Oh the hypocrisy of it all…

Posted on by

I’ve written about this before, but once again the hypocrisy and myopic vision and capitulation to the prevailing culture is so blatant that I just can’t help myself. The “politicized Religious Right” (which currently predominates American-Evangelical life and thought) loves to talk about their freedom to express their religious viewpoints within the culture and uphold their rights under the Constitution. They most certainly do have such a right, and I support their determination (as I would most groups) because I have witnessed first hand the discrimination and condescension that some so-called “progressives/liberals” engage in when it comes to Christian people of faith or conservatives.
That being said, while I will uphold the right of the politicized Religious Right to advocate for their positions and the right for their voice to be heard, they work against the same consideration for those who hold opinions and positions different than their own. They don’t immediately make apparent such determined thoughts or actions, but an undergirding goal is to squelch opposing viewpoints because they consider such viewpoints damning. After all, they believe they know absolutely God’s mind on things social and political and therefore have the divine right to squelch anything that “opposes God” (based on their sectarian and ideological opinion).
I don’t necessarily have a problem with them thinking such things (because all groups do to some extent), but I do have a problem with them presenting themselves as defenders of liberty and democracy and freedom when they know full well that is not their end-goal. Their end-goal is the imposition of their opinion upon everyone else, for everyone else’s own good since they alone know God’s will so completely. I was with the Evangelicals for a good part of my early adult life until I saw the writing on the wall concerning their drive for political power, so I know of their attitudes and their way of regarding and “handling” non-Christians within American culture. This is the working out of concepts informed by “Dominion Theology” or more broadly “Dominionism,” whether the principals involved ascribe to Dominion Theology or not.
In their quest to institute their presumed version of God’s Kingdom on earth, they have capitulated to the Kingdom of this World in ways they don’t realize – because in their quest for social and political dominance they succumb to very unChristian tactics, such as lying and spreading false information (bearing false witness). Sometimes, they do realize what they are doing, but the end justifies the means in their minds. The leadership is so sure of their presumed God-given mission to dominate and control the culture and social systems that their regard for the rights of others, if those others oppose their juggernaut, as dangerous or counter to God’s willing being done.
Take as an example the following warning that Focus-on-the-Family’s CitizenUpdate published yesterday in their daily e-mail message. It is about Hallmark greeting card company and the 1,000 or so newspapers that, in their opinion, disobey the will of The People and state Constitutions. The next step for them, if they could get away with it, is to attempt to pass laws that will forbid newspapers or private cooperations from making cards for or publish announcements for gay weddings or commitment ceremonies. It isn’t enough that by their efforts state consitutional amendments are passed denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law, but they must go further because these kinds of cards or announcements work against their vision for the country or their presumption of God’s will.
Here is the announcement:

Take Action: Hallmark, Newspapers Sidestep State Marriage Amendments
More than 1,000 daily newspapers in the U.S. now accept gay “wedding” announcements. And Hallmark now offers greeting cards for gay “weddings.”
While it’s not illegal for newspapers or Hallmark to cater to the homosexual community, they are disrespecting the law in 27 states — states that have defined marriage in their constitutions as between one man and one woman.

See here what they do – they will attempt to force private cooperations and generally law abiding citizens to bend to their will. It isn’t a matter of freedom of speech for all people, but freedom of speech only as long as it does not counter their “law.” Continuing on…

“It’s entirely possible that newspaper staff has not connected the dots between having a state constitutional amendment and requests to publish same-sex ‘marriage’ or commitment announcements,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Issue Analysis at Focus on the Family Action. “Readers should give publishers the benefit of the doubt unless and until they determine that the newspaper is in fact disrespecting the vote of the people and publishing such counterfeit announcements.
“At that point, people need to hold the newspapers accountable.”
TAKE ACTION
Check this list to see which newspapers are sidestepping state law. If your state is not listed, there is no marriage amendment in place yet. Please call your local or regional newspaper. You can check our Action Center for contact information, or visit the newspaper’s Web site.
Ask to speak to the person who handles wedding announcements, then ask:
1) Are you aware the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation lists your newspaper as having a policy to publish same-sex “marriage” or commitment ceremony announcements? Is that correct?
2) If so, are you aware that our state has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman?
3) If so, how do you reconcile publishing such announcements when such unions are illegal under state law?
If the answer you receive is unsatisfactory, ask to speak to the editor. You also may contact the publisher. Let us know how it goes.

I’m willing to bet that if a newspaper does not stop publishing wedding or marriage announcements for same-sex couples, these organizations will attempt to shame them into doing so, will attempt to boycott them into obeying, and will eventually sue the newspapers for “violating the state Constitution that defines a marriage as being between one woman and one man” by publishing same-sex wedding/marriage announcements. Whatever it takes to force their will upon the rest of the citizenry, in very undemocratic forms. (If Proposition 8 fails in California this fall – if The People vote to not define marriage as only between a man and a woman – these groups will certainly not abide by or uphold the Will of the People, because the People’s will in this case will be contrary to the Religious Right’s anti-gay agenda.)
Why do I give a rats-ass about this? Because currently the politicized Religious Right is the image of Christianity in American that most Americans see most often, particularly non-Christians. It is an image of Christianity that is so compromised by political aspirations and lying that they have sacrificed their witness to the secular world. Hypocrisy is too little of a word to convey the damage they continue to do to the cause of Christ, even as they see themselves of upholders and advocates of God’s very will.

Internet Neutrality

Posted on by

I started dealing with World Wide Web, the currently most popular segment of the Internet, from the early 90’s – almost from the beginning. I created Websites for my academic unit at Kent State and diocese before Microsoft even got involved. I remember the incredible dreams of those who saw a future of a free and neutral means of communication available to the common person – that was the early days of the Internet.

Confession and The Book of Common Prayer

Posted on by

A year or so ago, I ran into a Roman, as in Catholic and not nationality, priest on a subway car. I don’t see Roman Catholic priests in clericals very often, so I wondered whether he might be an Episcopalian or perhaps a Lutheran. We talked a bit and have gotten together a couple of times, one being yesterday. When I was showing him around St. Paul’s, he mentioned the confessional booth we have in the back of the nave. It hasn’t been used in a long time, primarily because when someone wants to confess it is usually done face-to-face these days.
I mentioned that I’ve been thinking about wanting to return to using the booth for a type of confession in a kind of way that may resonate with young folks who do not have a history or tradition of confession.
In Christianity Today (August, 2008 edition), there is an article of an Evangelical pastor and his church and the decision that several of them made to decide together to actually live out Leviticus for a month. Now, they didn’t live the judgments – what was to be done if a law was actually broken. If they did, they would end up in prison – can’t go around killing children when they talk back to their parents. The outcome and what they experienced and learned is interesting.
The pastor wrote the following about a fellow participant in the experiment, which coming from an American-Evangelical is of interest to me. The following quote gets to the growing use of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer by American-Evangelicals/Reformed Christians (and I’m sure to the chagrin of many older American-Evangelical leaders that consider anything touched by the heretical Episcopal Church to be anathema). It also gets to the point about the sense I have concerning confession. Anyway, he wrote:

“For the participants in the Levitical experience, its power for personal transformation was unexpected and perhaps the most rewarding aspect. One wrote, ‘I had a hard time with Leviticus month. For about 30 days and 18 hours, I groused and complained… Early in the month I had been reading through the sacrificial section and was convinced that the modern-day, post-Jesus equivalent is confession. This is something I knew about from my Catholic days, but it had never been part of my life. I was not interested in doing this again – but the way I was not wanting to made me think that I really ought to. So I looked up the Episcopal liturgy, made arrangements with an accommodating confessor, took a very deep breath, and jumped in.’ [Emphasis mine. I will assume he went to an Episcopal priest as his confessor, since it was the Episcopal liturgy of “Reconciliation of a Penitent” that he referred to, but perhaps not.]
“‘I don’t know what I was expecting, but this was not what I was expecting. This was Large. This was a Major Life Event. I spent hours dredging up the muck in my life and preparing my list – and then it was all washed away. Gone. I was walking on air. And all of a sudden I knew that I was in a really good place and I did not want to muck it up anymore. Okay God, I prayed, this is fantastic. I want to stay here. Whaddya want me to do?’ Needless to say, reading through Leviticus again looked so different in light of grace.” (p. 33)

I do think there is a whole bunch of people who would find confession an incredible experience, if they could get beyond their self-consciousness, fear, lack of trust in a confessor, or who knows what. It is a practice that I have been anticipating for a while now, but I just haven’t gotten to it. I should. While I know that God has already forgiven me my sins as I confess to Him, a confessor is one who can confirm when I still doubt that God has truly forgiven me, restored me, and makes me able to freely forgive those who “sin against me.”

Anglican Catholicity, Anglican “magisterium”

Posted on by

Fr. Dan of “Catholic in the Third Millennium” makes the following statements concerning Anglican catholicity and with respect to our current problems ideas of a “magisterium” to solve our problems. (Fr. Dan describes himself as: “Vice President and Academic Dean of an ecumenical seminary and a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.”)
He writes:

I accept the premise that an “Anglican magisterium” would make Anglican life so much easier. But would it make Anglicanism more “catholic”? Would it solve the issues that so divide the Anglican Communion today? Or, rather, would it solidify for all time certain theological innovations in the name of “Anglican doctrinal development”? I believe the latter to be more likely, and I believe that supposedly “infallible” Roman dogmas (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) make the point better than I ever could.
Such a scenario, of course, is nonsensical. An “Anglican magisterium” is about as oxymoronic a term as one can imagine. However, my point should be obvious: the Anglican way of being “catholic” (or living into catholicity) is different than the Roman way. So why is it that Roman apologists (many of them ex-Anglicans, I might add) only come out to play when they have homefield advantage? Obviously it’s futile to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Roman terms. So I won’t. I will be content to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Anglican terms.
At first, it may appear odd to my readers to hear me suggest that Anglicanism has its “own terms” or definition of catholicity. But it shouldn’t. I have argued on a number of occasions that each of the three major apostolic communions (i.e., Roman, Byzantine, Anglican) operate on quite different understandings of what it means to be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Romanism and Byzantinism both make claims of ecclesial ultimacy. But their respective claims are mutually exclusive, as the former insists on papal supremacy and the latter on the received faith of the ecumenical councils. Thus, despite whatever superficial similarities Rome and Byzantium may have, they are different ways of understanding what it means to be catholic. In contrast, Anglicanism has never made a claim of ecclesial ultimacy, and so defines itself not as the Catholic Church, but rather as a catholic church, and thus recognizes the other two communions as legitimate branches of “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Unlike Fr. Kimel, I see this as Anglicanism’s greatest strength, not its weakness. And if it survives the present struggles, then it will only be that much stronger.

I agree that Anglicans do not have to define our catholicity in Roman terms or in Byzantine terms. It makes little difference to me whether Rome or Constantinople recognize each other or Canterbury as being truly part of the “one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” or not. I don’t believe we (Anglicans) are in competition with either communion or that we are approaching the question of catholicity from a place of insecurity, thus needing approval from anyone else. After all, we think Rome has erred (as we all do from time-to-time). We shouldn’t and don’t have to seek their approval. Rome doesn’t determine our catholicity, but some want to think that the Roman Church does just that. Without the Pope’s imprimatur, well then we are just Protestant or Catholic wannabees, or some such thing.
Fr. Dan continues:

You see, believe it or not, I still believe in “common prayer catholicity…”
Rather Anglicanism is a way of being catholic, or living into catholicity, that has proven itself very effective and extremely resilient over the last nearly 500 years of this independent Anglican experiment. I still believe that Anglicanism is a movement of God. I may be wrong. But why should I give up on it now?

Orthodoxy

Posted on by

Here is the sad truth (at least as I see it, and of course the way I see it is of the utmost importance, right?):
If you stand in a middle place where you can recognize the validity of arguments or positions concerning touchy issues held by opposing groups spanning the theological divide, you are called a “heretic” by the howlers standing on the edges of the opposing ideological cliffs. The considered middle-way gets you little respect in war zones. It is hard to hold a position between hyper-individuality and group-think. You can’t win, at least as the world defines “winning!”
Anglicanism has traditionally straddled the divide between Continental Reformation and Roman Catholic ideologies/dogmas, and of course it has been skewered by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, by Evangelicals and Ritualists, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Anglicanism can’t “win” on the world stage because most of the world demands certainty, conformity, and capitulation – but we don’t. At least we haven’t, generally. Well, at least it has continued on fairly successfully up until now, and we don’t know what will happen next. Will we now capitulate to those that demand conformity and certainty, whether they are yowling on this or that cliff side?
Nothing says such things as democracy, rationality, love/good-will, or even good manners will rule the day. Anglicanism survives – not as the largest expression of Christianity, not as the smallest, but it survives uniquely.
I read stuff put out by both sides of the angry and bitter theological and pietistic battles going on in The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism. I hold positions and opinions that some will call conservative or traditionalist and that some will call liberal or innovationist. I could be wrong on all of them. When some demand that I “choose this day” with whom I will align unquestionably, I say, “No, I’m not going to jump onto a conformist, sectarian cliff.” I’m determined to remain an Anglican with strong opinions but without desire to boot those with whom I disagree. I still have choice.
I can agree with many conservatives who say that The Episcopal Church has been going down a path that leads it into a wilderness of quasi-Christian belief and experience. I agree that by going down this path we lose the essence of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, we lose our power – rather the power of God working through the Church to transform lives – and we loose whatever it is that compels people to want to find and experience God within our walls. People may find nice ideology or music, but they may be hard pressed to find God, despite the verbiage. So, put me on the rack.
I agree with those who say that we are not a dogmatic or confessional Church, and that we should not become one! I agree that we can simply (and I do mean simply) choose to stay together. I agree that ambiguity and doubt are not twin evils. I agree that there can be a generous orthodoxy, and that the messiness of Anglicanism that stems from its refusal to codify certain sectarian or dogmatic statements is not giving ourselves over to the culture. I believe I have not be blinded by Satan for thinking such things (I can still verbally pronounce “Jesus is Lord” without conflict, so there!). I believe there can be legitimate and honest differences of opinion over biblical interpretation and application or pressing issues (over issues of homosexuality or women’s ordination, for example) without giving up the faith or giving up our catholicity. Pull the ropes tighter.
I, for one, wish we would obey Jesus in his two great commandments to love God with all of our selves and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All those standing on the edges of opposing cliffs demanding absolute assurity of opinion and position would rather shriek across the divide “HERESY” with fang laden smiles than love their enemies. It feels better.
Well, here is a statement, or a quote, that I read this morning from the blog of Fr. Jeffrey Steel. The post is entitle, “The Old Orthodoxy and a Fight.” The blog seems to be of the kind that is a bit reactionary and “Catholic” (as opposed to the reactionary and “American-Evangelical” variety). I readily agree, however, with what is written. I see it.

“It can always be urged against it that it is in its nature arbitrary and in the air. But it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole lives in shooting arrows at it — yes, and their last arrows; there are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes.
“Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with the instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in manoeuvring so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity…
“We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all.”
Orthodoxy

I would not agree with Fr. Steel (or the original author), however, if he believes that to save the catholicity or orthodoxy or validity of this Church Anglican that there can be little allowance for differences of opinion over hot-button issues, resulting in the demand to capitulate to a sectarian certainty (be it Roman Catholic or American-Evangelical, conservative or liberal). That kind of attitude is to attempt to beat into submission Anglicans that do not hold to the same dogmatic certainty demanded by all those standing on the edge of their own cliff, all the while yelling, “give us our own freedom.” It just isn’t Anglican (or maybe it is too Anglican??).

Prayers, or something

Posted on by

This was a comment made by a women on a website for new software that “cleans up” our iTunes library. I cracked up!

“thank the lawd bb jesus for this one. can’t wait for the mac version because my itunes definitely needs a tune up. forrr sho’.”

I have to remember that, “Thank the lawd bb jesus!” Almost like “weejus” prayers I learned about while doing “CPE” (Clinical Pastoral Education) as a chaplain in a hospital during seminary. What are “weejus” prayers, you might ask? Well…
“Lawd bb jesus, weejus ask that you take care of sister…”

Kirstin Dehaan

Posted on by

Had a very nice conversation with her and her friend/boyfriend/husband(?) one evening a couple weeks ago, by chance, eating good pasta on the bar at Fragole.
She is in Berlin about now, on tour.

Kirstin Dehaan
Under the Richter Scale – Russian Roulette

And I’m screamin’ cause no one’s listening
To our children whose eyes are watching
Oh we’re defining what’s worth living
Should be deceiving or should we be giving
Oh I’m begging for a little

The City #24

Posted on by

Okay, I’m getting to work a little late today because of a blood test (cholesteral). Coming out of the subway on 6th and 40th, by Bryant Park, suddenly the line up the steps stop. There is a crowd, and I think, “What is going on?” Finally, I’m getting closer to the top and I hear all kinds of screaming and hoards of people. Then I though, “Oh, yeah, its the Good Morning America Summer Concert Series in Bryant Park – they do this every Friday.
There is a cop right there at the subway exit blocking entrance to the sidewalk leading east along 40th St., across the street from the park. I had to actually show my work ID to get through the barricades.
Swarms of pre-pubescent girls everywhere – all texting like mad, all taking photos of themselves and their friends with their cell phones. I guess they started lining up last night. They had sleeping bags. I wondered why, on the way home last night, GMA and Bryant Park had all kinds of extra barricades and “General Admission Signs” all over.
It’s the Jonas Brothers! Damn Nickelodeon, or is it Disney?
Overheard: “I’ve got to get home. I’ve been up 24 hours.” That isn’t so bad, but as I turned the corner onto 5th Ave…. Okay, I’m four stories up in CPG and on the other side of the block and I hear them screaming… anyway, I turned the corner and there was a bus for, I guess, the brothers, girls everyone. They were kissing the bus. They were actually kissing… the… bus.
Well, there you go. A “typical” day in the City. By the way, Feist certainly didn’t get this kind of attention. Hum….

Get back to

Posted on by

To return to later:
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sermon at York Minster (describe as “the heavy yoke of self-justification“)
Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks’s address to the Lambeth Conference:
– Text
– Video
Alan Jacobs has a good thing to say about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Alan has joined a breakaway Anglican church, rather than slogging through Anglicanism’s (or The Episcopal Church’s) problems, and he describes why. I fully understand his reasons. Yet, both of us will look in some way to the See of Canterbury as one of our loci of identity. He writes of Rowan Williams:

But in these past few days I have been wondering whether there might be a method in Rowan’s madness — or rather in God’s. Might it be possible that while Rowan is most certainly not the kind of leader we want, he is precisely the kind we need? That his leadership is not that of a Churchill but rather a Desert Father? We want decision, action, clearly set plans; Rowan offers prayer, meditation, stillness, silence. He models those disciplines for us, and in so doing (silently) commends them… What if that is what we Anglicans actually need? What if our desire for decision and action is actually distracting us from what the Lord God is calling us to do and be?

A very good question!
I think I am coming to a place of, words fail me – something, in all the troubles of this Church. Men will do all manner of things in their high minded certitude that result in dissolution, if not destruction. We can’t help it, really, because self-centered self-righteousness has gotten into our bones. There is, of course, a way out or over this particular human proclivity, but few will take up the cure.
So, for me, within the worldly realm and within the Church structures, I will look to the See of Canterbury as a locus of my identify as an Anglican Christian, regardless of what high-mined men and women decide they must do. If others want to do the same, great. If we don’t agree on most things, so be it. If they want to yell at me and call me names or cast me into outer darkness, then so be it. I will not return the favor (but I reserve the right to critique). I do think Rowan is a good person in this office to look to.
As Julian might say, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”