked their advice about my attempting to say a Peace Mass each day. They were frank and encouraging. Clerical hierarchy stuff was not wanted. Prayer was welcome.

I arrived in DC on Thursday, September 20th and checked out the site. On Friday and Saturday people started coming. We unloaded scaffolding and lumber to raise large banners and the stage. I met with various leaders asking what time a Peace Mass might work in their schedule. Everyone said, “Check with Imani.” Imani is a New Yorker, probably under 30, energetic, easy to talk to, an energetic leader of the daily camp meetings. He thought 10 am was OK.

Poster announced the mass around the encampment. Bill MacKaye (my host in DC) gave me the phrase, “Wherever you are on your spiritual journey you are welcome at this table.” He said it came from All Saints’ Church in Pasadena.

Ted Fletcher (in Southwest Harbor) and Bill MacKaye strongly advised me to do things “decently and in order.” That is, in a priest’s vestments and at a proper altar. “Be an Anglican.” I located a table/altar and a dark blue sheet to cover it. Also a glass goblet and a wooden bread dish. Green signs on four sides read, “Dona nobis pacem.” The altar was there 24 hours a day throughout the encampment.

On Monday, September 24th, five of us began the daily Mass for Peace. We woul sing something like “Paz, queremos Paz” after someone’s comment about peace during the first part of the Mass. Each person spoke one or more times about peace and war. There was often silence between people’s comments. The ideas that I heard were beautiful, reasonable, self effacing, gentle, calm, healing. We sang songs like “Ubi caritas” from Taize and “This Little Light of Mine.”

I treasure the memories of what different people said about peace and war. Beautiful hearts and ideas: Original, yet echoing Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Dalia Lama and others. Words were spoken slowly, uncertainly, and with intensity – attempting to express their own personal understanding of the evil that often begins within ourselves. I heard no self righteousness.

The woman in fatigues is holding a white pole. She was among the twenty or so Code Pink ladies at the demonstration. At the top of the pole was a large American flag upside down. (”The flag should never be displayed with the union down save as a signal of dire distress.” — Public Law 829) Dire distress? Yes! Bodies are being torn up every day.

After sharing ideas and songs people prayed for various things: For a sick or dying friend; Sometimes for the Representatives and Senators. One could feel their presence, their busyness, their confusion — in the white domed ant hill that loomed above us up the hill. I suppose they realize that their silence kills and wounds more people every day.

After the prayer we stood at the altar. I wore a hooded alb, sort of a monk’s outfit, as the mass began. Going to the altar I put on a white chasuble with red orphreys. A chasuble is a first century poncho. Orphreys are the stripes front and back. Katrina’s father had worn this chasuble when he ordained her in 1974. The people are facing me on the other side of the altar just out of the picture.

Everyone was invited to receive the bread and wine. During the week one person decided not to receive. The last person would give me the bread and wine. We had five to ten people each day — People of all ages including teenagers. Two Anglicans from England joined us. One regular was a former Roman Catholic who had tried and left the Mormon Church. One was a leader of the Green Party in DC. Three were Code Pink Ladies who wanted to give Bush and Cheney a pink slip. One brought a guitar and another an ancient Swedish precursor of the violin. I loved making music with them.

I miss the people. It was a privilege to be with them.

When I got home I received the following email from the Code Pink Lady who was holding the upside down American flag during one of the masses.

George,

It was a pleasure to meet and spend time with you. I was quite fond of the encampment and the peace mass was my absolute favorite part of it, even edging out the best nights of rocking the rulers. [”Rocking the Rulers” was music and speeches every night on the stage.]

It is strange to be home. Good, but strange. A more altruistic communal lifestyle seems better to me, and I have been imagining a place where devotees of all the world’s religions live together and pray each others prayers and rituals and invent rituals in common. I’m told that the rabbi here was once a Mormon. I’d dearly love to meet her.

Peace and Joy!

Indeed, Peace and Joy for sure.

Recently Jonathan Appleyard gave me a quote from Debbie Little Wyman on worship outside verses worship inside.

“When I am inside, I’m not sure that we are/can be the church.”

Debbie ought to know. She got the outside worship started on the Boston Common every Sunday. My feet still hurt from a bitter cold Sunday last December when I worshiped there. Check out:

http://www.ecclesia-ministries.org/common_cathedral.html

My experience of worshiping outside with five or ten people below the capitol are so much more memorable than dozens/hundreds of “inside” services I have attended or led. And I remember saying mass in the chief’s kghotla — a semi-circle stockade of logs where trials and meetings take place under the African sun. This was in Maun, Botswana, between the Kalahari Desert and the Okavango Swamp. I did that to escape the white hotel, Riley’s Bar, where I also said mass in the “salon” — mostly for whites and English speaking locals.

Phineas Gitta reminded me of the time Katrina said mass for at the Kansas City Airport for Phinease and his family and friends as he was about to fly to Uganda. It was also a holy moment in time. Outside. We spoke directly into the ear of God.

Outside is different from inside. Inside we have the constraints of walls, doors, floors, ceilings, heat or cooling, furniture, and the financial cost of all those THINGS. These “things” constrain our speaking to God who is no thing. Someone owns these things and may control us in their space. I would add the constraints of salaries, benefits, housing, etc for those who imagine they are the hierarchy. Inside it is religion. Ligaments. Re-ligaments. All bound up. Needs Exlax.

Indeed, When I am inside, I’m not sure we are/can be the church. Jesus, help us.

I’m happy that I led the peace masses. However I am not sure I would do it again. It WAS good. Totally. Yet . . . . The white building on the hill did not fall down.

The good was the doing of it. What it achieved in the universe of suffering was minuscule, I think. Is that heresy? Or the desire to control? I don’t know. I did meet and pray with some beautiful people. We touched each other. Perhaps that is the purpose of life.

Maggie Ross, a solemnly professed solitary directly responsible to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will visit the Diocese of Maine in the fourth week in Lent, 2008. Maggie Ross will lead a day of contemplation and worship called Bread and Silence in Hulls Cove and Portland:

Saturday March 8 10 am at St. Luke’s Cathedral in Portland.

“Bread and Silence” is an extended meditation on the Eucharist that emphasizes the priesthood of our baptism. The process takes from three to five hours, depending on the number of participants. This is an opportunity to go deeply into the heart of Christianity; the rite draws on the most ancient Christian traditions. There is nothing else like it available in the church, and many people have found it to be a life-changing experience.

Clergy and religious are asked to please wear ordinary clothes so as not to distract from the focus of this event.

Attendance is strictly limited to 45 persons. Everyone is welcome (up to a total of 45.) To reserve a place − please register in advance by email to George Swanson at george@katrinasdream.org. In your email please mention which day you wish to attend − March 1 or March 8. The cost is $35. Checks may be made out to Katrina’s Fund and mailed to George Swanson at 349 Seawall Road, Manset, ME 04679. Scholarships are available.

Sunday March 2 Ross will preach at the 7:30 and 10 a.m. Eucharists at St. Saviour’s Parish in Bar Harbor.

Sunday March 9 Ross will lead the Adult Forum at 9 a.m. and preach at the 10 a.m. Eucharist at St. Luke’s Cathedral in Portland.

Ross Compares the Church to the Gospel

Seabury Press has just republished Ross’s Pillars of Flame: Power, Priesthood, and Spiritual Maturity. The Archbishop of Canterbury recommends the book as “a passionate and searching book which unsparingly sets the Gospel in judgment over the popular Christian idolatries of our time.”

The National Catholic Reporter comments, “The questions the author raises come from scriptural and patristic thought.”

In the foreword, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu says, “Maggie Ross argues cogently and persuasively that we should provide the world with the paradigm of the self-emptying leadership of Christ – not self-serving, not self-aggrandizing, but poured out in selfless service of others.”

According to Seabury Press, Maggie Ross “…minces no words in her critique of the contemporary Church, and goes on to propose changes so sweeping and fundamental that we sense what a truly Christian Church would be.”

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Lost in the Stars?; Silent Prayer

---

WELCOME DIANA RAMSDELL NEWMAN!

From Sea to Shining Sea

by Diana Ramsdell Newman

Note by George: This is the first piece by Diana here on Katrina’s Dream web site. I wanted to get this up as soon as possible. In the future we will have a special page (something like “Just Words”) which will focus on Liberty and Justice for Indigenous Women. I am so grateful to Diana for beginning this. Those of you who were at the Weekend for Liberty and Justice for Women in 2006 will remember Diana and her husband Crow Suncloud who participated in the Saturday Congress and shared their music with us on Saturday night.

Traditionally, Native American women were integral to native governance. In fact, the majority of tribes were matrilineal. Women were not viewed as being inferior to men. They were entrusted with vital, respected decision making positions. Men’s and women’s roles were viewed by both genders as being distinctive but complementary and of equal importance. Even in patrilineal tribes women were held in esteem as equals. Violence against women was unusual and was not tolerated by tribal communities. Women were valued as being uniquely powerful, practical, reasonable, strong, and spiritually discerning.

Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage, women’s rights advocates of the mid-nineteenth century, expressed great admiration for the egalitarian worldview modeled by the Iroquois. Whereas these two women felt disenfranchised by men in their own patriarchal culture, they witnessed firsthand the dignity with which Iroquois women were treated. Iroquois women were not similarly marginalized but exercised considerable influence. Stanton and Gage noted that the nomination of chiefs was entrusted to Iroquois women. Women were likewise free to initiate definitive, corrective actions if they became disenchanted with the actions of an errant chief.

It may warrant mentioning that although early white feminists are rightly celebrated for their awareness and courageous initiative in relation to gender issues, many Native American women view the impacts of racial discrimination and class status as far outweighing gender bias as being the primary determinants of oppression in the lives of women of color. A fuller view of the causes of their oppression must take into account the pervasive and debilitating impact of the Manifest Destiny and colonization upon Native Americans.

With colonialism came the wholesale importation and imposition of a hierarchical, Eurocentric model of governance that ran counter to Native American practices. Its patriarchal view and biased suppositions claiming the inferiority of women had far-reaching and devastating consequences in the lives of countless Native Americans. For instance, white government officials and settlers typically refused to talk with tribal women regardless of the women’s leadership roles and status within the tribe. The undermining of kinship traditions, the persistent lack of acknowledgement of female leadership, the forced displacement, abuse, and annihilation of native peoples, and the violation of indigenous homelands served to cut off at the very roots much that had successfully sustained the integrity of traditional cultural values.

The sense of place, a profound kinship with the land, and its inhabitant’s respect for the reciprocal nature of relationship between all living beings was of paramount importance to Native American spirituality. The natural homeland as a place of reverence was a kind of sacred geography as essential to Native Americans as was the primacy of the church building to many European immigrants.

In direct relationship with nature, life, and death Native Americans viewed time as cyclical and reciprocal. The prevailing mindset of the invading Europeans was by contrast given over to linear thinking and concepts of ownership that were the antithesis of indigenous experience and values. To the Native American the living, the generations to come, and the ancestors were inextricably and holistically connected as a sacred ecology from which a natural theology was recognized. While there was much diversity among tribal groups, a common hallmark of the over 500 tribal nations is that its land-based experience spawned sensibilities and cosmologies that embodied a deeply informed awareness of the relational interconnectedness of all creation. Thus native religion was naturally and intrinsically bound in vibrant relationship with specific bioregions. Within the rich and multidimensional circumference of bioregion all was considered sacred. Thus, to witness exploitation of nature was to native peoples nothing short of utter disregard for the Creator, and was equivalent to seeing the desecration of one’s beloved church or violation of one’s mother. Pervasive displacement of native peoples from their ancestral homelands was a vehicle of religious persecution and genocide.

An undeniable part of the legacy of the dominant culture is that the sovereignty of over 500 indigenous nations on this continent called Turtle Island has been violated and its lands have been largely desecrated! So it is understandable that contemporary Native American women activists often articulate and exercise a distinctive feminist ideology that takes into account the necessity of environmental justice, reclamation of displaced kinship traditions, and the concept of “birthright’ in relation to homelands.

Remarkably the strong oral tradition integral to traditional native culture has survived and continues to uniquely inform and rekindle native women’s vision and activism today. In fact, indigenous women from all parts of the globe are gathering, networking, and articulating their concerns and hopes. Future installments will address issues specific to indigenous women, their struggles, and their vision.

Many people in the United States continue to rationalize or understate the magnitude and unjust impact that the legacy of the Manifest Destiny has had on indigenous populations including its contemporary incarnations (economic usurpation and environmental degradation of ancestral lands) which continue to violate indigenous peoples. Do nations of our earth actually share a consensual view about any of this? In 2007, after twenty years of study and dialogue, The United Nations passed a landmark Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 143 nations endorsed the resolution which affirms and upholds the rights of self-determination to the world’s indigenous groups.

Even though the Declaration is legally nonbinding and cannot be enforced by international law it does clearly articulate the predominant and unequivocal sentiment of the participants that native people’s throughout the world deserve authentic redress of grievances and the rightful exercise of sovereignty. There is some optimism that the resolution is an indication that several nations will now be willing to voluntarily engage in negotiations with indigenous groups whose lands have been acquired though domination and colonization. But in keeping with the United State’s current propensity to dig in its heels and exempt itself from global responsibilities and protocols, it was one of only four nations that voted against the resolution. Given the sheer enormity of the amount of land and resources acquired at the expense of native sovereignty on Turtle Island “from sea to shining sea” is it really any surprise that countries opposing the resolution such as the U.S. and Canada would shy from the accountability of colonizers implicit in the Declaration? No doubt Article 26 of the Declaration poses a bit of a problem to big time land grabbers: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”

If returning an entire continent to the descendants of over 500 indigenous nations is untenable how then will the United States begin to make authentic restitution? Perhaps one way is for its citizens and governing bodies to reach beyond tokenism and make a steadfast commitment to foster true freedom and justice for all.

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Uncategorized; Injustice to Women; Peace & Justice; Women & Justice; INDIGENOUS WOMEN

---

God Help Us

It’s Kristallnacht 2007

9/11 again.

The ninth of November for Europeans.

The burning of the synagogue in Ober Ramstdt during Kristallnacht, November 9, 1938. The local fire-department prevented the fire from spreading to a nearby home, but made no attempt to intervene in the synagogue fire. Trudy Isenberg Collection, USHMM Archives

The US Holocaust Museum explains what happened:

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis unleashed a wave of pogroms against Germany’s Jews. In the space of a few hours, thousands of synagogues and Jewish businesses and homes were damaged or destroyed. This event came to be called Kristallnacht (”Night of Broken Glass”) for the shattered store windowpanes that carpeted German streets.

The pretext for this violence was the November 7 assassination of a German diplomat in Paris, Ernst vom Rath, by Herschel Grynszpan, a Jewish teenager whose parents, along with 17,000 other Polish Jews, had been recently expelled from the Reich. Though portrayed as spontaneous outbursts of popular outrage, these pogroms were calculated acts of retaliation carried out by the SA, SS, and local Nazi party organizations.

Stormtroopers killed at least 91 Jews and injured many others. For the first time, Jews were arrested on a massive scale Click to enlarge and transported to Nazi concentration camps. About 30,000 Jews were sent to Buchenwald, Dachau, and Sachsenhausen, where hundreds died within weeks of arrival. Release came only after the prisoners arranged to emigrate and agreed to transfer their property to “Aryans.”

Kristallnacht culminated the escalating violence against Jews that began during the incorporation of Austria into the Reich in March 1938. It also signaled the fateful transfer of responsibility for “solving” the “Jewish Question” to the SS.

 

Photo Caption: Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at the Buchenwald concentration camp. November 1938.

Lorenz C. Schmuhl Papers, USHMM Archives

The previous words are from the web site of the US Museum of the Holocaust.

Source: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/kristallnacht/

Now George takes up the horror.

No need to ask “What caused Kristallnacht?” Two thousand years of Christian antisemitism caused it.

And yet, “antisemitism” is an inadequate word for organized terror. Take St. Augustine for example. (Yes, take him. I don’t want him.) Good old Augustine was a 5th century intellectual hippy who dumped the woman he had lived with for fifteen years as well as his son, Adeodatus. Shortly after that he got religion. Hey, that’s forgivable, you say? Sure. But wait. He preached the gospel like this: ” The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.” Augustine told people studying to become Christians, “The Jews killed Jesus.” He didn’t want all the Jews killed in any one generation so there could always be some available to torture and kill. He advocated genocide against all heretics and pagans. (Sounds like the Crusades and the Inquisition. Dawkins has so much evidence for the evils that Christians have unleashed on the world.) Antisemitism? Let’s call it Christo-fascism.

All churches dedicated to this vampire, Augustine, should have a large sign outside proving their rejection of his teaching. Any church that has a statue of him should put a dunce cap on his head every November 9th.

Of course he was not alone. The sources below quote the hateful words of many “saints” we celebrate on All Saints’ Day. How few of the great saints even lifted a finger to help Jewish victims who suffered 20 centuries of Christian rape and murder.

Some did risk their lives to help — although not many Christian leaders are known to have risked anything. Politics plays it safe. Here’s a list of those honored by the Anti-Defamation League for rescuing Jews during the holocaust:

Martha and Waitstill Sharp, Leitz II, Mefail and Njazi Bicaku, Hiram Bingham IV, Sir Nicholas Winton, Konstantin Koslovsky, Jan and Miep Gies, Aristides De Sousa Mendes, Jan Karski, Selahattin Ulkumen, Chiune Sugihara, the French town of Le Chambon-Sur-Lignon, Emilie and Oskar Schindler, The Partisans of Riccione, Italy and Johanna Vos. What beautiful people. Very rare on this earth.

Kristallnacht? Just business as usual. As usual? Well no, the same business but more organized than usual.

James Alison’s latest book, “Undergoing God,” compares two kinds of worship: the Christian mass and a Nazi Nuremberg rally. “The liturgical organizers of the Nuremberg rallies knew exactly what they were doing, and did it remarkably well. You bring people together and you unite them in worship. You provide regular, rhythmic music, and marching. You enable them to see lots of people in uniform, people who have already lost a certain individuality and become symbols. You inflame them with tales of past woe and reminders of past confusion, when they were caused to suffer by some shame being imposed upon them. Then, after the build up, the Fuhrer appears. With a few deft words he points to the huge gathering which is a sign of a new unity [against] enemies from afar and, more important, by readily identifiable enemies who are much closer at hand. [When they get home] they will look at the Jew from across the road in a different light. They will [turn] a blind eye to his disappearance, agreeing that old Mr. Silverstein the cobbler is indeed a threat to society.” (Page 35-36)

The Nuremberg rally convinced the Germans that they were victimized by history and by the”other” in their midst, the Jews. Like helpless “worms” the Germans were slowly turned into willing supporters of genocide.

Fortunately there are some Christians who understand how we have victimized so many dear people throughout history. James Alison has a refreshing understanding of the mass, the meal of Jesus broken body and bloodlike wine. As a victim of military, political and religious torture, Jesus identifies himself with all victims. And after Life raised Jesus from death back to life, he comes to us in the mass. He comes to us who know that WE are the victimizers. Unlike Nuremberg the evil we remember was not done TO us. It was done BY us. And this beautiful loving Jesus, a victim among all our victims, comes to say, “Peace. Don’t be afraid. I forgive you. I love you. Stop victimizing. Spread this love.”

Kristallnacht forever?

In the late 1960’s I moved to Kansas City. The first day we arrived I met my neighbor across the street. We talked for maybe 5 minutes. He was the German consul in Kansas City. He was a businessman who represented his country without pay. I probably had my priest uniform on — a black suit with a white collar. In the course of this brief meeting my new neighbor said, “Hitler didn’t finish the job.” I did not know how to reply at all. I didn’t have the decency to tell him that he was full of hatred and evil. When he dropped dead of a heart attack that week I thought the earth was a better place. It was sad for his wife and little children. But still a better place.

In the dining car on the Ghan, a beautiful train in Australia, I sat across from another passenger going from Sydney to Alice Springs. Australia was then having real problems with its currency. Its value against the dollar dropped every day. I was in ordinary clothes this time, having been a busker making music for tips at the Olympics in Sydney. I asked the stranger across the table what was causing the currency problem for Australia. “Everybody knows that,” he said. “It’s the Jews.” I wish I could report that I responded accurately to those words. As I recollect, I was stunned and said nothing.

God help us

Sources:

http://www.kimel.net/antisem.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/jew_haters.htm
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5167_52.htm

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Peace & Justice; Racism

---

And You Visited Me

British Churches Gear Up for Prison Week

As Jail Population Hits Record High

By Ekklesia staff writers — 2 Nov 2007

Churches across the country are gearing up to mark ‘prisons week’ as the UK’s prison population hits a record high.

The week kicks off on 18th November 2007, when churches across Britain are being asked to mark Prisoners’ Sunday - a day of reflection and prayer for prisoners, their families, and all those involved in the prison system.

Churches and Christian charities have been amongst those campaigning for prison reform, but also for alternatives to prison to be considered more seriously by government.

The Prison Advice & Care Trust, a charity which was founded in 1898 by a group of Catholic lawyers, is sending out a pack to every Catholic parish to raise awareness of the issues and to encourage prayer and reflection.

The charity’s President, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, has leant the pack his support, saying: “In recent months, the UK’s prison population has soared to 81,000, its highest ever recorded level. The system is stretched to breaking point, with the overcrowding crisis making regular headlines in our news bulletins, and a shocking increase in prison suicide levels.

“Jesus Christ teaches us to believe in the innate dignity and worth of every human being, and in the possibility of redemption, no matter what a person has done. The Christian faith calls us to demonstrate loving compassion towards the most marginalised and forgotten in society. Through justice, mercy, forgiveness and hope, no-one is beyond the reach of God’s purpose.”

The Prisoners’ Sunday pack contains a newsletter, prayer card, suggested prayers of intercession, and activity sheets parishes and for children’ liturgy.

Materials can also be downloaded free of charge from the charity’s website.

Pact’s Director, Andy Keen-Downs, said: “Over 150,000 children every year experience the imprisonment of a parent or close relative. Some of them live in our parishes, but suffer in silence. Every day, hundreds of prisoners walk out of prisons with no home, no job, and no one to support them. As a result, two thirds of prisoners go on to commit more crimes, and more victims. I hope that this pack will encourage parishes to think about what we can all do as Christian communities to make a difference.”

For over thirty years the Prisons Week Committee has been preparing prayer literature to enable the Christian community – individuals and churches to pray for the needs of prisoners, their families, victims of crime and the many people who are involved in caring for prisoners.

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Peace & Justice

---

A Question

Women - Equal but Different?

By Savi Hensman for Ekklesia,  22 Oct 2007

Men should have the greatest responsibility in the church and home, while women are ‘equal but different’, according to the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen. In an interview on ABC radio on 14 October 2007 with Monica Attard, he explained why he was opposed to women bishops. He is one of the leading opponents of the traditional Anglican system in which mainly autonomous provinces cover different parts of the world.

Instead he champions the right of senior clergy to take charge of or create parishes and dioceses in other countries if they think that local leaders are too ‘liberal’. So his opinions meet with a lot of interest, and not only in Australia.

He argued that his view ‘reflects the Bible’s way of putting it’. Yet this interview reveals how much a particular ideology shapes his reading of the Bible.

The Archbishop sees those in favour of women bishops as unhelpfully swayed by modern culture. ‘On the side of those who are in favour of this development, they would say that it’s a huge development. It’s true that it breaks tradition of 2,000 years. Yet nonetheless, it must be done because of the equality of the sexes and as a matter of justice. They would say, furthermore, that any arguments against it from the Bible are not true.’

Jensen believes that his position, in contrast, reflects eternal God-given truth: ‘I agree with the importance of justice, naturally, and I agree too with the equality of sexes but I have a different way of putting it. I see, in the opposite case, a certain degree of agreement with the independence and the individuality of our modern society. I’m standing for what you may call community. I’m standing for the relationship as the sexes as being equal but different. I’m standing for another set of values and that’s what makes me, believing as I do about the Bible, against this development.’

In ‘the sort of family I believe in, you’d come to a father and a mother who are entirely equal in God’s sight and entirely equal in the sight of the law but are also different and have different responsibilities within the family’. The church, Peter Jensen argued, should be similarly arranged: ‘I see the Church as a family, first and foremost. And in the New Testament the local church, which is a gathering of people in the same geographic area, the local church is described more in family terms than it would ever be described in terms of a company, for example, and therefore reflects family life. We call each other brother and sister, for example. In some traditions the priest is called father. It’s those relationships which are of interest to me and those relationships, I think, which ought to be reflected in the ministry of the Church.’

However things have supposedly gone downhill: ‘one of the tragedies of the modern family is the way in which fathers have been sidelined and fatherhood itself has become an empty shell. There doesn’t seem to be a job for fathers to do anymore.’ Many are unwilling to marry in today’s world because of ‘an unwillingness, particularly of men – and why should they, in the modern world? – commit to women and families. A father begins life first of all as a husband who has committed himself, for the long-term of his life, to a particular and unique woman, and to the family that, if God wills, they will bring into the world. Now that father then takes responsibility for the good of the home. Both sides have responsibility for that, but the father has particular responsibilities.’

Many women support his view, he explained, including members of an organisation named ‘Equal but Different’, for the same reasons as him: ‘They read the Bible. They see in the Bible a picture of family and Church which, as you’ve said, is classic and which they see as better for humankind. And they’re perfectly happy. In fact, some of the chief opponents of this development are, of course, women.’

However – even if the profound unhappiness of many other women and some men in patriarchal settings is disregarded, and the squandering of God-given talent – the Bible may be read in a very different way.

The concept of ‘equal but different’ is a curious one. In the days of racial segregation in South Africa and the USA, for instance, it was widely claimed that black and white people were ‘separate but equal’. Yet this masked a profound imbalance in power and privilege which allowed injustice to flourish. Justice is not some modern fad, but an extremely important concept in the Bible. As Isaiah points out at length, ‘the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice’, and according to the prophet Micah, ‘What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?’

Indeed, some of the contributors to the Bible challenge principles put forward by others which might be considered unjust. In Exodus, for instance, God is described as ‘a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me’. Yet according to Ezekiel, even if someone has a father who is ‘violent, a shedder of blood’, an idolator and violator of others’ rights who ‘oppresses the poor and needy’, if he himself acts in accord with God’s will he will win God’s favour. ‘A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own’ (Ezekiel 18).

The importance of masculine dominance, benevolently and responsibly practiced, is emphasised by Peter Jensen; he even seemed to question whether being a husband and father is worthwhile if it simply consists of living with people one loves on an equal basis, each contributing what he or she can to the welfare of others within and outside the household. His question about men: ‘why should they, in the modern world… commit to women and families’ is certainly revealing. He claims this is a biblical pattern.

There are indeed some books of the Bible which appear not to question the norm of male domination so deeply rooted in the societies of that time, though even in these there is an emphasis on caring for the widow and fatherless. Even in the Old Testament, however, there are wide variations: one might wonder if the husband of Deborah (Judges 4-5) felt ‘sidelined’!

The portrayal in the Gospels of Jesus is even more startling. Neither a husband or father himself, he proclaims that he has ‘come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother’ (Matthew 10.35), and urges his followers, ‘Call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father – the one in heaven’ (Matthew 23.9). He encourages Mary to sit at his feet as a disciple instead of doing the housework (Luke 10.38-42), tells his status-conscious male friends that unless they become like little children they will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18.1-4) and himself kneels to wash his followers’ feet (John 13.3-14), as if he were a woman or child. He is certainly no champion of patriarchal values. Perhaps Jesus’ words and actions as portrayed in the Bible seem so odd to some of his worshippers today – especially those nostalgic for the world of their childhood in which women’s and men’s status was far more clearly defined than now – that they simply cannot believe what they read, and must radically reinterpret it to tone down the impact.

Contrary to the Archbishop’s assumption, those who argue for a more inclusive church may not always simply be echoing the dominant views of society today, but may be reflecting their experience of a God of surprises, encountered in the Bible and worship, nature and art, friend and stranger.

Everyone to some extent brings their own prior expectations and cultural influences to bear on their understanding of the Bible. However, if we seek to be open to the experiences and insights of others, as well as to what we may learn through prayer and the attempt to live out our faith, we may find ourselves reading familiar words in a different way. If, however, an approach to Christianity is taken in which the Bible is used to justify injustice, even if cloaked in the rhetoric of ‘equal but different’, much that is valuable in it may be overlooked.

———-

© Savitri Hensman was born in Sri Lanka. She works in the voluntary sector in community care and equalities and is a respected writer on Christianity and social justice. She is author of ‘Re-writing history’, a research paper on the row within global Anglicanism: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/research/rewriting_history

2 Comments »
Related catagories: Uncategorized

---

Bob Coolidge Remembers July 29, 1974

[The Rev. Robert Coolidge was a friend of Katrina and George Swanson at Harvard/Radcliffe in the early 1950’s, graduating with George in 1955. I’m grateful for his sharing these recollections with Katrina’s Dream. Until we got married Katrina was known by her nickname, Keppy. – George]

I don’t clearly recall how Ellen and I got to Philadelphia or what else we did there. We were at Squam [New Hampshire] of course, and probably drove. At our hotel, we had dinner at a table next to the one occupied by the party who intended to protest the ordination. As we listened to their talking, I remember trying to decide whether to interrupt them and get into an argument. Finally we decided to make a remark to each other which revealed our position, and they just clammed up for the rest of the meal.

The hour or two we spent in church before the service was not too pleasant because of the tension and rumours of violence. I do remember meeting Madame Picard and her grand-daughter. I heard George express his concern by joking about wanting to see her ordination not her funeral. I also remember seeing and speaking to Olof in his acolyte’s vestments. I also was feeling a bit guilty for declining Keppy’s request to read the Gospel, since I don’t think Bishop Millard would have bothered to take action or give Montreal permission to do so. All I could lose was my permission to officiate. I remember of course the great scrum of priests laying hands, and receiving communion from Keppy (for the first time, since I had not visited you in Kansas.)

The first Eucharist, of course, was the highlight, for me at least. We went out to an apartment by train, but I don’t remember whether it was the day of the service or the day after. [I believe it was the afternoon of July 29th. George] I had the job of opening the mail, and to read aloud or otherwise pass on the contents, most of which were congratulatory. Some nasty comments were also read out, with due notice and permission. I recall receiving instruction as to what to do with a letter or telegram from Bishop Vogel, but I don’t remember whether I was actually asked to reveal a direct order not to proceed, or to withhold it until after the service. Luckily, we didn’t get such an order. During the service, I was Keppy’s deacon and George and Bishop Welles [Keppy’s father] were acolytes. I suppose someone else read the Epistle, but I don’t remember who it was. One thing I remember noticing is that Keppy’s voice sounded just like her father’s, but then, I reminded myself, she didn’t have a female model to follow, and presumably didn’t want to imitate her husband.

2 Comments »
Related catagories: Church Politics; Women & Justice

---

Four Years Ago Bishop Katharine Wrote

The larger church seems to be in a time of some anxiety,

but then we seem to live in especially anxious times. I spent a day in mid-June with a roomful of bishops who are enormously concerned about the election of Gene Robinson as bishop coadjutor in New Hampshire, and about the possibility that General Convention will authorize the preparation of rites for blessing same-sex unions. If we can look at the situation dispassionately (which is far from easy), we soon discover that the same kind of furor accompanied the incorporation of non-white Episcopalians into the full life of this church, the ordination of women, and even the seating of women deputies in General Convention. The Holy Spirit continues to shake us up, whether we are ready or not. When we are confronted with an issue of inclusion, it seems to be an invitation to remember that the Body of Christ does not look just like any one of us, and that this Body is far more complex than we can imagine. We all reflect the image of God, but no one of us alone can reflect the fullness of God’s image.
Jesus spent his time hanging out with the folks on the margin, because too often the rulers/authorities/governing bodies in his society were busy worrying about boundaries ­ who was “in” and who was “out.” If we’re worried about whom to include, we’ve missed something essential about the gospel: Jesus invited everybody.
When we are faced with what a tough ethical question, how do we respond? As Anglicans, we look to three sources of authority ­ scripture, tradition, and reason. If we still cannot come to a consensus, then the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:33-39) is appropriate ­ “if this is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.” Or as Jesus said so often, “by their fruits you shall know them” and “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Our task is to look for God in our neighbors, whether we agree with them or not.
There is room in this expansive church of ours for all ­ for those who agree with us and those who disagree, for those who seem to be innovating and those who see themselves as conserving the tradition — because it’s not our church, it’s the Body whom Jesus has called together.

+Katharine

The Episcopal Diocese of Nevada,

June/July 2003

Source   http://www.nvdiocese.org/FISHTALES/ARCHIVES/Tales03.07.html

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Church Politics; Gay & Lesbian

---

Deacons: Charge Ahead!

Deacons Told: Do What you see is needed.

Apologize to the Bishop Later.

Presiding Bishop offers keynote address
at biennial conference of U.S. and Canadian deacons

By Kim Forman, June 26, 2007

[Episcopal News Service] Deacons are called to be the “nags of the church,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told the biennial Conference of the North American Association for the Diaconate (NAAD) on June 22 at their meeting in Seattle. Reflecting the Conference theme, “Being There, Mission for a New Millennium,” she encouraged the assembled deacons to explore new opportunities for ministry.

The three-day Conference opened June 21 with an evening address by Bishop Vincent Warner of the host Diocese of Olympia, and included seven workshops on topics such as the deacon in the liturgy, prison ministry, health ministry, community organizing, the Millennium Development Goals, and the practice of wellness. There were also a number of opportunities for corporate worship, including a eucharist at St. Mark’s Cathedral with Olympia Bishop Suffragan Nedi Rivera as celebrant.

Jefferts Schori’s keynote address to the biennial conference drew a capacity crowd of local guests and some 220 deacons from across the United States and Canada to the campus of Seattle University.

In introducing the Presiding Bishop, Deacon Susanne Watson Epting, executive director of NAAD, noted that Jefferts Schori, before her election, had said that if people wanted to think about new church starts, they should talk to deacons because “deacons know where the church is needed.”

Commenting on the theme of “Being There,” Epting noted that “when we put the emphasis on ‘there,’ it’s often where deacons are: in places of need; in places outside the church’s walls; in places where others forget that people should be defined not only by their needs, but by their gifts.”

“As we look toward a third-millennium church and a renewed sense of mission,” Jefferts Schori said, “I want to ask you deacons, and the rest of the church, about new ways in which deacons could be sent out.”

Reminding them of their ordination vows, she said deacons are called to serve the poor, weak, sick, the lonely and those who have no other helpers and to interpret the needs and hopes of the world to the church.

The ministry of deacons, she explained, is one of urgency about the starving and homeless and also about “the full humanity and dignity of those in all sorts of prisons, whether legal ones, nursing homes or hospices, as well as the prisons we build through prejudice about race, gender, physical and mental ability, sexual orientation, national origin and so many others.”

Jefferts Schori asked the deacons to think about service to people “captive to a consumerist society” or “caught up in the rat race of jobs or shopping or keeping up with the neighbors” and about “forming communities of faith and transformation among co-workers or fellow commuters or soccer parents.”

“Where is the good news going unheard?” she asked. “Who are the hungry in spirit? Whose needs and concerns and hopes are not being addressed?”

The church is recovering the ancient ministry of deacons focused on service connected to the ministry of a bishop “despite the fact that some dioceses have not yet or not fully embraced the ministry of deacons,” she said. “But I want to push us to see those ministries as far more interconnected than we have tended to see them in the past.”

The church in this millennium will be less tied to buildings than in the past, she predicted, because young people hunger for a spirituality of practice rather than a spirituality of place.

Deacons may have to convert the rest of the church to recognize the need for recruiting, training and assigning younger deacons to work with the younger generation, she said. “We need to begin to see those gifts in teen-agers. You know the kinds of gifts necessary and I challenge you to start looking among the youngsters you meet.”

“Deacons should not only be middle-aged, silver-haired, retired or independently wealthy,” she told a room filled with many of those traits, drawing laughter and applause.

The Presiding Bishop offered the deacons a five-point model of mission developed by the Anglican Consultative Council, the Anglican Communion’s main legislative body. That model, she said, has been “around for about 20 years, but [is] little known in the Episcopal Church.”

It includes: (1) To proclaim the good news of the kingdom; (2) To teach, baptize and nurture new believers; (3) To respond to human need by loving service; (4) To seek to transform unjust structures of society; and (5) To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.”

Calling them “the elements of God’s mission in which we participate,” Jefferts Schori offered examples of each. Some deacons are working on environmental issues, she said “nudging and prodding and nagging the rest of the world to wake up to the suffering implicit in our lack of care for creation, but there is abundant opportunity for more ministry there.”

Concluding 45 minutes of formal remarks, Jefferts Schori asked “Now what do you want to talk about?” which sparked an animated conversation with the deacons.

The first question was about her reference to deacons nagging and how that could be done on the local “grass roots level.”

“If half of the dioceses of the church are represented here, as I am told,” she said, “you represent a critical mass and person-by-person you can make a difference, you can change things.”

Walking around the room with a hand-held microphone for more than an hour, Jefferts Schori responded to more than 30 other questions and comments on church canons, education standards, scholarships, networking, pensions and conflict.

“Despite the headlines you read,” she said, only about 45 churches out of 7,600 have left the Episcopal Church for alternate jurisdictions within the Anglican Communion.

“Yes, we have conflict,” she said. “Yes we have always had conflict in the church.”

She listed past disputes between Gentiles and Jews in the early church and over slavery, native Americans and other minorities, over the place of women and children in the church, “but we have much more in common and we need to reach out to each other and build on that.”

When a delegate asked how deacons could work with priests or bishops who don’t recognize and use their skills and gifts, Jefferts Schori quipped, “Sometimes it’s much easier to ask forgiveness than permission.”

Several delegates thanked the Presiding Bishop for attending their conference and voiced appreciation for her insights and support.

Kent McCall of Kansas City said Jefferts Schori “appreciates deacons and what we do, and there are lots of people who don’t. She is very intellectual, wise and charismatic. Now we know why she was elected.”

Emily Morales, a priest from Puerto Rico, said, “I was very impressed with her wisdom in dealing with the issues” and for Jefferts Schori’s support of a school opening there in August with 11 deacon candidates.

Three deacons ordained last December in Los Angeles — Margaret McCauley, Walter Johnson and Christine Nevarez — talked about the Presiding Bishop’s encouragement “to go beyond our comfort zone and work for change” for ethnic minorities and youth.

“I especially liked what she said about always being hopeful and filled with unlimited possibility if we can think outside the box,” Johnson said.

An important feature of the Conference was the June 22 presentation of the awards for the “Recognition of Diaconal Ministry in the Tradition of St. Stephen.” Begun in 1995, these awards are given to no more than one deacon from any diocese, who must be endorsed by the diocesan bishop. A total of 25 deacons received this prestigious award in 2007.

At the same ceremony, the Bishop George Clinton Harris Award for outstanding service was presented posthumously to Northern Michigan Bishop Jim Kelsey, and was accepted by Deacon Tina Maki of the diocese, who was also a Stephen Award recipient. Begun in 2001, Kelsey was the fourth recipient of this award. Kelsey, bishop representative on the NAAD Board, died in an auto accident June 3 while returning from a parish visitation. The Bishop George Clinton Harris Award had been planned before his death.

At the NAAD Business meeting, elections to the board, completed earlier by mail ballot, were confirmed by the membership. Deacon Barbara Bishop from the Diocese of Chicago, NAAD’s vice president/president elect for the past two years, was elected president. Tina Campbell of Northern California and Pam Nesbitt of Pennsylvania were elected as new members of the NAAD board. Bishop J. Michael Garrison of the Diocese of Western New York, was elected to fill the bishop slot on the board. The Ven. Jim Upton, a former board member and former Archdeacon of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, died on June 17 at his home in Newton, Kansas, following his re-election to the board. He was the third significant NAAD leader to die in recent months.

Br. Justus Van Houten SSF, who was president of NAAD from 1995-97, died suddenly in Papua New Guinea last year.

Dutton Morehouse, editor of the NAAD quarterly “Diakoneo,” said attendance at this conference was 100 more than any in recent memory. The next conference will be held in 2010 but no location has been selected.

– The Rev. Kim Forman is a retired Episcopal priest and freelance journalist in the Diocese of Olympia.

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Peace & Justice; Take Action; Evangelism

---

Come Light Our Fire

Pentecost 2007

By Tom Ehrich  Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?” (Acts 2.5-8)

I knew last night’s clinic for summer swim league officials would be long, so I brought a book to keep me calm.

The Duke faculty member to my left hadn’t brought a book. His only diversion was to rag me for reading. He kept it up for an hour. Apparently it troubled him that my approach to this meeting was different from his. He wanted me to speak his “language,” not my own.

So it goes in a land that promises unprecedented freedoms and yet shows a relentless drive toward conformity. From middle-school cafeteria to retirement center dining room, we try to impose narrow norms and styles.

Religion, unfortunately, leads the way with its demands that belief must meet certain standards, eternity belongs to a favored few, and God agrees 100% with our definitions of whose behavior, thought and personality are acceptable.

It’s as if we took the Day of Pentecost and turned it upside down. Instead of apostles learning to speak in the many languages of the world, legalistic religion tries to force the world’s many languages into its one narrow gate.

Instead of listening to the world, we expect the world to listen to us. Instead of walking into foreign lands and discovering who is there, as Jesus did, we declare the foreign off-limits for “believers” and make “diversity” an object of derision.

Yesterday, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury pointedly excluded the gay Bishop of New Hampshire from the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. It seems the other kids don’t like him. The archbishop had less problem with an African prelate allied with the dictator of Zimbabwe. Sex trumps murder and corruption.

Wouldn’t it be astonishing if the world’s many tribes, races, nations, lifestyles and belief systems heard the Christian movement learning to speak their languages? Imagine a gay African being listened to by his bishop, not being denounced as a criminal. Imagine warring peoples sitting down together, not to be compelled into the one language of First World charity or military might or ideological supremacy, but allowed to discover their common humanity and to develop mutual respect.

Imagine a Christian leader brokering such discovery by listening, not orating, and by accepting, not by hurling scriptures as weapons.

I don’t expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to discover Pentecost grace as he tries to manage Anglicanism’s warring tribes. It starts with us and how we approach the fact of diversity in our smaller worlds.

Source:  CLICK HERE

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Church Politics; Lost in the Stars?

---

The Saints Go Marchin’ In

Two Bishops Not Invited to Lambeth

The Associated Press Tuesday, May 22, 2007; 7:18 AM

LONDON — Two bishops at the heart of the U.S. Episcopal Church’s divisions over sexuality and scripture will not be invited to next year’s global gathering of Anglican prelates, the archbishop of Canterbury’s office said Tuesday.

Bishops V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Martyn Minns of the breakaway Convocation of Anglicans in North America were not among more than 850 bishops invited, said Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary-general of the Anglican Communion.

Robinson was the first Anglican bishop to be openly living in a same-sex relationship, and his election in 2003 opened a huge rift between the liberal and conservative wings of the church.

Minns was consecrated bishop on May 5 in Woodbridge, Va., by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, the most outspoken of the numerous Anglican critics of Robinson’s elevation.

Robinson may be invited to attend the Lambeth Conference as a guest, but Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns, Kearon said.

“The question of Gene Robinson … I think has exercised the archbishop of Canterbury’s mind for quite some time,” he said, and there was no question that Robinson was duly elected and consecrated a bishop in accordance with the rules of the Episcopal Church.

“However, for the archbishop to simply give full recognition at this conference would be to ignore the very substantial and very widespread objections in many parts of the communion to his consecration and to his ministry,” Kearon said.

The conference, generally held every 10 years, will meet at the University of Kent in England from July 16-Aug. 4, 2008.

© 2007 The Associated Press

Source:  CLICK HERE

One Comment »
Related catagories: Uncategorized

---

Cancel the War for Mother

Mother’s Day Proclamation

Thanks to Lydia Thayer for this

Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise, all women who have breasts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:
“We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: “Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

The “Mother’s Day Proclamation” by Julia Ward Howe was one of the early calls to celebrate Mother’s Day in the United States. Written in 1870, Howe’s Mother’s Day Proclamation was a pacifist reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian. The Proclamation was tied to Howe’s feminist belief that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level.

The proclamation is included in the Unitarian Universalist hymnal, Singing the Living Tradition

Source: CLICK HERE

(No comments, yet.)
Related catagories: Peace & Justice; Women & Justice

---

The First Mother Priest

Celebrating the First Woman Priest Li Tim-Oi

By Mary Frances Schjonberg, May 04, 2007

The Rev. Li Tim-Oi met with then-Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie in 1984.

[Episcopal News Service] Special services in the countries where the Rev. Florence Li Tim-Oi, the first woman ordained a priest in the Anglican Communion, began and ended her ministry will be held in honor of the 100th anniversary of her birth on May 5.

One service is planned at Morrison Chapel in Macau on May 5. Tim-Oi served at the chapel during World War II. Macau is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. It borders Guangdong Province and is about 60 kilometers (37 miles) from Hong Kong, China’s other Special Administrative Region.

The other will be held May 6 at All Saints’ Chinese Anglican Church in Markham, Ontario, near Toronto. Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, the first woman bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, will preside at the service; retired Massachusetts Suffragan Bishop Barbara Harris will preach.

Harris, who served the diocese of Massachusetts before retiring in 2002, was the first woman bishop in the Anglican Communion. Tim-Oi was a concelebrant at her consecration. Matthews was recently nominated as a candidate for the election of Canada’s new Primate. If elected, she would become the second woman primate in the Anglican Communion after Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Tim-Oi, whose name means “much beloved daughter,” was born in Hong Kong. When she was later baptized she took the name Florence in honor of Florence Nightingale. She studied at Union Theological College in Guangzhou (Canton). After she graduated in 1938, she served in lay ministry first in Kowloon and later in Macao. She was ordained as a deaconess in May 1941.

Later that year, Hong Kong fell to the Japanese and priests could no longer travel to Macao to celebrate the Eucharist. According to her biography in the 2003 edition of “Lesser Feasts and Fasts,” Tim-Oi continued her ministry, and her work drew the attention of then-Hong Kong Bishop Ronald Hall, who decided that “God’s work would reap better results if she had the proper title” of priest. Hall ordained her on January 25, 1944.

On the 60th anniversary celebration of her ordination, Canon Christopher Hall, Hall’s son, said during his sermon, that his father talked with Tim-Oi on the day of her ordination about lifelong priesthood, not of the momentous step they both were taking.

Her ordination caused much controversy after the end of World War II and Tim-Oi decided not to continue exercising her priesthood until it was acknowledged by the wider Anglican Communion. Hall had appointed her rector of St. Barnabas Church in Hepu and said she was still to be called a priest.

The 1948 Lambeth Conference refused to recognize her ordination, as did two successive Archbishops of Canterbury. The Conference, in Resolution 113 rejected a request from the then-Diocese of South China brought to it by what was known as the General Synod of the Church in China to experiment with ordaining deaconesses to the priesthood.

“The Conference feels bound to reply that in its opinion such an experiment would be against the tradition and order and would gravely affect the internal and external relations of the Anglican Communion,” the resolution said.

In resolution 114 of that meeting, the Conference reaffirmed a decision made in 1930, saying that women were only qualified to be deaconesses. The bishops said it was not time to reconsider that position (Resolution 115) but said that deaconesses ought to be honored and encouraged in their work (Resolution 116).

When Communists came to power in 1949, Tim-Oi studied theology in Beijing to understand the implications of the Three-Self Movement which had been instituted to govern church life in China. She moved to Guangzhou to teach and serve at the Cathedral of Our Savior.

When the government closed all the churches in China between 1958 and 1974, Tim-Oi was forced to work on a farm and then in a factory, and was required to undergo political re-education when she was deemed to be a counter-revolutionary. She was allowed to retire from factory work in 1974. Christopher Hall recalled in his sermon that Tim-Oi went to the mountains to pray during the years when she did not dare be seen with her Christian friends. He also said her re-education nearly drove Tim-Oi to suicide. She was forced by the Chinese Red Guard to cut up her vestments with scissors.

Tim-Oi was able to resume her public ministry in 1979 and, two years later, she was allowed to visit family in Canada. While there, she was licensed as a priest in the Diocese of Montreal and later in the Diocese of Toronto. She eventually settled in Toronto. She received doctors of divinity at New York’s General Theological Seminary in 1987 and at Toronto’s Trinity College in 1991. Tim-Oi died in Toronto on February 26, 1992.

The Episcopal Church’s General Convention agreed in June 2006 via Resolution A059 to annually commemorate Tim-Oi’s ordination. Her feast day was set as January 24. Tim-Oi’s actual ordination date is the Feast of the Conversion of St. Peter the Apostle.

The collect appointed for her feast day prays “Gracious God, we thank you for calling Florence Li Tim-Oi, much-beloved daughter, to be the first woman to exercise the office of a priest in our Communion; By the grace of your Spirit inspire us to follow her example, serving your people with patience and happiness all our days, and witnessing in every circumstance to our Savior Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the same Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Tim-Oi’s legacy continues with the Li Tim-Oi Foundation, which has helped 200 women from 67 dioceses in 11 provinces of the Anglican Communion train for ministry, including more than 50 for ordination.

Controversy over Tim-Oi’s ordination came to a Lambeth Conference that had been pondering the issue of women’s ordination for nearly 30 years. It was the 1920 Lambeth Conference that called for the restoration of women to the diaconate (Resolution 47) but said it was the only order to which women could be ordained (Resolution 48). The bishops outlined the elements of a deaconess’ ordination in Resolution 50 and Resolution 51. The conference also called for inclusion of women in the councils of the Church to which lay men were admitted (Resolution 46).

The bishops meeting in 1920 also called for a study of women’s work in the Church and their compensation (Resolution 54).

The 1920 gathering was the first time that the bishops dealt with the role of women in any way other than as it related to marriage. The emphasis came in a series of resolutions at the 1908 Lambeth gathering. Women are not mentioned at all in any of the resolutions from the first four Lambeth gatherings (1867, 1878, 1888, and 1897).

At the 1930 Lambeth gathering, the bishops outlined the duties of deaconesses (Resolution 70 and Resolution 71) and reaffirmed a 1920 resolution, which said that the office was primarily for ministry to other women and did not require celibacy.

That conference also called for women to be able to use whatever specialized training they had received in “posts which provide full scope for their powers and bring to them real partnership with those who direct the work of the Church, and genuine responsibility for their share of it, whether in parish or diocese; so that such women may find in the Church’s service a sphere for the exercise of their capacity.” (Resolution 66).

The bishops said, in Resolution 72 that “every stipendiary woman worker, whether parochial or other, should receive formal recognition from the bishop, who should satisfy himself not only of her general fitness, but also that an adequate stipend is secured to her with provision for a pension, and that she works under a definite form of agreement.”

In 1968, the Lambeth Conference refused to accept women’s ordination but passed five resolutions (Resolutions 34-38) suggesting, among other things, further study and provisions for “duly qualified women to share in the conduct of liturgical worship, to preach, to baptize, to read the Epistle and Gospel at the Holy Communion, and to help in the distribution of the elements.”

At the first meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in 1971, the ordained and lay members of the group considered a proposal from the Council of the Church of South East Asia. The ACC advised the then-Bishop of Hong Kong that “acting with the approval of his Synod, and any other bishop of the Anglican Communion acting with the approval of his Province, that, if he decides to ordain women to the priesthood, his action will be acceptable to this Council; and that this Council will use its good offices to encourage all Provinces of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with these dioceses.”

At the 1978 Lambeth Conference, the bishops recognized that the Diocese of Hong Kong, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and the Church of the Province of New Zealand had begun to ordain women to the priesthood and noted that “eight other member Churches of the Anglican Communion have now either agreed or approved in principle or stated that there are either no fundamental or no theological objections to the ordination of women to the historic threefold ministry of the Church.” Resolution 21 passed by a vote of 316-37 with 17 abstentions.

The resolution said the conference accepted the stance of all of its member provinces on the issue and encouraged “all member Churches of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with one another, notwithstanding the admission of women (whether at present or in the future) to the ordained ministry of some member Churches.” The bishops also called for “further discussions about the ordination of women be held within a wider consideration of theological issues of ministry and priesthood.”

And the resolution recommended that that no decision to consecrate women as bishops be taken “without consultation with the episcopate through the primates and overwhelming support in any member Church and in the diocese concerned, lest the bishop’s office should become a cause of disunity instead of a focus of unity.”

In the Anglican Communion today, eight of the 38 member provinces do not ordain women to any order of ministry. Fourteen provinces currently make provisions for women in the episcopate.

Tim-Oi’s birthday commemoration comes nearly 31 years after the Episcopal Church voted at its 65th General Convention to open all three orders of ordained ministry to women.

Today, the ordination of women is widely — but not universally — accepted in the Episcopal Church. An entire generation, both in chronological age and in terms of their membership in the Episcopal Church, has known nothing but a church in which women serve as priests.

Many, if not most, in the church have “come to the conclusion that there is a rich diversity brought by women to the church,” the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the church’s Office of Women’s Ministries, said in an ENS story leading up to the 75th General C