I ran into a parishioner on my way home from The Tea Lounge, and she commented on seeing all the dog walkers. She was starting to write a poem, and below I improved upon her first couple of lines:
“Now away to walk my dog
in the early morning fog…”
To change or not to change? That is the question.
I’ve posted this on my different venues, so some may find it a repeat.
Here are a couple questions that revolve around younger people – I suppose Gen Y types (teens to mid-twenties). I truly do want to hear what others thing about this, because our notions of these things will affect the future of the Church and how it is conducted (what we do and whether what we do meets the honest needs of future generations – remember, we could “get it,†but if we don’t others will):
Unlike myself and others who deal with the constant CHANGE out of necessity but have not grown up in the midst of this cultural phenomena and do not intuitively consider it the norm, the younger generation(s) do consider unrelenting change to be the intuitive-norm. It just is – just like texting just is.
1.) In an intuitively experienced world where the norm is constant change, perpetuated by the fluidity of knowledge, the speed and immediacy of communications, and in a post-modern milieu of inconsequential meta-narrative, in this kind of world is the desire for something constant becoming a whelming inner-need (whether recognized or not) within/among younger people?
2.) Is the culturally-experienced-notion-of-change spurring within us a desire for that which is tried, stable, and hearkens to something unchangeable that can be held onto for a sense of security or stability?
3.) Could this be a reason why generationally, younger folks seek out spiritual experiences that encourage and exemplify tradition, mystery, and ancientness? (Obviously knowing that not all people seek out these kinds of things, but demographically this does seem to hold true for this generation.)
4.) Could this be a sign for us as a Church to not be so quick to depend on the Baby-Boomer-generational-need to remake everything and perpetuate a constant change away from the ancient, the staid, the traditional rendering of things?
Remember, as much as Baby-Boomers rebelled against the 1950’s “Leave It To Beaver” kind of life-experience, they still benefited from the positive aspects of growing up within that kind of world. The later generations were removed more and more from those positive aspects until now we don’t know how to slow-down, be quiet, or experience a sense of serenity because of this inbred cultural compulsion to constant and every speedier change.
In a society where nothing is very stable, a seeking for and a need for something that is stable can become an incredible need for our own wellbeing. “Be still and know that I am God,” becomes in the currently-normal-life something that just may not be possible for too many people, and yet people desire to know that which is True (contra post-modernism), tried, mysterious, and stable.
5.) What is the role of the Church in all this?
I think that we have under the leadership of the Baby-boomer generation perpetuated much needed change, but the goal is not unrelenting change. I think for some the goal, whether recognized or not, has become constant change. I think we can only maintain this for so long before we sense the excess and negative results of this kind of existence. I think the younger generations are beginning to understand this, if only through a sense that “something just isn’t quite right.â€
Right now, for the sake of the younger generations that may well be overwhelmed with the phenomena of unrelenting change in all areas of life, we need to stop for a bit, step-back, and evaluate what we have wrought. If we can get out of a Baby-boomer inspired anti-establishmentarianism and rebellion against that which is traditional or tries to be constant, we might see that things do need to and will change, but there also needs to be something that ties us back and secures us as we move forward in the same way that a tether holds an astronaut to the spaceship. In the exploration of space, the astronaut always comes back to the ship. Change without the benefit of wisdom born of patience, experience, and humility will not in the long run accomplish the desired effect.
6.) Could there be more to the Gen Y affinity for Rite I language, for churches that look gothic-esque (“looks like a church”), for traditional liturgies and rituals – something other than a normal and dismissive explanation of, “oh, they’re just rebelling against their parents’ way of doing things?”
7.) Could there be building within this generation an intuitive sense that unrelenting change is not benefiting the soul-of-man as some would like to believe, and that for them they see in the institution of the Church that thing which still understands and values (at least some do) and maintains a sense of the unchangable, the very True, the tether that keeps them from spinning off into “death” of whatever form?
The horns blow in the City
This is another one of those cool, foggy mornings. As I sit here and write about questions concerning the effects of “constant change” (my next post), I hear the fog horns on the bay and East River. I feel the closer one in my chest. One calling to another, “I am here. Be careful.” The other calling, “I hear you. Hear I am, be careful.” One after the other, the horns blow. One to all the others. One closer than the others.
It’s funny to think of this kind of thing in this kind of City. Perhaps I expect to hear old fog horns only in small fishing towns, but New York City? Sometimes, it is hard to remember that this place sits on the ocean, surrounded by two rivers, a bay, an ocean. The sound of fog horns just doesn’t jibe with the notion of modern New York City, for some strange reason. I like it.
Go Tribe!
What have we become?
Considering my previous post about 9/11 & 9/12, some additional thoughts as I’ve read some bloggers writing about the need for the U.S. to defend itself, which means in their minds the justification of intervention in other countries.
Has anyone consider the example of Switzerland? A neutral country throughout the Cold War. A neutral country, still. A prosperous and free country. A trusted and respected country. They don’t belong to the EU or NATO. They spend a lot of money on “defense,” but none of their efforts are going around the world and starting wars in other places. They are surrounded by other countries, some of whom over the years have been hostile. They don’t feel themselves to be victims, vulnerable, or insecure, despite the fact that they are in truly far more vulnerable than we are.
I think the first and foremost aspect of “security” is in the mind. If we feel insecure, we are going to do stupid things and act irrationally. There are those people who will play on our insecurities for their own purposes – whether they may be our own politicians or terrorist groups. As a matter of fact, the power terrorists have over us, more than not, is their ability to instill irrational fear and cause us to be other than what we have traditionally been – that which made us strong and trusted and honorable.
The terrorists groups aided by our own politicians have caused us to be what we have traditionally not been – we have become something other than strong, trusted, and honorable in the eyes of a good part of the world. Whether we ever have another physical terrorist attack on our soil or not, the terrorists have already won a good part of the battle.
What’s up with women and exhaustion
I know this is going to appear to be something not intended, but I think these two articles get at something that I’ve been mulling over for years. Below are two articles, one from Sky News (Murdock’s European CNN), and the other article which references the Sky News report is from “Christian Worldview Weekend,” which is an ultra-rightest Christian organization extolling the virtues and need for a “Christian” worldview (while I agree with their idea of developing a “Christian Worldview”, the worldview they champion is more hard-right Americanism than Christian, IMHO).
Sky News: What Is Wrong With The Thirties?
Worldview Weekend: Stressed Out Moms: Feminism’s Dirty Little Secret
Both articles are about exhausted and overworked 30 and 40 something women. From the early days of the feminist movement, the idea that women can “have it all” has been realized by woman who are simply too exhausted to be, what??? Along with this, in the U.S. at least, comes the expectations of newlyweds – we have to have it all right away. One spouse works just to pay for daycare for the children because not to work in a is to not be actualized, and because, well, it isn’t modern, or liberated, or cool for a parent to be a “stay at home mom or dad.” (Well, perhaps it might be considered liberated for a dad to take care of the kids full-time, who knows.)
I am not at all complaining about the needed change in our society with regards to how women were generally perceived and welcomed into all parts of society – equally with men. What I will complain about is this notion that developed, and I am old enough to remember it well, that for a woman to be a full-time mom and raise her and her husband’s children is to deny her womanhood, her freedom, and to remain an ignorant subordinate under the domination of a patriarchal society.
My goodness, how in the world did nurturing, teaching, and the development of the next generation become such a negative thing? Even in the hay-day of the women’s liberation movement, we need to remember that there was still and is still a significant percentage of women that want to be and are full-time moms. The societal notion of full-time motherhood as a negative is changing, of course, but it is not yet an accepted position in society that to stay home and raise children and manage the household is a noble and worthwhile endeavor. Ironically enough, the change is germinating within younger women who are not bound to the early feminism, even if they benefit from it in their honest ability to choose what they want to do. Many are choosing full-time motherhood, to the chagrin of many of the original feminists. I’ve heard this refereed to as “the new feminism” or “post-feminism.” Whatever it may be called, it sure ain’t your grandma’s feminism.
Listen, my sister was a full-time mom and she is anything but subservient and submissive! She may be considered a traitor to the cause of women by some, but you let anyone try to lay that label on her and see what you get. Now, because of a decision to simplify their lives, for the time being she works in developing Web-applications and IT.
Anyway, the misplaced societal pressure for “super-woman” and the intended diminishment of the role of men in society, well, we are now reaping the harvest that was planted so many years ago.
Go back to the 1950’s? Go back to Stepford wives? Of course not, but there does need to be a change toward more balanced expectations by both society and men and women. If not, we are going to try to continue living this lie of prosperity and actualization while we are internally devoid of meaning and end up exhausted shells.
No mo 9/11
A very good commentary about moving from being 9/11 people to 9/12 people.
By Op-Ed Columnist THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Click here: 9/11 Is Over
New York Times, September 30, 2007
New denomination is being born…
Well, the formal process is now official. There is to be instituted a new “Anglican” denomination in the U.S. made up of some currently within the Episcopal Church and some from various denominations and jurisdictions of the “Continuing Anglican” presence in the U.S.
The “Common Cause Partners” just completed their meeting of a council of their bishops. They issues a statement declaring the beginnings of a new ecclesiastical structure in the U.S.
Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure†in North America. The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25–28.
Read the entire proclomation, HERE.
Yet another denomination is being born. There are so many as it is in the U.S. – 10 of thousands. There are so many “Continuing Anglican†denominations, too. So, some people and groups will come together and in time there will be more splitting up. We can’t help ourselves once going down that road.
There is always great excitement and expectation when something new is born. Goodness knows, the Evangelical/Protestant denominations and churches in this country have not done a very good job attracting/bring in the unchurched. Perhaps this new denomination will be more successful than the rest of the American Protestantism.
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. It will be interesting to see where things are 25 years from now. I remember a Reformed Episcopal Bishop recommending strongly a few years ago that dissenting TEC bishops not create a new thing. The REC has not faired very well over time, despite the promise of new found purity and excitement when they broke from the American Church last century.
As was mentioned somewhere else, for a new entity to be declared the official provincial structure of the Anglican Communion, 2/3rds (I think) of the ACC must give approval (aside from recognition by the ABC). I don’t think that is going to happen. I don’t think there is the support internationally for such a thing. Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda do not even have full agreement within their own provinces about recognizing a new thing and rejecting an old one.
I am profoundly interested to see where things are 25 years from now! Of course, nothing will be as we expect. All new beginnings are full of excitement and expectation.
What goes around, comes around…
What goes around, comes around.
I’ve read recently about the abuse of conservative speakers on college campuses by pseudo-liberals (though they would refer to themselves as Liberals) who demand that the invitations be withdrawn or that the conservatives be refused the right to speak on their campuses. These people are not real Liberals, mind you, else there would be an allowance for a place at the table of all perspectives. They refuse to defend the right of the people with whom they disagree to speak their minds or present differing perspectives. They, frankly, are more like Fascists (or some other word for those who attempt to control thought and speech) than Liberals because they want to control the outcome, the thoughts of others, the perspectives that are presented to other students. They want to shut up the conservatives and the right of their perspectives to be argued or debated. They want the control to determine what is disseminated and argued. The problem is, if they do not defend the right for others’ perspectives to be presented or others’ freedom of speech or thought, then there will be a point in time when they do not hold the power and their own perspectives and thoughts could well be suppressed.
There is the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!†In my opinion, this is a very traditional Anglican way of viewing things – this is how we have traditionally been. What comes around, goes around. If these pseudo-liberals attempt to suppress or deny rights to the conservatives, there will be a time when they need protection for their rights and perspectives and nay well not receive it.
Archbishop Akinola and others demand that the American House of Bishops (HoB) pass resolutions and change the-way-they-think to align with his (their) theological and interpretive perspective. He does not want other perspectives to receive the same light-of-day or right to be presented or argued or debated. To allow such things would be to deny the faith. There is no reason for debate, because the case is settled and there is no reason to revisit the traditional understanding. This is not truly Conservative, but pseudo-conservatism. A true Conservative, while striving to conserve what is, also understands strongly that we must defend the rights of those with whom we disagree else our own liberties may well be denied us at some point, and true conservatives defend the right of people to believe and think according to their own consciences. That’s why I am far more conservative than liberal.
The problem we are faced with is groups of people, whether pseudo-liberals or pseudo-conservatives, who demand that their perspective be the only right one (whether it has historical precedent or not – and historical precedent is not the only criteria of judgment for we know that historical precedent has been horribly wrong in the past) and that all others must be subjugated. Too many people want absolute uniformity and agreement and cannot abide by differences of opinion or perspective – pseudo-conservatives and pseudo-liberals.
This kind of perspective in the history of the Church is known as the Inquisition. There has never been uniformity in the Church – and we see this from the very beginning with the arguments between Peter and Paul, and between Paul and James. To think that we all must believe the same thing to be a Christian and to demand a uniformity of thought or belief whether among our Bishops or pew sitters over issue of anything, even homosexuality, leads us to be neither Conservative or Liberal, but Fascist(?). There has developed among us of fear of difference and an inability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. There is a demand for fact, when fact is not possible because we live by faith.
I’m sorry, folks, but we do not have all knowledge and we will not until we see Him face-to-face. In light of that, we should be wrapped in humility as we approach one another and the arguments we are engaged in. Remember, too, that the judgment with which we use will be the judgment with which we will be judged.
What goes around, comes around.
The demand of Akinola and of our own American agitators is that the HoB capitulate and “repent” of their own consciences and conform to the way Akinola thinks about the faith, the interpretation of Scripture, and issues such as homosexuality. It is simply not possible if we want a democratic-style episcopal ecclesiology. It will mean that Akinola and company will go their own way, because they do not want distention, difference, or will not allow a true respect for contrary ideas or perspectives – even the right of argument over them.
The City, but not #2
Now, I know Provincetown has a lot of characters as full-time residents. I love them, even though I know I love them as one who is visiting. Yet, with these characters I sense among those who are here all season or all year that they get along and that they are appreciated. More about this later…
Now, there is another group of characters that fall in with the tourists. Of course. There is one segment, however, that I don’t think I can handle! I have seen more dogs in strollers (yes, baby strollers) being pushed along by women (and yes, they have all been women) these past few days then ever in my whole, entire life.
What? Frankly, this is not just too much. I’ve heard several women this week speak of themselves to their dogs as “mommy.” I was sitting in my room the other morning watching people come in and out of the coffee house across the street and checking e-mail. A woman comes out with three coffees in a carrier and says to her leashed dog, “Now, don’t pull mommy. I have coffee.” I’m afraid, truly, that these women are not just jokingly referring to their pets as “children,” as I know some do, but I think there is a misplaced maternal instinct going on and there is a confusion of what is an animal and what is a human baby/child. Intellectually I suspect they all know the difference, but emotionally, well, something is going on and I don’t think it is healthy.
Call me a misogynist if you must; call me a “humanist” if you must, but this just ain’t emotionally healthy. It is strange-funny how in a “therapeutic society” that it comes down to the norm being to not work through our problems so that we can come out the other side more healthy and free from the emotional ordeal, but that we revel in our psychoses and demand that everyone else call them good so that we can feel better about ourselves. We are truly a mixed up lot!
What results do we see…
Considering my last post, here is the link to the swan-song article written by Stephen Bates, the UK Guardian’s Religion reporter. Read the whole thing – he sums up the personal toll that all this “playing religion†we see in Anglicanism and American-Evangelicalism causes.
Hear is an excerpt:
This week’s meeting between Rowan Williams and the American bishops will be my swan-song as a religious affairs correspondent, after eight years covering the subject for The Guardian… There is also no doubting, personally, that writing this story has been too corrosive of what faith I had left: indeed watching the way the gay row has played out in the Anglican Communion has cost me my belief in the essential benignity of too many Christians. For the good of my soul, I need to do something else.
Or this:
I had no notion in 2000 that it would come to this: I had thought then that we were all pretty ecumenical these days. I was soon disabused of that. I had scarcely ever met a gay person, certainly not knowingly a gay Christian, and had not given homosexuality and the Church the most cursory thought, much less held an opinion on the matter. But watching and reporting the way gays were referred to, casually, smugly, hypocritically; the way men such as Jeffrey John (and indeed Rowan Williams when he was appointed archbishop) were treated and often lied about, offended my doubtless inadequate sense of justice and humanity.
Why would any gay person wish to be a Christian? These are people condemned for who they are, not what they do, despite all the sanctimonious bleating to the contrary, men and women despised for wanting the sort of intimacy that heterosexual people take for granted and that the Church is only too happy to bless. Instead, in 2007, the Church of England and other denominations jump up and down to secure exclusive rights to continue discriminating against a minority of people it does not like. What a spectacle the Church has made of itself! What hope of proselytising in a country which has accepted civil partnerships entirely without rancour or bigotry?
Of course, we know far too many self-professed Christians who will loudly claim that England and any other country or state that provides for equal treatment under the law (ETUL) for gay people are giving into Satan’s plan to destroy the family and the Church, since by allowing for ETUL for gay people means that they are denying the very essence of God’s truth and inviting God’s just retribution (judgment and destruction).
It is imperative, according to these people (and remember, I was one of them for the first half of my adult life, although the issue was less politicized back then), it is imperative that any notion of the naturalness or the rightness or the legitimacy of or any positive representation of homosexuals must be stamped out. For too many of those opposed to ETUL for gay people, if they had their way, homosexuality would simply be outlawed, period, and those caught in such a state would be punished. After all, the Levitical Code demands death for homosexuals, and, well, we Christians are a little more forgiving under Grace, so we won’t kill them (despite the clear direction to do so by God’s very Word). We will love them by doing all we can to contain them for their own good, and even if against their will we demand that they concede to their own healing to become their true God-created heterosexual selves. This kind of thinking is does not come from my imagination, but from experiences I’ve had personally.
Stephen writes about the response of his Evangelical wife (“who is a devoted evangelical and not merely a perfunctory one”) concerning this group of Christians:
The trouble with these people, my wife always says, is that they don’t read their Bibles, for they know nothing of charity. I think she’s right and I am in mortal danger of losing mine. It’s time to move on.
They don’t read their Bibles – a perfect response! Well, we certainly know this is true for far too many Christians due to the much publicized studies on biblical and religion illiteracy released a few over the last couple of years and as antidotal evidence shows.
While I didn’t always agree with everything Stephen Bates has to say, I respected his opinion. I wish for him the finding of a Christian community where he can again learn to be with God despite the idiocies of God’s self-professed children. I hope that his faith will be restored.