Monday, September 24, 2007

Communion Chaos

I have just learned today, for the first time, that my calm, older, beginning to be rational child is now gone a chunk of the day, leaving me with two not yet rational, hyper, beginning to be competitive children of a gender I don't understand (namely male). That two such small bodies should be able to generate so much noise is astounding.

One has been shouting all morning to listen to Balafon music on youtube.
'I want to hear the balafon, with the picture.'
'In a minute, A, I have to read this first.'
This being the next set of remarks from the HOB meeting this morning. And now the comments.

R is just shouting. He may be trying to say something, but Lord knows what it is.

Anyway, first, here is Matt's telephone call to E last night, more on the subject of Adam and Eve.
Matt: How was Church?
E: Adam and Eve ate from the tree and then they had to hide and then they had to find leaves because they were bears and didn't want Jesus to see them.
Incredulity on the other end of the line (couldn't hear what Matt was saying).
E:Yeah, they were hiding and then they knew a baby was going to be born and be Jesus, like us.
Silence, probably Matt asking some clarifying question.
E: Because, she becided it!

I'm dying to know what is going on in E's head to make sense of all this. So fascinating, the study of scripture.

Second, it occurs to me, after these many months and years of Anglican Conflict, that while all of us have been taking this seriously-pouring over documents, trying to understand the Windsor Report, the Dromontine Communique, the Dar Communique, various letters from Rowan Williams, Camp Allen Statements, and now resolutions in the HOB-these Bishops HAVE NEVER TAKEN THIS SERIOUSLY. If they've read any of the necessary documents, they haven't bothered to understand them. If they've listened to advice and counsel from Primates and others, they bothered to HEAR. In other words, this has never been a real engagement. They've never been serious about the communion. Even this morning, after Matt's careful study of Howe's Proposal, and we, reading carefully and considering and praying for God's will, these Bishop's Never Considered the option before them.

I don't know why I didn't notice before. I guess, if you can't take the time to take the Scriptures seriously, why would you take the Communion seriously.

I leave you with my two Favorites from the meeting. These I am tucking away for the sake of generations to come.

From the Bishop of N. Carolina: "Also, shouldn't we quote scripture somewhere in this text?"
And
"Roskam: I would hope that we will make mention of these extraordinary stoles that we have been given and that maybe we should have a separate document for this purpose"

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anne, dear ... we actually take them too seriously to take them literally.

Fred

Anonymous 2 said...

To Fred,
Two questions: 1) what is the "Anne, dear" supposed to suggest? Rather patronizing I would have said.
2) what exactly are you taking too seriously to take literally? The documents that have been generated by this conflict? The Scriptures?
Anonymous 2

NORTHERN PLAINS ANGLICANS said...

Anne, thanks for those priceless Bishop quotes. Been quite the day for outing what these illuminati think about the rest of us...
http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-of-what-bishops-think-of-us.html

Jane R said...

Anne, that is unfair and out of context for Bishop Michael Curry, who is very grounded in Scripture and in fact instituted the practice of Gospel-Based Discipleship for the entire Diocese of North Carolina. (I live and am active in that diocese.)

Bits of quotes out of context don't give a sense of either the people involved or the whole situation, in this or any case. In all things (not just the Current Unpleasantness) it's important that we approach others, their words, and their intentions, with a charitable heart and a contemplative spirit -- and with a careful spirit of inquiry.

I wish you well in these final weeks of pregnancy, and a good and safe delivery.

Anne Kennedy said...

Yes, Jane R, it is important to be charitable in all things. Its also important to take this whole mess seriously. If you can't appreciate the absurdity of the HOB discussion from yesterday, than I can't help you. I'm sure Bishop Curry is very nice. I'm sure they're all very nice. The point is that they're pitching the Angilcan Communion off the side of a cliff. I hope today they pull it together and their discussion is more realistic and respectful.
Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Anne Kennedy said...

Fred dear,
really?
That clarififes so much for me.

joie said...

Anne- I find it condescending of you to claim that those of us not in agreement with you and your husband on matters of biblical interpretation (be it sexuality or another issue) do not take the Bible, the Communion, or any of the documents and discussions seriously. I take them very, very seriously which is why I believe we should be willing to walk into the lion's den for our faith even if it means that you and Matt and Bob Duncan and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself wish to disown this part of the Body of Christ.

Many blessings upon you and your yet-to-be-born baby in these final weeks.

Joie+

Anonymous 2 said...

So interesting that Joie grounds the notion of condescension in disagreement with another person's point of view.
If I understood Anne's original post, the apparent problem in the HOB was that many of the bishops speaking to the issues seemed to be blissfully unaware of the content of the documents they were supposed to respond to, and were, among other things, inattentive to the gravity of the situation and sidetracked by peripheral phenomena like shawls.
And speaking once more of condescension, surely, Fred knows, and Joie knows, how irritating it is to have "dear" tacked onto one's name by persons to whom one has not been formally introduced. Now THAT'S condescension.

joie said...

Anonymous 2- Please read things more carefully before you lash out at the people who wrote them. I never wrote "dear" anything to Anne+ as I, too, would find that condescending -- as if someone were giving me a little pat on the head.

I did offer blessings upon her impending birth and I mean that in all sincere charity and love, especially because I am a priest who recently gave birth. Just because people disagree vehemently on one issue doesn't mean they don't have some common ties which garner empathy. I thoroughly enjoy reading Anne's+ blog for its insights into raising and teaching children and there are many points of agreement she and I might have if we were to sit down together.

Now, to the issue I take with Anne. To disagree with another person does not automatically mean that one is condescending. What IS condescending is to say that +Katharine, Susan Russell+, Barbara Brown Taylor+, +Desmond Tutu, and my most humble self do not take scripture, etc. seriously. To say such is to believe that one knows the inner thoughts and faith of another. To say such also means that one believes he or she is the only authority to judge the faith of another. Is that blasphemy?(it's a little early in the morning after being up with a coughing baby all night). By the same token, I would say that even though Anne+ and I disagree on our interpretation of scripture, she takes the Bible very seriously as do I. This is the point at which we need to arrive as a Communion -- a place where we can acknowledge Christ in the other -- a place where we begin to practice the African concept of ubuntu.

Anonymous said...

Fred, would that be the bishops or the Scriptures?

John

PaydayLoans said...

oAvocI You have a talant! Write more!

Auto insurance company said...

mxrY8e Magnific!

Hydrocodone said...

UPenHv The best blog you have!