Here we are, the first full day of a new presidency, a history making new presidency. There are all kinds of thoughts that have and continue to run through my mind about this event. I watched a good part of the festivities and formalities on my computer, yesterday – CNN/Facebook, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. There were plenty of places in the proceedings where I got goose bumps. President Obama (that sounds so strange and good), President Obama’s inaugural speech was amazing. To the point, realistic in its laying out our problems, purposeful in its calling to us to our better selves and to the hard work ahead, and rousing.
Such hope, such expectation. I hope that there is not laid upon this single man a national expectation that is unrealistic and beyond the abilities of any single person, no matter how charismatic, intelligent, or well intentioned. He certainly needs our prayers, as have all presidents.
The world waits in eager anticipation to see whether America returns to that place that inspires the best in humanity, the best aspirations of the human soul for freedom and respect, or whether we continue the downward slide into a form of despotism, unilateralism, and the inevitable result of a declining empire. The question looms large: “What will we become?”
My sense or take on Pastor Rick Warren’s prayer is what it is. As a Christian priest, I have no problem whatsoever in a Christian praying a Christian prayer. I do not feel that it is disrespectful or exclusionary concerning those who disagree. If a Muslim prayed, I would expect a prayer that exemplifies the integrity of Muslim prayer. The same for Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist prayer. Why is it expected that a Christian prayer should not be prayed in the name of the very one Christians follow? It is a hypocritical demand that we do not. I don’t think any faithful Muslim, Jew, or anyone else would expect a faithful Christian to pray in a way that was not authentically Christian. Yet, there are certainly ways to pray that contribute to division and that contribute to respectful difference in our diverse culture.
Should Rick Warren have been chosen to prayer this prayer? Should Bishop Gene Robinson have been chosen to pray a prayer? I think those are more apt questions than whether a prayer should be offered in the name of Jesus or not. Each man prayed according to his conscience, and while I may or may not agree with either of them in the way they prayed, I certainly do respect their abiding by their own consciences.
There is an interesting analysis of Rich Warren’s prayer by the Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet, Steve Waldman, entitled, “Rick Warren’s Deft Invocation.” It is worth a read.
Author Archives: blgriffith
A good foundation
This morning, I attempted to read through a biblical commentary covering John, chapter 17, for our Home Group meeting, tonight. I came across a piece of paper with names and phone messages written on the outside – from my time as an undergraduate at Bowling Green State University. Inside, the sheet of paper was a bible-study outline neatly printed by one of my roommates who lead a small-group for our campus ministry at BGSU – Active Christians Today (ACT). ACT is a ministry of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ fellowship/denomination, one of the historic results of the Campbellite movement.
So, as ease as it is to become distracted from one’s original intent when the Web is involved, I searched for “Cambellite” on google and came up with a website that dealt with a poster’s question of whether the Cambellite churches are cults or not. The person asked the question because Cambellite churches believe in a form of baptismal regeneration (as well as taking communion every week).
Then, an advert appeared at the top of the page: “Because a modest woman is a beautiful women.” It is an ad for “Modest Apparel” for women. I suspect a man could dress immodestly and get away with it??? Can we become any more distracted???
Anyway, back to the bible-study notes from college I discovered. A couple posts ago, “What the heck,” I woefully attempted to put into words thoughts about strong beliefs, about what Anglicanism or Christianity is not with regard to the prevailing culture (liberal or conservative) and all that. A train wreck, but I “process out loud” and it was yet another attempt to get at what I believe as I figure out what I believe.
On this bible-study outline was a verse from I Corn. 3:11:
“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps, all the stuff from “What the heck…” dealt with the question of foundations. What is our foundation upon which we build our organizations and our own faith?
It is easy to say, of course, “Jesus Christ.” Yet, I sense that for too many people in certain segments of The Episcopal Church and within parts of Anglicanism (and Christianity all together), we are attempting to lay a new and different foundation in reality. Subtly similiar, yet profoundly askew. On the ground, when most of what we hear comes along the lines of a Christianity or a Jesus that aligns with either, 1. materialism/consumerism, nationalism, and hyper-individuality or 2. the “inclusiveness” or “diversity” mantras born out of political-correctness and identity-politics, then it seems a new foundation is being constructed. These new foundations, at least with regard to living out the Kingdom of God as Jesus described bringing us “life to the full,” will, well… fail. And, they are failing. We see the results all around us as we attempt to justify our culturally subordinate religious opinions about what is and isn’t “Christian.” We see the results particularly at present as more and more people find nothing worthwhile in our organized religion.
When our modus operandi is to point accusing fingers at anyone other than our group and our determination to rebel and our demand for self, I don’t blame people for wanting to stay away. If we lived as Christians, in whatever knowable sense God might intend for those claiming his Son, I would guess that far more people might see something far more compelling in this thing called the Christian life than they do now. Those who do claim Christ just might find themselves living a far less deficient life in the Spirit, also.
What is our foundation? The more I think about it, really, the more I come back to the simple, yet profoundly befuddling, two commands of Jesus. Frankly, this is one of my favorite parts of Rite I and I am glad I get to say it so often,
“Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
So simple, yet so profoundly difficult that we chose to build other foundations so to attempt to justify our religion and our dogmatism. What shall come of the cause of Christ? What shall become of us?
Proud to be an American…
Some people are proud to be an American because of our military might and economic prowess. Some people are proud to be an American because of the character of its citizens. Of course, generally it is a combination of the a number of things and a different combination for most. Some are not proud to be an American for any reason.
It is hard to be proud when we are not living up to the ideals we as Americans like to think we possess. I would rather be proud of the nation because of the character of its people. This is a tougher thing, because we like to believe that we are often better than we really are, that our goals or reasons for doing are for the best reasons. Our reasons for doing or being are becoming less honorable as the years go by, I think.
It is interesting to me to hear people say, “I’m proud to be an American.” Some say that with regard to our outgoing president. Some say such a thing at the prospect of our incoming president. I wonder how things will change with this new president – will we be proud because of what we accomplish and less because of the character of citizens or the other way around?
What the heck
So here’s the deal, where the heck are we as a Church (TEC), as a Communion, as a body within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as simple Christians living in a hurting world full of chaos and confusion?
I don’t know. I have all kinds of thoughts as certain segments of The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC-USA) leave and attempt to take the assets with them, as the California Supreme Court rules that the departing parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles still belong to the diocese, as other parts of TEC-USA depart to form a new Continuing Anglican denomination in North America that they believe will overwhelm TEC-USA, as Israelis and Palestinians are being killed and as people are starving to death with no hope. All that.
Churches and denominations in the U.S. and many other parts of the world have fallen so far from the call of God to be a people living out the Way of Christ. We are so caught up in socio-politics/theo-politics and our own insecurities that we demand “fact” when no such fact exists, only faith in a determined belief. We depend on this world’s way of understanding and dealing with things rather than on God.
What do we do? Our focus has moved from that which is the beginning point from which all other stuff flows. Too many people who truly want to be engaged in their faith and seeking God have simply left organized religion, because organized religion is too preoccupied with things other than engagement of the person with the Spirit of God. If we were institutionally serious about engagement with God, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. That is the truth, as much as too many of us don’t want to face that truth. Instead of “personal relationship” (loving God with all our hearts, minds, and souls) and maturing in such a relationship (being transformed into the image of Christ), we put our faith in precepts and lists to check off and stereotypes.
Here is the way I see it at the moment: There are things going on around us that right now we have no idea whether we are acting/thinking/believing correctly or not – according to the better will of God. Only in hindsight will we know. If we want to know Truth we have to admit, and I mean really admit, that we can be absolutely wrong and be willing to listen and change. Otherwise, we are only seeking confirmation of what we have already determined to believe, whether honestly true or not. Only in hindsight will we know for sure – and perhaps not know for sure until the next generation. We have to get out of the business of asserting our “rights” and get back into the business of giving up everything. The focus can be to love God with all that we are and have and focusing on the betterment of our neighbors as we love them not as a political campaign or a social project but as people made in the very image of God as we attempt to love ourselves beyond our own insecurity and self-doubt. This isn’t possible without engagement with the Spirit of God. This isn’t possible without God’s help. It has nothing to do with politics or social policy of a particular kind or theory.
Loving God and neighbor is not about political-correctness or identity-politics or personal rights. Loving God is about finding ourselves by giving up ourselves.
An example – the spirit or ethos of Anglicanism (and this is only my thinking at the moment): Anglicanism is not at all about whether everyone is invited to sit at the table or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether anyone has the right to receive communion or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether we are mulit-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-generational,multi-sexual, or multi-anything. Anglicanism isn’t at all about whether we are relevant or not. Anglicanism isn’t at all about whether women have the right to Holy Orders or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether gays are included or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether war in Iraq is legitimate or not or whether Americans are baby-killers or defenders of liberty and freedom. Anglicanism has nothing to do with the advocacy of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, democracy, monarchies, civil rights, food distribution policy, foreign debt relief, or the Millennium Development Goals. The ideas of all these things have often supplanted what the essence of being a Christian or an Anglican is about.
Anglicanism is not about whether people feel welcome, feel affirmed, feel slighted or abused, or feel that singing in the choir is the best thing since sliced bread. Anglicanism isn’t about whether some people prefer Reformed form of Church or Catholic form of Church. Christianity is not about any of those things either, despite what much of the institutional Church and organized religious keep groping for.
Anglicanism is distinguished within greater Christianity by its willingness to make room for the arguments revolving around all those things and the strong beliefs regarding each, yet we all still come around to come together for common prayer and common fellowship despite our differences. Within Anglicanism, the freedom of wrestling with the questions and doubts in all their forms and difficulties is not stymied or even discouraged, but allowed. Does this Church believe anything? Of course! But, this Church is hesitant to demand capitulation to any one theological or pietistic preference or confession, no matter how convinced certain groups or individuals are regarding God’s view of such things.
We know in part; we understand the things of God no better than we clearly see the landscape through a glass darkly. Too many of us are unwilling to accept such limits in our understanding or vision. Some of us must assert without qualification or question or doubt that this one perspective is Absolute – is God’s very way of thinking. Some of us in order to feel special or good about ourselves (rather than loving ourselves) must then condemn all those others who do not align with our perspective, our theory, our belief or position that we cannot perceive as being anything other than God’s determined “fact.”
I have strong beliefs. I’m opinionated. I think at this point that I’m correct, in my very limited knowledge and understanding. Yet, I am also willing to admit in my limited state that I can be completely wrong. I am but a worm. What I hold most dear can be completely wrong, but if I want to honestly know Truth, I cannot cling to anything other than perhaps my belief in the source of all Truth. I am a worm that perhaps can be made to be wise. By the grace of God.
For what it’s worth…
Oh those boys are much too much…
This is a great advertisement (public service announcement)!
It is also Kendall Harman’s favorite advertisement for 2008. He’s got good taste.
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
Great Lakes Swimmers
To learn from Monks
“If we could genuinely practice Benedict’s brand of hospitality, welcome each guest to our churches as the visitation of Christ, it might transform our guests as well as us. Instead of making th other into our image, I am invited to see the other as one who is make in God’s image and for whom Jesus Christ died.” (Dennis Okholm, Monk Habits for Everyday People)
Rule of St. Benedict 53:1 –
“All guests who present themselves are to be welcome as Christ, for he himself will say: ‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me.'” (Matthew 25:35)
“Awareness of mortality exerts a unique power to focus the mind and heart on essentials.” (Columba Stewart, Prayer and Community: The Benedictine Tradition)
Rule of St. Benedict 49:7 –
“Day by day remind yourself that you are going to die.”
Upgrading
I will be upgrading to a new version of Movable Type, my blog software. Not sure how long this will take and what the results will be, but I’m doin’ it!
The Vatican Speaks
Joseph S. O’Leary gives an overview of comments and opinions from various sources concerning Pope Benedict’s comments made during his Christmas address related to the “ecology of Man” and gay people (a bit of reading between the lines).
Yet Another Vatican Gay Furore
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent for the Times Online (UK), and certainly not a raving liberal, wrote a commentary entitled: “Pope ‘spreading fear’ with claim that Man needs protection from homosexuality”
She writes in part:
“The Pope has been condemned by clergy and gay rights campaigners for arguing that mankind needed protection from homosexuality much as the rainforest needed protecting from environmental damage.
“Roman Catholic leaders in England, traditionally a liberal province, sought to distance themselves from the Pope’s remarks, claiming that he had been misrepresented because he never used the word “homosexualâ€.
“The strength of the reaction against his remarks from bloggers and other online commentators worldwide gave one of the clearest indications to date that the row over gays that has taken the Anglican Church almost to a schism is one that is close to erupting in the more tightly ruled Roman Catholic Church as well.”
Folks, this is just not going away no matter what Christian tradition one belongs to, or whatever faith for that matter.
“All truth passes through 3 stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
We are in stage 2, and I suspect will be for a while yet.
A playing out of the Culture Wars in the United States
Here is an interesting and brief discussion between two Anglicans commenting on the recent “departure” of four dioceses from The Episcopal Church.
From the New York Times video website:
“Christopher Wells, left, of the Living Church Foundation and Father William Franklin of the American Academy in Rome debate the schism in the Episcopal Church”
While I don’t necessarily disagree with most of what Dr. Wells says, it sounds like just more of the same. I agree that there are legitimate concerns made by conservatives that need to be forthrightly addressed and over the last few decades the liberal leadership has not. (See the quote I presented in my last post about liberals and governance!) At the same time, I absolutely agree with Fr. Franklin that what we have been witnessing has had more to do with the American Culture Wars than with honest theological problems dealt with in a traditionally Anglican way. The fingerprints of the “Institute for Religion and Democracy” way of dealing with these kinds of things are all over this (all one has to do is read the take on our Anglican problems by the conservative American-Evangelical media to understand).
An short excerpt from the New York Times video website
The full 47 minute debate: Blogginghead.tv