I am in Ohio this weekend for my nephew’s first communion. It really wasn’t his “first communion,” that happened in The Episcopal Church, where he was baptized. Now, he is going to a Roman Catholic school and participating in the Jesuit parish church, so the need for his first communion. It was good.
There was a reception for family and friends at my brother’s and sister-in-law’s house afterwards. Lots of people. A whole slew of kids below 10 and most below 5. Uncle Bob (that’s me) is not used to being around so many kids for such an extended period of time. I had a lot of fun and the kids were great, but man does all that energy wear one out. As all the parents will say, “We’ve learned to tune it out.” Oh, well, good for that, but I am yet to learn that particular skill.
Here comes my nephew down the stairs. He is 3 and about the cutest little guy you could imagine!
A different way of knowing
Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek magazine, introduces a long article on religion in last week’s edition. Meacham is an Episcopalian and I’ve seen him on a number of television programs surrounding issues of faith. In reading is long introduction, the influence of his Anglicanism and the Prayer Book come through.
For instance, the article asks the question, “Is God real?” and then enters into a “debate” between Rick Warren, pastor of perhaps the most influential mega-church in the country – Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA – and author of the very popular “The Purpose Driven Life,” and Sam Harris, atheist and author of two books on why there can be no God (“The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”). In his introduction, Meacham describes Warren as one who “…believes in the God of Abraham as revealed by Scripture, tradition, and reason.” (emphasis mine) This three part formula of “Scripture, tradition, and reason” will be quickly recognized as the Anglican “Three legged stool” and describes how Anglicans deal with issues of Truth.
Now, Warren may well have taken to referring to the Anglican formula as his own, and more power to him. However, I wonder whether Meacham is graciously applying his own Anglican understanding upon Warren. As an Evangelical, I don’t know whether Warren would include Tradition and Reason as two authorities in discerning Truth. Anyway, I think it great that Meacham’s Anglicanism comes through.
Second, Meacham is discussing the perennial and eternal, it seems, debate of whether God exists or not. He writes, “There are, of course, religious counter-counter arguments to these counter-arguments; the debate goes on world without end.” (emphasis mine) Again, here we see the influence of the Book of Common Prayer in Meacham’s word selection. We can also see the influence of the 1928 Prayer Book or Rite One from the 1979 Prayer Book, whether because of the poeticalness of the combination of these three words or whether he truly prefers Elizabethan English I don’t know. But again, being an Episcopalian comes through in his writing, at least for this article.
Now, Meacham quotes Harris in the introduction as saying, “I doubt them equally [the Biblical God, Zeus, Isis, Thor…] and for the same reason: lack of evidence.”
My first thought was, “It is a different way of knowing.” Meacham describes Blaze Pascal’s descriptions of his vision of God that resulted in his writing what we know as the “Pensées.” The brilliant mathematician tries to describe this seemingly unexplainable experience of the voice of God speaking to him. It is a different way of knowing.
Michael Polanyi did much research in the concept of “knowing” and how we judge what is knowledge and how we prove we have such knowledge. He came up with the notion of the “Tacit Way of Knowing.”
Polanyi said something like: in the West, this rational system we have, knowledge is judged by what we can reproduce through tests and other such “proofs.” He said that if we had to have a serious operation, we would want to make sure the surgeon was the best – that he knew what he was doing. Yet, if that surgeon where to go back and retake some of the entry-level exams during his first year of medical school – chemistry, physiology, etc. – he would probably flunk the exams. We in the West would tend to say he did not have the knowledge necessary to be a competent doctor or surgeon, yet we know he is. Polanyi then says to look at our grandmothers. They make bread by touch – no recipe, no list, and if we demanded that they write down exactly the measured ingredients and the process, they couldn’t. The bread is made through a way of knowing that the rational West has a difficult time acknowledging. Tacit knowing, intuition, and perhaps this knowledge of God.
We cannot “prove” that our grandmothers REALLY knew how to make bread if we demand a rational detailing of the process. We cannot “prove” that God does not REALLY exist because we cannot give a rational detailing of empirical facts of evidence. Knowing God is a different way of knowing than chemistry and its empirical evidences.
We want to demand that there really is only one way of knowing – Western, rational, materialistic, and empirical. In some ways, these guys are “Rational Fundamentalists” (use of the word “fundamentalist” is perhaps unfair, but…) – there is little or no recognition or allowance that there can honestly be other ways of knowing or interpretation of observable evidence. They close themselves off to perhaps a whole different means of discovery, expansion, and knowing beyond ourselves.
Meacham writes about Pascal’s Wager: “It is smarter to bet that God exits, and to believe in him, because if it turns out that he is real, you win everything; if he is not, you lose nothing. So why not take the leap of faith?”
It’s only a shadow
Though I walk through the valley of death…
It’s only a shadow…
(Misty Edwards)
Found this while reading: Confessions of a Carioca, so I took it.
I like his Title line, “‘Liturgy Nerd’ was not one of the options!” Ditto.
| What Be Your Nerd Type?
Your Result: Literature Nerd
Does sitting by a nice cozy fire, with a cup of hot tea/chocolate, and a book you can read for hours even when your eyes grow red and dry and you look sort of scary sitting there with your insomniac appearance? Then you fit this category perfectly! You love the power of the written word and it’s eloquence; and you may like to read/write poetry or novels. You contribute to the smart people of today’s society, however you can probably be overly-critical of works. |
|
| Social Nerd |
|
| Drama Nerd |
|
| Gamer/Computer Nerd |
|
| Science/Math Nerd |
|
| Musician |
|
| Artistic Nerd |
|
| Anime Nerd |
|
| What Be Your Nerd Type? Quizzes for MySpace |
|
From the Gospel according to John
We need to keep in mind:
John 16:12-15 (NIV)
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.”
Hallelujah Nuns
Easter Day may be over, but Easter Week is still with us. So, here is a wonderful thing to watch:
(Turtle Creek Chorale doing Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus, with nuns)
via:Preludium (Mark Harris)
Brains, biology, sheep, and Christian ethics
In my Christianity Today daily e-mail news update, there was a short article entitled “Re-engineering Temptation“ about the controversies resulting from the blog entry by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, on possible Christian responses to ideas of preventing homosexuality through hormonal therapies that prevent prenatal homosexuality or negate the sexual temptation for one’s own sex in adulthood.
This short article dealt with the Christian ethics if a true biological component is confirmed in the establishment of a homosexual orientation (not preference).
In the article, the author mentioned a five years study being conducted at the Oregon Health and Science University by Dr. Charles Roselli. This paragraph really caught my attention, for one reason that the author of the article didn’t attempt to refute it.
“The story begins at the Oregon Health and Science University, where Charles Roselli studies homosexual sheep (about 8 percent of rams are gay). His research, now more than five years old, has confirmed a link between brain chemistry and sexual preference. But his data does not indicate whether chemistry or preference comes first.”
At least this seems to suggest that if we look to nature for signs of right theological definitions and concepts, then we will need to conclude that within nature, homosexuality is present and a normal part, even if in small percentages.
So, here are two links to press releases by the university concerning the research of Roselli:
BIOLOGY BEHIND HOMOSEXUALITY IN SHEEP, STUDY CONFIRMS
BRAIN DIFFERENCES IN SHEEP LINKED TO SEXUAL PARTNER PREFERENCE
If science is done well, it will tell us what is observably and verifiable factual. What we choose to do with that information, those theories, those facts, is the realm of ethics and theology.
Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay umbrella group “Exodus International” commented in the article:
“People like me who struggled with it and found freedom are more than sufficient proof that we can overcome our genetics,” he said. “Science will never trump the Word of God.”
Frankly, I agree with him, with a caveat. Science and theology deal with two different realms of knowing. Each, rightly construed, should inform one another, not conflict. After all, good science will help us understand what God has wrought. Good theology will help us understand what to do with the knowledge.
Science will never trump Scripture, but Scripture rightly understood will never contradict good science. This was the thought of those ancient Christian monks who developed the beginnings of our modern understanding of science and the observation of the world as it is.
What science may well do is help us understand whether we have rightly interpreted and understood the Word of God! In this case, if science gives us reliable and verifiable evidence that there is in fact a biological determinate concerning homosexuality, then the way we approach, understand, and apply the Word of God concerning this issue may well need to change – not because God changes or the Word of God changes, but because we are wrong in our traditional understanding and application of the Word of God.
After the science, then theology comes into play. What shall we then do?
Why the church must ease the pain of Rowan’s Passion
Speaking of Dr. Rowan Williams, here is a good article from the Guardian UK, entitled:
Why the church must ease the pain of Rowan’s Passion
A Message from Bishop Pierre Whalon to his Convocation of American Churches in Europe
Here is the lengthy message Bishop Pierre Whalon distributed to his convocation, Episcopal Churches throughout Europe, concerning our Anglican and Episcopalian problems of the last few years and the U.S. House of BIshops statements from last month.
This is about 9 pages long, but is well done and gives a good overview of, well, everything.
___
The Feast of John Keble, 2007
Dear sisters and brothers of the Convocation,
In the swirl of meetings and statements that have characterized this period in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, it seems good to try to take stock of the situation at present. As you know, the House of Bishops met from March 16 to 21. We had before us a draft Covenant for the provinces of the Communion. We also have a disagreement between the American Bishops and the Primates’ Meeting, as expressed in our reply to their Communiqué.
We are our past…
The present crisis has its roots well into the past, of course. One could begin the story of the missionaries of the nineteenth century, who courageously evangelized people around the world. However, they did so not in the context of the local culture, but their own. They taught the Faith as if it were unchanging and unchangeable, not only in its doctrine but also in its moral teaching. As Roland Allen pointed out in his classic book, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, the missionaries changed their supposedly fixed morality from support of slavery to opposition to slavery. And it changed again, when birth control was allowed.
Until the mid-twentieth century, almost all the bishops in the Third World were Anglo-Saxons. When finally local Christians began taking charge of their churches, their Anglican moral heritage was already ambiguous, not only with the hangover of colonialist hypocrisy itself, but with uncertainty about the foundation of moral teaching.
My predecessor here in Europe, Bishop Stephen Bayne, led in calling together an Anglican Congress in Toronto in 1963. The Congress endorsed a manifesto written by Michael Ramsey then Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other seventeen primates of the day, significantly entitled “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.†As Bishop Bayne remarked at the time, “Some will have to cease thinking of the Church as a memorial association for a deceased clergyman called Christ.†Indeed. The new energy for mission that this manifesto unleashed led to the doubling of the numbers of the Communion within forty years, from forty million to eighty, and growing from eighteen provinces to the thirty-eight we have today.
As time has gone on, the extraordinary growth of the Communion is the cause of some chaos, as the First World culture in which the missionaries encased the Gospel has itself continued to evolve, while the Third World has progressively sought to “inculturate†the Good News. In other words, they have begun to re-think the Faith in terms of their own local cultures, which are not by any means homogeneous. Among other issues to face has been the ambiguity of moral teaching, apparently immutable unless “the whites†decide to change it.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I have gone through a lot of feelings and questions with regard the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, over the past three+ years. He has lived a proverbial lifetime over the past three plus short years, and it really is unfair to him.
He was elected during my seminary experience and most of us, at least those with whom I spoke, were excited about Williams – a well known, well respected, and very good academic and theologian. He was the primate of the Anglican Church in Wales. He was of the Anglo-Catholic (Oxford Movement) side of the Church. He was then (and still is) a participant of a number of organizations that strongly emphasize an intentional understanding and support of the continuance of our Church’s Traditions (our catholicity), while seeing our Church as being in very different circumstances then we were even 50 years ago, thus allowing for the positive movement forward in examining our approaches to the hermeneutical endeavor. I truly respect the man as a theologian and compassionate Christian thinker.
When all hell broke loose during the second half of 2003 with the American Church’s consecration of the current Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, we looked to see what ++Rowan would do. What would the leader of the Anglican Communion actually do or say? We believed his responses would be thoughtful, fair, respectful of all sides as his position requires, and consistent to what he has proposed and done in the past – continuance of the Anglican Tradition and with his own convictions.
++Rowan obviously has tried terribly to keep the Communion together over the past few years. I do not envy him one bit – really, this responsibility that has been laid upon his shoulders was not of his asking when he was selected to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He is in an impossible position, but he is in the position nonetheless.
Yet, I have gone through various feelings about him as a leader. For the longest time, I was perplexed by his decisions. I just didn’t understand where he was leading and how the direction he seemed to be going would result in a good outcome. Then, I thought, “This man is brilliant. He will simply let the players play themselves out and as the Archbishop, invite all bishops to Lambeth and those who choose to opt out, opt out. They will not be a part of the councils of this Church.”
Last year, I began hearing a lot of rumblings by English clergy about the Primate of All England, ++Rowan. The rumblings revolved around his inept leadership and inability to make decisions. Well, these are English clergy talking about a Welshman who took control of the English Church – who knows what is going on behind the scene. More rumblings about the real regret many of the English clergy now feel about his selection as the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Now, I really don’t know what to think. Right now, I’m thinking that this man is a brilliant academic, politician and leader he is not. I hope I am wrong.
With this man, through a whole series of events and circumstances, a vacuum of leadership developed within the structures of the Anglican Communion and over the past three+ years others have quickly stepped in to fill that vacuum. It seems those who have filled the void are pushing the Communion to be something it has never been. Those who believing in maintaining the Tradition have not stepped up to the plate to challenge the Anglican innovators. This new Church, if they succeed, will look very much like the Roman Church. The same group is trying to force the American Episcopal Church (and really all the more “Western” Churches) to conform to its will and is assuming power that it never had, with little resistance by the rest of the Communion. Well, until…
From the last American House of Bishops meeting three reports or “Mind of the House” resolutions, were issued. From one, comes this quote commenting on the assumed and increasing juridical power of the Anglican Primates Meetings:
“It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th Century it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.”
I do know that ++Rowan is a very strong believer in the collegial process, a conciliarly process, and I respect that. The only problem is that in order for these kinds of processes to succeed, there needs to be agreement on all sides that they will all sit at the same table, abide by the same rules, and that no one violates another or decides to take all their marbles and go home. This has not been the case, and rather than call the violating parties to account ++Rowan has bent over backwards attempting to accommodate them – to keep them in the Communion. He violates or gives up the very Anglican Tradition he so wishes to preserve. At least that is how it seems to me.
I have come to think that he is way over his head. He cannot make needed decisions and he is allowing himself to be bullied by certain other strong leaders. He is relinquishing his authority to others, and I just don’t know why.
If he simply said from the beginning to the American Church, or to the Nigerian Primate, or to half a dozen other people that he will not tolerate this kind of behavior, we would not be in this kind of chaotic situation. There still would be angry people jockeying for power and influence in order to undo what they believe should not have been done, there still would be provinces that call for an Anglican realignment, still be members of parishes that left the Church, and all of that. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury still would be in control; loved or hated, he still would be in control. Now, he is not. He is giving up his authority as head of the Anglican Communion – the only real specified authority in the Communion – to a group of prelates who up until six years ago had no such agreed upon power. Being in Communion with the See of Canterbury may soon be only an historical concept.
He is taking a three-month sabbatical before the September 30th deadline for compliance by the American Church to the demands of the Primates Meeting. I just wonder upon returning whether he will resign, whether he will have come to some sort of epiphany, whether he will have rediscovered his spine, whether he might even announce that he is swimming the Tiber. Who knows? I don’t.
I just wonder what could have been accomplished under his archbishopric if the force of division had not raised its ugly head. Perhaps this kind of leader he was never meant to be. Perhaps, his talents and subsequent influence would have been better served had he stayed in academia, or perhaps simply a bishop of a diocese in Wales.
I wonder if he has any peace of mind any longer.