“That brings me to another question,” said the Doctor. “Why do the minister and the choir wear vestments?”
Both the Rector and the Major began to reply.
“To show their ministry of prayer and praise,” began the Rector.
“Democratic!” urged the Major.
“That brings us to the second underlying principle of the Church,” interrupted the Rector. “The Episcopal Church is democratic. The world over it serves all sorts and conditions of men. It has the same services and ministers in the same way to rich and poor, fortunate and unfortunate. It brings the universal spiritual satisfactions to the universal needs of our common human nature.”
“But how are vested choirs democratic?” asked the Doctor.
“Nothing so democratic as a uniform,” answered the Major. “Variety in uniform shows distinctive duties, but all uniforms are democratic. One minister is not clothed in fine broadcloth and another in homespun. All wear the simple vestments of their rank. Choristers too! Many a person would be kept out of a choir by lack of proper cloths if choirs were not in uniform. Nothing so distracting as a mixed choir in a denominational church. Twenty different kinds of hats, as many kinds of cravats. Whole scheme of unvested choirs too formal and aristocratic. Our method much simpler and democratic. Admits persons who would be excluded if fine clothes were a requirement.”
“That is so,” granted the Doctor. “Curiously, I had the opposite impression. I thought the vested choir was the height of form and very aristocratic.”
“All wrong,” affirmed the Major. “Most democratic scheme for singers ever devised. No form whatsoever. Just a band of plain people, properly garbed, singing the praises of God in the Church. Most reverent too. Nothing so irreverent as finery in the Church. Too distracting. Too self-approving…”
…”That opens up the subject of the general sensitivities of human beings,” began the Judge. “They are just as sensitive in their spiritual natures. You like to have your patients in a cheerful mood, do you not, Doctor?”
“Surely. Most necessary!” answered the Doctor.
“The Church likewise desires to impress the people with the cheerfulness of religion. But you do administer medicine, Doctor.”
“It helps,” was the Doctor’s comment.
“The Church must administer its truth and healing power, too. It has proper seasons for every phase of its teachings We use different colors to suggest the general nature of the season. Last Sunday we used white… symbolic color of joy. We use also purple, green, and red. Each is suggestive of the particular truths which are being impressed in lesson and sermon. Nature has taught us that are.”
“You can’t go wrong in following Nature,” said the Doctor.
“Quit right. And human nature too. Those who think the Episcopal Church is artificial are entirely mistaken. It is as natural as Nature herself. The Church through long experience has learned what human natures craves. Beauty, warm associations, pleasant environment, gracious clinging memories, forms of sound words, bright pictures for the mind, suggestions of spiritual mysteries, acts of personal worship, habits of reverence, a consciousness of a great Household in which cluster great ideals, the knowledge of the riches of the past brought to the heart of the present; all these things make the abiding impressions that fill the worshiper with feelings that never depart. The member of the Episcopal Church who feels these things never leaves this household. Religion to him would seem barren, ever after, without the riches and associations of the Church to enforce the lessons and deepen his sense of spiritual things.”
[The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men of Today, George Parkin Atwater; New York: Morehourse-Gorham Co., 1950; 6-12.]
more to come…
My, how things have changed! Although, I do think there is truth in many of the things being emphasized above.
Category Archives: the episcopal church
Excited
I’m getting a bit excited and a lot nervous (in a good way). It seems that all things are go for the new ministry project I am instigating. I am amazed to have a rector and a bishop who are not only supportive of this new venture, but who are willing to put money and time behind it. Some of this stuff has been whirling around in my brain for many years, and to think that some of it may be coming to fruition is a bit unbelievable. I don’t know what to do with it all. The fact that time and money from outside myself is going to be invested in this makes me nervous – as in, what if it doesn’t work?
Other aspects, if it works as I envision it might, could be a real way of working to renewed life and ministry within parishes that at present are caught up in various states that simply are not conducive to ministry among a different cadre (or group, as in generation or reflecting the changes within the demographics of a neighborhood) of people.
The Church and Public Worship (pp 6-12)
The highlights:
“This brings me to the fundamentals, Doctor,” replied the Rector. “If you will permit, let us pass by the particular things for a moment and try to understand the principles that govern the methods of our worship…”
“…To understand the public worship of the Episcopal Church, you must grasp three principles,” said the Rector. “They will serve to interpret practically all of its practices and habits. You may not approve of these principles but at any rate you can understand that the Church has reason for adhering to them. These principles of the Church are the basis of its practices.”
“The first principle is that the Church attempts to appeal to the eye as well as to the ear…”
“The eye is the gateway to knowledge,” continued the Rector… “The Church for a 1,000 years or more attempted to instruct the people by education through the eye.”
“For that reason our churches are furnished so that each great function of the Church has some article of furniture which constantly suggests that function…”
“… I think I see,” said the Doctor seriously. “Your Altar then is like a great picture which sets forth the religious teachings of the Church.”
“Exactly,” affirmed the Rector…
“Did you ever go, alone, into an Episcopal Church?” asked the Judge.
“No, I think not. Why should I?” asked the Doctor….
…The Doctor was clearly impressed. “I thought churches were for public gatherings,” he said quietly.
“They are,” agreed the Judge, “but they are likewise for individual edification. The mistake you may make about the Episcopal Church is in thinking that it is an organization having as its object public assemblies, in which a general effort is made to promote goodness. It is more than that. It is a great Mother who teaches you so impressively that its influence and control endure throughout the week. The idea of righteousness and the idea of salvation are often too abstract. The Church is the embodiment of these ideas. You know the spirit of college?” asked the Judge.
“Class of 1905,” said the Doctor. “Best college on earth.”
“That’s loyalty,” affirmed the Judge. “The college stands for education. Its activities tend toward the development of the student. It expresses great ideas and trains men in a score of ways. Do you keep your old text-books?”
“Shelf full of them, ” confessed the Doctor.
“Pretty dry now, aren’t they?” questioned the Judge. “Yet they have the heart of the substance of your education in them. But it was the college that made those books live. You were part of all that. So the Church is a great living organization to which loyalty and love and devotion respond. You are proud of it, and you carry the thought of it with you constantly. On days when services are held the people come to pledge anew their faith, to refresh their spiritual life. They come not as chance spectators of a service, or accidental listeners to a moral lecture, but as part of the whole body of the Church.”
“That is a fine idea,” admitted the Doctor, “but the Church never impressed me in that way.”
“You have misunderstood it,” said the Judge simply. “It is our spiritual home. So we keep it orderly and furnish it gloriously. We like that picture of the Altar and the Cross, even as you like the warmth and glow of your hearthstone…”
[The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men of Today, George Parkin Atwater; New York: Morehourse-Gorham Co., 1950; 6-12.]
more to come…
I keep hearing that “the Church no longer has anything for men…” This isn’t a nostalgic longing for an imagined time past, but a recognition that we are now fairly empty of any real focus on the development of the moral, spiritual, devotion lives of men, as men and not as some androgynous entity that does not recognize that there are honest differences between women and men.
To some degree, the focus over the past 30 years has been on providing women the ability to enter into an equal place in the leadership structures of the Church. And, that kind of focus is needed. There continues to be Episcopal Church Women (ECW) that existed in times pass to give women some level of real involvement in the structures of the Church, even if they were not allowed within the greater leadership. ECW is, for the most part, still the focal point for the development of the lives of women within the Church.
The younger generations do not carry the baggage of hard feelings or ill will that still inhabit the minds and attitudes of many people who fought for their right to be a real and honest part of the leadership of the Church. Younger women or gays do not automatically jump to the conclusion that if men want a men’s ministry that is made up of men and for men, that it will not by its nature be misogynist or homophobic.
Yet, I think that like ECW has not lost its purpose as a ministry for women, there needs to be a ministry of some sort for men. Well, actually, I think that the current generation of leadership needs to exercise the spirit/demon of “liberal, while, male” guilt out of its Psyche that tends to denigrate men or a particularly male way of fellowship or leadership. Already, I can hear howls of opposition. That’s my experience, whether it is normative or not.
Now, the above quotes come from a book published in the 1950’s. The attitudes of the authors, of men and women within the Church, and of course society in general were terribly different. Yet, there is not an embarrassment to be men gathering and saying things that actually sound like men in ways other than barbaric, aggressive, loudmouth posturing.
Are there ministries for men within the Episcopal Church? Perhaps, but, I don’t think there is much going on, and there needs to be.
The next generation of Catholic leaders
Commentary on young, Roman Catholic priests by John L Allen Jr. over at the National Catholic Reporter – “The next generation of Catholic leaders.” He says the empirical data shows that younger priests are more “conservative,” but not quite in the way that older folks like to define that term. I absolutely agree with him. I wonder, too, if his observations ring true for young, Episcopal priests? My impression is that the observation can cross the dividing lines, but that could just be me selectively listening or reading those I agree with. Yet, I will say from my own research that for young Christians in general, particularly among the Mainline, they are reclaiming the Tradition, which means to some that they are “conservative.”
He writes:
“This new generation seems ideally positioned to address the lamentable tendency in American Catholic life to drive a wedge between the church’s pro-life message and its peace-and-justice commitments. More generally, they can help us find the sane middle between two extremes: What George Weigel correctly calls “Catholicism lite,” meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I’ve termed “Taliban Catholicism,” meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn. Both are real dangers, and the next generation seems well-equipped to steer a middle course, embracing a robust sense of Catholic identity without carrying a chip on their shoulder.
“That’s assuming, however, that the best and brightest of today’s young Catholics aren’t prematurely sucked into the older generation’s debates — either by liberals who fear and resent them, or by conservatives eager to enroll them as foot soldiers in their private crusades.” [Emphasis mine]
This is the problem in the Episcopal Church, I do believe. The liberals do fear and resent the younger folks because the demographic does not agree with the liberals’ ideas of what the Church should be all about or how it should look. I’m sure they will try to co-op the cohort, as will the conservatives who see the new generation’s preference for Tradition as a validation of their cause, and it is not.
The younger generations are their own group, and they will remake this Church (or what’s left of it after the partisan war between the conservatives and liberals leave it in ruins).
Consumption Robots
We are, we have become, consumption robots, consumer automatons.
Within a free-enterprise system, it is the business of companies and corporations and industry to build demand for their products or services. Without demand for and the consumption of their goods and/or services, there is no reason for their existence. They will not exist. This is simple economics. For those who are persuasive enough to convince you that you need “x,” and that their version of “x” is better then that other company’s version of “x,” they will prosper economically. There is a difference, however, between persuasion and manipulation.
What has happened over the last few decades is that the extent of social manipulation by “Madison Ave.” – the advertising agents of their client companies – has become so pervasive and the public’s willingness to be manipulated so complete that we have become nothing much more than consumption tools, robots, automatons.
This was brought home to me in a fundamental way right after the 9/11 attacks. Our President was very fiery in his speech about retaliation and defeating the enemies of America. Yet, the solution he boldly declared to the average American citizen was that we should go shopping. Go buy more stuff… go collect more goods… go make your “mountain-o-things” even bigger (as Tracey Chapman sang about). Now, I know that what he was suggesting was that we continue on with our daily lives so to not “give the victory to the enemy.” See, you didn’t destroy our resolve… you didn’t succeed in demoralizing us… etc. Well, is that all that we are? Is the demonstration of our national resolve, our virtue, our reason for being all about buying things?
We are attached on our own soil. A war on terrorism has been declared. We invaded countries. What are Americans supposed to do? Go shopping. Brilliant and creative solution! What sacrifice we have to endure? None – that is supposedly to prove to the enemy how great we are. All the while, the very force that made American great and that has inspired freedom seeking people for generations has demoted to irrelevance – materialism and consumerism is now what American stands for. The American birthright has been sold for a bowl of pottage.
Another problem is that when there is nothing more in the national imagination beyond the next thrill or titillation, what is left but a constant seeking to fill the void with stuff and a willingness to believe whoever promises to deliver? When the Baby-Boomer generation of the 1960’s-kind thought that it was a good thing to throw off the “oppression” of the past, of the wisdom and insight of generations past, in order to make a brave new world that was supposed to usher in the Age of Aquarius, what can we expect but a descending into manipulation and triteness?
In the past, there was a governor on corporations’ and Madison Ave.’s attempt to move from persuasion to manipulation. There was a culture understanding that there were things more important than the individual and the self. There was a common understanding that happiness and satisfaction of life and a sense of significance in one’s own life went beyond things. We did not so much define our lives, our selves, by what we had or what we accumulated. Money didn’t maketh the man. Yes, yes, there was the whole “Keep up with the Jones,” but again, that was Madison Ave.’s attempt to manipulate us to buy more things so that we “kept up with the Jones.” Yes, there are certainly examples of greedy people, and all that. Yet, there was still an understanding that when all was said and done, out happiness didn’t rest on a new toaster or dishwasher or car or video game or jet ski or snow board or house or shoes or or or.
One of the aspects that were thrown off our societal shoulders by this generational thinking was religion. Those who believed in such superstitions where just ignorant and willfully manipulated by unscrupulous priests or pastors bent on control and power. Religion was just another occupier and oppressive agent that only tried to steal from people their person-hood, their joy, their freedom, their creativity. The thing is, the generation that through off the oppressive and moralizing force of the Christian religion had already been formed in those religious principles that had developed and been passed down for a millennia and a half – the wisdom and experience of generations past. They still were imbued with a mitigating inner force, whether they recognized it or not.
What would be left for this generation to pass on to their children? It ended up being a chaotic amalgamation of trendy fads, because the wisdom of the past was not to be trusted – it was oppressive. With each passing generation (X, Y), there was less and less of the taint of Christian moral structures – you know, like love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself.
From the stand point of the movers and shakers, this has been a glorious triumph. After all, how can you sell the idea that everyone has to consume, consume, consume when there is a cultural mitigating force that says that happiness is not found in material things, that we should focus on the well-being of our neighbor before our own, that we should give to the poor, that we should live simply, that we should not allow yourself to be consumed by treasures on earth, etc., etc., etc. When the mitigating force has been ejected from the culture, what is left? When the mitigating force was advertised effectively to be an enemy, what is left? When the Church buys into that idea, what is left?
The culture progressed to became in these days Post-Christian, and over the past four decades the Church responded by simple aping the zeitgeist of the culture, after all the leaders of the Church become those who were out to gloriously remake all of society in their bold, new image. It didn’t work. Aquarius did not come. The Church has became irrelevant and bankrupt (exceptions do certainly exist!) in its attempt to offer any positive alternative to a culture becoming more banal and self-centered. The Church as been duped by that which filled the void as the Church gave up its birthright. It is a nice circular phenomenon.
So, where are we now? People are certainly not happy. People have become profoundly insecure because there is the possibility that someone might take away all of our things, and by now our whole self-definition is based on material things. We don’t sacrifice for freedom any more, we demand more things. We now torture with the best of them. And the Church is irrelevant, no one listens, because we have become just like everyone else. The funny thing is, the later part of Generation X and a good part of Generation Y are coming to realize the fallacy in the Baby-Boomer endeavor.
I believe in the free-enterprise system, but there must be a governor because the hearts of men are exceedingly wicked, and selfish, and greedy, left unchecked. But, persuasion is not the same as manipulation. We have let ourselves be deceived by the Mad Men. They are very good at what they do! We are now, as Americans, worth not much more than being the world’s consumers. How sad.
Thomas Jefferson said that democracy was not possible without religion. We all know that he had great problems with religion and Christianity, but he recognized that there must be a mitigating force within the framework of democracy, and I say free-enterprise too, that calls to one to whom we are ultimately accountable – and that one is outside ourselves or our group or our nation. We don’t like to hear that, because we have bought the idea that we are an island unto ourselves. “I” am the final arbiter of all that I am and do and think and feel. As a seminarian a year behind me said, “I don’t believe in the resurrection, but I’m okay with that.” How lonely. How sad.
I hear too many people who work with people saying something is up… something is coming because something isn’t right… we feel it in our bones but don’t know how to describe it yet… don’t know how to put our finger on it just yet. A society can maintain this kind of existence for only so long. Can we not learn from history? Oh, I forgot, the past is oppressive. We are destined, then, to repeat it. We are coming to the breaking point.
A Change
For the last six years, I’ve been avidly following the political, social, and ecclesial meanderings of so many people dealing with our current Episcopal Church (TEC) crisis. Like Christianity itself, there has never been a time when all was well in either Anglicanism or TEC or when everyone agreed, but during these past six years I have come to the conclusion that much of the problem, at least in this country, is generational. The most ardent of both those who are organizing a new denomination (in very American-Evangelical fashion, but not at all by Anglican-Evangelical norms, since Anglican-Evangelicals understand that Anglicans of whatever strip are Catholic) and those who will snub their nose at the worldwide Communion are generally of a generation.
Six years past, a whole lot of typing and argument and mental and emotional turmoil, and I’ve determined to let go of this whole thing. Those whose purpose in life is to fight and destroy in all their vainglory can go right on doing so. I don’t want to play any longer, basically because no real good is coming of any of it. Those who are determined, will be determined, and will do what they will do.
For me, I am sidestepping all this and returning to intention, persistence, humility, and simplicity as I strive to live out the Way of Jesus Christ. If this Church is ever to regain its balance (for surely it is out of balance now and getting more so everyday), the next generations will make it happen. Of course each generation will have its problems, but this present generation is worthy of an asterisk in the history books. The next generations are not out to usher in the Age of Aquarius or remake all things old into their new and sparkly image. So, while we will eventually winnow out the bad from the good contributions of this present generation, during that time of transfer of authority we will realize continued decline and the rebuilding will be all the more difficult. With God’s help, it will be so. Of course, what I just wrote smacks of generational arrogance, but for this piece I will claim myself to be a Baby Boomer, even though I am on the cusp and really regard myself as an X’er.
I am hoping that the ImagoDei Society and its ministries and the doing and thinking of the Red Hook Space will be the realization of a different way of doing things, that are really the very old ways of the Faith from generations past to generations present.
The Project
The Red Hook Project NYC is coming along, but still has a way to go. Input welcome.
Another lengthy blog discussion… a third way #3
The conversation continues over at Fr. Jake Stops the World. It is interesting trying to make an argument when focused on liberals rather than conservatives. I have to think differently and use very different examples.
Here is one of my latest posts:
We all should go back and read, “Rules for Radicals.” (A little before my life, though I was alive, but Political Science was my academic focus so I read Alinsky.) Alinsky spent a lot of effort trying to devise various creative means of achieving his objectives in ways that didn’t exacerbate greater social problems and helped elevate/change as many people as possible. As much as it is possible to be at peace with all people, we should creatively purse again and again as many different means as needed to achieve our end without reverting to division and myopic nationalistic interests (which the world knows Americans are apt to do). Our end goals should include the changed hearts and minds of the oppressors as much as relief for the oppressed. That is an enduring relief, and the Cure of Souls of oppressors is the business of the Church in the name of Jesus. That’s the difference between Gospel centered objectives and just socio-political action objectives.
If our efforts, noble or not, do not achieve a better end for those in the most desperate circumstances and if our efforts do not elevate even our opponents (love your enemy is God’s call to us, even when our opponents won’t love us) then we need to creatively devise new methods.
Bluntly, we need to creatively devise new methods. Gandhi and King refused to play by the rules of the political zeitgeist of their time. People like Malcolm X were not willing to be patient in ways that actually helped the overall situation and could not see the wisdom of King’s methodology. Both are means to an end, but King’s proved far more effective.
The different and more radical camps within our Church are playing by our current polarizing, individualistic U.S. political zeitgeist – Culture War mentalities and identity-politics, as examples. We need to be more like Alinsky, Gandhi, and King locally and globally and less like the Bushies.
Finally, Rowan Williams. My knowledge of his efforts with all involved is too limited to make pronouncements, but… If I was the Secretary General (SG) of the U.N. and if I thought that I could best help the ethnic groups in Burma survive the genocidal campaigns of the military dictators, even if many people in the U.S. thought I wasn’t publicly being nearly as forceful or condemning of the military as the SG should be, and if I knew that the most helpful efforts for those dying would mean that I had to say a few things that would piss off lots of Americans, you better believe I would piss off a lot of Americans and do what I knew would help the suffering and dying.
I would probably think that the Americans weren’t being slaughtered and jailed by dictators, so if I had to suffer their indignation while they made high-minded pronouncements in their prosperity (and hubris), then so be it.
Another lengthy blog discussion… a third way #2
So, the following is a response to Ted, who asked: “What then should TEC do when others refuse to walk with us or alter the “level of communion” i.e. tiers?” It just keeps getting longer.
——
Ted… Bear with me. This is too long, I know. I am doing a bit of “processing out loud,†which will drive some people crazy.
We should listen and act like a global group of Christians that aren’t myopically centered on our own parochial interests. All of our councils do err and our understanding is limited; this should cause great humility within us. This is what I’m thinking…
Surveying our socio-religious TEC landscape, it seems to me that we have allowed ourselves to be so “tainted†by the cultural zeitgeist and accept its precepts uncritically that we have lost sight of the Way of Christ. Much within our culture works against the kind of life we are called to by Christ. Whether it is the schismatics with regard to TEC nationally or the schismatics with regard to the Communion globally, we need to step back and consider the greater goal and that our Christian reality is long-term and for all, not just for the next several years and not just for our own little group.
I am more than willing to forgo some of my “rights†as a Caucasian, as a male, as a gay person, as a priest, for the sake of those less fortunate than I am or in places where our influence is vitally needed for the safety of those in trouble. No matter what some say, the voice of the American Church in the Communion does have a life-saving impact on places like Nigeria, Uganda, et.al., where LGBT Christians at present have options of only silence or violence. Without our presence in the Communion, those primates are far freer to do and advocate for whatever they want – the extremists win. We have a long way to go in this country, but our plight is nothing in comparison to theirs. If those provinces want to absence themselves from the Communion, so be it. We, however, do not need to. As a matter of fact, it is vital that we don’t, particularly if it happens because of our stereotypical American hubris and self-interest.
The way we are thinking, IMHO, is wrong. For example, over the last 30 odd years, we have taken on a more psycho-therapeutic or a political-activist way of thinking in ministry (both are important, but neither are the way of the Church’s ministry). As a Christian who happens to be gay, firstly, and as a priest that happens to be gay, secondarily, I do need the “validation†of others to understand my worth. It is nice, but I don’t “need†it. When we believe that being able to be considered for a bishop position is somehow the way we are to validate personal worth or importance, we leave the realm of the way of Christ and enter into the realm of our socio-political cultural zeitgeist. My validation as a Christian or priest, gay or straight, male or female, black or white, has nothing to do with whether I am eligible for consideration to any office or order of the Church. My or my ministry’s worth is a result of the veracity of the ministry I do in the name of God – and my security resting in the love and care of God, not other people’s opinion of me.
To believe that being a bishop is a “right†that validates one’s existence or importance is incredibly “cleric-centric†to the point of almost denying the vital nature of the laity and the distinct ministries of each Holy Order. (The danger of the above way of thinking, of course, can go too far and result in people justifying the use of orientation, sex, or race as criteria for exclusion from leadership or orders. The solution, however, is not to go so far as to say that validation of personhood or ministry can only come from the ability to have a position within an institution.) I believe this is where we are, however, at this time. The Episcopal Church seems to be saying that as a gay person/priest that my ministry or personhood is only validated if I can be considered for a bishopric. I disagree. Likewise, I don’t need my relationship validated by the blessing of an organization (church or otherwise). It is nice to have, but certainly not necessary to my understanding of God and God’s transformative and healing work within us.
We are not an island unto ourselves. For our Church to be so consumed over whether a gay person can be a bishop or have a same-sex relationship blessed or not to the point of not caring whether we are part of the greater Church or Communion (whether intentionally or as a result of our unwillingness to compromise) when other LBGT people in other countries can conceiving of not much more than staying alive is just too myopic and nationally self-centered for me.
We must think differently, because the way we’ve been thinking and doing has resulted not in a good end but rather in anger, bitterness, hatred, and division in the Body of Christ. None of us are innocent. The current way of thinking and doing, both by the liberals and conservatives, has not presenting to the world a way of Christ that brings peace and unity. We need a third way.
Saying all that, I think we should for a few more years abide by the moratoria. I know that certain segments of the Communion have already determined that they don’t like us and reject us. So what? Does that mean we act just like them, but from a different perspective? Will we take the high moral road or just take our marbles and go home to our little patch of the globe? We must understand that we cannot simply act like those we accuse of acting wrongly, whether within the local, national setting or within the global setting.
Thanks what I’m thinking, for what it is worth.
Bob | Homepage | 09.04.09 – 12:24 pm | #
Another lengthy blog discussion… a third way
Okay, I’m doing it again. This time not on Titusonenie and debating the “conservatives,” but I’m debating the “liberals” at Frather Jake Stops the World. The conversation deals with Fr. Jake’s recent post: The Train Won’t Stop Going. The discussion comes from the seven Episcopal bishops visiting Canterbury, presumably about remain in communion with the Sea of Canterbury if the Episcopal Church rejects the Communions method of communion.
Here is the first post I made. It is too lengthy, I know, but my “processing out loud” just never ends.
————
Sorry for the length… this is a bit of a soapbox.
One point of being “Catholic,” Anglo or otherwise, is to have a very deep-seated understanding that those “scoundrels” are just as much a part of the Body of Christ and just a vital to the Body of Christ as am I or are you. If any of us want to be a Christian, with integrity to the call of Jesus Christ, we cannot say “good riddance,” or that you or I or any of us can get along just fine without the other. It is a fallacy believed by both the “conservatives” with regard to the TEC and the “liberals” with regard to the Communion.
You speak of Postmodern sensibilities, but for this postmodern I see very little difference in the way the “conservatives” (really anti-liberals) are acting and the way the “liberals” (really anti-conservatives) are acting. Duncan and Bruno, for example, are acting the same way. Both are acting wrongly.
The only difference is that the conservatives are saying, “To hell with the Episcopal Church,” while the liberals are saying, “To hell with the Communion.” The end result of the actions is the same – hubris and the division in the Body of Christ. It is just that one group is acing more “locally” while the other group is more “globally.”
This is what frustrates me about the generation in leadership of this Church and the breakaway groups. In many ways they are both fundamentalistic in their actions. This is a particular scandal to those who claim to be “liberal” (which is why I say anti-conservative rather than truly liberal), because as things work out on the ground they are not really interested in having an open table where everyone can have a place. They are interested in only those who will at least not challenge their forgone conclusions of what is right and proper, if not already agreeing with them. At least the conservatives make no pretense about being “open” to virtually anything.
A young, black, gay seminarian friend of mine kept saying, “I can’t wait until this generation of leadership is gone. Then we can get back to being the Church.” Does anyone see the irony in that statement?
“Anglicans” in the U.S. cannot get along just fine without the TEC. TEC cannot get along just fine without the Communion. To go down this road is to stop being what we have always been and become something that is just like everyone else – just little sects or denominations glowing about ourselves. James Smith in his book, “Whose Afraid of Postmodernism?,” stresses the Modernist fallacy that claims that “particularities” are a source of violence and evil. This notion has lead to a lowest common denominator kind of ecumenicism that has resulted in many churches a depleting membership and a growing irrelevancy of influence for the good within our society. He claims in a Postmodern world, the Church needs to reclaim our particularities, our distinctive, else we will continue to descend into irrelevance within the greater culture. Anglicans are Anglicans because we are in communion with the Sea of Canterbury, part of something far larger than ourselves and of many cultural perspectives, take upon ourselves the Western Tradition through the experience of the English Church (locally employed), and live with the incredible tension of being with people we don’t like or agree with as we all come to the altar of God – regardless of whether the other people hate us or love us.
As a gay priest, a Christian, I can do nothing but always regard those who disagree with me regarding same-sex relationships with respect and be with them, even if they hate me, spit upon me, and try to exclude me from God. That doesn’t mean I agree with them or don’t advocate for different positions. I have no choice but to do such things if I want to follow the commands of Jesus rather than the edicts of an ideology, liberal or conservative.
Bob | Homepage | 09.04.09 – 9:19 am | #