Ember Days links to this .doc file, a wonderful essay by Bishop Pierre Whalon, the Bishop in charge of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. (Here's the Bishop's own blog; the article is also linked there.)
It's a really fascinating take on the whole issue, from both an historical and a contemporary perspective - and he does, as ED says, "hit just the right notes." Highly recommended - and the first time I've felt any hope in this situation for a long time.
The incoherence of "church teaching" on the topic of you-know-what, that is. It's from the James Alison article *Christopher linked in comments on another post:
Please notice that there are two logical barriers which the ecclesiastical argument cannot jump without falsifying it’s own doctrine. The first is this: The Church cannot say “Well, being that way is normal, something neutral or positive, the Church respects it and welcomes it. The Church only prohibits the acts which flow from it”. This position would lack logic in postulating intrinsically evil acts which flow from a neutral or positive being. And this would go against the principle of Catholic morals which states that acts flow from being – agere sequitur esse. The second barrier is this: the Church cannot say of the homosexual inclination that it is a desire which is in itself intrinsically evil, since to say this would be to fall into the heresy of claiming that there is some part of being human which is essentially depraved – that is, which cannot be transformed, only covered over.
Faced with these two barriers, ecclesiastical logic did a backward double-flip worthy of an Olympic gymnast so as to arrive at the following formulation: “The homosexual inclination, though not itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behaviour that is intrinsically evil, and must therefore be considered objectively disordered.” With this phrase, the Vatican Congregations sought to maintain the absolute prohibition of the acts without describing the desire as intrinsically evil. Nevertheless the price of this definition is very high. It obliges its defenders to insist that the homosexual inclination, independently of any acts flowing from it, is something objectively disordered. And the kind of objectivity they have in mind is deduced not from what can be known through experience, but is an a priori which depends on the Church’s teaching concerning marriage. That is to say, the a priori of the intrinsic heterosexuality of all human beings. In other words, from the presupposition of the intrinsic heterosexuality of all human beings, it is deduced that the person whose inclination is towards those of the same sex is a defective heterosexual.
Well, let us not delude ourselves here. This characterisation of the gay or lesbian person as a defective heterosexual is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the prohibition, as the authors indicate with the “must be considered” of their phrase. The problem is that, for the characterisation to work properly within the doctrine of original sin and grace, it would have to be the case that the life of grace would lead the gay or lesbian person to become heterosexual in the degree of his or her growth in grace. That is to say, in the degree to which grace makes us more patient, faithful, generous, capable of being good Samaritans, less prisoners of anger, of rivalry and of resentment, just so would it have to change the gender of the persons towards whom we are principally attracted. The problem is that such changes do not seem to take place in a regular and trustworthy way, even amongst the United States groups which promote them with significant funds and publicity. As the senior representatives of such groups indicate: at most, and in some cases, a change in behaviour is produced, but the fundamental structures of desire continue to be towards persons of the same sex. [3]
This then is the conflict: for the prohibition of the acts to correspond to the true being of the person, the inclination has to be characterised as something objectively disordered. However, since the inclination doesn’t alter, unlike desires which are recognisably vicious, the gay or lesbian person would have a desire which is, in fact, intrinsically evil, an element of radical depravity in their desire. And we would have stepped outside Catholic anthropology. Or, on the other hand, the same-sex inclination is simply something that is, in which case grace will bring it to a flourishing starting from where it is, and with this we would have to work out which acts are appropriate or not, according to the circumstances, and we will have stepped outside the absolute prohibition passed on to us by tradition.
Endangered Wolves Cloned--Can Cloning Save Others From Extinction?
The gray wolf—a predator once hunted to near extinction in the United States—now joins a small but growing number of endangered species that have been cloned.
South Korean scientists announced Monday that they duplicated two gray wolves using the same method that produced Dolly the sheep, the first successfully cloned mammal.
The process is known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).
"This study demonstrated that SCNT is a practical approach for conserving endangered canids [which include dogs, wolves, and foxes]," wrote the research team, led by Byeong Chun Lee, a professor at Seoul National University's College of Veterinary Medicine.
In South Korea, the researchers said, gray wolves are rarely found in the wild and only a small number live in captivity.
The clones, named SnuWolf and SnuWolffy, were born in October 2005.
Researchers reportedly delayed the announcement because disgraced stem-cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang is listed as one of the study authors, which prompted additional verification to confirm the clones were real.
An investigation by Seoul National University officials last year found that Hwang fabricated key stem-cell research, including claims to have cloned the first human embryo in 2004.
(Read related story: "Cloned Dog Real, Other Hwang Research Not, Study Finds" [January 11, 2006].)
The cloned-wolf study appears in the November 2006 issue of the journal Cloning and Stem Cells.
On PBS tonight. Per Sylvia Earle, Deep Ocean Exploration and Research:
Although we talk about harvesting the sea, it's a misuse of the word if ever there was a misuse. We don’t plant fish in the ocean. We go out like hunters and gatherers, track them down, find them, extract them.
In half a century we have lost on the order of 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean. I say lost, actually, we haven’t lost them. We've consumed them. We’ve eaten them. We’ve captured them.
Though our fish markets may give the impression of an inexhaustible resource, what we are really seeing is the consumption of the final 10 percent of the world's fisheries.
One point eight billion people have as their principal source of animal protein fish from the sea, seafood basically, and what happens if you remove from those 1.8 billion people their major source of animal protein? Well, I think you have a problem.
We could be the most beloved generation that ever lived or we could be the most vilified generation that ever lived because people will know that we understood the problems and didn’t do anything about them.
I've been having a discussion with one William Paul at Fr. Nick Knisely's blog. Several discussions, actually, and I hope Fr. Nick doesn't mind too much. William Paul continually steers the discussion back to Gene Robinson and homosexuality, no matter what the post is about. He is cordial, though, and an example of one of those Episcopalians who you can easily imagine attending services with and talking to anytime, even while you totally disagree on various matters - and one in particular.
I've been lately trying to make my "faithfulness as core" argument in various places. And somehow during the latest exchange, I ended up arguing for Love as core - and so I ended up reading I Corinthians 13 again:
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I've been saying for a long time that I don't really care very much about the issue of "gay Bishops," since to me it's quite a high-level problem when compared with other things (and also, to be honest, I think same-sex unions should be dealt with first for many reasons). I've been saying for a long time that I didn't care about the issue, except that it got another, more important, issue on the table: the church's mistaken view of, and damaging historical and current policies towards, homosexual persons.
I just realized, though, that this is what the "conservatives" probably feel as well. More than once during this conversation I've seen expressed a deep resentment towards the "liberal" leadership of TEC - and that cannot have only recently happened. They seem to feel that the leadership is "keeping them in the dark," or keeping them quiet and under wraps. Even liberals in the Diocese of Newark readily acknowledge that Jack Spong, for instance, was often high-handed and arrogant in his approach to the laity and to people who disagreed with him in general. I've also heard "liberals" complain about "being handled" by church leaders and not being listened to.
Even some bishops at the recent meeting addressed this issue by saying that for the first time in recent memory, they didn't feel manipulated by the higher-ups; apparently Katharine Jefferts-Schori doesn't operate that way.
Anyway, it just occurred to me that "conservatives" might feel the same way about recent actions; they may not really want to leave TEC, but are glad that some people are in open rebellion, because this way the issue gets on the table at last.
Ironic, ain't it?
May I venture to suggest that the Episcopal Church is not being "inclusive" in coming to, and acting on, its recent understanding(s) about the lives and status of homosexual persons in the Church? May I suggest that it is rather, in fact, working to discern what "truth" is in relation to this topic?
I think the change in language and approach would do us all good. "Inclusive" is very nice, although it actually carries a connotation that's a bit hooty, since it implies that "we let anybody at all in here, no questions asked - even you." And of course, that's what the Church should do, if it's serious about the transforming Gospel message; all should indeed be welcome.
But that has nothing to do with either Marriage or Holy Orders - or with how people ought to act towards others. A Lutheran, for instance, is indeed welcome and "included" in the congregation at any and every time - but still cannot be ordained. First cousins are definitely "included" - but in most states cannot be married. We are very "inclusive" as Church in our position on who can receive Holy Communion - but this is still officially reserved for baptized Christians. I in fact would support open Communion (although I believe we should abide by what GC has just recently reaffirmed - if we're not talking out of both sides of out mouths, that is); it's not really our table, so who are we to say how Christ can act in the Eucharist? But there are good arguments on the other side, also; for one thing, Baptism gets more emphasis this way, and that is a beautiful and deeply mysterious sacrament that we should hold as the very highest of values. And, as Derek (I think?) has argued in the past, each of the Sacraments depends on something else; I don't think we can just blow that away without even discussing it.
Yes, yes, of course: gay partnerships can be every bit as good as heterosexual ones are. Some are in fact better; we all know that. But we are missing an awful lot when we skip the argument itself; it means we don't go deeper, where all the good stuff is. That's the issue, to me; we are missing a certain depth of thought and (I hesitate to say) psychological and moral development; we can all stand to improve, can't we?
I'm arguing here that one of Christianity's truly outstanding features (and I assume this is true in other religions, but have no first-hand knowledge of them) is that it permits us to widen and deepen ourselves in ways that almost nothing else can or does. Christianity, in particular, has us look closely and deeply at the world in all its glory and all its brutality, and teaches us - hopefully - how to live and deal with both. We see both the sweet baby Jesus and the crucified Savior - and, importantly, everything that happens in between.
The chapel at my parish - a sort of low-key "Lady Chapel," I guess, since Mary figures prominently in the stained glass along every wall except by the altar - there is a quite incredible panel in one of the windows. The boy Jesus - perhaps 8 years old, with curly blond hair and innocent blue eyes - is standing by himself at the base of an apple tree, with arms outstretched, as if to embrace someone he loves. But of course, arms outstretched has another, dreadful, foreshadowing meaning - and there it all is in one small piece of colored glass. It gives me the shivers every time I look at it, because it forces me to deal with the truth beneath the sweet (apparent) calm.
And that's what we should continue to do, and know that we are doing: we are trying to find the truth of God's world. "Inclusive" is very, very nice - but the world is not nice, as we will come to know more and more fully in these last two weeks before Resurrection.
The Truth, however, is great, and shall prevail when none cares whether it prevail or not.
Jim Naughton at Daily Episcopalian has given space to Fr. Dan Martins, a "reasserter" who I must say has really impressed me with his post there. (I'd respond over there, but I always get impatient at having to think up yet another password in order to register, so I'll just put my thoughts here.)
Fr. Dan Martins writes, for instance, this:
Let’s not give God’s money to lawyers. I know some good people who are lawyers, and I realize they do necessary work, but wherever trial lawyers gather, tragedy has already struck. This is not the venue to debate the substance of the “justice issue” of church property. The only point I want to make is that, if there is not an institutional solution to our disputes, there will be endless rounds of court battles lasting decades and costing tens of millions of dollars. That’s not a “should”; it’s just an “is.” It does no good to point fingers or assign blame. It will be a tragedy for which we will have to answer on the Day of the Lord. However one conceives of the Church’s mission—whether it’s the MDGs or open-air evangelistic crusades—it’s mission that will suffer for the sake of billable hours. Everyone, on all sides, will lose the credibility of their Christian witness.
All I can think of to do is implore my co-partisans in the “Unity Party”—those on both sides of the divide—to “seriously lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions” (BCP, p. 818). We need to bend. All of us. Beginning with the knee joint. For the sake of unity, we need to be willing to live in a church that irritates us. We’ve got to be willing to swallow some horse pills. My sense is that many “Unity Conservatives” would be willing to say to our LGBT members: “While we cannot condone the blessing of committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage, because anything else falls short of God’s design, neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace, and be available to you with informal pastoral support. And we will remain in an Episcopal Church in which many (most?) believe that God is calling us to something more overt, as a faithful minority, even as we disagree about God’s call.” I, at least, could say that—but no more. Trust me, that much is a horse pill! But unity is important enough for me to swallow it.
What horse pill are “Unity Liberals” willing to swallow? Not being one, I can’t answer that question. But I can suggest that “Unity Conservatives” might welcome something like this: “Just because you don’t support the goal of ‘full inclusion’ doesn’t mean you’re homophobic, and those of you who can’t accept women as priests and bishops are not misogynists. We understand the need for some degree of ‘insulation’ from what church leaders are saying and doing, even while we don’t agree with your perception. We believe conservative dioceses should be able to elect bishops that reflect their values, and have those elections consented to. And while we don’t share many of the views of our Anglican brothers and sisters in the developing world, our unity with them is so precious to us that we are willing to lay aside some of what we consider to be true.”
This would not be an ideal church for either Liberals or Conservatives. It would be annoying. It would be messy. It would be profoundly costly—in a spiritual, not in a financial sense. It would therefore be real. It would mean letting go of our American idolization of democratic and parliamentary processes. The “majority” would need to learn to serve, rather than to rule, and the “minority” would need to be humble enough not to exploit the graciousness of the majority, but to replace mere obduracy with self-differentiated openness. Such a church would have a chance, at least, of making the sort of witness in the world that God expects of us. It might just work.
I'm sitting here eating Mrs. Something's vegan cookies (two Chocolate Coffee and two "Apple Pie") and listening to the Bach St. Matthew Passion. Both are making me very happy - but the real excitement was the meal that came before: 6 coconut shrimp and one cod cake; 4 vegan dumplings; a serving of peas with olive oil.
Yes, fish. You can have fish on Annunciation - and let me just say it was divine. Sorry, Rachel; I need the protein. (I realize that formally, Annunciation has been put off till tomorrow, but I'm going by calendar date. March 25 + 9 months ~= the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; nothing can change this calculus in my mind, apparently.)
And I notice that I can also eat Oreos, which I'm bringing to EFM tonight. That will be after Solemn Choral Evensong, at which we are singing Howell's Evening Canticles (in B-flat major? it's sort of hard to tell, with that guy, whether he's in a key or in a mode) and a bunch of Marian stuff. I have joined the new Gregorian Schola and am looking very much forward to it.
These cookies are wonderful, I must say; vegan is really quite a good thing.
Jim at Daily Episcopalian linked to an Elizabeth Bishop poem the other day. I think I'll do the same today:
The Fish
I caught a tremendous fish
and held him beside the boat
half out of water, with my hook
fast in a corner of his mouth.
He didn't fight.
He hadn't fought at all.
He hung a grunting weight,
battered and venerable
and homely. Here and there
his brown skin hung in strips
like ancient wallpaper,
and its pattern of darker brown
was like wallpaper:
shapes like full-blown roses
stained and lost through age.
He was speckled and barnacles,
fine rosettes of lime,
and infested
with tiny white sea-lice,
and underneath two or three
rags of green weed hung down.
While his gills were breathing in
the terrible oxygen
--the frightening gills,
fresh and crisp with blood,
that can cut so badly--
I thought of the coarse white flesh
packed in like feathers,
the big bones and the little bones,
the dramatic reds and blacks
of his shiny entrails,
and the pink swim-bladder
like a big peony.
I looked into his eyes
which were far larger than mine
but shallower, and yellowed,
the irises backed and packed
with tarnished tinfoil
seen through the lenses
of old scratched isinglass.
They shifted a little, but not
to return my stare.
--It was more like the tipping
of an object toward the light.
I admired his sullen face,
the mechanism of his jaw,
and then I saw
that from his lower lip
--if you could call it a lip
grim, wet, and weaponlike,
hung five old pieces of fish-line,
or four and a wire leader
with the swivel still attached,
with all their five big hooks
grown firmly in his mouth.
A green line, frayed at the end
where he broke it, two heavier lines,
and a fine black thread
still crimped from the strain and snap
when it broke and he got away.
Like medals with their ribbons
frayed and wavering,
a five-haired beard of wisdom
trailing from his aching jaw.
I stared and stared
and victory filled up
the little rented boat,
from the pool of bilge
where oil had spread a rainbow
around the rusted engine
to the bailer rusted orange,
the sun-cracked thwarts,
the oarlocks on their strings,
the gunnels--until everything
was rainbow, rainbow, rainbow!
And I let the fish go.
OK, so I have this tube bird feeder hanging outside my back door. It's made of green metal (the squirrels chew through plastic, so I've given up on that), and although I can't remember right now what the product is called, its slogan - in white letters - is written on the outside of the tube: "Years of Indestructible Beauty!" It looks something like this:
I'm not real sure about the "beauty" part, but "indestructible" is what I was going for. Unfortunately, it's not quite as advertised: the top fell off while I was filling it once, and the plastic that held the bolt in place broke, so I've been hanging it up without a cover on it. The squirrels have a field day with this; they go sit on the top and just help themselves to all the sunflower seeds they can eat.
So anyway, I was standing on the porch while my dog was out the other night, and I look up and see this:
Yes, indeed. A squirrel had fallen into the feeder face-first and was stuck in there now; I'm pretty sure he'd been in there for at least 8 hours, if not longer. I thought he was dead at first, in fact, because he didn't move at all, even when I took the feeder down. I think he was just sleeping - or else was in a sort of upside-down stupor.
After I took the feeder down I tried to shake the fat little dude out, but no dice. He was good and stuck in there, and making all sorts of angry noises. (My dog got quite interested at that point.) I took the bottom off the feeder, thinking that might help - but all the little perch hardware was in the way, so he couldn't get out face-first, either.
So I figured I'd just leave the feeder on the porch and let him alone to figure it all out. But he kept making all those pitiful little grunts and groans, so I thought hard - and then got out the bottle of corn oil. I went out there and started pouring corn oil into the feeder to grease him up so he'd fall out.
It worked. I finally shook the oily little jerk out of there and onto the asphalt; he shook himself off and ran down the driveway without so much as a thank you. The life of an animal rescue emergency worker isn't all it's cracked to be, I tell you.
So that's what I've been laughing about all day. My dog think I'm nuts.
'Sobering' statistics for Edwards' cancer:
Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has a 20 to 25 percent chance of surviving five years now that the breast cancer she had three years ago has metastasized into her bones and possibly her lungs.
“The numbers are sobering,” NBC Chief Medical Editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira. But, she added, what every patient in Edwards’ situation needs to know is, “You have the right to be one of that 25 percent.”
When a cancer spreads to other parts of the body, physicians no longer talk about curing the disease but about managing it, Snyderman said.
....
Elizabeth Edwards, who, like her husband, is a lawyer, told the media on Thursday that her doctors discovered the return of her cancer when she felt a pain in her side. X-rays showed a broken rib — and cancer.
It is what physicians call stage 4 cancer, meaning that it is not curable, but it is treatable.
She and her husband were upbeat throughout the press conference talking about their future with smiles, optimism and resolve.
“Elizabeth and I have been married for nearly 30 years and we will be in this every step of the way together. We will keep a positive attitude and always look for the silver lining — that's what we do,” John Edwards wrote in an e-mail sent to his supporters. “Although the cancer is no longer curable, it is treatable, and many patients in similar circumstances have lived full, energetic lives. We expect nothing less for Elizabeth. She expects to do all the things next week that she did last week.”
“The campaign goes on,” John Edwards said. “The campaign goes on strongly.”
The Edwards lost a 16-year-old son, Wade, to an auto accident in 1996. They have three other children, Catharine, who is in law school; eight-year-old Emma Claire and six-year-old Jack.
Every now and then I like to post a link to Barna's survey on the unchurched. Here's the opening couple of paragraphs:
Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million - a 92% increase!
These startling statistics come from the most recent tracking study of religious behavior conducted by The Barna Group, a company that follows trends related to faith, culture and leadership in America. The latest study shows that the percentage of adults that is unchurched - defined as not having attended a Christian church service, other than for a holiday service, such as Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or funeral, at any time in the past six months - has risen from 21% in 1991 to 34% today.
“Unchurched people are not just lazy or uniformed," the researcher continued. "They are wholly disinterested in church life - often passionately so. Stirring worship music won’t attract them because worship isn’t even on their radar screen. More comfortable pews cannot compete with the easy chair or the bed that already serve the unchurched person well. Church events cannot effectively compete with what the world has to offer. The only thing the Church can provide that no one else has is a life-changing, practical encounter - and on-going relationship - with the living God and with people transformed by similar encounters. Until such a connection is made, focusing on features, programs and benefits other than such a life-shaping encounter is more likely to lose ground than to gain it."
Barna noted that the millions of young unchurched have no understanding of or interest in a church, even if it is "contemporary" in style. "Millions of young adults are more interested in truth, authenticity, experiences, relationships and spirituality than they are in laws, traditions, events, disciplines, institutions and religion. The confluence of preconceived notions, past experiences and evolving lifestyles and values means that existing churches simply cannot reach millions of today’s unchurched people. The rapidly swelling numbers of unchurched people may be forcing existing churches to reinvent their core spiritual practices while holding tightly to their core spiritual beliefs. It will take radically new settings and experiences to effectively introduce unchurched individuals to biblical principles and practices."
In reading the Hebrew Bible from start to finish, as I'm doing in EFM this year, it becomes clear that the one insistent, constantly repeated theme throughout Scripture is faithfulness. Faithfulness is consistently exalted as the very highest of values - in particular, of course, faithfulness to God.
The message on sexual ethics, on the other hand, is confused, spotty, and in many ways self-contradictory. God creates Eve for Adam not as a sexual partner, but as a "helpmeet." Abraham marries his own half-sister (or perhaps his first cousin) and impregnates his maid at his wife's insistence - and then he and his wife eject the maid from the household, to survive on her own and to give birth in the wilderness. Jacob, Esau, Joshua, David, and many other have multiple wives; concubines, too, are common and are certainly not forbidden. Solomon, the most famous polygamist of all, has hundreds of each.
"Adultery" in the Hebrew Bible applies only to women; men can have sexual relations with women other than their wives, as long as these women are not the wives - IOW, the property - of other men. Women are taken as spoils of war, in order to provide single men with spouses.
Jesus certainly forbids divorce in all but the most extreme circumstances - but also preaches that to follow him, people must relinquish their attachments to parents, spouses, siblings, and children. One of the Epistles commands that a Bishop must be the "husband of one wife" - but in so doing implies that polygamy is still around and not specifically forbidden to others.
Jesus was preaching, here: faithfulness. A man cannot divorce his wife for some arbitrary reason - he cannot lord it over her like a pasha - but must remember that God created Eve for Adam as a lifelong helpmeet. He did not preach "family values" but faithfulness to God as the supreme ethic; all else follows from that.
So "faithfulness" is the core Scriptural value; before human beings could learn to be faithful to one another, they had to learn to be faithful to God. "The Sanctity of Marriage" is based in faithfulness and endurance in face of hardship; Jesus says plainly that the one who endures to the end will be saved. Marriage simply defined as "the union of one man and one woman" has no meaning at all; a union of one man and one woman in which there is physical or emotional violence is not sacred and cannot be called "Christian marriage." IOW, what is essential to marriage is not the gender of the participants at all, but the whole host of unarticulated ethical - and theological? not sure what word to use here - standards that lie behind the word.
And so, marriage is the faithful and lifelong union of two people who exhibit and make manifest those ethical - and theological? - standards in their partnership. Thus, there is no reason to deny marriage to gay couples who promise to "love, honor, and cherish, till death do them part."
There is no scandal at all - except that the Church has persecuted faithful people for 2,000 years.
Caelius points to Fr. AKMA's latest post, "It's The Polity." Here's an excerpt from that post:
It begins to sound as though the Windsor Report meant to convey to the Episcopal Church the message that whatever the standing of our policy on human sexuality, our decision-making process and our governance had fallen out of whack.
This is concordant with some of what the reappraisers have been saying: It doesn’t matter if all the motions, bills, and votes were above-board if they entail contradicting essential elements of Christian faith and life (and no, we may not go back and vote on what constitutes an essential element; our idolatry of voting contributes to these problems).
On the other hand, if the Episcopal Church’s polity is so problematic, why did the rest of the Anglican Communion choose this particular moment to call it to our attention? It does no good to say, “Well, we meant to” or “We tried, but you weren’t listening”; if it’s the polity itself at fault, that polity has been pretty much in place for an awfully long time. It doesn’t work right to chastise us for defective polity only when we make decisions that others don’t like. If our compromised polity justifies cutting us off, then our polity has been cut-off-able for decades at least, and I’m suspicious of lofty statements that call us down just now.
What might be wrong with our polity? It looks to me as though the Episcopal Church (on both “sides”) tends to regard bishops as though they were state governors — “our elected officials.” That neglects the two aspects of a bishop’s vocation that look most important to me: the bishop’s role as a teacher, and the bishop’s role as the point where the local church (the diocese) interacts with the church catholic. On that basis, churches in Iran really do have a stake in whom the Diocese of Chicago elects as bishop; a bishop who can’t function as a liaison (either because the world refuses them, or their home diocese does) can’t fulfill a constitutive aspect of the bishop’s role. The Episcopal Church tacitly recognizes this through its assent process, and (ironically) just exercised the prerogative to not accept a bishop’s election on the grounds that not enough dioceses felt they could rely on that candidate to remain within the Episcopal Church.* Though we do not ask every diocese around the globe to consent to each episcopal election, the principle is the same: A bishop belongs both to the diocese and to the church catholic, and both need to accept the bishop in order to maintain sound polity.
Via Stephen Bates, via Daily Episcopalian:
Regular readers, as well as those still interested in the ongoing story of the Anglican communion, the third largest Christian denomination (and, if you're not, don't bother to read on), will recall that a month ago the world's Anglican primates met for a week in a hotel in Tanzania beside the Indian Ocean, and that eventually, largely at the behest of the archbishops of the so-called Global South, they delivered an ultimatum to the Americans.
They were to stop consecrating gay bishops (though ironically, two of the 35 archbishops attending the meeting are known themselves to be gay), to refuse to bless gay couples and to develop a system of pastoral oversight that included appointing somebody called a primatial vicar to minister to American conservatives who have fallen out with the Episcopal church leadership because of its liberal attitudes towards gay people.
More tedium from the "West Virginia parson":
I am all for getting the House of Bishops’ Theological Commission back to work so that we can understand, for instance, what our church believes the word “blessing” means and how it differs from “marriage”. As far as I can see the whole idea of blessing objects, animals and some people emerged from the Anglo-Catholic movement and took on, finally emerging in what was called “The Book of Offices” commended by a very low church PB who was Bishop of Virginia. I love these ironies. I have read nothing official which tells us much about what we think we do when we bless Sarah’s tadpoles. I’m sure that what ever we do to these incipient frogs isn’t what we mean to do in a same-sex blessing service. The ad hoc liturgies in use look and sound and read a great deal like a wedding services to me.
So how can we go to the length of courting external and internal schism when we haven’t defined our terms, done our theology or even considered the pastoral responsibilities and consequences associated with developing a unique pastoral ministry to blessed couples? Sure, some people may have suggestions. But this isn’t the same thing as recognizing that women have been denied equal opportunities or that non-Whites were and still are not always welcomed and valued. The issue isn’t about gays, it’s about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It isn’t about sexually active gay clergy in relationships with people of their own gender, or of the opposite sex for that matter, it’s about the nature of Ordination and its witness. Why must we must both individualize and then corporatize everything in that order? That very practice is unchristian.
At this moment in time our Canons do not allow the ordination of persons living in sexually active unmarried relationships. There is no sanction for the blessing of same-sex couples. Thems the rules. How ironic that we are being invited to rend the Body of Christ on issues we haven’t yet decided.
"We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. "
In 1683, Ken returned to England and became chaplain to Charles the Second. His integrity stirred him to rebuke Charles for lax behavior. When Ken was notified that the King’s mistress, the actress Nell Gwyn, was to be lodged at his house, he refused, saving, “a woman of ill-repute ought not to be endured in the house of a clergyman, and especially the King’s chaplain.” The King took no offense, but in the next year made Ken the Bishop of Bath and Wells, declaring that none should have the position except “the little black fellow that refused his lodging to
poor Nelly.”
Lass dich nur nichts nicht dauren mit Trauren, sei stille, wie Gott es fügt, so sei vergnügt mein Wille!
Was willst du heute sorgen auf morgen? Der Eine steht allem für, der gibt auch dir das Deine.
Sei nur in allem Handel ohn’ Wandel, steh’ feste, was Gott beschleusst, das ist und heisst das Beste. Amen.
Let no sad thought oppress thee, distress thee; Fear nothing, trust God’s own will, and be thou still, my spirit.
Heed not with care and sorrow the morrow: our Father who all doth see shall give to thee thy portion.
From righteous paths then range not, and change not; be steadfast, for God is just; give him thy trust for ever. Amen.
- "Geistliches Lied"
Caelius - the young ward of the Monastery of the Remarkable English Martyrs, and (from my mouth to God's ears) the future of the Church - has designed a button for us to wear on Easter and beyond.
The passage of Scripture at the center of the image is taken from Psalm 118, and reads:
I shall not die but live
And declare all the works of the Lord.
The figures are in the style of the famous Good News Illustrated Bible with a table pattern adapted from a tent hanging seen here . On the table lies the Holy Scriptures open to the verse of Psalm 118 that foretells gloriously the Resurrection of Jesus but also proclaims that victory over death is promised to all who declare the power of God. Note that the figures turn their head slightly toward Christ their Head, who opens the Scriptures to them.
You now can purchase this icon as a way of showing your support for Changing Attitude Nigeria, either on a t-shirt (for those who wear such things to Divine Service as is common in Laodicea) or as a button at the Monastery's new online store. Roughly 30% of the purchase price (all the profits) will go to Changing Attitude Nigeria. Wear them. Tell the story of Changing Attitude Nigeria. But also tell to those who do not know of the glorious resurrection unto vindication promised to those faithful to Christ Jesus.
Peace to you all in the Lord Jesus and to the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity be the glory world without end....
It's a Nor'Easter here today, with snow and ice and rain and wind. I bagged work and stayed home - and fell asleep in the middle of the afternoon, and slept till 8 o'clock tonight. I think I could use a week of sleep like that, actually.
Tonight I had a big plate of rotelli pasta with the last of my pasta e fagiole on top, like a sauce. How utterly, completely dull - but of course, that's the point. Tomorrow is my big problem day; every year, a friend has a St. Patrick's Day dinner and every year I try to work out the problem of whether it's more pleasing to God to go off the fast for a day - a saint's feast day, after all - so as not to be rude to my host, or whether I should go and eat only the things I can eat. I'm not Orthodox, after all, so this is only "by choice" anyway. Last year, I did go off, but this year I think I'll keep the fast all the way through. I like salad.
My EFM class is made up of mostly first-year people; that's the year you read the Hebrew Bible. There is one third-year person, though, and that's "Church History." Last week we were talking about the church in the Middle Ages - up to the time of Wycliffe and a little beyond - and it occurred to me that the church really did a bad job of many things. There were millions of European Christians under its authority - and the church did absolutely nothing to better their lot. Jews, by contrast, educated their children at yeshiva, in both religious and secular studies. Granted, girls were not included in this, but Jewish boys went to school even at that time, I believe.
Christians, by contrast, were kept in the dark. Literally and figuratively, both; the monks were intellectuals and monasteries were centers of learning - but apparently the hierarchy felt no need to teach any of what they knew to laypeople.
Were they afraid? Christianity is a mystical religion - and one that makes quite astounding claims. Were the various Popes and Cardinals bent on keeping laypeople ignorant and superstitious - and so dependent on the Church for everything? It seems so, to me.
Here's my latest analysis of "what's wrong with the church?" Christian faith is not based on law as both Judaism and Islam are, but on mysticism. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I think people are hard-wired to create a body of law for themselves even where one doesn't ostensibly exist. And in the case of the church, there is an entire body of invisible law - implicit, unargued, and undefended. Jews, on the other hand, have been arguing over the (explicit) Law for 2,000+ years; their faith is living and ongoing. Ours has become moribund and stuck in the past; we have "the faith once delivered," and they have the Talmud - a monumental compendium of the intellectual pursuit of God over centuries.
These arguments are ongoing, as is the case with all legal systems - but the Church can't move and adapt itself to modern problems because it has to hew to the (mystical) "faith once delivered." And this makes Christianity far more legalistic than Judaism is, notwithstanding usual Christian bias that says it's the other way around.
We need to acknowledge this - or at least to make the hidden law visible, so that we can argue its merits. We need some rabbis.
Let's look at the people we know in the Episcopal Church - and particularly at the group of bloggers I have listed over there on the right.
These are some of the most intelligent people around. Many are scientists (Caelius and Fr. Nick, for instance); we have the Anglican Scotist, a philosopher; we have Tobias Haller, a deeply knowledgeable man and a faithful priest of the Church; we have Derek, another Ph.D. (well, shortly, anyway). (We used to have Christopher, but I don't know what his new blog's address is.)
Everybody over there is tops, in fact - and it's no different in my parish (and yours, I'm sure).
We have, in short, a group of religious people who are dedicated to both reality and their love of Christ. So shouldn't we easily be able to put our heads together and figure out how to talk to the Western world about faith and about what Christ - and, if we're lucky, the Church - can still mean to the world?
OK, here's my thesis: while often unbearably simplistic and unsophisticated in their approach, Christian "liberals" are actually more religiously faithful than so-called "conservatives."
Here's how it works: "conservatives" love the institution of church, as they love many of the institutions of the past. They approach religion as an important cultural institution; their interest is based in the place of the religious past in building up the family and society. They like history and philosophy and religion is the perfect meld of the two. They think the present is the best of all possible worlds, and that religion is the linchpin which, if withdrawn or altered, would permit the whole structure to collapse.
"Liberals," on the other hand, have very little interest in the past, preferring to focus on injustices in the present and building a better future. "Liberals" are interested in the Christian faith in particular, which - if people were really honest - preaches that family is unimportant when viewed alongside faith in God, and that all people who do the will of God are family. This was an absolutely revolutionary idea then as now; Jesus preached upheaval, not stability. He preached revolution, not the status quo. He preached, yes that "It is written...." - but then appended it by saying "...but I say unto you...."
So "liberals" are actually hewing much closer to Jesus himself; "conservatives" are much more invested in the church. Further, any "liberals" who are involved in religion are actually likely far more dedicated than most conservatives, since "liberal" culture does not encourage religious faith and churchgoing, whereas "conservative" culture certainly does.
And so everything we're seeing today is actually upside-down and backwards. Which is actually the central message of Scripture, in which the younger brothers are favored and the least and least likely are anointed King - or Savior.
(Still, the "liberal" church has got to get on the stick about theology. It's not enough to be nice.)
I think you can make buttons on Cafe Press, Caelius; I found it under "Fun Stuff." (And how truly fun it is!)
So can I use the design you made for the T-Shirt and put it on the button, also?
He's made a T-Shirt in support of Changing Attitude Nigeria, an organization of gay and lesbian Anglicans in that country:
Buy one. Buy two, in fact; part of the proceeds will go to CAN itself.
We have much, much more to worry about than gay Bishops and same-sex blessings in the United States; we have all of the advantages here and a very accepting church community, on the whole. We really have to forget ourselves for awhile and try to make waves of at least a minimal sort for others in the world who are subject to arrest and worse.
Obviously, we will be wearing our Easter finery on April 8, and so shall not be wearing this garment to services. I'm going to make a button for that occasion and will post it when I do.
Caelius, you are a peach.
My cholesterol reading was the lowest it's been in 10 years; my good cholesterol is high, and my bad cholesterol is low.
(On the other hand, my neighbor was cooking steaks on the grill tonight - people get out there as soon as the temperature goes above 45 degrees - and it was too much for me; I had to go inside.
But when I go back to regular eating, I'm going to do vegan maybe 3 weeks out of 4 every month, I think. It's really healthy.)
Too much money.
The Episcopal Church has too much money and too many "leaders" who are used to being at the center of the world - and absolutely used to getting their own way.
It's really quite as simple as that. The level of self-absorption in this Church - on the part of both "factions," without doubt - is absolutely beyond belief.
The church is going to fail unless it gets itself together and starts to recognize that its continued existence is in no way assured - and that as things stand, it doesn't really matter very much whether it exists or not. Certainly not on the "reasserter" side; the "reappraisers" at least have a legitimate purpose in providing a spiritual home for gay people outcast everywhere else. That's very good, but it's not anywhere near enough. The Church going to implode unless it starts to put the focus on something besides itself.
(And may I add that if I hear one more time that above all we must fulfill our baptismal covenant of "respecting the dignity of every human being," I will scream. I've heard this used as justification for the most absurd and ridiculous positions; I've heard it used to support abortion rights, for instance. We are here because of Jesus Christ, and are called to do His work in the world; we don't need any other motivator.)
But perhaps the Episcopal Church needs to implode before it can start acting like the agent of Christ in the world. Perhaps it needs to be destroyed and built again from the ground up; I think probably all of Western Christendom needs to start over again, actually.
There's nothing wrong with that, you know.
Can someone please explain to me the rationale behind this? Episcopalians are now going to wear "rainbow sashes" to protest the Communique?
I mean, could people possibly get any sillier and more self-absorbed? Episcopalians are going to wear "rainbow sashes"? That's what gay Catholics do, because they are forbidden to speak openly about the issue. Episcopalians, on the other hand, have been speaking quite openly about it for over 40 years; we don't need some sort of tedious show of "solidarity" - and particularly not on Easter. There are thousands of openly gay priests, and hundreds of thousands of openly gay individuals in church every single week. Ever consider that you might be alienating people at some point, folks? Well, consider it.
Here's the appropriate protest against the Communique: pay no attention to it. The Primates who pushed it through have no jurisdiction in this land - and furthermore are a bunch of incredible hypocrites who themselves are ignoring Lambeth and the Windsor Report and every other official document issued by the Anglican Communion over the past 40 years. The thing isn't worth the paper it's printed on, IOW. Stop thinking about yourselves for a change, and start thinking about what might help get the focus on Nigeria and what the Anglican Inquisitors in that country are doing to their own congregants.
It's really not the 1960s anymore, you know, Boomers. And gay Bishops just ain't the most central issue there ever was.
Man. Get the hook. It's embarrassing.
I saw "Religion and Ethics Newsweekly" on PBS the other day. Aside from the thing about Father Joe (I think?), the Catholic priest in Thailand, there was a piece on Barbara Brown Taylor, the author of recent book called "Leaving Church."
Apparently she was ordained a priest in the mid-1990s, and after experiencing the work of a parish priest first-hand - the administrative grind, the dealing with people, the four-services-every-Sunday, and all the day-to-day "stuff" - she left her parish (which had grown quite a bit, she said). She said she'd become a priest because she'd wanted to grow closer to God - and what a big surprise it was to her that the daily grind actually made that more difficult! She's now taken a job teaching religion in college, and apparently lives on a farm; we saw little film clips of her walking her horse around the paddock and cleaning out his hooves while her dog and cat looked on. She's resolved the big question in her mind recently, which was: "Can I still call myself a Christian?" Apparently she can; she is a "follower," she says, of the "Christ-path."
Well. Isn't that special?
Here's the big question in my mind: Why the hell should any of us care? And why would anybody buy this woman's book, given that she's reneged on a promise she made, and seems mainly interested in herself and what she wants? Why did they ordain this person, and what in God's name could possibly be interesting about an upper-middle-class woman and her self-absorbed "seeking"? Why the hell would anybody want to read about the life of an obvious flake, who thought the life of a parish priest would be about meditation? Even I know that's not true. However, one might think there would be some consolation in the fact that a priest is actively involved in the lives of her parishioners, and in their joys and sorrows. One might think that the privilege of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ every week - even if, poor dear, four times! - could possibly be considered a benefit.
I don't really care that she left the priesthood; what I can't understand is why she should be congratulated for it, and why any of us should give her a second thought. I can say for sure that I don't give a damn. I'm glad she's gone; I'm sure we're paying for her pension, too, however.
Give me Father Joe anytime. He hates the church, too - as don't we all? - but at least he's living the work of Christ in the world.
TO KEEP A TRUE LENT.
by Robert Herrick
IS this a fast, to keep
The larder lean ?
And clean
From fat of veals and sheep ?
Is it to quit the dish
Of flesh, yet still
To fill
The platter high with fish ?
Is it to fast an hour,
Or ragg’d to go,
Or show
A downcast look and sour ?
No ; ‘tis a fast to dole
Thy sheaf of wheat,
And meat,
Unto the hungry soul.
It is to fast from strife,
From old debate
And hate ;
To circumcise thy life.
To show a heart grief-rent ;
To starve thy sin,
Not bin ;
And that’s to keep thy Lent.
I woke up hungry this morning. I've lost about 8 pounds so far, and will probably lose at least another 8 or so, from past experience.
I do not want to give up the disciplines of prayer and fasting and service. So I won't. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, even if the church is a hopeless, morally-degraded, and culturally-bound lost cause.
I am quite sad, actually. I am angry, too; I am furious, in fact. That's something I will have to work on and with; prayer and service is the way, and the only way. Holding onto the past - to buildings, the status quo, and a particular way of life - is not the way. Fury by itself is useless; it needs to be channeled into something solid and productive.
I saw something on PBS this morning about a Catholic priest who lives and works with orphans and the poor in Thailand; ironically, the monastic life attracts me even more now. I think the church and its culture wars had literally infected me and made me sick; now I feel more clear on things. The link Chris provided me with on the previous thread has a listing of Religious Orders; one is a Franciscan order for solitaries. Perhaps that will fit with something like Thailand. Perhaps I can work at building an Order myself; there is so much to do.
I have been leading Morning Prayer twice a week. We are reading Jeremiah and the Gospel of John.
Today I can have oil, and two meals. A holiday! I'm planning a triple espresso, too; coffee is forever.
An editorial in the New York Times today:
A poisonous piece of legislation is quickly making its way through the Nigerian National Assembly. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Chillingly, the legislation — proposed last year by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo — has the full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria’s powerful Anglican church. Unless the international community speaks out quickly and forcefully against the bill, it is almost certain to become law.
Homosexual acts between consenting adults are already illegal in Nigeria under a penal code that dates to the colonial period. This new legislation would impose five-year sentences on same-sex couples who have wedding ceremonies — as well as on those who perform such services and on all who attend. The bill’s vague and dangerous prohibition on any public or private show of a “same sex amorous relationship” — which could be construed to cover having dinner with someone of the same sex — would open any known or suspected gay man or lesbian to the threat of arrest at almost any time.
The bill also criminalizes all political organizing on behalf of gay rights. And in a country with a dauntingly high rate of H.I.V. and AIDS, the ban on holding any meetings related to gay rights could make it impossible for medical workers to counsel homosexuals on safe sex practices.
Efforts to pass the bill last year stalled in part because of strong condemnation from the United States and the European Union. Now its backers are again trying to rush it through, and Washington and Brussels need to speak out against it. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and one of the most politically influential. If it passes a law that says human rights are not for every citizen, it will set a treacherous example for the region and the world.
Favorite book so far: Judges. I've never read it before, because I'd always thought it was about tiresome old men in long black robes. How wrong I was; it's about whackjobs in little backwater towns. Best stories, and best characters, of any so far. I can't figure out why nobody's done a movie yet.
Least favorite book so far: Oh, Leviticus, I guess. I didn't read much of Deuteronomy, either, and hardly any of Numbers. They put me to sleep; I hate all the hectoring, and the stories are not that good. Exodus had some of that, but also some ripping good yarns. Loved the Moses/Zipporah/foreskin thing, for instance; where the hell did that come from? And why did God want to kill Moses on the road all of a sudden? I love it when they include weird non sequiturs just because they're there.
Favorite story so far:Oh, Ehud and the fat King, for sure! High hilarity all around. For second place? Hmmm. I still like the Samson story - but I'm thinking maybe Jael vs. Sisera. Loved the tent peg thing. The most milked for drama was the story of the Levite and the concubine; very spooky all-around, in many ways. And who knew there was a second Sodom and Gomorrah story in there (and I notice nobody ever has a word to say about this one - and guess why not?).
Cain and Abel was pretty damn good, too. And I like the Abram/Sarai story a lot, as well as the Abraham/Isaac one.
Least favorite story so far: Well, I always like a story; it's those interminable lists that get to me.
Best poem so far: The song of Hannah.
Worst poem so far: Samson's poem/riddle was dreck. And stupid besides - but that's what's so entertaining!
Best covenant: The "covenant between the parts." Floating torches and firepots, cuttin' everything in half, etc. Weird, wild stuff.
Worst covenant: The Benjamite oath.
It turns out that vegan is good; it's not a punishment. Who'd have thought?
Let me count the ways that this is turning out to be an excellent thing:
Would you like to know more about root canals?
Well, tough luck. You're going to find out anyway. You may skip to the end if you're squeamish about this; there's no need to be, though. It's pretty much painless, and actually you feel a lot better than you did before (except in one particular way). And dentists have many interesting tools and gadgets these days you've never seen before, I bet.
Here's what a root canal is: the dentist drills a hole in the crown of the tooth. He or she then proceeds to remove all the pulp inside; the pulp is important when the tooth is first forming - it has something to do with the formation of dentin, I think - but it is unimportant later except as a filler.
Anyway, the drill sergeant - the "endodontist" - scrapes out all the pulp, and then cleans the hole that's left. In my case, he put some antibiotic stuff down there because things were pretty bad, I guess; it was mighty painful, for sure. Then he put a putty cap on top and I had to wait 2 weeks for the antibiotic to do its thing. I went back today and he removed everything that was in there, and finished up with the cleaning. (This involves, by the way, putting thin files into the root and scraping and polishing. Don't freak out, though: it doesn't hurt. I had three helpings of novocaine.)
Then, they do an x-ray for some reason I still can't fathom - I think they do a lot of B.S.-ing to the patients, but I don't really care very much - and then they take some gutta percha - yes! - and fill the hole(s) permanently. They pack that stuff in there - it's a resin of some sort - and then take a little gun and melt it so they can pack it down even more. When the melting happens, it gives off a nice odor of clove; clove oil is, apparently, "dental deodorant."
Now I have to go back to my own dentist and get two crowns put on.
Two roots canals: $2,500. Plus two crowns @$1,095 ea. = $4,690.00.
Wll, there goes the summer vacation. But I guess it's better than the alternative.
Here's yet another great post from the New Liturgical Movement:
Here is an interesting find: Pange Lingua (1916): Breviary Hymns of Old Uses, with an English Rendering. Some I recognize but most I do not. There is no musical notation but that should be easy enough to find. The main use is probably for program notes for the congregation. But the main (to my mind) value of this short book is the remarkable introduction by Adrian Fortescue, which covers the whole history of Christian hymnody in about 30 pages. Talk about lost scholarship!
Various unrelated thoughts:
For a really interesting glimpse into the question of "what are conservatives thinking," see this post ("Faith Leaders condemn Nigerian legislation") at Thinking Anglicans. Commenter "Robert McLean" writes, apropos of nothing very relevant, that "Having just got back from a mission trip to Kenya, I can reassert that the church in Africa is on fire for Christ, not merely smouldering for various political causes."
But click the link on his name! You'll be taken to his blog, which seems at least in part dedicated to the life and memory of Dietrich Bonhoeffer! So in theory, I guess, Christian resistance to governmental oppression is essential and laudable; in practice, it apparently has no application to the current situation.
There is quite a lot going on here that makes very little sense, IMO - and from that I must conclude that "the basic premises are wrong." Something completely irrational is going on in people's minds.
