Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
STAY IN AND REVIVE
(These are some comments I made about the Communion Partners Rectors' meeting held at St. Martin's Episcopal Church, Houston last weekend.)
I was pleased with the tone and content of our meeting. As you now know I have been around the scene for some forty years and have witnessed successive waves of disaffection within TEC in their various manifestations and know most of the leading figures who have popped up during this time. I am not making any claims to special wisdom. While some say "older means wiser" others retort "there's no fool like an old fool."
I sounded the warning about the pitfalls of the past not out of pique, but with a concern that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and that we understand that Anglican leaders abroad, even when sympathetic, do not always hear us without caution. I have said as much to almost every new manifestation of principled dissent which has arisen, usually without much effect!
My main observations concern what one might term the structural and political aspects of principled and loyal dissent. In the mid 70'ies when the first significant opposition to official TEC policies began to emerge, an organization was formed called "Evangelical and Catholic Mission": FiFNA is its present heir. It was an excellent title. Unfortunately those involved did not live up to the description provided. The emphasis which emerged was not on mission or formation, but all about structure, tactics and obstruction. Anger and resentment were encouraged and justified by the actions of those deemed the enemy. Granted those who held sway in TEC then - and now - replied in kind.
Principled dissent was not viewed as a vocation or a mission to revive and restore, but rather as a mechanism to use overseas Provinces and indeed archbishops of Canterbury as levers to exert pressure on General Convention and its leaders. The emphasis was on tactics and political means. The liberals in General Convention were much better at that game and won. I do not believe that Christ's truth is usually won in ecclesiastical legislative assemblies.
As membership in dissenting groups dwindled, and groups fragmented, that sort of leverage became less and less effective. By 2003 even granted a new wave of those dissenting from TEC policy, the ability of principled dissenters to influence General Convention or a majority of bishops had diminished significantly. To a majority of Episcopalians dissenters within TEC had all the appearance of grumpy, bigoted and negative old people. Perhaps we have seen a similar dynamic in the recent election?
It therefore became inevitable that the main engines of dissent would become schismatic. Gone was any evidence of the original claim to be an Evangelical and Catholic mission to the church and to the world. Instead the strategy became the creation of a defensive fortress, separated from TEC but acknowledged by overseas Provinces. In a word we exported our divisions to the rest of the Communion and Gafcon is the result.
I have great hope that we will return to the original vocation of principled dissent. I see our vocation, for that I believe it is, to be that of encouragement, a sort of Barnabas mission. We may encourage by fellowship here particularly those who are isolated and young potential leaders and Anglicans abroad, by clearly proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified in a winsome manner, by providing instruction and apologetics using the best and most modern tools at our disposal, and by winning over moderate opinion among bishops and other clergy in our church who have been frightened into reluctant alliance with the left because we have been deemed extreme and rather nasty. In short our mission is of the same order as that which inspired the earlier Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to win back the church for Christ while speaking in mission to the world: the ordinary mission of every Christian.
I was pleased with the tone and content of our meeting. As you now know I have been around the scene for some forty years and have witnessed successive waves of disaffection within TEC in their various manifestations and know most of the leading figures who have popped up during this time. I am not making any claims to special wisdom. While some say "older means wiser" others retort "there's no fool like an old fool."
I sounded the warning about the pitfalls of the past not out of pique, but with a concern that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and that we understand that Anglican leaders abroad, even when sympathetic, do not always hear us without caution. I have said as much to almost every new manifestation of principled dissent which has arisen, usually without much effect!
My main observations concern what one might term the structural and political aspects of principled and loyal dissent. In the mid 70'ies when the first significant opposition to official TEC policies began to emerge, an organization was formed called "Evangelical and Catholic Mission": FiFNA is its present heir. It was an excellent title. Unfortunately those involved did not live up to the description provided. The emphasis which emerged was not on mission or formation, but all about structure, tactics and obstruction. Anger and resentment were encouraged and justified by the actions of those deemed the enemy. Granted those who held sway in TEC then - and now - replied in kind.
Principled dissent was not viewed as a vocation or a mission to revive and restore, but rather as a mechanism to use overseas Provinces and indeed archbishops of Canterbury as levers to exert pressure on General Convention and its leaders. The emphasis was on tactics and political means. The liberals in General Convention were much better at that game and won. I do not believe that Christ's truth is usually won in ecclesiastical legislative assemblies.
As membership in dissenting groups dwindled, and groups fragmented, that sort of leverage became less and less effective. By 2003 even granted a new wave of those dissenting from TEC policy, the ability of principled dissenters to influence General Convention or a majority of bishops had diminished significantly. To a majority of Episcopalians dissenters within TEC had all the appearance of grumpy, bigoted and negative old people. Perhaps we have seen a similar dynamic in the recent election?
It therefore became inevitable that the main engines of dissent would become schismatic. Gone was any evidence of the original claim to be an Evangelical and Catholic mission to the church and to the world. Instead the strategy became the creation of a defensive fortress, separated from TEC but acknowledged by overseas Provinces. In a word we exported our divisions to the rest of the Communion and Gafcon is the result.
I have great hope that we will return to the original vocation of principled dissent. I see our vocation, for that I believe it is, to be that of encouragement, a sort of Barnabas mission. We may encourage by fellowship here particularly those who are isolated and young potential leaders and Anglicans abroad, by clearly proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified in a winsome manner, by providing instruction and apologetics using the best and most modern tools at our disposal, and by winning over moderate opinion among bishops and other clergy in our church who have been frightened into reluctant alliance with the left because we have been deemed extreme and rather nasty. In short our mission is of the same order as that which inspired the earlier Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to win back the church for Christ while speaking in mission to the world: the ordinary mission of every Christian.
Monday, November 03, 2008
HISTORICAL OR PNEUMATIC?
I'm writing this on All Souls' Day. Later at the Eucharist we'll remember the loved ones of our parish family, past priests who have served here and all the faithful departed. In a sense it is a time when we look back although that backward looking enables us to enjoy communion with those who now look forward to Jesus, the author and finisher of our Faith.
When we say that Christianity is an historic faith we don't mean it is what the late beloved +Michael Ramsey termed an archeological faith. The motto of the Christian is not "things aint what they used to be." Looking back to a golden age and seeking to replicate that age is a self-defeating practice. What results is make believe.
Christianity is an historical faith because it rests its faith in historical happenings. Most of such important events are recorded in the Bible. In addition to and following the biblical record we have centuries of "tradition". It's a pity that word now seems to mean old fashioned, out of date or irrelevant. Tradition means the memory of the church through the ages, recorded in buildings, documents, music, books, diaries, and in our own time even email! As we live into the story of our faith, into the real time happenings recorded in Scripture and in the Tradition, we add to the tradition one way or another.
There is positive tradition and negative tradition. Positive tradition is witnessed in the lives of those who have approached the recorded testimony of the Bible and the reflections of great women and men on the Bible with reverence and awe and who have sought faithfully to translate the faith once given into the language and culture of their contemporaries.
Negative tradition is instructive. It tells the tale of those who put their own thoughts, feelings and intellect first and claimed some personal or collective inspiration of the Spirit which in short declares that God's revelation in Jesus is not final, but changes as culture or mood or circumstance change. Believing that God has new things to tell us, rather than new applications of that which God has revealed, they enter into the excitement of "prophecy" as if "prophecy" is oracular.
Making the past an idol, refusing to speak to one's culture using that culture's ways as a vehicle for the timeless Gospel is a subtle form of idolatry. Imposing culture on the Gospel so that what has been given is overthrown in the name of modernity or progression is similarly a form of idolatry, the worship of trends and passions in a desire to be respectable or relevant.
At the Eucharist we proclaim that Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. These are all historical facts, with at least as much evidence to support them as that which tells us William the Conqueror arrived on the English shore in 1066. In the Gospel records and the wide sweep of biblical evidence is contained all we, personally and collectively need to know for eternal salvation. That Gospel shifts in emphasis, although not in content, as it is applied in different places, using different languages and in different times. Yet always it is the same Christ with the same message and the same offer of forgiveness, restoration until Kingdom come.
When we say that Christianity is an historic faith we don't mean it is what the late beloved +Michael Ramsey termed an archeological faith. The motto of the Christian is not "things aint what they used to be." Looking back to a golden age and seeking to replicate that age is a self-defeating practice. What results is make believe.
Christianity is an historical faith because it rests its faith in historical happenings. Most of such important events are recorded in the Bible. In addition to and following the biblical record we have centuries of "tradition". It's a pity that word now seems to mean old fashioned, out of date or irrelevant. Tradition means the memory of the church through the ages, recorded in buildings, documents, music, books, diaries, and in our own time even email! As we live into the story of our faith, into the real time happenings recorded in Scripture and in the Tradition, we add to the tradition one way or another.
There is positive tradition and negative tradition. Positive tradition is witnessed in the lives of those who have approached the recorded testimony of the Bible and the reflections of great women and men on the Bible with reverence and awe and who have sought faithfully to translate the faith once given into the language and culture of their contemporaries.
Negative tradition is instructive. It tells the tale of those who put their own thoughts, feelings and intellect first and claimed some personal or collective inspiration of the Spirit which in short declares that God's revelation in Jesus is not final, but changes as culture or mood or circumstance change. Believing that God has new things to tell us, rather than new applications of that which God has revealed, they enter into the excitement of "prophecy" as if "prophecy" is oracular.
Making the past an idol, refusing to speak to one's culture using that culture's ways as a vehicle for the timeless Gospel is a subtle form of idolatry. Imposing culture on the Gospel so that what has been given is overthrown in the name of modernity or progression is similarly a form of idolatry, the worship of trends and passions in a desire to be respectable or relevant.
At the Eucharist we proclaim that Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. These are all historical facts, with at least as much evidence to support them as that which tells us William the Conqueror arrived on the English shore in 1066. In the Gospel records and the wide sweep of biblical evidence is contained all we, personally and collectively need to know for eternal salvation. That Gospel shifts in emphasis, although not in content, as it is applied in different places, using different languages and in different times. Yet always it is the same Christ with the same message and the same offer of forgiveness, restoration until Kingdom come.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
GHOSTS
GHOSTS
November begins with trick a treat, ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night, fearful horrors and a general election! The month begins as we remember the saints and pray for the souls of the departed. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us that we are "encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses." Hebrews tells us that the great saints and heroes of the past are not just dead people we remember as examples, but living people who surround us on our journey of faith.
Of course our Lady and the saints are not substitutes for Jesus. Again Hebrews reminds us that the cloud of witnesses who surround us all the time are there for us as we "run the race" of faith, but that we are to "look towards Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." In a real sense the saints are looking in the same direction as we are, but they see clearly while we see "puzzling reflections in a mirror."
It's always good to have clear sighted people around to help if we can't see very well or are blind. We stumble; they pick us up.
The saints who surround us, guide us and pick us up are not just those holy women and men we commemorate with special days. They are our loved ones who we can't see, but who have gone on before us. We say they are dead. That's a frightful insult. They are more alive than we are. Much more alive. They are now made perfect in Jesus because he died on the Cross and rose again, and conquered death for ever. Look at the cross or crucifix in your parish church. Marvel that Jesus died for you and that you are now a saint in waiting, adopted by God.
Why do we pray for the departed? Well we don't pray that they may be "saved". Jesus has done that. In a real sense it is better to say that we pray with them and that they pray with us. That is why we say at every Mass, "Therefore with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven..."
If your parish has an All Souls' Eucharist be there and say a special "hello" to those who you love but see no more. You will be telling them that you haven't forgotten them, that you think of them, give thanks for them and value their continued love and presence in your lives.
November begins with trick a treat, ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night, fearful horrors and a general election! The month begins as we remember the saints and pray for the souls of the departed. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us that we are "encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses." Hebrews tells us that the great saints and heroes of the past are not just dead people we remember as examples, but living people who surround us on our journey of faith.
Of course our Lady and the saints are not substitutes for Jesus. Again Hebrews reminds us that the cloud of witnesses who surround us all the time are there for us as we "run the race" of faith, but that we are to "look towards Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." In a real sense the saints are looking in the same direction as we are, but they see clearly while we see "puzzling reflections in a mirror."
It's always good to have clear sighted people around to help if we can't see very well or are blind. We stumble; they pick us up.
The saints who surround us, guide us and pick us up are not just those holy women and men we commemorate with special days. They are our loved ones who we can't see, but who have gone on before us. We say they are dead. That's a frightful insult. They are more alive than we are. Much more alive. They are now made perfect in Jesus because he died on the Cross and rose again, and conquered death for ever. Look at the cross or crucifix in your parish church. Marvel that Jesus died for you and that you are now a saint in waiting, adopted by God.
Why do we pray for the departed? Well we don't pray that they may be "saved". Jesus has done that. In a real sense it is better to say that we pray with them and that they pray with us. That is why we say at every Mass, "Therefore with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven..."
If your parish has an All Souls' Eucharist be there and say a special "hello" to those who you love but see no more. You will be telling them that you haven't forgotten them, that you think of them, give thanks for them and value their continued love and presence in your lives.
Friday, October 17, 2008
THE POOR ARE?
I have no vote. Having said that I am not suggesting that I am neutral about who should be the next President. Never fear, I am not going to reveal my preference. Am I alone in noticing that the one constituency among the voting population which is not mentioned in the debates is the Poor?
Now it may well be that the poor have been given honorary membership in the "Middle Class" club. If the present financial crisis goes on for much longer, the distinction between poor and middle class may be moot. Perhaps politicians fear that poor people may be offended if they are identified? Perhaps they fear that middle class people won't vote for a leader who plans to spend tax money on those who have nothing? Whatever the motive, far from the poor being always with us, they seem to have become invisible.
Episcopalians are well versed in identifying the poor of whatever race as a group for whom soup kitchens are intended and pews are not. I am not sure whether this attitude portrays a subtle form of prejudice or a sincere conviction that poor people would feel uncomfortable in our worshiping midst.
The prejudice looks something like this: our form of worship requires intelligence to appreciate. The poor like rumperty tumperty songs, extempore prayer and fundamentalist preaching, and anyway they tend to be Republicans. The poor don't go to college, ergo they are dim witted. Episcopalians are intelligent and cultured. Anyway the poor wouldn't pay our parish bills.
Even if we don't harbor such obvious prejudice we may sincerely believe that the poor wouldn't want or like what we offer. We may explain Rome's greater success in pastoring all segments of a population, despite their liturgical tradition and ceremonialism, by suggesting that one doesn't have to think to be a Roman Catholic. Tell that to Chesterton or Tolkein.
One doesn't have to visit the Global South to encounter terrible poverty, sub standard education and appaling medical care. Visit any of our major cities. It may well be true that 11: AM on Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America. That segregation isn't merely between African-American and white churched Americans. There's as frightening a sgregation between our Episcopalian middle class worshipers and those who rent apartments in inner cities or live in trailer parks.
Anglicanism in America has become a denomination. If that is not indictment enough it has become a denomination of an elite. The humbug lies in our protestation of liberal and compassionate values. Are we going to vote for the middle class as we pray with the middle class next month? Ah! but there's always the soup kitchen and the thrift shop.
Now it may well be that the poor have been given honorary membership in the "Middle Class" club. If the present financial crisis goes on for much longer, the distinction between poor and middle class may be moot. Perhaps politicians fear that poor people may be offended if they are identified? Perhaps they fear that middle class people won't vote for a leader who plans to spend tax money on those who have nothing? Whatever the motive, far from the poor being always with us, they seem to have become invisible.
Episcopalians are well versed in identifying the poor of whatever race as a group for whom soup kitchens are intended and pews are not. I am not sure whether this attitude portrays a subtle form of prejudice or a sincere conviction that poor people would feel uncomfortable in our worshiping midst.
The prejudice looks something like this: our form of worship requires intelligence to appreciate. The poor like rumperty tumperty songs, extempore prayer and fundamentalist preaching, and anyway they tend to be Republicans. The poor don't go to college, ergo they are dim witted. Episcopalians are intelligent and cultured. Anyway the poor wouldn't pay our parish bills.
Even if we don't harbor such obvious prejudice we may sincerely believe that the poor wouldn't want or like what we offer. We may explain Rome's greater success in pastoring all segments of a population, despite their liturgical tradition and ceremonialism, by suggesting that one doesn't have to think to be a Roman Catholic. Tell that to Chesterton or Tolkein.
One doesn't have to visit the Global South to encounter terrible poverty, sub standard education and appaling medical care. Visit any of our major cities. It may well be true that 11: AM on Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America. That segregation isn't merely between African-American and white churched Americans. There's as frightening a sgregation between our Episcopalian middle class worshipers and those who rent apartments in inner cities or live in trailer parks.
Anglicanism in America has become a denomination. If that is not indictment enough it has become a denomination of an elite. The humbug lies in our protestation of liberal and compassionate values. Are we going to vote for the middle class as we pray with the middle class next month? Ah! but there's always the soup kitchen and the thrift shop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
