Category Archives: politics/culture

I’m Christian, unless you’re gay.

Posted on by
Reply

Dan Pearce writes this piece on his blog, “sdl.” It is worth reading!  It is about, after all is said and done, how we live out the calling of Jesus Christ – how we are and are not living up to the example and commands of Jesus. Here are a couple paragraphs to give you a taste.

“Why is it that sometimes the most Christlike people are they who have no religion at all?

“I have known a lot of people in my life, and I can tell you this… Some of the ones who understood love better than anyone else were those who the rest of the world had long before measured as lost or gone. Some of the people who were able to look at the dirtiest, the poorest, the gays, the straights, the drug users, those in recovery, the basest of sinners, and those who were just… plain… different…

“They were able to look at them all and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope.

“And if we boil it down, isn’t that what love actually is?

“Don’t get me wrong. I know a lot of incredible Christians, too. I know some incredible Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Jews. I know a lot of amazing people, devout in their various religions, who truly love the people around them.

“I also know some atheist, agnostic, or religionless people who are absolutely hateful of believers. They loathe their religious counterparts. They love only those who believe (or don’t believe) the same things they do.

“In truth, having a religion doesn’t make a person love or not love others. It doesn’t make a person accept or not accept others. It doesn’t make a person befriend or not befriend others.

“Being without a religion doesn’t make somebody do or be any of that either.

“No, what makes somebody love, accept, and befriend their fellow man is letting go of a need to be better than others.

“Nothing else.

“I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin.


“Okay.


“But, what does that have to do with love?


“I repeat… what does that have to do with love?


“Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around
someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a
different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they
should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting
what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them
in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs
right.


“It has everything to do with being a good human being. A good person. A good friend.


“That’s all….

“My request today is simple. Today. Tomorrow. Next week. Find
somebody, anybody, that’s different than you. Somebody that has made you
feel ill-will or even [gulp…] hateful. Somebody whose life decisions
have made you uncomfortable. Somebody who practices a different religion
than you do. Somebody who has been lost to addiction. Somebody with a
criminal past. Somebody who dresses “below” you. Somebody with
disabilities. Somebody who lives an alternative lifestyle. Somebody
without a home.


“Somebody that you, until now, would always avoid, always look down on, and always be disgusted by.


“Reach your arm out and put it around them.


“And then, tell them they’re all right. Tell them they have a friend. Tell them you love them.


“If you or I wanna make a change in this world, that’s where we’re gonna be able to do it. That’s where we’ll start.


“Every. Single. Time.


“Because what you’ll find, and I promise you this, is that the more
you put your arm around those that you might naturally look down on, the
more you will love yourself. And the more you love yourself, the less need you’ll ever have to find fault or be better than others.  And the less we all find fault or have a need to be better than others, the quicker this world becomes a far better place to live.


“And don’t we all want to live in a better world? Don’t we all want our kids to grow up in a better, less hateful, more beautiful “world?


“I know I do.”

Read all of the post.

Think on such things – try to come into the idea that the Way of Jesus Christ is so contrary to this American culture of ours! It matters not how much the left or right or liberal or conservative or Roman Catholic or Evangelical or Anglican or Protestant or Independent wants us all to believe that THEY (their group, their belief system, their denomination, their church) have it all exactly right and so lovingly warn everyone else that if they don’t get on board they are going straight to the Lake of Burning Fire for all eternity -crispy critters.

We are blind. Why? Because we are fallible, because we see in part, because we know in part, and because we will not know fully until we get on to the other side.  Why, then do we have to pretend that we or I or s/he or us are exactly right?

New Order?

Posted on by
Reply

Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao, with Zhou En...

Henry Kissinger speaking with Chairman Mao.

The following quote by Henry Kissinger in his recent book, “On China,” relates to the reasons for the profound one year change from near-war animosity between China & the U.S. to both governments preparing for Nixon’s historic first visit to Mao’s China. This is the “It” that begins the quote.  What lessons can we learn for our dealings with the prevalent proclivities we find in our antagonistic and animosity filled culture and the Church’s engagement with it?

“It did so by sidestepping the rhetoric of two decades & staying focused on the fundamental strategic objective of a geopolitical dialogue leading to a recasting of the Cold War international order.” (On China, Kissinger; p. 234).

Is such a reordering possible in our two-decades old U.S. Culture War that has perverted our governmental processes and the Christian Faith in the U.S.? 

What should we sidestep? How do we do it?  What remains of the enduring “strategic objective” of the Church – for those who claim Christ who desire to find a way beyond the hubris, the anger, the bitterness, the spitefulness, the willful ignorance, the vengeful attitudes and actions that subsume so much of what is the Body of Christ, today?

The New “Anglicans”?

Posted on by
Reply

When I was in seminary (2002-2005), Gene Robinson was consecrated the new Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. I don’t believe this was any kind of “political move” or a decision by the diocese for reasons of political-correctness, but the people of the diocese voting for a priest they knew, had faith in, and considered to be faithful to the Gospel. The fact that he was gay and had a partner didn’t keep them from voting for him. There are, of course, lots of opinions about him, the diocese, and act of consecrating him a bishop in The Episcopal Church.  A whole lot has happened since then.

One aspect of the outcome has been the leaving of many Episcopalians to other Christian bodies and the creation of the Anglican Church of North America – a place where disaffected Episcopalians could flee and where some of the other “Continuing Anglican” bodies could affiliate. The hope was/is that this new church would replace the Episcopal Church as the official Anglican Provencal institution. This hasn’t happened. IMHO, many of the actions taken by the four dioceses, the parishes, clergy, and people who left the Episcopal Church and their motivation proves to be very American, but not very Anglican.

One such new institution is the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). This group actually left the Episcopal Church earlier, over women’s ordination, I think.  They ended up being under the authority of the Anglican Church in Rwanda.  The Rwandan Church consecrated new bishops to oversee this new church institution.  The Rev. Church Murphy, former Episcopalian, was one of these new bishops.  He now leads/led this group of churches.

So, now, some things have happened between the House of Bishops of the Rwandan Church and now-bishop Murphy that raises the ire of Murphy and some others in the AMiA.  The Primate of Rwanda went about disciplining Murphy, which, of course, Murphy didn’t like.  An ultimative was give to Murphy and the consequences for non-compliance were spelled out. A couple days ago, Murphy and the other AMiA American bishops affiliated with the Rwandan Church have announced that they are splitting with the Rwandan Church. Who knows what will finally play out, but it seems that Murphy and company may end up creating yet another Protestant denomination in the U.S. – another sect.

When I moved out of American-Evangelicalism and into Anglicanism (via TEC)
in the mid-1990’s, I recognized that there was a great deal in common
between American-Evangelicalism and Anglican-Evangelicalism. One issue
that wasn’t really dealt with in my parish was the difference between
the two. I’ve come to learn the difference. There was a real failure
among priests to teach “Anglicanism” – whether Evangelical,
Anglo-Catholic, or Broad Church – and how it is distinct and different
(yet similiar) to the other traditions. I think this is an underlying
issue among a lot of folks who left, who stayed, who broke-off, etc. It
is my opinion that this is a primary reason underlying the actions of
Murphy and others.

Anglican-Evangelicals are Catholic! American-Evangelicals (within
which I was raised) are not.  As a matter of fact, they are often
anti-Catholic (both in polity and with respect to the Roman Catholic
Church). I think many American-Evangelicals who came into Anglicanism
through the Episcopal Church, like myself, never learned the difference
between Anglican- and American-Evangelicalism. When the going got tough
within the Episcopal Church, many of us reacted just like
American-Evangelicals, which means there was no issue or problem
believing we could simply break-off and start our own thing, since to
divide is the time-honored American-Evangelical way of “solving” or
avoiding problems. They, we, I, didn’t act like Anglican-Evangelicals,
who because we are Catholic, simply don’t separate, break-off, or form a
whole new church. There are times when conservatives are in the
ascendency and times when liberals are, but it seems to me that a
fundamental difference within Anglicanism is that we suffer through if
we have to because the Church is the Church Catholic, period, and cannot
be divided.

Chuck Murphy and those of the AMiA
who now spurn Rwanda are simply following the path they set out on and
doing the very American-Evangelical thing. It is expected.  That is how
American-Evangelicals react to so many of the interpersonal and
authoritarian problems. I say this not out of anger or bitterness toward
my former tradition, because I am very glad of it, but out of a real
desire to be authentically “Anglican.”

Split Ends…

Posted on by
Reply

“A church split builds self-righteousness into the fabric of every new
splinter group., whose only reason for existence is that they decide
they are more moral and pure than other brethren. This explains my
childhood, and perhaps a lot about America, too.

Cover of

Cover via Amazon

“The United
States is a country with a national character of a newly formed church
splinter group. This is not surprising. Our country started as a church
splinter group. The Puritans left England because they believed they were
more enlightened than members of the Church of England, and they were
eager to form a perfect earthly community following a pure theology. They also had every intention of some day returning to England, once
they had proved that something close to heaven on earth could work, and
reforming their “heretical” fellow citizens.

“America still sees
itself as essential and as destiny’s instrument. And each splinter group
within our culture – left, right, conservative, liberal, religious,
secular – sees itself as morally, even “theologically,” superior to
it’s rivals. It is not just about politics. It is about being better
than one’s evil opponent. We don’t just disagree, we demonize the
‘other.’ And we don’t compromise.”

Frank Schaeffer, “Crazy for God;” pp
30-31

5 Cultural Shifts

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting, and short, article on cultural changes that we need to pay attention to, particularly if we care about emerging generations and their interest in and involvement in their own spiritual lives and our worshiping communities.  Here are a couple paragraphs…

Five cultural shifts that should affect the way we do church

“It’s probably good that most churches aren’t all wrapped up in the latest fads. We don’t have the cash to keep up with most of it, and if we do, we’re probably better off spending that money on feeding the homeless rather than making sure the youth room has the newest flat-screen TV…

“But there are cultural shifts that congregations and church leaders need to track and respond to sensibly. Here are five of them.”

Read it all here

By: Carol Howard Merritt on the Duke Divinity School blog, “Call & Response blog”

Continue reading →

Wither the Church

Posted on by
Reply

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.

The Real Mission

Posted on by
Reply

“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

WAVELAND, MS - APRIL 17: Worshipers gather in...

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.

The Church Proclaims (or do we)

Posted on by
Reply

OWS_001.jpg
I’ve spent time with people in Zuccotti Park. I walked along with the marchers from the Park to Washington Square.

I hear and see religious leaders marching, making pronouncements, building a golden calf. Do we have anything unique to say to a frustrated society other than jumping on yet another bandwagon?

Does Jesus really love an unemployed person more than a corporate CEO? Or, does Jesus wish both to reconciliation and transformation for the benefit of their own souls and society.

Do we honesty believe that Jesus is superficial enough to proclaim that he loves the fallible, humanly created Socialist economic system more than the fallible, humanly created Capitalist economic system or visa-versa? Or, might Jesus rather wish that no matter what economic system a society decides, that the people leading and inhabiting that system live such lives that the image of God is evident, regardless?  Yet, this requires a way of ordering our lives, with Jesus at the center of our personal perception, that many people have a hard time accepting. (There is nothing new under the sun.)

If we have nothing more to say to society than what people hear on Fox News or MSMBC, then no wonder fewer and fewer people find anything compelling in the Church.

What we proclaim and assert may not be what people wish to hear – that which scratches their itching ears – but we do have a unique message, if only we are secure enough and confident enough to say so.

The unemployed, the poor, the wealthy are all in need to redemption and reconciliation. Evil and good are found in all groups of people and in all systems.  This should be our beginning point, rather than jumping on bandwagons that promote social, political, or economic ideologies.

Occupy Wall Street

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, October 6th, John Mertz (priest-in-charge of the Greenpoint parish) went down to Zuccotti Park (Liberty Park) to see what was going on at the Occupy Wall Street protest site.  John wanted to attend the second of two daily “General Assembly” meetings where organization is arrived at and announcements and decisions are made.

I was, frankly, quite impressed with what I say and experienced.  Yes, of course, there are the fringe people, but for the most part these where normal young folks who for perhaps the first time where engaging in the democratic process.  Being trained as a Social Studies teacher and seeing all the young people at the site, well, this whole affair is thrilling (just like the Tea Party phenomena is thrilling, but with a different perspective).

I was impressed with the organizers at the General Assembly.  Their calm, reason, and organizational skills were apparent.  I “spirit” of the whole thing was, in fact, respectful, even with a decided point of view expressed freely.  They are very conscious of the neighbors (the babies that have to go to sleep), the businesses in the area, the sanitation issues, and of their relationship with the police (they are civil servants who are part of the 99%… they are not the enemy).  These people know what they are doing.

Yet, there are those who are provocateurs.  There are anarchists.  There are the glommers-on who have no real interest in the cause (as undefined as it is), but only want to stir up trouble.  These people are present, and they are ready.  The struggle will be for the organizers how to mitigate these people so that they do not spoil the whole enterprise.

John and I both wore clericals. I was surprised at the expression of desire among many people that the clergy get involved and that the Church (whatever church) make a statement. This is a nod to whatever residual authority the Church may still hold within the younger demographic of American society.  Gen Y is so very different than the Baby-Boomers, yet they can at times look very similiar.  This is a problem for the Baby Boomers – they see Gen Y and think that they are like themselves.  This is clearly seen who Baby-Boomer commentators write or speak about how this protest is like the 1960’s or the aging hippies in Zuccotti Park. 

Here is the thing:  As a Christian, I am compelled to regard both sides as having the need to redemption and in the need of reconciliation.  Neither side is all evil or all virtuous! 

No social, political, or economic systems will achieve what most people are seeking.  All the “systems” are temporal and fallible – they look great on paper but don’t work in real life.  All systems presume something about the human creature that is invalid.  From the start, then, the systems that look great on paper do not work when the rubber-hits-the-road. 

So, what I will say will not please anyone, frankly.  Capitalism and Socialism are neutral systems – both can work or not depending on the people who lead and the people who inhabit the system.  As a Christian, I focus on the people and not so much the system (even though I have my own opinions on what system seems to work best based on data as much as possible).

The Church needs to understand that we don’t simply jump on a bandwagon… we offer an alternative that begins with Jesus Christ.  That, frankly, is the problem within a society that is increasingly post-Christian and demands that everything be considered and treated equally without critical evaluation and where any opinion anyone holds must be esteemed as valid.  It is also a problem for those in the Church – particularity the leadership – who are so insecure that they are afraid to proclaim anything that might bring about opposition or ridicule or condescension.