Thinking Out Loud

Hope

2011-12-01T14:14:00.000-06:00

Last night I was at church for the first of the Advent evening discussions, and one of the speakers suggested that we consider what we would say about hope in our lives. This is how I would answer.

My hope is in the Name of the LORD, the maker of heaven and earth.

Perhaps that sounds terribly conventional, and boring but, looking closer, it is a hope intimately bound up with terror. You see, my hope isn't that I will go to a heaven full of gold-paved roads, harps, and free wings for everyone. My hope isn't even that I'll be raised from the dead, although resurrection may be required. My hope is that I will see God face to face, and yet, as it is written, before Him is a consuming fire, a fire that could as easily consume me as cleanse me of my sins. As it is written, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. This is the terrible paradox I see at the heart of Christianity. We are promised salvation and that all will be well, and yet God's greatest deed is Christ's death on the cross and we are instructed to take up our own crosses daily and follow him into death. As it is written, it is in dying that we come to eternal life. But in dying we lose any assurance other than God's goodness that we will get anything back, much less that we will get back anything like what we gave up. Death is the land in which all is forgotten, a shadowy place whose inhabitants can do nothing for themselves. As long as we retain an element of control, we haven't yet fully died, and we can't have come before God. As it is written, no one can see God's face and live.

So where is hope in all this reflection on death? While God isn't tame, much less domesticated, God is good. His mercy endures forever, and his promises are always fulfilled, although only rarely in the way and at the rate we desired. Apart from God there is no life at all, and with Him, even if we die, we will live in a world in which there are no more tears, neither sorrow nor dying.

A Rule for Marriage, part 2: On Types and Roots

2011-10-28T04:28:00.001-05:00

As the blessed John Cassian relates, the Fathers of the desert taught that every art and science, really anything worthy of being a lifetime commitment, has its own proper aim and mark. For any Christian our aim should always be unity with God, which is living in heaven, and, as I noted previously the mark by which we can judge our thoughts and deeds is the perfection of love to which our Lord calls us. But what of marriage? It is clear that Christians need not marry, but it is also true that marriage is an honorable way of life and that our Lord commanded that what God has joined together in marriage we ought never to separate. From these facts and from the prevalence of marriage throughout the world (although the customs of marriage vary widely) it is clear that marriage itself is, like the work of a farmer, merchant, or soldier, a human vocation, not a uniquely Christian vocation. For this reason we can distinguish several types of marriage based upon the aim and the mark that guides each couple. The first, and most prevalent in this part of the world, is passionate marriage, which has no guiding mark, but is founded on the weakest sort of love, passionate or romantic love. However, at least this sort is based upon love, even if it is a profoundly inadequate sort, since a weak and passing love may grow into a stronger and more beautiful love given time and a sheltered environment. A second kind of marriage aims at child-rearing, the propitiation of one's family name, and the accumulation of wealth and power down the generations. Although this terrible kind of marriage can be selfless at its best, its foundation is realistic in a profoundly worldly sense and somewhat inimical to fulfilling the obligations of a Christian. A third kind of marriage is based upon the desire for a worldly ideal, such as the one characterized as having two and a half children with a dog in a middle class suburb. This horrible kind of marriage, lacking both the regard for another that passion brings and the realism of those who pursue wealth and power, has almost nothing to commend it. Fortunately, it has been dying out as marriage is less and less demanded of those who would be part of polite society. Finally, a very few may marry out of obedience to the apostolic advice that it is better to marry than to burn. Although this is the only sort of marriage that has been explicitly endorsed for those who would commit themselves to God in Christ Jesus, it is also one of the hardest kinds of
marriage since it gives so little to our sinful desires and the powerful passions that can seemingly carry us almost up to heaven or smash us into the depths of hell. For this reason in this weak and sinful era only those who have been trained to love for many years should consider marrying only to provide an outlet for the desires of the flesh.

Of course we are all sinners and weak, and few come to marriage for only one reason. However, as perfect love is the mark towards which all Christians should aim, this Rule seeks to provide assistance to those who have been guided by passionate love so that that weak and earthly flower may be nurtured into a heavenly bloom whose fragrance spreads far beyond the bonds of marriage to everyone either spouse may meet.

A Rule for Marriage, part I: the preliminaries

2011-07-30T12:06:00.002-05:00

Introduction
In recent years there has been a great deal of fuss and bother, argument and denunciation on the subject of Holy Matrimony, especially concerning who can take up those blessed bonds. While watching this battle and contradiction within the Body of Christ I found that a spirit had come to me suggesting that I compose a little Rule for those who take up the yoke of marriage even though I have only ever taken up the monastic yoke. Since this spirit has not departed I have found the temerity offer this little Rule for those who have chosen to pursue the perfection required of all who have been united to our Lord in baptism in and through marriage, although I take comfort from the foundations monasticism which is nothing less than the Christian life intentionally lived as thoroughly and emphatically as mortal skill can guarantee (better, we pray, by God's grace, without which no human endeavour can come to its fullest flower). Still, please pray for me to the Most High that he may strengthen and sustain me as I compose this Rule, and in his mercy bring a blessing out of this work. If any goodness or wisdom is found in this Rule give glory to God from whom it came, and reserve to me the blame for the weaknesses in this work.
Prologue
Listen carefully, my sisters and brothers, to the Lord's commands, and attend to them with the ear of your heart. They are advice from a Father who loves you. Welcome them and faithfully put them into practice, because the labor of obedience will bring you back to the One from whom you had been dragged by the terrible weeds of distraction, and had drifted through the sloth of disobedience. This message is for you, then, if you are ready to give up your own will, once and for all, and armed with the strong, bright weapons of obedience to do battle for the true King, Christ the Lord, amid the changes and chances of this mortal life that, by His grace, you may win through against the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. If, therefore, you desire to win glory for for God from among what the World accounts as small and ordinary, especially the daily routines of which your married life together is composed, pray together and rededicate yourselves to obedience to the Lord's teaching and commandant. Remember above all that the vocation of every Christian is to love God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and to love our neighbor, especially those whom we encounter each day, as God has loved us, giving, as we are able, so that they may flourish and grow to the glory of God even when it means suffering and death for us.
Do not be afraid, however, of what is required of the perfect who take up their cross daily. We must each begin with little things, and strive with discretion to grow up into the full stature of Christ, never being content with any minimum standard of living. As long as we do not forget the wisdom of Jacob, who saw that if he drove his herds so hard they would all die in a single day, and so do not drive ourselves beyond the strength God has given us, then God will send his Holy Spirit filling us with his holy fire and carrying us so that we may run on the path that leads to perfection easily and lightly filled with indescribable joy.

A Quote Inspired by Current Debates in TEC

2011-07-19T14:06:00.001-05:00

"... Let [the Abbot, or person in authority] so temper all things that the strong may have something to strive after, and the weak may not fall back in dismay."

One-size-fits-all Marriage?

2011-06-24T23:47:00.000-05:00

This op-ed by Katherine Franke at the NY times struck me as really profoundly odd. Did I miss something? Are there really laws that dictate different responsibilities for husband and wife in marriage? Sure, there used to be, but are they still on the books and enforced in America?

Looking in from the outside, it seems like such laws are (or at least would be) completely ridiculous. For every couple it looks to me like the relationship works however the couple wants it to work, and that getting married doesn't really change that. Expectation change when a couple gets married, including the couple's expectations, and that can sometimes cause problems. Those expectations aren't hard-wired in to marriage, though; they aren't in the vows. At least I don't think they are, never having gotten married it is possible that I missed the bit where the clergy-person or justice of the peace explains how family responsibilities are to be divvied up and the penalties for failing to conform to the archaic arrangement.

For those who want to live in a committed relationship without getting married, why not get married and then keep living the way you have been living? Why not act like marriage is the same thing as a committed relationship, and show everyone that it doesn't have to look like our parents' relationships, or like the marriages we can see on old re-runs or modern sitcoms? Why let society boss you around and tell you to either conform to some stupid stereotype that doesn't fit you at all or get out? Granted, some people can't adjust their expectations very easily and for them it may be better to just avoid the baggage they've given marriage, but for everyone else, why create lots of very similar legal categories?

Reflecting on the Most Recent Volume of the Anglican Theological Review

2011-05-23T19:35:00.000-05:00

One of the most recent Anglican Theological Review (Winter 2011, Vol. 93 #1) is made up of papers submitted to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church on same-sex marriage along with the regular Poetry and Book Review sections. The bulk of the pages on same-sex marriage is taken up by two papers "A View from the Traditionalists" and "A View from the Liberals", each of which was written by four Episcopalian theologians working together. They are followed by a series of responses, including one each from the Traditionalists and the Liberals. (These are the labels used in the Anglican Theological Review (ATR). I will be using them in this post for the sake of consistency.) Each of the papers is well worth reading in full and the responses are short enough that I won't try to reduce them to a summary here.

The Traditionalist "View" and response are reasonably solid but uninspiring pieces which to easily assume the correctness of Traditionalist exegesis and opinion (hardly a shocking fault among human beings). This is particularly noticeable in their exegesis of Romans 1:18-32 (Is it a divine condemnation and a reference to lesbianism, or is it a culturally grounded condemnation and a reference to anal sex? Either interpretation works with Paul's larger argument on the universality of sin, and the some of the earliest commenters saw a reference to anal sex.) and their discussion of the current scientific understanding of the origin and mutability of sexual orientation (which they seem to imply is a matter of choice).

The Liberal "View" and response, on the other hand, are inspiring (as even the Traditionalists note in their response) with a strong section grounded in an ascetical view of marriage. Their exegesis is very weak, however, and almost patristic in its penchant for unusual and implausible connections. They also tend to romanticize their subjects, sex, marriage, and even bodily life, in a way that is generally unhelpful in the ascetic task.

If these were the only weaknesses then, apart from a brief re-summation of the current science, there wouldn't be anything to say without writing a book. Unfortunately both "Views" seem to have serious problems in their anthropologies, which show up best when we ask how each anthropology fits with the existence of monasticism.

On the Traditionalist side the source of the difficulty is reasonably straightforward. Complementarity, especially in its stronger forms, insists that human fulfillment, and therefore the Christian life, is driven by maintaining and reinforcing gender differences and gender roles, and so requires being in a heterosexual marriage, preferably with children to form a family. This suggests that choosing to become a monk means repudiating human fulfillment, means refusing to be all that God calls one to be. Going this route means repudiating the faith of millenia of saints and theologians. For hundreds and hundreds of years more or less everyone 'knew' that the best and fastest way to come to heaven, to live a life faithful to God, was to join a monastery. Further, at its inception, monasticism was understood to be simply the Christian life, the attempt to love as completely as possible, lived as explicitly as possible. One could attempt to find a weaker form of complementarity, one which would be compatible with monasticism, but such an attempt is unlikely to be successful since traditional monasticism gives no space whatsoever in which gender differences are permitted to teach love. Alternatively, one might try to develop a new understanding of monasticism, but monasticism has been composed of single-sex, celibate communities for virtually its entire existence, which makes it hard to redefine monasticism in a way that would fit with complementarity.

On the Liberal side the problem doesn't come from a big, central anthropological model. It comes from the (largely) unexamined assumption that having sex and being in a sexual relationship more or less the only healthy ways to be a human being. In some ways this assumption is much more pernicious than the more blatant challenge of complementarity since it is close to the truth for most people, at least at this time. The Liberal's assumption that everyone has to be sexually active first shows up on p. 62 where, while beginning to reflect on marriage as an ascetical discipline, celibacy is dismissed as appropriate only for a great spiritual hero who has already achieved perfection, especially perfect self-control, while "it is for those who would follow Christ to be perfected in weakness for the love of another." Later, on p. 85, they again write of the importance of love of another and the solidarity that demands and again identify this solidarity with marriage (and the sexual relationship that implies) while rejecting celibacy (at least counciled celibacy) as insufficiently embodied and lacking accountability. There is a great deal wrong with this, but the Liberal's make thing even worse when they theologize sexual orientation on p. 72. Apparently "a sexual orientation ... must be ... a settled tendency by which Christ orients desire toward himself," while " a sexually oriented person is someone who develops and is morally improved through a relationship with someone of the apposite sex." Taking all this together, if we assume it to be true, what should we expect a monk or nun to be like? Apparently, they ought to be someone who loves everyone, has perfect self-control, seldom experiences sexual desire, almost certainly never experiences sexual desires powerful enough to challenge self-control, and lives a very disembodied and isolated life. Unfortunately (or perhaps very fortunately given the last aspect), this vision of monasticism is a deeply unrealistic fantasy. Monasticism is very much an embodied discipline, which has almost always been very cognizant of the demands of the body (for sex and food, but also for feelings of security and control), and has generally recommended avoiding tempting situations while recognizing that it is impossible (and unhelpful) to avoid temptation entirely. And, while monasticism aims at perfection, it has always been clear that no monastic ever achieves perfection in this life. There is always room for a monk to learn more about how to love God and his neighbors.

All in all, while I very much like the Liberals' view of marriage as an ascetic discipline, if we as a church are going to proceed on those grounds we need to take a much lower and more realistic view of sexuality. It is a powerful force that can drive a person very easily. Yes, it can make it significantly easier to lay the initial ties binding one into the school of love called marriage. Yes, it can be a source of great pleasure, which can ease the way while one grapples with a difficult lesson of love. However, it can also be a way of running away from reality and Love. It can be a way to avoid learning Love's lessons. Sexuality and having sex aren't really to the point, however. Creating, maintaining, and growing in relationship is. If same-sex marriage provides a more realistic way for some people to learn how to love then the Church should seriously consider getting out of the way, and if it provides the only realistic way for some the Church should definitely get out of the way. At the same time everyone who isn't already attached, gay or straight, should take a hard look at monasticism The assumptions current in our society about the impossibility of celibacy (and about what it takes to be a monk) have almost certainly misled folks into thinking that they couldn't possibly thrive in this ancient and very fruitful way of life.

On reflection, if marriage and the monastic life are parallel ways of life, might it be helpful to explore our theology of marriage as a Christian vocation by composing Rules for marriage? At the very least, doing so would force us to ground our theology of marriage in the practical realities of marriage, and not just operate at the level of beautiful images entirely lacking in substance and grounding in reality.
An Addendum on the science based on the research cited by the Traditionalists and my own slight acquaintance with the field.

The Entirely Uncontroversial Points

We don't know how the brain comes to fix sexual desire on a class (or classes) of objects, establishing sexual orientation.
The process of establishing sexual orientation doesn't finish by birth.
Sexual orientation isn't chosen.
Human female sexual orientation is more complicated and ambiguous than male sexual orientation.

Points Contested by Those lacking Authority in the Psychology Community

Sexual orientation is immutable. There are hints of this in the information provided by ex-gay groups, especially in their definitions of success. It is also strongly suggested by the intractability of pedophilia although pedophilia is clearly not the same as homosexuality. (Pedophilia may by a sexual orientation in its own right and so be the same sort of thing as both heterosexuality and homosexuality, but this has certainly not been proven yet.)
Identity, including sexuality as identity, is responsive to societal conditions and is largely chosen. It also goes against the underlying biological realities some of the time.

Personally, I suspect that sexual orientation is established around puberty as part of the natural maturation of the brain and that sexual orientation is a great deal more complicated than being turned on by men, women, or both. Also, while the science can be interesting, it seems to be mostly irrelevant to the task facing theologians, ethicists, and asceticism, which should have already known that sexual desire isn't chosen and have been given many other reasons to think Natural Law a poorly grounded philosophy.

A Curious Seeming Parallel

2008-12-27T01:34:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-18T14:03:00.000-06:00

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

2008-10-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

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

2008-10-01T15:55:00.002-05:00

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

2008-05-26T05:32:00.003-05:00

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

Soundbite 3

2008-05-26T05:27:00.000-05:00

To soundbite, is to lie.

A Confession

2008-05-26T05:25:00.001-05:00

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.

Grumbling

2008-04-21T19:12:00.000-05:00

One of the few benefits I've ever found for working at Target is that I'm beginning to understand more why St. Benedict is so strongly opposed to grumbling among the monks. You see, grumbling is one of the most popular pasttimes among my co-workers, and it really does hurt productivity and decrease folks inclination to work hard. Unfortunately it's also grounded in real problems in how the store is run. Don't get me wrong, some of the bosses are great, but the employees aren't equally good about doing their job, and it is relatively hard to get fired from Target.

I've also gotten some lessons in the evils of grumbling recently by listening to Anglican news recently. You see, the bishop of the diocese of San Joaquin was deposed, but some folks think that the canons weren't followed to the letter. They even have some reason to think so. The results look similar and mostly seem to be increasing disaffection from TEC among those who are less then happy with the current leadership. It also gets used to say that liberals who care more about their own agenda than canon law are out to get the conservatives by any means possible legal or illegal.

So what might be a more appropriate way of responding to each of the circumstances that are currently leading to grumbling. In the case of Target one could try talking to the Store manager or the HR person. Things might not get better immediately, but at least the store manager believes in doing his job right.

In the case of San Joaquin, it is a little less clear, but as far as I can see once the matter has been mentioned to whichever bishops one knows the matter is best left for them to respond to the question as a house, or not which would be a sort of response as well. One might also ask Canterbury if he will recognize the deposition, but beyond that the matter should probably be left strictly alone.

Perhaps even bringing up these topics here is a sort of gumbling, but I hope I have not slipped to far in that direction while thinking about what I might learn from the bad examples of others.

Eucharist and Justice

2008-04-21T17:14:00.000-05:00

Derek over at haligweorc grumbled (here) last week about a sermon delivered by someone from 815 that seemed excessively focused on social justice. The Anglican Scotist responded in the last comment on that thread and here on his own blog saying that social justice is the church's business, and that we can see this fairly easily by looking at the eucharist. Derek responded here reiterating his position that there's a lot more to the Eucharist than a simple call to social justice ministry.

On the whole I think the Anglican Scotist missed Derek's point. Working for social justice is a wonderful thing, and it is certainly part of the church's business, but it isn't the foundation of the church. The foundation is God in Jesus Christ. There are times when the foundation gets obscured by our drive to do what God has given us to do, even with folks who are genuinely committed to God, and when that happens it is important for us to be called back to our sure foundation.

One can begin to see why this is important, I think, by considering how the the current emphasis on social justice in some circles fits with monasticism, especially contemplative monasticism. In the case of those orders which devote themselves primarily to working with the poor and oppressed the fit is quite good, but the primary work of a Benedictine is prayer and the emphasis on prayer is intensified or underlined among contemplatives. Prayer isn't obviously part of social justice work, especially when there are policies to be advocated for or pamphlets to be distributed. In fact, as a general rule the contemplative life, and to a lesser extent the traditional Benedictine practice of chanting the entire psalter every week, looks like a waste of time to those accustomed to the active life, and to some of those most thoroughly committed to the success of things like the MDG's. After all it doesn't seem to change anything.

And yet I have heard that the one thing that was particularly important to Archbishop Desmond Tutu in his fight against apartheid was the prayers of the rest of the church. In fact while I was visiting Holy Cross Monastery this past January the book read at lunch told of how Archbishop Tutu, when he gave a speech at Columbia (IIRC) while the university was debating divestment, only asked for prayers and made a point of not mentioning concrete acts like divestment even though everyone was expecting him to advocate direct action. To some extent this leads us straight to the question of what prayer does. I'm not sure I can answer that question and I am sure it would take enough space that it would be better to ponder it in a separate post, but maybe just thinking about what the Eucharist is and does might be enough for the moment.

The Eucharist is basically a place in which we encounter the crucified Christ in the readings and especially in the bread and wine, although those signs can also obscure the deeper reality. This encounter transforms us, if we let it, more and more into the image of God, which in part means increasing our love of God and, because of God's love, of neighbor. Sometimes this is manifested in advocacy work, but it can also be manifested by deepening contemplation, theological treatises, or the creation of works of art, including beautiful liturgies, depending on the vocation of the individual being transformed. This suggests that talking only about social justice might encourage the denigration of vocations that don't fit that particular mold, but further thought about vocation really is a topic for another time.

A Fable about Vocation

2008-03-27T20:30:00.002-05:00

I wrote this little story (everything not in italics) while I was visiting Julian House in the first week of Easter, and finally got around to posting it with a few revisions early on the morning of April 9th, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's day. I back dated the post to the night it was written.

Once long ago, there was a town on the plains between the mountains and the sea. Everyone around the whole world knew that a treasure of immeasurable value was said to be within a days journey of the town, or two days at the most. This rumor brought many adventurers to the town and the people prospered, although they never went seeking the treasure themselves. They didn't seek mostly because all the treasure they'd ever seen was a few uncut gemstones and some fool's gold. Besides they got plenty of treasure from the travellers passing through, although it certainly had a measurable value.

One day a child of the town announced that she would go and find the treasure and mark the path for others to follow. No one in the town took this seriously, but they happily sold her whatever supplies she asked for and joked about waiting to see her carrying back limitless treasure. Her only response was to laugh and ask how they thought she could carry so much treasure.

She would journey out on one day and return a couple days later. When she returned the people would always ask her if she'd found the treasure, laughing, and tell her to give it up when she said that she hadn't found it yet. After all, there were always plenty of foreigners to provide all the wealth a person could want. This continued for a long time until finally when she returned she said that she had found the treasure and now she was working to mark the path. Still, few believed her even though she had returned with a little treasure. She ignored the naysayers, however, and set about marking the path and making it as easy to follow as possible. She even took the few who wanted to see the treasure with her when she left town. and they always returned with some gold and jewels and tales of an incredible treasure. They also told how the path became quite difficult at times, but their guide was never daunted.

Eventually she grew old and couldn't make the journey any more, but she had become wealthy from all the times she had gone to the treasure, so that was fine for her. Her last instructions to those who would seek the treasure was to follow the sign and never give up, no matter how hard the path became.

Where is this village you ask? What was the sign? Those secrets have been lost in the mists of time and the changing of the world. The village could be anywhere, even your own city or town. About the sign there is even greater disagreement, but I say it is the cross. The only way to find out is to follow whatever sign you think will be a faithful guide and never lose hope, even though the way is promised to become very hard indeed.

-from the mouth of an old story teller I met in my travels.

An Anglican Allegory

2008-02-25T08:27:00.005-06:00

Once long ago there was a Benedictine monastery with many brothers and very beautiful liturgy. As is true in many monasteries devoted to a more apostolic life the brothers gave of themselves and their time to a variety of causes, and (when they weren't busy in the monastery) worked among the rich and the poor for the glory of God, and it was very good.

As time passed some of the brothers became unhappy with where some of their brothers were giving their time. This is not an occurance which greatly troubles a wise Superior since in a monastery of any size there are always disagreements bubbling up among the brethren due to the fallenness of hunanity. As long as proper care is taken to help the wranglers grow in charity such situations strengthen the brethren which shows the Lord's power to bring good even from that which began as an evil. Unfortunately, on this occasion the Superior had great sympathy for one set of the wranglers and, acting more like just another brother than the Superior, worked among the brethren to help their view prevail. Because of this the Chapter of the monastery did go so far as to speak negatively about the work of those brothers against whom the grumbles had been directed, but it did not forbid the brothers from continuing in the work. This was greeted with great joy by those who had grumbled against their brothers, and was greeted with complaints by those whose work was discouraged. The worst of the results was that nothing was done to encourage the brethren to grow in charity and the whole of the brethren were disturbed by the haste and onesidedness of the treatment in such a way that obedience began to be undermined.

Shortly after this a new Superior was elected. The new Superior had spoken in defence of the work that had been grumbled about, and as a result of the decreasing habit of obedience his election was greeted with dismay by those who had grumbled and joy by those most committed to the work, and the factionalism in the monastery increased. This new Superior, however, was deeply steeped in prayer and the theology of the Church and knew very well the responsibility of a Superior. As a result both of the malformation that had been going on and the new Superior's care to point all the brethren back to their vocation and to God, confusion spread. This is because the quarrelling brothers had become so accustomed to the idea that the Superior would take sides and generally not behave well that they assumed the new Superior was like the previous Superior with a new set of priorities he wanted to impose on the community. This malformation resulted in many failing to recognize when the Superior called all the brethren to live in charity for all their brothers, causing decreases in charity and an ever increasing inclination to disobedience.

The story has several possible endings. In one the quarreling brothers finally listened to those of their brothers who had never entered into the fight, and embraced their prior obedience and grew in charity. In another the quarreling brothers never recognized how far they had gone from proper Christian charity and eventually some or all of them left the community to live as they thought best to the sorrow of those brothers who remained.

You tell me, which ending should the Communion prefer?

Repentence and Child Abuse

2007-09-03T09:11:00.000-05:00

Ed Campion – They were just unprepared because the mind-set is to think of these things [the cases of child molestation by priests in the RCC] as a sin that could be forgiven rather than as a crime that should be punished and the victims cared for.

Part of Michael Vick’s public apology was a request for forgiveness and understanding as well as a statement that he had found Jesus and turned his life over to Christ.

It’s disturbing, but it seems that both Ed Campion and Michael Vick may think asking forgiveness and getting it means not having to pay any further penalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. A person is only really penitent when they accept the penalty assigned to their specific crime and/or sin. It doesn’t mean being happy about the punishment, it is quite possible for the penalty to be more sever than the offense warrants, but recognition of a sin calls for some attempt to make amends as far as is possible.

Since it is somewhere between hard and impossible to judge the heart of an individual, I’m not going to look at Vick’s case although I hope he embraces whatever penalty is imposed as a sort of penance. The case of child molesters, on the other hand, is something the church can’t afford to ignore. Since the penalty for child abuse of this sort has not yet risen to death or life in prison, we need to give some thought to how we are to care for them after they have paid their penalty. Why? Because the Good News has always been sent to the outcast and those for whom society offers no space, and in the US child molestation is one of the few crimes that can destroy a person’s life. Very few neighborhoods are inclined to knowingly tolerate a child molester living in them, very few work places are inclined to hire a child molester, and even in prison a child molester is one of the few types of people that have to be kept in a protected area because the other criminals are likely to try to kill them.

It is clear that, while looking for what sort of position a child molester can occupy, we cannot neglect to take extensive precautions to ensure that no children get molested by that individual in the future. I think that examining the precautions may be helpful in outlining where they can live and work. The fundamental goal of the precautions is to ensure that they are never alone around children. Thus they should not hold any position in a hospital, police department, fire department, retail store, parish priest, child welfare worker, or transport people by bus, train, or plane. They might be able to do public speaking (adult audiences only), give workshops (again, adult audiences only), or some other work in which they deal only with adults (bankruptcy lawyer or tax preparer, perhaps?). Work is only half the consideration, however. It’s risky for them to live alone, especially if they’re in a suburban setting where children will almost certainly be around, and they certainly should not stay at an ordinary hotel. The best that could be hoped for is probably that they live with someone else (family of some sort) who knows about their past and can help them avoid children; either out in the country away from children or isolated in some other way. Another alternative would be retreat houses or similar setups in which the guest has someone between them and the rest of the world. In some ways a monastic community would be an ideal situation, although both the community and the individual would have to agree to the arrangement.

Jon

Adam's Sin

2007-08-24T09:54:00.000-05:00

Before we consider [URL=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31]Genesis 3[/URL], in which the story of the Fall is related it is probably worthwhile to note that we are looking at a myth. Myth, as I'm using it here, isn't something false; it is a literary genre closely related to parables and fables, and is a (generally) non-historical, non-allegorical story through which some complicated point is expressed. Because of the genre in which Genesis 3 falls, it is important to pay close attention to what things are called and to the reasons for which things happen in the story.

Turning now to [URL=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31]Genesis 2[/URL], for the background of the Fall, we find that Adam and Eve have been created and placed in a garden that contains the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Right here we should pause to note that the names of these trees indicate that they are not normal trees. They are actually physical manifestations of knowledge and eternal life; two things humans have tried to possess for millennia.

Turning, then, to Genesis 3 we find Eve and the serpent talking and the serpent points out that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil isn't poisonous or fatal to touch, nor is its fruit; it gives knowledge of Good and Evil, which makes a person like God. When Eve examines the tree she finds that the serpent is correct about its nature and decides that she would like to be wise. As a result she eats and has Adam eat as well, and the serpent is again proven correct; Adam and Eve have knowledge as demonstrated by their realization that they're naked. Then God shows up, questions Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and then hands out punishment to the serpent, Eve, and Adam. The story closes with God giving Adam and Eve something like real clothes and then driving them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life, because it would have made them immortal.

So what was Adam's sin in the story? The simplistic answer is that Adam and Eve were disobedient; they ate what they'd been told not to eat and sinned in that way. That interpretation strikes me as being simplistic because it doesn't consider why the trees in the story are "the Knowledge of Good and Evil" and "Life." The trees wouldn't have names if they weren't important to the point of the story. It also doesn't pay any attention to why they ate. Looking back at the conversation between Eve and the serpent we see that the ability of the tree of Knowledge to make a person like God was pointed out by serpent, and a significant point in Eve's examination of the tree was that eating its fruit would make a person wise, which is a repetition in a different key of the tree's ability to make a person God-like. The concern about Adam and Eve becoming like God is reiterated a third time verse 22 by God in connection with eating from the tree of Life. This triple connection between Adam's sin and being God-like suggests that being God-like is much closer to the center of Adam's sin then simple disobedience. Humanity, however, is said to be made in God's image in Genesis 1:27, so it seems that we can't simply say that Adam's sin was in wanting to be like God. What does it mean to be like God, however? One of the more striking features is that God isn't dependent on others for wisdom or knowledge or life. This independence is paralleled in Eve's looking to a tree to obtain knowledge. The parallelism both there and with the notion of being immortal by one's own nature, suggests that Adam's sin was precisely in pursuing the chance to be independent of God. Interestingly, this is essentially one of the definitions of sin, that sin is separation from God.

My conclusion is that Adam's sin is essentially that they wanted to be independent of God. What do you think?

Jon

Complementarity

2007-08-24T00:42:00.000-05:00

One of the major roots of division between some liberals and conservatives is their view of gender roles. The disagreement is played out on several levels. First, in considering the ordination of women, second, in considering same-sex blessings and marriage, and, in more traditionalist areas, in considering what sorts of jobs women should do in the family and in the broader society. The more liberal position is frequently described as egalitarian and is, broadly speaking, rooted in passages like Gal 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) The more conservative position is generally described as complementarian and might be summed up by saying that men and women have separate but equal dignity. The complementarian view is the piece of theological anthropology I want to focus on for the moment.

Biblically, complementarianism is based on a more or less "plain meaning" reading of the curses in Genesis 3:16 (To the woman [God] said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.").

Broadening the scope to the way men and women relate to one another in scripture the complementarian view is reinforced by the repeated instances in which the "point" of the woman in the story is her child, children, or ability to have children. This shows up in the fighting between Leah and Rachel, who both want to give the most children to Jacob. It shows up with the other Patriarch’s wives as well, although it is normally less dramatic. It shows up earlier when Hannah begs the Lord to give her a child (the prophet and judge Samuel). Even the story of Ruth can be read to suggest that women need to have a husband and/or are made important by their children since Ruth was the grandmother of King David (note: I think it's a mistake to take this conclusion from Ruth for a variety of reasons, including the degree of faithfulness Ruth shows her mother in law Naomi and the challenge the book of Ruth provides to the laws against mixed marriages given in Ezra, since Ruth being a gentile would call into question King David's Jewish-ness according to Ezra's laws). The stories of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38), and David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12) can also be read in to support the contention that women's roles are primarily those of wife and mother.

In the New Testament support for complementarity is derived largely from the pastoral epistles and the psuedo-Pauline epistles, notably 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.), Ephesians 5:22-24 (22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.), and Colossians 3:18 (Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.). There are other similar passages in the various Pauline letters including 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34 (As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.), which is only occasion on which this view appears in an undisputedly original Pauline letter.

Turning from Scripture, to the common practice of the societies in which the Church has been present, it has been very common for women to be given inferior roles and kept out of power in all but a few cases (notably Eleanor of Aquitaine and Queen Elizabeth I). Women were frequently treated as a man's property by the secular law and generally couldn't inherit or control property. This was defended in a number of ways including reference to Scripture, including those listed above. The more philosophical approach explaining why women were subject to men in ancient times depended on the Greco-Roman view of gender. Interestingly, the Greco-Roman view held that there was only one sex, male, and that women were defective men (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae I, 92, ad 1, in which Aquinas agrees with Aristotle's De Gener. ii. 3 which says that women are defective men, although Aquinas holds that this is only true when considering the birth of any particular woman, since the supposed defectiveness of women encourages the recognition that hierarchy is good for humanity.)

This last point, the Greco-Roman view of gender, should give complementarians reason to be concerned, because the Greco-Roman view is emphatically not complementarian, although it supports the contention that men and women have different roles in society. The ancient view supports the separate roles by insisting that men are smarter and/or more to be honored than women for what would be described as something like genetic causes in today’s science. Even a cursory examination of current science, however, simply overturns the notion that men are inherently superior to women. It also overturns the biology of that era which held, for example, that which direction the wind was coming from at the time of conception altered the final gender of the child. It is worth pointing out, however, that modern science doesn't necessarily overturn the notion of the unity of humanity with sex being a variation within the species, although ancient authorities would not necessarily put it that way.

If complementarity isn’t really traditional (and if we want don’t want to hold that women are inferior to men I don’t think we can hold that it is traditional) then perhaps we can find alternative readings of the passage in Genesis without being disloyal to scripture. As it happens, an alternate reading of Genesis 3:16 isn’t hard to find. The passage could easily be an etiology explaining why women weren’t given positions of authority and why childbirth is painful.

The rest of the passages used to support complementarity can be treated as historically bound without much difficulty.

If this is so, perhaps conservatives should give a more egalitarian view of gender roles serious consideration.

Jon

Vows and the Christian Life

2007-07-12T13:16:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about the monastic life for a while now, and it was pointed out to me that most people hear monastic life and think weird old hermits, no sex, and actively avoiding anything that sounds like it might be even remotely modern. Of these 3 only the no sex is even remotely accurate and even that tends to miss the point, but I was thinking that writing a reflection on the monastic vows might be helpful to anyone who hears me thinking out load about the monastic life. Since I've been thinking about this, however, I've been keeping an eye open for things like that and I found something even better than my writing a general reflection on the vows. The Order of Julian of Norwich has reflections on the vows as part of its Customary. Since they do such a good job of covering what the vows mean for a monastic, I thought I'd shift my own reflection to other sorts of vowed life, like marriage but also the Christian life more generally.

Looking at marriage first, it seems reasonable to talk about the marriage vows as at least vaguely defining a sort of vowed life, but what sort of vowed life is it? The vows as given in TEC's Book of Common Prayer on page 427 are essentially that both husband and wife vow to hold to the other under more or less all circumstances to the death, to share as much as any two people can share of life. One of the most widely known consequences of this formally and permanently choosing each other is that adultery is ruled out (almost explicitly ruled out, in fact, in the pre-vows agreement on p. 424 in the BCP). Sexual activity isn't the only part of life which would be impacted. Every sphere of daily living, from money to child-rearing to religiosity, needs to be shared in a way that both husband and wife can stand. It strikes me as preferable to work out in advance how the couple will deal with money and children, and it might even be helpful to think about how house chores might be divvied up. Still, the one piece that is absolutely essential, far more than advance agreements, is striving to understand how the other half of the couple feels, having enough of a shared understanding, having enough in common to keep fights from being a daily event, being able to work through disagreements when they come up. In short marriage requires commitment to an actual person rather than one's idea of the person, and one is constrained by the reality of the other person.

In some ways marriage parallels the Christian life in general, although the vow at the center of the Christian life is not always explicit. Like marriage, it is a matter of choosing another, although the other is God in Jesus Christ rather than another human being. Why do I say that the Christian life has a vow at the center? It should seem obvious to most members of TEC since the baptismal covenant has been given such a central place in the life of the church, but the vowedness of the life was present even when the only creed was "Jesus is Lord." To say "Jesus is Lord" indicates first and foremost a recognition that one owes fealty to Jesus. Put another way it is indicates the realization that one ought to strive to do Jesus' will. The only sensible response as far as I can see to recognizing the obedience owed to God in Jesus is to (explicitly or implicitly) commit oneself to the work Jesus calls us to do. The only alternative is rebellion, which is looks to me like an attempt to avoid paying off the debt of honor.

This brings us to what is probably the most difficult question in the Christian Life. What does obeying Jesus require of us? The simplest, truest answer seems to me to be that we must love God with all our heart and mind and strength and spirit, and love everyone we meet either physically or indirectly (for example through the Internet) as God has loved us. This is the truest answer I know and is fairly easy to derive from Scripture, but it just leaves us with more questions. What does it mean to love God that way? What does it mean to love everyone we meet as God has loved us? These are far more difficult questions and the closer we come to brass tacks, to responding to specific real world problems the more difficult it is to definitively say what answer is best. The best I have to offer is to look at the example given in Christ's life, especially in his death and resurrection. It begins, I think, with approaching life open to being mistaken, open to learning something new. One ultimately needs to keep grounded in what is, especially what is real enough to contradict one's thoughts about it, and that requires being open to correction. After understanding is gotten, the next requirement is to use that understanding to make the world a better place to be, partially by letting people be themselves but also by not leaving them holding on to what is harmful out of ignorance. Truth enables us to make love real.

It seems that, as Christians, we are vowed to Love, and perhaps vowed to pursue Truth because of Love. These vows to both love and truth are then lived out through vows like those of marriage or the monastic life.

Jon

Soundbite 2

2007-07-08T04:08:00.001-05:00

The problem in the church today isn't that we devalue truth, it is that we value the truth according to ourselves to highly.

A Soundbite

2007-07-01T04:11:00.000-05:00

A man's truth is that which owns the man body and soul.

Jon

Governance

2006-09-10T12:30:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking for more than a month about what excites me in this world. One of the things I've found is a sort of an art that I don't really understand to my own satisfaction. I call it governance because that seems to be the central task for practitioners of this art. It can't reasonably be practiced without anyone else around, and, when practiced with or on at individual it appears to be some sort of care giving. To try to understand it better I'm concidering it's roots and the theory about how it works. I should note that I am Christian and do think about these things at least somewhat theologically. This strongly influences how I talk about the subject.

What are the roots of this art?

The fundamental root is God. This shouldn't be a surprise since the affirmation that Jesus is Lord is perhaps the oldest Christian creed. The most obvious conclusion is that everyone who governs is in a position a little like God's. What is a bit less obvious is that it indicates that no one can govern properly unless they are operating under God. Some see this conclusion and ascribe to kings and other leaders a sort of divine right, but it isn't generally obvious to me when and how God can be said to have deputated authority to them so it seems that the exercise of authority is generally illegitimate. In other words, those who lead in the world step up to fill the apparent vacuum created by God's seeming silence.

There is, however, at least one case where some degree of authority seems to have been delegated. In Matthew 16:17-19 Jesus says that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This particular passage is IIRC one of the important ones for Roman Catholics in establishing the supremacy of the pope. Whatever may be said of the bishop of Rome, this delegation suggests to me that it may be appropriate to view all human authority as essentially petrine. This leads me to focus on another occasion in which Jesus gave Peter a task. John 21:15-18 is during the third time Jesus appears to the disciples after the resurrection. On this occasion Jesus has been having breakfast with the disciples when he turns to Peter and asks if Peter loves him. Jesus asks the question three times and each time Peter says "Yes, I love you" to which Jesus responds "Feed my sheep." This appears to be very much central to the petrine vocation and by extension to the vocation of everyone who holds authority. This also lines up with the many occasions throughout scripture in which Jesus or a prophet describes those in authority as some sort of shepherd, generally a bad shepherd or a hired man who doesn't worry much about the sheep.

This, then, seems to be the root to care for a flock that is not the property of the one in authority and to feed them to the best of one's ability.

With what does a ruler feed the flock? The most obvious answer is bread, not literal bread, but all the food, clothes, shelter and money needed to sustain life. Symbolizing all of that with the term bread, however, calls to mind other passages from scripture. In both Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 saying "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." (Deut. 8:3). Since, as the beginning of the Gospel of John makes clear, Jesus is the Word of the Lord one can conclude as Jesus does in some places in scripture that ultimately the bread with which a leader needs to feed his flock is Jesus himself, both through the sacraments and through scripture which is Jesus written down. This requirement highlights both the petrine nature of all priestly ministry and the difficulty for any secular ruler in fulfilling this requirement since the other root of governance is the community one is governing. This is true of priests as well as secular rulers, but it binds secular rulers in ways that priests are not bound.

This leaves us with two sorts of bread wiht which a governor needs to feed his or her sheep, the bread of earth and the bread of heaven so to speak. A secular governor has some power to provide the first, but generally can't provide the second easily, while a priest through the church can provide both although in a different manner than a secular ruler. It is also clear that providing the bread of heaven relies on God's grace rather than the power of any human being, not least because God is that bread.

What are the ways in which both types are given? Both can be given in a direct way by physically giving a person food or through reading the Bible and participating in the sacraments. The bread of earth can also be given in an indirect manner through training and other ways of opening up opportunities. Can the bread of heaven be provided indirectly as well? It isn't clear to me that the water of life, another way to talk about the bread of heaven, can be provided indirectly to the same extent that normal food and drink can be. Still St. Francis famously said that a Christians life might be the only gospel another person ever read, so perhaps it is barely possible to provide the water of life without being explicit about it. Still, I worry that trying to provide that bread without making clear the source could result in either some sort of hero worship or leave the receiver longing for an unknown god.

What does the bread do, or how can we tell when a governor is feeding the flock?

The bread of earth is relatively simple to observe, although it may be difficult to actually provide. If the economy is up, especially if the rise is coming from all wage earners rather than only growth in what the wealthiest are earning, and if the nation or state is secure and safe from both foriegn invaders and home grown criminals, and if the populace is content with the pleasures in can get hold of, then they are feasting on the bread of the earth.

The bread of heaven is harder to pin down in many ways, which is to be expected given that it is carried by the Spirit which goes where it wills. Where it appears there is healing for the wounded, captives are made free, the hungry are fed without necessarily eating more earthly food, the whole of society is thrown about and reordered, the last become first, the failures and nobodies are somehow made very great indeed, and throughout all this upheaval everything remains increadibly grounded and stable. A line from a hymn comes to mind in this context. It describes how the apostles where changed by Jesus and led to painful deaths and says at the end that "the peace of God it is no peace but strife sown in the sod, but let us pray for just one thing, the wonderous peace of God." The sense of upheaval it brings is one of the major reasons I doubt any secular leader can really provide this bread. Another reason is because, as I noted earlier, the authority of earthly leaders isn't entirely legitimate and the bread of heaven points those who eat it towards God which undermines earthly authority.

What in the end can we say about the art of governance? It is a matter of individuals being given authority (somewhat illegitimately) for the purpose of guaranteeing that the people live as comfortably as possible as well as pointing the people towards what is fundamentally good for them (ie. God).

Jon

Who Showed Up part 2

2006-07-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

Sales-people

Episcopal Retirement Homes - trying to sell you the idea of retiring to Ohio
Everest Columbarium System - because every church needs a columbarium?
Far East Handicrafts - fair trade items that partially support medical and educational projects in Nepal
Fashions by Sarah - stoles, banners, paraments, and wall hangings, with music in the background for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure)
Forward Movement Publications - a publisher of many meditations, books, and unofficial prayers
Four Seasons Travel - a travel agency, if you ask nice they might even be able to organize a pilgrimage for you
Gallery Byzantium - selling Byzantine style jewelry
Gaspard Inc. - selling vestments and paraments
Grace Liturgical Vestments - yes, another vestment seller
Hand Crafted Pewter - selling hand held labyrinths, wall crosses, paper weights, and keychains
Harvard Divinity School - for those looking to study the faith in more detail
Hayes & Finch - for church furniture, vestments, candles, and other supplies
Hmong Folk Art - folk art from South East Asia (Vietnam/Laos area)
Holding Cross.com - selling a wide variety of crosses, especially one that fits very comfortably in a closed hand
In Spirita - more vestments, focuses on quilted vestments
J. West - jewelry seller
J. Whippell & Co. - sells vestments and stained glass windows, also clergy shirts and metalwork
James D. Klote & Associates - Fundraising services
Jerusalem Tours - trips to Jerusalem and the eastern Mediteranean
Journeys Unlimited - focuses on popular Christian travel destinations and pilgrimages
John-Paul Buzard Pipe Organ Builders
Juliet Hemingray Church Textiles - yeah, more vestments on sale, also other cloth products for clergy and parishes, but these are made in the UK
Kirby-Smith Associates - fund raising assistance
Leadership Resources - Christian Education curriculi, including Journey to Adulthood
Maison Bouvrier - another vestment seller, this time from France
Marshall & Ogletree - sells virtual organs, they have a console but no pipes
Menz Fashion - suits, business looking suits, nothing at all to do with clergy or the church (they specialize in group orders?!?!?)
Meyer-Vogelpohl - more vestments and other church supplies
Michael Podesta - a graphical designer, like a calligrapher, basically, but with some added artwork
MTS Travel - specializes in religious and business travel
Nancy Denmark - jewelry seller
On Beads of Prayer - St. Albans DC, they're Anglican rosaries made of beads rather than twine
One Call Now - phone messaging services aka automated calling to everyone on a list
Oxford University Press - another publisher, it advertised a study guide for/history of the TEC's BCP
Paraclete Press - another press, focuses on texts (including music) of interest to a more evangelical audience
Pilgrim Press - a (the?) press of the United Church of Christ, at least in its founding
Rauchenstein Consulting Group - helps with fund raising
Rebecca's Keepsakes - from Racine, WI
Shelby Systems - management software for churches
Society of St. John the Evangelist (Cowley Press) - a publisher and monastery
Spirit and Clay - potery for use in the liturgy
St. Isaac of Syria Skete - a monastery and icon seller
St. James Gift Shop - the gift shop of a San Diego parish
St. Mark's Press - a small press in Wichita, KS
Steven Van Lines - Clergy Relocation Center is how the billed themselves at GC
Threads of Hope - a subset of the Forrest Outreach Foundation, selling crafts to support the poor in Peru
Thomas E. Rickey - Ecuadorian Imports
To This Day - providing educational materials for children and youth ministries
Verdin Company - a bell manufacturer
Vertical Visions - a photography studio
Westminster John Knox Press - one of the labels of the Presbyterian Church's in house publishing company
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. - a general religious publisher
Womenspirit - vestments specifically designed for women
Yellowhourse Indian Jewelry

Church-Political Action Groups

Episcopal Network for Economic Justice (ENEJ) - liberal and the website looks like it hasn't been updated recently
Episcopal Urban Caucus - liberal, focuses on getting the church to respond to urban issues as well as other social justice issues
Episcopal Women's Caucus (EWC) - not to be confused with the ECW, is liberal and focused on pushing in favor of women's ministry in diverse ways
Institute on Religion and Democracy - conservative, extra-ecclesial advocacy and support group Integrity - liberal, focuses on LGBT issues
Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion - conservative, was trying to get 30+ bishops deposed for consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire
National Network of Episcopal Clergy Associations - watching out for clergy concerns at the national level, not notably partisan
NOEL - organization of pro-life Episcopalians
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) - ecumenical pro-choice organization, includes the Episcopal Church
Reconcilers.net - pushing the church to look at things with reconciliation in mind
Union of Black Episcopalians - liberal, advocates for the concerns of African American Episcopalians
Via Media, USA - an anti-AAC/ACN organization not to be confused with the educational program

Ministries

Episcopal Peace Fellowship - for pacifists primarily, is politically active, but primarily outside the church
Episcopal Relief and Development - TEC's in house relief and development organization, used to be the Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief
Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation - major backer of the MDGs in TEC, a good place to go to get ideas for how to make the goals real and realistic
Evangelical Education Society - works to fund seminarian evangelism projects
Society for the Increase of the Ministry - works with the Evangelical Education Society
Every Voice Network - a liberal support group and set of forums doesn't do advocacy work itself although it supports those who do
Faith Alive - a congregational renewal program
Five Talents - an international anti-poverty ministry
Fresh Ministries - an interfaith group focused on the needs of children
Friends of Sabeel North America - supports Sabeel, an ecumenical group focusing on resolving the Israeli/Palestine troubles, leans towards the Palestinians
Heifer International - another international anti-poverty ministry, famous for giving poor, rural families a cow or goat to provide a continuing source of food
Indigenous Theological Training Institute - focuses on theological training for Native Americans
International Order of St. Luke the Physician - a healing ministry
Kenyon College - founded by Episcopalians, the booth was staffed by those active in the campus ministry
The Living Church - a weekly news magazine covering Episcopal Church news, generally thought of as leaning towards the conservative side of things
North American Association for the Diaconate - supports the renewal of the daiconate in the US and Canada
National Epicopal AIDS Coalition - highlights the church's work and growth opportunities on AIDS
National Episcopal Cursillo - a renewal weekend for adults, is generally lined up with New Beginnings (middle school), Happening (high school), and Vocare(college)
National Episcopal Health Ministies - working with doctors and hospitals to make healthcare more effective
National Episcopal Historians and Archivists - preserving the records of the past for TEC, diocese by diocese
Order of St. Helena - one of the 23 CAROA orders, famous for their breviary (a sort of prayer book) and their edition of the Psalter
The Daughters of the King - a parish based lay order of women dedicated to prayer and service
Our Little Roses Ministries - cares for homeless girls in Honduras
Pastoral Leadership Search Effort (PLSE) - an ecumenical effort that work to support young adults and teens as they consider a vocation in the church
Pathways to Ministry - an internship at St. Michael and All Angels in Dallas, TX for college students
Recovered Alcoholic Clergy Association (RACA) - like AA, but focused on clergy and those who are on their way to becoming clergy
Recovery Ministries of the Episcopal Church - as above, but it includes laity
St. Francis Academy - a child welfare ministry, started as a boy's home
Seamen's Church Institute - making scarves, mittens and hats for sailors as well as providing pastoral and legal care since 1834 or thereabouts
The seminaries of TEC
----Church Divinity School of the Pacific - in Berkley
----Sewanee - in Tennessee
----Nashotah House - in Wisconsin
----Berkley Divinity School at Yale - in Connecticut
----Bexley Hall - in Columbus, OH, and Rochester, NY
----Seabury-Western Theological Seminary - in the Chicago area
----Episcopal Divinity School - in Cambridge, MA
----Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry - in the Pittsburgh area
----Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest - in Austin, TX
----Virginia Theological Seminary - in Alexandria, Virginia
----General Theological Seminary - in New York, NY
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge - they're doing a bit of a book collection at the moment
United Thank Offering - a fundraising effort of the Episcopal Church Women, it's very successful
Vocare - a renewal weekend for young adults

The PrayerBook Society also had pamphlets floating around, but they're a little odd, they think the current BCP is heretical and prefer the 1928 version.

Hopefully this gives you a bit of an idea of how broad the attendance was.

Jon

Who Showed Up Part 1

2006-07-23T08:26:00.000-05:00

All the dioceses have 8 deputies at GC (more info on GC can be found here) and all the bishops are able to sit in the HoB and even vote, although many retired bishops stay home or otherwise keep a low profile (Bishop Spong, for example, apparently hasn't come to a GC since he retired). There are also alternate deputies that may be sent by each diocese. These are just the people one would expect to show up. The other major event that occurs with GC is the Episcopal Church Women's Triennial which is closely connected with the United Thank Offering. For the past two GC's there has also been a Young Adult Festival held at the same time in the same area as well as an offering for younger people. The diversity of people and events is probably most clearly reflected in the range of booths so I will list them here with links if possible and commentary unless the name says it all.

People selling all manner of things for all sorts of reasons

ACS Technologies - selling software to parishes and dioceses
Amish Fudge - A local seller, and no they didn't sell any Anglican Fudge
Andino Fibers - selling fair trade products from Peru
African Team Ministries - selling various crafts to support ministry in the Rift Valley area of Tanzania
Bethlehem Christian Family Inc. - selling olive wood carvings.
Betty Wood Enterprises - selling a variety of decorative crafts and stoles from around the world
British European Specialty Tours - organizes tours for choirs who wish to travel to or in Europe
C. M. Almy - a major producer of vestments and other church supplies
Calligraphy by Michael Noyes - a calligrapher selling fancily written words
Catechesis of the Good Shepherd - a Sunday School curriculum and the organization that produces it
Chime Master Systems - sells church bells and methods of ringing the bells
China Ethnic Crafts - selling Chinese trinkets including what looks like book marks
Church Consulting - selling communications software and provided related services (e-mail and websites for example)
Church Managment Solutions - another software seller
Church Mutual Insurance Co. - not the Episcopal Church's "in-house" insurance group, that's through the Church Pension group
Church Pension Group - they run the pension fund for the clergy among other things
Church Publishing - they sell Prayer Books among many other written materials
Church Restoration Group - specializes in fixing historic churches of many denominations
Church Windows/Computer Helper - more church management software
Clergy Leadership Institute - provides continuing education focused on enabling clergy to do congregational development more effectively
Colores Del Pueblo - focuses on selling fair trade goods from Latin American artisans
Colors of Life - a Nairobi co-operative which provides employment to people with AIDS and those who have lost loved ones to AIDS, it was sponsored at GC by St. John's, Charleston, West Virginia
Community Counseling Service - a fundraising organization
Cuttington University - a University in Liberia founded by the Episcopal Church
Discovery Center - a set of learning opportunities provided by the college connected with the National Cathedral
Epiphany Institute - another congregational development consultant
The Episcopal Church Foundation - TEC's in-house development group
Episcopal Media Center - sells audiovisual materials of interest especially to Episcopalians

Church-Political Action Groups

Affirming Catholicism - Anglo-Catholic, but in favor of female priests
American Anglican Council - Conservative and led by priests and lay people rather than bishops
Anglican Communion Network - Conservative and set up in a way parallel to TEC's structure
Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission - Liberal and focusing on liturgical renewal
The Center for Progressive Christianity - a liberal group Bishop Spong would probably think was right on the money, also not an Episcopalian organization as far as I know
Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East - an ecumenical group that appears to be pro-Israeli
Claiming the Blessing - a church-political action group working for the creation of liturgies for same-sex blessings
Clergy, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (CFLAG) - a ministry in support of (and advocating for) gay and lesbian people and those they are close to
Episcopal Network for Animal Welfare - advocates for the protection of animals

Ministries

Alcoholics Anonymous - no introduction necessary (I hope)
Anglican Center in Rome - This Communion ministry provides educational resources in Rome, Italy and does work in Anglican-Roman Catholic Ecumenism
American Friends of the Diocese of Jerusalem - The focus of this group is on nurturing the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem.
Anglican Communion Office - The "home office" for Communion level activities, they maintain websites and provide links to what the Instruments of Unity are doing (Including changing their name to the Instruments of Communion).
Anglican Frontier Missions
Assembly of Episcopal Healthcare Chaplains
Association of Anglican Musicians
Boy Scouts of America
Boys Home Inc. - a ministry of care for boys who, for one reason or another, need to live away from home
Brotherhood of St. Andrew - a parish based ministry for men and boys
Church Deployment Office
Church Periodical Club - provides ways for churches who need books, cds, and dvds to get them
Church World Service - an ecumenical relief and development organization
Community of the Cross of Nails - an organization focused on working for reconciliation wherever it seems necessary
Conference of Anglican Religious Orders in the Americas (CAROA) - an umbrella group for 23 monastic groups
Dominican Development Group - supports the Episcopal Diocese of the Dominican Republic
Ecclesia Minitries - a ministry to and with the street people in Boston, MA
Ecumenical Chuch Loan Fund (ECLOF) - an ecumenical group that uses loans to drive development in the Third World
Episcopal Appalachian Ministries
Episcopal Camps and Conference Centers
The Episcopal Church & the Visual Arts - getting more religious art created, also provided the pictures to frame the alter during GC
Episcopal Conference of the Deaf
Episcopal Disability Network - advocates for those with disabilities and helps parishes become more accessible
Episcopal Ecological Network - provides resources for thinking theologically about the environment and for acting to protect the environment
Episcopal Marriage Encounter - focuses on enriching marriages
Episcopal Life - the official newspaper of TEC
Episcopal Network for Stewardship (TENS) - a great source for stewardship resources

Thats about half of the groups not including ministries of the Church Center and the ECW, I'll list the rest after I've had a chance to get some sleep.

Jon

What did GC do on the "big issues"

2006-07-22T21:13:00.000-05:00

If you look back a couple posts you should see a list I gave of issues to keep an eye on during GC. Here's what happened with each of them.

1. Title IV revisions where put on hold until next GC. They will be discussed by one of the interim bodies over the next 3 years, so keeping an eye open for more news on them would be a good idea.

2. The election of the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori as the next PB surprised most everyone. What little I had seen of her, mostly the responses to questions in The Witness, I hadn't been particularly impressed, but her biography suggests that she is a very able woman who could easily do a great job. Time will tell how she does, and it is far to early to be making predictions at this point. Those who have almost immediately responded by requesting Alternate Primatial Oversight, for example, are probably acting hastily and without clear enough cause.

3. Bonnie Anderson, previously the Vice-President of the HoD, was elected president of the HoD with little controversy. I beleive the expectation is that she has learned well from George Werner and will lead the House very well.

4. The response to the Windsor Report took up a great deal of time at Convention. GC responded by affirming its commitment to the rest of the AC (A159), Expressed regret for straining the bonds of affection (A160), committed itself to the Windsor Process (the process of discerning how we might live more deeply into communion) and the Listening Process (listening to the experience of gay and lesbian people as multiple past Lambeth Conferences have requested) (A165), committed itself to participate in developing the proposed Anglican Covenant (A166), and urging all bishops and standing committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion" (B033). The last resolution was by far the most controversial. Those who were following what the convention was doing will recall that B033 was passed on the final day of convention and was the result of some last minute rushing to find some way to respond to the central requests the Windsor Report made of TEC. It also required the suspension of the rules of the HoD for it to be considered since the substance of the resolution had been considered and rejected in A161 the day before and consideration of the substance in another form had been failed to acheive the necessary 2/3rds vote in favor of consideration. Nothing was done about the blessing of same sex unions leaving them in the limbo of being done in a permissable way but without any official liturgy approved or even in the process of being approved by the national church.

5. The biggest thing passed that had implications for the budget was the Millenium Development Goals that were so popular at the Convention. Those who aren't particularly interested in the internal politics of the church will probably find the work of the MDG's or one of the other world focused resolutions a more fruitful focus than the Windsor Report issues or Title IV.

Coming up Next "Who all shows up for GC"

Jon

Young Adult Festival 2

2006-07-04T02:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry, it took longer to get back to this than I expected.

On Thursday I got up early to get to a meeting of Committee 26 (the one responding to the Windsor Report). They heard a little testimony and then began discussing what sort of principles and ideas they wanted incorporated in the resolution before they sent it to the houses. When they wrapped up for the morning it was time to go to Eucharist. This Eucharist's music had a more classical sound to it, and Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold preached on Evelyn Underhill. After eucharist I went up to the HoB and listened while they approved Eucharistic sharing with the United Methodists. After that the house heard from a bishop from northern Uganda about the genocide and terror griping that part of the world. After this I went to lunch, and then went back to the exhibit hall, eventually making my way back the the CAROA booth. At around 3pm I wandered over to the HoD and listened while they passed a resolution from Committee 26 as amended by that committee. When the deputies moved on to other resolutions I moved on to the HoB where they also passed a resolution from Committee 26 as amended. They also concurred with 2 things from the deputies including on the budget priorities. The bishops finished their business quickly and I moved on to the deputation meeting where I heard about the local ministries bishop's spouses were engaging with. We also talked about the status of Title IV and the work of Committee 26. Next I headed over to a young adults reception for dinner and chatting before going to the PB's forum on reconciliation. The forum's speakers were John Danforth, former senator, former US ambassador to the UN, and Episcopal priest, Jenny Te Paa, ahorangi of Te Rau Kahikatea (dean of the College of St. John the Evangelist to all of us who don't speak Maori), Malaika Kamunanwire, Senior Director of Marketing and Communications for ERD, Alex Baumgarten, who works in the Office of Government Relations and the Episcopal Public Policy Network, and the Rt. Rev. Thomas Shaw, SSJE. Danforth commended to us the work of reconciliation and holding together as a sing to a fracturing world that it is possible to hold together inspite of deep disaggreements. I'm not sure he knew anything about the work for the MDGs the convention had already done. Jenny Te Paa encouraged us to create a truly inclusive public square. Malaika Kamunanwire and Alex Baumgarten praised to us the work for the MDGs their organizations were and are doing. Before Bishop Shaw got a chance to speak the PB gave a bit of a closing since he (the PB) had to run to go be on Larry King that evening. Bishop Shaw finished the evening out by telling stories about his trips to Africa and how that work for the MDGs helped people both in Africa and Massachucetts grow in their faith. After the forum finished up I headed back to the hotel. On the way I saw a bit of Larry King, but it looked like it was almost exclusively focused on homosexuality issues and schism in the church, so I didn't stick around to see the whole thing. When I got back to the hotel I stayed up talking about Title IV, Baptism as Full Initiation, the nature of the Anglican Communion, and hearing a variety of strange and funny stories.

On Friday I began my day with breakfast followed by Eucharist. The music for Eucharist sounded a lot like a sort of Rock and Roll praise band. From Eucharist I went over to the HoD. The first thing they did was to consider, and reject, a motion to remove GC from the consent process for bishops. Then they moved on to things that didn't particularly interest me, so I wandered off to lunch at the YAF. During that lunch a couple of people from Sabeel talked to us about the situation in the Holy Land and the work they do on justice for Palistinians and peace in the region. After lunch I went back over to the exhibit hall, grabbed a little dessert at the Affirming Catholicism booth and chatted with them for a little while before going over to the CAROA booth to hang out. Eventually I headed up to the HoB and hung out until ~6pm. Dinner was at a Theology on Tap session on the topic of Marriage. The other big event that evening was the Integrity eucharist which drew about 1000 people according to the reports I heard. The AAC also had a eucharist that night, but reports only give them an attendance of 80. After Theology on Tap I went back to the hotel to hear the legislative briefing and see what resolutions had been acted on so far. Then I went to bed.

On Saturday I had breakfast and went to eucharist again. This time the eucharist was a sort of symbol of the diversity within TEC. The readings were in Chinese and French and the songs were also from an assortment of different cultures. The PB also kept switching the language he was reading the prayers in from one piece to the next. The sermon was a very interesting one by Jenny Te Paa, which you can find here. It was a very nice service and a really wonderful sermon. After eucharist I went out to lunch with about 20 people from Magdalen (the e-mail list serve). The chatting there was lots of fun, and it was great to be able to connect names and faces. By the time I got back from lunch the PB candidates had been formally nominated so I wandered back to the CAROA booth to make another rosary. After the exhibit hall closed I went out to dinner with a young lady in the discernment process in N. Indiana. Then I went to PB Griswold's going away party which was alternatively funny and boring. That rounded out the night.

On Sunday I started my day early with the EWC breakfast before the Sunday eucharist. That eucharist was a jazz eucharist. Immediately after Eucharist the bishops all went off to Trinity by the Capitol building and elected the next PB. It was a closed meeting (think the election of Pope Benedict minus the white smoke in a smaller church) so I wandered over to the CAROA booth and then went to off to have lunch. I listened to the HoD for a while after lunch but they weren't talking about anything interesting compared with what everyone was waiting to hear about. I got bored and walked over to the exhibit hall, but as soon as I got there I ran into the young lady who had been providing the nightly briefings for the YAF, Mary, and heard that the bishops had made their decision and a group of deputies was going out to officially receive word and anounce the choice to the HoD and everyone else who was waiting with bated breath. We wound up waiting for what seemed like forever before it was announced that Bishop Jefferts Schori had been elected. Then a whole bunch of the Deputies got up to say how wonderful it was. In the half hour they talked only a few people rose to speak against the election. Finally the question got called and she was handily confirmed as the new PB. I headed over to the hotel to have some ice cream and fill out evaluation forms. Then I went over to the exhibit hall and hung around at the CAROA booth until the exhibit hall closed. After that I wandered around for a while and eventually made my way to the committee 26 meeting in which they discussed how resolution A161 should read. Then I headed back to the hotel. On my way I ran into Mary and shared a cab with her rather than walk back to the hotel. After the legislative breifing I talked with Mary about her work with EPPN in the Washington office and made my way over to compline. Then I went back to the hotel and hung out in the hotel bar talking about church politics stuff and sports (since a basketball game was on).

On Monday I checked out and went to eucharist. The vocalist at this eucharist was a grand-daughter of the von Trapp family of "Sound of Music" fame. The music was quite beautiful and reminded me a bit of the song at the end of "The Return of the King." Again I spent most of the day, other than a trip out to get lunch, at the CAROA booth. When it came around to closing time I headed for home.

Coming up next "Who was at Convention" and what happened with the things I mentioned as important going into the Convention.

Jon

The Young Adult Fesitval

2006-06-23T01:46:00.000-05:00

The first thing to understand about the Young Adult Festival (YAF) is that one of its primary reasons for existing is and was to provide a way for young adults (people 18-30ish) to be present at General Convention (GC). It also included a wide variety of activities for those who got tired of the endless talking of GC. I spent the majority of my time over at GC, but with around 160 people present for the YAF, including aobut a dozen from ohter provinces of the Communion, there was plenty for the organizers to do.

I first arrived on Monday at around 1:30 pm. I had some trouble finding my hotel so I put my car into public parking while I hiked around to find my hotel, the Doubletree. Once I found my hotel I hiked back towords my car, stopped for lunch, and moved my car over to the hotel parking garage. By the time I had done all this, it was time registration time for the YAF and check into my room. After that I wandered over to the Convention Center to get the lay of the land and to check out the exhibit hall. There were all sorts of people, from art sellers to vestment makers and sellers to groups active in church politics to mission oriented organizations and more, all setting up their booths in the exhibit hall. I'll post on those from whom I picked up brochures in a later post. After visiting the exhibit hall I went back over to the hotel for the orientation reception. After nabbing a bite to eat there I headed over to the Hyatt, one of the other hotels being used for the convention, for a concert put on by a group called Reconciliation, I'll give you three guesses what they're working for in the church. The performer was Fran McKendree. From there I wandered over to a bar called the Frog Bear & Wild Boar for a gathering of young adults. Then I went back to my hotel to sleep.

The next day I got up early with the thought of going to a committee hearing, but by the time I had eaten breakfast and passed out the YAF newsletter the hearings were well underway. Since I didn't feel like sneaking in late I walked past the Eucharist hall, got signed up to do the chalice at that Eucharist, and helped Fr. Gregory of the Order of Julian of Norwich haul boxes in to the Conference of Anglican Religious Orders in the Americas booth. Then it was time to go over to prepare for the Eucharist. Each Eucharist was from one of the approved books (BCP, EOW). I have the bullitens from each service if anyone is interested in seeing them, but the most notable aspect of each service was generally the style of music that accompanied the words of the liturgy. it is also worth noting that at each service at least one reading was in a language other than English, although the Gospel was generally read in English. On Tuesday the music sounded like it was inspired by Sacred Harp style music. A number of the young adults didn't really appreciate the style, but I found it to be generally rather pretty. After Eucharist I listened to the House of Bishops (HoB) start up. After they had gotten up and running I wandered back down to the exhibit hall with Pat Fennig, a college student initially from the Diocese of Indianapolis until we headed out for lunch. After lunch I hung out in the exhibit hall picking up more info from various booths until I realized that it was getting towards 4 pm when the houses would return to legislative sessions. I spent this afternoon session in the House of Deputies (HoD). The most interesting event of this session was the Rt. Rev. John Sentamu Archbishop of York coming to speak and deliver a message from the Archbishop of Canterbury. You can read the message from the Canterbury here. When that legislative session concluded I went up to hear what the deputation from Indy thought about how the day went. One of the primary things they mentioned there was the blog hosted by the diocese. The U2 Eucharist followed the deputation. Bishop Curry of North Carolina preached and the music was all from Bono/U2. It was a long service and rather fun. There were probably about 800 people present for that. It was organized by Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation (EGR) in support of the One Campaign.

The YAF sessions I didn't atted on Tuesday were by a lovely person named Lauren Winner. I heard that she tended to lecture more than people liked in the sessions covering journaling (aka "spiritual writing" according to the YAF schedule) and "Minding the Gap" between young adults and the rest of the Church. In the afternoon there were opportunities to learn more about Anglican Prayer Beads and Lectio Divina. I didn't hear anything about the workshops, but I believe they were very much enjoyed by those who chose to participate in them.

On Wednesday I primarily stuck with YAF activities for the morning. The first session was primarily about discernment (not the process) and the speakers were Sr. Sarah from the Society of Saint Margaret and Br. Eric a first order Fransiscan. After lunch the two of them helped us explore what a rule of life is and how one could start to go about developing one. After these sessions I had the opportunity to do some Yoga or walk something called a "prayer path" which I suspect was something like a labyrinth. Neither particularly appealled to me so I went back over to the Convention, and sat in the House of Bishops for a while. One of the more interesting resolutions they debated dealt with the Millenium Development Goals (MDG's, see the EGR link above for more info on them). At that time they heard from one of the visiting international young adults, who spoke very passionately and well about the MDG's. You can find the YAF newsletter in which it was printed here; it's at the top of the second page. When the HoB moved on to hearing from the head of Forward Movement I wandered down to the exhibit hall and hung out in the CAROA booth making anglican rosaries, praying, and helping distribute their DVD's on the religious life. When it got to be 6 pm I wandered up to the deputations meeting where the Deputies complained about the voting fiasco that had wasted their whole afternoon. We also heard a speech about the Young Adult Service Corp (YASC) from a married couple who are going to be missionaries in the coming year. After the deputation meeting I had the choice of going to a Theology on Tap discussion titled "Everyone has a story, what's your's?", going to a committee hearing on the response to the Windsor Report, or listening to the Program, Budget, & Finance committee (PB&F). I chose to go to the Windsor Report hearing. It was generally respectful, but the speakers where clearly in opposition and didn't seem to have much interest in finding a compromise position.

I missed the Eucharist on Wednesday, but I heard that it was done half in Spanish and that the sermon was entirely in Spanish.

This post is getting long enough so I'll break here and finish talking about the rest of the week later.

Jon

Home Again

2006-06-21T02:32:00.000-05:00

I'm back from General Convention and all caught up on email and the blogs I keep track of. I'll be putting up a number of posts about everything I saw and all the paper I picked up. The short story of how I spent my time is that I sat in the CAROA exhibit booth making Anglican Rosaries and praying for a significant chunk of the time I was there and went to Eucharist and some talks with what remained of my time. I'll post longer commentaries shortly.

Jon

General Convention

2006-06-11T06:26:00.000-05:00

The first meetings of General Convention started yesterday. I'll be heading out tomorrow morning and can hardly wait.

The things most worth keeping an eye on are

1. Title IV revisions. Since Title IV is the disciplinary canons it should be self evident why a proposal to completely re-write them has the potential to make life interesting.

2. Election of the next Presiding Bishop.

3. Election of the next President of the House of Deputies.

4. The response to the Windsor Report. This is the point around which most of the worrying is centering.

5. The budget is always worth keeping an eye on, since it can potentially provide a significant amount of money to more local programs.

You can go to here for views from Northwest Texas, or you can go to Fr. Jake Stops the World for links to all sorts of good information on the convention. You can also go here to view legislation as the convention progresses.

Jon

Elections

2006-05-06T17:01:00.000-05:00

This Saturday has been big for Episcopal elections. The one getting the most media attention has been the vote in the Diocese of California, but I think the vote in the Diocese of Tennessee has turned out to be more interesting. The other two elections are Northern California and Eastern Michigan both of which elected priests from within their diocese although they considered priests from the broader church.

California's election had the potential to have huge consequences for the position of TEC with respect to the rest of the Communion, but the election of Bishop Andrus, previously suffragen of Alabama, removes that worry. Other than the potential to precipitate a blow up, that election was really very well run and pretty boring to watch from the outside. The best person won, and part of being the best was a concideration of what the rest of TEC and the AC is thinking at this time.

The election in TN, on the other hand, went through 36 ballots before giving up. At this point they have to do another search process and hope that someone in the next set of candidates will be acceptable. Part of their trouble is that they require a 2/3rds majority in each order, but I think the division between the clergy and the laity points to something more at work. The two front runners in the third day of balloting are possibly instructive on this point. The Rev. Canon Magness is, so I hear, a moderate who may support the direction TEC moved on blessings at the last GC, while the Rev. Mitchell is a conservative from Texas who opposes the direction TEC has gone. Mitchell is also quite possibly a member of the AAC, since he comes from the Diocese of Dallas while Magness is not. The few news reports I've seen about that situation confirm that there is a strong divide between liberal and moderate Episcopalians on one side, and conservative Episcopalians on the other.

I hate to say anything bad about an organization, but I strongly suspect that the AAC's advocacy has been detrimental to efforts to hold everything together. Part of this is because of the very insulting DVD's they have distributed in which they described TEC as a pagan religion. Part of it is the continuing possibility that they will follow the lead of some of the other "Continuing Anglican" bodies and break with TEC and the a major chunk of the rest of the AC. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for supporting political advocacy within TEC, but there are some directions which go to far and work to break the church down rather than build it up. This last is rather important, St. Paul in his letters was clear about how important it is to work to build up the church, and it looks like much of the work of the AAC as well as that of the more extreme liberal advocates is going against this important teaching.

This, then, is my call to TEC and particularly those of the AAC who remain part of TEC, respect the bonds of our polity. Do not set your position in the position of infallible truth. God being God will ensure that the truth is not destroyed, trust him to do his job. Work with those you disagree with wherever possible, especially on mission priorities like prison ministry, feeding the hungry, and advocating for the poor and oppressed here in the US and abroad. Continue to talk about the disagreement off and on, and try to see the best in those you oppose. Remember, they are your brothers and sisters even if they are terribly mistaken. Strive to understand the disagreement in the clearest and most accurate terms you can find. In the end remember that God is God and everything depends on His grace so you can relax and try not let frustrations get to you. They're quite possibly not as important as they seem, and your role in them may well be less significant than you imagine.

Jon

Ordinary Faith

2006-05-03T11:21:00.000-05:00

I mentioned in my last post the prevalence at Prov V of the hero model for what a Christian is supposed to do, and how one is supposed to live. There are a number of good points about this sort of model. One of the biggest is its strong emphasis on going out and doing great things in various arenas of public life, in fighting the good fight against the forces of darkness. The victories against apartheid in South Africa are prime examples of the good that comes from this view. It is a fairly warlike model, however, especially if it is taken to its most extreme form. One downside is a direct result of the praise given to the heroes. Anyone who, through no fault of their own, is not in a position to do anything particularly extraordinary for any great cause is left standing around when all the cheering for the heroes is done like a foot soldier after the generals have driven past. Each person has played a particular, necessary role in the work of the great men and women, but the lowly foot soldier will probably never get much recognition from anyone.

This brings us back to the question. What does faithful living look like for those who will never be great like Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu?

Like I said in my last post (the one that comes after The Labyrinth), I think some hints can be found in the passages used in the noon devotion for individuals and families from the BCP. "In returning and rest we shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be our strength." As I noted the last time I reflected on this bit of scripture, it comes from a part of Isaiah in which the prophet is castigating Judah for not acting as if they believe that this passage is true. Setting aside Judah’s failings, what sort of daily living does this point to?

The first thought that occurs to me is that what is depicted is a stylized image of the feminine. It isn’t a picture of real women any more than the fleur de lis is a picture of a real lily, it merely shares some characteristics with what has been praised as the feminine ideal. My patchy recollection of Asian philosophy suggests that it is very much in line with the understanding of yin or the non-action of Taoism, but I know to little to say more in that direction. If I was more steeped in Marian devotion I’d probably be thinking of all the ways in which Mary Theotokos shows us how we ought to live as Christians. I’ll save that thought for a future reflection and stick with the generic image for now. Usually obedience and the passionate, nurturing care associated with motherhood are added to the image. The later of these two doesn’t quite seem to fit with returning and rest or quietness and trust, but obedience certainly does, especially with the second pair of attributes. Let’s think about each pair in a bit more depth.

Quietness and Trust

The beginning is a sort of silence. It is not absolute; it doesn’t reach outside of itself to make everything else quiet. It is simply quiet in itself, letting everything that comes in from the rest of the world flow over the silence and either pass away or take root. This is where trust and obedience, at least to God, starts to become evident. It takes trust to let go of the outcome of our actions and remain quiet in our heart. The trust also reinforces the quietness by reassuring us that whatever comes up it won’t destroy the foundations of our life. This trust is naturally trust in God who is found in quietness and stillness rather than fire, thunder, or an earthquake.

We can’t always remain silent, however. There are many circumstances in the world which cry out for correcting. Pain and suffering are all too common companions in the world, especially away among the poor. These things require action and in very real ways that takes us away from quietness and trust.

Returning and Rest

This brings us back around to returning and rest. What are we returning to, and where are we resting? We are returning to rest in the quietness and trust in which we began, and from which we moved to action. This completes the cycle from the quietness and trust in which we are best able to receive the grace God is pouring out to the actions and righteousness called for by the righteousness and holiness of Go and back again to the quietness and trust without which all our striving can easily become a foolish incarnation of the idea of salvation by works.

I think it is probably clear enough what sort of work calls a person from quietness and rest, Scripture is clear about the importance of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and generally taking care of those in need, but what does the state of quietness and trust actually look like in this life?

The first major component is daily prayer. Daily prayer, whatever form it takes, helps center one on God in whom we trust. It also provides a grounding daily routine in the same way that any daily routine can provide stability to what might otherwise be a crazy, hectic series of mostly unconnected days. The prayers, depending on their form, also provide a break from the rush that makes up most of daily life in the US.

The second major component is doing the daily chores that are required to keep one’s home, clothes, and self clean. Like daily prayer this is a part of the daily routine that provides a sense of permanence to the cycles of life. With daily prayer this is the most clearly a living out of quietness. There are two other parts that are important for keeping this from devolving into a shutting out of reality including God as God is.

The third major component is study. Not study for the purpose of getting ahead in one’s career, that’s more like work, but study for personal edification. For me this would be reading the works of theologians, mystics, and other writers influential in the life of the church. For example, I recently read a book on church history by the current Archbishop of Canterbury and I’m currently working my way through a book called the Cloud of Unknowing.

The last major component is presence in the broader world. Mostly this is more or less social. Things like playing FFXI can be a presence in the broader world since very few gamers are devout church-goers, but hanging out to bars and engaging in ones civic duty (aka voting) would also work. Keeping up with the news (local, national, and international) would also be an important way to make sure the rest of the world is present to influence one’s action.

These last two components are the first steps towards action, especially the last component. Action carries one away from the quietness in which one can hear the Lord most easily, and that brings us back to returning and rest, completing the cycle. Action is the final essential component of the whole system, not because it is a part of quietness or the return, but because it is a fulfillment of the grace that flows through the quietness and opens up the possibility of returning to the quiet. Action is also where one’s career is probably best found, otherwise it is likely to either be mind numbingly boring or not seem like work at all which could throw off the balance of the whole.

It strikes me that, in many ways, this may be like a generic monastic life. Looking into Benedict’s Rule would perhaps be an enlightening experience.

In the future I will probably offer a reflection on the Virgin Mary as an exemplar of Christian living, and, after looking into Benedict’s Rule a bit more, a bit of a reflection on that way of living.

Jon

The Labyrinth

2006-04-18T17:40:00.000-05:00

I haven't said much of anything about myself and my private life in my posts here. That has been intentional. My life over the past couple years has not been especially happy, and generally when I have shared a bit of it I have gotten the impression it felt to them like I was fishing for sympathy. I'm only mentioning this at the moment because I think it is important background information for understanding where a reflection on walking the labyrinth came from. If, in reading the background info, you start to feel like pitying me, go away and pray the Kyrie and remember that God's mercy is always present even in the darkest of times. My times aren't even that dark really. My parents are divorced, and it feels to me like the whole family is shattering. While I successfully earned a bachelors degree from Wabash College in 2004, I have been unable to get respectable employment. I have failed to gain approval to go to seminary on the way to being ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church. I have also failed over the past couple years to obtain any internship which could have helped me better see my place within the church. I am currently taking classes at IUPUI to supplement my BA and enable me to pursue a career in pharmacy, primarily because the employment possibilities are good and the compensation is excellent. Taking classes has been another place for little failures, mostly centered around being chronically late to class. On a more personal note, I have never been succsessful at getting a girlfriend. The most common response seems to be something along the lines that I'm too nice for them to want to risk having a romantic relationship come between us.

The Labyrinth

On entering one can only go straight for a short time. Then the turns begin. Every turn is a failure or a sin. There is no other path to follow than the one in front of one's feet, and the turns come all too often. Every turn is another reminder that one is, in many ways, a failure. Eventually, after more failures than I care to count, one comes to the center. This is the point towards which one has been travelling this whole time. This is where one can sit and meditate on the joy of seeing the Lord. After a while, however, the time comes to leave and one takes to the path again. Every turn is a failure or a sin. After more failures than I care to count, one finally reaches the exit. This is not the end, however, but the beginning again. This is life, to struggle and fail and struggle and sin and occasionally to have a brief glimpse of the glory of the Lord.

Throughout the journey every step and every failure has carried us closer to the goal, although it has seldom been possible to see how this could be so when walking the path. This is the mercy of God, He leads and guides those who desire to be with him through all the struggles and all the failures and all the sins. All the darkness of the journey is nothing compared to the joy and light of seeing the Lord, and eventually there will come a time when we no longer have to take up our cross and continue to walk the path in front of our feet. Also, the darkness and failures, as painful as they can be, in no way lessen the reality that God will bring us to himself if we seek him no matter how many turns we find we have taken.

Jon

Prov V

2006-04-18T06:12:00.000-05:00

The annual Prov V gathering for college students held this year at Turkey Run State Park in IN over the weekend including April 1st was great fun. The park has beautiful hiking trails and the weather was cooperative in the early afternoon on Saturday when everyone had free time to go hiking. The speaker for the weekend, Sarah Dylan Breuer (blog here), was delightful. The theme for the weekend was the verse from Micah about doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly before the Lord. Mostly the talking focused on social justice and giants in past struggles for justice such as Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu. All in all a lovely set of meditations on what justice and mercy require of us in broad terms. One piece that particularly stands out as being excellent was the obligatory anti-racism bit. Sadly I can't recall the name of the African American lady who led this part, but I think Collins Asonye, the coordinator for campus ministry for Province V, should have noted her name and parish or campus ministry. Anyway, she didn't restrict concideration simply to race, but pointed out how bound up with economic conditions, history, and discrimination racism is. She did this by beginning the segment by inviting everyone to identify a road that divided their city or town between the "good" area and the "bad" area. From there she had the group describe how one could know one was in a "bad" area of town. Then we did the same for the "good" area of town. After that we explored what things both parts had in common, and how the common systems functioned to maintain the disparity between the two sections in broad terms. The major complaint I heard afterwards was that it mixed racism and economic injustice and perhaps some other difficulties that are closely tied with both those issues. Personally, I am inclined to think that these issues cannot really be separated as neatly as might be desired since they are all tied together and frequently reinforce each other.

There was only one somewhat disturbing note in the weekend. In the discussions of the meditations given to the whole group, the model of Christian living that was more or less exclusively held up is what I would call the heroic virtue model. Archbishop Tutu is one great example of the type of person everyone looks to as an exemplar of this model, since he was hugely important in ending apparteid and is generally a giant in speaking to social justice issues. I found myself wondering, however, where this left the ordinary people who don't have something like apparteid to fight. Heroic virtue seems to be almost beyond their reach, and there doesn't seem to be any other way of living that is praiseworthy. I think there is another way of living, and that an anchor for that sort of life can be found in the snippet of scripture used in the noon devotion for individuals in the BCP. That meditation is thoughts for another time, however.

Jon

The Report of the Special Commision on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

2006-04-09T10:49:00.000-05:00

The report, called "One Baptism, One Hope in God's Call," can be found here. The executive summary which starts the report tracks very closely with both the longer explanations found in the body of the report and the resolutions that follow the report. Since this is true I'll be focusing my overview on the resolutions which will be discussed, potentially amended, and voted on at the coming GC.

Resolution A159: Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion

Summary: Yes, TEC wants to be part of the AC. Really. And to keep track of what the rest of the Communion thinks on our issues we propose making sure they have a voice on the Standing Commissions of General Convention.

Comment: Mom & Apple pie, although the slight international flavor this would add to the Commissions might make for some additional fun in social time. Having the thoughts of the rest of the Communion put before us more clearly would probably also be somewhat helpful.

Resolution A160: Expression of Regret

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church join the House of Bishops March 2005 Covenant Statement in expressing our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking these actions.

Comment: Quoted from the HoB's statement, which itself was drawn almost directly from the WR with a little bit of Dromantine thrown in (I believe that's were the term repentance came from in this case). What is worth note is that, contrary to recent rumors, the Commission didn't suggest that we repent of ordaining and consecrating a partnered gay man. What is being repented of is the failure to consult enough, and the last bit of the previous resolution is part of the attempt to keep that from happening again.

Resolution A161: Election of Bishops

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

Comment: This is the proposed response to the moratorium on new partnered homosexual bishops requested by the WR. The report notes that some members of the commission would have preferred to use refrain from in place of the bolded words above. As it is written in the report, this resolution is an affirmation of the status quo. As Integrity's response to the report notes (found here) considerable caution is always expected of the process of electing and confirming a new bishop. Integrity and Oasis, CA (response found here) are both somewhat mistaken, however, to see this as a simple rejection of the proposed moratorium. While it is not a moratorium per se, in the present circumstances it is a clear suggestion that partnered gay and lesbian priest shouldn't be elected or confirmed. The mention of other major option (refrain from) emphasizes the undesirabilityility of another candidate like Bishop Robinson at this time. It is also clear from the resolution that the reason for this is not because it is a sin to be a partnered gay person, rather it is because a large part of the rest of the AC won't stand for it at the moment.

It is also worth noting that in the explanation of the resolution the ability of a candidate to effectively pastor all the people in his or her diocese was brought up as a situation to which this resolution might apply. This is a pretty direct slam against those who refuse to ordain women, although it may not be read that way at GC or in the near future.

Resolution A162: Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirm the need to maintain a breadth of private responses to situations of individual pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention concur with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the Primates Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorize public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, until some broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention advise those bishops who have authorized public diocesan rites that, because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, they heed the invitation to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization (Windsor Report 144).

Comment: This part has gotten complaints from both Integrity and Oasis, CA so far as well as some of the posters at the other blogs that have commented on the report (ex. in the comments at Fr. Jake Stops the World and Preludium). This looks like a reaffirmation of the current status quo to me. Mostly this doesn't bother me because it looks like it is only talking about putting anything in the Book of Occasional Services or other book of liturgies (note paragraph 53 of the report also the last resolve which talks about public diocesan rites). In this case a Rite of Blessing would be public only if it were provided by the diocese or the national church for general use. At this time, however, most ssb rites are written up (probably from a general outline or from a previous such rite) individually for each couple, which makes them basically private no matter how widely the text is spread. The only exceptions are in those dioceses that have approved a specific rite.

Resolution A163: Pastoral Care and DEPO

Summary: It's really important to take care of everyone in the church and elsewhere, especially minorities and the oppressed. We think DEPO does a good job of trying to do this so make sure you (bishops) make use of it as needed. Disrespecting diocesan borders is not a helpful solution to feeling put upon by ones bishop so don't even think about it you other provinces of the AC.

Comment: This is another bit of Mom & Apple Pie. What could prove interesting is any changes in how DEPO works proposed by GC. There are certainly plenty of conservatives that don't like it, but finding a change that sufficiently respects the authority of diocesan bishops may be difficult.

Resolution A164: Continued Attention to the Millenium Development Goals

Summary: We really like the MDGs and want all the dioceses to speak in favor of them. We think this is a good concrete way to show how important working with the rest of the AC is to us.

Comment: This is more Mom & Apple Pie. It is more or less totally uncontroversial and should sail through GC pretty easily.

Resolution A165: Commitment to Windsor and Listening Processes

Summary: The WR helpful for thinking how we can live together in the AC. Lets think together about what our church (the AC) should look like (this is the newly named Windsor Process). Lets also talk and think together as a Communion on the questions around sexuality (the Listening Process), thanks for helping us do that AC Office. We think To Set Out Hope on Christ will help in the Listening Process, and so will the example of the Anglican women who talked to the UN recently. We think our report will help in both the processes, too.

Comment: There's not much interesting here. It points out to everyone that the WR and the Dromantine statement aren't the end of the discussion and commits us to stay involved with the rest of the AC, but that's about it.

Resolution A166: Anglican Covenant Development Process

Summary: Let's get in on the ground floor of writing the suggested Anglican Covenant and make sure it's tolerable for us.

Comment: This resolution doesn't bother me at all. It does worry some people, however. I think paragraphs 67-77 in the report are helpful in thinking about what the covenant might look like. In particular in three types of covenants seem to have been proposed and are on the table for discussion. They are the canonical/structural type, the confessional/doctrinal type, and the missional/relational type. The WR focused more on the first, while the Primates focused on the second, and the ACC focused on the third. All this means that nothing has been decided on the matter yet and things could get interesting around this topic in 2009 at the 76th GC assuming TEC is still in the AC at that time.

Resolution A167: "Full and Equal Claim" for all the Baptized

Summary: Like we've been saying since 1976, gay and lesbian people are just as much a part of the church as anyone else, so treat them appropriately.

Comment: It speaks for itself very well. It cites GC's back to 1976.

Resolution A168: Human Rights for "Homosexual Persons"

Summary: Like we've been saying since 1976, gay and lesbian people have rights, and everyone in the AC needs to respect those rights.

Comment: This one also speaks for itself very well. I note that this resolution cites Lambeth Conferences back into the 70's as well as the WR. It could easily be taken as criticism of the statements made by some opponents of ssb's and the ordination of gay and lesbian people such as Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria.

Resolution A169: Amend Canon III.1: Quadrilateral and Exercise of Ministry

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That Canon III.1 be hereby amended by adding the following section:

Sec. 3. No person shall be denied access to any discernment process under these canons or to the exercise of any ministry in this Church on account of theological opinions consistent with (a) the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith, (b) the Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, (c) the two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself (Baptism and the Supper of the Lord) ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and the elements ordained by Him, and (d) the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

Comment: This is the only proposed canonical revision, and, if adopted, would come right after the canon prohibiting discrimination against women and gay and lesbian people. Its proposed placement and focus on theological opinion suggest that it is intended to be a defense for conservatives in TEC. It would certainly function that way. It would also provide protection to liberals in conservative dioceses. To some extent this balances out the blow to anti-WO people that was delivered in resolution A161, but it doesn't guarantee that no objections would be raised. I am inclined to think that this is a reasonably good resolution no matter what trouble it could cause around the non-issue of WO because it could help some conservative parishes feel that they will be able to get the support they need from within TEC rather than having to look overseas.

Over all I think the report is a pretty hopeful sign; it will be interesting to see where these resolutions go at GC this summer.

Jon

The Current Anglican Controversy

2006-03-17T07:00:00.000-06:00

Currently the topic most likely to get a group of Anglicans angry at you is what to do about glbt people. More specifically, taking a stand on whether same-sex couples can have their relationship blessed and on whether a person in such a relationship can be ordained a priest or consecrated as a bishop is very likely to either get you cheered on or viciously attacked depending on the views of the group you are talking to. I suspect that how the Communion responds to this issue will not be as significant in the long run as what the Communion does about theological education and/or what TEC, and especially the parishes and dioceses in TEC, do about evangilism, stewardship, and service to the broader community, but it is a popular issue to distract from those more important issues. Still, this question of morality isn't unimportant, and one of the better ways of removing a distracting question is to find an answer to the question.

Since it is essentially a theological question, I will be approaching it as I currently prefer to approach theological questions and see what sense simple principles drawn from scripture and tradition can make of the problem. I think the simple scriptural principles that will be helpful in this case are clear enough to not require exigesis to show how they come from scripture.

Everyone human being has a sexuality. Traditionally, there are two ways to express this sexuality. A person either gets married or chooses to be celibate. Living out either of these options has traditionally been understood to be sustained by God's grace. Traditionally, marriage has been a one man/one woman thing (sorta, kinda, as long as you ignore polygamy and those who claim that scholarship proves same-sex unions of some sort where once thought to be fine. I'm not familiar with the scholarship on that last bit and so I will be ignoring it for now.) Clearly this suggests that homosexuals ought to remain celibate their whole life, at least given the current understanding that marriage is in large part about living out romantic love. Assuming that grace makes a noticable difference in how a person lives out her/his life, this leads one quickly to the rather empirical question, "Have all homosexual people been granted the grace that sustains the celibacy?" I don't have any stories I can tell from my own experience, but, in listening around to others talk, I get the strong impression that not all homosexual people have been given that grace. Certainly I have heard a story or two that sounded like they said that a celibate gay man went and committed suicide because they found the celibate life style intolerable. This gives me pause because it suggests that God's grace isn't enough for everyone. This conclusion is an explicit denial of what is probably the only scriptural principle in this ramble; God's grace is always enough to deal with the tasks of the day. If these stories are true, and the problem was that the person who gave up hope gave up because s/he had not been given the grace to be celibate, then the church has clearly missed something very important. My guess is that the hole left by the absent grace in these cirmcumstances is a hole shaped alot like the grace that goes along with the lifelong partnership of marriage. In other words, we (or the church) have been rejecting a part of the grace God is trying to provide to bring us to Him.

Jon

Anglican Communion News

2006-03-10T19:51:00.000-06:00

It's been quite some time since I last posted anything about whats going on in the AC, and a number of things have been making waves. Looking back the last time I posted anything substantial seems to be last October.

One of the news bits I've heard no real response to came to my attention via the Episcopal News Service (ENS) (See the diocesan digest from March 2nd of this year). Apparently, the Church of the Advent in Westlake, Ohio has entered into a DEPO agreement with their bishop, Mark Hollingsworth. They will be receiving care from Bishop Edward S. Little II of Northern Indiana. This makes them the first conservative parish I have heard of to actually enter into a DEPO agreement. Hopefully everything will go well for them. If it does, it would be a blow to the argument the AAC has made that DEPO is no where near enough. (see this old AAC press release for example).

In other news, the Church of Nigeria (CoN) has spoken in favor of legislation making any and all gay organizations illegal in Nigeria as well as prohibiting gay marriage. The second part of this is not really much of a surprise, but the news has been greeted with outrage by a bunch of more liberal people in the US. (see Preludium for example). More recent info can be found in a Thinking Anglicans post (here) from yesterday. The ABC may have commented that the situation in Nigeria is complicated, but I have not found any citation of him saying that about this particular law. Personally I am inclined to view the position taken by the CoN as being unhelpful to the broader church's situation and, insofar as the law eliminates freedom of assembly for gay people, it is an endorsement of a very unethical stance. It is unhelpful for the broader church for very nearly the same reason the confirmation of Bishop Robinson has been said to be problematic; it makes having the conversation almost impossibly difficult when one party disrespects the rest of the people in the conversation to the point where only the one's opinion is an accepted outcome.

One of the other things that has been making a splash recently is that the Diocese of California (in TEC) has two candidates for bishop who happen to be homosexual. Mostly this is running on the fear on the part of conservatives that another parterned gay bishop might be elected and confirmed and that this would then result in the AC falling apart. This is mostly a fight over nothing at this point. There are five candidates in the running at this time and nominations from "the floor" have not been closed yet, although they will be closed before the electing convention gathers. This is not to say that things wouldn't get interesting if one of those two candidates are elected, but it is silly to stress out over what one cannot control.

One final thing that has been roiling the blogosphere is the realization by some that some of the Network leaders are definitely not intending to leave TEC (almost) no matter what General Convention does. One place you can see this unfolding is over at All2Common. You have to scroll down a bit to find his posts on the topic. His primary response has been to call for Anglo-Catholics to swim the Tiber.

The final bit of news to come in has been the ABC's vision for the next Lambeth Conference. The AAC is trumpeting part of it as a sign that TEC must renounce its current path or be removed from the AC. You can find the AAC release here, and the ABC's actual statement is appended to the Anglican Communion News Service release here. Reading over the statement, I suspect the AAC has overstated their case. It is certainly true that the ABC says that he does not plan to revisit Lambeth 98.1.10 at this conference. It is also true, however, that in the very next sentences the ABC points out that the ACC has finally put together a process to bring together reflections on the topic from provinces around the Communion and that the results up to 2008 will need to be heard by the gathered bishops. This is not a victory for the opponents of gay priests and bishops or same-sex blessings. Nor is it a final victory for those in favor of those things. I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that the ABC is essentially saying that the Communion is still in the middle of the debate, rather than saying the debate is closed.

I think that's all there is to really say at this point about the events and opinions roiling the AC at this time.

Jon

More FFXI pics

2006-03-10T16:55:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I posted much of anything about FFXI, so here's some pics of my new character.

Me as a THF

Should we be worrying about how hollow the world is?

Weeeeee! I'm riding a ball of light!

(It's kinda dark, but that is me over the ball of light.)

I took this while getting plvled by my brother.

Just about to head into Yuhtunga Jungle to level.

The guys have all gotten lined up from shortest to tallest.

Think they'd be crushed to find out I'm a guy?

Jon

Exigesis of the term "Law"

2006-03-03T11:41:00.000-06:00

There are a few things to keep in mind about the following definitions of Law. First, this applies mostly to its use in Scripture. It is also important to keep these definitions in mind when reading theological works, since scripture is a major foundation of theology. Second, all definitions should be assumed to apply initially, although definitions may be eliminated from consideration if the definition doesn't make sense for how Law is used in the text. Third, and this is very important to note, there are levels of meaning that may be present in a text from a very literal level through more metaphorical levels to taking the text as an allegory. Definitions from one level do not apply to any other level, although the meanings gleaned from the text at each level do need to be held together and made sense of.

Now on to the definitions.

Law:

1) The several hundred injunctions claimed to be given by Moses. Examples include the law against eating shellfish and the requirement of circumcision. They are found only in the Old Testament. This is one of the literal level definitions.

2) Any injunction found in scripture in either the New or Old Testament. This includes the laws mentioned previously and adds to them things like Paul's injunctions to live moral lives. This level is where the distinction between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law comes into play from time to time. This is also a literal level definition, although it is slightly less literal than definition 1.

3) The first five books of the bible, commonly called the Torah in Hebrew. This includes all the stories in Genesis and Exodus as well as the laws and history recorded in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. In doing this it includes a number of items not included in the injunction model of Law, such as the story of the Flood and the stories of Creation. This is on the historical/cultural level and is most important to keep in mind when using textual or literary criticism to understand the bible.

4) The whole of the Old Testament. This understanding is strongly based in the metaphorical level of interpretation. Specifically, it is taking a part as a metaphor for the whole.

The metaphorical level is as close to allegory as I am comfortable going, and even at that level the weaknesses present in both metaphorical understanding and allegorical understanding start to become clear. The closer one moves towards allegory, the less clearly the definition fits with the text.

Anyone have thoughts on other definitions that should be included?

Jon

The Process

2006-02-23T06:54:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking a bit more about the priesthood, and especially about the process by which one becomes a priest. It is a long and complicated process, and it is very easy for the person seeking ordination to get blocked. Some and perhaps even a majority believe the process to be flawed in all sorts of ways, from complaints that it takes to long to complaints that it looks more for people who are well liked by influential people in the church. I have heard similar complaints about the life of a priest. Parishes can be horrible to their rector, pilling up unreasonable demands and having hidden agendas they expect the priest to fulfill. Further, when the priest fails to be perfect, some parishes will triangulate around the rector and spread nasty rumors about him or her. It is also true that some parishes are a delight to work in, and some almost worship the ground the rector walks on. This latter situation, the hero worship, may seem delightful at first, but it can result in as much damage to the rector and parish as the backbiting and backstabbing that can go on.

Granted that the process is flawed and the work is filled with painful experiences as well as the potential for great blessing, how should I, or anyone else for that matter, approach the ordination process?

The first thing to do is obvious. I need to go in with my eyes open, and recognize the potential pain and blessings exists in both the process and the work that follows ordination. It may not make it easier to live with, but at least I that way I won't be surprised.

What else? As I said a couple posts ago being a priest means living in the context of a community. How does this influence the matter before me? Being in community takes a lot of hard work. It requires a great deal of respect from and for the people involved. No one involved gets to say "to hell with that person" or to strive to marginalize anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is especially true of all those who intentionally choose to be defined in part by the community. Careful listening is required and so is a quick mind, to see where things are heading. Coming into the community with an agenda set without reference to the community is problematic, and the agenda will most likely either fail or twist the congregation painfully, maybe even to the point of breaking the community. For someone leading the community the quick mind and careful listening are even more important. Ditto for respect. The people who just find their way in may very well have issues they've never resolved, agendas they want to see enacted, and could very easily decide that they despise someone else in the community. A leader in the community doesn't have as much freedom in a way, they are bound to and by the community by the fact of their type of service, and leading is definitely a type of serving when it is really done for the benefit of the community. A leader also has to deal with the negativity that comes in, helping the community respond in a healthy way and maybe even helping to bring healing to the person or people at the heart of the negativity. In the case of a priest, who comes into a community as a leader rather than being raised up in that community, it is also important to employ the listening, respect, and wit to see where the community is headed, including any unresolved issues festering below the surface, where the community is called to go, and how to get the whole group headed in the direction to which they're called. This calling, like the calling of an individual, isn't exactly the same as where the community wants to go, although the two are very closely related. One of the primary differences is that call takes what is possible and what is needed into consideration. Another difference is that following a call may be less than happy some of the time. Undergirding the whole mess there needs to be a lot of love, without love there won't be enough staying power for tough times, and a leader will most likely get totally drained and burned out trying to deal with all the problems that come up.

Of course underlying this burden of responsibility is the hard truth that no matter how hard a person tries they will inevitably fail part of the time. They may even fail when trying to deal with something of great importance in or to the community. It's kinda sad, but there are only two things to do about it. First, learn to live with the reality of failure. Second, develop good support structures. God and prayer are helpful, but a spiritual director or some other friend outside the immediate community is more helpful when it comes to giving direct advice and feedback.

I seem to have wandered away from the question a bit. I think the proper attitude to take in addition to be aware, is one of deep respect for the community, recognizing that the community gets to decide who will be called, and assuming that, whatever is decided, the community's choice needs to be lived with and thought over regardless of whether it is the desired answer or not.

Jon

Continuing a Conversation

2006-02-23T03:30:00.000-06:00

I recently got into a bit of a debate over at All Too Common, a pretty conservative blog. You can see the post that started it with the comments here (scroll up to see the post itself). I'm making this response here because it is rather long and I figured it would be impolite to fill up the space he has with long responses. So without further ado, lets plunge in.

Sorry, Andy, apparently I wasn't clear when I talked about making distinctions between the types of the law. What I meant was that making this distinction when looking at the law makes sense to us now, not that it makes sense to believe that the Fathers were making this distinction.

Can we obey the Moral Law? Not without the assistance of grace. On the other hand adding grace makes the mix more complicated. I'm not familiar enough with Luther's work to say with certainty how good he thought we could be with grace's help, but in saying we cannot obey the law he may have been talking about what we can do on our own. The Fathers, on the other hand, were clearly talking about what we can do with the help of grace. If the Fathers and Luther were addressing different questions, and they would be if Luther was talking about what we can do without grace, then they may well have agreed on what we can do with the help of grace.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that Origen was talking about Law vs. Grace, given that he uses the phrase "works of the law" rather than "man's works apart from God"? "Man's works apart from God" has three parts (more or less), sins, things indifferent, and works of the law. Of the three no one has ever claimed that sins or things indifferent can earn a person salvation. However, emphasizing works of the law to the exclusion of grace (in the most extreme forms of this position) has had its proponents from time to time; the Pelagians are an example perhaps. No one wastes words warning people to avoid something no one wants to do, so the works of the law is the only set of actions people need to be warned against relying on.

Did Luther see a huge divide between the two Covenants with one being Law and the other Grace? I doubt that he did, at least that is not entirely consistent with his placing the New Covenant Moral Law in the same category as the Old Covenant. It is consistent with seeing a divide between Law in both Covenants and Grace (which can also be found expressed in both Covenants, albeit in different ways). A more interesting question is whether the Fathers see the New Covenant Law as replacing the Old. My initial instinct is to say that they don't, not least because they see the two Covenants as forming a continuous whole. If one part replaces another it isn't quite right to view the two pieces as being continuous in anything other than a historical sense (ie the one came from the other). On the there hand, there is clearly a change in the way the law is understood in the New Covenant, Galatians 3 is a prime example of this. My sense of the texts, based in part on my understanding of what the word "Law" means in scripture*, is that with the coming of Christ, and especially with the Passion and Resurrection, the meaning whole of the Law suddenly became clear. I think the clearest way to say it is that the whole Law was radically relativized by Christ and (hopefully this makes sense) relativized to Christ. I'll try it another way Christ is the meaning of the Law which we can only understand clearly after Christ became incarnate, so understanding the Law requires understanding Christ and any understanding of the Law that does not lead one straight to Christ is a false understanding. In this case Law is all the Law (ceremonial, covenantal, and moral) that is found in both testaments. One result is that reading the Old Covenant Law, even the ceremonial parts, can be very deeply formative and informative provided we keep the point (Christ) in mind and relate the laws either to Him directly or to laws that the one studying has related to Him.

Where does this leave the Moral Law? First, it should be clear that it is in no way abolished. It does not remain in its same position, however. This brings us round to justification (and Galatians 3 conveniently), since that is a major (the primary?) purpose of Christ's incarnation. Paul is clear in Galatians 3:24 that we are justified by faith. He doesn't say faith and works of the law or faith and actions; he just says that we are justified by faith. Is this the same thing as Sola Fide? It depends on what Sola Fide means. It does suggest, however, that the law does not come before justification, especially since Paul has just finished telling Galatians how foolish it is to carefully obey the law. When Paul says "the law", does he mean only the Old Covenant or does he include the Moral Law found in the New Testament? Paul does not make that distinction, so we ought to be very hesitant to read that distinction into the text. This is, in fact, consistent with what the CCC teaches. It says that "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us . . ." (CCC, 1996). From this it is clear that the Moral Law is uninvolved in the initial justification. Does this mean the Moral Law is unimportant? Certainly not, Paul is clear elsewhere that being justified is no excuse for continuing to sin. The easy way to hold these two pieces together is to assume that justification leads one to follow the Moral Law rather than the other way round. This is also consistent with the CCC, since the CCC says that "On man's part it [justification] is expressed . . . in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (CCC, 1993).

Where does this leave us? It appears that we are justified by faith without any reference to obedience to any law, even the Moral Law, and once we are justified we strive to follow the Moral Law since it points us to Christ. This means that Luther's expression of Sola Fide is correct and agrees with the Fathers, at least to the extent that both teach that we are justified by faith alone and that striving to do good is part of the response to justification.

Jon

*I'll post a longer response on the meanings the term "Law" has in exegesis later. I'm a little busy at the moment, and would like to give it a little more thought before I post it.

Role of the Community in Priesthood

2006-01-28T19:40:00.000-06:00

A topic came around in Maddies, the online "pub" I hang out in, and it got me thinking about to what extent a person can be a priest without being in a community as a priest.

My initial response, which I didn't voice in the pub mostly because I wanted to think it over more, was that a priest without a community isn't really a priest. It seems to me that there is some justification of this view. First, a priest is a servant of the ecclesia (an assembly) which, by definition, has to include more people than the priest. Second, one of the major roles of a priest is to "do" the sacraments and they all require the presence of others in order to be effected.

This focus on the functionality of being a priest seems to deny, however, that there is any ontological change involved in becoming a priest, which is not consistent with what the church teaches. This contradiction to my initial response is why I have been puzzling over the question for a while. I think the answer to the difficulty lies in how we understand the nature of the world around us. I don't think I've blogged about it before, but looking around it looks to me like there is a gap between perception and reality. This gap is what enables pollsters among others to "spin" the news, what is perceived is not limited to what has really happened, although the facts of the matter do place some limits on the extent and direction in which a set of circumstances can be spun.

Turning to priesthood now, let me suggest that in ordination God acts to form the core reality of a person in such a way as to help them point to Him/Her/It more effectively, partially by adjusting the way they are perceived by others, but also by the (rejectible) grace of knowing that God is acting through them all the time, both in ways they can recognize and in ways they may only see long after the fact. In other words, being ordained permanently changes the person by making them a publicly identified conduit for God's grace. This ties in with the functionality of being a priest, but also ties in the deep and abiding change that really occurs. This also makes sense of how a priest can stop functioning as a priest whenever one is deposed. The deposition changes how they are perceived in the same way that the immorality that probably preceded the deposition changed the way the injured one perceived the priest, but it doesn't change the reality that the deposed priest is still a priest and may, under very restricted terms, function as a priest. This is also why no re-ordination is required when a deposition is removed or lifted or whatever.

Of course all of this talk about the nature of priesthood is going on while most priests have day jobs which only occasionally require them to act as priests (even for those who work in the church).

Looking around the AC things are still as messy as they have been since the Windsor Report came out. The newest news entering into this situation is that Nigeria is moving to outlaw homosexuality and prevent homosexuals from gathering or speaking in their own defence. Sadly, in spite of the repeated calls by Lambeth Conferences, the Church of Nigeria is an outspoken proponent of these new laws.

Also the Epicopal Church's General Convention is coming up pretty soon. Four candidates for the PB's job have been announced, check ENS for more info there, and there has been still more debate about what to do about the Windsor Report, although no report has come from the committee assigned to provide information about what might reasonably be done.

Jon

ubi caritas deus ibi est

The Incarnation and the Problem of Evil

2005-12-16T18:23:00.000-06:00

I got involved in a bit of a debate about ID here, hopefully the link works. As the conversation progressed we worked our way around to the Problem of Evil, and I got to thinking about what the Incarnation has to say about the problem of evil. Towards the end of the discussion I promised to put my thoughts out for others to see here on my blog. Sadly, the topic is to big to do justice to in such a short time, so my thoughts are really just a beginning of a reflection on the question rather than any sort of final answer. I do hope, however, to be able to suggest some places to look for further, more developed thoughts that reflect on the issue.

To summarize, I believe the gospels, Paul's letters, and the other parts of Scripture that speak to the question show God responding to evil simply by being with those who suffer. The Incarnation does not deny evil or get rid of it, but it does break the power evil and suffering have over people somehow.

This summary requires some proving from the text, though. So, first I should clarify how I will be approaching the texts I reference. While some portions of Scripture are clear, others are much less so. With this in mind, the passages will be considered primarily on three levels. First, each passage shall be examined on its own. Second, each passage will be considered with respect to its position both in the rest of the book it is found in and in the rest of Scripture. Third, the passage shall be considered with respect to when and for whom it was written. A fourth level that may be examined focuses upon particular words that point to multiple different things at once. This fourth level is less immediately useful than the first three and frequently none of the words in a given passage can be readily expected to have the sort of multiple meanings required for usefulness on this allegorical/metaphorical level of analysis.

Since this is merely a first glance over the subject I will only be considering two passages reflective of the two different areas of theology. A more complete examination would certainly need to look at more passages and also look to see what various traditions have made of them. The first, which is reflective of the concerns of liberation theology, is Luke 5:12-13. The second, which is reflective of deeper thought in christology, is John 1:14 taken with Galatians 3:13.

Luke 5:12-13
"12While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, 'Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.' 13Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' he said. 'Be clean!' And immediately the leprosy left him."

The first level reading of this passage is clear and simple. Jesus runs into a leper, the leper asks to be healed, and Jesus fulfills the request. The second level reading gets somewhat more complicated. First it is important to note that touching a person who had leprosy made the toucher unclean according to the Law and touching lepers was therefore forbidden (cf Leviticus 22:4-7). Therefore, in Luke 5:12-13 Jesus is specifically violating a prohibition while healing the leper. This is more often taken as a comment on Jesus power and authority, but it also emphasizes the connection Jesus made with those who suffer. Moving to the third level, we come back to the prohibition against touching the unclean, such as lepers. As a rule lepers wandered around outside of towns to keep away from others and had to warn anyone they saw that they had leprosy. As I noted on the previous level, Jesus ignores this rule and, in touching the leper, makes the leper clean and brings him back into the society.

On both the second and third levels of examination we see reaffirmed the importance of the fact that Jesus touched the leper who previously was separated from everyone by gaping divides that only healing could remove. In short, Jesus healed by standing or joining with the one who was suffering.

As I said this is reflective of the concerns of liberation theology. If you google for liberation theology you can probably find more information on Jesus standing with the poor and suffering. If you want a specific written text try looking up James H. Cone's God of the Oppressed.

John 1:1,14
"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Galatians 3:13
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' "

The first passage is one of the few clear passages in Scripture. It simply says that God became a human being and has stood with us. This is clearly the meaning of the text at all levels of reading. Incidentally, this is the passage that establishes the importance of "word" for reading at the fourth level.

Turning to Galatians, the first level reading is somewhat clear. Jesus saves us by taking our place somehow and standing where we all stand according to the law. Turning to the second level of reading it is good to note that the passage from the Law that Paul refers to is Deuteronomy 21:23. This reaffirms the surface reading and suggests that Jesus could be said to be burning in Hell. The third reading level brings us to a consideration of soteriology (the area of theology that focus on saying how it is that we are saved). In particular it lends support to the Eastern Orthodox teaching that salvation comes from the assumption of human nature into the divine nature. It then extends this region of salvation to the depths of Hell as well as all of human experience on earth.

Taking these passages from John and Galatians together it appears that God's answer to the evil of earth and Hell is to stand with us in both places.

This second set of passages reflects thinking in christology and soteriology. You may be able to find more information by googling, but better information can probably be found in books focused on how Christ saves humanity. One such work that may prove interesting on the topic is Hans Urs von Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter.

Taking both these strands of theology together it appears that my initial summary of what the Incarnation says about the Problem of Evil. God does not simply prevent it from happening, God takes it in his arms, destroys its power, and makes the whole world seem to shine in spite of all the evils one can still see in the world.

Hopefully the reader has found this little bit of reflection interesting, or even enlightening, if God has granted that grace.

Now, may we go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

Jon

Some FFXI pics

2005-11-12T14:58:00.000-06:00

Sunset in Valkurm Dunes

Moon set on an Airship

Sunrise on an Airship

Darn, almost been a month again

2005-11-09T05:56:00.000-06:00

I don't really have much time at the moment, but I would like to comment briefly on some topics I've been thinking about.

The first is the nature of evil and God's sovereignty. My thought has been that evil is essentially a matter of choice, although I'm not entirely sure how I mean that, and that the proper response to it is to look to God and live, as best one can, in accordance with God's will. This is not, mind you, God's will as defined by people like Jerry Falwell. I think the prophet Micah provides one good summary, which is that we know what the Lord desires of us and that that is to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before the LORD God. Jesus' summary of the Law is another good summary (no surprise there) although it doesn't emphasize, as Micah does, the fact that we actually know what God desires.

The second topic is really more of a question at this point. I am wondering what is really meant when Isaiah says that quietness and trust will be our strength and that in returning and rest we shall be saved. The exact passage is quoted in the BCP in the noon devotion provided for individual use.

I really can't stay to comment further, but I really do mean to come back to these topics, especially the second.

In the Anglican Communion (how could I not follow my tradition of mentioning how things are going in the AC) things are tense. It is possible that at least a couple provinces in the Global South will walk out, and it is also possible that TEC will say to heck with y'all, we're going to do things our way. Still, I remain hopeful that a way forward as a communion will become evident.

Jon

Well, It's been a month

2005-10-13T15:03:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a month and a great deal of nothing much has happened. As Mark Harris at Preludium has said, most everyone seems to be waiting for the next big meeting to happen. Just about the only thing of note is that one of the break away churches in L. A. won a case asserting that the bishop had infringed their freedom of speech (the case is being appealed, I believe), and the Connecticut six are apparently trying the same tactic. Perhaps it is ungenerous of me, but I hope that the Connecticut six fail in their case and that the ruling in L. A. gets overturned. The reason I hope this is that the church needs to be able to enforce some level of discipline even on controversial issues, although in a controversy charity is also very very important.

I've also had a lovely little debate with a priest in the Diocese of Ft. Worth about women's ordination. While I figure I left quite a few loose ends, I'm still a little proud of myself over the debate. You can read it in the comments on someone else's blog starting here.

Lastly, it's been a while since I mentioned FFXI, so here are a couple pictures I've collected, with some subtitles.

"My, what a big sword you have, Granny."

"What a cute doll that Galka has!"

"Oh look, it's a game of follow the leader! I wonder where they're going."

Hope you enjoy the pictures; I'll put more up later.

Jon

OOF

2005-09-16T20:55:00.000-05:00

Well, my life has been rather crazy these past 2 weeks+. There's been to much to do and barely enough time to do it in. Hopefully things will get a little bit better over the next couple weeks.

The biggest headline recently has been huricane Katrina and I'm sure you can find plenty on that without my help. I will only say this, I've heard really good things about Episcopal Relief and Development (there website is http://www.er-d.org/) including that most if not all money sent to them goes straight to those in need.

There has been a little news in the Anglican Communion. The Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil (the Anglican church in Brazil) has been disinvited to the upcoming South/South Encounter. This is more than slightly odd as they, or at least their primate were founding members of the Encounter (story here). More recently the Province of Nigeria has edited its constitution to remove being in communion with the Archbishop of Canturbury as necessary for being Anglican (press release here).

Going along with the news about the South/South Encounter, there are rumors flying that the bishops gathered for the Encounter will break communion with Canturbury and set up Archbishop Akinola as the new first among equals for an Anglican Communion that excludes the US, Canada, Scotland, and England. There may be others they would exclude, probably including the Anglican church in Brazil. Going along with these rumors has been a bit of a debate about whether or not the ABC should attend the Encounter. Some think he shouldn't, some think he should, and everyone in the debate has been assuming that the rumors are essentially true. Personally, I have no idea which answer would be best in the long run and trust the ABC's judgement in the matter.

All this fighting, fingerpointing, and rumor of schism (darn almost had an alliterative trio, anyone have thoughts on what I could have said to make it alliteration?) has been leading me to think more about the Church and the ecumenical movement. There is a great deal I don't know about the ecumenical movement, but it seems to me that the long term goal should be to bring all the various denominations together such that it can be accurately said that there is only one Church. I think this might be called organic unity, I figure it might also be called one structure of church governance. I believe that the greater focus at the moment is on working towards doctrinal agreement, but it seems to me that work on melding the governing authorities would probably pay the most dividends. It would certainly be hard work and could easily take decades if not centuries, but once that sort of unity was achieved the church would be able to hold truly ecumenical councils again, and, with the help of lots of charity, that would enable the church to be truly definative about what the Church believes. Course everyone would also have to remember that the only way to tell if a councel is authoritative is to wait at least a hundred years and then see if everyone agrees with it.

Lord I pray for your church in this world, that it may become one for everyone to see.

Jon

Patriarchy continued

2005-08-29T06:02:00.000-05:00

Well I said I'd comment further and its been a week, so I'd better keep my promise now.

If you look at the gospel reading for that Sunday, you will notice that it is the one where Jesus asks, "Who do you say that I am?" As part of the sermon the preacher repeated the question for us to answer for ourselves. For me the answer is an echo of the apostle Thomas, he is my Lord and my God. "But," I asked myself, "what do I mean by Lord." This is where my thoughts first turned to Patriarchy, since both the term and the time in which it was written were very strongly shaped by the patriarchal world-view.

Briefly, the patriarchal world-view says something along the lines that men are inherently superior to women and should rule them and the man's families absolutely. Naturally this is painting in overly large brush strokes, I doubt there are many times and places in which this view was truly followed, although there have probably been many close variations on this theme. Let us return to the term "Lord." I believe that a Lord, especially someone like Caesar, was to be obeyed absolutely. This is certainly what I believe to be true of the faithfull's relationship with God, although the relationship is more like the one between a father and son in an aristocratic family. Still the family angle just adds the understanding that God cares very much for us without removing the importance of striving for obedience.

In other news, Bullfighting has payed Vana'diel a visit. It's really great fun to bounce off the Toros until it warps you away.

In Anglican news, charges have been brought against the Bishop of Connecticut because of his actions against one of the Connecticut 6. If he has truly violated the canons it will be good to deal with his error, but it looks like the trial will be very messy. It might even be made worse if there is a rush to finish with the case before next General Convention.

A little joke on myself

2005-08-22T02:41:00.000-05:00

Whether the taint of Patriarchy ought to be removed from the world?

Objection 1: As was proven in a previous question, Patriarchy is a very serious error and as all the wise know one bad apple ruins the whole bushel (as argued here for example), therefore this error must be entirely removed.

Objection 2: Further this error has been so prevalent that even the hint of its presence would cause the weak to stumble, which is expressly forbidden in the Apostle's teaching as found in the Letter to the Romans.

On the contrary, as the Apostle says elsewhere in Romans "We know that all things work together for good for those who love God."

I answer that, while Patriarchy is a very serious error, God's working in every age still shines through the words of those entrapped by this error. Therefore, while the error of Patriarchy must always be opposed, writings tainted by Patriarchy, even those so thoroughly tainted as to be beyond purification without the destruction of the texts, should be mined by those who would see the God who is for the hidden gems of wisdom they contain. Especially since some wisdom can only been seen by taking on the assumptions of Patriarchy.

Reply to Objection 1: As the Apostles have taught all fall short of the glory of God. One thing this indicates is that no one can entirely avoid corruption by ones own power. God, on the other hand can forgive one for errors committed and assist in the return to the proper path. In short, God's grace is already required to avoid the spoiling of the bushel and God's grace is always sufficient for the faithful, even if the dangers besetting the apples are multiplied.

Reply to Objection 2: While those who are weak must be protected, they must also be assisted to grow strong. A part of this required growth for a Christian is the confrontation of errors such as Patriarchy with the support of those who are already strong enough to deal with the error on their own. Thus a balance is maintained between protection and growth in faith, and for this reason many errors are to be tolerated to a limited extent.

I hope you found this interesting and a little amusing. If you missed the joke follow the link in Objection 1 and look at the formatting and the title at the top of the page. Sometime over the next couple days I'll talk about why I wrote this little joke on myself.

Jon

2005-08-10T13:29:00.000-05:00

Well I just got done devouring two books by Anne McCaffrey. Seems like I haven't been doing enough light reading, since earlier I had been unable to really get into another book I've been reading. The other book is about the priesthood, so it's a much heavier read than McCaffrey's fiction.

I've also been thinking a bit more about that cross I described. To sum up those nebulous thoughts, the image of the cross I would prefer to see is something like the image described in the Old English poem called The Dream of the Rood (spelling?). I've only read it in translation, but it also presented an interesting image of the cross, and I suppose the image I described was a sort of feeble attempt to capture the same sort of feeling about the cross.

I have also been thinking more about the Anglican Communion and our present difficulties. A question I keep coming back to is "what is the root of this crisis?" Some, I suspect, would say that the problem is that TEC has failed to discipline the heretics, like Bishops Spong and Pike, who deny things like the physical Resurrection. Others claim that the problem is with those who refuse to keep up with modern thought on important things like homosexuality. There is probably some justification to both these positions, but I'm not sure that either really gets to the root of the problem. Perhaps I don't understand the situation adequately, but it seems to me that the root of the problem is most likely a failing in respect and trust. Dissidents refuse to respect the authority of institutions like the office of bishop diocesan, and don't trust that those who disagree with them are genuinely trying to live lives faithful to Jesus Christ. This leads us to the question of how to address this problem if it is actually the root of this current crisis. Unfortunately I don't have any idea how to answer that question; I simply trust that with God's help the bright people in the church can find an answer as long as they put their trust in God.

That was a long silence

2005-08-08T11:40:00.000-05:00

I guess only updating when there is news wasn't such a good idea. It's been almost 3 months and there still isn't any real news.

In the Anglican Communion there's been a lot more sound and fury than any real action. Only two things come anywhere near being action. First, one of the Connecticut six got inhibited, although the reason isn't entirely clear to me. The parish claims that it is primarily because of his conservative views, but the diocese points to an unauthorized sabbatical he is apparently taking and it sounds like they believe he found other employment prior to being inhibited as well. Whatever else can be said of the situation, it's a mess and I suspect very few people, except perhaps those directly concerned, really know many the facts of the situation.

More recently the House of Bishops in England released a statement that can be found here at the end of a press release about the statement. That HoB was responding to a civil partnership bill that, IIRC, was recently past by parliament. That piece of legislation can be found here I think. The statement by the English HoB wouldn't be news on its own, but, unfortunately, Archbishop Akinola saw the statement and has decided that he doesn't like it one bit. His response can be found here. To cut to the chase, he wants the Church of England to renounce the statement or be suspended from the Anglican Communion like the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. I have not seen any response from either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the English HoB. Personally, I find the idea of suspending one of the instruments of unity of the Anglican Communion, namely the ABC, ridiculous and indicative of a lack of respect for the Communion. We shall just have to wait and see how this little contretemps plays out.

Now on to the sort of subject that'll probably become common here.

I was in church yesterday and while I was looking up at the altar I noticed that my attention tended to get fixed on the large cross hanging directly over the altar. After a little while I got tired of dragging my attention back to the preacher and started thinking about what sort of theological statement this particular cross made. It is a depiction of Christ in what looks very much like the clerical vestments worn at Eucharist with raised depictions of four winged creatures, one at each end of the cross. I think the winged creatures are from the Revelation and I seem to recall hearing that they stood for the four gospel writers as well. As a theological statement, though, that cross seemed rather empty. It was more like something pretty to look at when one was tired of watching the altar party. While I was reflecting on this my mind turned to another church I know. That parish recently moved into a new building and hasn't really finished decorating the new space. In particular there is a large white section of wall above and behind the altar. Taking my thoughts about the cross I currently saw before me, I wondered what sort of depiction would fit best in that white space. Some sort of cross would make sense, it is a Christian church after all, but what sort? Somehow a plain cross seems to plain. It is a very common thing and it's commonness almost deprives it of meaning somehow. A depiction of Christ crucified might be appropriate, but, especially if it's well done, it would be hard to look at for any length of time. It would also emphasize Christ's passion and death as the center of faith in a way which is not quite right. It is certainly true that the death is at the center of the faith, but it shares that position with the resurrection. Neither can appropriately dominate the center of the faithful Christian's life. This points us by the way to another option, the image of Christ the King which is related to the Christ the priest that I was looking at yesterday. Christ the King is certainly easier to look at than a Crucifix, but that is not entirely a good thing. The crucifix in its clear portrayal of the pain with which Jesus bought us challenges those of us who tend to live very comfortable lives to do something more. A Christus Rex, another way to say Christ the King, reminds us that Jesus was victorious over death and sin. Like I said, neither can be permitted to dominate, but combining them can be difficult. I'm not really sure what would be appropriate for the blank space I mentioned, but let me share an image I have thought about. Picture, if you will, a simple wood cross. Then add either over the cross or superimposed over the image of the cross, a crown with three points shining like the sun. Then add three drops of blood at four points on the cross. The first two are placed at each end of the arms of the cross. The third is placed at the foot of the cross, and the fourth is placed halfway between the arms and the foot of the cross and just to the left of center. In this image the crown should be balanced by the blood so that the attention isn't called exclusively to either element.

I'm not sure what to think about the image of the crowned and bleeding cross. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Jon

5/10/05

2005-05-10T09:02:00.000-05:00

FFXI
Leveled in Crawler's Nest all last night getting THF to 39. I also got 10k for running past Ahtu on the island in the southern reaches of Batalia Downs with a lump of Selbina Clay. The most "interesting"part was getting through Eldieme Necropolis as a THF/MNK. Fortunately a very high level RDM helped me out.

That's been about it since my last post.

Jon

5/9/05

2005-05-09T13:12:00.000-05:00

This is my first post to this space, so I'll provide a bit more information than I usually will.

FFXI news

In Vana'diel, the world in which FFXI is set, I have a Galka (THF 38/MNK 32/WAR 11/WHM 10). I've acquired all the advanced jobs, recruit rank in all the guilds except for 4, and am currently leveling my alchemy ability. In the Alchemy guild, I have attained the rank of initiate, have a skill level of 24, and am currently leveling my skill with Sairui-ran's, a ninja tool. Money is in kinda short supply, as it seems to be for almost everyone in Vana'diel, so I have to take the skill leveling slower than I'd really like. Slower is also enforced by the rarity of Bast Parchment, one of the required items to make Sairui-ran's.

Anglican Communion

In the real world, life in the Anglican Communion (AC) is somewhat tense internationally. For those of you who don't know, the Episcopal Church (TEC) confirmed the election as bishop of a partnered gay man in New Hampshire at General Convention in 2003. A number of Anglican bishops in the US and world wide view this as a horrendous deviation from biblical norms for behavior, and, as such, something which indicates that TEC has left the fold of orthodox Christianity. The fight has continued with the a Communion wide task force and the Primates' Meeting weighing in on how the Communion should proceed. It is not entirely clear at this time whether the various bodies of the Communion will decide that TEC is no longer part of the AC. Personally, I don't believe that the AC will entirely break, although some people will almost certainly leave the Communion. I could very easily be wrong though, especially since part of my reason for believing that the Communion will hold together is that the Church is supposed to be one, and schism, which means a break in the church, is a violation of that basic principle of what it means to be church. There's more to it than that, of course, but I'll save that discussion for another time.

Coming Across my Desk

Today I recieved a link to a quiz that I found kinda interesting. The quiz results are various sorts of wings you might have. If you're interested you can take it at http://quizilla.com/users/chaoscomesatnite/quizzes by selecting the "Claim your Wings" quiz.

The quiz gave me angel wings. I kinda like that answer for myself, but goodness only knows how accurate it is, especially since changing one answer gives me dragon wings instead.

Jon