I contend that a primary reason for the withering of the Church within the public mind is resultant of the Church – liberal and conservative – capitulating to the zeitgeist. When we simply mirror the prevailing culture or system whether political, economic, philosophical, whatever, we lose our significance, our voice, our purpose, our justifiable reason to be noticed.
“It must not be supposed that the Church considers this the fulfillment of its mission [providing good, wholesome opportunities for entertainment, diversion, and leisure in Christian fellowship to help provide for the natural desires and for the benefit of the people]. It is but one of the attempts of the Church to serve the real needs of the community. The real mission of the Church is
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
never lost sight of, that is, to bring individuals into the Kingdom of God and to make them realize their personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Saviour. The Episcopal Church is not apprehensive of the effect of its social emphasis because it has its foundation most firmly rooted and does not distrust its people. It believes that social service is a natural outcome of its fundamental principles. Its whole structure is comprehensive and not exclusive.
“The Church’s message truly presents vision of that greater democracy for which the righteous nations of the earth are yearning. It is a democracy whose fundamentals are justice, righteousness and the abundant spirit of service that will secure for the people what no form of economic democracy will ever achieve. For nations seeking national and social salvation from the ills that afflict them, as well as for individuals, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Gospel of Christ is the only national Character of Liberty that can guarantee national salvation, the only power equal to the task of exalting a nation. The Church presents this Gospel.”
George Parkin Atwater, “The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men Today,” 1950, pp. 167-168. (Originally published in 1917)
——————————————-
I think we all too often let everything else usurp the “Real Mission.” Frankly, the real mission isn’t politically-correct and is disconcerting to many, yet life to so many others. If we, as the Church, are a unique organization offering real and honest alternatives (not just for the sake of offering alternatives, for then we are resigning our responsibility), then there must be something alternative about us.
If the “Kingdom of God” is a real thing, it must be evident in the lives of those who claim to be citizens of such a Kingdom. If the image of such a Kingdom is not evident in the lives of the citizens of the Kingdom, then what use is it as a real alternative? It isn’t, and that’s why far too many people – particularly younger people – no longer consider the Church or Christianity as viable for or pertinent to their own lives. We too often give up our real mission for the sake of expediency or popularity. As a result, all too often those who claim to be citizens of the Kingdom of God no longer reflect the high values of the Kingdom. Too often, we are usurped by socio-political ideology whether conservative or liberal, the lust for power, and greed (among lots of other things).
The way to realize such an alternative for the good is not easy, is not particularly popular, and as such is ignored, ridiculed, and rejected by many. Yet, the real mission of the Church is to call people to this Kingdom recognizing that we are imperfect, but our own imperfection does not change the way for realization of the Kingdom. Here, we proclaim, is the path to the Kingdom of God, born by the work of Jesus Christ, already realized by multitudes from the vast array of cultures and peoples over centuries – we proclaim this truth to all who wish to follow. We are on our way and extend the invitation to all who wish to join us.
Is it real, this Kingdom, this life? Only our experiences within it and the image of God revealed through us by way of such experiences will tell.
When Scripture and the liturgies were first presented in the language of the people, and for our Church that occurred with the Church in England broke with Rome and the first 1549 Book of Common Prayer, it was vigorously opposed by the Roman Church authorities because of the presumed loss of control of the Church over the people. There were legitimate concerns that the common folk, who were by in large uneducated, would not understand the intent and meaning of Scripture (determined by the Church, of course). Yet, much of the opposition to Scripture and liturgies in the vernacular had to do with control.
When the people do not have access to Scripture, the worship of the Church, and the Church’s documents in a language they understand, they by default are subservient to the hierarchs.
Considering the Church’s current drive to go further down the path of full-liturgy bulletins, projection or display of hymns/songs, liturgies, and prayers overhead, even if justified by making it easier for new people or suffering from the assumption that books are passé, what actually ends up happening is the dumbing down of the people. Perhaps, what actually happens is the making of the people subservient to the priestly cast! Does this end up being an issue of control?
If people are able to read Scripture for themselves, they are empowered! If people are introduced to, taught how to use, and encouraged to engage with the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), for themselves, even if in the pews on Sunday morning, they are empowered! They learn for themselves the liturgies, the prayers, the theology that is actually espoused and maintained in the BCP. They are able to then hold accountable the clergy cast who find it far too interesting and edgy to play around with time-honed and tested liturgies for the sake of being novel or out of their own boredom.
In the parish I’ve been a part of, a several years ago a bishop was conducting his episcopal visit. The bishop was in the pulpit preaching when on of the matrons of the parish stood up, in the midst of him speaking, and said, “Bishop, that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.” She challenged some “edgy,” novel teaching he was espousing. He stopped, turned around, exited the pulpit, and his sermon ended then and there. If this woman had not been taught the Faith, if she did not engage with the BCP regularly, if she did not know Scripture for herself, she would not be able to hold accountable those who are supposed to guard the Faith. She was empowered! She challenged the hierarchy when they deviated.
Change will always occur, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with change. There is nothing wrong with LCD screens projecting everything. Yet, the reasons for change whether in theology, use of technology, or praxis are very important. The more we encourage, teach, and bring people to engage for themselves Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer, and the documents that inform our faith and life in Christ, the more empowered the people are to take control of their own faith and life in Christ.
My desire is to work myself out of a job, our of a position, out of a place of a determining authority by teaching people to think for themselves, to know their own texts (whether a physical book in the pew, on an iPad, or whatever). In so doing, I provide for them the knowledge and ability to know for themselves. There are specific acts and responsibilities that are given to me by virtue of my priesthood and will only be done by a priest, yet the more I enable people to be independent (in the context of community) in their thinking the more able they are to live a full Christian life.
I’ve come to believe that doing it all for the people ends in the impoverishment of the people, a dumbing down of the people, and a renewed control of the clergy cast over the people. My experience tells me that people are more attracted to a way of living the Faith when they know as much as they can, not in an deluded attempt by the clergy cast to make them feel welcome by doing it all for them.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
“Because in fact, we are slipping back fast into something like the ancient world. We are slipping back towards a world of narrow tunnel vision of religions and superstitious practice, a world where lots and lots of people have their lords and god, their practices and their mysticisms, that do not really relate to each other. We are slipping away from the idea that there might be a faith that would bring all human beings together. We are slipping back socially and internationally into the assumption that there really are such differences in human beings that we can forget about God’s universal righteousness.”
Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, during Bible studies delivered at the 13th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Nottingham 2005
Kenda Creasy Dean in her new-ish book, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church, describes the primary “faith” of American teenagers as “Therapeutic, Moralistic, Deism” rather than a form of the enduring Christian Faith. This description of the faith-system (as much as it can be a formal “system” at this point) comes out of the results and analysis of the National Study of Youth and Religion project.
Both with Rowan and Kenda, these are pictures of where we are culturally, particularly among the emerging generations, and what is to come within the culture and within our individual lives as believers or not. How are we ready?
Very good opinion piece by David Brooks in the New York Times. He uses the new musical, “The Book of Mormon,” as his backdrop. This notion of speeding away from anything that distinguishes us or makes us peculiar or diminishes the rigors of the Faith will in the end result in nothing but decline and a faith that has little real impact on the world, particularly for the cause of Christ.
A couple paragraphs:
The only problem with “The Book of Mormon” (you realize when thinking
about it later) is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting,
nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow,
succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are
usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in
their convictions about what is True and False.That’s because people are not gods. No matter how special some
individuals may think they are, they don’t have the ability to
understand the world on their own, establish rules of good conduct on
their own, impose the highest standards of conduct on their own, or
avoid the temptations of laziness on their own.The religions that thrive have exactly what “The Book of Mormon”
ridicules: communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in
claims of absolute truth.Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality. These maps
may seem dry and schematic — most maps do compared with reality — but
they contain the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers who
through the centuries have faced similar journeys and trials.Rigorous theology allows believers to examine the world intellectually
as well as emotionally. Many people want to understand the eternal logic
of the universe, using reason and logic to wrestle with concrete
assertions and teachings.
Image via Wikipedia
Living in the past
“One thing that tells me a company is in trouble is when they tell me how good they were in the past. Same with countries. You don’t want to forget your identity. I’m glad you were great in the fourteenth century, but that was then and this is now. When memories exceed dreams, the end is near. The hallmark of a truly successful organization is the willingness to abandon what made it successful and start fresh.“
-Michael Hammer The World is Flat
While I can certainly agree with the above statement, there are worthy and good things from the 14th Century that are worth keeping. I suspect what Hammer is getting at is what we might describe as “Tradition” as opposed to “traditionalism.”
“Traditionalism” tends to be the clinging to ways of doing, being, or thinking as they have “always been” even when it is evident that those things, those traditions, no longer effectively engage the emerging culture and the emerging generations.
“Tradition” tends to be those things that endure from generation to generation and through multiple cultures and through trial and persecution. Those things or aspects as part of the Tradition prove their worth and pertinence through such challenge.
Within the Imago Dei Society, I and we continue to investigate emerging generations and culture because we need to understand how to translate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how to pass on the Tradition to those who come after us. What we don’t need to attempt to hold on to or pass on are those things that are tied closely to traditionalism. The “fresh start” is something we need to be about, always.
These past couple of months have been a bit traumatic. Thankfully, no one has died or been harmed in any way. I was called upon in November of 2009 to lead an effort to study, understand, and establish new ministries that are present with emerging generations and within emerging culture. The initial focus of the effort was the neighborhoods of Red Hook and Carroll Gardens in Brooklyn (the 11231 zip-code). I began the world on January 8, 2010. The sponsorship of the Red Hook Project and Imago Dei was to be for three years, after which we would be on our own.
I’ve spend the last year doing the hard work necessary to get this sort of thing going – an entrepreneur, a project manager, a researcher, a community organizer, etc. I’ve meet and talked with numerous community and religious leaders. I’ve conducted focus groups of current residence of the neighborhoods, particularly in Red Hook, of artists, of young people of various ages. I’ve interviewed students, and the list goes on.
I studied, read, and researched adolescent development, traits of the emerging generations, and the particulars of emerging culture. My goal/intent has always been to understand the contexts in which we live not just right now, but to also understand as best we can were things will be in the 2020’s. I’m doing the work for the Church to be able to meet the culture and young people head on – to be present with them where they are – rather than trying to play catch up and doing a terrible job at it.
The Church has a terrible time being “on-time.” We tend to always be 15-20 years behind the curve, yet we think these “new” things we are suddenly enamored with are cutting-edge, when they simply aren’t. The positive side of the slow crawl of the Church is that it should be able to ride through in a good way the crass trendiness that simply overtakes everything for the moment and then is nothing, again. The is a difference in trying to be trendy in order to attract people and understanding where people are in their understanding of themselves, their world, and their place in the world and trying to be present with them in the mix. When the Church decides to ride the trend waves, all is lost. We stop being authentic to who we are and what we are.
The Church is always “other,” with respect to the prevailing culture. Why are we afraid of that, unless we have lost confidence that we have anything worthwhile to say or contribute… let alone the whole stuff about the Cure of Souls and salvific relationships with God.
Anyway, starting in January 2011, this past January, we began in earnest the doing of ministry. Because the genesis of the Red Hook Project came out of St. Paul’s Church in Carroll Gardens, and because of the formation I received within this parish, and since St. Paul’s has carried on ministry in Red Hook for over the last 18+ years since the diocese closed the parish in Red Hook (foolishly), the beginning efforts for new ministry starting out of St. Paul’s. In addition, since we are unable to afford a space in Red Hook (the foolish part mentioned above – selling property in New York City), St. Paul’s provides the space we need to begin ministry and to experiment with what has been learned over the past year.
Currently, we have the “Imago Dei Sunday Evening Service” that is currently meeting at St. Paul’s (which at times has a larger attendance than some of the established parishes in the area). We have the “2nd Saturdays for Good Works” that began last August (our first ministry effort). There is the monthly Imago Dei “Red Hook Gathering” at a local Red Hook eatery and pub (Rocky Sullivan’s) where we have a bit of food, a little drink, and talk about life, faith, and how it all fits together. We have a “Home Group” meeting in Carroll Gardens with nine members. By February, we had a very good start resulting from all the work beforehand that set the foundation upon which the new efforts rest. In addition, last month we started the “Faith meets Art meets Space” project for artists (another target group for the Red Hook Space) to intentionally investigate how their faith influences their art with the rich space of St. Paul’s nave as their backdrop. We intend on having the exhibition and performances the first of June.
Then, in February, I was told it was all ending. Ending because of money issues, ending because of opposition to the effort others in the diocese, ending because the will to do something new outside the convention boxes was not there.
This is a very big blow. There have been mixed signals since February about what exactly will be stopped and what might go forward. I’ve continued working as if the project would continue beyond the June 1st cut off date, hoping that they would find the money and have the will to continue. It hasn’t happened. I was told that as of June 1st, it all ends.
What in the world do I do, now? I am fighting a real melancholy – a mix of disappointment, anxiousness about attempting to find a new place of ministry, real concern about the people who have a stake in this effort and now will be left high and dry, a profound sadness about suddenly leaving the people of St. Paul’s and the lone priest for a growing congregation in a lurch (I’ve been ministering in this parish for 7 years). In a month and a half, I’m gone.
Ideally, I would love to continue working at St. Paul’s to continuing implementing all that I’ve learned this past year, all the ideas and plans that have been developed and are ready for implementation, to continue ministry development in Red Hook, etc. But, the parish doesn’t have the money for a second priest and the diocese will not “pay me to be at St. Paul’s.”
There are several of priests I am in conversation with who know that pouring new wine into old wine skins just doesn’t work. I had great hope that this project might be an exception, but it is not. The Imago Dei Initiative and the Red Hook Project are new wine efforts, and the wine skins of the present institution will not make space for them at this time. What then do we do? Do I try to find a secular job to support myself and continue doing the work, anyway? I did that sort of thing for four years, and it is very unhealthy, but that may be the sacrifice. These priests (and lay people, too) know that we are going to have to do something on our own. This is just the way the Church is and the lessons of history bear this out. What am I willing to do? Right now, I’m depressed and anxious. Do I just take anything that may come along, even if I sense that it wouldn’t be right?
Another consideration is that I’ve made a life here in NYC. It has only been the last several months that I’ve felt that I have friends with whom I have enough history and comfortableness to not feel terribly lonely. It has taken me six years to get to this point. The prospects of moving to another city, another place where I will have to start all over again at this point in my life just is not something I want to do.
Yet, there may be a very good and real opportunity to put into place what I have been dreaming of and planning for over the last couple of years in another diocese, city, and state. Is this of God? Is this the next step? Do I simply forget about the relationship issue and go? I don’t know. Right now, I’m not emotionally in a particularly good place to be making these kinds of decisions. I’m very thankful for the support of friends and family. We shall see what happens over the next month and a half.
The Scripture lessons for Sunday worship in the Revised Common Lectionary during this time after the Epiphany come from the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, particularly focused on the Sermon on the Mount.
Reading through a commentary yesterday, I came across this description of the difference between a “Church” and a “Sect.” Here are a couple paragraphs:
“In spite of the need for many corrections in his details, my [Ulrich Luz, the author of this commentary] most helpful conversation partner has been Ernst Troeltsch. He makes a sociological distinction between church and sect. They are characterized by certain types of piety and theology. While the ‘church’ as an institution of salvation and grace is characterized by s piety of redemption and a religion of grace, the ‘sect’ is a ‘voluntary society, composed of strict and definite Christian believers,’ who emphasize ‘the law instead of grace, and in varying degrees within their own circle set up the Christian order based on love.’ In the sect Christ is ‘the Lord, the example and lawgiver of Divine authority and dignity,’ rather than primarily the redeemer. Realizing holiness is central for the sect; ‘the real work of redemption’ takes place only in the future through judgement, ‘when He will establish the kingdom of God.’ Very often the piety of the sect is Jesus piety, while Paul is decisive for the church type.”
– Ulrick Luz; Matthew 1-7, Hermeneia Series; Editor, Helmut Koester, James E. Crouch, Translator; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 178.
I suspect that using these definitions by Troeltsch, one might make the argument that the new “Anglican Church in North America,” the break-away group from the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada made up primarily of American style Evangelicals (as opposed to Anglican-Evangelicals) and Charismatics (with lessening numbers of more strict Anglo-Catholic types), is a “sect” and no longer a “church.” Their reason for being is to become more “pure,” according to their own definitions, and a piety that is far more strict. Sociologically speaking, this Troeltsch fits, I think.
Every now and then I catch up on what is going on with the controversies within the Anglican Communion among the bloggers who are most prolific. Mark Harris (Preludium), a priest in Delaware and member of the Episcopal Church (TEC) Executive Council and Kendall Harmon (Titusonenine), the Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, are two of these. Over the past couple of years, and despite my respect for much of what he has written in the past, Harris has become more typically Baby Boomer-ish (those who believe they are given an unique charge to remake the world in their own image and bring in the age of Aquarius by the dismantling all that came before them) and particularly stereotypically American (those who expect their will to be done around the world simply because we are Americans, so smart, so progressive, and so right). After all, we just want what is best for the world and its people, and we know exactly how everyone needs to act and what they need to believe.
All these machinations we are hearing from the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. concerning steps being taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) and the governing structures of the Anglican Communion because we snub our nose and refuse to abide by a couple requests made of us by those bodies, increasingly smacks of people who are used to getting their way, but no longer can.
Now, honestly, I have to admit that abiding by these two requests will impact my life, but only minimally. What I have to acknowledge is that I don’t always get my way, I don’t have a “right” to anything within the Church or the Body of Christ, and that I consider myself to be part of a Church that is Catholic – all of these things cause me to recognize, acknowledge, and abide by things I don’t like, think is fair, or consider to be right. It isn’t all about me or my group. By saying that, I do not even consider that I stop advocating for myself, my group, what I think to be God’s will, what I believe to be right for the good order, safety, and benefit of all, and an advocate for those who are terribly abused by other Anglicans around the world and demand that they stop their abuse.
Soon, “imperialist” America will have to deal with the rest of the world standing up to us. How will we as a people and as a nation act when this really starts to happen in earnest? Will we join the rest of the world as equal partners or… will we continue to act like imperialists and attempt to force our will on the world or… will we retreat into isolationism?
The Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church are a foreshadowing of all this and how Americans will probably act.
So many of our reactions in TEC (at least among many of its leadership) smacks of an “imperialist” Episcopal Church that generally got its way within Anglicanism (because we were Americans and we had the money), but now has to deal with foreign people standing up to us and saying, “our views count and we aren’t going to let you get away with this anymore.”
Now, we may absolutely disagree with them and actually may be absolutely right – but we are still being stood up to. We don’t like it, so we laughingly do things like accuse the ABC of acting like a colonial authority when he, completely within his right, “interferes” in TEC, which claims to be an Anglican province by definition in communion with him. We just can’t stand being stood up to.
How are we going to act, now?
Are we going to join the rest of the Communion as equal partners and recognize that all (but a few) have requested that we don’t do a couple things and that as equal partners sometimes we have to give a little (while still being ardent advocates of our position) or… are we going to attempt to force our will one very one else (something like Spong’s attack on African bishops) or… will we simply retreat into isolationism and claim we don’t need the rest of the Communion and gloriously declare that we are our own sect?
I keep hearing all the above from our leadership, except, really, that we see ourselves as equal members of the Communion and that sometimes we don’t get our way. Send no more money to them… we can do just as well on our own and who needs them – these are the attitudes I hear and read the most.
So, I’m attending the Episcopal Village East (EVE) conference in Baltimore. I attended the TransFORM East Coast conference in May. I said to a few people as I left Brooklyn that I wanted to see how the two conferences compared with each other. Here is a first observation: People at TransFORM where tweeting and blogging all through the conference – and it was encouraged by the leadership – while at the first pre-conference session for EVE everyone was writing with pens and pencils on notebook paper.
The people at TransFORM, which describes itself as a “missional community formation network,” seemed to be people of and ensconced in the communities they are trying to reach. The people at this EVE session seem to be those who are trying to learn about the same demographic group of people, but are not of them. Does that make sense?
It is terribly difficult and takes an immense amount of energy to try to understand the constitutional make-up of a different group of people.
