Notes on the Anglican Communion

I have been meaning to write up my notes from when Lord George Carey, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury from 1990-2002, came to speak at Duke Divinity School last year. The title of his talk was "The Anglican Communion: Past Blessings, Present Challenges, Future Hopes." I found his perspective very interesting, especially as he deliniated the many reasons why the worldwide Anglican Communion could not support the American election of Bishop Robinson. Here are my notes from the day.

The Anglican Communion: Past Blessings, Present Challenges, Future Hopes
Lord George Carey

Past Blessings

The Lambeth Conference of 1867 was gathered to deal with a crisis in the church over the uneasy growth of the Church of England. It was called by the colonies, and it eventually led to reformation in the Church of England. There were 76 bishops present with only one black bishop, and the Bishops of London and York were abstaining. The 16th century church was profoundly broken by the break with Rome, and the 17th century had seen excessive violence. By the 19th century, the church was debating theology. By the 1920 conference, women were included on the platform.

Present Challenges

The juridicial structure has been resisted, leading to the increasing independence of the various communions which had only to follow the Book of Common Prayer. The Bishops meet together for various functions such as overseeing liturgical development, but there are many strong leaders and indiginous pastors now which have often abandoned the Book of Common Prayer and a common ministry.

There are serious threats to the unity of the Communion. The move to ordain women was so gradual and so discussed that schism was avoided. The Church of England still does not recognize women bishops in England, for example, and there is still great discussion over the ordination of women versus the ordination of women as bishops; however, the church still remains in communion.

Fast footwork and close communion are needed to prevent schism in the current emergency, the debate over homosexuality. This debate has been quick. The debate has been going on since before 1990 when Lord Carey became Archbishop, and he was a controversial figure in the debate. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 110 clarified the position of the Anglican Communion stating that practicing homosexuality was incompatible with Holy Scripture. Five years later, the United States' decision to accept an openly gay priest threw the church into debate (August 2003). There have been many meetings in the Anglican Communion for discussions with homosexuals, but unfortunately, the discussion with the General Synod in the U.S. was "dead in the water."

The debate over homosexuality is an emergency and causing division because it is a bigger issue than just the acceptance of homosexual priests. There are five major theological and ecclesial reasons why the Anglican Communion could not agree with the U.S.'s decision. 1)The acceptance of homosexuals was a departure from the ordinal and theological teaching of ministry that priests have to be either celibate or married. 2)It was a departure from the orthodox interpretation of the Bible which is universal in its condemnation of homosexuality. Every group, even those supporting homosexual ordination, with which the Anglican Communion has been in communication agrees that Scripture speaks against homosexuality. 3)It was a departure from the Anglican understanding of the sacramentality of marriage. 4)It was a departure from the understanding of unity. By choosing to forsake the discussions and accept an openly homosexual priest, the United States was proclaiming that they had no need of the rest of the Anglican Communion. 5)It was a departure from the Anglican understanding of authority because the United States church ignored the Communion's decisions.

Hope for the Future

Pray for resolution that does not involve schism. The leaders and parishioners need to engage with the conflict and with the problems of the world to avoid the worst possibility, that the minority leaves. Once churches divide, union is rare, and the split between the Church of England and the Methodists is an example. Hope can be sustained if groups stop threatening to leave and realize that the conservative voice is not always heeded and that some behavior done in disagreement is un-Christian.

Unfortunately, increasing schism seems to be the reality, so Lord Carey's fears about division in the Anglican Communion are more and more real. He is correct that once churches divide, they tend to remain divided, even when the churches eventually come to align closely in their theology. Issues such as the validity of ordination and leadership tend to keep them separated. While the Wesleyan Methodists, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes divided from the Methodist Episcopal (current United Methodist Church) for different reasons, none of them have united with each other or reunited with the UMC. Attempts at reconciliation between the Wesleyans and Free Methodists were hindered by different positions on the ordination of women. Attempts at reconciliation between the Free Methodists and United Methodists would be greatly hindered by the pluralism and hesitancy to follow Biblical discipline by some leaders in the United Methodist Church as well as the historic theological "conservativism" (for lack of a better term) by the Free Methodists. While I do not fault the founders of Free Methodism for their actions following the removal of their ordination credentials by the Methodist Episcopal Church when the Free Methodists spoke out against slavery and discrimination against Blacks and the poor, our division is still a hindrance to our witness to the Kingdom of God and to a Savior who has come to reconcile us with God and one another. All of our prayers should be with the Anglican Communion and for reconciliation within our divided churches.

Sin that Marks Our Bodies

Earlier this year, I sat down for lunch with Amey, an African-American first-year student. The goal was to hear each others' stories and to know the pain of growing up as a Black child in the South. In the process of that conversation, I mentioned that a faculty member had marginalized me in a lecture, unintentionally, and broken me once again. Amey's gift to me was her recognition that I was hurt, even though the professor did not mean to hurt me. She refused to differentiate between the pain and oppression she experienced growing up in the South and the pain and oppression I was experiencing as a Divinity student. Even now as I think back on that conversation, I am so blessed by Amey's ability to look beyond the Black-White characterization of the South. Her recognition was that oppression, marginalization, and racism are always wrong.
The problem I am trying to articulate is not that I am oppressed more than others, the problem is that oppression exists in our churches in any form. We are made in the image and likeness of God, all of us, no matter our skin color, social status, economic class, or city of origin. We reveal God to our brothers and sisters as they reveal God to us. Since we are created in God's image, we, all of us, are icons, windows through which we see God. When one person is oppressed by another, when one person is ignored, then we are guilty. We are like the teachers who were guilty because they claimed to see. We do not love our brothers and sisters when we marginalize one of them, and as John tells us, if we do not love our neighbors, we do not love God. We are not competing over oppression at the Divinity School. We are trying to faithfully tell our brothers and sisters that their inability to see us is a refusal to view us as icons of our Lord and as humans redeemed by God.
Last week I wrote that "our bodies bear the scars of the attacks against us." Our bodies are marked. We are one church, and the oppression of one of us marks all of our bodies with the scars. It is not okay to recognize the racism perpetuated against one group without recognizing the racism perpetrated against other groups. It is not okay to discuss the social construction of one race without discussing the social construction of the others. Even as we repent of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws, too often we either allow or perpetrate the oppression and marginalization of others. We, the church, the redeemed of God, still perpetuate the sins of racism.
Almighty God, our creator, redeemer, and sustainer, open our eyes to our sins of not seeing your face in the brothers and sisters around us. Help us bring healing instead of pain to the broken and ignored in our midst.

Abused or Ignored?

I think that my sisters at Altared helped me understand part of my frustration tonight. We were discussing race, reconciliation, mercy, truth-telling, and our own brokenness. These women have consistently provided a place where I can speak, and where my pain and my joy can be heard. This space is refreshing in a Divinity School which tries to be faithful, but like any other institution, fails miserably at times.

Last spring, I sat through the response of one of our Black Church Studies and Theology professors to Bono's speech at the Presidential Breakfast. I remember feeling like I had never been so marginalized by a member of another ethnic minority. The tears I cried that morning were tears of sorrow and pain. Tonight as we talked before the altar, I was able to share briefly that I consistently feel marginalized at Duke, by both professors and students, and I was able to confess my own fear and reticence to speak truth and mercy to those who consciously and unconsciously perpetuate injustice.

As I walked away from those women and that altar, I realized that a portion of my pain comes from being ignored. In some cruel way, it is better to be abused than ignored. The abuse hurts, and it cuts deeply into the very fabric of your being, especially when the abuser attacks the color of your skin. When we are cut, we bleed, and there are many of us who are limping through these hallways. Our bodies bear the scars of the attacks against us, against our people, and against our identity.

But our scarred and bleeding bodies are at least acknowledged. There is a validation of personhood and of power when you are attacked. People attack you because they are threatened by the power you could wield, or they strike because they hate the person you are. Either way, there is an acknowledgment that you exist, albeit a perception that you are unworthy. There is no such validation in being ignored. When you are ignored, you are not even worth the time for someone to attack you. You possess no power to threaten the institutions and structures of society. You are worthless; instead of being the fly who nags and is swatted, you are the concrete people walk on, not tended, not cared for, not noticed.

My experience at Duke has been the latter. There is no desire to include the latino/a community in discussions of reconciliation. There is no acknowledgement that students may come from indigenous American tribes. There is no attempt to recognize my presence. Attempts to bring other ethnic groups into conversations of truth-telling and reconciliation are systematically ignored. Questions are interrupted or avoided altogether. I am neither Black nor White, so I do not matter.

This is a cry for truth, justice, peace, and mercy in Duke Divinity School. Whether you acknowledge it or not, I am a child created by God, redeemed by his blood, and empowered through the Holy Spirit. I will claim that identity for myself, and I will continue to ask you to claim it for me.

Then, I will proclaim the hope I see within these ivory walls as well. There are small groups of students, like these eighteen women before the altar, who create space to acknowledge pain and stand together as the body of Christ. In that space, I am no longer ignored but live as the member of Christ's body I am. In that space reconciliation begins, and we cry together over our sin and injustice, and we rejoice at grace which covers us all. We seek wholeness and healing and God's merciful touch. As we go from that space, may we all cry together the words carved into that altar: "I Thirst."

Majority and Minority Perspectives

I had a conversation with a friend the other night that made me pause for thought. Like many other times this year, I am posting about race, but perhaps with a slightly different perspective this time.

She and I were talking about her experiences listening to minorities talk about racism, and she was the first one to express the majority perspective in a way that made me capable of seeing how very similar the two reactions are, even though they are very different in their expressions. To my friend, it seems as though minority speakers are attempting to marginalize her when they speak out against the ways that minorities have been and continue to be marginalized by the Caucasian majority in the United States. When they speak about how the Caucasian majority should care about the minorities living within the borders of the country, they are passionate, perhaps angry, and almost always frustrated by the situation between the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities in this country. My friend reacted with anger and frustration to the minorities that she feels are marginalizing her in their efforts to raise awareness and compassion.

Her response raised my awareness that one of the big problems in this whole debate is that both sides feel marginalized by the other, and neither side has much of an awareness of how the other side feels. I have been caught in the middle for some time now, but I think my sympathies have tended to live with the minorities because I have felt like the majority groups tend to be the oppressors. While I still think that is true, I realize now in a much more powerful way, how minorities marginalize the majority by making them feel like they are worthless in the same way that they have been oppressed.

In light of my friend’s reaction, and in a desire to attempt to bridge the gap so that conversation on race and oppression can take place in a more fruitful way, let me offer a couple of stories that may help those of you who either are Caucasian or for some other reason don’t understand the importance of the race discussion. As you read each of these stories, place yourself in it and imagine what your reaction would be.

1) You are a white African in South Africa. Your family has lived there for generations, and you are a judge in the court system. You receive word that you are being removed from your post because you are a white African. You are therefore not fit to judge black Africans, so you will be replaced with a black African judge.
2) You live in Zimbabwe as a farmer on a small plot of land. The government decides to restructure the farming land, and your farm is being taken away from you because you are a white African instead of a black African. If you want to continue to farm, you need to leave the country, and you can’t find a job doing anything else because those jobs are now reserved for the black Africans. As a result, you are forced to leave Zimbabwe which has been your family’s home for years.
3) You have recently moved to Spain from England, and you run into people on the streets, in the marketplace, and even in your church who tell you that you need to return to England because you do not speak Spanish, which is the official language of that country. If you want to continue to speak English instead of Spanish, and if you want to teach your children English and speak it in your home, if you want to remember the British victories and celebrations, they you don’t belong in Spain, and you need to go back to England.
4) You are an English-speaking Canadian who moves to French-speaking Quebec. You are told that you are no longer allowed to speak English in your stores, advertise in English, have your children attend English-speaking schools, etc because it is against the law in Quebec.

Each of these stories comes out of the stories of what has been happening around the world lately, and if you can understand and feel the anger of each of these situations, then you understand what it feels like to be a minority living in the United States. I have been told that latinos are a different breed of humans who can’t have the same religion, same values, or same friends as Caucasian Americans. I can’t count the number of times that I have been told that all latinos need to go back to Mexico. The first issue with that is that a lot of latinos don’t come from Mexico in the first place. The second issue is that a lot of the latinos I know are in the US legally or are US citizens, either naturalized or natural-born. I have been told that I don’t have the capability to do certain tasks because of my race. I have been told that my (guy) friends’ parents would never let me marry them because of my race. I have been told by my (girl) friends that I should make sure that their parents don’t know my race because they wouldn’t like me any more. I have been told that I should just get over my feelings about these experiences. When you read the above stories, and if you were in those positions, would you want to be told to just get over it?

Two stories in the recent days have brought to the forefront the issues of race again. After the SOTU, I watched the Daily Show with the same friends. While I wasn’t sure that some of it was in good taste, I wasn’t that disturbed until they showed the response by the LA mayor who was speaking in Spanish as the response to the latino population. As he was telling the people to join in and stand up to work for a better country because we are all one people and all one nation, they voiced over his speech making fun of the fact that he was latino. If they reacted the same way to other responses, I might not have been so angry, but the response they gave to the white responders was based on what they were saying instead of on their race.

The second instance that has disturbed me was an article in Duke’s newspaper about a musical group from sunny Bakersfield, CA (yes, CA, so think twice before you say that racism is no longer a problem in the West). They are targeting 11-12 year olds with the message of White Nationalism because they know that is one of the most influential ages. They have racially based songs, and they model for White Nationalist clothes lines. Do me a favor, and read the entire article and think about how you would feel if you were one of the many non-white people reading this article. Here are a couple of notable quotes for you:

”The name of the band is derived from the family's white Prussian ancestry along with the color of the girls' eyes. The girls have also said the name references a chemical that they say was not found at concentration camp sites. "We think it might make people question some of the inaccuracies of the 'Holocaust' myth," the girls told Viceland.com.”
"I don't think that we wouldn't have criminals, although I believe that black people are more likely to be criminals, but I would just want the races to be separate, and I'd like this to happen peacefully.”
“April said that the media is mistakenly interpreting white nationalist beliefs as racist. "We don't necessarily think that we are the best race," she said. "Asians, for example, are generally smarter than us. They score higher on tests. However, white people are more capable and live better lives. We believe the white population is shrinking, and that we're losing autonomy. We've already lost it here in the state of California. The Mexicans are the plurality here, and it's disappointing to see the majority of a population going to a race that is clearly inferior to almost all other races."
“I laugh whenever people get really mad about us, because I think it just makes the anti-racists look kind of ridiculous."

Someone explain to me how this is not racist?

The one good thing that came out of this article was that it gave me a new perspective on the South. When I told a friend here who grew up in the South about this, she asked me if there were really people in California that needed to hear this message. I said yes, it comes up multiple times a year in the Westmont newspaper, and the two responses are usually broken down into people who are minorities or have close friends who are minorities versus everyone else. The minorities and their friends argue that race is still an issue, and everyone else argues that we have moved past racism and the minorities should get over their feelings and overreactions. She said that it seems strange to her because you cannot grow up with that framework in the South. Race is something you have to deal with because you are confronted with it all the time, and for that, I’m glad.

I guess in conclusion I want to say that yes, minorities should welcome in Caucasians and learn to live in and love their culture. They should learn to communicate with them and be patient enough to sit through their cultural ceremonies, even when they don’t care, in order to understand. But this is a two way street. If that is what the Caucasian population expects from the minorities, then the minorities have every right to expect it of them as well. That means that they need to make an effort to live in and love minority cultures, to learn about the languages and customs of the people, and to make an effort to sit through and learn about the ceremonies and traditions of other cultures, even when they don’t care about that culture, in order to understand those around them.

Culture Shock Continued...

I mentioned that the incidents with the Westmont College Gospel Choir shirts were a transition to some of the larger issues that have been causing me culture shock here in the South. The larger related issue is over the types of music that can be allowed in church. The Westmont Gospel Choir sings a wide variety of music. Our songs include everything from old time slave songs to modern hip-hop to mainstream songs. We performed the gospel medley which includes a large selection of African-American spirituals like other pieces included an Avalon piece (The Glory of the Blood), Hezekiah Walker (Let's Dance), I'll Fly Away (we chose the Spanish version of the old spiritual), and O Sifuni Mungu (a piece in Swahili). If my classmates sat through a Gospel Choir concert, I am guessing that they would be appalled by "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" by U2 and "Where Is The Love" by Black Eyed Peas. This is popular music (and the Black Eyed Peas piece is even rap), and you absolutely do not sing it in a worship setting. The fact that the U2 piece was actually a request from our campus pastor would be unthinable. Several debates have been started in my class by the question of what kind of music is acceptable, and the consensus seems to be that the old spirituals and the "classic" gospel, which I think is along the lines of BeBe Winans, but I'm not entirely sure, are acceptable in church, but you are probably crossing the line if you sing hip-hop, rap, or any other type of music in church. Apparently that kind of music can't be baptized by the church. I am thankful for the tradition of the Gospel Choir which has specifically chosen not to limit its music to one type of gospel. The church has a long history of baptizing the songs of the culture for use in church. This tradition reaches back into classical music and continues through the hymns of Charles Wesley and the musicians of the Great Awakenings to today. If the church can baptize rock and sing it in church, which is what we did every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at Westmont chapel, then it can also baptize the various forms of music popular with the Southern Black community.

In addition, race in the South is defined by black or white. After leaving Westmont, even after leaving Carson City, race was defined as Native American, Asian, Latino, African, but it certainly was not limited to Black or White. Here it is, and if you do not fit into those two labels, then the people here do not know what to do with you, nor do they seem to care. I would expect that the Divinity School would be sensative to issues of ethnicity; however, I have been disappointed. I sat through a lecture by another one of the theology and ethics professors last week where the topic was Race and Immanuel Kant. His premise was that race is a modern construction appearing when Europe began to see itself as Enlightened in contrast to the rest of the world. He sees Immanuel Kant and Max Weber as instrumental in the construction of the concept of race. I actually agree with this analysis. The problem was how he spoke about race. His whole argument was constructed on the notions of race inherent to the history of slavery and segregation in the South. I left the lecture feeling like I had never been so marginalized by a person of another minority before. It was simply assumed that my experience must match his and that of other African-Americans in the South. Well, I'm not African-American, and I'm not from the South. While I have experienced plenty of racism in conversations, my experience is distinctly different from his. When I hear him talk about how we need to be one church and understand one another, and then know that he really doesn't have an interest in hearing my story because it doesn't fit with his, I know that he hasn't provided a solution for the church either.

Labeling race as a modern construction does not change the fact that racism exists, in the South and in L.A. I, and every other ethnic minority in California, can tell you that racism still exists in the west. The difference is that it is more implicit at home. Those rare occassions where it becomes explicit shock and concern the entire community. There were two attacks in the Carson area a while back against a mosque and a synagoge. The whole community stood against those attacks - even people who would make less obvious racist comments in the car with me. The Rodney King Riots have become a symbol of the harm that racism can do. Here in North Carolina, the people do not even know about the riots. A professor used them as an example, but he did not know the name of Rodney King, and the other students did not know what he was talking about. Those acts of violence are the exception though, not the rule. The rule has been the story of my life. I have had to listen to friends' parents tell me that "Mexicans are a different breed." "We have nothing in common with each other." "The Native Americans in Carson are a large part of the gang problem." " No hispanics want to work in America. They are just a drain on the American economy." "Hispanics want to destory the American culture, and they don't care about learning English." Do those statements shock you, or are they similar to things you have said yourself? It is both a blessing and a curse that I do not look Mexican or Navajo. I was given the looks of my Irish and British ancestors, so I am not usually discriminated against because of my looks. At the same time, I am discriminated against because I do not look like a minority, so I don't fit in those communities. I also have the great burden of listening to people talk about my ethinicity without knowing that "one of them" is sitting in their company. It is not acceptable in the West to make those comments to someone's face, but I can attest to the fact that they are said often when the speakers do not think they can be heard.

Life is different here. I was shocked by an article in Durham's newspaper, the Herald Sun about White Supremecists active in the area. A White Supremecist newspaper, the Aryan Alternative ( View other articles about the paper) was thrown into the yard of an interracial couple in Durham. The paper has no formal links to the KKK, but the director of distribution, Glenn Miller, was quoted. "We don't have problems with the Ku Klux Klan, they are good people." He also said that the paper was "against legal abortion, promotion of race mixing and the flooding of America with tens of millions of non-white aliens." (Let's set aside the fact that all whites in America are descendents of immigrants who flooded the country and pushed out the Native American tribes and forced the Mexicans to leave and give their land to the US government.) The paper's front page displayed "a picture of armed soldiers on top of a military truck and black people on a street below. Beside the picture was a headlinie reading, 'White troops battle looting Africans unleashed by Katrina!' and a big headline that said, 'New Orleans: The End Result of a Multi-Racial America. SAVAGES IN THE STREET.'" The paper comes on the hills of the spray-painting of a van owned by a Jewish couple with the letters KKK and three cross burnings in the area.

I am tired of racism, and I am tired of the way the church is perpetuating these divisions. Why do we have Black churches, and White churches, and Latino churches and Chinese churches, and Korean churches, and on and on? The church is the one place where these divisions should not exist. In spite of the fact that our differences are not washed away when we enter a church, we should be worshipping together. "After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. they were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands." -Revelation 7:9-10 (TNIV) Those divisions which are a result of human sin in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Bable are washed away in the blood of the lamb who makes us a new creation. "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:26-28 (TNIV). Once we join the church, our citizenship is in heaven, not in the kingdoms of this world. Our allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not to our nationality, our ethnicity, our sports teams, or anything else. If, like the church in Rwanda, we allow our other allegiances to take priority over our common citizenship in the blood of Christ, we are caught in idolatry. "For he himself is our peace, who ahs made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of th etwo, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which Christ jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in teh Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit." -Ephesians 2:14-16, 19-22 (TNIV).