I note this week that in the aftermath of the Dar es Salaam communique (besides that i can spell Dar es Salaam), and the House of Bishops response, folks are envisioning how TEC might look once the struggle is over. Perhaps in our own war we're creeping past Churchill's, "it's not the end, it's not the beginning of the end, but it's the end of the beginning."
In that regard this week, there was a guest editorial on the Blog of Daniel website by a conservative priest from San Joaquin in response to an invitation to envision how the Church might look in the future. The priest refers to the 'horsepills,' each side must swallow:
Horsepill 1: the conservative perspective, "while we cannot condone the blessing of committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage, because anything else falls short of God's design, neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace, and be available to you with informal pastoral support. And we will remain in an Episcopal Church in which many (most) believe that God is calling us to something more overt, as a faithful minority, even as we disagree about God's call."
Horsepill 2: the liberal perspective, "just because you don't support the goal of 'full inclusion,' doesn't mean you're homophobic, and those of you who can't accept women as priests and bishops are not misogynists. We understand the need for some degree of 'insulation' from what church leaders are saying and doing, even while we don't agree with your perception. We believe conservative dioceses should be able to elect bishops that reflect their values, and have those elections consented to. And while we don't share many of the views of our Anglican brothers and sisters in the developing world, our unity with them is so precious to us that we are willing to lay aside some of what we consider to be true."
Where do I start? First, there's that familiar sense that conservatives know without a doubt 'God's design,' while God isn't mentioned at all from the liberal perspective, and if I'm already exasperated at this point, what chance does this have?
Is it sufficient that conservatives will let liberals live in peace? No, but gee, thanks. Is it possible that conservatives can act as a faithful minority? The entire period from 2003 until now shows their leaders aren't willing. The reason the Bishop of South Carolina was not consented to was not that he was conservative, but that he wasn't perceived to be loyal to the institution to which he was elected. A loyal conservative would no doubt have been confirmed, not one, who throughout, and especially at the last minute, with his election slipping away, issues a transparently tactical pledge worthy of a political convention that no one took seriously.
I've been reading the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek this week. If you know of him, you might be surprised. When Maggie Thatcher was running for office, she came in upon a meeting of her campaign team who were struggling to create a platform. She's famously reported to have slammed down Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," saying, 'this is our platform!" No liberal, he. Yet while he's revered as a free market god by modern British and American conservative mandarins, he so rejects that title, he was moved to publish an article called "Why I Am Not a Conservative."
The goal of Hayek was to distinguish between folks who claim the mantle of conservatism but still desire a large role for governement versus those who stand for a more unfettered liberty. I've been pursuing this distinction for a long time because as strange as it feels to even write it, I believe as I've aged, as a direct result of working at homeless shelters, I've come more and more to accept that true liberty means living an independent-minded life of responsibility and consequences at a local level as possible.
What's wierd is that Republicans, while perceived as being the party of small government, are always calling for more government, from what books should be on library shelves, to enormous subsidies and sole source contracts for huge corporations, to eliminating privacy as a right to the point where all personal decisions, even who lives or dies, aren't made within the family but are dictated by a litany of national legislation and constitutional amendments.
The reason it's unlikely Hayek would think the horsepill approach workable is found where he writes, "I do not mean to write the conservative lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permit the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The conservative is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Indeed. If as our San Joaquin priest writes, conservatives were ever willing to live as a faithful minority in disagreement, since they were twice on the losing end of a two thirds and a three fourths majority vote at two consecutive general conventions, rather than believing they're entitled to force the values they hold on other people, we would not be in this mess in the first place.
In Hayek's worldview, though, the recent neo-Anglican surge amongst us would be akin to socialism in its level of desire to enforce its singular discernment of morality. He writes, "conservatism by its very nature cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies to slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance."
This is what I've instinctively known throughout the struggle; that when all one does is play defense, then, by nature, one acts stubbornly defensive, and increasingly harsh, and therfore remains in a place where it's difficult to move forward in any way; in fact, your constituency demands no compromise as a condition for continued membership and funding. Hayek confirms, "the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been."
The rub (there's always a rub, as you know by now, faithful reader) whether liberal, libertarian or conservative, is that it's not enough to exist based upon a pledge by a semi-faithful minority not to harass the vast majority, today, since they'll always appear something new to further oppose, tomorrow. In the post-HOB response to Dar es Salaam, the majority is coming together, first, by rejecting a non-Anglican Papal-like authority exercised by remote non-TEC Bishops, as alien to the nature of the Church in America from its founding, indeed, as the reason for its founding; and two, as a Church not content with standing still in the face of harassment, but as a body actively pursuing the furtherance of justice and inclusion, in a tent large enough hold local parishes where that is less self-evident, and parishes where that identity is central and active. The American Episcopal Church, while exclusively Christian, but with a governance containing a bi-cameral constitutional structure, is the ideal institution through which this forward-looking approach can operate within a pluralistic polity.
With each parish free to act in a manner natural to its dna, there exists no conceivable place for an extemist organization with an Archbishop, allied to other like-minded primates, that claims a Scriptual authority and mandate to not only extinguish all other ideas than ones known by the elect to be inspired by God and Holy Writ, but that also serves, overtly and complicitly, to threaten even the very lives of those who are vulnerable to the violence inspired by their thoughts, words and deeds.
I take a dozen pills a day so that I might continue to exist. The horsepill prescribed by the San Joaquin priest is one to many to swallow with insufficient effect.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Can you go home again?
I note this week a quote from the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river, and it's not the same man." It came to mind since Connie and I spent time in Florida visiting my parents and friends I've known for forty years. Another less ancient maxim declares, "Wherever you go, there you are." So which is it - can you go home again or not?
I lived in Florida from 1966 to 1978, only twelve years, yet last week when we needed to cross town for dinner, I showed off by driving a short cut. I get lost today traversing familiar Virginian routes where I've lived for thirty years. Perhpas it has something to do with brain development (or lack thereof). I lived in Orlando from twelve till twentyfour. Scientists have observed it's much easier to learn a foreign language before you're twelve due to the way brain chemistry changes as you age. At dinner, my best friend Dave, recalled a bad joke I employed during a speech in high school on the John Birch Society; something about a 'son of a birch.' Gee, some interests don't change, I reckon, bad puns and bad politics.
Thomas Wolfe wrote, "You can't go home again. Your childhood is lost. The friends of youth are gone. Your present is slipping away from you. Nothing is ever the same." I went home last week. The friends of my youth are there. We took my pop to a spring training baseball game and remembered when he took me to my first game to see Mickey Mantle at Yankee Stadium. Connie and I took in the same Winter Park Art Festival where Dave and I had embarrassed ourselves singing "Let the Sunshine In," sitting crosslegged in the park in 1968. Yet some things have changed. Open land in the old neighborhood is so scarce most old homes have been torn down and replaced on the spot by 're-builds.' I also note that every housing development built in the last fifteen years is a gated development.
What does that say about a town, then and now? Is it simply a matter of harsher times? A great deal of my studies are devoted to what it means to live well in times of great change just as St. Augustine pondered when the Barbarians were closing in on the Roman Empire. What are the old values that should carry over even as we open ourselves to new things? What does it mean to be a liberal with a strong conservative bias? Does that define a traditional progressive Episcopalian?
I once heard a neighbor say it was impossible to be a liberal and a Christian. I don't accept it (I am it) but still ponder the unyielding divisiveness her comment portends. This morning there was a short editorial in the local rag about George Allen's appointment as a 'Ronald Reagan Ranch Scholar.' The writer wondered if name-calling his recent political opponent a pornographer during the campaign was consistent with what could be called the conservative values of "civility and common decency." I've wondered too since after the election I heard former Senator Allen on a radio show prognosticating football picks. He was easy going, soft spoken and charming. Was it the real George Allen on the campaign trail or a product his handlers determined would sell best, and why do they think 'mean' appeals better than 'nice'?
There are nice people living in those gated communities. There are nice people attending St. Margaret's Anglican. Is there any larger connection to make between those parishoners and a March 22nd article in a Nigerian newspaper about the impact of the government of Nigeria's signature on an international anti-genocide protcol on the pending national legislation to imprison gays. The article states, "It is certain that if those who signed the general convention knew the definition of genocide is so elastic that it also protects lesbians and homosexuals, they would have hesitated before signing."
Of course, without a doubt, no one in St. Margaret's Anglican would countenance the sentitments in this horrific piece. Yet, how is it that they, or the nice people of The Falls Church, or Truro, or the other Virginia break-away parishes, or Martyn Minns, can countenance the legislation through their silence, or even, by supporting unchallenged, those who overtly rationalize it on geo-political or religious grounds, such as the author of the piece who concluded, "Some of our cousins in the West have gone so overboard in their identification with Satan that we who still have the gospel have a responsbility to educate them to toe the path of morality and right standing by God."
To continue as the secessionists have, in silence, in association with Nigerian and CANA Archbishop Akinola, is to countenance, by default, the legislation, the resultant dehumanization of people, and to offer them up to imprisonment and violence. There is no way around it, no justication, no rationalization, as if you were isolated in a gated parish, from the dire consequences to the gay people of Niegera if the legislation if enacted by the end of March. The only way out is to proclaim a full unhesitating public denunciation. Short of that lies complicity and responsibility, even for very nice people who may take little or no notice of events far away from their church and homes. It is not yet too late.
I note the stark contrast included in the TEC House of Bishops response this week to the Dar es Salaam communique, "Finally, we believe the leaders of the Church must always hold basic human rights and the dignity of every human being as fundamental concerns in our witness for Christ. We were, therefore, concerned that while the communique focuses on homosexuality, it ignores the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexaual behavior in many nations of the world."
I note the word, 'finally," for I've been impatient. I've worried about the response of our own Bishop to events since 2003, yet he has come through. I fretted about Bishop Katharine when she signed the communique, yet, she, and the House of Bishops, have come through. I feel like trusting again. I feel like going home to the Episcopal Church. I feel like almost saying for certain that the rug won't be pulled out from under again and that now, finally, progress towards full inclusion of all God's children will continue unabated.
The Greek playright Aristophenes wrote, "a man's homeland is wherever he prospers." In the end, perhaps home isn't so much a matter of an endlessly flowing river slipping away. It's returning again and again to the lasting waters of unconditional love, embracing and claiming His sacrifice on behalf of others, rather than sacrificing others in His name under banners of Authority, traditionalism or anti-culturalism. It's a love that's eternally true and that prospers; this love symbolized by Jesus on the Cross, and His resurrection. It's Easter. Time to go home.
I lived in Florida from 1966 to 1978, only twelve years, yet last week when we needed to cross town for dinner, I showed off by driving a short cut. I get lost today traversing familiar Virginian routes where I've lived for thirty years. Perhpas it has something to do with brain development (or lack thereof). I lived in Orlando from twelve till twentyfour. Scientists have observed it's much easier to learn a foreign language before you're twelve due to the way brain chemistry changes as you age. At dinner, my best friend Dave, recalled a bad joke I employed during a speech in high school on the John Birch Society; something about a 'son of a birch.' Gee, some interests don't change, I reckon, bad puns and bad politics.
Thomas Wolfe wrote, "You can't go home again. Your childhood is lost. The friends of youth are gone. Your present is slipping away from you. Nothing is ever the same." I went home last week. The friends of my youth are there. We took my pop to a spring training baseball game and remembered when he took me to my first game to see Mickey Mantle at Yankee Stadium. Connie and I took in the same Winter Park Art Festival where Dave and I had embarrassed ourselves singing "Let the Sunshine In," sitting crosslegged in the park in 1968. Yet some things have changed. Open land in the old neighborhood is so scarce most old homes have been torn down and replaced on the spot by 're-builds.' I also note that every housing development built in the last fifteen years is a gated development.
What does that say about a town, then and now? Is it simply a matter of harsher times? A great deal of my studies are devoted to what it means to live well in times of great change just as St. Augustine pondered when the Barbarians were closing in on the Roman Empire. What are the old values that should carry over even as we open ourselves to new things? What does it mean to be a liberal with a strong conservative bias? Does that define a traditional progressive Episcopalian?
I once heard a neighbor say it was impossible to be a liberal and a Christian. I don't accept it (I am it) but still ponder the unyielding divisiveness her comment portends. This morning there was a short editorial in the local rag about George Allen's appointment as a 'Ronald Reagan Ranch Scholar.' The writer wondered if name-calling his recent political opponent a pornographer during the campaign was consistent with what could be called the conservative values of "civility and common decency." I've wondered too since after the election I heard former Senator Allen on a radio show prognosticating football picks. He was easy going, soft spoken and charming. Was it the real George Allen on the campaign trail or a product his handlers determined would sell best, and why do they think 'mean' appeals better than 'nice'?
There are nice people living in those gated communities. There are nice people attending St. Margaret's Anglican. Is there any larger connection to make between those parishoners and a March 22nd article in a Nigerian newspaper about the impact of the government of Nigeria's signature on an international anti-genocide protcol on the pending national legislation to imprison gays. The article states, "It is certain that if those who signed the general convention knew the definition of genocide is so elastic that it also protects lesbians and homosexuals, they would have hesitated before signing."
Of course, without a doubt, no one in St. Margaret's Anglican would countenance the sentitments in this horrific piece. Yet, how is it that they, or the nice people of The Falls Church, or Truro, or the other Virginia break-away parishes, or Martyn Minns, can countenance the legislation through their silence, or even, by supporting unchallenged, those who overtly rationalize it on geo-political or religious grounds, such as the author of the piece who concluded, "Some of our cousins in the West have gone so overboard in their identification with Satan that we who still have the gospel have a responsbility to educate them to toe the path of morality and right standing by God."
To continue as the secessionists have, in silence, in association with Nigerian and CANA Archbishop Akinola, is to countenance, by default, the legislation, the resultant dehumanization of people, and to offer them up to imprisonment and violence. There is no way around it, no justication, no rationalization, as if you were isolated in a gated parish, from the dire consequences to the gay people of Niegera if the legislation if enacted by the end of March. The only way out is to proclaim a full unhesitating public denunciation. Short of that lies complicity and responsibility, even for very nice people who may take little or no notice of events far away from their church and homes. It is not yet too late.
I note the stark contrast included in the TEC House of Bishops response this week to the Dar es Salaam communique, "Finally, we believe the leaders of the Church must always hold basic human rights and the dignity of every human being as fundamental concerns in our witness for Christ. We were, therefore, concerned that while the communique focuses on homosexuality, it ignores the pressing issues of violence against gay and lesbian people around the world, and the criminalization of homosexaual behavior in many nations of the world."
I note the word, 'finally," for I've been impatient. I've worried about the response of our own Bishop to events since 2003, yet he has come through. I fretted about Bishop Katharine when she signed the communique, yet, she, and the House of Bishops, have come through. I feel like trusting again. I feel like going home to the Episcopal Church. I feel like almost saying for certain that the rug won't be pulled out from under again and that now, finally, progress towards full inclusion of all God's children will continue unabated.
The Greek playright Aristophenes wrote, "a man's homeland is wherever he prospers." In the end, perhaps home isn't so much a matter of an endlessly flowing river slipping away. It's returning again and again to the lasting waters of unconditional love, embracing and claiming His sacrifice on behalf of others, rather than sacrificing others in His name under banners of Authority, traditionalism or anti-culturalism. It's a love that's eternally true and that prospers; this love symbolized by Jesus on the Cross, and His resurrection. It's Easter. Time to go home.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Dueling Margaret's
I note this week, a note written by the Sr. Warden, St. Margaret's Anglican, to that congregation, which was passed on by friends. In framing a response, I look to the great Catholic social justice advocate, Dorothy Day, whose spiritual guru was a French monk/peasant named Peter Maurin. Peter, who never ceased communicating his 'easy essays', and back to the land theology, recongnized a need for life-long learning through a process he described as 'on-going clarification of thought.' I present this with that spirit in mind. Whenever I write, I extensively self-examine the logic of the arguments. If I detect flaws, I can't publish nor rest until they're resolved. As I engage this note, and examine the arguments posited by the Sr. Warden, I apply the same rules of logic I impose upon myself, with a hope of drawing us all closer to the truth.
The Sr. Warden writes, "We have not abandoned our property nor have we abandoned our identity as Americans and Anglicans." When I looked for the word 'abandon,' in my set of beloved dictionaries, I was surprised that references to property were not contained in the primary defintions. Rather I found that, 'forsake, desert, and to surrender one's claim or right,' were the most common meanings over the years. When the Sr. Warden employs abandon in that linguistic context, it's accurate since he hasn't physically left or surrendered his claim; the Diocese, means by the same word, however, that those who now bodily inhabit the property have forsaken the original use for which it's intended, not whether it's still physically inhabited.
The Sr. Warden rhetorically asks, "how did we get here." He answers, "We have been struggling with the same issue...for years," and "momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," so, "there seemed to be no way forward."
Post General Convention, 2003, I along with everyone experienced the deep divisions to which the Sr. Warden alludes and worked with him and others to overcome them. We envisioned a parish structure that might accomodate two priests and two financial paths; common funds for plant maintenance, and a divergence of funds either to the Diocese per past practice, or towards local or foreign non-Diocesan uses. We came close; to the best of my recollection, the plan foundered when we couldn't ultimately agree how St. Margaret's would be presented to the world, whether traditional, or not, recognizing that such words either influence newcomers to approach or initially alienate them.
There were three Episcopal churches in Eastern Prince William County at the time. Two were already in the ACN camp, indeed, one was an AAC pioneer. That left St. Margaret's, which I couldn't classify as progressive; even netural doesn't capture it. It was a place that defined itself as not dramatically subject to the impact of passing hot button issues, rather where fellowship was the overarching characteristic regardless of one's private views. The preservation of St. Margaret's in this way represented not a choice for what had been decided at General Convention and also not for the creation of corporate oppostion to it. The issue, frankly, was far from home and irrelevant to continued good felloship within traditional St. Margaret's terms.
I wonder if the Sr. Warden remembers I asked why he and others didn't consider a mass transfer to one of the other ACN affiliates in close proximity. This would ensure the availability of one non-parisan choice rather than to force St. Margaret's into alignment with the other two, thereby eliminating all choice for every Episcopalian residing in Eastern Prince William County. I received no reply.
I therefore can't accept the conclusion of the Sr. Warden that "There seemed to be no way forward." The situation at St. Margaret's didn't need to be resolved either way when it wasn't in our historical DNA to do so on this or any other issue. When he writes, "Momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," I must object. During that time, I helped open a faith-based homeless shelter and led youth on summer mission trips amongst all other on-going parish activities. It's true that a shadowing divisiveness was kept alive throughout by one small group of people who would not let it die, and who subsequently forced the vote to leave TEC, but that didn't interfere with ministry. Despite any one personal view, there was never any overt activity for what had occured at General Convention, nor any organized demonstrations of support, for that also would not have been consistent with parish DNA. The Sr. Warden writes, "Then about three months ago a door began to open." I submit it was a door that needn't have been sought, no less, opened.
Returning to, "nor have we abandoned our identity both as Americans and Anglicans," the only contact I had with the Anglican Communion prior to the General Convention of 2003 was through a glossy National Geographic-style magazine to which I personally subscribed, once, and then lost interest. Membership in the Communion was never an active component of parish life nor was it looked to for theological authority. If it didn't exist, how is it something that wasn't abandoned?
As far as American identity, the Sr. Warden writes that St. Margaret's Anglican is part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Province of Nigeria. Peter Akinola, the CANA leader, is Archbishop of Nigeria. Akinola advocates Nigerian legislation that could become law by the end of March. The Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act 2007 mandates five-year prison terms not only for gay people but for those who support them. The U.S. State Department and two-hundred and fifty U.S. Christian leaders have condemned the legislation as a gross violation of human rights. Amidst the vitriolic threatening atmoshphere of his homeland, the leader of Changing Attitude Nigeria, a Christian gay organization, has fled for his life to neighboring Togo.
Would the Sr. Warden agree that membership in CANA implies support for its leader and his actions? If not, will he condemn the legislation and repudiate its prime advocate, his Archbishop?
The Sr. Warden writes, "Our doors are open every week to everyone - no boundaries of race, sexual preference or faith." Would he consider that any gay person attending would find it problematical that the leader of CANA desires to imprison him or her? Or that CANA was founded on the basis of opposition to the consecreation of Bishop Robinson? Is that what's meant by, "standing firm with our decision to lift up the Good News of Jesus Christ over those who would water down the faith with cultural imperatives?" It's disingenious and irrational to welcome the targets of an instiutional hostility to its source nor does an invitation provide absolution for harm.
I note this week the National Association of Evangelicals released a statement that the U.S. crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissable," in its treatment of war on terror prisoners. If that is so, according to the leading American evangelical association, how much more immoral is it to imprison gay people, who unlike suspected terrorists, have committed no act save to express a desire to live openly? The Evangelicals go on to say, "Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans regain our moral clarity." I couldn't agree more; a significant step in that direction surely includes the repudiation of the Nigerian legislation, its authors and advocates, by the clergy and vestry of St. Margaret's Anglican and the other eleven CANA-affiliated parishes of Virginia. The absence of such repudication denotes implication and responsbility.
I note the remainder of the Sr. Warden's note defends against charges regarding who might have sued who first or took this action that led to that response. I confess the importance of assigning blame in these matters doesn't seem vital in light of the human rights issues that mean freedom or imprisonment for some, exile and violence for others. I also note that while the Sr. Warden repeatedly emphasizes the two thirds majority that voted to leave TEC, he fails to mention the two thirds majority at two General Conventions to endorse change and inclusion. If one values the voting process as the way to decide matters of faith, I question why the parish vote holds a binding value of obedience, but not the national vote?
I also submit that those who voted to remain in TEC haven't "planted a new church called St. Margaret's Episcopal," rather than to merely carry on old parish functions while temporarily worshipping at a new locale, as if those who voted to leave TEC somehow continue to constitute the old parish. How can you leave, yet stay the same? The Sr. Warden proclaims, "nothing has changed." I submit everything has changed. A unified parish that once held dear to the traditional Anglican practice of corporate worship and fellowship, regardless of one's personal views, ceased to exist the day all that one believed and cherished could be reduced to a signature attesting that one's beliefs were in accord with those who presently, temporarily, hold temporal positions of power and authority.
I read to learn, I write to understand, and perhaps prompt reaction, and then the opportunity to learn more. It's how I further clarify thought. If any reader of this is in contact with the Sr. Warden, please share what I've written. Perhaps we could still meet in fellowship, as of old, and pray for God's will to be done, rather than to presume either of us know Him so well that we may speak on His behalf towards His intention and favor, and pretend that we already know all there is to know.
The Sr. Warden writes, "We have not abandoned our property nor have we abandoned our identity as Americans and Anglicans." When I looked for the word 'abandon,' in my set of beloved dictionaries, I was surprised that references to property were not contained in the primary defintions. Rather I found that, 'forsake, desert, and to surrender one's claim or right,' were the most common meanings over the years. When the Sr. Warden employs abandon in that linguistic context, it's accurate since he hasn't physically left or surrendered his claim; the Diocese, means by the same word, however, that those who now bodily inhabit the property have forsaken the original use for which it's intended, not whether it's still physically inhabited.
The Sr. Warden rhetorically asks, "how did we get here." He answers, "We have been struggling with the same issue...for years," and "momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," so, "there seemed to be no way forward."
Post General Convention, 2003, I along with everyone experienced the deep divisions to which the Sr. Warden alludes and worked with him and others to overcome them. We envisioned a parish structure that might accomodate two priests and two financial paths; common funds for plant maintenance, and a divergence of funds either to the Diocese per past practice, or towards local or foreign non-Diocesan uses. We came close; to the best of my recollection, the plan foundered when we couldn't ultimately agree how St. Margaret's would be presented to the world, whether traditional, or not, recognizing that such words either influence newcomers to approach or initially alienate them.
There were three Episcopal churches in Eastern Prince William County at the time. Two were already in the ACN camp, indeed, one was an AAC pioneer. That left St. Margaret's, which I couldn't classify as progressive; even netural doesn't capture it. It was a place that defined itself as not dramatically subject to the impact of passing hot button issues, rather where fellowship was the overarching characteristic regardless of one's private views. The preservation of St. Margaret's in this way represented not a choice for what had been decided at General Convention and also not for the creation of corporate oppostion to it. The issue, frankly, was far from home and irrelevant to continued good felloship within traditional St. Margaret's terms.
I wonder if the Sr. Warden remembers I asked why he and others didn't consider a mass transfer to one of the other ACN affiliates in close proximity. This would ensure the availability of one non-parisan choice rather than to force St. Margaret's into alignment with the other two, thereby eliminating all choice for every Episcopalian residing in Eastern Prince William County. I received no reply.
I therefore can't accept the conclusion of the Sr. Warden that "There seemed to be no way forward." The situation at St. Margaret's didn't need to be resolved either way when it wasn't in our historical DNA to do so on this or any other issue. When he writes, "Momentum for growth in ministry was stalled," I must object. During that time, I helped open a faith-based homeless shelter and led youth on summer mission trips amongst all other on-going parish activities. It's true that a shadowing divisiveness was kept alive throughout by one small group of people who would not let it die, and who subsequently forced the vote to leave TEC, but that didn't interfere with ministry. Despite any one personal view, there was never any overt activity for what had occured at General Convention, nor any organized demonstrations of support, for that also would not have been consistent with parish DNA. The Sr. Warden writes, "Then about three months ago a door began to open." I submit it was a door that needn't have been sought, no less, opened.
Returning to, "nor have we abandoned our identity both as Americans and Anglicans," the only contact I had with the Anglican Communion prior to the General Convention of 2003 was through a glossy National Geographic-style magazine to which I personally subscribed, once, and then lost interest. Membership in the Communion was never an active component of parish life nor was it looked to for theological authority. If it didn't exist, how is it something that wasn't abandoned?
As far as American identity, the Sr. Warden writes that St. Margaret's Anglican is part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Province of Nigeria. Peter Akinola, the CANA leader, is Archbishop of Nigeria. Akinola advocates Nigerian legislation that could become law by the end of March. The Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act 2007 mandates five-year prison terms not only for gay people but for those who support them. The U.S. State Department and two-hundred and fifty U.S. Christian leaders have condemned the legislation as a gross violation of human rights. Amidst the vitriolic threatening atmoshphere of his homeland, the leader of Changing Attitude Nigeria, a Christian gay organization, has fled for his life to neighboring Togo.
Would the Sr. Warden agree that membership in CANA implies support for its leader and his actions? If not, will he condemn the legislation and repudiate its prime advocate, his Archbishop?
The Sr. Warden writes, "Our doors are open every week to everyone - no boundaries of race, sexual preference or faith." Would he consider that any gay person attending would find it problematical that the leader of CANA desires to imprison him or her? Or that CANA was founded on the basis of opposition to the consecreation of Bishop Robinson? Is that what's meant by, "standing firm with our decision to lift up the Good News of Jesus Christ over those who would water down the faith with cultural imperatives?" It's disingenious and irrational to welcome the targets of an instiutional hostility to its source nor does an invitation provide absolution for harm.
I note this week the National Association of Evangelicals released a statement that the U.S. crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissable," in its treatment of war on terror prisoners. If that is so, according to the leading American evangelical association, how much more immoral is it to imprison gay people, who unlike suspected terrorists, have committed no act save to express a desire to live openly? The Evangelicals go on to say, "Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans regain our moral clarity." I couldn't agree more; a significant step in that direction surely includes the repudiation of the Nigerian legislation, its authors and advocates, by the clergy and vestry of St. Margaret's Anglican and the other eleven CANA-affiliated parishes of Virginia. The absence of such repudication denotes implication and responsbility.
I note the remainder of the Sr. Warden's note defends against charges regarding who might have sued who first or took this action that led to that response. I confess the importance of assigning blame in these matters doesn't seem vital in light of the human rights issues that mean freedom or imprisonment for some, exile and violence for others. I also note that while the Sr. Warden repeatedly emphasizes the two thirds majority that voted to leave TEC, he fails to mention the two thirds majority at two General Conventions to endorse change and inclusion. If one values the voting process as the way to decide matters of faith, I question why the parish vote holds a binding value of obedience, but not the national vote?
I also submit that those who voted to remain in TEC haven't "planted a new church called St. Margaret's Episcopal," rather than to merely carry on old parish functions while temporarily worshipping at a new locale, as if those who voted to leave TEC somehow continue to constitute the old parish. How can you leave, yet stay the same? The Sr. Warden proclaims, "nothing has changed." I submit everything has changed. A unified parish that once held dear to the traditional Anglican practice of corporate worship and fellowship, regardless of one's personal views, ceased to exist the day all that one believed and cherished could be reduced to a signature attesting that one's beliefs were in accord with those who presently, temporarily, hold temporal positions of power and authority.
I read to learn, I write to understand, and perhaps prompt reaction, and then the opportunity to learn more. It's how I further clarify thought. If any reader of this is in contact with the Sr. Warden, please share what I've written. Perhaps we could still meet in fellowship, as of old, and pray for God's will to be done, rather than to presume either of us know Him so well that we may speak on His behalf towards His intention and favor, and pretend that we already know all there is to know.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
School Days
I note this week yet another editorial in our local rag by a writer that boasts a college affiliation. Surface-wise this lends credence since there's an assumption the author is well educated and has performed the research at a university level. I've made it my practice to google the school as cited to determine the legitimacy of the 'college,' to uncover its mission, and to examine its funding. Then and only then can I place the piece in context.
The editorial in question is called, "Civilizations Fall When They Bow Down to Evil." That's quite the weighty indictment. This opinion provider is a junior from Providence College. In typical Fallwellian-Robertsonian fashion he writes of a 'culture of death.' Wait, I've seen that phrase before. I remember; it was employed frequently by Pope John II. Let's explore Providence a little more. It turns out the school is run by Dominican Friars. Those guys keep following me like that posse in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; I wrote last week about a showdown in the Seminary corral.
Now we know where our budding author is coming from, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that. Catholic scholarship rivals the world's best, at times. This isn't the time. There's no critical thinking, no logical argument or convincing evidence, just platitudes and pronouncements raining down about, 'sex without consequences,' 'moral absolutes,' and 'actions without penalties, etc. Frankly, I'm disappointed at the level of discourse from one so young with mind so closed; it's a terrible thing to waste or in this case to read. I give it a C-.
Medieval clergy aspirants were chosen from a pool of the best philosophy students, those who already possessed a comprehensive knowledge of rhetoric and logic. I pray the Dominicans are cultivating the 'intellectual, spiritual and ethical values,' they proclaim in the Providence mission statement. What I've read here shows no improvement over the good old fashioned Aquinian scholasticism of the 13th century. I doubt this fellow could count the angels on the head of pin.
I note in contrast three MBA programs including San Francisco's prestigious Presidio School of Management that focus on 'profit, people and planet,' incorporatng social justice and environmental values into the business world. Could it be that these secular instiutions are embracing the mission statement of Providence just as much as they are?
There was a lot to note this week including a note written by that other familiar posse, stage right, 'Dobson, Bauer, Perkins and Weyrich.' They demanded the National Association of Evangelicals,' stop speaking out on global warming since it's "associated with leftists, limits on free enterprise and population control." The very same James Dobson was accused by Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, an organization that counters groups who say they can 'cure' gays, of "starting with a conclusion and manipulating the research to fit their beliefs,'' with a 'complete indifference to the evidence." I've worked in business for almost 30 years. I can do the same. I can support or kill a project, whatever outcome you like. When it comes to important things, though, like human rights or the hole in the ozone layer, I prefer hard evidence and less name calling.
It cuts both ways. Oxford atheist Richard Dawkin's new bestseller, "The God Delusion," also comes under fire from skeptical scientists like evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr who writes, "Dawkin's fails to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christianity or Judaism or debates about the nature of religious propositions." So far, our junior from Providence, Dobson and Dawkins are all batting zero.
Since the moderns are failing us, let's try the ancient and the not so old. In the 6th century, St. Gregory the Great wrote in his Great Catechism that a good teacher doesn't force his lessons upon students like a plant you temporarily pin down but that springs up once you remove the pressure. (He also wrote that nothing draws in the customers like a comfy spot, catchy advertising and a delicious meal; St. Gregory was teaching the Alpha course 15 centuries ago - imagine that.)
The not so old voice is John Henry Newman who wrote in 1852, "The Idea of a University," in conjunction with Vatican plans for a Catholic University in Ireland. He writes, 'It is a great point to enlarge the range of studies for the sake of students, and even though they cannot pursue every subject, they will be the gainers by living among those who represent the whole circle. They learn to respect, to consult, to aid each other. They apprehend the great outlines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, the scale of its parts, its great points and its little, otherwise they cannot apprehend them. A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life of which the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom; or what I have ventured to call a philosophical habit.' Newman summed up by writing, "If then a practical end must be assigned to a University course, I say it is that of training good members of society."
I disagree with what the student from Providence, Dobson and Dawkins write, but much more, in how they write, and their lack of or manipulation of evidence. I also disagree with much of what Newman advocated and did, despite his grand vision of education, but by God, I respect the man's brilliance, erudition and scholarship as much as any person who ever lived. Would it be that all of our discourse were conducted so, where we agree, but more to the point, where we don't.
The editorial in question is called, "Civilizations Fall When They Bow Down to Evil." That's quite the weighty indictment. This opinion provider is a junior from Providence College. In typical Fallwellian-Robertsonian fashion he writes of a 'culture of death.' Wait, I've seen that phrase before. I remember; it was employed frequently by Pope John II. Let's explore Providence a little more. It turns out the school is run by Dominican Friars. Those guys keep following me like that posse in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; I wrote last week about a showdown in the Seminary corral.
Now we know where our budding author is coming from, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that. Catholic scholarship rivals the world's best, at times. This isn't the time. There's no critical thinking, no logical argument or convincing evidence, just platitudes and pronouncements raining down about, 'sex without consequences,' 'moral absolutes,' and 'actions without penalties, etc. Frankly, I'm disappointed at the level of discourse from one so young with mind so closed; it's a terrible thing to waste or in this case to read. I give it a C-.
Medieval clergy aspirants were chosen from a pool of the best philosophy students, those who already possessed a comprehensive knowledge of rhetoric and logic. I pray the Dominicans are cultivating the 'intellectual, spiritual and ethical values,' they proclaim in the Providence mission statement. What I've read here shows no improvement over the good old fashioned Aquinian scholasticism of the 13th century. I doubt this fellow could count the angels on the head of pin.
I note in contrast three MBA programs including San Francisco's prestigious Presidio School of Management that focus on 'profit, people and planet,' incorporatng social justice and environmental values into the business world. Could it be that these secular instiutions are embracing the mission statement of Providence just as much as they are?
There was a lot to note this week including a note written by that other familiar posse, stage right, 'Dobson, Bauer, Perkins and Weyrich.' They demanded the National Association of Evangelicals,' stop speaking out on global warming since it's "associated with leftists, limits on free enterprise and population control." The very same James Dobson was accused by Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, an organization that counters groups who say they can 'cure' gays, of "starting with a conclusion and manipulating the research to fit their beliefs,'' with a 'complete indifference to the evidence." I've worked in business for almost 30 years. I can do the same. I can support or kill a project, whatever outcome you like. When it comes to important things, though, like human rights or the hole in the ozone layer, I prefer hard evidence and less name calling.
It cuts both ways. Oxford atheist Richard Dawkin's new bestseller, "The God Delusion," also comes under fire from skeptical scientists like evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr who writes, "Dawkin's fails to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christianity or Judaism or debates about the nature of religious propositions." So far, our junior from Providence, Dobson and Dawkins are all batting zero.
Since the moderns are failing us, let's try the ancient and the not so old. In the 6th century, St. Gregory the Great wrote in his Great Catechism that a good teacher doesn't force his lessons upon students like a plant you temporarily pin down but that springs up once you remove the pressure. (He also wrote that nothing draws in the customers like a comfy spot, catchy advertising and a delicious meal; St. Gregory was teaching the Alpha course 15 centuries ago - imagine that.)
The not so old voice is John Henry Newman who wrote in 1852, "The Idea of a University," in conjunction with Vatican plans for a Catholic University in Ireland. He writes, 'It is a great point to enlarge the range of studies for the sake of students, and even though they cannot pursue every subject, they will be the gainers by living among those who represent the whole circle. They learn to respect, to consult, to aid each other. They apprehend the great outlines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, the scale of its parts, its great points and its little, otherwise they cannot apprehend them. A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life of which the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom; or what I have ventured to call a philosophical habit.' Newman summed up by writing, "If then a practical end must be assigned to a University course, I say it is that of training good members of society."
I disagree with what the student from Providence, Dobson and Dawkins write, but much more, in how they write, and their lack of or manipulation of evidence. I also disagree with much of what Newman advocated and did, despite his grand vision of education, but by God, I respect the man's brilliance, erudition and scholarship as much as any person who ever lived. Would it be that all of our discourse were conducted so, where we agree, but more to the point, where we don't.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Granite State of Mind
I note this week the Free State Project (FSP) seeks to recruit 20,000 souls to move to New Hampshire. To participate, you must sign you agree "government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people, nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else." As well as low tax rates, the FSP touts there's no mandatory seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws in New Hampshire or smoking bans in restaurants.
Sounds attractive, eh? I admit I'm torn. While a classic FDR/RFK liberal, my time working in homeless shelters altered deeply held beliefs. Do I still believe a Christian's first duty is to assist the poor? Yes. Do I still hold fast that Christians should exist as an ethical conscience in the world and speak truth to power? Yes.
Here's the hard part. What of the people I met at the shelter who had no intention of ever leading more positive less harmful lives? I don't mean folks too far mentally or physically gone but those relatively young and visibly able-bodied. I watched some die violently, needlessly. I saw some inflict grievous harm on others. To what extent should Christians still house, feed and offer sanctuary to those involved? Is Government responsible for their welfare in any way? Does assistance to help those who truly can't help themselves harm more than hurt those who can help themselves? If only two out of two hundred gain jobs and housing while one hundred and ninety eight stay the same, die or go to jail, what exactly did we accomplish? Would I be willing to pay higher taxes to build more homeless shelters? I don't know.
What I do know is that the ethical quandaries, some with life or death consequences, were the most trying this Peter Pan ever faced. Returning to New Hampshire, I know that regardless of low state taxes, elderly residents still receive Social Security and Medicare, and citizens are still protected by our armed forces. At what point are we willing to pay resonably higher taxes for those items, and schools and roads for the general good even if we have no kids or take public transportation, or conversely, help pay for commuter trains even if we drive to work, or will never step foot in a homeless shelter?
These questions pertain to good government costs. What about bad government? I note this week a letter from Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN) leader Davis Mac-Iyalla regarding the likely passage by the end of March of legislation that criminalizes and imposes penalties for anyone reading pro-gay materials in public or at home, and which bans meetings between two gay persons. Mr. Mac-Iyalla writes:
"I've been talking with friends and supporters of how to go to a safe place. The bill to ban us is moving fast to become law. The worst of all is that Akinola is the master and brain behind the bill; recently he has been lobbying the Presidency to put pressure on the Senate and House of Representatives to speed up the process in passing the bill. Members of Akinola's staff are boasting that CAN will soon be illegal and I will be sent to prison. Most of my members are now calling and sending me mail to ask what will become of them if this bill is passed. If tears can change things, I think by now I would have changed the situations of Nigerian LGBT Christians."
As I grow older, the spirit of the FSP and Thomas Paine's edict that the government that governs least governs best look more and more tempting at least at first glance. In the immortal words of Charley Daniels, "I aint asking nobody for nothin' if I can get it on my own. If you don't like the way I'm a'livin' you just leave this long-haired country boy alone." I live in the country. The long hair is long gone, though not out of choice. I desire to a great curmudgeonly extent to be left alone but just like George Washington and Michael Corelone, "just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in."
The FSP reflects the last gasp of a post World War II conservative Republican wing overtaken by Rovian Statists who desire government that governs more, not less, for example, like enshrining language that defines marriage and family in the Constitution. That would be at odds with an FSP that describes itself as "neighborly, productive and tolerant." So if you're against seat belt laws, for low taxes, but for marriage amendments, can you be a Free Stater in good standing?
It parallels the struggle within our Church. There are those like the FSP that desire the traditional loose governance of the Federation of Anglicans and Episcopalian Dioceses, and those who desire much more central authority, even a powerful Pope-like Archbishop of Canterbury. So if you're for the mandatory use of the 1928 Prayer Book, and liturgy in Latin, but for Bishop Robinson, can you be an Episcopalian in good standing?
Perhaps we're seeing consensus emerge on some issues like the evangelical creation care movement that respects a need for greater governance on the environment and recognizes mutual areas of interest encompassing what are both traditionally liberal and conservative concerns. Am I at the point where I could support the abolition of capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia, and a comprehensive conscientious objection and pacifism, as consistent 'culture of life' issues despite the political persuasion in which I was born and raised? No, but it's not that simple, nor is it, I'm afraid, the way that the FSP addresses the issues.
When I was in seminary, I questioned a Dominican monk who taught a strict universalism. I asked how it was possible to compare a woman using birth control and protection in Western Europe for recreational purposes as opposed to a woman living in Africa who's married to a man with AIDS. His reply addressed the value of life in both cases. I've thought about it alot over the years. My primary concern still lies with existing life rather than potential life. Perhaps that's the difference between us. An internal conscience-based situational ethics, formed by readings in Scripture and other historical and philosophical texts, faith, reason, tradition and personal experience, still trump in my mind, an imposed external literal universalism based on the authority of Church, Scripture, and a theology above and removed from life on the ground, alone.
I know without any doubt, I'm vehemently opposed to the horrendous legislation the government of Nigeria is enacting with the implicit if not complicit support of American allies of Akinola's. That certainly validates Tom Paine's theory of over-governance. On the other hand, the State Department has condemned the pending legislation as a gross violation of human rights, and the taxes that support that stance, are well paid.
I know I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it's for the general good even if I don't directly benefit. I know promoting justice and fighting the imminent imprisonment of Mr. Mac-Iyalla is more important than an absence of motorcycle helmet laws. I suppose I won't be moving to New Hampshire.
Sounds attractive, eh? I admit I'm torn. While a classic FDR/RFK liberal, my time working in homeless shelters altered deeply held beliefs. Do I still believe a Christian's first duty is to assist the poor? Yes. Do I still hold fast that Christians should exist as an ethical conscience in the world and speak truth to power? Yes.
Here's the hard part. What of the people I met at the shelter who had no intention of ever leading more positive less harmful lives? I don't mean folks too far mentally or physically gone but those relatively young and visibly able-bodied. I watched some die violently, needlessly. I saw some inflict grievous harm on others. To what extent should Christians still house, feed and offer sanctuary to those involved? Is Government responsible for their welfare in any way? Does assistance to help those who truly can't help themselves harm more than hurt those who can help themselves? If only two out of two hundred gain jobs and housing while one hundred and ninety eight stay the same, die or go to jail, what exactly did we accomplish? Would I be willing to pay higher taxes to build more homeless shelters? I don't know.
What I do know is that the ethical quandaries, some with life or death consequences, were the most trying this Peter Pan ever faced. Returning to New Hampshire, I know that regardless of low state taxes, elderly residents still receive Social Security and Medicare, and citizens are still protected by our armed forces. At what point are we willing to pay resonably higher taxes for those items, and schools and roads for the general good even if we have no kids or take public transportation, or conversely, help pay for commuter trains even if we drive to work, or will never step foot in a homeless shelter?
These questions pertain to good government costs. What about bad government? I note this week a letter from Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN) leader Davis Mac-Iyalla regarding the likely passage by the end of March of legislation that criminalizes and imposes penalties for anyone reading pro-gay materials in public or at home, and which bans meetings between two gay persons. Mr. Mac-Iyalla writes:
"I've been talking with friends and supporters of how to go to a safe place. The bill to ban us is moving fast to become law. The worst of all is that Akinola is the master and brain behind the bill; recently he has been lobbying the Presidency to put pressure on the Senate and House of Representatives to speed up the process in passing the bill. Members of Akinola's staff are boasting that CAN will soon be illegal and I will be sent to prison. Most of my members are now calling and sending me mail to ask what will become of them if this bill is passed. If tears can change things, I think by now I would have changed the situations of Nigerian LGBT Christians."
As I grow older, the spirit of the FSP and Thomas Paine's edict that the government that governs least governs best look more and more tempting at least at first glance. In the immortal words of Charley Daniels, "I aint asking nobody for nothin' if I can get it on my own. If you don't like the way I'm a'livin' you just leave this long-haired country boy alone." I live in the country. The long hair is long gone, though not out of choice. I desire to a great curmudgeonly extent to be left alone but just like George Washington and Michael Corelone, "just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in."
The FSP reflects the last gasp of a post World War II conservative Republican wing overtaken by Rovian Statists who desire government that governs more, not less, for example, like enshrining language that defines marriage and family in the Constitution. That would be at odds with an FSP that describes itself as "neighborly, productive and tolerant." So if you're against seat belt laws, for low taxes, but for marriage amendments, can you be a Free Stater in good standing?
It parallels the struggle within our Church. There are those like the FSP that desire the traditional loose governance of the Federation of Anglicans and Episcopalian Dioceses, and those who desire much more central authority, even a powerful Pope-like Archbishop of Canterbury. So if you're for the mandatory use of the 1928 Prayer Book, and liturgy in Latin, but for Bishop Robinson, can you be an Episcopalian in good standing?
Perhaps we're seeing consensus emerge on some issues like the evangelical creation care movement that respects a need for greater governance on the environment and recognizes mutual areas of interest encompassing what are both traditionally liberal and conservative concerns. Am I at the point where I could support the abolition of capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia, and a comprehensive conscientious objection and pacifism, as consistent 'culture of life' issues despite the political persuasion in which I was born and raised? No, but it's not that simple, nor is it, I'm afraid, the way that the FSP addresses the issues.
When I was in seminary, I questioned a Dominican monk who taught a strict universalism. I asked how it was possible to compare a woman using birth control and protection in Western Europe for recreational purposes as opposed to a woman living in Africa who's married to a man with AIDS. His reply addressed the value of life in both cases. I've thought about it alot over the years. My primary concern still lies with existing life rather than potential life. Perhaps that's the difference between us. An internal conscience-based situational ethics, formed by readings in Scripture and other historical and philosophical texts, faith, reason, tradition and personal experience, still trump in my mind, an imposed external literal universalism based on the authority of Church, Scripture, and a theology above and removed from life on the ground, alone.
I know without any doubt, I'm vehemently opposed to the horrendous legislation the government of Nigeria is enacting with the implicit if not complicit support of American allies of Akinola's. That certainly validates Tom Paine's theory of over-governance. On the other hand, the State Department has condemned the pending legislation as a gross violation of human rights, and the taxes that support that stance, are well paid.
I know I'm willing to pay higher taxes if it's for the general good even if I don't directly benefit. I know promoting justice and fighting the imminent imprisonment of Mr. Mac-Iyalla is more important than an absence of motorcycle helmet laws. I suppose I won't be moving to New Hampshire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)