Category Archives: faith

Freedom and Anglicanism – just thoughts

Posted on by

Last Saturday, during the diocesan convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, the convention with the prompting and encouragement of its bishop voted, for the second time and for final consent for action, to attempt to leave and finally have “freedom” from the Episcopal Church USA. Now, with their newfound freedom, they can honestly be the true Anglican and God-fearing church in the USA unbound by heresy and apostasy, at least that is what they are telling themselves. They also voted to align themselves with a very small extra-territorial province – the Province of the Southern Cone. This province comprises the lower portion of South America. It is small, it has an English archbishop, and is attempting to expand its influence by welcoming dioceses, congregations, and priests of the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada that believe these two Anglican provinces are heretical and apostate. So, this is what San Joaquin did – or is attempting to do.
A priest, Dan Martins, who up until this past summer presided over the oldest and one of the largest Episcopal parishes in San Joaquin, but who resigned and is now in Northern Indiana, has blogged on these latest events. He is worth reading, primarily because he is sympathetic to many of the positions held by many traditionalists/Evangelicals/conservatives within the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, yet he does not believe schism is the answer. We need people like Dan… I need priests like Dan.
A quote from Dan’s latest entry

But the mistake both he and Bishop Schofield make, as was pointed out during debate by one of the clergy, is to ignore or downplay the fact that “there are a great many good and godly people in the Episcopal Church.” It is a fallacy on many levels to paint the entire Episcopal Church with the broad brush of its most radical members and leaders (including, of course, the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council). This is precisely what my friends in SJ have done. It’s a mistake to do so, but it’s a very tempting and understandable mistake.

Read his blog.
I’ve been thinking a lot about “freedom” these past couple of weeks. We all say we want freedom, but what in the world is it? Many people who are looking out for my best interest say that it is a good thing that I am “free” of Ashton and his issues, if it were only that easy. But, what does that mean? Is that “freedom” defined as purely self-interest and not considering the wellbeing of the other, prudent, wise, or foolish and selfish? Many people say “let freedom ring,” but what use is “freedom” politically or socially if you are dying of starvation? Look at China. We would say that they are not a free society, yet the economic boom in many parts of that vast country enable people to live well and manage their own lives within the structures of Chinese Communism. Do they have a sense of “freedom?” Look at the Buddhist monks in Burma. That country is certainly not “free,” yet I would venture that those monks are far freer than you or I, living in the bastion of freedom, the good ‘ole USofA.
Then, of course, what does it mean for us to have freedom-for or freedom-from? Christians say that we realize or discover true freedom only in Christ. As I conclude reading “unChristian,” the reality is that most people who look at the Church find not a bunch of people who are “free,” but people who are simply bound up by different things than the “outsiders” are bound up by, and all the while pointing fingers at the outsiders in condemnation and in blindness of their own bondage. The Christians (or in the context of the book, American-Evangelical/Born-Again Christians) seem to be no more “free” than their secular or other-type-Christian counterparts. Where is their “freedom?”
Would any of us truly understand or recognize “freedom” if it hit us in the face? Christ has come to see us free – what does that mean? Would we even be able to function as we currently understand “life” if we were free from consumerism, materialism, anger, despair, war, worry, angst, judgmentalism, dependencies, addictions, dysfunctions, and whatever else any of us individually or corporately may understand as non-freedom? I don’t know. Too many of us are more comfortable in our bondage, no matter how terrible, than the unknown of what might be if we were free of those bondages. Lord, have mercy.

Time

Posted on by

The Church catholic and Christians and the religion in general can be and have done remarkable things. It, they and we have perpetuated the worst of everything thinkable upon people and within societies. I don’t know how to identify the difference between those who do live a life that is imbued with the call of Jesus and his way, the way God desires for us all, and the other group, the rest of the vast majority of people and institutions that call themselves “Christian” whose lives and policies demonstrate through their actions and words anything but the way of Jesus – all the while they demand respect as “Christians” and condemn anyone who doesn’t think like them or support their cause. I’m no better, but in perhaps different ways.
Back around 1992-1994, I left American-Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism because I just couldn’t take the hypocrisy, the lies, the self-righteous egos and attitudes, the self-deception, and the condemnation, scorn, and dripping condescension they so easily levied upon those who were not like them. Not everyone was like that, of course, but I knew that it was either leave or die spiritually. I knew that this wasn’t God, but I couldn’t stay around that part of the Church any longer. Frankly, I’ve seen only a worsening of the movement since then, primarily because of insecurity, envy, and the compulsion for worldly power and money.
I thought about Quakerism and the Anabaptist tradition. I had always been attracted to liturgical worship and the idea of a sacramental church. I began attending an Episcopal Church after finishing my Master’s degree – St. Paul’s Church in Akron, OH. I moved to Highland Square in Akron after finishing my degree and the church was down the street. I didn’t want to get involved; I didn’t want to know people. I just wanted to experience what this kind of worship and theology were all about. I knew that Roman Catholicism wasn’t a right choice. I didn’t know enough about Eastern Orthodoxy.
I found in Anglicanism and increasingly in Anglo-Catholicism a way of being a Christian that was honest and ancient and deep, yet not without its own problems. I found the best of the ancient traditions and saw in the lives of the saints and martyrs and doctors of the Church something real and profound, despite their foibles and problems.
Now, with the infestation of Anglican-Evangelicalism with the rankish spirit of American-Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism and from the fundamentalistic pseudo-liberal Anglicans, I am finding myself back in a similar place that I experienced in the early 1990’s. I know it isn’t God and I see good and bad within us all and within this Church, Anglican. I just don’t know how to separate out that which is truly God and that which is not. Some people find that process very easy, but I don’t.
The organized Church doesn’t reflect Jesus and God’s will for the most part. It has good PR, tells a good story, likes to deceive itself into believing it is something it is not, and all that. Yet, it is in all its imperfections the instrument that God still uses to accomplish some very good things – somehow. The longer I live, I am only more convinced that we all are depraved, bent, broken and it is an amazing accomplishment when good comes from us. Of course, this is the story of God and redemption and forgiveness and mercy and love and restoration and healing and peace and joy despite the circumstances, and this is loving one’s neighbor as one’s self – doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.
This thing, this Christian thing, is really quite simple. Be honest. Have a sober estimation of oneself. Be humble. Don’t judge, for that is God’s business. Honor God and keep his commandments – which for us is simply to love God and love neighbor.
Why can’t we do this? Why? Yes, yes, I know all the psycho-social arguments. Why can we not do this? Really. Why not?
I came to all this stuff this morning after reading the article in the Los Angels Times about the loss of faith of their former religion reporter. Here is the link to the article. Read it.

Religion beat became a test of faith
My faith in God isn’t slipping. My faith in the Church is. My faith in people rests with the understanding that we are all capable of great good and horrendous evil. God is a respecter of persons – He calls us to the good, the beautiful, the sane, the giving of self, healing, restoration, reconciliation, but He will not force any of it upon us, and we bear the burden of the consequences of our rejection and deception. I just want to find people who want to live the simple faith. People who mean it. To work for the best, deny ourselves, and love. God helps us.

Romans 1

Posted on by

I was thinking about Romans chapters 1 and 2 this morning and decided to read a portion from The Message version of the Bible.
Romans 1:19 –
“But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life…”
That one line: “They… trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives.” The sense that people trivialize themselves into silliness has struck me. We are children of God, why do we so tend to deal with ourselves in ways that do not recognize our place before God – his heirs, his children. We would rather, what, live lesser, demeaned, defamed lives with regard to who and what we truly are, what we are capable of, what has been given to us.
We have lost our ability to rightly understand life, our lives; love, how to love vulnerably and honestly; hope, for we hope in things that are superficial and vanish; joy, for we believe we can find happiness and satisfaction in things; our kindred, for we lose our ability for relationships and the life sustaining presence that they provide; fullness, for the downward spiral can’t stop and we become lesser and lesser of what we were created to be until we are – lost.
God has shown us the way out of the mire. We, I truly think instinctively, know where to go to find the way out, but we don’t. We often would rather be blind, illiterate regarding life, and believe we know better. We find ourselves descending into silliness and confusion and harm. God has shown us the way out. Will we listen, will we heed his call, will we take the steps necessary to find the Way that makes us whole again?

Just be…

Posted on by

I was part of a panel discussion this last Thursday after the premier of the revival of the play, The Runner Stumbles, off-broadway (The Beckett Theater, 42nd St. between 9th and 10th Ave’s). The play is produced/acted by a theater group in which a life-long friend of Ashton’s is an assistant producer, actor, director, and all that kind of stuff. She contacted me about the panel, made up of clergy – Roman Catholic Jesuit, two Episcopalians (myself and Bishop Roskam of New York), and a Reformed rabbi. Well acted play, and a good panel discussion at least according to audience and producers.
I’m reading the book unChristian right now. It comes from the president of Barna Research Group and details the findings of a three-year study concerning the perception of American Christians and Christianity by “outsiders” – those who don’t claim to be Christians. It is geared to the American-Evangelical/Born-Again side of the Church universal. The findings suggest that at least for Gen X & Y (Busters and Mosaics, according to the author), Christianity and Born-Again Christians have a very bad image among non-Christians in this country. I don’t think this is really new news, except for Born-Again Christians (according to the research findings). It seems most Born-Again Christians think that “outsiders” have an impression of them as people of integrity, caring and concern, honesty, and general respect. It ain’t so!
Anyway, reading this book, which while articulating the problem well doesn’t present much more than a PR makeover as a solution (sadly), and participating in the panel discussion, and other general life-experiences here in New York City, tell me that there really is a great interest in spirituality among “outsiders.” Christians have a bad rap, and nowadays I believe that the bad rap comes from the bad examples exemplified by that part of the Church in ascendancy right now – Evangelical/Born-Again Christians. Most of the audience for this play, which concerns the tragic lives of a Roman Catholic priest and nun in rural upper Michigan at the turn of the last century, was older. Yet, there is a lot of interest expressed by younger people who visit St. Paul’s (the generations dealt with in the study and book). I think the interest is there, but we do a terrible job meeting people where they are, dealing with concerns and questions they are actually asking, and presenting the truth of the Gospel of Christ and the life in ways they can receive/understand/deal with.
Anglicanism is uniquely situation to take into account these two younger generations, but right now rather than being good examples we are battling over issues that those generations aren’t concerned with and are being thrown into division by extremist elements on the right and left. We, not just the American-Evangelicals, are being poor examples, too. All of us are struggling to find our true selves, find God, and find ways of living that are actually helpful in finding a good and peaceable life. This is a key element in the play and the book. What are our answers and what is our example?
There is the aspect of, “just be!”

Scripture opaque and obscure?

Posted on by

This started out as a very short post to contain nothing but a short quote, but I can’t help myself. For good or for bad?
The loud and demanding rhetoric that has been going around for the past decade or so is that Scripture is absolutely clear about everything – no need for “interpretation,” just do what the plain meaning, those black-n-white words, tell us to do. Yes, yes, this understanding of the thing and place of Scripture, the Holy Bible, has been around for a very long time, but now this attitude is in the ascendancy. Certain segments of the Christian Church have the money and the power to hold the ear of the levers of government and are in the forefront of the Culture Wars. Any deviance from the strict party line equals repudiation of the thing, entirely.
Anyway, I used to be in that camp, and I am thankful for good reasons that some of the influence remains with me. I do have a high view of Scripture and certainly believe it is reasonable to consider that the Bible is more than simply a collection of writings from peoples and cultures from times past trying to figure out their way in the world.
With shock, however, the “truly righteous” among us react with dread and outrage if certain questions are put forward. What, Scripture is not always clear? We fallible humans might actually interpret it wrongly, possibly for centuries if not millennia? God is still revealing His Truth through Scripture by leading us to right (new) understanding? Ambiguous, it might be? Say it isn’t so!
Well, I was reading St. Augustine’s Confessions yesterday and came across this line:
“It is not for nothing that by your will so many pages of scripture are opaque and obscure.” (Book XI:3 for context – Henry Chadwick’s translation)
As the Catechism stipulates:
Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.
Notice, the Holy Spirit does not guide us individually “in the true interpretation of the Scriptures,” but by way of the Church. Not a very American-Christian way of viewing the way it is done, depending on how we want to define, “the Church.” The individualistic nature of American-Christianity doesn’t help much. And, of course, in good Anglican fashion, we use tradition and reason as helps to our understanding of the Word of God.
Then, there is the statement in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:
“The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as ‘containing all things necessary to salvation,’ and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.”
“Containing all things necessary for salvation…” The Bible is not a history book, not a science book, not a book of anthropology, not a tome of a civilization, despite the understanding that there is history, science (as best understood at the time), and a treasure trove for anthropological information. The purpose of Scripture is not to tell us what to believe about quantum physics, but to be show us what is necessary for salvation and how we humans are to experience “life to the full” by design.
Too many people want to make an idol of the Bible. These same people will often say that they want to live the pure faith like it was lived in the early Church. Well, Augustine’s writings are about as early as we get – he was born in the year of our Lord, 354. Yet, Augustine writes such things!

Slice of life

Posted on by

Life has been very hectic lately. I’m not really sure why, but it just seems that way. This is a brief slice of life, thoughts, and other stuff. I like that word, “stuff!”
+ I appreciate Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I’ve read about the commonality between the two – something like they actually think and talk about what they think. They don’t just spit out sound bites that don’t really answer questions being asked but are force-fitted into questions. Ron Paul is more Libertarian, which frankly I like. Obama is just refreshing.
To be honest, while I don’t agree with his politics, I like Dennis Kucinich because of his blunt honesty and convictions. Of course, he has no hope of winning at this point and like Paul he has nothing to lose from being honest and up-front about what he thinks and believes. I lived through his oversight of the City of Cleveland through its default, but Dennis has remade himself and I respect his convictions and am glad he is in the race, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them all.
All three need to be considered much more seriously by the American people. All the polls suggest that we are fed up with the way things are being handled in Washington. Polls suggest that most of us feel the country is on the wrong path. If, however, we keep electing the same kind of people, whether Republicans or Democrats, then nothing will change. Yet, that is exactly what we do. This is one reason why I voted for Ralph Nader during Bush’s first run for the White House. I really didn’t want Nader to win, but in protest I voted for him because we need a strong third party to challenge the status quo of Republocrates. I’m wondering whether in the long run a parliamentary system might just be better than the system we now have – or at least the way it is being experienced in this time.
+ I went to Providence, RI the last couple of days to help conduct a focus group for the study I’m involved with at The Church Pension Group. It’s a great town, it seems. I was able to spend a good bit of time talking with the bishop. I do have to find a new job and place of ministry where I actually get paid at the end of next year, after all. There is a church on the campus of Brown University in Providence that might well be what I consider an ideal kind of place of ministry, St. Stephen’s Church. They don’t have the best website, but a wonderful place for ministry.
I also traveled on the Acela Express Amtrak train for the first time. Very nice, I have to admit. The train was pretty speedy at times, and the ride was quite smooth (of course, I’m used to New York City subway trains, if that tells you anything about my sense of a smooth ride).

An odyssey into the wild

Posted on by

Considering the next post below, commenting on David Brooks op-ed piece, is Bob Carlton and a post on his blog, The Corner:

So many faith community I know view the definition of a young adult as someone who has a functioning prostrate, they view technology as a necessary evil, handled by an “amateur” who tends their website like a junk yard. Ministry with young people has gotta be more than hoping “they” will show up & like what “we” did. It’s gotta be more than presence or program or purpose or even pathetic. It’s gotta be more than apprenticing to join the borg that is churchianity. Brooks is dead on with he observes that:

some social institutions flourish — knitting circles, Teach for America — while others — churches, political parties — have trouble establishing ties.

What if we set off on an odyssey, with no certain destination, no expectation of who will join us, no “map drawn with ink”, no products sponsored by some faceless industrialist – just an odyssey out into the wild.

I have to confess, I absolutely love his description of the definition of “young adult!” Too funny.

What results do we see…

Posted on by

Considering my last post, here is the link to the swan-song article written by Stephen Bates, the UK Guardian’s Religion reporter. Read the whole thing – he sums up the personal toll that all this “playing religion” we see in Anglicanism and American-Evangelicalism causes.
Hear is an excerpt:

This week’s meeting between Rowan Williams and the American bishops will be my swan-song as a religious affairs correspondent, after eight years covering the subject for The Guardian… There is also no doubting, personally, that writing this story has been too corrosive of what faith I had left: indeed watching the way the gay row has played out in the Anglican Communion has cost me my belief in the essential benignity of too many Christians. For the good of my soul, I need to do something else.

Or this:

I had no notion in 2000 that it would come to this: I had thought then that we were all pretty ecumenical these days. I was soon disabused of that. I had scarcely ever met a gay person, certainly not knowingly a gay Christian, and had not given homosexuality and the Church the most cursory thought, much less held an opinion on the matter. But watching and reporting the way gays were referred to, casually, smugly, hypocritically; the way men such as Jeffrey John (and indeed Rowan Williams when he was appointed archbishop) were treated and often lied about, offended my doubtless inadequate sense of justice and humanity.
Why would any gay person wish to be a Christian? These are people condemned for who they are, not what they do, despite all the sanctimonious bleating to the contrary, men and women despised for wanting the sort of intimacy that heterosexual people take for granted and that the Church is only too happy to bless. Instead, in 2007, the Church of England and other denominations jump up and down to secure exclusive rights to continue discriminating against a minority of people it does not like. What a spectacle the Church has made of itself! What hope of proselytising in a country which has accepted civil partnerships entirely without rancour or bigotry?

Of course, we know far too many self-professed Christians who will loudly claim that England and any other country or state that provides for equal treatment under the law (ETUL) for gay people are giving into Satan’s plan to destroy the family and the Church, since by allowing for ETUL for gay people means that they are denying the very essence of God’s truth and inviting God’s just retribution (judgment and destruction).
It is imperative, according to these people (and remember, I was one of them for the first half of my adult life, although the issue was less politicized back then), it is imperative that any notion of the naturalness or the rightness or the legitimacy of or any positive representation of homosexuals must be stamped out. For too many of those opposed to ETUL for gay people, if they had their way, homosexuality would simply be outlawed, period, and those caught in such a state would be punished. After all, the Levitical Code demands death for homosexuals, and, well, we Christians are a little more forgiving under Grace, so we won’t kill them (despite the clear direction to do so by God’s very Word). We will love them by doing all we can to contain them for their own good, and even if against their will we demand that they concede to their own healing to become their true God-created heterosexual selves. This kind of thinking is does not come from my imagination, but from experiences I’ve had personally.
Stephen writes about the response of his Evangelical wife (“who is a devoted evangelical and not merely a perfunctory one”) concerning this group of Christians:

The trouble with these people, my wife always says, is that they don’t read their Bibles, for they know nothing of charity. I think she’s right and I am in mortal danger of losing mine. It’s time to move on.

They don’t read their Bibles – a perfect response! Well, we certainly know this is true for far too many Christians due to the much publicized studies on biblical and religion illiteracy released a few over the last couple of years and as antidotal evidence shows.
While I didn’t always agree with everything Stephen Bates has to say, I respected his opinion. I wish for him the finding of a Christian community where he can again learn to be with God despite the idiocies of God’s self-professed children. I hope that his faith will be restored.

I am one under authority

Posted on by

I read this morning during my “quiet time” the story of the faith of the Centurion found in Luke 7.
Verses 6-10 struck me:

So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

I’ve heard and read so many times from people who don’t like their bishop or that particular canon or this mandate, so they simply ignore the thing or rebel against and refuse to be a person under – authority. They do their own thing because, well, of course they know more and as any good American knows, no one can tell me what to do.
I have friends who give all kinds of reasons why they disobey the canon about only the baptized being eligible for communion. It is the very trendy thing, right now. There are legal means for changing the canon, but it just is not convenient and takes to long, so they give all kinds of excuses (even the excuse that their bishop said it was alright, as if the bishop had the authority to disobey the canons of the Church) to disobey the authority above them. Some of them also rail against the government for not obeying the constitution or illegally getting us into a war, but they then turn around and do the very same, very American thing of not obeying our canons (our law, our procedures) – because, well, they really know better and it feels so right. Very American. Very individualistic. Very non-episcopal. Very non-catholic. Very anarchical. Very hypocritical.
They don’t think things through. What if a vestry person decides to mimic their example and do his own thing and ignore parish policy or the by-laws, or God-forbid the priest’s-in-charge own decision? Would the priest give that vestry member the same leeway that s/he expects from the bishop when s/he disobeys diocesan policy or canons or the bishop’s decision? Why would a bishop expect his/her priests to obey him/her when s/he decides s/he doesn’t have to obey General Convention or the national canons? Do we not see the chaos that results?
We have the means to change things, but those means are just so inconvenient and the process may return a decision that determines: “you are wrong; stop it.” Americans hate to be told we are wrong and to stop it. Are we people under authority, which is a defining point of episcopal polity, of Catholic polity? Or, are we too seduced by our American ethos?
There is a balance, and it is called The Rule of Law and the democratic process. We have the same elements, although in different forms, in our own Episcopal polity. The balance is being severely challenged in our country and within our Church right now. The more extreme elements from all perspectives in our Church are ignoring the mechanisms of balance right now and the results are chaos and will end in dictatorship by imperial bishops whether liberal or conservative or the ending of our episcipal polity for congregationalism. Are we under authority or are we not?
Now, priests, vestries, parishes, bishops, and even whole dioceses are deciding that they will not abide by this decision, that canon, or the authority above them. So, why not just resign or orders in the Church Catholic, leave, and go join a congregational or independent free church? Why not, because our rebellious nature doesn’t allow for such an honorable exit. We have to prove our point by over throwing or destorying that which we don’t like in order to rebuild it in our own image – how glorious a battle, how worthy a cause, how determined we will be! We don’t like the legal means of change, because it is too inconvenient and we might be told, “NO.”
When we take upon ourselves vows, when we receive Holy Orders, and when we vow to obey our bishop, the authority above us, we are willingly placing ourselves under an authority and are pledging to obey that authority. There are no qualifications in the vow. There is no crossing our fingers. No strategy is present for when we don’t like something. We also take a Vow of Conformity to the Church. This isn’t done, or rather shouldn’t be done, without great thought and consideration. These are not vows made for expediency’s sake or simply as a means to an end. They are real, at least in God’s sight. They are to be obeyed by bishops, priests, deacons, and parishes, diocese, provinces, and the whole Church.
There isn’t anything wrong with change. There isn’t anything wrong with disagreement or difference of opinion, interpretation, or theological perspective. There isn’t anything wrong with rightful challenge to existing policies or authorities. There isn’t anything wrong with protest. But, there isn’t the freedom to rebel against the authorities that establish our common life – we know this from the beginning and if we cannot abide by it we shouldn’t take the vows. Where is the humility and integrity? If we come to the point after legal petition, after making our descent known, after trying to make things the way we won’t them to be, and we fail, then either we abide by the decision and remain a loyal opposition or we resign and move somewhere else more to our liking.
This is where Church and State are different. Membership in the Church is voluntary and we should know the implications of such membership before we join up. Citizenship is not voluntary. This is why the way we conduct and handle descent within the Church is different (or should be) than they way we do such things within the geo-political boundaries of our country.
Whether we like it or not, God has established authority. The above Scripture gives us a picture of right dealing with authority, and the good results that come with it. What we see within our Church right now from both the liberals and conservatives ignoring authority and rebelling against it in destructive ways, well, what we are seeing is the chaos and destruction that comes from our arrogant and prideful rebellion against our authorities. It is to our shame, because we (liberals and conservatives) are destroying the very elements that have made Anglicanism a distinctive form of the Christian faith for centuries. Shame on us for not being people under authority. Shame on us for not having faith in God. Shame on us for being such a pathetic witness to the world of a means that should bring peace and the truly liberal idea of harmony and all working together, even in the midst of disagreement.

What to pray?

Posted on by

I went for a run last night. I’m trying to be more disciplined physically and run more often – get back into, and all that.
Anyway, I was running last night and on my more common route I run past four Episcopal churches. Now, in most parts of the country some may think that I run for miles and miles and miles in order to pass by four Episcopal churches. Not so; I run a couple miles. Years ago, I would have passed by five churches, but two merged. There you go.
Last night as the endorphins were kicking in, I started praying for the churches. Then I thought, “What shall I pray?” What do they need? I mean, what do they REALLY need? Not just the outside stuff, the obvious, the worldly, but that which they truly need – the “draw all people unto me” kind of need.
I preached this past Sunday. The Epistle reading from Hebrews struck me as timely as I ran.

Hebrews 12:18-19,22-29
You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them. But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

This is what I pray people will sense and know without doubt whenever they enter and leave one of these parishes. The physical structures are what they are. The liturgy, the music, the words are what they are. But, I hope all of it will only contribute to people’s ability to encounter the risen Jesus, the Christ! I have been praying something like this for St. Paul’s for a while now.

See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven! At that time his voice shook the earth; but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of what is shaken– that is, created things– so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire.

Then, I thought as I ran, this is what I pray will happen for those of us who are charged with the responsibility of caring for the Body of Christ – that we will be shaken to the core, that our will and lofty ideas will be crushed, that we will be brought low by the kind of loving hand that only brings low in order to reveal the true, the beautiful, the good, and the lasting.
All manner of schemes and programmatic solutions float around to save the Church (whether Episcopalian or Roman or Baptist or Assemblies of God) from the controversy du jour, but it is only in the meeting of the soul with the creator of souls is the soul renewed, satisfied, stirred, shaken, awaken, and granted entrée into the very throne room of the great King.
Most of the time, all of us need to be continually shaken to the core so that all that remains is that which gives life and peace and freedom – all that remains is the essence of relationship with God through Jesus Christ. The accoutrement can aid, but can never replace. Too often, we think the accoutrement is the end goal and in some way will make everything good and right, again. The accoutrement will only be shaken away, and when that happens to our churches, our souls, our leadership, what will hopefully be left is the essence of the faith that Christ calls us to. I fear, too many of us will be brought up short.
So I pray, “Shake us Lord!” Shake the priests, the vestries, the Sunday School teachers first, that we will know, so that we can understand, so that we can lead. Then, shake our churches so that what remains will be that which enables people to come in and go out knowing that they have encountered the living God.