There has been lots of stuff going back-and-forth over the last few days concerning the mess in the Diocese of San Joaquin. You can find all manner of verbiage on the normal and various websites (Titusonenine, Father Jake Stops the World, Preludium, Standfirm, Episcopal Cafe, etc.). I will still contend that Fr. Dan Martins of Confessions of a Carioca presents the “best” analysis. I think this because:
1. He was a member of the San Jaoquine Standing Committee up until he relocated to the Diocese of Northern Indiana. He knows the people, what they think, how they act.
2. He worked to avoid the very thing that happened – an attempt to pull the diocese out of the Episcopal Church and align with the Province of the Southern Cone.
3. He is all about following the process – adhering to the Constitution and Canons of TEC.
This is a problem I have with many who might call themselves “liberals” or “progressives” – feelings trump the Rule of Law (not legalism, but due process!). I encounter this all the time in my own conversations. “Well, you might be right that this or that is provided for in the Canons, but…” There is no , “but…”, IMHO. If we really want to solve this, really solve it and not just force our own viewpoints or dogma or ideology upon the rest of the Church or Communion, then we do have to follow due process. What we are left with otherwise is simply chaos. This is a triumph of the very wrong cultural proclivities of “hyper-individualism” and “identity-politics” of this country. Without due process and the adherence to established order, we are lost!
So many like to condemn the conservatives in that they are not patient enough. Well, liberals, neither are you. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yes, we do have time to let the process complete itself. We really, really do.
Random and vague thoughts
Rambling and vague thoughts:
My late systematic theology professor back in Ohio commented on the beginnings of the process of forming a systematic-theological perspective. He said that most people who actually produce a systematic theology (very few!) default the beginning of their system to the point of faith that seems most important to them. My professor, a Lutheran theologian, for example, began his system with the Ascension. So, since that class I’ve thought about where I would begin my system (of course, I am completely unqualified to do any thing vaguely resembling systematic work!!!).
1. My system, I think, would need to begin with “Free-Will.” I’m obviously not a Calvinist (low or high). For me, I cannot get around believing that we have true potential for independent choice. Lots of things hinder and impinge upon our realization of the potential for making honest/real choices, but I have to believe that we have it. Without the ability to make free choices – the ability to choose contrary to what was chosen – then to me we are all simply automatons. What’s the point? I don’t think being made in the image of God results in a completely determined life without recourse.
I’m a synergist, and thus not a monergist. Chalk it up to my Arminian upbringing.
My understanding of the ideas of “free-will” for Calvinists is that God has already instilled in us our desires. So, when we act we act “freely” because we act according to our desire. Yet, our desire is determined for us already by God even before Creation. I don’t think that results is “free-will.” To have true “free-will,” I think it a necessity to be able to choose contrary to what might be or has already been chosen.
If I go to an ice-cream parlor and I am confronted with 31 flavors of ice-cream, a Calvinist might claim that I freely choose chocolate from all the other flavors. The first visit, I choose chocolate because I desire it. The other flavors are there to “choose” from, but I “freely” choose chocolate because I love it so much. My second visit, well, I choose chocolate because I desire it and love it so. The third visit, well, I choose chocolate, of course. God determined that I love chocolate ice-cream and while I “freely” choose it, it is determined so that I can choose no other.
An Arminian might describe such a situation thusly: I go to an ice-cream parlor and am confronted with 31 flavors. In my God-given make up, I just love chocolate ice-cream and desire it. My first visit, I look at all the flavors and choose chocolate. My second visit, I choose chocolate, but then “decide” to change my mind and get strawberry instead (or Jamoca Almond Fudge!). My third trip, I choose chocolate. I have the ability to choose something other than what my desire dictates. I understand that a Calvinist might suggest that God already predetermined that I would choose strawberry that second time, but I just don’t buy this seemingly determinist explanation of “free-will.”
2. Well, I think about what it means to be made in the image of God. There are lots of people throughout the ages who have postulated all manor of explanations of what that might mean. To me at this point, being made in the very “image” of God connotes “attributes” of God. For me, this suggests the ability to Create and the ability to “Decide” freely between honest choices. To be made in the image of God is to have true potentiality for Free-Will decision making and to Create (obviously not ex-nihilo). In these two aspects, I think we can find poignantly God’s image in us. All of this has been corrupted by our free-will decisions to choose contrary to our own well-being and the continued suffering of the consequences of our wrong/bad decisions.
I’m not convinced that the whole episode of the Garden and Adam and Eve’s eating from the Tree of Good and Evil is as we commonly assume. I’m sure there is a heresy somewhere in these thoughts of mine, but they are what they are at the moment. In giving us honest free-will, we have to have honest choices – to do or not to do, between opposing things. The eating of the fruit of the Tree was not the downfall. There had to be true choice. We had to “exercise” that choice to realize that aspect of being made in the “image” of God.
God knew already that we could choose contrary to our own wellbeing. God risked being rejected by and rebelled against by His creation (Open-Theism?). I’m sure he well realized that in giving us that ability that humanity would choose to walk in ways contrary to our wellbeing and against God’s desire for us. That we would sin. That we would estrange ourselves from God and His ways.
The downfall occurred in our rejection of the wisdom of God and thinking that we knew better what to do – we were seduced into thinking that we knew what was best for us. We rejected God, and we bear the consequences to this day. We are no longer innocent, by a long shot.
Yet, because we are created in the image of God, God allows us to continue exercise our ability to freely choose between good and evil, right and wrong, what is good and healthy for us individually and collectively and what is not good and healthy – between killing and forgiving, between gluttony and caring for the hungry. God allows us to choose whether we will take up what is right for us: “To love mercy, to do justly, and to walk humbly with our God,” or not.
To me, this gets at the heart of the problem of Theodicy. Yes, God could well stop all this evil, but in so doing He would work contrary to His creative intent for humanity – that we would bear His image. We would be left as automatons. I get frustrated by those who fight against Christianity by using the issued of evil in the world – “if there really was a God and if this God was really good, then why does this God allow all this evil and killing and destruction? I can’t believe in a God like that.” Well, if God ended all that kind of stuff arbitrarily and unilaterally, then we would no longer have free-will. What would be better, truly?
Would most of the people who raise the problem of theodicy as the reason why they refuse to or can’t believe be willing to forfeit their free-will (whether realized or only in potentiality) to end the suffering caused by the wrong decisions of fellow human beings? Would they be willing to have their lives “determined” for them by God? I don’t think so. They might wish the way things worked in the world or in us were different all together, but what is the actual end result of the demand that a truly good God, if one existed, would not allow evil or harm or destruction to exist at all?
I realize that this is very complex stuff, but we could stop human suffering caused by famine, war, etc., if we wanted to. We could mitigate the suffering caused by natural disaster. We don’t want to badly enough. We chose that which is not the good, the beautiful. We choose to be selfish. We choose sin. This is why we are in need to atonement, a savior, forgiveness, and why we needed a way to be made for reconciliation with God, one another, and all of Creation. I think it really is up to us, and I do believe that those who do not know God have the ability to what is right – feed the poor, forgive, do no harm. That doesn’t mean they earn their way in the afterlife. It simply means that on this planet, those without knowledge of God still bear the image of God and because of this they can choose to do what is right, even if doing what is right does not result in salvation. I’m not a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian. It is only by the first work of God through the Holy Spirit that we are able to understand our need for God’s salvation and can we realize right relationship with God.
Just random, incomplete thoughts. I think I need to start with the honest ability to made choices between even contrary things. This, I think, is part of the “image” of God within us – to freely choose.
Christ-Centered Anglicanism
A good pastoral letter from a bishop within the Diocese of Lichfield (England). Read it here.
A quote:
If as a church our overriding priority, in worship and PCC meetings and wherever Anglicans come together, is who Jesus is and what Jesus is asking of us today, we will find these secondary issues look after themselves – because what unites us will then be far greater than what divides us. The churches that are growing – irrespective of church tradition or social background – are those where this happens. The churches that are declining are those where Jesus has somehow slipped quietly off the agenda and been replaced by the latest crisis or issues to do with institutional maintenance. No wonder that puts people off.
Via: Titusonenine – read the comments to Kendall’s post to see what the “reasserter” side of our troubles think. Our attitudes are so messed up, and for at least some of the commenters of the post at Titus19 they have not ears to hear. The bishop calls us back to Christ-centeredness and right focus, but I fear too many of us would rather stick to the divisive issues that, like Peter, take our focus away from where it should really be.
The City #19
Just a couple random observations…
#1 – I was waiting in line for a coffee at “The Tea Lounge” in Cobble Hill (just north of Carroll Gardens) – this is my preferred coffee house hang-out when it is not just completely packed with people. I normally show up on Saturday mornings before all the stroller pushing mothers (sometimes with fathers) show up.
Anyway…. I was waiting in line for coffee and just happened to notice the number of laptop computers. I was waiting in line for a to-go coffee because there was no place to sit. There were around 23 people sitting around. A few reading newspapers or books or talking. So, I counted the laptops. Out of the 23 people sitting around, 17 were using laptops. 17! There were about evenly divided between Mac users and Windows users (normally, Mac’s win).
Now, this scenario is repeated at Nadras (most exclusively Mac territory), another favorite coffee spot, and at The Fall Cafe (tends to be more Windows people – too bad). Now, at Georgia’s, where I go Sunday mornings before mass, and which is definitively of the Old Neighborhood (working class Italians), there is nary a laptop in site. Of course, they don’t offer Internet access, either.
#2 – It’s interesting to watch people watch people. I was doing this on the subway train yesterday. A young woman was sitting down, the train was full, and I watched her as she watched the people around her. She was intent, seemingly interested, consistent, varied in who she watched, and I really wonder what was going on in her mind. What was she thinking?
Was anyone watching me watching someone who was watching people?
#3 – It is certainly easy to fall into the stereotypic New York City sense that there is little consideration for the rest of the nation. I was walking down the street last Saturday, coming back from The Tea Lounge, and thought, “It can be so easy to never think about the rest of the country. And, how easy would it be to just not care? I don’t think it is a matter of not recognizing the importance of what goes on in the rest of the country, but that everything is available here – first. So much starts here and goes around the world before it comes back around. It seems that the rest of the country could go away and New York City (along with perhaps Long Island, parts of New Jersey, and parts of upstate where all those second/vacation homes are located) would be perfectly okay and may New Yorkers might not even notice.
Worrisome, indeed
The Remain Episcopal group of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin held a meeting (Moving Forward, Welcoming All: the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin) this past week to try to plot out the future events necessary to reconstitute that diocese after its former bishop and Convention voted to affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (the southern portion of South America). Remain Episcopal is made up of members of that diocese who have been determined to resist their former bishop’s and diocesan leaders’ moves to leave The Episcopal Church because of differences over theological positions and social issues. They have withstood lots of criticism, accusations, and rejection by their own diocese, just like conservatives have in liberal dioceses (and I personally witnessed the literal spiting of venomous condemnations by a liberal diocesan official concerning conservatives in my own diocese of canonical residence – I was shocked and very discouraged).
So, right before that +Katherine, our Presiding Bishop, sent letters to all eight members of the Diocese of San Joaquin Standing Committee giving notice that she no longer recognizes them as the Standing Committee. Well, no canon gives her the authority to do such a thing, as other bloggers have commented on (see below).
Episcopal News Service report of +Katherine’s decision and letter
This doesn’t seem to be going over very well, even among the traditionally liberal bloggers that have been unsympathetic to the recent events in San Joaquin and its bishop, let alone the whole “reasserter” efforts over the last six years.
Fr. Jake’s comments on +Katherine’s actions
Mark Harris (Executive Council member, commenting on Province VIII’s dismissal of one of its representatives – form San Joaquin – to the Executive Council)
Finally, Dan Martins’ blogs about all this and the tremendous opportunity +Katherine has squandered to build momentum for reconciliation. A quote from his post:
This is a monumental gaffe on her part. Unless, that is, she isn’t really interested in inclusion or reconciliation, but only ideological victory for her side, in which case a scorched earth “take no prisoners” policy is the way to go.
The rapid disintegration of due process in “this Church” should be worrisome to those of every ideological and theological stripe. More on that later.
To be honest, I am worried! Accusations fly against “conservatives†who seem to flaunt Canon Law, and it seems that “liberals†may be attempting to do the same thing. God help us – if we stop being a people under the Rule of Law, we simply devolve into chaos and anarchism.
Considering my last post and what I have witnessed among too many pseudo-liberals/pseudo-conservatives I have encountered in academe and in “this Church,” I hope and pray that those who really do want nothing more than ideological victory (conservatives and liberals alike) do not win the day. This has got to stop!
I don’t care about the “winning” of my theological or ideological position. I care about being what Christ calls us to be, and that is found in The Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), the two Great Commandments of Jesus (Mt 22:35-40) and the “Golden Rule†(Mt 7:12), and finally Paul’s definition of LOVE found in I Corinthians 13:4-7. This is what I want to win so that a world desperate for hope, peace, and reconciliation will actually see something worthwhile in us to consider. They certainly don’t now – the way we’ve been acting – everyone one of us. Do we really think the world looks upon us and thinks we are good or honroable? Really?
Yes, theological and ideological “positions” do have consequences, but Anglicanism has always allowed for diversity and a wide spectrum of opinion to exist. I have witnessed too many people working against traditional Anglican comprehensiveness in the past – pseudo-liberals who want nothing more than to rid “this Church” of “those ignorant fundamentalists” – and in the present – pseudo-conservatives who declare a person a heretic simply because they call for a reconsideration of the way the Church deals with homosexuals. A pox on all their houses! Whitewashed hypocrites, all of them! Do you get the idea that I’m a little exorcised about all this? Of course, how easy is it for me to say, “I’m right and all you people better get your act together according to what I think should be!” Hypocrite, me.
Why do we so like to declare that the other side has compromised with the “prevailing culture†and not see that we have done the very same thing? When has “winning†become of utmost importance? When has the end come to justify the means?
Vindictiveness
I’ve studied and worked within “liberal” environs for the last 28 years – as a student and employee of public universities and as a member of the Episcopal Church. As one who even while in high school described himself as a “progressive-conservative” without feeling any contradiction in the term (I was a political and international-affairs geek in high school), I have seen and been shocked by the gleeful vindictiveness expressed by people both conservative and liberal when their opponents have taken a tumble.
I have to be honest when I say that I’ve experienced and witnessed the most extreme forms of vindictiveness and bitterness coming from those who describe themselves as “liberals.†I don’t know why, considering that within the liberal framework they should be most tolerant and most concerned for the welfare of people of all perspectives. After all, a primary tenant of liberalism is that all have a place at the table and all perspectives are given their day in the sun. Well, that is “officially” what liberals are supposed to believe and how they are supposed to behave. The reality is something different – as it is with conservatives, too.
We should produce a new video series with titles like: “Liberals Gone Wild” and “Conservatives Gone Wild” and perhaps even “Moderates Gone Missing.” IDK
At least most conservatives make no bones about being inclusive of all ideas or theories or ideologies or theologies or whatever else may be out there – or even being nice about it all. There is no pretense that everything or everyone is absolutely equal, whatever one thinks about that.
I’m watching some of the “liberal” reactions within the Episcopal Church right now over the Diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop as we suffer through the aftermath of their vote to leave the Episcopal Church because of their accusation of “liberal” heresy within the Church over the gay issue, as well as many other issues of concern. (Take note, I think the “conservatives” have acted no better – if anything the leaders are most egregious in their spin and manipulation of the truth as they’ve worked to discredit, repudiate, and replace TEC in the USA.)
I’m afraid that gleeful vindictiveness might well rule the day in the hearts and minds of the self-identified “liberal” leadership within the Church – and within the Remain Episcopalian group within the Diocese of San Joaquin. They seem to be too quick to “kick-out” or “inhibit” or “request replacement of Executive Council lay representatives“.
I hope I will be proven wrong. I hope the liberals will act like true liberals! I hope everyone will act like the Church acted during and after the Civil War concerning the bishops and people of the Confederate Episcopal Church. The former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin should have been inhibited. He made up his mind and acted by abrogating his vows made during his ordinations and now submits himself to another Province. The consequences of his actions are what was and is expected. The clergy and people of that diocese, however, are a different matter. We all get caught up in things and we all make decisions that we might come to regret. Grace, forgiveness, and mercy and all those words we like to throw around are concepts we really need to act within.
Can we be a little more patient? Really! What do we have to lose, other than our desire to exact vengeance? The Rule we should live by is not the way-of-the-world and American politics. The Rule we are to live by is “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” When the rubber-hits-the-proverbial-road, do we believe in this Rule or not? Are we to be shown to be hypocrites, once again? It doesn’t matter how the other guys have acted or what they have done, folks. It matters how each one of us responds and then acts!
We have time, believe it or not. Let’s let the characters involved in this drama dig-their-own-ditches and make-their-own-beds. The characters on their other side of the divide may prove to be no less apt to shoot themselves in the foot – to the detriment of the Church and the cause of Christ.
Dan Martins on his blog, Confessions of a Carioca, is dealing with this whole affair in San Joaquin quite well. People should read what he is writing. He knows what he is talking about.
Update:
Episcopal News Service report
Mark Harris of Preludium (Executive Council member)
A quote from Dan Martins’ recent post commenting on +Katherine’s decision to “dismiss” the San Joaquin Standing Committee”
This is a monumental gaffe on her part. Unless, that is, she isn’t really interested in inclusion or reconciliation, but only ideological victory for her side, in which case a scorched earth “take no prisoners” policy is the way to go.
The rapid disintegration of due process in “this Church” should be worrisome to those of every ideological and theological stripe. More on that later.
I am beginning to worry.
Update: Letter of response from the 4 priests and 2 lay members of the “current”/”past” Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquine
Fr. Jake comments
An uncle, again
Well, I’m an uncle once again! Josef Paul Miller, born to my sister Nichole and brother-in-law Tony. He was born at 11:45 AM, 7 lbs 7 oz, 21″ long. My sister’s epidural didn’t kick-in in time. Ouch! She was induced.
What do we become?
I’ve really come to the conclusion that those who have truly struggled with their faith and their orientation, even if presently reconciled, bear the scars their entire lives to one degree or another.
This struggle and its ramifications influences relationships as well as general life. Perhaps only in hindsight do we know whether relationships and life are influenced negatively – of course, sometimes yes and sometimes no, right? It is not a matter of “being over it,” because our very make-up is a result of our upbringing and thus the struggle; sometimes and with some people it can be a horrendous struggle. No matter how far we move away from our upbringing and earlier life, the influence remains even if but a shadow.
Where does this leave me, I wonder. If I put myself within the messy business of honestly wanting to know truth, all manner of things can result and I may not like the result. If I honestly seek after integrity, humility, and wisdom, then what manner of thing do I become and what must I struggle through?
If I claim to be this thing – a Christian – even if what I am is contrary to everything others say I should be, then when the rubber-hits-the-road and I bear the brunt of my convictions and have to struggle through the reality of my situations, what will I do? How will I act? What will I say? How selfish will I be? How hypocritical will I allow myself to be? I hope not much, even it if hurts, even if it doesn’t benefit me, even if I face harm, even if I look like the fool, even if I am trampled, even if I must die, even if… Where do the “even if’s” end in the economy of God, in the economy of Love, in the economy of the other?
A New Law
A New Law by Derek Webb
This Election and the State of Affairs
This may be a stupid statement, or rather maybe I’m just a bit stupid for thinking it, but I feel/believe this nation is coming upon a turning point in the way we conduct our affairs. This election hinges on a building public perception that something needs to change and the candidate that can convince enough of us and prove him/herself by invoking trust in his/her ability to tap into the public sentiment and actually present a different vision, a different way forward, and cause change will win. Are we in the midst of a primary cultural/political shift?
I read recently a commentator’s thoughts that the country is in a similar position now as when Reagan came to power. Reagan called for a fundamentally different way of going about business, people responded, and he accomplished winning over a large number of Democrats. Some are saying the Obama is the Democratic Reagan and that he is able to attract a lot of disaffected Republicans. We shall see.
I’ve also been reading of late stuff about how the the state of affairs in this country is very similar to the way things were right before the Civil War. Different issues, obviously, different geographic outlines, yet the situations then and now are very similar. Likewise, I read an Episcopalian blogger talking about how the sentiments and affairs of the Episcopal Church right now are also very similar to the state of affairs in the Church right before the Civil War.
We shouldn’t discount the severity of our national condition. I’m not warmonger or doom sayer, but do we see what we need to see, perceive what we need to perceive, understand what we need to understand when we all would rather just go shopping? Do we have eyes to see, hears to hear, or a willingness to pay attention long enough to do the good, the right?