St. Paul’s Church – Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn
The Rev. Robert Griffith
The Fifth Sunday of Lent, March 25, 2007
“I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?â€
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
We find God’s people in a predicament in the context of today’s Old Testament reading from Isaiah 43. Isaiah chapters 40 – 55 take place during the middle of the sixth century B.C. The northern Jewish kingdom of Israel ceased to exist long before, and people of the southern kingdom, Judah, are languishing in the Babylonian exile. God’s chosen people that lived in the Promised Land were now aliens in a strange and pagan country, taken captive by a foreign power. In 586 B.C., the City of God, the holy city of Jerusalem, was destroyed by the Babylonians. The royal line of David came to an end, and Solomon’s glorious temple lay in ruins and ashes. The people of God were not able to practice their religion, as God had given it to be practiced. The temple, the very dwelling place of God on earth, was gone. The peoples’ rebelliousness separated them from their God.
All that they had known was no more. Nothing left. It surely must have seemed to many that their God had abandoned them. Perhaps, even, that the gods of Babylon were stronger than their own God.
As they lived in exile their children grew to know the “old country†and the “old ways†only in stories. The new generations did not know the glories of their former country, the splendor of worship in the temple, and the promises of their God in a land flowing with milk and honey. As best they could, some kept the traditions alive through the oral history and by the words of Moses and by way of the prophets.
Blindness
Someone wrote in another blog, commenting on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops resolutions this past week:
“We are witnessing the decline and fall of Christianity in Western culture…â€
I don’t buy this. First of all, it sounds as if the presumption is that God will not be able to cause the Church to survive in Western culture. Sure He can, and will.
We may no longer have our privileged position of state-sanction (whether explicit or implicit), but Christianity will survive and flourish. Flourish, because I think what will happen is that Christianity will become something that people participate in because they truly believe it and desire to do so, not because it is culturally expected or demanded. This will give us a much stronger Church, although the membership numbers will probably be less. It will also give us a far less culturally determined Church – less influence from both the political and social left and right.
This is God’s Church, and He will do what He will do. We are not in control of it nor can we determine its outcome. Our House of Bishops will be shown to have acted correctly or incorrectly, as will our Church and our whole Communion, in time. IN TIME. God’s time is not ours, and his timing is not our timing. Why do we so worry and think that we humans are God’s only means of defense?
An additional observation: We are blind if we think that the conservatives are any less influenced by our culture than are the liberals. We both are, and we both reflect the negative and positive aspects of the political and social positions of left and right.
To say that the conservatives or liberals are more or less influenced by our culture positivity or negatively simply shows the difference of what we choose to focus on. Hyper-individualism and consumerism of the right, or political-correctness and hyper-inclusion of the left.
The proverbial you-know-what
Well, the proverbial you-know-what has hit the proverbial you-know-what. The House of Bishops has issued three resolutions concerning the Anglican Communion relationships and the Primate’s Communique from Tanzania.
The First Resolution:
Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church
Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion; and
Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church; and
Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and
Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.
Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
The Second Resolution:
To the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates’ Standing Committee:
We, the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, meeting in Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas, March 16-21, 2007, have considered the requests directed to us by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the Communiqué dated February 19, 2007.
Although we are unable to accept the proposed Pastoral Scheme, we declare our passionate desire to remain in full constituent membership in both the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.
We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Primates’ Standing Committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the earliest possible opportunity.
We invite the Archbishop and members of the Primates’ Standing Committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.
Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas
The third resolution, and the longest, is telling. It needed to be said. Here is the link to the Episcopal News Service for the full texts of the resolutions.
A couple points from the third resolution that I find important:
Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention.
It’s time we play fair and the expectations for adherence are the same. The side doing the violating will not stop, however. The AMiA has already stated that it will not be a part of the Primate’s scheme, which means that the Primate of Rwanda will presumably not abide by the scheme’s call to halt boundary crossings.
After detailing four reasons why the Primates’ scheme for a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council will not work, this statement is made:
Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.
I have said for a while now that what we are seeing within what was once traditional Anglican Evangelicalism is the worst of American Evangelicalism. The tactics and attitudes of the disaffected Episcopalians have mirrored our profoundly dysfunction cultural and political attitudes and actions – polarization, empire building, arrogance and pride, winner-take-all, no-compromise, character assassination, lies and misrepresentations of truth. The ends justify the means – it is so 21st Century American reaction-ism, but profoundly not Christian.
Theologically, I have a lot in common with the more conservative side of the Church. Pietistically , I’ve moved far closer to the Tradition and the Catholic side of the Church. Yet, I cannot accept the means by which the extremes of these two sides have conducted their crusade to force capitulation and the expulsion of The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion.
It will be very telling when the Archbishop of Canterbury decides whether to accept the House of Bishops invitation for a face-to-face meeting.
Statements to Bishops
The Episcopal Church House of Bishops is meeting. They are considering the proposed Anglican Covenant presented during the Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania a few weeks ago, along with the Primates demands of and timetable for the American Church.
This House of Bishops meeting is for “listening.” The September meeting will be for decision making. Here are two essays presented to the Bishops concerning the proposed Anglican Covenant and the demands.
By Ephraim Radner (who writes for the Anglican Communion Institute, among other things)
By Katherine Grieb for the House of Bishops
Just wear a patch – take the gay away
The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, has become a prominent voice in conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. I have seen him quoted not only by Southern Baptists or Pentecostals but even by conservative Episcopalians. He is articulate and unapologetic concerning his particular view of what Christianity is and what is not – and along with that who is and who isn’t a Christian. He is a Fundamentalist.
Last week, we wrote an article in which he seemed to acknowledge that homosexuality will probably be proven to have a genetic or physiological link – not just a decision made by sex-crazed guys. This caused quite a stir in-and-of-itself among a slue of conservative-religious-politicos. He also stated that while he will probably be against some sort of gene-tinkering or therapy, he might be inclined to support a “hormone patch” to be worn by the mother during pregnancy in order to change the unborn baby’s homosexuality.
The Washington Post reports that Mohler in a Friday interview stated:
In an interview on Friday, Mohler said that Christian couples “should be open” to the prospect of changing the course of nature — if a biological marker for homosexuality were to be found. He would not support gene therapy but might back other treatments, such as a hormonal patch.
“I think any Christian couple would want their child to be whole and healthy,” he said. “Knowing that that child is going to be a sinner, we would not want to make their personal challenges more difficult if they could be less difficult.”
Since it will be a terrible thing to know that one’s child is going to be a “sinner,” then we should do all we can to make sure that doesn’t happen. Imagine, being able to weed out the sinfulness of us all! Wouldn’t that be great – we will no longer be “sinners.” If we can do it for the sin of homosexuality, why can we not do it for all sins? Lying, adultery, hypocrisy, murder, gluttony, pride, sloth, not loving God with our whole heart nor loving our neighbors as ourselves – all could be done away with through a patch or genetic/hormonal tinkering. Man will truly be his own salvation at that point, right?
I wonder what that will do with the whole issue of the necessity of Grace, Salvation, and the Passion-death-resurrection of Jesus. God should have just waited until our science progressed to the point where we could genetically or hormonally “change nature” to rid us of sin, rather than Jesus’ self-sacrifice on our behalf. Oh well. I know this is not what he means or intends, but it is a logical progression of the idea, is it not?
Link to the Washington Post article
Link to Truth Wins Out commentaries over this issue. TWO was founded by Wayne Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth†(Haworth, 2003).
Link to Albert Mohler’s original article: Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?
Link to Albert Mohler’s follow-up article
The first place for Christian formation is in the home (or should be, anyway)!
There is an organization called “Christian Worldview Network,” and the do all kinds of stuff. They offer a “World-view Test” to see how Christian or how worldly one is. I took the test, and I came out as a Secular Humanist. Now, that is absurd and it will give an indication of how far-right politically and socially and spiritually this group is or has become.
Now, I will be the first to say that it is vitally important that Americans, really all people, understand the concept of “world-view.” We all have one. Americans tend to not understand that one’s world-view colors their thinking and understanding of everything. World-view is the colored glasses we see through. To the point that this group strives to help people understand the concept and reality of world-view, I’m happy. The problem is what they then present as THE “Christian World-view.”
So, I get their e-mail updates and announcements. Today, they have an opinion piece written by a father of four and youth paster. The title of the essay is, “Don’t Give Spiritual Custody of Your Children to The Church.” This is one time when wading through a bunch of less-than-rigourous stuff (or crap, depending on your perspective) you find something good.
Read the essay. I think it gets at an important issue. It is about the failure of the Church in dealing with young people, and that failure begins by not calling parents to be the primary disciplers of their own children.
I find it interesting that my parish, a city-parish in its Anglo-Catholic tradition, had no “Christian Education” space. The presumption was that kids were brought up in the faith at home first, and through the regular rhythm of Daily Offices and Eucharist.
Don’t Give Spiritual Custody of Your Children to The Church
By Ray Baumann
America saw the days of manufacturing leave us some time ago. We live in a truly global economy. Look at the labels on your clothes right now. My shoes were made in China, my shirt in India, and my pants in Macau. Pick up a few items around you and see where they were made. My assumption is that most were made in China. Does America make anything? There are few things for which Americans actually have to labor to make anymore. I guess we figure why make the effort if someone else will do it for half the cost? All in the name of cheap labor.
I want to address another outsourcing epidemic happening in our churches. I know you’re trying to figure this out. No, I’m not talking about bringing in preachers from overseas and paying them less money than your current pastor. I’m talking about the church taking away responsibilities (labor) from parents.
Episcopal Election declared void
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has declared “null and void” the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence to be the 14th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. (Episcopal News Service)
Read the entire article from ENS.
Statement from the Diocese of South Carolina
The way this has transpired is plainly and simply wrong. If New Hampshire can choose a priest to be bishop whose election has prompted the presenting troubles within the Anglican Communion, after nearly ever other Christian entity asked that it not be done, then the people of South Carlina can elect the bishop of their choice. I supported the prerogative of the people of New Hampshire to elect who they felt God called them to elect. I support the prerogative of the people of South Carolina to elect the person they believe God is calling them to elect.
Many people on the left said that his election should not be consented to because of statements he has made that suggest he may – let me say this again, may – view favorably his diocese aligning itself with groups that seek to remove themselves from The Episcopal Church. Fr. Lawrence has publicly stated that he will remain loyal to TEC, despite that certain groups do not believe him.
What makes this particularly grievous is that the denial of consent may be a result of technicalities. These are not the times when the denial of consent is based on only a couple lacking votes that could be the result of sending the consents electronically, without a “signature,” rather than sending paper consents with a signature of ink sent through the U.S. Mail. “Several dioceses, both on and off American soil, thought that electronic permission was sufficient as had been their past accepted practice.” (Statement from the Diocese of South Carolina)
Regardless of where I may stand on the various issues we are fighting over, I cannot support what I know is gleeful rejoicing in some quarters. Fr. Lawrence pledged to remain loyal to The Episcopal Church. Why should we not take him at his word? If he is lying and if he attempts to pull South Carolina out of TEC, a presentment can be made against him.
My hope is that the people of South Carolina will elect him, again.
For the sake of security…
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 1:1-3)
Something that we want, but we cannot have?
Security!
It is common to desire to be secure, to be safe, to be free (or at least according to what we can conceive of “freedom” being). An expectation has been perpetuated among the population that we have a RIGHT to be secure and to have no harm beset us. This expectation plays on our desire for security, but has been used to perpetuate political and legal careers, economic wealth, and ideologies. The problem is, we will never be secure or safe from harm. We demand it, but we do not receive it because it is outside the realm of possibility to live into such an expectation. We demand it and temporally do stuff in our attempts to have it, but we do with wrong motives – in order to benefit only ourselves, our own “pleasures.”
We cannot demand that soap will not cause us to fall in the bathtub, resulting in a broken pelvis. We try to demand such things, and we sue the soap manufacturer and the distributor and the packaging company when such things happen and wonder why no warning was on the label, “CAUTION: This product is slippery and if you step on it in the bathtub dire consequences could result.” What we want is to not be held responsible for our own actions. What we want is millions of dollars that we think we can get because of “their negligence.” …never our own fault, never simply an accident, never our own negligence.
We cannot reasonably expect that we can be completely safe from terrorist attacks (whether homegrown or foreign) or that citizens of other nations will not do to us what we do to them. We want safety, but we do not want to do what is necessary to secure the highest level of safety genuinely possible. Instead, we demand that the world and cause-and-effect work the way we want them to, not the way they really do. So, in order to try to delude ourselves into feeling more secure or safe, we give up some of our own freedom, we invade other countries, we destroy other societies, we exploit other peoples, and yet we never realize our desires – security, safety, peace, freedom. As a matter of fact, we make things worse.
We ask, but do not receive because we ask in order to please ourselves. We demand security. Why? What are our motives? To perpetuate a nation-state? To secure the notion that we can be happy by buying more stuff? To protect our mountain-o-things? To protect our families from harm – that I can see, but the others above, I cannot accept as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Our security, our peace, our freedom, our life can be found in God, but we delude ourselves if we think they can be found in guns, wars, envy, pride, arrogance, selfishness, nationalism, and the like. Let’s invade more countries. Let’s invade Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba or Syria or maybe even Russia, and let’s see how much more secure we become.
James writes that there are two kinds of wisdom.
“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” (James 3:17-18)
We don’t hear too much about these kinds of attitudes or this kind of living from hawks seeking empire or the Religious Right. We want security, so we wage war. We want safety, so we send armies to kill in order to be safe. “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” Perhaps, if we took responsibility for our own actions, if we did not live only for our own pleasures, if we found true inner security by way of the true source of security, rather than through manufacturing means of self-deception, we would not need wars to attempt to be “secure.”
I’m not naive. I know that there are loads of people out there who are willing and wanting to kill every one of us even as they destroy themselves, too. It is reasonable to try to stop them. BUT, what caused them to want to kill themselves in order to kill us in the first place? As a Christian, it ultimately makes no difference to me whether the U.S. continues to exist, whether certain economic theories continue to rule, whether I live in plenty or want.
What makes a difference is that I love God with my whole self and, and, and that I love my neighbor as myself! What makes a difference is my motive for wanting or asking for anything. What makes a difference is whether I ask for my own pleasures or for the betterment of humankind, made in the image of God.
Into Great Silence
I’m going to see Into Great Silence this evening. I am so excited! Watch the trailer here. The ending gives me goose bumps.
Anyone left out?
I like this cartoon.
From the CartoonChurch webiste