Silences, part 1

The other night, on the PBS special on Zora Neale Hurston:

"There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside of you."

**************************************-- Zora Neale Hurston

To be continued.

"A Noble Profession"

So Henry Paulson is back, defending banking as "a noble profession:"

During the interview, which was conducted by General Electric chief executive Jeffrey Immelt at the 92nd Street Y, a cultural center in New York City, Paulson said that he was pained to see Wall Street "suffering" under the public's ire. Banking is "a noble profession" that has lifted many people out of poverty, Paulson said. And he lent words of support to the bank leaders who helped to steer their institutions through the crisis: "This being a New York crowd...you all lived through this," he said. "It impacted all of your lives."

Hmm. With over half a decade's worth of warnings from the FBI that mortgage frud is endemic,this rah-rah to banking seems to me misplaced. In fact, all too often the banks seem to have taken Augustus Melmotte as their model.

Is it wrong of me to think that employee orientation at Godlman, BoA, JP Morgan Chase and their ilk must be a more solemn version of this?



Add suits and bottled water...

Mortality and penitence in train stations and in churches

The collect for Ash Wednesday (until the First Sunday in Lent) says this:

Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord....

Later in the Ash Wednesday liturgy, the absolution includes this phrase:

Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desires not the death of sinners, but rather that they may turn from their wickedness and live, has given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins. He pardons and absolves all those who truly repent, and with sincere hearts believe his holy Gospel.

Today I posted something on Episcopal Cafe about the experience of some clergy and laity who, on Ash Wednesday, went to train stations and business centers and offered ashes to whomever would like them.

When I was a hospital chaplain, Ash Wednesday was a very important day. I would often do chapel services but also going to patients and also to staff and visitors. I found that even with an abbreviated ritual (I used the confession from the Form VI of the Prayers of the People and some scripture), people would ask me out of the blue if they could "have ashes." I think the symbol speaks on a very elemental level.

Just this week, I found myself going around to as many shut-ins and homebound people as I could to make sure they could take part. When I got called to the hospital for a patient and the family, who knew they would not be able to get to the evening service, asked if they could "have ashes" I obliged. As I started my (admittedly short-hand) ritual, the nurse working with the patient stopped and quietly asked if she could participate.

I have found time and again that on some very elemental level, this ritual of ashes, confession and absolution works. And it pretty much cuts across denominational lines. From a comparative religion standpoint, the symbol is near universal. I think that ashes work on a level that is very basic.

Since writing this post, and seeing the same articles I found posted on other blogs and on Facebook, I have been very interested in the turn the comments have taken. They basically fall into two categories: those who are excited about it, like me, and those who think it is out of place.

One comment on the Cafe went like this:

I find the idea of Ash Wednesday Lite more than a little disturbing. The imposition of ashes divorced from the liturgy for the day, particularly the Liturgy for Penitence, diminishes the impact of what is intended for the beginning of the Lenten season. Surely in these two large cities there would be a variety of service times at different churches available for those wishing to attend. Ash Wednesday should, I believe, be about kneeling and praying and preparing ourselves for the Resurrection. It's more than just a smudge on the forehead.

The comment echoes the WGN radio dude that I linked to on the Cafe post where he basically says that repentance ain't real if you don't do all the steps.

I think the fear is that "cheap grace" will dilute the challenge and the edge of what Ash Wednesday (and Lent) are speaking to and perhaps let the individual Christian "off the hook." Of course, the danger in our sacramental way of doing things that people could reduce the sacraments to punch list of things that get checked off in order to be in good with God. This danger exists whether one is in church weekly or meeting a priest at a train station.

The classical Protestant response to this danger is to avoid anything that looks ritualized and make everything a matter of intellectual consent, as if this were the only way that human beings processes information that matters.

Another approach is to go deeper into the symbol and the ritual, and let the process work in its mysterious and often unconscious ways. I would prefer to let the symbol and the process draw us into something deeper.

Fr. Lane Hensley's remarks struck a particularly resonant chord with me:

Most memorable for me, though, was the look on people's faces. They were surprised, and they were pleased. It felt incredibly intimate to me. It felt like standing on holy ground, like being caught in the middle between a God who wants so much to embrace and welcome his beloved, and people who so urgently want to be found and welcomed home.

Going back to the original Chicago Tribune piece, I would suggest looking at the whole slide series. The first half shows Father Lane at the train station, the second half of the slides shows a packed RC cathedral before their Archbishop. Now one can concentrate on the differences--one outside, one in; one in a church setting and one not--and decide one is 'right' and the other is wanting. But look at the commonalities of the two settings: people stop, people pray, people think, people present themselves and dare to take on a sign of mortality and penitence.

Now are people are doing this to check off their sense of obligation and duty? Maybe so. And if they are, are they only the ones on the train platform? My experience is that cheap grace happens in lots of places. But rather than let that possibility frighten us into helplessness, I would like us to be challenged to find new ways to communicate transformative grace in as many places as possible, especially where ordinary people live and work.

Throughout my ministry I have known people who "only" come to church on Christmas, Easter--and Ash Wednesday. Am I to begrudge or berate a person who steps up at a train station or in a hospital corridor or one of those three times a year in Church because they are not "serious" enough? Do I have a window into that soul to say for sure that I am letting this person off "easy?"

For me, I accept the presence and the request of the person who comes before me at face value. It is not about me anyway. And it is not about me making sure they get all the "t's" dotted and the "i's" crossed. I offer. Someone accepts. Perhaps in the mix God shows up and changes, heals, a heart and draw a person that much closer to Christ.

Read the original post here.

Restart!

Just a short note to point out that I have updated my profile to use a recent photo of Betty the Anglocat, who is in love with the Book of Common Prayer. (She prefers the red Church Publishing edition to the older black Seabury Press version I received on my reception into the Episcopal Church).

Betty likes to share my devotions, and between her and my own Anglo-Catholic leanings, is responsible for the name of the blog. I'm sure I pointed this out before (OK, I know I have), but the first time I heard Smart's Jubilate Agno performed in Benjamin Britten's fine setting, I immediately thought of Betty's complex, but consistent, adoration of the BCP.

And this love of our faith, our tradition is where I want to focus, and not getting into spuddles with those within the Anglican Communion who want to punish or "banish" the Episcopal Church. Lent is coming, and it's past time for me to be on with my business of writing about things I care about, not engaging in point-counterpoint with other bloggers. Ecclesiastical flame wars are about as light-giving as any other kind.

So, back to work. Next post, I'll begin sharing some thoughts about Richard Hooker's Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, which the recent unpleasantness prompted me to read for myself. I invite comments, because I'm hoping to use Hooker in an article I'm working on regarding the Anglican experience and the Establishment Clause.

In the meantime, for your enjoyment, is the Washington Collegium performing "Rejoice in the Lamb," featuring (in part 2!) Jeoffrey the Cat:



(And, for those who need cat video to accompany the music, Youtube hath provided:
).

The Winter of Our Discontents

So where are we in the Anglican Wars?

Well,
Dr. Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East, has resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, giving rise to a discussion at Covenant that demonstrates, once again, why I have finally come to think separaration is inevitable. Comments such as this make my point for me:

IMHO this is hugely damaging to +++Williams who has effectually wrested control away from the Primates. They are not due to meet until 2011. He recast Lambeth (with its limited attendees) by faux indaba while issuing his own pronouncements. +++Williams made a mockery of all due process at the Jamaica ACC. Before that his behavior in New Orleans was that of a toady to the paymasters of TEC. He unilaterally voided the Dar es Salaam resolutions of the Primates. Now he has been called by this resignation.

ACI offer one possible way forward. What will the CP group have to say on this? Both these groups are struggling - honorably, in my opinion - to find a solution where the Communion stays united but in which provinces such as TEC and ACoC will inevitably be marginalized. Will this be possible? IMHO no. Into this situation we await the effects of the consents to Ms. Glasspool’s election in LA. I have no doubt that these will be given. Also we await the response of the Global South gathering in April, where they are due to respond to the Covenant as presented in December. I believe that they will gain further strength and develop upon ++Anis’ themes. It is my guess that ++Anis will be a significant participant in this gathering. I do foresee a non Canterbury centered Anglican Communion, but wonder who among the Western Churches might be part of the same. This might well be a working out of the two tier membership described by Canterbury. After WWII England was shorn of its empire. Will this now happen to the AC and Canterbury? Certainly the growth and spiritual life, vigor and energy are in the Global South.

Oh, yes, the "spiritual life and vigor" of calling for secular persecution of gays and lesbains, of raiding other Provinces and claiming their assets, and of justifying violence against other faiths. And that's just Nigeria. No, seriously. And, again, I'm not kidding.

Then, of course, the repeated refernces to TEC as preaching a "faux gospel", of Abp. Williams as being "in the pay of TEC." (If he is, we're getting ripped off, in my opinion). What I fond truly interesting is this: nobody on the site, not even the most reasonable voices (except for the last progressive standing there, "Iron Man" Michael Russell, who manages to stay engaged despite the bile), even contemplates the prospect that TEC is filled with Christians who believe that they are serving the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There's no belief that we can be wrong, but well intentioned. We're heretics, and must be crushed.

And herein lies the rub. We can't be in communion with these folks, because they hate us. If we sign the Covenant, they will try to use it against us, because that is its only reason for existing. If we don't, they will say we no longer "exist" as an Anglican body, even though it is the Covenant which is new, transforming the Communion into a trans-national church that never existed before.

Ironically, the saner voices on this thread express only concern that the self-anointed Orthodox have "lost trust" in the Covenant process. Nobody there seems interested in asking why we progressives should have any trust in them and their intentions let alone the process they desire.

I have at long last been shifted from an advocate of endeavoring to reconcile and stay in Communion to believing that we indeed do not belong together. We are learning to hate one another now, and and rather than that, I reluctantly welcome the untempered schism.

Photo By: Anglocat, January 2010, Trinity Church On a Snowy Morning