The Sudanese statement

The Archbishop of Sudan, The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul, made some hay yesterday by denouncing the Episcopal Church and Bp. Robinson (New Hampshire) at a press conference. Earlier, in a press release posted on Anglican Mainstream, a conservative blog, the Archbishop articulated virtually the same position (excerpted without introduction):

In view of the present tensions and divisions within the Anglican Communion, and out of deep concern for the unity of the Church, we consider it important to express clearly the position of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) concerning human sexuality.

This is coming out of the context of and from within the midst of Indaba, the listening process that is the central piece of this decade’s Lambeth Conference. As it has been suggested, instead of bringing suitcases of position papers on the subject of human sexuality, the bishops are to participate in a listening process where all are given the opportunity to speak and be heard. As we have seen from similar opportunities, such as Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa, this process can work—if we are willing to participate.

We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth.

Fair enough, though I'm hearing a but...

We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman.

So what do we do with those that aggressively go beyond these boundaries? Isn’t rape worse than adultery? Where is the moral outrage over the use of rape in Darfur?

We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.

Clearly, homosexuality is worse. I’m sorry. It just took me some convincing. You are completely right.

We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS.

Your prerogative. Short-sighted, but yours.

We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships.

I’ll skip over the slight inaccuracy, but suggest that, like the above prerogative, he has every right to take this stance. I strongly oppose his position. There, we’re square!

This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.

Ah! There we are! The ‘gay marriage hurts my marriage’ argument writ large! What I find funny is that this brouhaha was back in 2003. TWO THOUSAND THREE! You’ve made it the story for five years. You would not be on the receiving end of ridicule if "the Global South" didn’t spend every waking hour trying to tell us that we’re heretics and that we are responsible for their position. Last I checked, the damage to the Anglican Communion is by the people threatening to break the Communion, not the ones playing nice over here.

The unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound significance to us as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities. We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

He almost got there. We were on the same page up until the “uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard”. Unity is not about ‘steps taken’ to keep jerks from breaking the communal toys, but in gathering together without regard for differences.

Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada, to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular:
- To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops or
priests
- To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships
- To cease court actions with immediate effect;
- To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
- To respect the authority of the Bible

I normally don’t take kindly to demands, especially in light of hostage-taking scenarios such as this, but I will say that aside from #3, all of these have already been promised or are in place. Let me repeat that: four out of the five demands were already agreed upon by the House of Bishops. This extra demand has nothing to do with maintaining “unity” or in “safeguarding” our Communion, but is an attempt to strengthen splinter groups, eroding the influence of the Episcopal Church, and supporting of extracanonical excursions into the United States in the form of unconscionable breaches into the U.S. church. This is not a demand that can be supported by any party and is a clear slap in the face of anyone who actually believes in the word “unity”.

We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion.

Clearly laying them out as demands.

We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council; and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

As do I, though Lambeth and the ACC are the only two actual pieces with any real weight, but I digress. I couldn’t agree more. So you will stop supporting the hijacking of U.S. and Canadian churches? That is part of the agreement and Windsor process, after all; plus the strong request of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

We appeal to this Lambeth Conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided.

Funny, the onus isn’t on the ones acting in this situation, but on the assembled body of bishops. Now that’s classy!

We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of division. We pray for God’s strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in unity as the Body of Christ.

Amen.

The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and
Bishop of Juba

I included this because the Archbishop is the only signatory, but is speaking on behalf of all of his bishops. Perhaps the gentle reminder that this is Lambeth, a conference of all bishops, and that digging into party lines goes against the spirit of “unity” that is needed here…

Brits agree with world: U.S. tortures

In the current climate, these things seem to go unnoticed, so I'll throw one at you. Check this out.

From the Center for American Progress's daily newsletter, they point to a new report out of the U.K.:

HUMAN RIGHTS -- BRITISH REPORT SAYS NOT TO TRUST U.S. ASSURANCES REGARDING TORTURE: A report released Sunday by the British parliament's foreign affairs committee says that the British government should not rely on assurances from the U.S. government that it does not torture terrorism suspects, after "Britain had previously taken those assurances at face value." The
main difference between the two countries that the report cites is the
definition of waterboarding as torture. UK Foreign Secretary Dana
Miliband has said that the controversial technique is torture, but
President Bush vetoed a bill that would ban CIA use of the method. The committee concluded that "Given the clear differences in definition,
the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use
torture." The committee also suggested that the British government
conduct "exhaustive analysis
of current US interrogation techniques." The report also challenges the
British government to investigate further whether British land has been
used for "rendition" flights by the United States , after allegations
that two American planes carrying terrorism suspects had landed and refueled on the British-held Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia .

Now think about that for a second. It suggests that "The British government should not rely on U.S. assurances that it does not use torture". Not only does this mean that they can no longer trust us and take our word for it, but that there is clear evidence that we do torture. We all know that we are responsible for torture: this is not new. What is new is that the U.S. is now deemed untrustworthy. This is further proof that the world now believes the worst in us--and much less than how we see ourselves!

caveat emptor

or buyer beware. It is defined as “The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.”

I have to confess that I have never been comfortable with this relationship. Whether it was the buyer’s remorse one feels after buying something one feels is a “must” while later realizing “want” doesn’t even really cut it. Or perhaps it’s the time you bought something that didn’t function the way you expected it to. Or maybe it just doesn’t measure up to the picture. I’ve had all of these things happen, and I’m sure you have too. And we say to ourselves “I guess that’s what I get.” Some of us demand the store take back this product, but for the most part, we simply take it.

But this fundamental aspect of the system, held for decades, is based on the principle that a consumer can be reasonably knowledgeable about a product. That level of knowledge is transitory, of course, and fluctuates based on the court’s support of the economic interest of the people or of the manufacturer.

But why should any of us be considered to have a reasonable knowledge about a product, let alone reasonable knowledge about anything? If I listen to the advertisers, Coke tastes better than Pepsi while at the same time Pepsi tastes better than Coke. And each is cooler than the other. And each is more popular than the other. Taste tests have proven both superior. In a modern world, both would be charged with lying, since only one could be “best”. In a postmodern world, we have to deal with each being “best” from their respective points of view. But according to our government, these are acceptable ads, because caveat emptor!

But we can all drink a Coke and a Pepsi and compare their relative effectiveness. But what about the things we both expect and require assistance in: significant purchases (cars, homes, etc.), healthcare, drugs and medicines? What of the things in which we depend on the experts (realtors, doctors, scientists, etc.) and when they become sellers of products? Or worse, what of the inherent dangers of a product of which we know nothing and are expected to know nothing? Writing the name of a phthalate on a plastic bottle will not communicate the danger that plastic possesses. Where is the support for the buyer when the seller is not required to inform him/her about anything that would prevent him/her from purchasing that product? Caveat emptor?

I was inspired by this article by Ellen Goodman called “The Do-It-Yourself Economy” which explores all of the repercussions of our taking on the labor once done by others: first as a cost-savings measure, but then accepted as normal (and requiring a later addition-by-subtraction?). The truth in the article (of which there are many, actually—you should definitely read it) is that we aren’t cut out to be responsible for ourselves in this way to this extreme degree. We aren’t all simultaneously the lawyers, estate planners, and accountants necessary to process the legal documents required to function effectively in our economy, let alone setting ourselves up for retirement and maximizing the tax code. We aren’t doctors, so we shouldn’t be telling our physicians what medications we wish to take, let alone reading through medicinal and health plans. We aren’t educators, so we shouldn’t be expected to teach our children all of the ins and outs of what they are going to face in the world—especially with our own antiquated perspectives.

The implication of DIY and caveat emptor is that the experts should not be held responsible for your ignorance. But the real question is why? I’m not talking about suing McDonald’s because they should tell a person that coffee is hot by printing it on the cup. I’m talking about more than informing. I’m talking about doing their basic jobs. Drug companies are not in the business of selling as many drugs to as many people as they can (despite the last decade’s evidence to the contrary), but the business of researching, developing, and producing life-saving medications. In fact, any attempt to convince people to take a drug they don’t need should be seen as fraud, not prudent business practice.

It’s about time we focus on the real issue: caveat emptor no longer works. A buyer should trust that they are getting what the seller claims. We even have a phrase: truth in advertizing. We should start by demanding it.

No, they will never, ever go away

Yes, this is a scary picture!

Actually, looking at this picture reminded me of something. Dick Cheney ran as not-the-president. His entire shtick was to not be the president. And looking at his face, his presence behind the president, and his in-office behavior has encouraged this connection:

Do you remember the kid in school that acted up? Do you remember what was said about him/her? That s/he came from an abusive family, was often neglected or locked out of the house and that this young person was just seeking attention. And in the pursuit of attention, negative attention is better than no attention at all. Now think about this administration.

As the Bush/Cheney junta is coming to its end, soliciting funds for a presidential library, and focusing on legacy issues amid the worst approval ratings ever, there is one sick thought: Bush and Cheney will be immortalized.

Yes, when new monuments are erected neither name will grace them (except the sewage plant in San Francisco) and nobody will ever confuse Bush with Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt, but in desperate times, infamy might be mightier than fame.

The unitary executive, the most scandalous, unconstitutional things to come along in centuries was dubbed by Frontline as "Cheney's Law". These two idiots won't just be lame Trivial Pursuit questions, or #43 in a list of presidents which all run together. They get their own space in the presidential and vice presidential halls of fame. They get exhibits with such paraphernalia as a torn Bill of Rights, a young Supreme Court justice's glasses, and blood-soaked hands. Bush will be remembered. We forget that not everyone wants to be the hero of the story--often being the villain is an uncontested road to immortality.

Live from Lambeth

There are some interesting thoughts that are coming out of Lambeth Conference, even before it truly begins. One excellent source of getting to understand what's going on over there might be to read this blog by Bishop Alan here. He describes the way the conference is formatted and why it will be different than conferences past.

It is also interesting to note the ire felt by any beat reporters 'lucky' enough to draw this assignment; searching for blood and conflict and receiving instead a healthy dose of optimism and congeniality.

And then, of course, there is "The Fringe", which is quite the appropriate name. I wonder if the irony is lost on the Lambeth organizers? Here is a great comment from Bp. Gene Robinson.

[Note: for those that don't know, Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, whose vote of confirmation in 2003 was seen as the trigger for the current "crisis" was not invited to Lambeth. It is the first time (I believe) that any bishop of the Anglican Communion has ever been snubbed. He decided to join in the Fringe activities during the Conference, but not gate crash. At the same time, it should be noted, in an example of a strange reversal (though not truly ironic), Many bishops from four schismatic countries in Africa have chosen to boycott Lambeth, not because Bp. Robinson is nearby, but because all of the rest of the American bishops were invited. Crazy!]

And lastly is the mainstream representation. Here is an article that is as inflammatory as the press wants it to be. It is difficult to communicate that something may be simultaneously potentially factually accurate and emotionally erroneous. If you want proof, simply look at the reference to "a mix of traditionalists and liberals", trying to not only fan the flames of dissent, but completely mischaracterize the political character of those attending. In a strange move (a slip, perhaps?), the author, Rachel Zoll suggests that:

"Conservatives have condemned the Lambeth program as an attempt to paper over differences by failing to tackle them head-on. Some traditionalists attending Lambeth will likely try to change the conference agenda."

By introducing the label of 'conservative' into the article (heretofore the assumed synonym of 'traditionalist') Zoll appears to be suggesting that it is not merely a synonym, but a separate designation. She seems to be saying that no real conservatives are in attendance--only the more moderate 'traditionalists'. If this is the case, the suggestion above [that it is "a mix of traditionalists and liberals"] more accurately implies "a mix of [moderates] and liberals". Such a supposition is not only inaccurate, but journalistically immature and borderline scandalous!

Or, if you go for the 'orgy of information approach, check out epiScope and Episcopal Cafe for directions. Happy hunting!

Lambeth begins!

Yesterday marked the first day of the Lambeth Conference, the gathering of bishops from all across the Anglican Communion. Taking place every ten years, this certainly becomes what anyone would categorize as an 'event'.

Thankfully, this conference will actually set a good tone for all of us in the way it is structured, beginning with three retreat days (7/17-19) and then an opening Eucharist on the 20th. Working in small groups, putting a variety of voices in each one, not only making diversity an important undergirding construction goal, but makes community that much more engaging.

If you want to read about what is going on, check out this article.

Please keep all bishops, including primates and the Archbishop of Cantebury, in your prayers. Pray also for a constructive and Spirited gathering, in every sense of the word!

“I don’t expect to be a great communicator”

So what is Senator John McCain’s proper frame? Is he the folksy senior senator that is a “straight-talker” or is he a disengaged buffoon? Does he speak truth or is it double-talk? Is he a maverick or does he abide by the party line? The truth is clearly not what he says it is.

But here is something that is pretty interesting. Sen. McCain is a luddite. He is technologically ignorant and willfully so. Recent stumbles on the campaign trail have involved his ignorance about basic concepts such as web-browsing (“it’s a Google”), his aides reassuringly tell us that “[the Senator] is aware of the internet”, but the latest is really cute. Sen. John McCain is learning how to use the internet! Well, by golly, that shows what a real maverick he is: he avoided the internet when it was just a fad but shows he is willing to learn something that he doesn’t have the slightest interest in. Now that’s presidential!

In a New York Times story from Sunday, McCain reveals this bombshell:

“They go on for me, I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.”

McCain can find the internet on his personal computer now! Holy cow! But there’s more!

“I don’t expect to be a great communicator,”

You don’t really need that skill as a president…

Funny enough—doesn’t this prove his true distance from the beloved, perfect human specimen that is Ronald Reagan? Shouldn’t Republicans see this as a bad sign? Oh, but he was in the middle of telling us about his internet exploits. Everyone, with rapt attention.

“I don’t expect to set up my own blog,”

Oh! He meant directly communicating with the written word! He didn’t actually mean speaking in front of people reading other people’s words! Oh, well then! Kudos, John, for that good ol’ fashion straight-talkin’!

“but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”

Oooh! I likey! He actually goes to reliable sources such as the New York Times then! He looks up what experts on issues have to say. That isn’t so bad, really…

The article continues by saying:

Asked which blogs he read, he said: “Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously. Everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics.”

Wait. Drudge? The Drudge Report. That’s the first thing he mentions? The E! equivalent for conservative gossip? The political OK! Magazine specializing in rumor and innuendo? The other two are better—but he only visits them “sometimes”. And what’s with the “watching” of the Drudge Report? Is he misspeaking by saying the wrong word (ie. read) or is he misspeaking by actually implying that he isn’t going online himself, but watching as someone else does? McCain actually reads blogs over other people’s shoulders! The man can change! That’s teaching this old dog a new trick…if by teaching you mean shoving something in their face and having them do what they ordinarily do when it is in front of them: read it.

At that point, Mrs. McCain, who had been intensely engaged with her BlackBerry, looked up and chastised her husband. “Meghan’s blog!” she said, reminding him of their daughter’s blog on his campaign Web site. “Meghan’s blog,” he said sheepishly.

So Cindy McCain proves to the world that they have the most stereotypical relationship ever constructed by wearing the family’s pants. But worse, it shows two incredibily scary things about McCain.

1. He doesn’t make his daughter a priority. Imagine if a Democratic candidate forgot to go to his/her daughter’s soccer game.
2. He is ignorant of how his campaign is marketing him. He is unaware of his own website and his daughter’s blog on it. This speaks volumes about his willingness to let those around him “handle” him. This became incredibly dangerous under Bush II, as Vice President Dick Cheney has been given free reign to do and say what he wants and the president has been insulated not only from public opinion, but from the happenings within his own administration. They hand him a piece of paper and say “We need this to stop the terrorists” and he signs it saying, “Well, in that case!” McCain is exactly the same.

As he answered questions, sipping a cup of coffee with his tie tight around his neck, his aides stared down at their BlackBerries.

As they tapped, Mr. McCain said he did not use a BlackBerry, though he regularly reads messages on those of his aides. “I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail,” Mr. McCain said.

This if further proof of McCain’s detachment, not only from technological advances of the last 15-20 years, but that he shows neither curiosity, nor respect for them. His statement “I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail” reveals so much about the man.

1. He doesn’t do it.
2. He is not inclined and doesn’t plan to do it.
3. His communication needs are restricted to person-to-person contact (including the phone).
4. He allows others to direct his communications.
5. He is disinterested in communicating with people in their preferred mode.
6. He is unwilling to develop a variety of strengths.
7. He lacks the vision and ability to recognize the benefits of this mode of communication.

Does McCain still sound folksy? Do you still think he’s a straight-talker?

Here’s a point of interesting reference: In 2000, VP Al Gore touted his interest in technologies and trumpeted his ability to recognize a good thing when he saw it by reminding the world that his leadership in the Senate was instrumental in the creation of the internet; eight years later we have a candidate who is happily “aware” of the internet and watches “the Google”. Now that’s real progress.