A Curious Seeming Parallel

I was reading a translation of John Cassian's Institutes today and this chapter (Book 7, Chapter 9) struck me as sounding disturbingly like some of what has been going on in the Anglican Communion lately, except that Cassian was focusing on money.

And so having money to provide for his wanderings, with the assistance of which he has fitted himself as it were with wings, and now being quite ready for his move, he answers impertinently to all commands, and behaves himself like a stranger and a visitor, and whatever he sees needing improvement, he despises and treats with contempt. And though he has a supply of money secretly hidden, yet he complains that he has neither shoes nor clothes, and is indignant that they are given out to him so slowly. And if it happens that through the management of the superior some of these are given first to one who is known to have nothing whatever, he is still more inflamed with burning rage, and thinks that he is despised as a stranger; nor is he contented to turn his hand to any work, but finds fault with everything which the needs of the monastery require to be done. Then of set purpose he looks out for opportunities of being offended and angry, lest he might seem to have gone forth from the discipline of the monastery for a trivial reason. And not content to take his departure by himself alone, lest it should be thought that he has left as it were from his own fault, he never stops corrupting as many as he can by clandestine conferences. But if the severity of the weather interferes with his journey and travels, he remains all the time in suspense and anxiety of heart, and never stops sowing and exciting discontent; as he thinks that he will only find consolation for his departure and an excuse for his fickleness in the bad character and defects of the monastery.

Am I imagining things or is there, perhaps some actual coveting going on? It wouldn't be coveting of anything as simple as money, but what about power, control, or authority?

The more I read from the Fathers of monasticism the more I wonder if embracing significant aspects of that way of life wouldn't easy our current troubles.

Proving God

One of Jennifer F.'s posts over at Conversion Diary and a very different post I ran across thanks to a post on Bishop Alan's blog got me thinking on this subject again, and this time I decided to work out what I think here.

"Prove that God exists" is a relatively common taunt to come from the relatively militant atheists. How might this be done, or is it simply impossible? Many people have addressed the question over the ages and most of the attempts, at least judging from the Wikipedia article, seem to be firmly grounded in thinking about the subject. I would prefer to take a more scientific approach.

The first point, therefore, has to be a close examination of the hypothesis, "God exists", so that we can ensure that the proposed test fits the nature of the subject. What do we mean by "exists"? If only physical things can be said to exist, then either God doesn't exist or God is so far removed from Earth as to be inconsequential. It is worth noting, however, that holding strictly to the view that only physical things exist impoverishes our ability to talk about things like Harry Potter or the mind. It is also worth noting that, at least in the case of Christians, God is said to be some sort of spiritual reality existing outside of space and time as we know it. If we assume, then, that spiritual realities might exist, then we can go on to think about what God is before we go looking for it.

In addition to God being transcendent, I think the most important point to note is that Christians also hold that God is a sort of person. If we had to prove that a specific person exists, how would we go about doing it? The easiest test would probably to look them up in the phone book, call them, and arrange a meeting. God, being transcendent, isn't in the phone book, so we must try one of the harder tests. The next easiest way is probably to ask those who might have known the person about the person. If they say that the person is real, then we might assume that the person exists. However, if we don't trust those who claim to have known the person, or if accounts of the person are contradictory on some point important to us, then we would have to take what is probably the hardest path and go looking for the person in places they supposedly like to visit and doing so often enough to have a reasonable chance of meeting the person. In God's case this means looking in one of several places. First, since many talk about encountering God through art or nature, one can travel to beautiful places in the world, sit back and let it soak in, and then later reflect on whether that experience of beauty was an encounter with the divine. Second, since for Christians the church is the Body of Christ and the sacraments convey God's grace, one can become a member of a church and/or receive the Eucharist for several years. The challenge with this method is that it isn't enough to just show up physically while internally holding on to the position that the whole thing is stupid or just a show. Becoming a member of a church requires that one also willingly participate in the life of the church. So, for example, one needs to make sure one can enjoy the company of the folks who attend the church and volunteer for various ministries of the church. Ministries to the poor tend to be especially powerful experiences. As a general rule asking whether God exists is unhelpful for this test since it tends to make it harder to feel fully integrated in the church community. After being part of the church for several years reflect back on the experiences and consider whether one has met God in them. Third, folks of a variety of faiths hold that meditation or contemplative prayer can result in encountering the divine. For this test the attitude which one brings to the test is absolutely critical, even more so than the previous two tests. If one approaches contemplative prayer planning on forcing something out of it, one will never really enter the meditative state. The challenge of contemplative prayer is to become profoundly quiet inside. This doesn't mean having no thoughts at all; it means letting the thoughts come and go without letting them trouble the core that is oneself. A short word or phrase is generally found helpful in this endeavor and some forms of contemplative prayer center on using repetitive prayers to keep the mind busy while one's core slides into silence. Since it takes time to start adjusting to contemplative prayer one needs to practice every day for several years before one might encounter God.

It should be clear that none of the three tests (beauty, church community, or contemplative prayer) can guarantee that one will find God on some specific occasion. The attitude to adopt here is that of the avid bird watcher hunting for some rare bird, go where it may be and pursue it in hope.

Obedience ... or is it Poverty

What if Obedience means being out of control, means not being able to control our own destiny? It seems that it must, but so much of life is grounded in that sort of control or the illusion of that sort of control, either directly or indirectly by creating a buffer against misfortune.

I've passed over that "must" too quickly, though. Why say that being out of power is something that all Christians should expect and even embrace? Firstly, one of the most ancient creeds is "Jesus is Lord." The Lord is the pater familias (or perhaps more accurately the pater familias is a bad imitation of what it means to be Lord), the one who holds the power of life and death over all those under him, and is therefore to be obeyed as soon as his voice is heard. The Lord is also God, which points towards one of the relatively few lessons we can learn today from patriarchy. Secondly, as a proof text from the Gospel of John says "I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." (John 21:18). This is Jesus speaking to Peter, who sometimes functions in the Gospels as a stand in for both the Apostles and all Christians, and this particular passage immediately follows Jesus' command to Peter (and all of us to some extent) to feed God's sheep. Thirdly, we have Jesus' own example in his Passion. Although, as the Son of God, he could have easily taken control and resisted, he did not. He chose to renounce control, knowing that he would be crucified, and let them do whatever they wanted with him.


Returning to the thread of my thought. How could we live if the only thing standing between ourselves and total collapse of meaning is what we're given from God, a bit of bread and wine which some insist are just bread and wine? How can we live with this obedience? It seems ridiculous to suppose that this should be enough, but this seems to be what Christians are given. How can this be enough? It can be enough, I think, because when we receive God we are given everything that matters.

Soundbite 4

Proper obedience is like chanting the psalms in a monastic choir. One can't do it correctly without carefully listening for everyone else.

My Blog Readablility

I just had to laugh when I saw this result, since the level went up when I quoted the BCP.

Soundbite 3

To soundbite, is to lie.

A Confession

Holy God, heavenly Father, you formed me from the dust in your image and likeness, and redeemed me from sin and death by the cross of your Son Jesus Christ. Through the water of baptism you clothed me with the shining garment of his righteousness, and established me among your children in your kingdom. But I have squandered the inheritance of your saints, and have wandered far in a land that is waste.

Especially, I confess to you and to the Church that I have repeatedly surrendered to rage against my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ when I have seen them praising schism and when I have seen their complaints against Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the House of Bishops. My anger has been as strong as what I would feel if I saw a priest take the consecrated host, spit on it, throw it to the ground, and grind it into the floor with their heel. I have not become angry because their complaints are without foundation (the most distressing complaints are all plausible). I have become angry because the complaining and their choice of venues in which to do the complaining seems to me to undermine the authority of the PB, the HoB, and of your Church. I even have become angry with those whom I believe are only striving to do what is best for your Church. I find it difficult to see airing their very real concerns publicly and frequently without any apparent contact with those in authority in TEC as anything other than a profound rebellion against the Church, and schism is even more clearly a rebellion. Every rebellion seems to me to be a rebellion against you, my Lord, at its heart, not because you have established human authorities in such a way as to lift them above error, but because when they give a command or a ruling they have usurped your authority in order to do so. This usurpation has never angered me because I see that humans, in their sinfulness, need government to maintain a semblance of peace and justice apart from you, and I also see that proper obedience to human authority forms us in the habits of obedience which might help us obey you better. However, since all authority in heaven and on earth are yours, O Lord, when we rebel against and undermine human systems of authority we have also rejected your authority and have begun to form ourselves in a habit of acting as if we are Lord instead of Christ Jesus. This is why I have become angry. I see them placing themselves on your throne to give judgement on the Church and the world while claiming that you have required them to sit upon your seat of judgement.

I confess, my Lord, that I have also desired to sit upon your seat of judgement, desired the ability to coerce those with whom I have become angry. I long to be able to force them to be silent in public and express their concerns privately with those whom your Church has placed in authority over them, following the pattern I see reflected in monastic customaries and rules and following the monastic tradition which teaches that obedience is expressed as surely in humbly telling one's superior when a task assigned is thought to be impossible or illegal and asking clarifying questions when something is obscure as it is in immediately doing as one has been told.

Therefore, O Lord, from these and all other sins I cannot now remember, I turn to you in sorrow and repentance. Receive me again into the arms of your mercy, and restore me to the blessed company of your faithful people;through him in whom you have redeemed the world, your Son our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.