Well, tomorrow I will be singing my first mass. St. Paul’s is initiating me into the ranks of those priests who carry on the tradition of singing the service. As some are well aware, singing is by far not my strong point. I am very thankful that so many have reinforced my music professor, David Hurd’s, teaching that this is not a performance. It isn’t. It is for the worship of God, and God loves even a joyful noise! The parishioners are very patient and good natured with me mistakes.
I am aware, however, that a really lousy job can and will effect the experience of worship for some. I’ve been practicing, a lot. Breath. Breath. Breath. That is Mark Peterson’s constant refrain as he patiently helps me along with my chanting/singing.
A Votive Mass of the Eucharist with Benediction
Thursday, Oct. 5th, 2006 – 7:30 pm
St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
199 Carroll St. (Corners of Clinton and Carroll)
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Humilty, knowing for sure, fundamentalism vs conservatism
I was reading a review of Andrew Sullivan’s new book, The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back by Mark Gauvreau Judge of Christianity Today.
He doesn’t think much of the book, primarily it seems because Sullivan writes that we are bound by our culture, time, and place and because of this and other reasons we cannot know for sure. Sullivan separates “conservatism” from “fundamentalism.” Fundamentalists, it seems, say that “we know!” From the review, it seems Sullivan claims that true conservatives are willing to say “we are not sure” or “we do not know.†I haven’t read the book, so I am relying on Judge’s review of the book.
Here’s the thing: there are large swaths of the Church that feel that they must say “we know!” They do not separate empirically confirmed knowledge from belief or faith. Our Christian life is based on what? Fact or Faith? It is based on faith because it is not empirically provable. It is metaphysics, not physics. Scripture says in I Corinthians 13:12
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
There are those who convince themselves that what they believe is absolute and without question – making what is held by faith into something of fact. They must deny the truth in order to believe the Truth. I can say with all expectation that I am saved through Jesus Christ, but what proves it? Nothing empirically – it is only by faith that it is realized within me. Ephesians 2:8-9 says:
â€For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.â€
Well then, of course, anyone who does not agree with the “facts” is apostate and cannot know God. Yet, Scripture tells us that we will not fully (exactly) know what is the Truth of God until we see Him face-to-face.
This isn’t relativism as it has been known. It is humility. It is humility in the sense that we do not think that in this time and in this place and in this culture that we have all knowledge, all that is necessary to know, or that we are now for the first time capable to knowing all things. It simply is not the case, and to claim otherwise is contrary to reason, tradition, and Scripture. Paul wrote, “I know that I know that I know….” We can claim the same and it is true to us, but the assertion is based on faith.
So, if Sullivan will not confirm to this swath of the Church that there are certain things we must know absolutely and without question and can know as “fact,” then he is (we are) what?, a relativist, an agnostic, a person believing contrary to the Truth of God. If Judge is accurate concerning what Sullivan honestly believes, and if Judge demands that Sullivan is in grave error if he says, “I’m not sure,” then perhaps Judge is a fundamentalist after all, and not a true conservative.
It is hard to truly move within an intrinsic sense of humility – I do not know everything and I could be wrong. It is God-given as we yield ourselves to formation in God’s ways. Oh, that we are able to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.
Hum…
I went to ex-gaywatch’s website to see how the whole Foley issue was being addressed, and I came across this new report written by Jim Burroway and published on Turtle Box Bulletin.
From the website:
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths is a parody. It was modeled after various pamphlets, books, CDs and videos produced by Agape Press, the American Family Association, Americans for Truth, the Center for Reclaiming America, Concerned Women for America, the Corporate Research Council, Exodus, the Family Research Council, the Family Research Institute, Focus on the Family, Ignatius Press, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), Renew America, the Traditional Values Coalition, World Net Daily, and so many other organizations, publishers and authors too numerous to mention.
He spent the last year or so investigating how the Religious Right uses their “research” to campaign against gay people. He wondered what might result if he used the same processes and methods of “research” the Religious Right uses to present their “scientific findings” against gays and applied them to straights. He wrote a fairly extensive report in pdf format entitled, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths,” playing off similar titles used by the Religious Right supposedly exposing the “homosexual agenda” to subvert the American family, to destroy marriage, to take away the rights of Christians, and bring down Western Civilization.
Subway Observation #1
I’m finding the people on the “F” subway train between Brooklyn and Manhattan an interesting bunch to observe.
Today, the dance, really a sport full of competition, of those trying to get a seat was kind of fun to watch. Surprisingly, a man got up and actually offered his seat to a woman. Another woman came up to take it and there was a brief “dance” between the two as to who was going to sit down. The first woman declined the seat. Then, another man a couple seats from me offered his seat to the first woman, still standing. She declined again, saying that she had on her sneakers so she was fine.
The through ran through my mind whether I was going to offer my seat to the other women standing around. What about “women’s lib?” Some women are actually offended if a man acts in a more chivalric way, but these women are getting older and their aging bodies are winning out over their politically correct minded indignation. That statement will get me in a lot of trouble. Oh well.
I didn’t get up. I was selfishly keeping my seat and justifying my self-centeredness with the assertion that if they want to be equal, then equal I will treat them because to another man I would not give up my seat. That is my own failing – my issue of resentment or indignation or whatever towards those kinds of attitudes.
There was this little boy on the train with his dad. I suspect he was around 4 years old. What an incredible imagination this kid had. I watched him play with a couple of his toys imagining all these different scenarios. He was so free with his thoughts – what a joy to watch him. He broke into a R & B’ish, Hip-Hop’ish version of Greensleeves (sp?). His father kept looking at him, as the kid was playing with his toys on is father’s leg, and just smiled and laughed. What a joy. (Of course, like any good uncle knows, I don’t have to be around for the care of a child when it is anything but fun!)
I do not think there is any greater joy or responsibility for humankind then to be involved in the formation of a new life. What an incredible privilege to mold and help a child come into his/her own sense of self in a mature and balanced form. What a travesty that society encourages the aspiration of self over the giving of self to the development of the next generation.
Confounded
I am continually confounded by the image of life Jesus presents to us. It truly is a profoundly “other” way of life and understanding!
Matthew 5:38-48 (The Message)
“Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: ‘Don’t hit back at all.’ If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.
“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.
“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”
A little more standard translation:
Matthew 5:38-48 The Bible (New International Version)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
A long walk
I walked home yesterday – to my new apartment in Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, where my books and stuff are now out of storage and where I can finally settle in a bit. So, I walked from 5th Ave and 39th St. where I work to St. Andrew’s House on Carroll St. in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn. I wanted to see how long of a walk it would actually be. It took me 2 hours at a moderate pace.
Walking that far through Manhattan, across the Brooklyn Bridge, and into Carroll Gardens is a great experience. The walk down Broadway takes one from the Mid-town Fashion District, through the outer edges of Chelsea, the Ironside district, NOHO, SOHO, the edge of China Town, and before the bridge among the federal buildings and town hall and at the edge of the Financial District – Wall Street. I suspect I could add the East Village to the list, too. You see the swanky funkiness of SOHO, all the students of NYU, the well-dressed uptightness of Wall Street, all the tourists with their cameras walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, and the “regular” people coming home from work and walking the neighborhood streets of Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, and Carroll Gardens. You see every color and body type, depictions of most world religions, more languages than I could count, and the hustle and bustle of a big city.
It was a great experience. This is truly a unique place.
Resentment?
I wonder how significant is the sense of resentment in all the troubles we find in the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism these days? If it is, what is the cause of the feelings of resentment? What can be done to change the situation?
James Alison, theologian, writes,
“Yet it was in the midst of these experiences that Joseph developed an awareness of being loved such that he recognized that none of the people against whom he might justly feel resentment were really worthy of his dedicating to them that weight of emotional involvement. And he moved beyond even that, to a position of such freedom that he began to be able to plot not vengeance, but sustained forgiveness as the gift of humanizing others.”
(From Faith beyond resentment, p. x)
Then, if resentment is significant, how much does vengeance play in the posturing and threats of schism and the demonizing of others?
Free will and the resurgence of Calvinism
I read an interesting article from Christianity Today’s website on the rise of Calvinism (Reformed theology) among young people. The article states that while the Emergent conversation gets a lot of press, the renewed interested in Calvinism is more widespread and profound. That brings up, of course, the continuing debate between predestination (God’s sovereignty) and free-will.
I know that Reformed theology deals with the issue of free-will. I was raised an Arminian within the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, and while I’m certainly open to correction/change, I just can’t get past what seems in the end to be our human inability to have anything to do with what happens to our eternal being – or even what I’m going to type within the next few minutes. On this issue, despite the arguments otherwise, we still end up automatons under this theological system.
Walter Bauman, the retired Systematic Theologian from Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, OH, and the man under whom I spent a year studying Systematic Theology (far better than my course at General – sorry!), said that anyone attempting to have an integrated understanding of theology must start somewhere. While many systematic theologians begin with Creation, he said he cannot begin anywhere other than the Ascension of Jesus. That is where his system begins and from which all things flow.
If I were to attempt to develop a systematic theology, I’ve come to realize that my starting point has to be free-will. If, and it is a big if, we are created in the image of God, then I think part of that image is our potential for free choice and honest creativity within our earthly lives. I know that many things act against the realization of that potential for free choice, but I cannot move outside the possibility that it truly does exist. We, creatures made in God’s image, are free moral agents. If we do not have the ability to make honest and true choices, then I cannot get past the idea that God is the ultimate perpetuator of evil, harm, and all that is caught up within theodicy. Of course, within God’s sovereignty, He can be all those things.
I don’t think there is any conflict between TULIP and Arminianism/Wesleyanism. In God’s sovereignty, He can choose to know or not know, to give true free-will or not. To say that we have the ability to reject God’s offer of salvation does not impinge upon God’s complete and full sovereignty! It just says that God has granted us that ability.
If all things are already decided, then what’s the point?
What about “Free-will theism?”
From the article:
The theological depth attracted Harris. “Once you’re exposed to [doctrine],” he said, “you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you’re ruined for anything else.”
He notices the same attraction among his cohorts. “I just think there’s such a hunger for the transcendent and for a God who is not just sitting around waiting for us to show up so that the party can get started.”
I think he describes Anglicanism quite well! 🙂
I know a couple who are pioneering a Presbyterian Church in America church here in New York. They come to St. Paul’s (Anglican High Church – Anglo-Catholic) periodically. He said that if he ever left the PCA, he would run as fast as he could to the highest Episcopal Church he could find.
Another part:
“When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision,” Watkins said.
Watkins didn’t stop with election. An enlarged view of God’s authority changed the way she viewed evangelism, worship, and relationships. Watkins articulated how complementary roles for men and women go hand in hand with this type of Calvinism. “I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way,” she explained. Just as “he’s chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth,” she said, “I don’t want to be rebelling against the way God ordered men and women to relate to one another.”
I think this is where problems arise. She states that she doesn’t want to rebel against God’s sovereign created order – for men and women. Is she willing to say that our culturally defined understanding of what constitutes men and women, their roles and responsibilities, right relationships between them, etc. might be wrong? It is one thing to say that we do not want to rebel against God’s created order and another thing to take what we believe right now (even within the long tradition of the Church) to be absolute. While I actually agree with her desire to align her life and beliefs with God’s Way of things, I know that I can easily mix up God’s will for my own. Wives, be subservient to your husbands. There can be no consideration of the possibility of gay relationships. Etc…..
A day in the life…
Today, the UN assembles. President Bush will be speaking at the main Library this morning, which is a block away from The Pension Groups’ offices. All the side streets around us are being closed down.
Another day in life of New Yorkers as they try to make it through traffic grid-lock. Thank goodness I don’t have to drive.
I moved this weekend. I’m just tickled pink! After a year and a half of nomadic living, I finally have a permanent place! It is kind of fun discovering the content of boxes that I haven’t seen for a year and a half. It will be even more amazing when I move the rest of my stored stuff from Ohio – haven’t seen that stuff in four and a half years. I kept asking myself, “Why did I pack this?”
Random thoughts on stuff…
Islam and American Women
I listened to a NPR interview yesterday morning of an American woman who converted to Islam. She is a self-described feminist. I think she was kidnapped (or something like that) and her captives let her go as she promised to read the Quran. When she did, she said that she found a most profoundly pro-women’s liberation document that she has ever read. That is my take on her comments, as best I remember them. I heard recently that Islam is just about the fastest growing religious movement in the U.S., and primarily among American women.
Back in high school, I read a book entitled 1985. It was obviously a take off of Orwell’s 1984, but with a different vision. The book was situated in a pre-Thatcher, 1970’s Labor Party Britain, and Islam became a very influential force – really the only force that could enable any part of British society to go forward beyond the violence and labor strife that marred the day.
Do we realize that for many young women, Islam will become the next new thing? It will be the new way of living and will become a new way of liberation – although a very different vision of liberation from the 1960’s-70’s National Organization of Women type of women’s lib. As the negative results of many of the 1960’s ‘revolutions’ become more apparent, non-baby boomer women will look to other means of acquiring a sense of freedom, dignity, and respect.
Christianity is failing them. Conservative Christianity is looking back to a mythical 1950’s sense of womanhood. Liberal Christianity desperately hangs onto the 1960’s women’s-lib kind of womanhood. Neither are right, neither work well, and neither will meet the needs of young women. Islam, at least as it will be conceived in an American form by American converts, present a very different and I think increasingly attractive alternative, unless Christians in this country can get their act together to realize what the New Covenant of Jesus really teaches.
The failed Bishop’s Meeting in New York
The meeting of a few American Bishops from opposing sides and the representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury in New York City this past week ended with no resolution between the warring parties. Now, the commentaries and opinions are flying – spin for the most part.
Bishop Duncan of Pittsburg, the Moderator of the Network, posted a statement. Here is a bit of it:
“It was an honest meeting. It became clear that the division in the American church is so great that we are incapable of addressing the divide which has two distinctly different groups both claiming to be the Episcopal Church,†said Bishop Duncan…”
Notice what Duncan said? “…two distinctly different groups claiming to be the Episcopal Church.” The onward march for control of the Pension Fund, the buildings, and the name Anglican continues.