When one considers that the Church of Greece has, in limited ways, allowed for the ordination of women to the Deaconate, one realises how near that future may be.

Bishop Alan posted a joke about Episcopalians being a disorganised religion and I noted in my reply that, in fact, many Orthodox (converts, mostly) are horrified to realise exactly how disorganised Orthodoxy is – especially in America, but as I know something of the recent troubles in the English Church (and in Estonia and Macedonia) clearly it is that way overseas, too. Add to that infighting over “modernism” and “traditionalism” as well as ecumenism (which means, in the states, just accepting the baptism of other churches, while in some other locations it means inter-communion and intermarriage) you end up with a picture of Messy that far outstrips or, maybe, exactly parallels Anglicanism.

If Bp Kallistos were honest and upfront (which would violate Orthodoxy’s “don’t ask don’t tell” rule) he would have to admit the presence of active gay people in Orthodox parishes, of women who (gasp) read the scriptures in church and (gasp gasp) even chant the prayers. It would be interesting for Orthodoxy to make a step or two into the 1980s by admitting that she – like other churches – is already dealing with the 1950s.

In time. It will happen. I know it will. In Orthodox time – if not this century then the next one.

Lambeth is over, DG.

Now the rest of us can move on with the mission of God’s Kingdom

The Journalists blessed by Lambeth to spin.
The Journalists excluded by Lambeth who report anyway.
Or the Bishops actually doing the work…

Clearly not everything coming out of Lambeth will be to the liberal liking. Nor will it be to the conservative liking. That’s the point: Lambeth has no synodical power. It’s a fellowship meeting of Bishops.

And they are still in my prayers.

The Bible study group went very well as we began to discuss the matter of Gene Robinson and homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.  The presenting issue for us was how this issue affects our efforts in evangelism.  The African bishops said that in Muslim majority countries, openness to homosexuality made evangelism more difficult.  I pointed out that in some places in our culture, especially with those under age 35, it was rather the other way around.   I think, I think we heard each other.

I’m still not sure how Gene makes evangelism hard for them. I would think the death threats for trying to convert Muslims would be worse. I would think the death sentence for apostasy on the convert would be a bigger problem.

If someone says to you, “Yes, I would convert – death threats mean nothing! But I refuse to go to a party where a gay man might be in the room…” there’s some other issues going on. Seriously.

But, let’s assume for a moment is is about evangelism. Neff has the right counterpoint. No one in this country under the age of 35 – and an increasingly large number of the rest of us – want anything to do with a religion that can’t outgrow its cultural biases. If we can use interest-bearing accounts to run our economy, I think we can A retrograde stance makes it hard for us to evangelise.

I think that a new phase for the exercise of episcopé will be for bishops to seek to connect the people of God more directly with one another, rather than through us.

One of the interesting things I’ve noticed about the internet is it override boundaries we thought were real. In the church this means that the local congregation is not the only thing that matters any more. I’m convinced that the only reason +Gene Robinson matters at all in the life of the Anglican Communion is because we can no longer pretend he doesn’t exist.

Bp Gene is not the first gay bishop. Every major urban area in the communion has had its share of gay clergy. Some think this has been a sort of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, but really, it’s been more of a pulling-the-wool project. Most people didn’t need to be told to look the other way: they just did. Hell, even in 1990, I could take a group of visiting clergy from overseas, out to lunch at a gay restaurant in Greenwich Village. I doubt they’d have noticed his orientation if the waiter got naked and danced on the table – although the nudity would have annoyed them. When the visiting Bishop showed up at St Mary’s with his lover (in 1988) I think the members of the SSC who were then present just had a good giggle – fooled some more laity by calling Fr John “the Bishop’s Driver”. And when an Orthodox Bishop says to me “I am what I am” I’m rather certain he’s quoting La Cage Au Folles and not Exodus.

The internet changed all that.

Orthodoxy is seeing this too: it’s possible to look deeply into the mind of the community next door, in the next town, in the next city or around the world. We can see, read, hear that there is a gay priest in Pasadena – not because of the media telling us, but because we can click there, ourselves.

And yet clergy (and I’ve met some) are terrified that “their people” will go visit some place else. Hell, I don’t need to visit another parish: all I need to do is click.

The internet is not the problem. It’s the attitude that they are different and therefore must be wrong. Because clearly we are right. That’s the problem.

To be certain – it flows both ways: Evolutionists (who imagine a “theological journey”) and Creationists (who imagine “the faith once delivered”) poke bitter fun at each other all over the net. People who believe in Theistic Evolution of theology and church bicker with those who believe in Humanistic Creation. People who imagine a divine human synergy argue over which side trumps. And the internet is filled with the evidence of their battles. Whereas in the days before internet, it might take centuries for word to get out – and the world never cared. (Who in the entire world, but the ardent church geeks among us, knew about the debated on the poverty of Jesus without watching or reading, The Name of the Rose?)

(Speaking of Getting Out the News, I think we need to spread the story of Nicholas punching out Arius. It would make a good Christmas Movie… Rock’em Sock’em Santa! Now at Toys-R-Us everywhere!)

This problem – that they are different and therefore must be wrong. Because clearly we are right – leads immediately to territorial issues. When Constantine invented the idea of clergy as Functionaries of the Empire, he divided things up into geographical territories. That is the origin of “diocese” and “parish”. What church you go to, in this world, is not related to what’s good or better: but rather on where you live. You can’t just wonder out of your “parish” (neighbourhood) to go to another church because the sermons are better! Thankfully, this system has broken down: but clergy are still as territorial as can be! Some are even bitter when people leave – to go off to “that nut” over at a neighbouring church.

It’s still true, to be certain, even though territory is not an issue any more: many people think there is an objectively right way to do Sunday services and, of course, home is right. They get bitter when they travel and see how many people do it wrong. The really bitter know their own parish does it wrong as well! I’m amazed at how many Episcopalians have never worshipped outside of their home parish. In some communities this shows up as wondering why we even bother with “other” churches – as if Peter Akinola were not, certainly, a Bishop in my Church.

In this world bishops have to come together and meet because, well, the rest of us will never get a chance to see other Christians. The Bishops, serving as regional satraps, talk to each other in the name of “their people”.

In Rome this has metastasised into an infallible papacy and a massively centralised administration: soon, you will not be able to transfer membership from one parish to another without Rome finding out. In Orthodox, things fragment nearly as quickly as among Episcopi Vagantes. In Anglicanism, we avoided it for a while… but here it is: the bullies demanding to be in charge of everyone because everyone must do things our way (which is, really, the way the bullies were taught to be by their colonial dictators, but we won’t go into that!)

Thank God the Episcopal Church realised – 200 years ago – that the laity needed to see each other, to fellowship, to have a voice in the ruling of their church!

Bishop Marc asks us to imagine something new: a world where all of us are ambassadors and where all of us have to meet our brother and sister Christians where they are. What a concept!

Bishop Gene is asking us to live in a panoptical church where everyone can see everyone. And We’re supposed to love them.