Pittsburgh: the parting of friends?

I am not expert enough, or fool, to enter seriously into the serpentine constitutionalities, let alone politics, of US Episcopalianism, but one or two people have asked me for a reaction to the recent Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention. Perhaps I can annoy everybody all round, equally:

1. I was surprised by the Bishop’s assertion that this is “the end of a long era of division in the Diocese.”
   More timid souls may fear that this is actually the beginning of a long era of division in the diocese. Depends how you define “the diocese,” perhaps. I wonder if delegates to the Montgomery Convention of 1861 believed they were resolving division. With hindsight, most historians wouldn’t buy that notion. We’ll see.
   
   
2. I was moved and impressed by David Wilson’s opening sermon, about faith, courage and the future:

To be true to our beliefs, it would be far better to bless each other in separating, each going our own way than to continue the internecine warfare of winner-take-all. It will take courage to let each other go and to bless each other in the going. We have an opportunity today to make this convention a testimony to love and forbearance among brothers and sisters in Christ. To be a blessing to each other. Do we have the courage to do it? Will we do it? Can we forgo parliamentary shenanigans that in the end will cause more pain and more distrust and bless nobody? Can we get on with it decently and in order?

I suppose some will feel that this noble view does leave open the question of where the truth of the matter actually lies, as well as drawing discreet veils over past “parliamentary shenanigans” on both sides that have caused pain and distrust, but its sentiments and intentions are surely the best...

Demonic Buddhist Chant: Really?

All sorts of trenchant reaction has followed the news that the Bishop of Colombo’s sermon at the Eucharist in Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday concluded with a Buddhist Chant which one commentator described as “demonic.” Another ruled, quick as a flash,

The inclusion of this chant is unconscionable. The orthodox who are there should immediately vacate.

Among more reflective comments on this disturbing story, Bishop Robert Duncan said the inclusion of the chant was “very, very troubling” since it was an “invocation of something other than the God we know... to have a Buddhist chant at an Anglican sermon does not reflect the God we believe in.”

I strongly endorse Cardinal Dias’ rejection of syncretism in an Indian context. My Sinhala is not what it could be. The gospel says that if you have an issue with a brother you owe it to yourself and to your God talk it through calmly and directly with them first. Today I was able to discuss this chant with Bishop de Chickera. Much Sri Lankan culture is essentially of Buddhist origin, he explained. What did the words mean? I asked. Four verses:

I take refuge in God the Father
I take refuge in God the Son
I take refuge in God the Holy Spirit
I take refuge in the One Triune God.

I am surprised that the Bishop of Pittsburgh finds this a deeply troubling invocation of a God he does not know. I am sorry if it does not reflect the God he believes in. I rejoice to know, and better still, to be known through and through by this God, and to believe in him. Over fifty years he has been my creator, saviour, and sanctifier, and I know no other.

When we rush to judgment of others we do not know, like or understand, especially on the internet, especially on the basis of rumour, it is easy to make complete fools of ourselves.