Thomas a Becket

Today, December 29, is the anniversary of the murder of Thomas a Becket, perhaps at the orders of King Henry II, certainly to the great relief of that most protean and impetuous of Kings. As I wrote two years ago (crikey!):
Imagine my surprise when, years later, I found out that one of the most pressing grounds for the conflict between Becket and Henrywas the treatment of "criminous clergy" who committed offenses against the laity; in the face of years of inaction by the ecclesiastical authorities, Henry wanted the right to try such clerics in the secular courts.

There was much more to it than that, of course. The real Thomas Becket may have been headstrong and arrogant, but he was also seeking to preserve the institution of the Church as it was entrusted to him, and to resist a King who was re-making the political institutions of his day and centralizing power in the King's person.

As to Becket's murder, the King's role in it has always been sharply disputed--the authenticity and meaning of the infamous quotation, "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" have been debated for centuries. (An excellent account is contained in W.L. Warren's biography, Henry II).


Regardless of the merits of their dispute, there's no denying that the story of Becket has given rise to much great art. My personal favorite is the admittedly ahistorical play by Jean Anouilh, brilliantly filmed with Richard Burton as Becket, and Peter O'Toole as Henry:



Great though the movie is, it does considerably less than justice to either Henry (who fought a civil war to a standstill to become King) and Becket himself.

And, of course, T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral is a great favorite of mine since Fordham College (thanks, Dr. Antush!), and one which combined great insight into human nature and into theology. For me, the lines that hit home most are the scenes between Becket and his Tempters. So, the Fourth Tempter offers him the power of martyrdom:
You hold the keys of heaven and hell.
Power to bind and loose : bind, Thomas, bind,
King and bishop under your heel.
King, emperor, bishop, baron, king:
Becket sees this trap, and responds:
Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
Temptation shall not come in this kind again.
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

Cognitive Dissonance?

This Times Magazine profile of Catholic Natural Law expert Robert P. George highlights my fundamental inability to understand relate to much of conservative Christian thought. George, widely regarded as " the reigning brain of the Christian right," (it took, of course, the rise of women's rights and the concomitant legalization of abortion to overcome the distaste many evangelicals have long held for "popery"), has successfully urged that fellow conservatives, especially RC bishops should narrow their focus:
He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.
Or in other words, fulminate, enact moral standards into law, but on poverty and justice issues--just empathize. This is utterly opposed to what a good friend of mine, a Deacon in the Episcopal Church calls "trench theology." And he has pretty good warrant for it, too. The Daily Office reading for Saturday, the same day I get the NYT Magazine? Matthew 25: 31-46:
31 'When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." 37Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?" 40And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."a 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, "You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." 44Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?" 45Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.'
The moral disjunction here seems pretty straightforward to me. George seems all too eager to focus attention that matters onto policing the morals not just of his co-religionists, but of his fellow citizens.

And George, who is a follower in his Natural Law beliefs of Aristotle and Aquinas, surely knows that Aristotle believed abortion to be permissible in the first three months of pregnancy and that Aquinas did not believe abortion was homicide until "ensoulment," post-conception, and that indeed the Roman Catholic Church itself did not hold his position until the early 19th Century. Thus, George is in the somewhat odd position of arguing that his position is the universal objective truth to be obtained by reason, despite the fact that neither of his two leading lights of Natural Law reasoning held the same position. Thus, we should adopt Aristotle and Aquinas's philosophical framework, but their specific failure to reach objective truth as George would have it does not undermine its universal quality. Yep. All clear and self evident. Meanwhile, on the actual Gospel imperatives? Nothing. Or rather, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Back to Barchester

The summer before I started college, I first read Anthony Trollope's The Warden and its sequel, Barchester Towers. Its depiction of Nineteenth Century clerical life was a delight to me, and the depth of the character-drawing made me a fan for life. (Still am!)

At the time, I somehow missed the BBC's adaptation of the two novels. Viewing it now, it holds up quite well--Donald Pleasence captures the goodness and naive quality of the Rev. Septimus Harding,and endows him with a gentle, pawky sense of humor; Nigel Hawthorne is funny and credible as his choleric son-in-law, Archdeacon Grantly, and a young Alan Rickman is superb as the slippery Mr. Slope. The women are excellent, too; Susan Hampshire is positively delicious as the charming but naughty Signorina Madeline Vesey Nata Stanhope, and And Geraldine McEwan shines as Mrs. Proudie, the bishop's domineering wife.

Trollope is unique in English literature, in that he can make the goodness and gentle good humor of Mr. Harding credible, and not cloying. (CP Snow thought that only Dostoevsky made goodness more believable). Admirable though Rev. Harding is, I regret that I often am more like the Archdeacon--quick-tempered if well meaning.



Enjoy, but be careful--one trip to Barchester is never enough, and there are four more novels after these. And, then, of course, there are the the Pallisers:

Abp. Williams and the Untempered Schism

I think Cantaur is lining up with the traditionalists. At least, unless the Telegraph has it seriously wrong:
Dr Williams has admonished the Episcopal Church (again) for another provocative act in deepening Anglican schism. “It confirms the feeling that they’re moving further from the Anglican consensus,” he tells me. Can there ever be a consensus in which biblical traditionalists can be in communion with homosexual bishops? The man who has committed his archbishopric to unity pauses: “I’m not holding my breath.”
However, he does, if tepidly, finally get around to condemning the Ugandan legislation:
And there are those who seek to make a moral equivalence between Los Angeles and Kampala, asking why the Archbishop upbraids the Episcopalians while failing to condemn the Ugandans. Added to which, some American traditionalists have markedly failed to condemn the Ugandan proposals.

“Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades,” says Dr Williams. “Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.” He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, “has not taken a position on this bill”.
Not much in the way of comfort here on the part of TEC and our sympathizers.

History from the future


Any similarities to the challenges of attempting to interpret a certain book (or collection of books) for the purposes of modern ethical and theological thinking and spiritual living is purely intentional.

Pockets, E.D. Just Pockets

"Most of Jesus's parables were free market parables...:



As E.D. Kain writes (linked above):
It just strikes me as a remarkable example of how absurd the conservative movement really has become. (There are so many examples but this brings them all under one roof.)

….or has it always been this way?  Have the intellectual pockets of conservatism always been just that – merely pockets?

Watching Schlafly try to reconcile free markets and Christianity is just sad. It’s exactly why thoughtful proponents of free markets run into such jaded and hostile reactions from people on the other side of the fence. I think Christianity and free markets are reconcilable but only with the addition of some form of safety-net-state. The Christian Democrats understand this concept over in Europe.  Americans like Schlafly think Jesus was the first coming of Milton Friedman.

It just makes me throw my hands up in the air. I try too hard to retain the word “conservative” – to hold on to some other sense of its meaning, some other definition that the American right has no hold over. I have great admiration for the paleocons, but I would never really fit in even with that idiosyncratic bunch. I’ve tried to come to terms with the idea that the movement can be changed for the better but I’m beginning to doubt myself even there. The invention of the modern Tea Party only reveals how deep the fraud runs.

Or, tp put it more succinctly, this is not a faithful adaptation of the Gospels, although the denouement captures the GOP view of Christianity pretty neatly:

What would Supply Side Jesus do?

Andrew Schlafly thinks the Bible is too liberal. Way too liberal. Not too theologically liberal. Too politically liberal. So the founder of conservapedia.com is out to fix that.

The Lead at the Episcopal Cafe reported last fall on the Conservative Bible Project. The goal of the project is to "develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions." Some of their guidelines include:
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

Some ideas for work include:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

The idea is not going away. The AP reported this week:
The project's authors argue that contemporary scholars have inserted liberal views and ahistorical passages into the Bible, turning Jesus into little more than a well-meaning social worker with a store of watered-down platitudes.

"Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it's professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible," said Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, the project's online home....

...This liberal slanting, Schlafly argues, ranges from changing gendered language — Jesus calling his disciples to be "fishers of people" rather than "fishers of men" — to more subtle choices, like the 2001 English Standard Version of the Bible, which uses "comrade" and "laborer" more often than the conservative-friendly "volunteer."
The problem, Schlafly says, is the professors. Professors are overwhelmingly liberal and therefore have slanted the Bible in their direction. So avoiding those pesky scholars, the Conservative Bible Project is depending on their revision to be done wiki-style with contributions coming via the internet.
"The best of the public is better than a group of experts," said Schlafly, whose mother, Phyllis, is a longtime conservative activist known for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

(Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., who calls himself a theological conservative) says the project is a misguided effort to read contemporary politics back into the text.
Dierdre Good at General Seminary looked at their Gospel of Mark and responded:
"No one thinks any translation is perfect. But does substituting "The Divine Guide" for the term "Spirit" in e.g. the baptism narrative convey Mark's ideas about Jesus' Baptism or the Spirit itself? And the translation of the verb in Mark 1:12 "the Divine Guide then led Jesus into the desert" is just wrong. I simply disagree that translations not using the term "man" to speak of Jesus emasculate him. Changing "scribes" or "Pharisees" to "intellectuals" in passages reporting controversies pits the latter against Jesus. Is this the message we want a bible translation to convey? Finally, the proposed translation of Mark 1:34b: 'he commanded the devils to be silent, because they knew Jesus as God' introduces a description of Jesus that simply isn't in the text."
Okay. So there are a few bugs. I mean, heck, translating the Bible is hard. And what do these Bible scholars know, anyway?

Well, they can cease their labors. Another Biblical non-scholar beat them to it. In 2006, Al Franken came up with this version of the story of Jesus, and it seems to meet all the requirements of the wiki-translation, except maybe for the "dumbing down" part. Presenting "The Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus."


Curse of the Grand Tufti

Well, here we go again. After persistently holding only one side--the Episcopal Church--accountable in the widening schism, even though we are in fact the only "side" that has observed the moratoria requested until now--Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is threatening consequences to TEC if it approves the Diocese of Los Angeles' selection of Mary Glaspool as Suffragen Bishop. Williams' comment:"The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold."

Meanwhile, Archbishop Williams remains utterly silent on the violations of the moratoria by more conservative provinces making geographical incursions into TEC's jurisdiction and on the utter failure of these churches to participate in the so-called "listening process" to hear the concerns of gays and lesbians. (It's all here). Moreover, Williams has been for two months silent on the ghastly proposed Ugandan legislation which seeks a death sentence for "aggravated homosexuality," and prison sentences for all--parents and priests included--who become aware of a person's homosexuality, and fail to expeditiously report it to the government. Notably, this legislation is fostered by American right-wingers, a fact noted by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in her denunciation of the legislation.

Abp. Williams managed to denounce the selection of a lesbian suffragen within a day; the persecution of gays and lesbians with support (albeit equivocal) from the Anglican Church of Uganda does not rate a mention. Sadly, this is typical of Rowan, as I observed in the links at the beginning of the post. He should remember that for the bonds of mutual affection to hold, he needs to be seen as someone worthy of our affection. I for one doubt this proposition, and am more and more inclining to welcome the impending schism.

Health care paperwork applied to churches

MEMORANDUM
To: All Parishes
From: Diocesan Office

Starting this year, in order to standardize parish contributions and better predict parish cash flows, we have implemented a fee-for-service Eucharistic coding and billing system. Rather than rely on haphazard donations from parishioners, pledges turned in at the last minute, etc., parishioners will be billed for each Eucharistic encounter.

For the purposes of coding and billing, all bishops, priests, and deacons will simply be referred to as “Eucharistic Service Providers” (ESP’s). Parishes are free to establish billing rates for services, as long as they are not below the minimum allowable billing rate as established by the Diocese (printed on the Diocesan web site). It is unscriptural to entice members from another parish to your ESP by offering a rate lower than the minimum allowable billing rate for Eucharistic services, and is considered against the mandate in Prayers of the People, form III, that ESP’s be “faithful ministers of your Word and Sacraments.”

Parishes will submit weekly billing to the Diocese: At the end of the month the Diocese will issue statements that will consist of an Explanation of Eucharistic Benefits (EoEB) as well as a monthly bill for Eucharistic services rendered.

Parishioners are free to purchase individual Communion Insurance Policies (CIP’s). The names of these providers should be turned in to the church secretary of each parish and this information submitted to the Diocese. Parishioners should keep in mind, however, that some policies require pre-approval from the Bishop, and may only authorize a given number of trips to the Communion rail per calendar year or only pay for Eucharistic services performed in our Diocesan network. For a list of all network providers, again please refer to our web site. All parishioners also need to sign and file a statement with the Diocesan office that they will be responsible for any Eucharistic billing over and above amounts allowed by their CIP, or for all services rendered if they do not have a CIP.

Parishioners who wish to donate over and above their billable Eucharistic services are also free to establish Home Parish Savings Accounts (HPSA’s) and can also donate to the parish by this means. Some employers may have pre-tax benefits for HPSA’s and parishioners should also check with their employers for these possible options.

Statements for billable Eucharistic services will be due 30 days after the issue date; a 2.5% surcharge will be added to payments in the 30-60 day due range. Payments in arrears of greater than 60 days will be turned over to the Lucifer, Inc. collection agency.

Parishes who submit weekly Diocesan billing electronically will receive a 1.5% discount on their Diocesan pledge. Mission congregations, because of their rural location, will receive a 2.5% bonus in Diocesan aid if billing statements are electronically submitted within 48 hours following Sunday services.

How Eucharistic Fee-for-service Billing works:

As each parishioner enters the church, the greeter will distribute tucked within the bulletin, a Eucharistic Encounter Form (EEF). Pencils should be readily available for parishioners at the pews; we suggest your Altar Guild add this to their duties.

Each parishioner should check the parishioner demographic and level of service most applicable for EACH member of your household. A sample EEF is provided in this bulletin. Feel free to personalize these with your church logo, and use fonts that you feel would be attractive for your parishioners. Statements that major credit cards or PayPal payments are welcome at the bottom of your EEF often result in faster payment. Billing code groups are Parishioner Demographic (PD), Eucharistic Level of service (ELOS), Spiritual Need (SN), and any applicable modifier.

Parishioners should sign the statement at the bottom that they are intending to receive only the Eucharistic services they predict will be rendered.

EEF’s should be turned in the collection plate at the offertory. This method also frees bursars from handling large amounts of $1 bills and loose change, which can be time-consuming. Following church services, we suggest bursars arrange the EEF’s in alphabetical order in order to expedite submission of Eucharistic billing by your church’s secretary.

Any parishioner questions about Eucharistic coding and billing should be directed to parish clergy or to a Eucharistic billing specialist (usually only available in larger parishes.)

Sample Eucharistic Encounter Form

(Your parish name, address, logo, etc.)


Parishioner name __________________________________________
If you are a visitor or have changed address, please provide it in the space below:



Parishioner Demographic Code:

❏ PD31601 Regular attendee, baptized, confirmed (attends services more than 2x/month)
❏ PD31602 Occasional attendee, baptized, confirmed (attends services less than 2x/month but more than 1-2x/year
❏ PD31603 Eucharistic screening exam only (Christmas/Easter)
❏ PD31604 Baptized but not confirmed
❏ PD31605 Heathen
❏ PD31606 Out of network attendee (visitor in good standing from another church)
❏ PD31606 Other attendee, not otherwise specified___________________________________

Eucharistic Level of Service:

❏ ELOS14301 Eats wafer, drinks wine from chalice
❏ ELOS14302 Dunks wafer in chalice, eats intincted wafer
❏ ELOS14303 Wafer only (small children/alcoholics/wine allergy)
❏ ELOS14304 Blessing only; no wafer, no wine (Infants/unsure if should partake)
❏ ELOS14305 Sat in pew, didn’t go up
❏ ELOS14306 Dropped wafer on floor, looked sheepish
❏ ELOS14307 Other Eucharistic level of service, not otherwise specified _________________

Spiritual Need

❏ SN66601 Usual and Customary Life Stressors
❏ SN66602 New or Temporary Acute Life Stressor(s)
❏ SN66603 Recent Illness(es)/Death(s), whether self/family member/friend
❏ SN66604 Domestic Partner Life Stressor(s)
❏ SN66605 Other family member/friend/extended family Life Stressor(s)
❏ SN66606 Deep dark secret unknown to clergy
❏ SN66607 Deep dark secret of a sexual nature, unknown to clergy
❏ SN66608 Other Spiritual Need, not otherwise specified ______________________________

Modifier Codes:

❏ -59 Sudden decrease or cessation of income
❏ -60 Unchurched person who suddenly felt need to attend church
❏ -61 Won lottery or had sudden windfall to income

Certification:
I, the undersigned, state that the Eucharistic services checked are a reasonable and accurate account of the Eucharistic services I intend to receive at Communion, and understand that failure to code accurately is considered “bearing false witness” as outlined in Ex. 20:16.

____________________________________________________
Name and Date

h/t to Maria L. Evans
See the original here.

The only thing I see missing here are services provided in the home by certified eucharistic technicians (CETs). Or is that a separate form? --atg+

Easier than you think

Prediction is harder than it looks, but I can tell you one thing with some certainty. If past years are any guide, come late February or mid-March, our Archdeacon (who is a stubborn and unrepentant Yankee fan) will invite us clergy and some folks on diocesan staff who love baseball to predict who will win the pennants and the World Series in the upcoming season. I still owe him a lunch because he was, alas, more correct in his prediction than I was. But both Father Stringfellow and I did better than some serious, professional sports prognosticators. I looked back at one respected sports magazine to find out that, according to them, the Tampa Bay Rays were supposed to have beaten the New York Mets four weeks ago in the World Series. (Sorry, Fr. Wayne. Even in a fantasy universe, your team can’t seem to catch a break. What a shame!) But, as I said, prediction is harder than it looks.

Even though we are not so good at interpreting signs and wonders, I think that most of us tend to agree on one thing…whatever happens at “the end” (whenever that is) it will probably be very, very big.

Just this month, there was a new popular television series depicting visitors from outer space whose almost angel-like (but too perfect to be true) appearance reassure us from up in the sky not to be afraid, because they bring peace to the earth. This new series has recycled an idea from 1980’s, which of course is an idea much older that than that.

I remember a time when another sort of visitor appeared at my front door. You would think that when these characters with their newspapers and tracts are greeted at the door by a person wearing a clerical collar they’d just clear their throats and move on to the next house. But, no! I become a personal challenge instead! So they begin to preach to me about the end of the world. Now ever since my first-grade teacher taught me how to “duck and cover” when the whistles go off, I have been dreading this, so I suggested to the visitors that they might consider preaching a different gospel. Maybe one about how much God loves us and forgives us and offers us a new life of grace. They said no; this was their story and they were sticking to it even (especially!) if it means scaring people to death.

Episcopal priest Barbara Brown Taylor says that we should be alert, yes, but "[n]ot so you will know when to grab your crash helmet and head for the basement, but so you will know when the kingdom is near. So you will not miss God when God comes"

The intent of the church on the First Sunday of Advent is not to spoil a perfectly good holiday season with talk of the end of the world while the culture around us is set for weeks of parties, gift-giving, family reunions. The idea to take a moment at the start of this New Year to take the long view, to have an end in mind, so that we have some idea of where we are going on this journey of faith. And it is in fact helpful and comforting to know when and where God’s kingdom is being set-up, so we won’t be caught off guard.

Allow me to offer a hint, maybe in a way more useful that my front-door (and other alien) visitors.

Jesus does tells us that there will be “…signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations….” He says “People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world …”

But he also offers another sign of what God is up to. This pointer is an invitation to step out of the hub-bub and into a daily, practical, attitude of expectation that underscores what Advent means. If you really want to know what God is up to, look to small, everyday things. "Look at the fig tree and all the trees,” Jesus says. “As soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near."

Leo Tolstoy, whom we tend to associate with the epitome of The Great Big Novel, wrote a short story about a cobbler whose hope for a dramatic revelation of God is answered by the everyday sightings of God as love in action, in charity, justice, and compassion toward the people the cobbler meets each day. If one is looking for the kingdom of God, the signs are closer than you think. The real challenge of Advent is not to look for God’s arrival in the big, the dramatic, and the cosmic. It appears that where God shows up most powerfully is right here, right around the corner, maybe right before our eyes.

Christians live in hope. Christians live in faith that looks forward. We live knowing that in Christ God will, and does, draw all people to himself. We know that God made all things, the Holy Spirit animates creation and the risen, ascended Christ fills all things. We Christians believe that God shows up in unexpected places and shakes up the cosmos. But even we Christians are often surprised when we are reminded that this happens in ways we don’t expect. Take Christmas. It is a celebration that the same Word of God that ushered forth creation is born a little baby. God has this way of sending us great big wonderful gifts in wondrous little, everyday packages.

Everyday we see the buds on Christ’s kingdom tree. Look at our Ark Soup Kitchen every Saturday. Look the food pantry that the churches and synagogues of Easton comes together and support at our ProJeCt of Easton. Look at the crew who goes about delivering Meals on Wheels from our parish or who routinely give blood in our name. Look at that Angel Tree covered with tags in the back of church. Look at the volunteer from a church men’s group who rings the bell for the Salvation Army. Look at the woman who drives an elderly person who no longer drives to the store to help her with her Christmas shopping. See God’s reign established around the world with the bikes, soccer balls and solar lanterns we will send to our sisters and brothers in Kajo-Keji this Christmas. See God’s reign being established in the people who visit the homebound and shut in or who bring communion to them as well as those in hospital. And God’s kingdom may just arrive in the mail from the hands of other folks, some homebound, who write birthday, get well and baptismal anniversary cards for our parish.

The signs of God’s merciful kingdom come through the hands and hearts of the many, many faithful Christians who persist in corporal acts of mercy no matter who is in office and even if they happen to disagree with whatever the local city council or state legislature decides. These everyday acts of mercy and kindness show us that God’s kingdom is coming right here, right now, right where we live. We don’t need to wait. We can be ready now.

And it easy to get a front row seat for God’s kingdom arrival. Just go to our Mission Table and pick out a time and a ministry when you can see for yourself how God changes lives and shakes up the cosmos.

Because it turns out that prediction is easier than it looks. It’s easy to see when the kingdom of God comes, if you know where to look. Look for the moments when we choose love and forgiveness and so overcome hatred and fear.

These are the moments when we know that our prayer “Come, Lord Jesus” is never prayed in vain.

1 Advent, Year C - 11/29/09

Stephen Colbert's liturgical dance



I don't know the context for this, but it seemed like a good way to celebrate the Feast of St. Andrew. Why? Why not?

Seeing the face of Christ everyday

Sister Patricia-Michael is a vowed solitary in the Diocese of Bethlehem, a spiritual director and the parish administrator in my parish, Trinity Episcopal Church in Easton, PA.

She has been inspired to start a blog that focuses on the theme of seeing the face of Christ in ordinary people in everyday places. It is called "When did I see you?", which she describes as "the daily intention of seeking and finding Christ in all things, in all places and in all ways." This is an outward expression of part of Patty's rule.

This is a discipline that is close to my heart and I invite you to follow her blog here.


First Sunday of Advent, Year C



The choir of Lichfield Cathedral sing the lovely advent hymn "Lo ! He comes with clouds descending" . Words by Charles Wesley rewritten from the original text by John Cennick . The descant by the choristers during the last verse is absolutely stunning. All pictures are of Lichfield Cathedral.

Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favoured sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

The dear tokens of His passion
Still His dazzling body bears;
Cause of endless exultation
To His ransomed worshippers;
With what rapture, with what rapture
Gaze we on those glorious scars!

Yea, amen; let all adore thee,
High on thine eternal throne;
Saviour, take the power and glory;
Claim the kingdoms for thine own:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Thou shalt reign, and thou alone.

H/T drwestbury and DioBeth newSpin.

To grandmothers house we go....



The Beat Goes On....

Further and better particulars on the Roman Catholic Church's 40 year cover-up of systematic and pervasive child abuse on the part of the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Times (London) has the quick summary:

The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland connived with the authorities in a cover-up spanning decades to shield paedophile priests from prosecution, an official report concluded yesterday. Hundreds of crimes against children were not reported as the four archbishops of the Archdiocese of Dublin remained wedded to the “maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church and the preservation of its assets”.

Instead, the church hierarchy shuffled the sex offenders from parish to parish, allowing them to continue to prey on victims. In some cases paedophile priests were even promoted. The 750-page report by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on the Dublin archdiocese — the second significant inquiry this year to expose appalling levels of sexual abuse of minors in Ireland under the aegis of the Roman Catholic Church — said that it had uncovered a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy throughout the period that it investigated between 1975 and 2004.

It said that the State had helped to create the culture of cover-up and that senior police officers regarded priests as “outside their remit”.

“The State authorities facilitated that cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes,” it concluded.

When considered in conjunction with the evidence of Vatican condoning of such cover-ups even in papal statements on the issue from John XXIII to Benedict XVI (pre-papacy for him), one must ask finally, what does this tell us about the Roman Catholic Church?

This, I think: That its ecclesiology is fundamentally flawed in it's agoraphobically top-down model, one which prizes the interests of the institution so highly, and which cannot ever admit error or failure--individuals fail the Church, the Church itself cannot err. By identifying itself completely with the Body of Christ, the Church heavily disincentivizes itself from acknowledging systemic problems--the "rogue priest" model is the only one that the Church can bear to recognize, because to do otherwise sets up a cognitive dissonance between its theological claims and its behavior. That gap, perceived outside the Church as the rankest hypocrisy, is in fact denial of the most psychologically necessary kind. To believe it, one must shift the topic from the cover up to the offense itself, perpetrated by a number of priests not much greater than that percentage of abusers in society at large, a defense the Church has made at the highest levels. But it is, of course, the concerted cover up over decades by men widely deemed holy and even heroic within Christendom--John XXIII, a hero to liberal Catholics, and John Paul II, a hero to conservatives, to name but two. Or, one can, as did British MP Ann Widdicombe in the Intelligence Squared Debate I linked previously, de-emphasize the cover up, and the sex abuse, and spin it as overly authoritarian discipline typical of the time, and even (as did Widdicombe) accuse Church critics of a double standard, by unfairly demanding that the RCC know better than the times. (This of course set her up for the deadly riposte of Stephen Fry: if the Church cannot be expected to better than secular institutions, he asked, his voice rising for the first time in the debate, then "What are you for?").

The fact is, having one man, and a small circle of princes, responsible for the preservation of a 2,000 year institution which it believes to be the true incarnation if Christ's Body on Earth is to put an insupportable burden on that man and that circle of men. It cannot be maintained, because it attributes perfection to the necessarily imperfect. And that leads to covering up the gap between the Heavenly Image and the Earthly Reality.

C.S. Lewis and The Four Loves



Today is the anniversary of C.S. Lewis's death, and a good opportunity to remember him. I first encountered his writings in high school, under the tutleage of the Marianist Order. We read The Four Loves, and I knew I was in the presence of great writing--clear thought, fluently expressed, delivering the material in an accessible, but not condescending way. Lewis's work is one of the great treasures of Anglicanism, and The Four Loves is thought-provoking as well as meditative.

But Lewis was above all a superb scholar. Here he is talking about his friend Charles Williams:



His death, on the same day as John F. Kennedy's murder, and the death of Aldous Huxley, received very little coverage. His life and work, however, continue to fascinate.

Gore Redux

A recent comment on an older post reminds me to recommend heartily Charles Gore's two volume commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans. For those who (like me) have struggled with Paul's more, er, Calvinist overtones, Gore does an exceedingly useful job of putting him in his historical context, and elucidating this rich, sometimes contradictory, and occasionally daunting text. He is particularly good with Romans 8, one of my favorite Biblical texts, but one which springs from the paean to hope, to the introduction into Christian thought of predestination. Gore:
There is, I think, no point on which St. Paul has been more misrepresented than on his teaching about predestination. He teaches plainly that it is God's purpose to ' have mercy upon all': that He 'willeth that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth....The election of this catholic body to be the heirs of salvation and to bear the name of God in the world was, it would have been held, a selfevident fact. St. Paul reasons not up to this fact but from it. He uses the admitted fact to strengthen its individual members under stress of trial. They must bear earthly troubles because they form the appointed discipline for the individuals who form the select body. Let men but love God, and then all outward things whatsoever work together for good for them. The fact that they love God is the sufficient evidence of their election. Those who love God are also those who are ' called according to His purpose.' But, we ask, Have none received the call and rejected it? were none called, who do not love God? is it not true, that ' Many are called and few chosen' ? St. Paul says not a word to the contrary. But that is not the question he is considering. The members of the Christian Church, devoted to God, to whom he is writing have been called. This call of which they have become the subject is, St. Paul assures them, no afterthought, no momentary act of God, which as it came into being in a moment so may pass away. It is not a being taken up by God and then perhaps dropped again. His gifts and calling are without repentance on His side, because they represent an eternal will.
In other words, Paul is urging boldness and confidence upon the Christian community--be sure that you are loved, and will always be loved--and not claiming that others are excluded from that same love. This brings Paul into consistency with Jesus's declaration, judge not, that ye be not judged.

A first rate work of exposition by one of he finest minds in Anglicanism. Well worth your time.

Mark Twain Tonigh!

Here is Hal Holbrook as Mark Twain on Man: the Reasoning (?) and Religious (?) animal:



And a glimpse of the genuine article:

11-10-09

Speaking of counting down, counting down to the future can be tricky.

My daughter posted this video on Facebook. It is series of AT&T ads from 1993 that were on a CD-Rom that the company paid Newsweek to include as advertising in an issue, to drive home the idea that some day all publication would happen via CD-Rom.



The interesting thing is almost all of this stuff happens now, but the actual engineering is a little different. The ad predicts EZPass (but without the tranponder but using a in-car card reader instead), video conferences (although the graphics and windows management still has not caught up with the projection), smart and remote classrooms, on-demand video, etc.

As far as I can see, they appear to have only missed two developments that at once made the predictions possible but changed the way they happen: they missed was the advent of cell phones and the subsequent development of smart phones. They also missed the idea of digital radio-transmission, which made the cell phone and a whole host of other things possible. I know enough about the latter to tile the dance floor on the head of a pin, but digitizing data transmitted by radio means that much more information can be crammed into a radio frequency. This explains why your car remote doesn't open your garage door and why you garage remote doesn't screw up some kid's remote control airplane, all of which pretty much share the same radio frequencies. And why it is that so many cell-phones can work off the same towers all at once.

There is a third thing the ads missed, and that is the economic constraints that direct how technologies are used (that have nothing to do with the technologies themselves).

The idea of a readable card having or making your medical record available wherever you are is possible but not even close to reality. The very annoying HIPPA law was passed soon after these ads were made. They were supposed to make health-care information portable but confidential in anticipation of future technologies then on the horizon. the technology is here but all of the economic and ethical questions about its use have not been answered. Instead, HIPPA made sure one doesn't stand too close to the check out at the pharmacy, and makes sure that getting called from the waiting room to the examination room uses the same technology as a deli, all in the name of privacy. (HIPPA is also the excuse that hospitals use to never tell pastors that their congregants are in hospital or to where they've been discharged, but don't get me started on that!) And a decade or more later, insurance companies still gather the same info that everyone needs using different forms and separate proprietary software increasing costs and time.

So technology can't by itself fix everything because it is subject to other human endeavors like economics, politics and the only real universal constant: bureaucracy.

One thing they got right is that AT&T is at the heart of it all, although they are now owned by a then-new "baby Bell." They handle a major portion of the world's internet traffic through what they used to call "Long Lines" built when plain-old-telephone-service ruled.

On the whole, these ads do a better job of anticipating the future than 2001: A Space Oddesy or any number of the Popular Science magazines that I read when I was a kid. I was supposed to have flown Pan-Am to the Moon by now. I'm disappointed about that, but they probably would have lost my luggage.

Coffeehouse set of the day



This is a video of Scott Davis, a high school classmate, playing a song by Andy McKee. Scott says: "Andy is an amazing guitarist. This is my first recording of his song." Enjoy.

Ah, to be in England...

when Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens team up:



Intellectual demolition derby, with manners.

From Intelligence Squared; hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, himself a Catholic, who writes:
You can forgive the pro-Catholic side for losing the debate in Britain on whether the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan were up against Hitch and Fry. What you cannot forgive is the sheer intellectual shallowness of the defense. Just listen to the small speech above, I mean: really, this is the best we've got?

****
The problem with the theoconservative take-over in the Catholic priesthood is not so much its extremism as its mediocrity. And it is mediocre because it has been trained not to think, not to argue, and not to engage the modern world. It has been trained solely for obedience - blind, dumb, unquestioning, intellectually moribund obedience.
Actually, I think the extremism and the mediocrity are both problematic.

God's Work?

The head of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, says that he and his firm are "doing God's work." As Washington's Blog asks, however, is this true?
There have been widespread, credible allegations that Goldman Sachs and other giant banks have broken the law (see this, for example).

Indeed, one of the first things God asks of us is to do justice:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

While many churches and synagogues have become obsessed with other issues, many have arguably ignored this most important of God’s demands of us. As pointed out by a leading Christian ministry, which rescues underage girls trapped as sex slaves in third world countries:

In Scripture there is a constant call to seek justice. Jesus got upset at the Pharisees because they neglected the weightier matters of the law, which He defined as justice and the love of God . . . Isaiah 58 complains about the fact that while the people of God are praying and praying and praying, they are not doing anything about the injustice.
***

God demands that we do everything in our power to act as “God’s hands” in bringing justice. And as Saint Augustine reminds us, “Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.”

***
Moreover, there have been credible allegations that Goldman Sachs and other giant banks manipulate the currency and other markets....Proverbs 11:1 also provides:

Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is His delight.

So to the extent that the giant banks have engaged in any dishonest acts or the manipulation of currencies, they are violating scripture.

Of course, any bankers who charge usurious interest rates should remember the little story about Jesus turning over the money changers’ tables
The whole essay is worth a read, and a thought. One needn't go all Matt ("Goldman is a giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money") Taibbi to ask, as this essay does, what the connection between our faith and our economic system--or, worse, the disconnect between them. How many of us (including me!) can truly claim to be loving justice, doing mercy, and walking humbly with our God?

(Hat tip: Naked Capitalism

Your GOP at Work

Here is Rep. John Shadegg putting his own stupidity into the mouth of a baby, from whom he thinks we should take policy advice:



Here's Shadegg a few years ago, when he had thoughts of higher office:



Some guys never learn...

Cartoon of the day



Pat Oliphant draws an image of the Episcopal Church-of-the-Eastern-establishment that for the most part doesn't exist, but the idea is still amusing.

The Bitter Taste of Kool-Aid

Let me see if I've got this crystal clear:

1. Dede Scozzafava, who lives in the District and has previously served in the State Assembly, wins the Republican nomination for NY's 23rd District, a traditional Republican stronghold.

2. Conservative Republican launch a more conservative candidate against her, denouncing her as a "RINO," a "leftist" and seeking to tie her to ACORN. GOP Celebrities such as Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson and Tim Pawlenty supported her conservative rival, Bill Hoffman. Although nominally supporting her, Meanwhile, the RNC formally supports her, but provides no financial support. Money pours into the district in support of Hoffman. Even Newt Gingrich called it a "purge."

3. Outspent by both Bills, Scozzafava withdrew from the election, a move Steele praised as "unselfish," allowing the NRC to join the roster of its luminaries officially embracing Hoffman.

4. Yesterday, Scozzafava, a lifelong Republican endorses Owen. The GOP's response? State Party Chair Edward Cox:“Dede Scozzafava’s endorsement today represents a betrayal of the people of the North Country and the people of her party." Similarly, Dick Armey (who supported Hoffman, by the way), “She basically put aside any pretensions and threw in with the Democrats.”

Now, isn't this rather like saying that Julius Caesar betrayed Brutus with his dying words?

And isn't this the fate of moderate Republicans in the modern era? To serve as a reassurance to the less extreme elements of the party, to be used by the dominant, increasingly, er, frothy, hard right, and then discarded and dismissed as traitors when they have the temerity to resent being cast aside? (Remember my Whitty Awards? Named after Chriistie "It's My Party, Too" Whitman, it's gone not only to Colin Powell, and Matthew Dowd, but even to George W. Bush).

Like all good cults, conservatism needs its scapegoats.

(Cross-posted)

Shepard hate crimes bill signed today



Here is the sermon by the Rev. Anne Kitch at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, (H/T to Louie Crew's Anglican Pages):

St. Mark's Church
October 16, 1998 Casper, Wyoming
John 14:1-6
The Rev. Anne Kitch

Do not let your hearts be troubled, Jesus says. How can we not let our hearts be troubled? How can we not be immersed in despair? How can we not cry out against this? This is not the way it is supposed to be. A son has died. A brother has been lost. A child has been broken, torn, abandoned. We become lost in a turbulent stream of emotions. Grief. Anger. Guilt. Fear. Shame. Outrage. Bewilderment. Loss. Our hearts are deeply troubled. They cry out, No. No. No. Not Matthew. Not now. No this way.

We come here today to mourn Matt. We come here today to offer our broken hearts. We come here today in the name of love. Because ultimately it is love that binds us to Matt: the love of a family. Matt's family is like any family, sharing life, family meals, arguments, games, Christmas trees. We come here today, in the name of family love. We gather in this church, in the name of God's love. Because in the midst of this horror, in the midst of this hateful crime, Christ's love abounds.

Make do doubt about it. Matthew is loved: by his parents, by his brother, by his grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, family all gathered here -- by God. It is that love, which has radiated out of the midst of this tragedy. Love which empowers his parents to speak compassion, rather than condemnation. Love which inspires his friends to acts of prayer and witness. Love which is more powerful than any voice of hate. That is God's love.

We are able to love one another, because God first loved us, created us out of love, lovingly breathed life into us so that we might be part if this good creation. We are able to love one another because God showed us how, sending a Son into the world to live with us, love with us, die for us. Love one another, just as I have loved you, said Jesus as he prepared to die. And Jesus died, and Jesus rose again overcoming death and fulfilling a promise, offering eternal life to all. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ abundant life is promised for Matt.

Matt: a young man who met the world with eager expectation, who offered trust and friendship easily, lived honestly. Matt trusted in the goodness of God's world, reveled in God's creation, allowed people into his heart. When you met Matt, you met Matt. For a small person, he had great presence: one of the things that made him shine on the stage. Matt was not always a winner according to some of the world's standards. He struggled in many ways: to survive as an infant, to fit into a world that is not always kind to gentle spirits. But Matt was a light to the world according to a different set of standards. What was important to Matt, was to care: to help, to nurture, to bring joy to others in his quiet, gentle way. I think Matt would be somewhat bewildered by all this attention to his account.

Dennis and Judy have said that Matt believed if he had made one person's life better in this world, then he had succeeded. I think judging from the world's response over the past few days, Matt will have made a difference in the lives of thousands.

And I believe Matt has shown us the way out of the abyss into which his murder has plunged us. Matt has shown us the way from violence, hate, despair. We may doubt that now. Like the disciple Thomas doubted when Jesus spoke the words we heard today from John's gospel. Jesus was saying farewell to his friends. He was preparing them for his death. So he gathered them together around a family meal and he spoke: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God. Believe in me." And he promised that they would be able to follow him to eternal life in God';s loving house, that they would be able to sit around God's kitchen table. But Thomas cried out in his fear and despair, "How? How can we know the way?"

Today we may cry out, How? How can we know the way out of the abyss? How can we love? How can we live? And the answer is there. "I am the way, the truth, the light." Jesus has gone before us. Jesus, a beloved son whose body was broken, torn, abandoned, hung in bars of wood by his accusers. Jesus who stood in the face of hate and offered the door to eternal life. This Jesus is here for Matt, is here for each of us. This Jesus promises to prepare a place for each of us in God's heavenly kingdom. All we are asked to do is believe. Believe in God. Believe in Christ. Believe in a love that conquers all -- even death.

Matt believed. Matt believed enough to become baptized in this church as a teenager. Matt believed enough to bring his family with him to church. Matt believed enough to see the overwhelming goodness in God's creation and in each person he met. Matt believed. Matt lived. Matt loved. And we can too, because God loves us and nothing can separate us from that love. That is God's promise. This is what the apostle Paul wanted so fervently for us to understand. That we could count on this promise to change our lives. As Paul says, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So I invite you to come, offer your broken hearts here. Lay down the burdens that you have been carrying for Matt's sake. Allow yourself to fall into the loving arms of God, who will hold you, keep you, comfort you while you begin to mourn Matthew as he deserves -- as you deserve.

And I invite you here to come to this family table. Share in the life-giving food of Christ's body and blood. Share in the promise that Matt has already received. Morning has broken for Matt. Morning in the place where there is no pain or grief. The bright morning of everlasting life.




The need for creeds



On the American Public Media show "Speaking of Faith" Krista Trippet and Jaroslav Pelikan explore "The Need for Creeds."

The late great historian Jaroslav Pelikan devoted his life to exploring the modern vitality of ancient Christian doctrines and creeds, which all revolve in some sense around the Easter events of the life death and resurrection of Jesus. And Pelikan believed that even modern pluralists need strong statements of belief. This hour we revisit my 2003 conversation with him.

Here is an excerpt:

Ms. Tippett: So what is it about Christianity that has needed creeds?

Dr. Pelikan: Well, what it is about religious faith that needs creed is that religious faith in general, prayer addressed "To Whom It May Concern," sentiment about some transcendent dimension otherwise undefined, does not have any staying power. It's OK to have that at 10:00 on a Sunday morning when you're out with your friends somewhere, but, in the darkest hours of life, you've got to believe something specific, and that specification is the task of the creed, because, much as some people may not like it, to believe one thing is also to disbelieve another. To say yes is also to say no. And clarifying what the yes is and then finding a way to say what it is we believe and the experimentation involved in that, I've made a very good living studying the experimentation, trying — how they tried on particular words for size. There are words in the Bible — important words — which didn't get into the creeds. You see…

Ms. Tippett: Like what? I mean, give me a…

Dr. Pelikan: Like the designation of Christ as logos. Logos means both "word" and "reason," as in logic. And the gospel of John begins with the words that many people know: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." And it was, in many ways, one of the most important terms in the arguments about the identity of Christ during the third and fourth centuries, and yet, in the only creed that all Christians or almost all Christians have in common, the so-called Nicene Creed, the term doesn't appear.

Ms. Tippett: And why was that?

Dr. Pelikan: They wanted rather to make use of terms that would clarify simultaneously the distinction between God and His Son, that when I say I believe in Jesus Christ, I am not saying I believe in two gods. The doctrine of the Trinity was the effort to preserve monotheism. The real Unitarians were the Trinitarians.


Read the rest here. Here is where you can download an MP3, realPlayer or a podcast.

Rector takes the High Roast

As opposed to my own rather dyspeptic take, Rev. Bill Tully responds in a manner that matters to be both irenic and ironic:
Pope Benedict's invitation to Anglican (including Episcopal Church USA) priests and parishes to become part of the Roman Catholic Church, retaining our liturgy and some customs, is fine with me.
In fact, I think it's wholly fair.
I'm an Episcopal parish priest, so my reaction is less about the cosmic implications, if any, of this initiative.

***

But fair is fair. For most of my ministry, beginning in 1974, I've been in parishes that are uncharacteristically (for Episcopalians) interested in membership growth. When I work to put out the welcome mat to serious spiritual seekers, the result is usually a heavy preponderance of Roman Catholics, at least 50% in most years.
So, fair is fair. We have a principled approach to Christian practice that takes the Bible, tradition, and human reason with balanced seriousness. On the ground, we like ritual, think and act sacramentally, and for a variety of historical reasons have a euphonious liturgy. Roman Catholics resonate with that.
What most who come to us want to get away from is centralized, exclusively male authority structures and the top-down insistence that some moral and practical questions are settled for all time. When they hear the Pope say the question of the ordination of women as priests cannot even be officially discussed, they are often ready to join a different conversation. Fair enough. We've been doing the inviting for years. We welcome the Pope to the business of welcome.
Well played, sir.

The burglar admires your decor

Revised: The following is what I have written to my congregation about the recent news that the Roman Catholic Church is putting in place a process to welcome to their fold unhappy and disaffected Anglicans from around the globe. Here it is:

You may have noticed the story which supplanted the “balloon boy” as this week’s “holy cow!” news event: the Vatican has announced a process to receive en masse disaffected Anglicans around the world into the Roman Catholic Church. I have received enough inquiries, questions, and news stories forwarded to me by e-mail from parishioners that I feel I need to say to all of you what I have said to some since yesterday morning.

What the Pope has done, apparently (if some press reports are to be believed) against the advice of his ecumenical advisers, has set up a process wherein whole groups of unhappy Anglicans and other long separated former Anglicans can now become Roman Catholics in such a way as to allow them to keep their prayer books and the clergy to keep their wives . A denomination which broke from the Church of England in 1991 applied to Rome for recognition and became the occasion for this new scheme.

The intent of the new rule is scoop up newly separated Episcopalians and other Anglicans around the world who are mad over the ordination of an openly gay bishop, the ordination of women and prayer book revision. Some of this unhappiness stretches back forty or fifty years!

What appears to be envisioned by Rome is an “English rite” church-within-a-church, which would have its own Anglican-style liturgy, married priests and even the possibility of their own seminaries. The idea is somewhat reminiscent of the Byzantine Rite Catholics, who worship in a manner similar to the Orthodox but who live under the Pope’s authority. There is a catch. Every Episcopalian or Anglican who availed themselves of Roman hospitality would find that only their baptisms and marriages would count: they would be confirmed anew (no big deal) and the clergy would be ordained again as if they never were (a bigger deal).

The Pope’s plan does nothing to regularize Anglican orders which were declared “null and void” in 1898 by a previous pope. The current Bishop of Rome had a chance to fix that and instead reiterated the dogmatic nature of that move. If anything, the new policy exacerbates the divisions between us.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops already has a so-called “pastoral provision” that allows unhappy Episcopal clergy to become Roman Catholic clergy, which this new policy would more or less regularize around the world. In the three decades that this “provision” has been in place, something like 30 formerly Episcopal clergy have availed themselves of it.

It is sad to hear that the Bishop of Rome did not have the courtesy to include the Archbishop of Canterbury in his consultations but not terribly surprising. This reveals another aspect that this plan does not change which revolves around the intangible question of ethos. One priest I know, a former Roman Catholic, said in response to my question “Does this change anything for you?” said essentially “Why should I give up Anglican freedom?” The Roman Catholic Church may try to create an Anglican-style ‘church within a church’ but they cannot re-create what has taken 450 years with intervening American and industrial revolutions to form.

The way we Episcopalians live into Catholic tradition, read and “inwardly digest” scripture and make our moral choices will not—and by definition cannot—be carried over to this new thing the Pope is inventing. The Episcopal Church has a unique charism of both Catholic order and democratic polity that few other Anglicans, let alone Roman Catholics, fully appreciate.

Certainly the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with us on a number of things and chief among them is our understandings of what constitutes Christian unity. The Roman Catholic Church defines Christian unity entirely on recognition of the office of Pope as authoritative and they see the entire deposit of faith emanating from there. We understand Christian unity as a present gift of the Holy Spirit, conferred by Christ and it is on us to live into what Christ has already achieved on the cross.

Often what divides us from other Christians is not what we believe, but where we see the implications of our beliefs taking us. One example is how we interpret the meaning of the outward signs of how Christian life is ordered—the community of baptized Christians, the three-fold ministry of deacon, priest and bishop, the nature of the sacraments. Both Catholics and Episcopalians understand that these point us to a greater unity of mission which is not our sole possession but Christ’s. At the same time, we see implications that our Roman Catholic counterparts do not: we welcome all baptized Christians to communion, we do not limit ordained ministry to just males, and we know that it is possible for all kinds of people, gay and straight alike, to live as a wholesome example to Christ’s people.

To note what we share is not to say there isn’t a certain sting when we read the headlines. Benedict XVI has managed all at once to intrude into our own church’s internal struggles for a very narrow strategic purpose; insult the very validity of who we are; and, at the same claim to value what we offer. The move seems designed to divide us. Some may take joy in this, but I do not. It feels something like coming home to find that the burglar has left a note on the coffee table complimenting us on our decor.

It would be a shame for this turn of events to further deepen the divide between our churches and between our two traditions. Certainly, we owe a great debt to Roman Catholicism with which we share much. The most important thing we share is our common calling is to serve as Christ’s ambassadors to a world that still suffers poverty, war, disease, starvation, and limited but misused natural resources.

My experience tells me is that the vast majority of ordinary believers will not be fazed by this. Most laity know intuitively what we clergy often forget: that God is bigger than all this and that the Holy Spirit is present every day in ways that transcend mere denominational differences.

I want to emphasize to those parishioners who have joined Trinity, Easton, from the Roman Catholic Church either through marriage or for reasons of conscience, and to those members whose partners remain Roman Catholic, that nothing has changed. Christ is still present to you in this community and in the sacraments. All baptized Christians are always welcome to Holy Communion, “commonly called the Mass,” in the Episcopal Church. The pastoral care of your parish is still here. Your parish family here at Trinity embraces you. This parish and our diocese will still do the often amazing ministries that God has called us to. We remain a church where Catholic order and tradition is uniquely mixed with freedom of conscience, genuine hospitality, and Christian charity.

Here is the original.