The experience of Post-Christendom

Posted on by

Ekklesia is a British organization and website that comes from a more English-Evangelical (Anabaptist) perspective, but with a more cerebral bent and with a desire to engage. On their website splash page they describe themselves as, “…a think-tank that promotes transformative theological ideas in public life.” They also detail their purpose:

“Ekklesia promotes post-Christendom approaches to social policy, nonviolence and conflict transformation, environmental action, the politics of forgiveness, economic sharing, support for migrants and displaced people, freedom of expression, restorative justice, a positive (relational) approach to sexuality, non-compulsion in religion and belief, the engagement of theology with science and culture, respectful engagement with those of other faith and non-religious convictions, and church as alternative community.” (source)

I agree with her that much has been written about the shift of Christianity from Northern and Western countries/societies to the Global South. This all started with Philip Jenken’s book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity
Anyway, in their recent e-mail update they present a paper by Savi Hensman entitled, “Lambeth Facing West and South.” A native Sri Lankan, “She is also a respected writer on Christianity and social justice. An Ekklesia associate, Savi is author of Re-writing history, a research paper on the Episcopal Church.”
I want to move to England (Scotland or Wales, which is the origin of my name). Of course, Ireland is perfectly good as well… I’ll stop right there.
I agree with her that much has been written about the shift of Christianity from Northern and Western countries/societies to the Global South. This all started with Philip Jenken’s book, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. She takes a bit of a different direction, however, and presents the idea of “boundry lines” from a different perspective. Here are a few paragraphs of her observations of the Communion and the divides that afflict us. She is quoting Canon Gregory Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion.

Numerical growth among Anglicans ‘has been almost entirely in the South’, and ‘Today it is a truism to say that the average Anglican is a black woman under the age of 30, who earns two dollars a day, has a family of at least three children, has lost two close relatives to AIDs, and who will walk four miles to Church for a three hour service on a Sunday.
Canon Cameron claims that ‘the dark side to the life of the Anglican Communion is that too often the theological graduates of the seminaries of the NATO alliance unconsciously adopt an air of educational superiority, while American church leaders assume ‘implicit obligations… on the recipients of their largesse.’
So, according to Canon Cameron, it is not surprising that ‘a growing impatience with the cultural and financial dominance of the NATO aspects of Communion life, and with it, a growing critique of the Churches of the West. Not only are we in the West shrinking in numbers unlike the growing Churches of the South; for many critics, the Churches of the West are losing a sense of their identity as they get lulled into the liberalism and relativism which are presumed to be the hallmarks of the modern Western society… Increasingly, the Churches of the South have asserted their identity in the Anglican Communion, and this is an identity which is uncompromising in its commitment to the supreme authority of the scriptures as God’s Word written; which is content to see the Thirty-Nine Articles as the benchmark of contemporary Anglican life; and which sees itself contending for the salvation of souls in the face of a lively Pentecostalism and a militant Islam.’ The ‘proclamation of traditional doctrinal and moral positions’ would also help Anglicans to deepen unity with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Canon Cameron does advocate some degree of mutual respect for ‘boundary markers’. Supposedly ‘For conservatives, the boundary stones which mark out the territory set out in scripture for those who seek to be faithful to God are being dislodged. Central elements of Christian obedience, the authority of Scripture and even the divinity of Christ, are being casually moved to the fringes of Anglican identity… Equally, those who might be labelled liberals are becoming increasingly distressed because they see vital boundary stones about Anglican attitudes towards diversity, inclusiveness, tolerance, patient debate and discernment being replaced by the narrow strait jacket of a particular view of orthodoxy; worse it appears that the traditional autonomy of the different Churches in Anglicanism is being replaced by a grab for power and the attempt to impose centralisation’.

What to do…

Posted on by

I’ve written before that as Christians, despite what cultural Christianity or the religion of it all might imply, we are not to behave as the World does. Reminds me of Austin Powers, international man of intrigue, when he says, “Oh, be-have!” Anyway, left or right, conservative or liberal, the way society or politics deal with troubling issues and the ways people behave towards one another are not the ways we in the Church, “conservative” or “liberal,” are to behave. We need one long, loud, and consistent, “Oh, be-have!”
Despite the claims of many, there has never been a single, consistent, or “handed-down-for-all-time” interpretation or understanding of scripture and its application. There has been an always occurring process as we go year to year, decade to decade, century to century trying to understand and apply scriptural principles to life as God intends. Certain understandings and interpretations have become “official” and carried forward, but before they became “official” they were enmeshed in controversy influenced by different cultures and the way the different cultures infused the various interpretations and application. The Creeds are examples of the process – centuries of process and progress. In new controversies will probably follow the same process – whether schism results or not.
Yet, the way we deal with each other is of primary importance and will mark the difference between Christians and non-Christians. We all have failed, terribly. During these recent years past we have failed the experience of Anglicanism, terribly. I have to ask myself how am I to deal with those with whom I disagree despite how they deal with me. How have I dealt with them? How do I take their concerns, their beliefs, their proclivities, what I consider to be their misunderstanding or mishandling of scripture, or their opposition of me and my beliefs – how do I deal with them all as Christ would deal with them – in honesty, in forthrightness, in sincerity, with compassion despite how I feel, with integrity?
The Archbishop of the Episcopal Church in Sudan, Daniel Deng Bul, during the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, addressed the issues of Gene Robinson and homosexuality in a rather long press conference. Here is the weblink to the videos of the press conferences. Listen to what he says – you will need to click on the reports on the ENS website separately.
Sudanese Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul addresses the media, Part 1 (07/22/08)
Sudanese Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul addresses the media, Part 2 (07/22/08)
There was a question asked by the Brazilian Episcopal Church press reporter concerning the place that cultural plays in the hermeneutical process of understanding scripture. The Archbishop replied:

“It is not the Bible that should be changed by the culture, but the Bible that should change the culture.”

Well, ideally yes, but… Either he does not understand that culture does and cannot but influence us as we interpret scripture or he knows and does not care or he refuses to admit that his own culture does effect his understanding and interpretation of scripture and how it is applied in the same way that American (Western or Northern) culture(s) affect our own understanding and interpretation and application of scripture.
His opinions cannot be dismissed, nor can they be excused. If I want to wrestle with it all honestly and if I am to respect the dignity of every human being, then I must respect his dignity, his opinion, and deal with him in ways that move beyond identity-politics, political-correctness, therapeutic-models, or culturally derived impressions and influence – I must deal with him as a fallible human loved dearly by God in spite of my own proclivities and fallibility. How? I feel no animosity towards him, although I definitely think his is wrong and his interpretation of scripture and its application are damaging concerning our pressing issue(s). How do I live with him – even if he will not live with me? He has seen more trouble, oppression, danger, heartache than I can imagine, yet…
This thing, this being a Christian, is not easy. Sometimes is just sucks. Funny how some think it is just a crutch for weak-willed people.

Lambeth

Posted on by

We are a week into the Lambeth Conference – the once every 10 years conference of Anglican Bishops from around the world. Not all of the bishops are attending this conference – over 200 and some due to their belief that they cannot be in contact/communion with those they believe to be heretics or those who associate with such bishops.
The last Lambeth, I was all over it. Any bit of news or commentary I read. This time, I’m not. I think I am simply burned out on all the controversy, all the hypocrisy, all the misrepresentation and accusation, all the crap (a technical term, don’t you know). I’m surprised. I think, “I need to read up on what is going on!” I start to, and then just get this feeling of not wanting to even begin.
I’ve followed the Facebook reports and blogs of friends of mine that are at Lambeth as workers and volunteers. Their impressions are great, as are their pictures. But the “hard news,” really the selective reports of the regular ideological blogs, I just can’t work up an interest.
Too bad. I’ve been praying for the bishops and for the Communion. I hope the Holy Spirit’s influence will be allowed, present, perceptible, real in the experience of those involved.

I don’t think it is fear…

Posted on by

As Lambeth gears up, the Bishop of New Hampshire preached at St. Mary’s Church, Putney, in the south London-based Diocese of Southwark. There were two protestors, and one was a man in the service who attempted to shout down Bishop Robinson as he began his sermon. The following quote begins here from an ENS article entitled: Church need not be afraid, New Hampshire bishop tells Putney gathering.

Two demonstrators were also present, one carrying a placard outside the church and handing out leaflets saying the Bible prohibits homosexuality and one attempting in the church to shout down Robinson as he began his sermon.
Shouting “Repent! Repent!” the demonstrator was eventually drowned out by the congregation, which rose and sang…” He was escorted out by ushers.
“Pray for that man,” resumed Robinson, his voice shaking slightly. “Fear is a terrible thing. How sad that the Anglican Communion would threaten to tear itself apart over two men or two women who choose to make a Christian family together.”
Noting that several times in the New Testament, the words “be not afraid” and “fear not” appear, Robinson said “the Anglican Communion is going to be fine. Will it change? Probably. Is it going to be easy? Probably not.”

Here is the rub in my opinion: For the most part, this is not about fear! For some, yes, but for most I don’t buy it. For most people in this mess who oppose homosexuality it is because they believe it to be wrong – simply contrary to the will of God. If we continue to try to make their beliefs and their actions to be wholly based on fear, we are misunderstanding them.

The African Church, continued

Posted on by

Here is continuing description of Christianity as it is practiced in parts of Africa. I have no clue whether any Anglican Christians in Africa engage in any of this, but as I said before my hunch is that the Anglican Churches and their members in parts of Africa are influenced by these movements and practices, just as Anglicans in the West are influenced by their surrounding culture and by indigenous politics. The point, I guess, is that none of us are free of cultural influences – negatively and positively, conservatives or liberals, Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics or Broad Church.
Dual Allegiance: Pastor jailed for using human head in occult ceremony.
Laurie Fortunak | posted 7/15/2008 08:44AM Christianity Today Online

Nigerian pastor Benjamin Ojobu and his wife, Patience, were arrested in May for allegedly using a human head in rituals for church members. The practice of using severed body parts to ensure prosperity—whether material, emotional, or spiritual—is not uncommon in West Africa. In a region where voodoo is culturally acceptable, nearly all Christians engage in some form of occult practice, according to some experts.
“One out of 10 self-named Christians in this region practices only Christianity,” says Benjamin-Lee Hegeman, a former missionary in West Africa who now teaches at Houghton College. “Some people call it syncretism, but it may be more like dual religious allegiance, where Christianity is practiced in the daytime and occult [practice] is done at night. Many of the pastors will preach from the pulpit that this type of thing is wrong, but secretly take part in it at night. There is the mentality, especially in African Initiated Churches, where the prosperity gospel is preached, that you do what you’ve got to do to get ahead. You rely on the powers available to you. You are hopeful that Christ will help, but when he can’t come through on Sunday, you may take out a different insurance policy at night.”

Read the rest.
The problem is when one grouping of us decides that the aspects of the prevailing culture that it takes upon itself or within itself (whether recognizing the influence or not) is God’s very way in opposition to other ways other groups of Christians are influenced by the culture. There is not illusion on my part that some influences are bad and contrary to God’s will for humanity and some influences are good, but we wade into troubled waters when we decide that we can definitively know the mind of God on all things right now and without opposing considerations as if we do not see through a glass darkly.
This is exactly the place Anglicanism finds itself, however. Certainly groups within us have determined that there can be no other understanding than theirs – and the group is lead by African Christians. I certainly believe they love Jesus and desire to live Christians lives, but how is the religion in their local context perceived and practiced? I can say the same about the religion of Christianity in the West… We are all wrong in various ways and to different degrees. This should be our first assumption!

They will kill? Really?

Posted on by

The Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi, is afraid for his life. I remember reading a few years ago that due to the homosexual plague he suspended all his single, male priests until they were married in fear that they just might be homosexuals.
Now, it seems, he fears for his life. From an article in New Vision (“Uganda’s Leading Website”) entitled, “Gays want to kill me, says Orambi.”

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi yesterday said he fears for his life because of the campaign he has waged against homosexuals.
“Nowadays, I don’t wear my collar when I am in countries which have supporters of homosexuals,” he said…
“I am forced to dress like a civilian because those people are dangerous. They can harm anybody who is against them. Some of them are killers. They want to close the mouth of anybody who is against them.”
“Homosexuals are agitating that it is a human right. But how can it be a human right for a man to sleep with another man or a woman to marry a woman?” he asked.
“What we need is to wake up and protect our church and children against this practice.”
Orombi noted that homosexuals were trying to take advantage of Africa’s poverty by making donations, building schools and offering scholarships.
“We should not accept any donation that comes our way and has strings attached. Some people have already fallen victims in Uganda and we need to stop it,” the archbishop said.

I really like the line that by giving money to help feed starving people or building schools and the like, that evil gay people are trying to take advantage of poor, and I guess ignorant, Ugandans. And, they are trying to kill the good Archbishop.
Well, there you go.
A commenter to the story over on Thinking Anglicans wrote this:

“Gosh. This is such a difficult question. How many gays have been killed or beaten up by homophobes? And how many Africans have been murdered by gays for criticising Western gay lifestyles?”

I wonder?

End of transmission

Posted on by

I just read today that “Father Jake Stops the World” is going off-line. Here are two reasons he mentioned for his reason to give up the blog:

1. I believe that a constant exposure to some of the toxic rhetoric found on the net has had a negative impact on my spiritual health. I find it more difficult to discern the glory of God. Most likely this is because I’ve become too preoccupied with the depravity of man. I need to take care of myself.
2. I’m no longer sure that our conversations here are helpful to the Episcopal Church. We have become as polarized in our responses as those with whom we disagree. The reality is that we are all children of God. There is no “us” and “them.” There is only “we.” I honestly believe that. Continuing to focus on our divisions deepens them, and provides a poor witness to the hope that is in us.

I really can’t help but agree with him. I know I have to step back from engaging people on the more political Church blogs. It does bring me down. I suspect it can be a downward spiraling endeavor, too.
I’ve witnessed a number of amateur bloggers hang-up-their-hats over the last several years. For whatever reason, the individuals have decided that this medium no longer suits them or meets a greater need – perhaps their individual need for blogging has ended.
More often than not in these extremist and polarizing times, “conversations” are maintained in the blogsphere because of anger and angst, bitterness and bile, and it all feeds upon itself. It is not, as it is currently construed, healthy or ultimately helpful.
I think about why people stop blogging. I guess it depends on why they blogged in the first place or the use they saw for their blogs. For me, I suppose, and as I mention in my disclaimer concerning grammar and spelling, I really do use this “web space” as a place to put things I want to keep track of. Since I am a person who wrestles with stuff by thinking “out loud,” it provides me a place to put down thoughts.
I don’t intend for all this to be “public,” but the medium provides me the best way to keep track of life and of necessity it is public. I appreciate the few who do add comments. I appreciate people who challenge what I write – it helps in my “out loud” process of consideration concerning whatever I’m wrestling with at the time. But, I don’t do any of this to elicit comments. I don’t post to advance an agenda. I just do it for myself. I don’t care how many hits or page-views I get in a day.
Perhaps that’s why after eight years of on-line journaling and then blogging, I don’t feel any need or want to stop at this point. I feel as if to stop would be the same as no longer writing in my paper journal – where I write my more personal stuff.
I think it is kind of sad when a blogger who gathers a regular group of people stops. I perfectly well understand why someone would stop, but it feels like a person who in the tactile world just drops off the face of the earth. I will remove the link in my sidebar for “Father Jakes Stops the World.” The blog was part of the Anglican perspective.

Torture by any name…

Posted on by

What do we make of our government (current administration) when “God fearing” and “God loving” leaders allow such things to happen? This is a betrayal of America, in the name of saving America.
From the New York Times: China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”
What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

This from Andrew Sullivan:

So Reagan’s alleged heir came to follow the moral strictures of Communist totalitarians. And note: the torture methods were designed to elicit false confessions. We have no assurance that the intelligence conjured up by this brutality is anything more than what Dick Cheney wanted it to be. (That’s how he likes his intelligence, of course. Whatever he wants reality to be.)
But one thing is at least clear. The people who committed this form of “enhanced interrogation” knew full well it was torture. And they used that word. It’s a good one. And it means what it says.