Monthly Archives: February 2007

How is this for a good Anglican attitude

Posted on by

UPDATE: It seems the guy (or gal?) who wrote the statement below may be something other than he seems. Don’t know…
—-
I was reading a blog this moring – Drell’s Descants – and came across this comment. How is this for a good Anglican attitude?
Is there any wonder why I cannot go back to American-Evangelicalism, even as it is now so equally expressed within Anglican-Evangelicalism? I don’t know, maybe he is meaning to be ironic or something.
Here he is, commenting within the context of The Episcopal Church and a possible rebuke this Church may face at the upcoming Primates Meeting ——

Comment by Sinner — 2/8/2007 @ 5:58 pm
To late to late to late for the Heretics and Pagans and Child-Killers and Homosexuals!!
They did not listen to the testimony of the living, and now they cannot benefit from the testimony of the DEAD. They have spat upon the sign of Joshua, and the sign of Lazarus would do them no benefit.
We pray that the Primates will throw ECUSA out!
We pray that ECUSA will be consumed in lawsuits!
We pray that every Bishop who has not now today chosen Christ;
we pray that every Priest and layperson who supports the new faith
will be cast down, and destroryed, will be left destitute, and their families left to beg on the street with no medical cover or health insurance or pensions from a spiritually bankrupt ECUSA
we pray all these things out of love
that they may suffer in this life
so that those who have not yet comitted the unforgiveable blasphemny
calling blessed what Chirist has cursed eternally – may yet be saved
and that for those whom have blasphemed, whom Christ has cursed, whom forgiveness cannot reach may soon be broken down to be a sign until the end of times

I just don’t know

Posted on by

I started writing an entry yesterday about how conflicted I am these days. I have said from the beginning of my Episcopalian experience that I don’t know where I fit in this Church. I’m not a reactionary (having left that “party” when I left my little part of American-Evangelicalism).
I was okay not knowing where I fit because within Anglicanism the point of focus seemed to be where one is headed, not necessarily where one has been or where one presently finds oneself – at least this has been my experience. Now, well, not knowing where I fit is a bit more complicated.
The unpleasantness that has plagued Anglicanism over the past six years in particular, and really the last twenty years or so in the making, has pushed me to the point of real conflict over who I agree with, how I go about being this thing called an Anglican priest, whether there even can be a place for me in the new configurations of this Church that have been forced upon it over the last six years. We are becoming something that has never been before within Anglicanism and while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the means by which the change is forced by both reactionary conservatives and reactionary liberals is simply not right. It is a sad reflection of our arrogant and self-centered American selves.
Our Church is confirming the perceived American attitude of, “We are an independent Church and we can do whatever we want, and if you don’t like it or it causes you problems or pain or angst, too bad. We’re Americans and we can do whatever we want and justify it however we want.” We may be the Church, but we are oh so American.
I’m conflicted because I have come to believe through my study of Scripture, prayer, and trying to know as much as I can about the subject as I can, that it can be within God’s permissive will that not all same-sex relationships are forbidden. I believe that a gay person can be bishop, if his/her manner of life is held to the same standard of fidelity, honesty, respect, and mutuality as is expected of a straight person. Yet, the way the American Church leadership has handled the opposition to a gay-person-in-a-relationship being consecrated a Bishop has been typical of how Americans handle any world conflict these days. We do want we want to do and to hell with the opposition no matter the consequences.
We act unilaterally. We act selfishly and without regard to the real issues other nations and cultures have to deal with. I cannot defend this kind of behavior. It isn’t that I disagree with the leadership’s belief that faithful gay people should be included in every aspect of the Church, but I disagree with their reasoning, their forms of justification, and the way they deal with the rest of the world. They have become something inconsistent with traditional Anglicanism.
I disagree with the way they are behaving!
Likewise, I, frankly, agree with a lot of what the “conservatives” uphold as the Christian faith. I am what most people would call an orthodox believer. I can say the Creeds without hesitation or reinterpretation. I am not a Universalist because I believe to be so removes from the equation personal choice – it removes free-will as a characteristic of humankind, made in the image of God, able to accept or reject God. I believe that God has provided a way for the world’s relief and for reconciliation and peace between God and creation and between humankind, and it is through the unique work of Jesus Christ that reconciliation and peace are realized. (I reject the notion, however, that the Holy Spirit cannot work through non-Christians or even through other religions, but it is always to bring people around to the unique figure of Jesus the Christ.)
Yet, I cannot condone the arrogance, the pride, the bearing false witness, the underhanded conniving and scheming, the lying, and the determination to force their particular opinion upon everyone else, and if those other people resist they will be cast into outer darkness. I cannot place myself with these people, even if I do agree with them on many points of faith and practice. They have become something other than consistent and traditional Anglicans.
I disagree with the way they are behaving!
You know, this whole behavior, or “right-doing,” thing just keeps coming up over and over again – this notion of orthopraxis. Any of us may believe exactly the right thing, but the way behave certainly puts us in a whole different (what?) environment/place/position/situation/ball game… I like James! I think we are going to study it during Lent.
A faithful gay person in a faithful relationship should be considered as a candidate for the episcopate just like any faithful straight person. Yet, we Americans after hearing the pleas of, really, most of the rest of the Anglican Communion and world Christianity to wait, said we are going to do it regardless of what anyone else thinks. How is this attitude any different than the attitude of the Bush administration’s determination to go into Iraq despite the pleas of most of the rest of the world?
I believe the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing among us with regard to gay people, but we are not yet able to see just what the outcome will be according to His will. We cannot attempt to corral the Holy Spirit, as if because we claim His name over our particular wants or actions that we are then right and it is in fact a move of the Holy Spirit or as a justification for anything we do that is innovative! Acting “prophetically” does not mean “doing something new or controversial.”
The American Church needs to be chastised and rebuked due to our arrogance. The American Church needs to be brought back into line with the mainstream of Catholic/Reformed Christianity. The American Church should still play the very important role of advocate for change, but within the context of mutuality. And, yes, there does come the point when one group or province needs to step out – I just think the way we did it and the timing was and still is wrong. We are not behaving well.
And, I am conflicted, terribly.
So, I am a “conservative,” but not a reactionary one. I am a “progressive,” but not a reactionary one. I am an advocate for change, but change is not the purpose – change for changes sake is pointless. Advocacy for change in the Christian context always needs to begin with the move into an ever-deeper relationship with God through Jesus Christ, period. IMHO. What I want is to find people who can disagree on theology and piety and argue and debate and still love each other – who can be true Anglicans – and who will behave like Christ calls us to behave!

They just don’t get it…

Posted on by

I attended the book signing event last night for Presiding Bishop Katherine’s new book A Wind and a Prayer at the Episcopal Church Center’s new “Catalyst Cafe & Book Store.” I ran into an departmental official of the Episcopal Church who I know slightly. We talked.
This official made the comment that whenever +Katherine enters a room, her presence is noticed. A quite and confident presence. You know these kinds of people. I think she does have that kind of presence. I got my book signed.
The official made a statement about the upcoming Primates meeting in Tanzania next week. There is great controversy in anticipation of the meeting because several Primates have made it clear that if +Katherine shows up, they will not sit with her or meet with her. The official said that in light of this ability of +Katherine to enter a room and woe people as her presence is felt, that when she goes to Tanzania next week she will walk into the meeting, sit down, and everything will change. Suddenly, all the blustering of these Primates will be overwhelmed by her aura, her quiet and confident presence. He doesn’t understand them!
This is the problem with many on the liberal side of the on going debates. They just really don’t get it. They haven’t up to this point, and rather than stepping back for a moment and reassessing, listening, and seeing how things are actually unfolding, they continue on in their mistaken assumptions. It reminds me of the Bush administration with respect to the Iraqi war and their understanding of the “enemy.” They just don’t get it, but think the really do.
Those Primates who are on the conservative side of the pressing issues will not be easily wooed by this women just because she has an aura about her. I hope they can be, at least so far as to sit down and get to know her, but I am not expecting it.

Another Athanasius quote

Posted on by

Anthanasius, in On the Incarnation:

“But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things – namely a law and a place. He sat them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their origional innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but dying outside of it, continue in death and corruption. This is what holy scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, ‘Of every tree in the Garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in that day that ye do eat, thou shalt surely die.’ [Gen. 2:16f] ‘Ye shall surely die…’ – not just die only, but remain in a state of death and corruption.”

Was the plan all along that man and woman would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and learn what it means to face the consequences of one’s actions – thus being truly able to choose competently between one thing and another? Was this all a part of learning what it meant to be made in the very image of God, who can create freely and choose freely? Or, did we truly thwart God’s will for us as His creation, defying His good will and His command?

What did Jesus actually say?

Posted on by

This gets at the heart of how we perceive, interact with, interpret, and apply Scripture to issues of life. I don’t really think we do a very good job.
On a recent blogging expedition (Titusonenine), a commenter posted a series of scripture verses that he claimed proved that Jesus indeed spoke on the subject of homosexuality. Most people who support the full inclusion of gay people in the Church today will say that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. While I agree with that, the conclusion that, then, scripture should not be used as an authoritative contributor to the anti-inclusion arguments doesn’t seem to me to be the next logical conclusion.
My response will be first, and then I will include the verses the commenter used.
—
My response to Jim the Puritan (#29) –
Jim, the verses you quote are absolutely correct, but your assumption is that all forms of same-sex relationships fall within the definition of what is immoral, automatically. The verses themselves, and thus Jesus, say nothing specific about homosexuality. I disagree with you as you attempt to say that Jesus said anything about homosexuality as recorded in the Gospels of our Lord.
What many people are asking is why the assumption? Then, when we go to Scripture and in light of what has been learned about the homosexual condition over the last 100 years or so, they say that there has been a mistake in our very human interpretation of God’s Holy Word with relation to homosexual people. They believe that a faithful biblical exegesis and hermeneutic of the few verses used to condemn all forms of same-sex relationships in light of all of Scripture cannot bear the weight of the argument against all forms of homosexual relationships. There has been a misinterpretation of Scripture, and the Tradition has supported this misinterpretation for a variety of reasons.
Even a growing number of Evangelical scholars are saying that there are great problems with the traditional interpretations, and many are changing their opinions. This isn’t God’s Word changing – it remains the same always – but our human understanding of God’s Holy Word. Is this the Holy Spirit casting new light on God’s Word? Time will tell, but we need to remember Gamaliel’s recommendation to the Sanhedrin as we work through these times.

Why? Why? Why?

Posted on by

Sometimes, I just have to ask, “Why?” I wish an answer was forthcoming, but I know it is not. Perhaps soon, I don’t know. The bigger questions of life – Why am I doing this? Why am I here? I don’t want this, but here I am – why?
This is simply not what I had in mind when I finished seminary. I know I’m repeating myself, but the struggle to maintain myself in this place when I have no clue as to why I’m here is sometimes almost more than I can bear.
I am thankful for the opportunity. I am thankful for the income. I enjoy working with the people I do. I just am not of the disposition to do this kind of work. (This has nothing to do with the parish in which I’m working, by the way. Just so that is clear.) It affects my attitude, my dedication to the task, my outlook, and my work. It affects the work that I truly want to be doing and for which I spend years in preparation – my best working hours are spent sitting at a desk looking at numbers. I’m slow to take the initiative, unless it has to do with certain other kinds of things – like learning a new software package or organizing something or another (I like to organize, believe it or not.). I’m a right-brain person stuck in a very, very left-brain job.
And, frankly, I don’t want to whine, but sometimes it just becomes too much.
Now, in all reality, I should just shut up. I’m paid well. I work in New York City. I’m working on a project that really is of importance to the Church. I work in a nice environment with good people. I’m able to give money freely to those in need. A lot of people would jump at the opportunity to do what I am doing. It is a great opportunity for someone. I get to work with the people of St. Paul’s.
Why, God, am I here doing this kind of work. I need a different attitude, and I’m trying. It just isn’t coming. (Of course, in hindsight I’m sure I will understand and be thankful. Isn’t that how it always is? I certainly hope so, because if not I’m going to be pissed – at myself more than anyone because I discerned that this was were I was being put for a reason, and I will be the one who screwed-up.)

It’s all your fault!

Posted on by

There is a thread on Titusonenine to which I’ve posted a couple comments. One particular poster, who can argue well, posted something along the lines that “we,” meaning those who oppose the inclusion of gay people in relationships in the Church, did not start this mess, and it is the fault of the “innovators” or “reappraisers” or whatever-term-one-wants-to-use, who will not listen to the wisdom of those who will not accept the reassessment of Scripture and Tradition concerning this issue.
Phil Snyder wrote:

“One of my biggest problem with this whole ‘We spending too much time on sexuality when there’s poverty and AIDS and hunger to fight” argument is that the reasserters did not bring this up. We are not the ones who insisted we fight this. We are not the ones who refused to listen to the Anglican Communion. I wish this had never been brought up and that we were able to spend our energy on fighting hunger and poverty and AIDS in America and around the world. I weep when I think of all the money and time that we have spent fighting each other so that a very small group of people will not have their feelings hurt by having their behavior labled “sin.”
If you want to work together to fight hunger and eliminate poverty and work with Africans to solve the problems in Africa, then stop pushing these new innovations in Christian belief and practice and repent of pushing them to start with and learn to listen to the wisdom of people who live in these countries on how to solve their problems.”

My responses follows:
I remember reading various sermons and essays by Christians during the slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights battles in this country. I remember the language used and the accusations made against those who advocated and fought for the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, or equal rights and those who opposed such “innovations.” The attitudes of so many during the slavery battles, and then again during the civil rights era were the same as you have stated above. If we just ignore injustice and let things remain as they are, not rocking the boat of centuries of Tradition and “correct” Biblical interpretation, then there will be no need for battles or problems or division, etc. God’s truth will reign in glory everlasting.
The Episcopal Church was pretty much silent about the slavery issue during the Civil War. Some may say that was wise, most now claim that it was not. I really can’t say, only that there does come a point where decisions need to be made and “innovations” like the end of slavery (a biblically justified condition for up to near 1,800 years, despite a very small but growing minority that championed for an end of slavery of various kinds) need to be advanced.
The Church is doing battle right now over what it considers an injustice concerning the inclusion of gay people – those who are chaste and those in mutual, life-long, and monogamous relationships – in the life of the Church. If we understand our history and don’t try to overlay our own current-day perceptions upon those people back then, the comparison between attitudes and actions now (gay issue) and back then (slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, etc), will show that the battles were as venomous and/or virtuous then as they are today over this issue.
Time will tell who is right. Time will also tell whose interpretation of Scripture will prevail and as God’s will is always done, whose opinion is truly “on God’s side” and whose is not. (Frankly, I doubt any of us are right at this point!) But, to say with incrimination that “our side” did not start this battle and that “we” are right in “our” demand to remain as the Church have always been, is like saying that those who self-justifyingly supported the continuation of slavery or the denial of women’s suffrage or racial discrimination virtuously didn’t ask for the fight and social tumult during those battles, but rather sought peace or truth or the continuation of the “Tradition” over the “innovation.”

iPod Shuffle – 10:45 am

Posted on by

From my iPod this morning, the soothing sounds of:
1. John Coltrane, Alabama, from ‘The Gentle Side of…’ (Jason, was this your CD?)
2. Skott Freedman, Lately, from ‘Swimming After Dark’
3. Slavyanka Men’s Choir, Spasi, Gospodi, Lyudi Tvoya (O Lord, Save Thy People), from ‘Russian Church Music’
4. Halloween Alaska, All the Arms Around Me, from ‘Halloween Alaska’
5. Slavyanka Men’s Choir, Dostoino yest’ (It is Fitting), from ‘Russian Church Music’
6. Wicked cast, Dancing Through Life, from ‘ Wicked Original Cast Recording’
7. The Robert Shaw Festival Singers, Velichit Dusha Moya Gospoda (My Soul Magnifies the Lord), from ‘Rachmaninov’s Vespers’
8. Emmylou Harris, The Pearl, from ‘Red Dirt Girl’
9. Sigar Ros, Meo Bioonasir, from ‘Takk’
10. Skott Freedman, Nothing More, from ‘Swimming After Dark’
The rules, for bloggers who want to play:

Get your ipod or media-player of choice, select your whole music collection, set the thing to shuffle (i.e., randomized playback), then post the first ten songs that come out. No cheating, no matter how stupid it makes you feel!

Idea originally from Fr. Jim Tucker of Dappled Things

Process – Free-Will – Postliberal

Posted on by

From the book,

“This widespread disaffection with Enlightenment rationality opens the door to other approaches to theology. For postliberals, it means that contemporary culture is no longer the norm for Christian thought. Accordingly, the primary concern of Christian theology is not to find other language with which to express the Christian message, but to employ the narrative form of Scripture. In doing so, it reverses the tendency of modern theology to accommodate itself to culture. Instead of letting the world absorb the gospel, its goal is for the gospel to absorb the world. ‘Rather than translating Scripture into an external and alien from of reference, which devalues and undermines its normative position and eventually produces an accommodation to culture, the postliberals call for an intratextual theology that finds the meaning of the Christian language within the text.’
“Evangelical theologians who share the conviction that theology’s primary concern lies within the text will have reservations about Wheeler’s call to employ process philosophy in hopes of getting a larger hearing. IN particular, they will question the very ideas of an independent perspective that corroborates the biblical perspective. As they see it, our most important concern should not be to find conceptual, philosophical ways of expressing the Christian message, but to let the primary symbols and narratives of Christian faith speak with their own power. To make the case he wants to for process thought, Wheeler needs to take into account the shifting theological scene.”

Richard Rice, Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, editors: John Cobb & Clark Pinnock, p. 158.