Charles Hawkins

On the Ordinariate

2012-01-08T09:27:00.001-05:00

Episcopalians can now convert to the Roman Catholic Church while keeping some Anglican practices in a special new U.S. diocese that was established last week by the Pope.

The Houston-based diocese, called the "Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter," will allow a special Anglican celebration of the Mass that can include selections from the Book of Common Prayer. So, if you love Anglican liturgy (but dislike contemporary Roman Catholic practice), but dislike the stance the Episcopal Church has taken on female clergy (or the role of women in society in general) or homosexual clergy (or the role of homosexual persons in society in general) or any other of a host of possibilities (e.g., contraception, abortion), then you can now "have your cake and eat it to." No longer do you have to choose between bad music or bad theology. Now, you can have both liturgy and doctrine that is to your liking.

I do not believe every Lutheran (or Baptist, or Roman Catholic, or Pentecostal, et. al.) should become an Episcopalian. I do not even believe that every Episcopalian should be an Episcopalian. I know God call us to new places on our pilgrimage of faith. On a personal level, I was born and raised a Baptist. Now, I serve the Episcopal Church as a priest. I do not, however, believe that all Baptists should become Episcopal priests. I believe it was God's call to me. I have no doubt that God's call to you might well be (probably is) a different path.

Therefore, to those who feel God's call to this new Ordinariate, and leave the Episcopal Church, I say "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be with you now and always."

I, do not, however, feel God's call to this new Ordinariate. And, I am sad to see it established. It is yet another sign that my delight in the Roman Catholic Church post-Vatican II, will not last. I experience this as a loss. And, therefore, it makes me sad.

I am sad because my pews are filled with former faithful Roman Catholics, who have found that for those who believed in Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church can be an inhospitable place. It saddens me, because it didn't have to be that way. But since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has chosen to retreat from Vatican II, rather than advance into Vatican II.

From where I sit, it looks like the best place for Vatican II Catholics is, sadly, the Episcopal Church. Our liturgy can be a little stuffy for your liking, but we are now the closest thing to an emobodiment of Vatican II in America. For those who take birth control, or believe women can be priests, or that married persons can be priests, or are divorced and do not believe it would be wrong to remarry, and so on and so forth, perhaps your ordinary (i.e. bishop) really is already the local Episcopal bishop.

Weddings do not make a Marriage

2011-11-03T12:56:00.004-04:00

Kim Kardashian is getting a divorce. After just 72 days of marriage that began with a wedding estimated to have cost $10 million, Kardashian is divorcing Kris Humphries, citing "irreconcilable differences." How exactly one can determine that differences are irreconcilable after only 72 days, is beyond me. Either something truly awful was revealed on the honeymoon or Kim Kardashian really is as superficial and vapid as she appears on T.V.

I regularly hear, "Marriage is a sacred union." By a casual look at the news, i find it difficult to reconcile "sacred union" with a spectacle costing millions and with the resulting marriage only lasting 72 days. If actions speak louder than words, and there is not more to this story than presently known by the public, then Kim Kardashian's marriage was not sacred. Marriage is not, in and of itself, holy. Some alliances can be unholy, even an alliance going by the name "marriage."

If marriage is holy, Indiana woman Linda Wolfe, who married (and divorced) 23 times, should probably be beatified. No one does holy that many times! St. Francis couldn't compete.

Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander. That marriage lasted 55 hours, and her record label later released a statement claiming that the whole thing had been "a joke." If a wedding can be a joke, then it is not necessarily sacred. If marriage can be a joke, then marriage is not, by definition, holy.

A married couple may feel that they've been blessed to find one another, they may experience their wedding as a spiritual event, and they may even understand their marriage as a sacred institution. But marriage, in and of itself, has never been sacred. All marriages are not Holy Matrimony.

Marriage is a tax shelter and a smart way for a couple to combine assets. It is certainly a civil institution. In Kardashian’s case, it appears to be a good way to make a quick $8 million. The wedding was said to have cost $10 million, but grossed $18 million in sponsorships. In Kardashian's case, it also appears to have been a good photo-op.

Marriage as an institution, in and of itself, is not sacred. Love is what makes marriage holy. But, not any ole kind of love. Romantic love is fleeting. Lust is even more fickle. Steadfast love, committed love, is what makes a matrimony holy. The promises one typically makes at a wedding are meant to ensure that the love in question is not merely of the romantic or erotic variety. Many take the vows of marriage, however, not as the most sacred promise they are likely ever to make, but as audible window dressing for the photo shoot.

Today, the NY Times printed a story about a photographer who was sued by a groom. Written by JOSEPH BERGER and Published on November 2, 2011, the Times article begins: “Of all the many things that make up a wedding, few are more important than the photographs.”

Hmmmm….

There are many things that make up a wedding, but if the photographs count as one of the most important elements, then let’s not use the word “holy,” or “sacred” as an adjective to describe it.

Many spend hours, beginning in childhood, planning “their big day.” It is an event focused solely upon them. It involves everyone they know. A birthday comes close, but is not generally as costly or as well attended or (generally) as frequent. As a social occasion, a wedding is “tops.” It doesn’t get any better than this. The flowers, the dress, the tux, the reception, the photographs--none of these “essential elements” of a wedding-as-social-occasion will make a marriage holy.

Berger, in the Times, writes: “Long after the last of the cake has grown stale and the tossed bouquet has wilted, the photos endure, stirring memories and providing vivid proof that the day of one’s dreams took place.”

“One’s dreams took place.” You’ve got documentary proof that your dreams of your “big day” were actualized. If the purpose of a wedding is to actualize one’s dream of the ultimate social occasion, then photographs to document the moment are certainly among those most important elements. If you are going to spend all this money on a “moment”--you want some proof that it actually happened and is not merely a memory that may fade. Did that really happen or was it just a dream? When you spend that much money on a party, you may want to re-live it from time to time. Photographs make that possible.

Social occasions may or not be holy or sacred. Either way, photographs are immaterial. Photographs are not going to make it holy. For Holy Matrimony, you do not need a photographer. Contrary to popular opinion, photographs are not among the most important elements for Holy Matrimony. In fact, they don’t even make the long list of important elements. Photographs of the wedding are incidental to and unnecessary for Holy Matrimony.

The photographer that got sued did not miss the joining of hands and the giving and receiving of rings. The photographer did not miss the exchange of vows. The photographer did not miss prayers said for the couple. The photographer did not miss the blessing that was pronounced by the cleric. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss.

The disgruntled groom is seeking $48,000 to re-stage the event, ostensibly to get photographs of a dance and a bouquet toss. The photographers have spent $50,000 on legal fees defending themselves and it hasn’t even gone to trial yet. All this for what? Why is it so important? I can assure you that it is not because without photos of the bouquet toss, the marriage would not be sacred.

To understand the difference between marriage that is truly holy and marriage that is not, is to understand why Kim Kardashian's wedding was probably never holy, and why countless couples around the world, who love each other despite spending far less than $10 million on a wedding, create something that is truly priceless.

In Kentucky, we don’t allow same-gender couples to marry. Kentuckians were worried that doing so would “undermine the sanctity of marriage.” Kentuckians are, however, fine with no fault divorce. Apparently, getting a divorce with ease does not undermine the sanctity of marriage.

Adultery, I also note, is not illegal in Kentucky. When the amendment in question passed, my wife was heard to say: “Same-gender couples are not a threat to my marriage. Single, heterosexual, young women could be.” She proposed that a constitutional admendment making adultry a felony would do far more to protect the sanctity of marriage than prohibiting other couples from marriage.

I suspect that what undermines the sanctity of marriage in our culture is weddings. We confuse weddings with marriage. We should leave the wedding-as-spectacle to those who may one day find themselves a king or a queen. Leave the dreams of being a princess or prince for a day behind. You will never be able to compete with Charles and Diana on the extravagance of your “big day.”

Essential elements for a Holy Marriage: (1) a couple, (2) vows of life-long commitment exchanged, (3) steadfast love, (4) prayers and or blessings for the marriage, (5) and lives lived fulfilling the most important promise you are ever apt to make.

Dresses, flowers, rings, receptions and even photographs are optional. They may even undermine the sanctity of your marriage and you may want to avoid them. They are not evil in and of themselves. All can be said to be “nice.” But, if you equate “Holy Matrimony” with a wedding spectacular, then they all can be a distraction to what is really most important.

I note that the groom who sued the wedding photographer is now divorced. The law suit has lasted longer than the marriage. The bride has even left the country. More focus on the marriage and less on the wedding, might have helped. For marriage to be holy takes intentionality. Its easy to get distracted by the paparazzi.

My advise, elope. Quietly take care of the legalities required--i.e., a marriage license. Bride and groom and two of their closest friends then gather in a place the couple finds holy, exchange vows, pray for the strength and the wisdom and the courage and the patience required to fulfill those vows. Have a cleric pronounce God’s blessing upon the marriage. Leave, resolved to live a life fulfilling the promises you made. Forget the flowers, the photographer, the caterer, guest lists, and seating charts. Don’t make Kim Kardashian’s mistake.

More Southern Baptists in the News

2011-10-12T12:14:00.001-04:00

In responding to the question of whether or not Mormonism is a cult, Richard Land calls Jehovah's Witnesses a cult.

“I wouldn’t call it a cult but it claims to be Christian and isn’t. It’s theology is like a cult but socially and culturally it doesn’t act like a cult.” In that way, he says, it is more “mainstream. They don’t withdraw, they don’t live in communities, they’re not like Jehovah’s Witnesses or James Jones.”

See his Washington Post interview.

Al Mohler calls Mormonism a "false gospel."

“Here is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian – a Christian who holds to the ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy’ of the Church – I do not believe that Mormonism leads to salvation...To the contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life."

See the “blog dialogue” sponsored by the Web site Beliefnet.com.

For the "official" position you can view "In the Name of Jehovah" on the Jehovah's Witnesses; “The Mormon Puzzle" on the Mormons.

Southern Baptists Changing their Name

2011-09-26T12:17:00.000-04:00

From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1600:

JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

"What's in a name?" The good bard was of the opinion that what matters is what something is, not what it is called. In addition, I suspect that what a thing is may effect how we feel about a name.

Kentucky Fried Chicken (according to its public relations firm at the time) was trying to get away from the negative implications of the word "Fried"(see Peter Keegan article in "Nation's Resturant News" 25 February 1991)and began to advertise itself as KFC and now is migrating to KGC (Kentucky Grilled Chicken). The connotations of the word "Fried" changed over time. What once was a good marketing moniker, became a public relations nightmare.

Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright said this week "There are not a lot of folks in New York City interested in going to a Southern Baptist church, or in Cheyenne, Wyoming, or Boise, Idaho."(see USAToday article at http://usat.ly/pxx3Mn) So, he announced they were exploring a change of name.

Why, I wonder, would people in New York, Cheyenne or Boise not want to go to a "Southern Baptist" church? Is it "Southern" that offends and if so why does it offend? Is it Baptist that offends and if so why does it offend? Southern Bapitsts have had 166 years to develop their "brand." Why change the name?

If it is because their actions have been so offensive that they have given "Baptist" and/or "Southern" a bad name in places like New York, Cheyenne, and Boise, then any new name, over time, will develop equally negative connotations.

I note that Kentucky Fried Chicken has started grilling chicken (changing their actions) to coincide with their name change. Will Southern Baptists change, becoming less "baptist" or less "southern?"

Baptists of other stripes and Southerners as well, might well be pleased that the words "Southern" and "Baptist" will no longer be associated with this particular group of Christians. Perhaps those words, in so far as they have developed negative connotations in places like New York, Cheyenne, and Boise, will be born again, washed clean, made new and given a new life. As a southerner and a friend of baptists, I can hope.

But, I wonder, would Southern Baptists, by any other name, smell as sweet?

____________________________________
Note: Since the initial PR release, it has been conjectured that the real reason for the Kentucky Fried Chicken name change was the word "Kentucky" not the word "Fried." Nonetheless, the current move to "Grilled" is certainly and obviously an attempt to supplant "Fried."

Quote of the Day. File Under "things that make you go hmmm..."

2011-09-09T22:45:00.000-04:00

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

--President Eisenhower (a Republican) to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954.

Tweeting in Tongues

2011-09-02T18:04:00.001-04:00

If only i had the spiritual gift of glossolalia, i could start a new twitter account--tweeting in tongues. The Rev. Juanita Bynum II is posting in tongues on Facebook. Recently she posted:

GIRD THEM UP IN THE SPIRIT...GIVE THEM A MIND TO PRAY LIKE NEVER BEFORE....WE CALL ON YOU JESUS....YOU ARE OUR HELP AND OUR HOPE!!!!!!!!NDHDIUBGUGTRUCGNRTUGTIGRTIGRGBNRDRGNGGJNRIC YOU ARE OUR HELP AND OUR HOPE....RFSCNGUGHURGVHKTGHDKUNHSTNSVHGN YOU GOD......YOU ARE OUR HELP AND OUR HOPE!!!!!! OUR HOPE IS IN YOU FATHER......OUR STRENGTH FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS IS IN YOU FATHER......HELP US NOW......LORD WE DONT ASK FOR HELP FOR JUST THEM....THIS IS US....THIS IS A PART OF OUR OWN BODY.....

here is the link to her Facebook page.

Perry on Evolution

2011-08-20T10:07:00.001-04:00

"I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry said today. "That's a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it."

Perry then told the boy: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

Yep, that's how schools work. You tell kids some things that are true and some things that are made up and you trust that the children will be "smart enough" to figure it out. "America's first three presidents were George Washington, John Adams and the Green Lantern. Good luck on your AP History test."

--ALEX PAREENE

Religion &Taxes

2011-08-18T11:32:00.001-04:00

Sightings 8/18/2011

Religion and Taxes
-- Alexander E. Sharp

The deficit and budget battles in Washington make clear that the divisions between us are deep, even spiritual. The fight is not over the size of the deficit, nor even about expenditure cuts. It is about taxes as the lifeblood of government.

Why are taxes so important? The playbook is no secret. Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform and the driving force behind the “no-tax-increase” stance, said it over twenty years ago: “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bath tub.” The way to do that is to cut taxes.

The George W. Bush administration supported this goal. It happily organized the political religious right concerned about social issues: pro-choice, sexual orientation, sex education, and school prayer. Many of the religious right feared that secular values were eroding their fundamentalist reading of the Bible. Their numbers swelled Republican ranks.

Those seeking to limit the size of government surely continue to welcome this faith-based support, but they now have a new moral underpinning: Ayn Rand as their resident philosopher. We do not need to tackle her 800-page novels to get her message. The title of one of her shorter essays says it all: “The Virtue of Selfishness.” In it she writes, “Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.” For her, the Great Commandment to love your neighbor is tantamount to “moral cannibalism.”

Michele Bachmann brings another clear spiritual perspective. She received her legal training at Oral Roberts University School of Law. The curriculum was based on Christian Reconstructionism, which argues that “God granted certain jurisdictional authority to the government, the church, and the family—therefore any government action exceeding its God-granted authority is in violation of God’s commands.” Under this view, it is not within the government’s “authority” to take care of the poor.

Recalling her own family’s struggle against poverty as she was growing up, she has said, “We had our faith in God, we depended on our neighbors, we depended on ourselves, and we just did without… And we were just grateful for what we had. We knew that one day things would be better than they were. And God was faithful, and they were better.”

Her view of government, perhaps shaped by her law-school training, may explain her questioning of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a congressional hearing over federal bailout programs. She asked, “What provision in the Constitution could you point to that would give authority for the extraordinary actions taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08? What specifically in the Constitution?” In the current Iowa primary she is calling for the abolition of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce: “Wherever we can cut and abolish, we should cut and abolish.”

Those who believe government has a role in providing society’s safety net think it is essential to give a hand to those whom society counts least. Protestants for the Common Good, for example, supported the recent tax increase in Illinois because we were both saddened and shocked at the cuts in human services. Aid to children, the elderly, the mentally ill, and the disabled has been reduced by $3.1 billion since 2002 and $600 million in the current year alone.

Protestants for the Common Good believe that freedom exists in two forms: we are free from loyalty to anyone or thing other than God; and we are free for the opportunity to serve all whom God loves. We are free to care for, and love, others. That’s what our faith calls us to do.

The political religious right may argue that they want the same things we do. But they would say that it is freedom from government that makes it possible for people to flourish. The best way to help others is to get government out of the way.

Those who are for smaller government rarely express concern for people in need, even though almost twenty percent of Illinois children live in poverty, only about half of the people who need treatment for mental illness receive it, and after health care reform, there will be over 700,000 Illinoisans without health coverage.

Those of us who think government is central to establishing community and serving others have been enablers in this debate. We have not insisted that the political religious right, and those who oppose raising the debt ceiling, explain why the current deficit is so high. We have not pressed for a public discussion of how the economy performed under the tax cuts and financial deregulation starting in 2000. How can the views of Ayn Rand be reconciled with Jesus’ concern for the poor?

There is no Christian answer to complicated matters of public policy, but there are spiritual values that should inform how we think about such questions. They are expressed as ideology and pursued through politics and the media. But they have an underlying spiritual basis that is as profound and explicit as it was at any time in our national history.

References

Sarah Posner, “The Perry vs. Bachmann Primary at Liberty University,” Religion Dispatches, July 11, 2011.

The Rev. Alexander E. Sharp has served since 1996 as the founding executive director of Protestants for the Common Good, a faith-based education and advocacy organization in Illinois. He received his M.Div. from the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1996 and has a Masters of Public Affairs from Princeton University.

----------

In this summer’s Religion and Culture Web Forum: What does religious education look like in the globalized realities of the 21st century? This was the question put to a distinguished panel at the recent meeting (May 22-28, 2011) of the International Association of Black Religions and Spiritualities (IABRS), an organization that “represents the religions and spiritualities of darker skinned peoples globally.” This month, we feature the response of Dr. James Massey, the male Dalit (India) delegate to the IABRS. Dr. Massey argues that peace among the world’s religions will require finding not only a “common ethic” (per Hans Kung), but an “appreciation of differences.” To both these ends, Dr. Massey calls for “re-looking at the religious traditions.”

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Submissions policy

Sightings welcomes submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to illuminate and interpret the intersections of religion and politics, art, science, business and education. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to current issues and events.

Attribution

Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Contact information

Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to Shatha Almutawa, managing editor of Sightings, at DivSightings@gmail.com. Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription at the Sightings subscription page. Follow us on Twitter @DivSightings. Too many emails? Receive Sightings as an RSS feed. Sign up at http://divinity.uchicago.edu/rss/sightings.xml.

A Very Short Introduction to Millennialism

2011-05-31T11:52:00.001-04:00

Harold Camping predicted the “End of the World” twice before his latest prediction. Thanks to his billboards and other marketing expenditures, his predictions receive a great deal of coverage in the media. To the unitiated, his understanding of the timeline of the cosmos can be bewildering. Knowing a bit about the tradition from which he is speaking is helpful in that regard.

The early church, from the time of the persecutions until the third century, widely held the belief that Jesus would return to earth to reign for a thousand years—a millennium. Further, because this earthly reign was the period of time between Christ's ascension into heaven and the moment when Christ "will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead," it is sometimes called the "interregnum."1 A version of this view is also now often referred to as "historical premillennialism" because it understood Christ to come before the millennium.2

With the passing of time, Christianity became the established religion and persecutions ceased. With the ending of the persecutions, a literal view of the thousand year reign of Christ on earth was slowly replaced with a symbolic view.3 In this novel way of thinking about the millennium of Christ's reign on earth, a thousand years did not have to be a literal thousand years, but was, rather, a very long period of time. The millennium in one way or another referred to the reign of Christ in the present age and denied a subsequent interregnum between this age and the age to come. This view, or several variations of it, were standard theological fare between the third century and the reformation. This view became known as amillennialism. Augustine was the most famous proponent of this understanding of the interregnum.4

At the time of the reformation, theological reflections on the biblical notion of the millennium multiplied. By the turn of the twentieth century, three different understandings had gained the attention of theologians.

Baptist theologians make a useful study. At the turn of the twentieth century, there were still many amillennialists, such as Baptist theologian Ε. Y. Mullins.5 But there were also those who believed that the return of Christ would happen at the end of a thousand year reign of peace—these theologians were called postmillennialists. According to postmillennialists, the world was ever drawing closer to becoming the kingdom of God. Political and social reforms, and the effect of evangelism and mission, were ushering in Christ's millennial reign on earth. Baptist theologians B. H. Carroll and A. H. Strong were postmillennialists.6
At the end of the nineteenth century, postmillennial thinking was so popular among Protestants in general (and not just Baptists) in the United States that a new magazine for Protestant ministers was named The Christian Century. But the optimism of the postmillennialists was shattered against the historical reality of the twentieth century. Two world wars and a depression in the first half of the century led to a rise in yet another school of thought on the meaning of the millennial reign of Christ—dispensational premillennialism.

This form of premillennialism believed also that Christ would return before, not at the end of, this special millennium. Unlike the postmillennialists, who believed that the world was improving, premillennialists believed that the world was devolving into chaos. The condition of the world was to continue to grow worse until God would have to intervene and Christ would then return. The experience of many in the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that the premillennialists, not the postmillennialists, were right.

The Baptist minister W. A. Criswell, a student of E. Y Mullins, was such a dispensational premillennialist. Criswell followed the teachings of C. I. Scofield, the author of the popular Scofield Reference Bible (first published in 1917). Besides dividing up history into a number of distinctive dispensations, this view proposed the novelty of a pretribulation "rapture" of Christians out of the world to avoid persecution to be followed by yet another coming of Christ in judgment to the world to establish the millennium. It also especially emphasized the millennium as the reign of Christ during the millennium with Israel, not the church. Criswell was instrumental in popularizing this form of premillennialism among Southern Baptists.
Around mid-century, a recovery of the earlier historical premillennialism also was occurring. Prominent exemplars among Southern Baptists were Dale Moody and Wayne Ward, long-time professors at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The distinction between these two variations of premillennialism is significant enough that one way of analyzing the ecclesiastical politics of Southern Baptists in the last quarter of the twentieth century is to divide the parties according to whether they were dispensational or historical premillennialists. By the end of the twentieth century, premillennialism of one kind or another dominated Southern Baptist theology.

For many Christians, however, the categories of amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism, have lost their effectiveness. The categories are mired in a theological debate that seems irrelevant at the beginning of the twenty first century. For many, the most popular of the options is biblically and theologically bankrupt, but not for Harold Camping. Camping, a dispensational premillennialist, is now predicting the “End of the World” (i.e. “The Rapture”) on May 21, 2011.

___________________________________________

1Referencing the epoch as the "interregnum" highlights its "earthly character." It is the epoch of the "not yet." It is not the "new heaven and new earth." This "here and nearly-now" aspect of the interregnum is important later in this essay because of its strong earthly referent. The new heaven and the new earth, according to the biblical context, are such transformed states that such an eschaton must serve a different doctrinal function than the interregnum.
2 For a helpful introduction to the various views and their historical context, see Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
3 As will be seen later, the heresy of chiliasm may have been a factor in the spread of the symbolic reading of the millennium.
4Tyconius, a Donatist, is perhaps the earliest proponent of a spiritual understanding of the millennium.
5E. Y. Mullins' student Herschel Hobbs was also an amillennialist. Hobbs was the principal author of the 1963 "Baptist Faith and Message," the official statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention.
6 It is interesting to note that while differing interpretations of the millennium were ripping apart some denominations, Southern Baptist amillennialists and postmillennialists seemed to cohabitate in mutual respect and regard.

The End of the World

2011-05-15T12:48:00.003-04:00

"Its the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine." REM

Great reflection on the "May 21, 2011" "end of the world" by my Church History professor, friend, and former Dean of the Divinity at Wake Forest University. http://bit.ly/jQLVTq

My sermon for Sunday is based on Bill's reflection. His reflection is better than my sermon. Read it.

Jesus Wept

2011-04-10T12:09:00.002-04:00

...There are some griefs so loud
They could bring down the sky,
And there are griefs so still
None knows how deep they lie,
Endured, never expended.
There are old griefs so proud
They never speak a word;
They never can be mended. --May Sarton, “Of Grief,” Selected Poems of May Sarton (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978), p. 77.

Jesus wept. --The Gospel According to John, Chapter 9.

Arguing with God

2011-04-02T17:16:00.003-04:00

Arguing with God can be a sign of faith. On Ash Wednesday I mentioned my professor, Karen Joines. Dr. Joines loved the story of Abraham arguing with God. He taught me to love it.

Abraham was the first in a long line of people of faith to argue with God. When we argue with God, rail against God, we’re searching, again, for the “God beyond God,” (to borrow a phrase from Paul Tillich) the God that no longer makes sense, the true God that’s left after all our images are shattered.

In the story, God declares his intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. Abraham, the text says, “stood before God” – as friends stand before each other and are free to question one another. He asked God, “Will you destroy the innocent along with the guilty? How can a righteous judge act unjustly?” Here is the conversation between Abraham and God:

-- Will you really sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? Abraham asked. Perhaps there are fifty innocent within the city, will you really sweep it away?

-- Yahweh replied, If I find fifty innocent in Sodom, I will bear with the whole place for their sake.

-- Abraham then spoke up and said: I have ventured to speak to my Lord, and am but earth and ashes. But please listen. Suppose of the fifty innocent, five will be lacking – will you bring ruin upon the whole city because of the lack of five?

-- God replied: Okay, I will not bring ruin if I find there forty-five.

-- Abraham kept on with this line of questioning: What, O God, if there are forty?

-- I will not destroy for the sake of the forty, God answered.

-- How about thirty?

-- I will not do it if I find thirty.

-- Perhaps then there will be twenty?

-- I will not bring ruin for the sake of the twenty.

-- Pray Lord, said Abraham, do not be upset if I speak one more time. What if there are only ten?

-- God answered: I will not destroy for the sake of ten. (Genesis 18:22-33)

Abraham thus began a long, noble tradition of those who have engaged in passionate argument with God and others about justice – Moses, Jeremiah, Amos, the Psalmist, Job and on to our century, Eli Wiesel, Martin Luther King, Jr., Marian Wright Edelman. In Jewish and Christian tradition Abraham is called “Friend of God.” Only a friend of God can stand before God and argue.

Dirtballs, each and everyone

2011-03-09T16:00:00.003-05:00

Karen Joines told us we were Dirtballs. Dirtballs, each and everyone of us. We thought we were created just a little lower than the angles. He reminded us to show some humility.

Professor of Hebrew, Dr. Joines, dissected the creation story for us. God took some dirt; breathed on it and made man. Dirt + God's breath = you and me.

I think of Prof. Joines on Ash Wednesdays. "Remember you are but dust and to dust you will return," he says. We read Psalm 51 as a prayer on Ash Wednesdays and thus pray to God, "take not your breath (spirit) from me." Without the breath, we are but dust. On this day we remember our mortality, our utter dependence upon the divine, and we are reminded, as Prof. Joines would say, "to show a little humility."

Money

2011-01-19T12:01:00.002-05:00

Great podcast at This American Life on "The Invention of Money" Really well done. http://bit.ly/exh07N

What's Sad?

2011-01-11T09:52:00.003-05:00

Anonymous said...
What is sad? I don't think I undestand. Are you saying it's sad because people don't trust knowledge more or because they don't trust knowledge enough?

JANUARY 4, 2011 7:15 PM

_____________________

Sorry, my caption was cryptic. I meant that it made me sad that religious leaders have acted in such a way as to make others not trust us. Politicians and Religious Leaders are the least trusted. Makes me sad.

A Sad Commentary

2010-11-21T20:08:00.000-05:00

Monetary Policy

2010-11-21T20:01:00.000-05:00

On Bowles-Simpson

2010-11-17T09:43:00.003-05:00

The news media (at those outlets I read regularly) missed the lead on the Bowles-Simpson proposal for deficeit reduction. the real shock of the proposal was calling for a target of 21% of GDP for tax reciepts. To get to 21% would mean a sharp increase in taxes, since we are currently at 14.8% (the lowest since 1950). If, however, we let all the Bush tax cuts expire, we would get close to that 21% without having to do anything else.

Faith in the News

2010-11-17T09:36:00.000-05:00

The intersection of theology and politics is often in the news it seems. Martin Marty, of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, recently noted that some “Tea Partiers undergird their opposition to global warming with theology of the biblical sort. Last October 20 in The New York Times, John M. Broder did a close-up of typical action in campaigns at Jasper, Indiana. Global warming? “It’s a flat-out lie!” shouted the founder of the local T.P., basing his view on theologian Rush Limbaugh and “the teaching of Scripture. ‘I read my Bible. . . [God] made this earth for us to utilize.’” Lisa Deaton, a founder of Tea Partyish “We the People Indiana,” added gloss: “Being a strong Christian, I cannot help believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country, and it’s not there to destroy us.”

Marty continues, “It would be easy to refute and dismiss such proclamations, but they are generously backed. Broden: “Those views in general align with those of the fossil fuel industries,” which subsidize—at the rate of [by now well over] $500 million in the last two years—lobbying against legislation that would help postpone The End. Such industries can always find some dissenter against the overwhelming scientific consensus which warns against the destruction of the planet. Ron Johnson, the new senator from Wisconsin, settles it all scientifically. Climate change? “It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity.” Or part of an every ten-thousand year cycle. Wait and see.

Marty notes that “LaVonne Neff commenting in Christianity Today on Bill McKibben’s Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, quoted stories identifying the author as “probably the nation’s leading environmentalist” and “the world’s best green journalist.” He is also, she notes, “a churchgoing, Sunday-school teaching Methodist, who wants to see Christians leading the environmental movement,” and makes a theological case for their doing so. McKibben argues for “small and local” ways to help confront the issue. Ms. Neff, contra Mr. Limbaugh and other theologians on the far right, argues that McKibben’s recommendations “fit well with Scripture’s respect for creation” and “its requirement to love our neighbors as ourselves.”

In conclusion, Marty writes: “Many Catholics, Jews, and Mainline Protestants, who have worked this theme in their “social justice” preaching, rejoice to hear such evangelical voices. Neff writes, “McKibben is not a doomsday prophet,” but he is a prophet crying in our heating-up wilderness.

References

Global Warming and American Christianity by Martin E. Marty, Sightings, 11/15/2010, the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

“Local is beautiful: Bill McKibben believes we can thrive on a planet that will never be the same,” Christianity Today, November, 2010.

John M. Broder, “Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith,” New York Times, October 20.

Bill McKibben, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet by (New York: Times Books, 2010).

---, “Hot Mess: Why Are Conservatives So Radical about the Climate?” The New Republic, October 6, 2010.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

2010-10-12T21:08:00.001-04:00

The Chronicle of Philanthropy, in the June 17th issue, reports on Giving USA for 2009. According to another monitoring agency, Empty Tomb, “religion” last year raised 100.95 billion dollars, which means that it represents 33 percent of all charitable giving.

The public knows that the financial crisis and recession have hit philanthropy hard. The big givers held back most: Gifts in the over-one-million-dollar class were down 63.6 percent! Giving to colleges and universities was down 17.8 percent and to hospitals, down 11 percent. On such a scale, religion held up well. Analysis of 1,247 religious organizations in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability showed giving was down only 3.7 percent there, all according to the Giving USA reckoning. Empty Tomb found that overall giving to religion, after inflation, was down only 0.3 percent.

The first question about statistics is: How accurate are they? One gets the impression from the numerous people quoted in the several Chronicle articles that a) they recognize the surveyors as conscientious, their methods ever-improving, their intentions good, b) but the results are not fully trustworthy. Many observers think that the decline in most of the areas, including religion, the “least-declinist,” is more steep than reported. It has certainly been steeper than that at St. Mark’s.

The analysts look at annual reports and balance sheets of religious organizations, most of which have had to cut back on personnel and projects because there are smaller funds with which to work. They talk to development officers and financial stewards and draw the conclusion that almost across the board, there’s been a decline of more than 0.3 percent. You might say that the professionals can “feel it in their bones,” trading anecdotes, looking in the mirror, and reading e-mails about unemployed relatives who, no matter where their heart is, cannot keep up with pledges or match those from earlier years. Again, our experience at St. Mark’s would confirm their intuitions.

Joblessness, market jitters, and other factors can take a spiritual toll. It is also important to see where priorities are. Dan Busby, president of the Evangelical Council, rightly says that “the impact of the recession has been spotty. Rescue missions and child-sponsor groups in many cases have done well, while others are impacted more significantly.” Favorite causes and those which have commanded loyalties over the years fare best.

In the Great Depression, many religious groups suffered a great depression, so in this Great Recession it is natural for many groups to experience some, if not great, recession. But comparing international and local cultural trends, one can only conclude that great numbers of Americans, including many supporters of the mission and ministry of St. Mark’s, moved by their faith, can be counted on.

References:
Marty Martin, June 21 “Sightings”. http://bit.ly/9GuzI6
http://philanthropy.com/extras
http://www.emptytomb.org/
http://www.givingusa.org/gusa/mission.cfm

Graph

2010-10-12T20:18:00.000-04:00

Average Federal Tax Burden

2010-10-12T09:30:00.002-04:00

The Heritage Foundation averages the federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP at 18.2% over the past 30 years. That would seem to be a reasonable target. The tax burden is presently 14.8%.

see http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts

Federal Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

2010-10-12T09:14:00.002-04:00

I believe on of the best ways to gauge whether or not we are over-taxed is to look historically at federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. As you can see, according to this chart, we are below average and thus due for an increase.

The question that must be answered is how best to increase taxes. A net worth tax would be a progressive (as opposed to regressive) solution.

Time for a Net Worth Tax?

2010-10-12T08:46:00.003-04:00

Two systemic problems in our current economic configuration: Some do not save enough. Some do not spend enough.

Saving more improves personal balance sheets, and makes more money available for investment. After a decade of over consumption for those of below average net worth, Americans are beginning to save more.

The downside to saving more, however is that consumer spending by this group will not be the robust engine of U.S. economic growth that it has been in the recent past.

Want to encourage consumption by those who can afford it (given the importance of consumer activity to the economy)? Want to encourage saving by those who don’t save? Tax net worth above the national average at a progressively higher rate. Those below the national average would pay no net worth tax and those above would pay progressively more. 50th percentile maybe 0.01% (marginal rates) of net worth, 75th percentile maybe 1% of net worth, 99th percentile maybe 2 percent of net worth.

New Bishop's Consecration

2010-10-01T15:13:00.001-04:00

Recording of webcast available online

Those who were unable to view the webcast of Bishop Terry White's consecration as the bishop of Kentucky on Saturday because of Internet difficulties, and those who were there but just want to watch it again, you will find a recorded version posted online. Kudos goes to Carlile Crutcher, our videographer, who worked into the wee hours of Sunday morning, to get the webcast recording up by Sunday afternoon.

The video quality at the start may be a bit rough, but it does improve as it progresses. Since its posting, so far 71 people have uploaded the video.

DVDs of service
Those with slow or no Internet connection may still be able to view the consecration in a few weeks. A polished, archival version is being produced by the diocese, and DVDs will be available for a small fee to cover the duplication cost. (The price will not exceed $10; it may cost slightly less, depending upon the total number requested). If you wish to make arrangements to obtain a DVD, contact Mary Jane Cherry, Communications Director, Diocese of Kentucky, at maryjane@episcopalky.org or 502-584-7148.

Other places to visit online
Throughout the weekend, photographers took hundreds of photos during pre-consecration events on Friday, the consecration on Saturday, and the new bishop's seating on Sunday. If you go to the diocese's home page (www.episcopalky.org), you will find links to the photos as well as to copies of the consecration service bulletin, the sermon given by the Rev. Canon Susan Sommer, and photos, a story about Bishop White's seating at the cathedral on Sunday, Sept. 26, and a copy of his sermon, the first given in the Diocese of Kentucky.

A Little Historical Perspective

2010-09-22T09:31:00.002-04:00

Every Member Canvass

2010-09-12T22:14:00.003-04:00

With the Fall stewardship campaigns soon to be launched (Episcopalians call these an "Every Member Canvass"), I thought I would share with you an article written by Martin Marty of the University of Chicago:

The Chronicle of Philanthropy chronicles – you guessed it – philanthropy, and in the June 17th issue reports on Giving USA for 2009. While the category of religion may not always overwhelm casual readers of trend-reports, religious giving is much watched. And there is much to watch. According to another monitoring agency, Empty Tomb, “religion” last year raised 100.95 billion dollars, which means that it represents 33 percent of all charitable giving. While such giving is from the heart and so, on that level, is secret, it is also very public, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service and the reports of the congregations and agencies, most of which must, and do, give scrupulous accounting of the funds.

The public knows that the financial crisis and recession have hit philanthropy hard. The big givers held back most: Gifts in the over-one-million-dollar class were down 63.6 percent! Giving to colleges and universities was down 17.8 percent and to hospitals, down 11 percent. On such a scale, religion held up well. Analysis of 1,247 religious organizations in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability showed giving was down only 3.7 percent there, all according to the Giving USA reckoning. Empty Tomb found that overall giving to religion, after inflation, was down only 0.3 percent.

The first question about statistics is: How accurate are they? One gets the impression from the numerous people quoted in the several Chronicle articles that a) they recognize the surveyors as conscientious, their methods ever-improving, their intentions good, b) but the results are not fully trustworthy. Many observers think that the decline in most of the areas, including religion, the least-declinist, is more steep than reported. These analysts look at annual reports and balance sheets of religious organizations, most of which have had to cut back on personnel and projects because there are smaller funds with which to work. They talk to development officers and financial stewards and draw the conclusion that almost across the board, there’s been a decline of more than 0.3 percent. You might say that the professionals can “feel it in their bones,” trading anecdotes, looking in the mirror, and reading e-mails about unemployed relatives who, no matter where their heart is, cannot keep up with pledges or match those from earlier years.

Why is accuracy important? Consultant Edith Falk says “people want to have these numbers so they can benchmark against national numbers.” They are “also important because they are used to measure just how generous Americans are.” Joblessness, market jitters, and other factors can take a spiritual toll. It is also important to see where priorities are. Dan Busby, president of the Evangelical Council, rightly says that “the impact of the recession has been spotty. Rescue missions and child-sponsor groups in many cases have done well, while others are impacted more significantly.” Favorite causes and those which have commanded loyalties over the years fare best.

In the Great Depression, many religious groups suffered a great depression, so in this Great Recession it is natural for a parade of leaders to experience some, if not great, recession. Those who stress religious motivations, and speak of the bounties from God and the values of community, will not and should not be satisfied with the giving levels in still-prosperous America. But comparing international and local cultural trends, one can only conclude that great numbers of Americans, moved by their faith, can be counted on. Will they prosper if and as the nation “comes out of” its current fix?

References:
http://philanthropy.com/extras
http://www.emptytomb.org/
http://www.givingusa.org/gusa/mission.cfm

On "Park51"

2010-09-10T07:36:00.005-04:00

“Park51” is the initiative undertaken by Sufi Muslims to build a community center to serve lower Manhattan and to build bridges torn up a decade earlier in the 9/11 attack. A great deal of disinformation is being spread about this plan. The proposed community center will have a prayer room, but not a mosque.

The branch of Muslims proposing the center are Sufis, and I suspect that their new center will be more likely than any other building in Manhattan to be bombed by Islamist extremists. Moderate Sufi imams are in the frontline AGAINST the extremes of Islam, not fronts for it, and the extremists hate them because of it. The Imam behind the building of this community center has been an outspoken critic of the extremists, and has worked tirelessly for the cause of peace. The proposed community center is to further that mission--bolstoring those who deplore the violence and wish to promote peace from within the Islamic religion (which as President Bush often reminded us, is the vast majority of muslims in the world).

I commend to you a reflection written by an Episcopal priest serving near "Ground Zero" and the proposed "Park51" project:

http://bit.ly/dgu3r8

On Neighborhood Schools

2010-09-02T11:53:00.002-04:00

Long bus rides by young students are detested by all. All things being equal, nearly all would prefer a school close to home.

Further, people like to have choices. I grew up in a rural area with only one school (public or private)--no choice. I never even thought about the fact that I didn’t have a choice. But, if given the opportunity, nearly everyone would prefer to be able to choose among alternatives rather than the choice being made for them.

Accommodating these two (practically universal inclinations) is difficult. Schools are not like rubber balloons that can inflate and deflate with ease. Schools have a maximum capacity and a minimum usage (below which it is not efficient to keep them open). School boards already struggle with changing demographics and populations (think Oldham county in recent years). In practical terms, there could be no guarantee that a child could attend the school of his or her choice (what if everyone choose the same school?) Even a guarantee that a child could attend the school closest to its place of residence would not allow the flexibility necessary for economic efficiency.

The real problem though is economic segregation. Neighborhoods are economic monoliths. We, as a society, have still not solved the problem of income diversity within a small geographic region. The “problem” being the lack of economic diversity. Comparing the wealthiest and the poorest zip codes in the metro area gives you an idea of the problem neighborhood schools would create.

There are, however, ways of dealing with all of the problems while being sensitive to the inclinations outlined above. The current solution, while commendable on many fronts, has been met with opposition from those who would like more choice and/or would like shorter bus rides for the students.

What if we allowed students residing in the poorest neighborhoods to have first choice as to what school they wish to attend. After the poorest neighborhood has chosen, move to the next poorest neighborhood, so on and so forth. When a school fills, then enrollment would be closed at that school. The idea being that the more affluent have more options due to their affluence (private schools, alternate forms of transportation, etc.) and therefore are more capable of dealing with the inconvenience of more limited public funded options.

Such a system might result in de facto neighborhood schools (if everyone always chose the remaining open school closest to them). But if so, then it would be dictated as such by those most likely to suffer from such a system. Further, if a student from a poor neighborhood preferred a school in a distant affluent neighborhood, then that would be their choice, allowing them the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of such a decision. Students from more affluent neighborhoods would have more limited choices amongst public offerings but due to their relative affluence would be better equipped to deal with such limitations.

There are, however, educational objectives that are best met by creating diverse student bodies. If the above system, created less diverse student bodies. Our children's educations would suffer. If so, would the cost be worth the ability to choose and the convenience of short bus rides?

Bridges, Tolls & 1-64 along the Waterfront

2010-09-02T10:23:00.003-04:00

Interstate 64 along Louisville’s waterfront has been a sore point for the city for some time. In 1999, Doug Cobb (then president and CEO of Greater Louisville Inc., the metro chamber of commerce) proposed solving this problem by removing the interstate, reversing what may be one of Louisville's greatest urban planning mistakes.

In a meeting of the Southern Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Cobb presented the innovative concept to remove I-64 from Louisville's waterfront with detailed drawings of Waterfront Park and the realignment of I-64 to the proposed East End bridge. Mr. Cobb's idea, however, gained almost no media attention, and soon disappeared from public discussions. David Barhorst and David Coyte of the Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation, both of whom were at the 1999 presentation, expressed support for Mr. Cobb’s solution to the I-64 problem.

In 2005, two Louisville business men, J. C. Stites and Tyler Allen launched a public media campaign to advance Mr. Cobb’s idea. Nonetheless, the idea (now rejected by Mr. Cobb as nothing but a “paper dream”) has not gained the support of elected officials in Jefferson County.

Now, with the discussion of tolls in Louisville to pay for new bridges, it is time to discuss the fate of I-64 along the waterfront in this new context.

I’ve been having my own “paper dreams” of late. Thus far the discussion of tolls has centered upon whether or not to toll both new and old bridges or just the new bridges. A different approach would be to use the tolls to deter drive through traffic in downtown Louisville along the waterfront. Once the east end bridge is completed, re-route I-64 around Louisville and toll vehicles that pass through downtown Louisville going both east and west. If we can toll old bridges, we should be able to toll old interstates. Go around downtown, your journey from east to west (or west to east) is free. Go through downtown, you are tolled. One tolling station near the Galt House could serve both East and West bound traffic. The effect of the tolling might help the city in judging the feasibility of Mr. Cobb’s “paper dream.” Would people who were just passing through travel along the waterfront if it were slower (no I-64) or more expensive (tolled)? The toll effect might approximate the effect of eliminating I-64 and give everyone a chance to evaluate the new traffic patterns.

An Object Lesson on July 4, 2010

2010-07-04T11:16:00.001-04:00

Homily for Proper 9 Year C 2010
The Episcopal Church has set aside July 4 of each year as a day of prayer for our nation. Proper Psalms, Lessons, and Prayers were first appointed for this observance in the Proposed Prayer Book of 1786. They were deleted, however, by the General Convention of 1789, primarily as a result of the intervention of Bishop William White. Though himself a supporter of the American Revolution, he felt that the required observance was inappropriate, since the majority of the Church’s clergy had, in fact, been loyal to the British crown.
Writing about the Convention which had called for the observance of the day throughout “this Church, on the fourth of July, for ever,” White said, “The members of the convention seem to have thought themselves so established in their station of ecclesiastical legislators, that they might expect of the many clergy who had been averse to the American revolution the adoption of this service; although, by the use of it, they must make an implied acknowledgment of their error, in an address to Almighty God. . . . The greater stress is laid on this matter because of the notorious fact, that the majority of the clergy could not have used the service, without subjecting themselves to ridicule and censure. For the author’s part, having no hindrance of this sort, he contented himself with having opposed the measure, and kept the day from respect to the requisition of the convention; but could never hear of its being kept, in above two or three places beside Philadelphia.”
It was not until the revision of 1928 that provision was again made for the liturgical observance of the day. Since 1928, however, this observance has been an official day on the Church calendar. For the last decade, we have held a special service on the fourth day of July, here at St. Mark’s, in observance of this special day. At these services, we have sung hymns--musical prayers--asking for God’s blessing upon our country and giving thanks to God for the many benefits we enjoy as citizens of this country. We have offered up prayers to God for ourselves as citizens, and for those who serve us in the government--Administrative, Judicial, and Legislative.
The service has become part of the community’s celebration of this day. We have had nearly as many persons from the neighborhood as we have had members of this parish in attendance.
This year, however, we will have no special observance. I figured since the day of the observance this year, did not fall on the fourth of July, that no one would attend. This year, the observance of Independence Day, falls on the fifth day of July. So, I canceled the service. It is hard enough to get people to come to a special service for our nation when it falls on the fourth of July. I knew it was pointless to attempt it on any other day. Next year, however, when the fourth day of July falls on a Monday, we will once again liturgically observe Independence Day.
As for today, our nation and its founding, rest heavily upon our hearts and minds. We will, therefore, include in our prayers (both sung and said) particular petitions for our country and its citizens. I am particularly aware of those members of our parish who cannot be with us today, because their service to this nation has taken them to Afghanistan or Iraq. While they are continually in my prayers, on this day, I am very aware of the burden upon my heart that concern for their welfare has created.
We have many prayers to make, as we contemplate the state of our union. Environmental diaster on our southern coast, an economic crisis in its third year, two wars that are proving very difficult to end. While our petitions are many, so are our thanksgivings. Even in economic crisis, we enjoy a prosperity others can hardly imagine. We enjoy liberty and freedom few in the history of the world have ever known.
All of this, however, is but prologue to my sermon--a sermon for when “Proper 9 of Year C” happens to fall on the fourth of July. In fact, the sermon is not on the “propers”--as is typical. The sermon is, rather, a meditation on the annomoly of it being Proper 9 of Year C on the fourth of July, 2010.
As many of you know, all Feast Days appointed on fixed days in the Calendar, when they occur on a Sunday, are
transferred to the first convenient open day within the week. There are some exceptions to this rule. Easter and Christmas are such exceptions. Given the importance of the observance of the Lord’s Day, few other observances are to take precedence.
Now I know that this rather strict adherence to the rules of the Church calendar sometimes annoys you. I remember being chastized a few years ago when Holy Week fell during March Madness. I was asked, “Can’t you plan Good Friday on another day?”
I had to explain that I lacked the authority to do so. To change the Church calendar is “above my pay grade.” But we can learn a great deal about ourselves when such conflicts arise. What are our priorities? What are our values? Is the object of our worship the creator, or merely some part of the creation?
Today is an object lesson. Is today the Lord’s Day or is it Independence Day? What we learn from the Church calendar is that the observance of Independence Day does not take precedence. We enflesh that rule by the choice of readings and collects for today. But, I ask myself--how do I enflesh that rule in my life--not just my liturgical observance? Maybe the answer is easy for you, but it is not for me. Historically, it has not been easy for persons of conscience.
As I indicated earlier, most clergy of the Episcopal Church were loyal to the English throne during the Revolutionary War. At their ordinations, they had taken a vow of loyalty to the King and they took their vows seriously.
Those who take their faith and their allegience to any earthly realm seriously must always struggle with the tensions such convictions bring. Its why Rome fed Christians to the lions two thousand years ago. Christians said their ultimate loyalty could never be to the state. Its why Bonhoffer was imprisoned and killed. He said his ultimately loyalty was to God, not his country. Even today, in too many places, governments continue to persecute Christians precisely because we refuse to give our ultimate loyalty to any earthly power.
I suppose their are persons who worship America. Some of them may even think of themselves as Christians. We can’t forget that the vast majority of the citizens of Nazi Germany were church-going Christians. Most clergy, both Catholic and Protestant, supported Hitler and his government. But I don’t know any personally who worship America (at least not of which I am aware). But what we say and what we do are not always in sync. So, I wonder, in the living of my life, when the Lord’s Day conflicts with Independence Day (as it were)--what will I do?

Too Good to be True?

2010-07-04T07:43:00.003-04:00

The Sunday Telegraph has reported the openly gay Dean of St. Albans Cathedral will be the next Bishop of Southwark .

The story is hard to believe.

The process for the selection of a Bishop is very different in the Church of England than in the Episcopal Church: a committee nominates, the Prime Minister signs off on the nominee and the Queen appoints. The Archbishop of Canterbury chairs the committee ("The Crown Nominations Commission"). If the Dean of St. Alban's is the nominee, then the role of the Archbishop in his selection will be an interesting story.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) favored Jeffrey John (Dean of St. Alban's Cathedral) to be the nominee. That Johns would be favored by Williams is hard to believe.

John was nominated to be the Bishop of Reading in 2003, but was asked by Williams to "stand down" before he could be consecrated as Bishop and installed at Reading. If the story in the Telegraph is true, Williams has changed course.

Further, Williams has been critical of the Episcopal Church for consecrating two openly homosexual persons as Bishops. Again, if the story in the Telegraph is true, Williams has changed course.

Williams' position on openly homosexual persons serving as Bishop has, however, been complicated. Before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Williams supported the full inclusion of homosexual persons into the full life of the Church. As the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, he has opposed the consecration of openly homosexual persons to be bishop. Apparently, Williams laid aside his personal convictions in this matter and followed his understanding of the dictates and duties and obligations of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury.

Given this history, the story in the Telegraph is hard to believe.

"Footnotes" to the Blog Post Below

2010-05-17T11:33:00.002-04:00

1. Karen Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity: The Backlash against Secularism,” Harvard International Review, Vol. 25(4) Winter, 2004. See http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1189

2 For an examination of “white flight” see Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).

3 Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988), pp. 14-15.

Of Baptist congregations in the late twentieth century, she writes: “The typical Baptist church had moved to the suburbs.” Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990), p. 54.

One example, Gustav Niebuhr and Gayle White write of First Baptist Church, Atlanta moving to the suburbs. G. Niebuhr and G. White, “Stanley’s plan for First Baptist puts congregation at crossroads,” the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (March 12, 1988), A-1, 18; and “First Baptist backs plan to sell property,” the Atlanta Constitution (March 14, 1988), A-1, 7. It is interesting to place Niebhur and White’s article in the context described by Kruse in White Flight.

4 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 146.

5 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 146.

6 See Ammerman, Baptist Battles, “Table 5.4,” p. 147.

7 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 148.

8 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 148.

9 For Marsden’s more thorough analysis see, George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991).

10 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 149. See also, Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005).

11 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 149.

12 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 149.

13 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 149.

14 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 149. Ammerman cites: A. Swidler, “Culture in action: Symbols and strategies,” American Sociological Review 51(1986):273-286; and Clifford Geertz, Islam Observed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).

15 See James Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) and Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

16 Frank Hobbs and Nicole Stoops, “Demographic Trends in the 20th Century,” Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U. S. Census Bureau, November 2002), p. 14.

17 Hobbs and Stoops, p. 14.

18 Hobbs and Stoops, p. 14.

19 Hobbs and Stoops, p. 14.

20 Hobbs and Stoops, p.14.

21 Hobbs and Stoops, p. 14.

22 Hobbs and Stoops, p. 14.

23 See Ronald Oakley, God’s Country: America in the Fifties (New York: Dembner Books, 1986). Oakley’s chapter “Home, Sweet Home” summarizes both the causes and effects of post-war suburbanization. See also James Patterson, Grand Expectations. For a critique of suburbanization see John C. Keats, The Crack in the Picture Window (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956).

24 George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 3.

25 As quoted by Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 3.

26 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 3.

27 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 4.

28 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 153.

29 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 156.

30 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 164.

31 The phrase “moved underground” is Grant Wacker’s of Duke University Divinity School. See his “Teacher Serve” essay for the National Humanities Center (Divining America, 20th Century).
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm

32 Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, p. 217.

33 Armstrong, Battle for God, p. 234.

34 Armstrong, Battle for God, p. 234. Later Armstrong writes that they “felt uprooted and alienated from the society in which they lived” and “were often newcomers from the rural districts to the rapidly expanding cities.” Armstrong, Battle for God, p. 267.

35 As quoted in Farzana Hassan, Prophecy and the Fundamentalist Quest: An Integrative Study of Christian and Muslim Apocalyptic Religion (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2008), p. 84.

36 Lyman Kellstedt and Corwin Smidt “Measuring Fundamentalism: An Analysis of Different Operational Strategies” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep. 1991), pp. 259-278. They write: “Although a ‘fundamentalist’ segment (defined in terms of the above beliefs) has captured positions of authority within the Southern Baptist Convention, it would be a mistake to label this largest of Protestant denominations as entirely fundamentalist in nature” [emphasis mine]. Fred Grupp, Jr. and William Newman, “Political Ideology and Religious Preference,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 12 (December, 1973) pp. 401-412; Larry Peterson and Armand Mauss “Religion and ‘Right to Life’: Correlates of opposition to abortion” Sociological Analysis 37 (3) 1976, pp. 243-254; F. M. Ethridge and J. R. Feagin, “Varieties of ‘fundamentalism’: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Two Protestant Denominations” Sociological Quarterly 20 (1) 1979, pp. 37-48; Ted Jelen, “Respect for Life, Sexual Morality, and Opposition to Abortion” Review of Religious Research 25 (March, 1984) pp. 220-231; Kathleen Murphy Beatty and Oliver Walter, “Religious Preference and Practice: Reevaluating Their Impact on Political Tolerance,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 48 (Spring, 1984), pp. 318-329; classify individuals affiliated with certain denominations, such as Southern Baptists, as fundamentalists.

37 Compiled from The Quarterly Review: Handbook Issue 48(4), 1988, pp. 70-71, 95. Compiled by Nancy Ammerman. See Nancy Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 52.

38 Sources: For the percent of the population that is rural, “Urban and Rural population: Earliest Census to 1980” (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). For the 1926 figures for churches and membership, Census of Religious Bodies: 1926 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1929). For 1981 figures on churches and membership, The Quarterly Review: Handbook Issue 42(4), 1981, pp. 10, 12. Figures compiled by Nancy Ammerman and published in “Table 3.2” Baptist Battles, p. 53.

39 Ammerman, Baptist Battles, p. 54.

40 Harvey Cox, “Why Fundamentalism Will Fail: A Seemingly Unstoppable Force is Being Undone from the Inside” Boston Globe, November 8, 2009. See http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/?page=1

41 Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2009), p. 1.

42 Jonathan Weber, “Demographic trends now favor downtown” in “The Big Money” for MSNBC, May 20, 2009. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810275/from/ET/

43 Patrick A. Simmons and Robert E. Lang, “The Urban Turnaround” Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000 (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2003), pp. 51-62.

44 Aaron M. Renn, “The New Look of the American Suburb,” at Urbanophile: Passionate About Cities (Sunday, April 18th, 2010). http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/04/18/the-new-look-of-the-american-suburb/

45 Cox, “Why Fundamentalism Will Fail,” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/?page=4

46 Ammerman, Bible Believers, p. 16.

47 Peter Smith, “Southern Baptists Fret Over Decline as Annual Meeting Begins,” USA Today (June 10, 2008). See http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-06-10-southern-baptists_N.htm

48 Cox, The Future of Faith, p. 1.

49 Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity: The Backlash against Secularism,” Harvard International Review, Vol. 25, 2004.

50 Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity.”

51 Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity.”

52Armstrong, “Resisting Modernity.”

53 Cox, Future of Faith, p. 1.

Decline and Fall of Fundamentalism (at Least in the Suburbs of America)

2010-05-17T11:31:00.000-04:00

Karen Armstrong defines religious fundamentalism thusly:
Religious fundamentalism represents a widespread rebellion against the hegemony of secularist modernity. Wherever a modern, Western-style society has been established, a religious counterculture has developed alongside it in conscious rebellion. Despite the arguments of politicians and intellectuals, people all over the world have demonstrated that they want to see more religion in public life. The various fundamentalist ideologies show a worrying disenchantment with modernity and globalization. Indeed, every single fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation. All are convinced that the modern, liberal, secular establishment wants to wipe out religion. Each fundamentalist group has sprung up independently; each even differs significantly from other fundamentalists within their own faith tradition. But at the root of all these movements is the same visceral dread that is rapidly being transformed in some quarters into ungovernable rage. This should not surprise us; culture is always contested, and the proud secularism of Western modernity was almost bound to inspire a strong religions reaction.1

Given Armstrong’s definition, the casual reader may be surprised to learn that Harvey Cox believes fundamentalism is in decline. Modern, liberal, and secular influences are not on the wane. Why then would a religious reaction to such influences be in decline? What follows is a reflection on that question.

While Professor Cox speaks of a global decline of fundamentalism across faith traditions, this paper narrowly focuses on Christian fundamentalism in America in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The following will demonstrate a correlation between the growth of suburbia in America and the growth of Christian fundamentalism in America and the reasonableness of predicting a decline in Christian fundamentalism in America in the near future.

A Comfortable Spot in the Suburbs

Certain strands of fundamentalism in late twentieth century America are connected with suburbia. Suburban self-identified fundamentalist congregations (faith communities) are overwhelmingly inhabited by suburbanites of two types: “white flight” suburbanites and “urban migration” suburbanites.2 The former have left the city for the suburbs because they have become disenchanted with modern urban living and retain some animosity toward both the urban center of cities and modernity in general. The later have left the farm and a life in rural American for a new life in the suburbs with all the possibilities and challenges the move offers. Together, these two groups of first generation suburbanites form the core of many fundamentalist congregations.

Nancy Tatom Ammerman, a sociologist, in her book Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World analyzes a fundamentalist congregation describing it as occupying “a comfortable spot in the suburbs.3 In her research, Ammerman finds that where people grew up and whether they had moved later to a different sort of place made a difference in their religious beliefs.4 Those who grew up in the suburbs or small cities were more likely to adopt a non-fundamentalist brand of Christianity.5 Those who grew up on farms, however, were least likely to locate on the left of center.6 Further, she found that those who had grown up on the farm, but moved to the suburbs as adults, were, as a group, the most likely to self-identify as “fundamentalists.”7 Those who grew up on the farm and continued to live in rural areas were not as likely to describe themselves as fundamentalists. She posits that those who have moved from farm to suburb identify “with a movement that has historically sought to preserve threatened values.”8 Ammerman’s sociological research points to a reality the historian George Marsden has noted as well. Marsden quipped: “An evangelical is someone who loves Billy Graham. A Fundamentalist is someone who loves Billy Graham and wants to fight about it.”9 Those who stayed on the farm, while equally as religiously conservative as their suburban cousins, don’t have a need to fight about it.

The second group that Ammerman found most likely to identify with fundamentalism was the group that grew up in urban centers, and chose as adults to move to the suburbs.10 Ammerman argues that the appeal of fundamentalism as a religious ideology was greatest for those who felt the greatest disruption from the effects of the suburbanization of America.11 She describes them as “those who moved from farm to city and those who fled big cities.”12 Thus, those most likely to identify themselves as “fundamentalists” (at least among Baptists) were those who were part of the twentieth century’s urbanization of America (farm to city) and those who were part of the twentieth century’s “white flight” (urban center to suburban living). With regard to the suburbs, Ammerman writes: “If fundamentalism can be defined as a movement in organized opposition to the disruption of a previously accepted orthodoxy, then we would expect to find it thriving in just such places.”13 On this point, she writes

Indeed religion’s very character is different when it must face a changing environment. In a relatively undisturbed setting, religious practices are tightly interwoven into the fabric of life. One learns prescribed rituals as part of an array of necessary knowledge for membership in the group. Beliefs about the deity or sacred scripture are appropriated alongside beliefs about planting and harvesting, birthing and burying. While culture is undisturbed by outside intruders, by changes in technology or climate, these everyday ways of being and believing remain central to the group’s way of life. But when change occurs, everyday patterns of life are thrown into disarray, and the links between beliefs and practices are disrupted. Things that used to work do not work anymore. Ways of making a living, relating to neighbors, and even relating to God, are made uncertain by the dislocation of the cultural system. What used to come naturally no longer seems plausible. What used to be possible by habit must now be thought about, reevaluated, rationalized, perhaps even given a new sacred meaning. People have to think about why they do what they do, as well as whether they want to do it at all. Both patterns of living and the ideas that legitimate those patterns are “up for grabs” in times of cultural disruption and transition.14

The American Dream

Sociologically and demographically the post-World War II growth of suburbia in America has been well documented.15 The growth of the suburbs was driven by two migrations: urban center to suburbs and rural to suburban. As for the later, the population of the United States grew increasingly metropolitan from 1910 to 2000.16 In 1910, 28% of the population lived in urban areas. By 2000 80% of the population would live in metropolitan areas. Most of the growth in metropolitan areas was suburban growth. Half of the population of the United States would live in suburbia by the close of the century.17

“Metropolitanization” characterized much of the demographic change in America in the 20th century. Before the second World War, the majority of the population lived in rural areas. By the end of the century, 4 out of every 5 people would live in metropolitan areas (and half of these would live in suburbia).18 The growth was essentially the growth of the suburban population. By the year 2000, the urban core would represent a smaller share of the population than it did at mid-century.19

In 1910, only 21% of the population of the United States lived in central cities (the urban core) and only 7% lived in the suburbs.20 As the metropolitan areas in America grew, the suburbs grew disproportionately. Beginning in 1940, the suburbs would account for the majority of the growth of metropolitan areas. Post-World War II there was a massive migration of people into new suburbs. By 1960, the proportion of the U. S. population living in the suburbs (31%) was roughly equal to that of the urban core (32%).21 For the remainder of the century the proportion of the population living in the urban core would be stable, but the suburbs would continue to grow substantially.22

The reasons for this growth was multifaceted, but included the social legacy of the Great Depression, the end of the war, the return of the soldiers to the U. S., those former soldiers beginning families, the consequent “baby boom,” the “G. I. Bill,” government backed loans for first time home buyers, and the availability of relatively cheap automobiles and cheap gas to run them.23 The chart below, from the U. S. Census Bureau, tells the story.

Before Crabgrass was a Concern

At the same time the suburbs were growing, fundamentalism was growing. Fundamentalism, however, was not born in the suburbs. Fundamentalism’s origin was among evangelical Christians in the early twentieth century and predates the emergence of suburbia. The “gilded age” was seen by many (not just those who would become fundamentalists) as a turning away from God.24 In his Preface to Morals, Walter Lippmann (no fundamentalist) complained of the “irreligion of the modern world.”25 Thus, the 1920s were for many a time of profound spiritual and cultural crisis. Fundamentalists believed “modernity” and the theory of evolution had brought about this social and cultural catastrophe.26 Fundamentalism was a militantly anti-modernist movement. Of this movement, George Marsden writes: “Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought.27 Fundamentalism’s campaign was to purge the congregations of modernism and schools of Darwinism.

Before World War I the fundamentalist movement was quiescent. After the war, fundamentalism emerged as a cultural force. The disruption caused by the returning of soldiers from war, labor disputes, and terrorist bombings engendered panic and alarm. Further, there was (as intimated above) concern and angst over rapidly deteriorating moral standards.28 Finally, the threat of “Bolshevism” weighed heavily upon the American psyche.29 This sense of disruption, though temporary for most Americans, was only the beginning for Fundamentalists.30 From 1920 to 1925 fundamentalism flourished and maintained impressive vitality. The “Scopes Trial” of 1925, however, would mark the end of this phase in the history of American fundamentalism. The trial, with the public scrutiny that accompanied the trial, drained fundamentalism of its vitality. Fundamentalism moved into the shadows and out of the lime light.

Revive Us Again

After 1925 and into the 1930s, fundamentalism “moved underground,” building schools, colleges, seminaries and missionary agencies.31 Of this period, Karen Armstrong says “There were ‘two nations’ in America, unable to share each other’s vision of the modern world.”32 She labels this period of fundamentalism’s history in America as a time of “counterculture.” Whether “underground” or forming a “counterculture,” fundamentalism was to reemerge from the shadows.

Armstrong terms the period of reemergence as “mobilization.” Of fundamentalism, she writes: “They had often experienced modernity as an aggressive onslaught.”33 But, they were beginning to mobilize. And, their ranks were increasing. The growth was internally attributed to “God’s blessing” upon the movement. Sociologically, however, the growth was due to the increasing number of persons who were experiencing the secularization and rationalism of modern urban societies as disruption. By the 1960s many evangelicals, with “roots” in rural America, found themselves in metropolitan settings (most often suburbia) and they were “angry and were determined to fight the liberals and secularists who had, they believed, oppressed and marginalized them.”34

Mass media played a role in the development of late twentieth century fundamentalism. Pat Robertson established his “Christian Broadcasting Network.” Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, and a host of lesser known “TV evangelists” began disseminating their beliefs via modern mass media. There is a certain amount of epistemic tension created by using modern mass media to combat “modernity.” Nevertheless, the growth was spectacular. During the 1980 presidential election, Pat Robertson declared: “We have enough votes to run this country!”35

The Southern Baptist Convention, while not monolithically fundamentalist, is nonetheless a good barometer of the growth of fundamentalism in the twentieth century.36 In 1931, the Southern Baptist Convention reported 3.9 million members. By 1986 that number had grown to 14.6 million.37 In 1926, 92% of Southern Baptist congregations were located in rural areas and 72% of members lived in rural areas. By 1981, only 50.1% of Southern Baptist congregations were located in rural areas and only 25.3% of members lived in rural areas.38 The decline of Southern Baptists rural base entailed the spectacular growth of their suburban congregations. Sociologist Nancy Ammerman summarizes this phenomena “The typical Southern Baptist church had moved to the suburbs.”39

As has been shown, the growth of suburbia and the growth of fundamentalism is positively correlated. If suburbia is one place where socially conservative persons meet modernity and experience the disruption of previously conceived norms, and fundamentalism is birthed in such places of disruption, then it is not surprising to find the two conjoined in this way.
Prospects: the Decline and Fall

Professor Harvey Cox, in an article for the Boston Globe, says “for all its apparent strength, the fundamentalist sun is setting on all horizons.”40 He continues, “a tectonic shift in religion is underway, and the fundamentalist moment is ending.” In his 2009 book, The Future of Faith, Cox argues that the “age of belief” is being supplanted by an “age of the spirit.” When pondering the future, Cox posits that “fundamentalism, the bane of the twentieth century, is dying.”41 There are sociological and demographic reasons to believe he is correct, at least about Christian fundamentalism in America.

The future for suburbia will be different from the past. Jonathan Weber, writing for MSNBC, has noted “Most demographic and market indicators suggest that growth and development across the country are moving away from the suburban and exurban fringe and toward center-cities and close-in suburbs.”42 With regard to population growth, the 1990s were the best years for central cities since the 1950s.43 For the concerns of this paper, however, the most important piece of data is the slowing of rural to urban migration. While the suburbs will continue to grow, the growth will be fueled by births and immigration from abroad (or recent immigrants from abroad moving from central cities to the suburbs), not rural to urban migration. The suburbs will, therefore, take on a different persona in the future. The first suburbs are now aging and need renewal. Such renewal is apt to be provided by recent immigrants from abroad.44 Agriculture being industrialized, the main force driving rural to urban migration, only happens once. In America, it happened in the early to mid-twentieth century. That migration pattern is now in the past. While they will continue to grow, the growth of the suburbs will be demographically different in the future.

The future for fundamentalism will be different from the past. Second generation suburbanites do not tend to become fundamentalists. Professor Cox writes: “Virtually anywhere on the planet, it is hard to imagine the grandchildren of fundamentalists reconciling themselves to their tightly constricted spiritual world.”45 Ammerman’s sociological data confirms his intuition. Ammerman writes: “Although they carefully surround ‘church kids’ with a biblical world, a large number of Southside’s [a fundamentalist congregation’s] youth, like the youth across Fundamentalism, choose to leave when they reach an age of consent.”46

First generation suburbanites will decline in number in the years to come. The mass migration of farm to city that followed World War II has now ended. What was a flood has become a trickle. “White flight” migration of those in the urban core to the suburbs has also now ended. Again, what was a flood, has become a trickle. In some places, the trend may even be reversing itself, with some city centers showing population growth. As this first generation of suburbanites dies, those institutions they supported, such as communities of faith, will have to find new patrons or decline themselves. If a congregation remains committed to fundamentalism, the congregation will be in decline. If the congregation begins to accommodate the second (and third) generations of suburbanites, the congregation will not long remain fundamentalist. The spectacular growth of fundamentalism, like the growth of suburbia, may be slowing, or may have even already peaked and is presently in decline. If the Southern Baptist Convention is a barometer, then it is interesting to note that from 2001 to 2006 their membership did not grow, but remained flat. Beginning in 2007, their membership has been in slow decline.47

Put another way: if fundamentalism is produced by the disruption caused by being introduced to modernity as an adult and fewer and fewer adults are being introduced to modernity (the majority of the population having grown up with modernity), then one would expect fundamentalism to wane. The conditions necessary for the flourishing of fundamentalism are abating. Fewer and fewer adults are being introduced to modernity. More and more of the population grows up in modern urban settings. Children of fundamentalists live in a world that is secular, and yet religion is seen to thrive. Modernity has not annihilated religion the way many feared (and others hoped). As Professor Cox indicates in The Future of Faith:
The resurgence of religion was not foreseen. On the contrary, not many decades ago thoughtful writers were confidently predicting its imminent demise. Science, literacy, and more education would soon dispel the miasma of superstition and obscurantism. Religion would either disappear completely or survive in family rituals, quaint folk festivals, and exotic references in literature, art, and music. Religion, we were assured, would certainly never again sway politics or shape culture. But the soothsayers were wrong. Instead of disappearing, religion--for good or ill--is now exhibiting new vitality all around the world and making its weight widely felt in the corridors of power.48

Karen Armstrong has noted, “every single fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation. All are convinced that the modern, liberal, secular establishment wants to wipe out religion.”49 Second generation suburbanites are not apt to share this fear with their parents.
Postcard from Suburbia

Karen Armstrong defines religious fundamentalism as “a widespread rebellion against the hegemony of secularist modernity.”50 As she has surveyed the contemporary religious scene, wherever she has encountered a modern, Western-style society, she has noted a religious counterculture developing alongside it in conscious rebellion. One such place were American suburbs. People all over the world have demonstrated that they want to see more religion in public life. In America, the suburbs have been inhabited by just that sort of person. The world’s various fundamentalist ideologies show a disenchantment with modernity and inhabitants of America’s suburbs, many having moved there from rural areas, isolated from modernity in many ways, suddenly experience the disruption modernity can bring. Others come to the suburbs, fleeing the city’s center, trying to escape modernity by escaping from an urban existence.

While each fundamentalist group around the world has sprung up independently; and each even differing significantly from other fundamentalists within their own faith traditions, still “at the root of all these movements is the same visceral dread.”51 The very same visceral dread was to be found in American suburbs across the country. Culture always being contested, it is not surprising to find the secularism of modernity inspiring a strong religions reaction.52 This strong reaction can be seen in suburbia.

While it may be surprising to learn that Harvey Cox believes fundamentalism is in decline at a time when modern, liberal, and secular influences are not waning, Prof. Cox’s intuition is nonetheless confirmed by a sociological/religious reflection on America’s suburbs. The population growth of America’s suburbs is correlated to the growth of religious (Christian) fundamentalism. As the flow of migrants from rural areas and the inner city slow, so will the growth of fundamentalism. Prof. Cox is correct, “fundamentalism, the bane of the twentieth century, is dying.”53

2010-05-14T22:32:00.003-04:00

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Protestant Free Supreme Court

2010-05-14T11:51:00.003-04:00

A few days ago, I noted that Justice Stevens was the last protestant on the Supreme Court. With Kagan being nominated for his seat, we will have no protestants on the court. We will have six Roman Catholics and three Jewish justices serving on the bench. My initial thoughts: (1) we Episcopalians have had more than our fair share, we can't complain; (2) living in Louisville, home of Justice Brandies, it is nice to know that only a short time ago, it was unthinkable that there would be three Jewish members setting on the court and not only will there be three, but no one is thinking twice about it (I call that real progress); and (3) this certainly does mark the passing of the WASP (White, Anglo, Saxon, Protestant) dominance of civic life in America (which is, to my mind, a good thing, so no tears being shed on this keyboard).

Along these lines, it is nice to note that for the first time there will be three women on the bench.

But, I also note that the court will have only graduates from Harvard and Yale as members. I guess we can take only so much diversity. Oh, well. Some establishments change. Some stay the same.

Book Review: "The Left Hand of God"

2010-04-26T20:25:00.001-04:00

Michael Lerner, The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006).

According to the back jacket flap of the book, the author, Rabbi Michael Lerner, is the editor of Tikkun magazine and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue of San Francisco and Berkeley, California. Rabbi Lerner received a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California, Berkeley and in clinical psychology from the Wright Institute. The subtitle of the magazine he edits, Tikkun: A Bimonthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture, and Society summarizes his current interests. He is well known as a political, cultural, and social critic operating from and out of his Jewish faith.
In summary, Rabbi Lerner argues that “...a social change movement that allowed itself to learn from the accumulated spiritual wisdom of the human race would have an immense potential to engage the most creative energies of the American people…” (p. 382). He divides his project into two parts. Part One presents his critique of American politics, culture and society which he finds in a state of spiritual crisis. Part Two is comprised of his proposed response to this crisis which includes a spiritual covenant with America. The subtitle of the book, “taking back our country from the religious right” accurately describes both Lerner’s concern in Part One and his solution in Part Two.
Lerner describes the “right hand of God” as muscular, powerful, saving and liberating. Lerner describes the “left hand of God” as compassionate, nurturing, loving and caring. Lerner’s thesis is that the “left hand of God” has been ignored by both the political right and left in America. The political right has allowed the religious right to celebrate the “right hand of God” but has ignored God’s left hand. The political left has failed to learn from the accumulated spiritual wisdom of the human race and has instead chosen to celebrate a secular (religion free) vision of America. Consequently, God’s left hand has been ignored. Lerner’s prescription for recovery is for people of faith to celebrate the “left hand of God” the way the religious and political right has celebrated the “right hand of God.”
Lerner argues that the religious right is aware of the growing depression that people are feeling, a deep emotional depression amongst Americans--a lack of any hopeful picture of what the world could be. And that failure, the failure to paint a more hopeful picture, is not a failure of the “religious right” in general or the premillenial-dispensationalist-fundamentalists in particular, but rather, its a failure of the mainstream political framework in America to address the major questions facing the world in the 21st century. He calls on the “religious left” to reinvigorate the conversation in America and address this failure by promoting the religious sensibilities embody in the metaphor of the “left hand of God.”
Drawing on the political effort by Newt Gingrich and the Republican party in 1994 in developing and promoting a “Contract with America,” Lerner advocates a new “Spiritual Covenant with America.” He says, “Its the Democrats’ turn” (p. 227).
Lerner’s “Spiritual Covenant” proclaims a commitment to the traditional spiritual values of love, generosity, kindness, responsibility, respect, gratitude, humility, honesty, awe, and wonder. He outlines public policy commitments on families, personal responsibility, social responsibility, education, health care, environmental stewardship, security, and science. He calls on people of faith to promote this spiritual covenant.
By way of evaluation, Lerner’s thesis is well supported. His belief that America is in the midst of a spiritual crisis is substantiated by his many examples of people searching for meaning in a despiritualized world. He draws on his work as a psychotherapist in this “diagnosis” of the “symptoms” and causes of the crisis. In Lerner’s interviews with spiritual seekers, he hears repeated concern for the erosion of social values, the vices of greed and over-consumption, the instability and fragility of families, the search for community, and the monetization of all aspects of life. Further, he makes a well reasoned argument that the political right has recognized and exploited this crisis of spirit. In the search for spiritual meaning, Americans have been drawn to right-wing religious communities for comfort in the midst of the crisis and instruction on how to fix what is broken. The political right has embraced these seekers and provides an answer for the question Thomas Frank asked in his 2004 book What’s the Matter with Kansas?: why do Americans vote against their own economic interests in supporting the political right. Lerner would answer that those in spiritual crisis favor the spiritual over the economic.
Lerner’s line of reasoning, that the solutions offered by the political right have not so much alleviated the spiritual crisis of America as it has traded on the political value of the crisis, will sound intuitively true for those on the political left, but is not apt to persuasive to any on the political right. But, the political right is not Lerner’s audience. As he makes clear in the second half of his book, he is writing for people of faith and calling people of faith to embrace a politics of meaning that is broader than the program of conservative politics in contemporary America.
The book is ambitious and therefore raises the expectations of the reader. Those expectations will not always be met. At places, The Left Hand of God, wants to move in all directions at once and thus loses its focus. Similarly, it is not only sprawling, but rambling at points. Perhaps the most serious concern, however, is in the central metaphor of the text: God’s hands.
The God of American popular culture in the early twenty-first century is pictured by Lerner as a deity with two hands: one raised in triumph (the right) and the other bandaged and hanging limply in a sling (the left). One might, therefore, expect an argument for a God with two working hands, neither being neglected, both equal in strength. But by the end of the book, clearly Lerner would really prefer a left handed God whose right hand is tied behind God’s back. The metaphor, in this way, breaks quickly. Lerner clearly has a politically liberal reader in mind and he makes no attempt to engage a skeptical politically conservative reader. This critique, however, is based on a misunderstanding of the metaphor.
Lerner never intends his metaphor to bring to the reader’s mind the sort of God implied by this critique. Rather, Lerner intends his provocative metaphor to expand a liberal secular reader’s understanding of the potentiality inherent in religion and to encourage the disenfranchised religious left not to lose heart. The metaphor is meant, to say “Look! God doesn’t have just one hand! Religion is multifaceted and neglected by the political left. End the neglect. Let’s exercise God’s other (left) arm!” In this way, the metaphor works beautifully. But when a person of faith, rather than a person of the secular left, picks up the volume, the metaphor gives rise to an unintended expectation of “balance” in politics and harmony in the culture war. In this way, the subtitle plays an important role and should not be overlooked. Lerner is plotting a strategy to take “back our country from the religious right.” It is for another author to provide a vision of a two handed God; a God who empowers and strengthens and in whose might justice prevails and a God who is always concerned with the plight of the poor and the marginalized, a God of steadfast love. Exploring the implications of an ambidextrous God is not Lerner’s concern.
Lerner also develops the metaphor of the mind of God having both a left and a right hemisphere. He writes of the “perfection” of God, hinting at a God that is not only not one handed but who exercises both the right and left sides of the brain in a balanced, harmonious, and healthy way. Drawing on his background in psychotherapy, Lerner creates an analogy to bipolar disorder and suggests that we have portrayed God as manic in right brain function and depressed in left brain function. Again, this analogy suggests the need for a leveling, a dose of theological lithium to restore healthy behavior. These are, however, just hints and not the purpose of his project. Another author, with greater sensitivity to the religious right, such as Jim Wallis, might develop this project in such a direction and thereby draw some of the religious right to Lerner’s vision. Lerner’s rhetorical style, however, is not well suited for that task and his focus is the secular liberal reader, not the reader of the religious right.
Lerner’s work calls to mind a book by President Jimmy Carter Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis published in 2005 by Simon & Schuster. Carter, like Lerner, analyzes the political and religious right and comes to many of the same conclusions, but from his Christian (Baptist) faith. Likewise, Lerner’s and Carter’s work is similar to Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it. It is no coincidence that Wallis‘ book is published by the same publishing house as Lerner: HarperSanFransico. These three, and others like them, point to an emerging trend in the early years of the twenty-first century, the desire by some on the political left to remove the right’s seeming monopoly on religion in America.

Religiosity of the Supreme Court

2010-04-22T12:45:00.002-04:00

John Paul Stevens is currently the only Protestant jurist on the United States Supreme Court. Justice Stevens has announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Of the eight remaining justices, six self-identify as Roman Catholic and two as Jewish.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that there will be no religious tests for office. But until fairly recently the Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly Protestant and 35 have been Episcopalian (more than any other religious group).

For the nation’s first two generations all members of the court were Protestant. In 1836, Justice Roger Taney became the first Catholic member. But for thirty years after Taney, the court was again entirely Protestant. Edward Douglas White ended the “Protestant monopoly.”

In the early twentieth century the nation began to expect a “Catholic seat” and then also a “Jewish seat” on the court. The nomination of the first Jewish Justice, Louis Brandeis, was bitterly contested. Anti-Catholic sentiments were also still common in the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite the nation’s uneasy relationship with its Catholic and Jewish citizens, the practice of having one Jewish and one Catholic Supreme Court justice continued more or less from 1916 until 1972 (Nixon broke with the tradition).

In 1967, Justice Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American to join the court and in 1981 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to do the same. Recently, I dare say, we have not viewed religion to be as important as race and gender.

In 1985, when asked about the future of maintaining a Catholic seat on the Supreme Court, Catholic jurist William Brennan remarked that in fifty years’ time “no one will care about these things.”

For the Record the “Top Five”: Episcopalian 35; Presbyterian 19; Catholic 11; Unitarian 10; and Jewish 7.

Avatar & Religion

2010-04-14T17:15:00.001-04:00

The question:

Week 9 and 10 Response Paper Assignment - Due April 14th

Very simply: write 500-700 words on the aspects of the film relevant for not just religious issues, but religious issues in America. What connections can you make between the film and particular themes we have discussed so far in class? What does this film suggest about the general relationship between Hollywood and religion in American society? Make sure to keep your response within the word limit, even if this keeps you from discussing every example of American religion in the film you’ve selected.

My answer:

I selected Avatar because Professor Cox promoted us viewing it in a lecture. As Prof. Cox indicated, it has broken box-office records around the world (including here in America) and was nominated for the “Best Picture” award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science.

Most obviously, the name of the film has religious connotations for Hindus in America. The term “avatar” is used in sacred Hindu texts to denote incarnations of deities. For instance, Rama, the seventh avatar of the deity Vishnu, of the sacred poem Ramayana, is (in the Sanskrit language) an “avatar.” Krishna is the avatar in the epic poem Mahabharata.

The term “avatar,” however, is currently used by those who play virtual reality games or participate in virtual reality social networks or learning environments. In these contexts, avatars are the participant’s “incarnation” in the virtual reality world of the game, social network, or learning environment.

To all but practicing Hindus, the term “avatar” has this later connotation, most Americans being oblivious to the etymology of the word. Nonetheless, there are a significant number of Hindus in America and there were some initial protest from Hindus to James Cameron’s use of the term as the film’s title. Rajan Zed, president of Universal Society of Hinduism (based in Nevada), in a press release, said that “avatar” was one of the central themes Hinduism and insensitive handling of faith traditions sometimes results in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and consequently injures devotees.

The interplay between religion and the film, however, does not end with its title. American Roman Catholics were warned by the Vatican that the film flirts with the worship of nature (see Alessandra Rizzo’s article in January 12, 2010 Huffington Post). Vatican Radio said the film “cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium.”

For many theologically liberal Christians the film’s exploration of the themes of imperialism, greed, ecological disregard and corporate irresponsibility were welcomed and warmly embraced. Neopaganism, of which Pope Benedict was concerned, did not seem to worry liberal protestant Christians.

Ross Douthat wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times that called the film “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism.” I find that assessment unwarranted by the content of the film. “Apologia” is too strong a word. The Vatican’s “flirt” is more accurate. Ross goes on to say that “pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation.” And names, “The Lion King,” “Pocahontas,” “Dances with Wolves,” and “Star Wars” as examples. Again, I find his judgment unwarranted. Disney’s portrayal of African religious practice in “The Lion King” or the portrayal of Native American religion in “Pocahontas” and “Dances with Wolves” is hardly the advocacy of pantheism. You can quibble with whether or not the films gave an accurate portrayal (given the limitations of the genre and medium), but to suggest that the films promote or are an evangelistic tool of pantheism seems silly to me. Avatar struck me as a remake of “Lawrence of Arabia” and I have never heard anyone suggest that “Lawrence of Arabia” was an apologia for Islam. Ross believes pantheism to be religiously misguided. I agree. “Avatar,” however, is not to my mind (as he suggests) an apologia for pantheism.

More interesting was Jonah Goldberg’s opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. Goldberg summarizes the film thusly: the hero “goes native, embraces the eco-faith of Pandora's Na'Vi inhabitants and their tree goddess, the "all mother," and rallies the Pandoran aborigines (not to mention the Pandoran ecosystem itself) against the evil forces of a thinly veiled 22nd century combine of Blackwater and Halliburton.” Whereas I was not sure if Ross and I watched the same film, Goldberg and I certainly did. Like Goldberg, what I find interesting is how the film is unapologetically religious and yet a “blockbuster” and an Academy Award nominee.

Ross’ litany of films he believes promotes pantheism can be seen as a litany of films that have religious plot elements or themes and I would note that all were successful at the American box office. To my mind, rather than seeing Hollywood as a den of heresy, the take home lesson here is that America is very comfortable with religion, even when the religious convictions being expressed are not their own and further the popularity of these films attest to not only the comfort with religion (which is passive) but the nature of America to be affirmative of religion (a more active/positive response).

2010-04-13T16:54:00.000-04:00

Holy Week Reflections by Rowan Williams

2010-03-31T09:34:00.001-04:00

ENGLAND: Archbishop of Canterbury offers Holy Week reflections

By ENS staff, March 30, 2010

[Episcopal News Service] Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is giving three Holy Week lectures in a series entitled "The beginning of the Gospel -- reading Mark's life of Jesus."

In the March 29 lecture, titled "History and Memory," Williams talked about Mark, the origins of his work and how the Gospel of Mark "has an exceptional impact." He also spoke about the purpose and the goal of the book and what scholarship has been doing with Mark's gospel for the last century. A questions and answers session followed the lecture.

The March 30 lecture is titled "Unveiling Secrets" and the final lecture on March 31 is to address "A Lifelong Passion."

Williams is presenting the lectures at Canterbury Cathedral.

Multimedia versions of the lectures are available here.

In addition, Lambeth Palace has posted a Holy Week video message in which the archbishop calls the days leading up to Easter "a week when we discover in a way we don't do at any other time just who we are and just who God is." A transcript of his message is here.

God vs. God

2010-03-11T10:19:00.002-05:00

Sean Hannity was recently scolded by bloggers for being disinterested in Mosab Hassan Yousef’s theology. The Fox TV host was castigated for being too politically correct to join Yousef in his attack on Allah when Hannity interviewed Yousef on his March 4th program.

Yousef said, “There are no moderate Muslims.” “All Muslims are the same,” (that is, they are all militant). He adds, but the "most criminal terrorist Muslim has more morality than their God” (what Yousef calls “the God of the Koran”). Further, he stated, “Their God is a terrorist and ignorant.”

The following day, the Wall Street Journal published an interview of Yousef by Matthew Kaminski. The headline read: “THEY NEED TO BE LIBERATED FROM THEIR GOD.” It turns out that liberation is not merely physical liberation by military force, but also spiritual liberation. Yousef says his father is “doing the will of a fanatic God…a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God.” People “don’t want to admit this is an ideological war [but]…[t]he problem is their God.” Yousef claims that the God of the Koran is the real enemy we must fight.

Yousef is living in the U.S. and is a convert to Christianity. He often speaks of “the grace, love and humility that Jesus talked about.”

Here we have God vs. God, our God vs. their God, good God vs. bad God. Mosab Hassan Yousef’s book, Son of Hamas, presents a view of the “God of Islam” which is a distortion and bears no resemblance to the God of Abraham which all Muslims, Christans and Jews worship. It is easy, in our world, to forget that we are talking about the same God--the God of Abraham. As Abraham’s children, we are siblings. In this way, there is no “us” and “them”, only “us” and “us.”

Yousef may be right about some things, but I know he is wrong about God. There is but one God.

Documentary

2010-03-08T23:02:00.002-05:00

I am making a short documentary for a class I am taking at Harvard this Spring semester (part of my sabbatical). Spent the day conducting an interview with a biologist on evolution. Tomorrow more interviews.

More on Maximum Wage

2010-03-05T10:20:00.002-05:00

From a 2006 Atlantic Monthly article on income distribution in the USA. Illustrates why I believe we need a"Maximum Wage." http://bit.ly/9f8f11

Homosexuality & Christian Scripture

2010-03-02T16:37:00.002-05:00

You can now purchase a copy of my lecture from 2004 on Homosexuality and Christian Scripture from Carmichael's Bookstore in Louisville, Kentucky. Both the Frankfort Avenue and Bardstown Road locations have copies available. I am going to give the proceeds (if there are any) to the Fairness Campaign.

Each book comes with a DVD of the lecture.

Great for study groups! Read the book. Watch the DVD. Talk about it!

Wording of Amended Motion on ACNA

2010-02-10T14:01:00.000-05:00

The Church of England's General Synod debated the following Private Member's Motion by Lorna Ashworth:

“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”

The final amended text that Synod voted for is as follows:

That this Synod, aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

"(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011."

Ode to Wittgenstein

2010-02-04T10:08:00.001-05:00

http://bit.ly/9zAJsy

Street Creeps and the Maximum Wage

2010-02-03T09:16:00.001-05:00

More in the paper today about bonuses being given to AIG employees. I repeat. We need a maximum wage (see below).

Analogy

2010-01-29T10:38:00.002-05:00

Imagine your house is on fire. What do you do?

I’d call the fire department.

Let’s say the fire-fighters save the house. It could have burned to the ground, but they were able to save it. Fire damage was done. It will be costly to fix, but it is so much better than having lost the whole house to the fire. It was costly to the city, paying fire-fighters and maintaining equipment and housing both fighters & equipment and training the fire-fighters and buying equipment, etc. But, my neighbors figure it was worth all the expense, since the fire department was able to stop the spread of the fire and their houses were spared. The costs are high; so, “What do you do?”

I’d bake the fire-fighters some brownies, maybe write an op-ed piece in the local paper extolling the virtues of the fire department, and be very grateful, filled with thanksgiving, for their coming to my aid.

In addition, however, I notice that the fire-fighters broke windows, some of which, in hindsight, they might not have had to break to put out the fire. What do I do?

Nothing. I figure it was an emergency and they had to make split second decisions. Under those circumstances, mistakes are bound to be made. Its the nature of an emergency. I don’t like it and frankly the fire department doesn’t like it either--but under the circumstances I figure these sort of things happen.

Once the fire was clearly being vanquished, I began to wonder what caused the fire. And I was grateful to see the fire marshall, on the scene, already investigating the cause of the fire. As relief comes that the emergency is over my anger begins to swell. I am mad. I want to know what caused the fire. My anger needs an object.

My neighbor points out that I campaigned against a local ordinance mandating that every home have working smoke detectors. At the time, I did not believe the government needed to intrude into my life--my home--by making it a crime to choose not to have a smoke detector. I said that even if the ordinance passed, I would then fight the funding for enforcement of the ordinance. I firmly believed there was too much government regulation in our lives. My neighbor said, that at the time, I had convinced him--but now, after my house burned, he was going to buy a smoke detector as soon as possible. I ask myself, am I a big enough man to admit I was wrong?

No. I’ll wait for the Fire Marshall’s report and assign blame elsewhere. What’s the point of blaming myself? And then I begin to wonder--what will the Fire Marshall find? What if that wiring, I had repaired by the “moon lighting” electrician, and never had inspected, caused the fire? What if my insurance will not pay for the damage, if my actions caused the fire? I’ve got to study the policy--quick. I resolve, no matter what the facts, I will not allow this to become my fault. I rethink the baking of brownies and the writing of op-ed pieces. Maybe I will sue the fire department for the unnecessary damage done to my home. If I am implicated, I can object to the Fire Marshall, maybe I can claim that he had it in for me since I had opposed the smoke detector thing. Then, maybe I can get the Fire Marshall fired and everyone will then doubt his investigation and the city will pay for the whole thing just to get me to shut up and then it will not matter what my insurance company will or will not pay. I’ll be put right. I wonder if I can sue for more and make a little money on this deal. Maybe move to a bigger house. I never really liked this one anyway.

------------------

Now, in this tale, I wonder...who is the home owner whose house burned down? What could the house be? Who are you in this story? How could the story have ended differently? If you could tell the story, how would you tell it?

Remove Ben Bernanke?

2010-01-25T18:03:00.005-05:00

I am surprised that the anger of the hoi polloi might cost Ben Bernanke his job. I agree with Paul Krugman's assessment. He wrote today "Mr. Bernanke is a superb research economist. And from the spring of 2008 to the spring of 2009 his academic expertise and his policy role meshed perfectly, as he used aggressive, unorthodox tactics to head off a second Great Depression."

Bernanke is a Republican, so I am sure he does not have much political cover within a Democratic administration. But partisan politics aside, he knew his economic history and he knew how to avoid the same mistakes that lead to the Great Depression. He navigated those waters as well as anyone could possibly hope. I applauded the new administration when it reappointed him to head the Federal Reserve despite his political affiliation. I thought Time magazine got it right when it named him "Man of the Year."

There were a host of economic mistakes that led to our most recent gilded age, but Bernanke is hardly responsible for almost thirty years of ill concieved deregulation and a system of regressive taxation. He is, however, responsible from saving us from the effects of our folly. The medicine Dr. Bernanke administered was difficult to swallow and tasted awful--but it was better than allowing the disease to run its natural course.

We should be building a monument to honor Ben Bernanke, not removing him from his post.

Candidates for 8th Bishop of Kentucky

2010-01-23T13:37:00.000-05:00

http://bit.ly/8bC2Gg

MoAmy has posted the names of the candidates for 8th Bishop of Kentucky.

Time for a Maximum Wage

2010-01-22T17:03:00.004-05:00

A maximum wage was effectively in place in the United States from 1942 until 1964 during which the highest tax bracket was taxed at a rate of 91%. Its time to re-enact a maximum wage law.

A wage of ten times the minimum wage sounds reasonable to me. How many minimum wage earners are you worth? Three, four maybe. You work long hours--you are worth more than someone who only puts in 40 hours a week. The quality of your work is far superior to your collegues--you are worth at least two of the guys down the hall or across the factory floor.

But is anyone (ANYONE) so productive that their work could possibly be worth more than 10 miniumum wage workers? Currently about 2% of the American workforce makes more than ten times the minimum wage. We should use the income tax code to impose a maximum wage. If a maximum wage was enacted, 98% of Americans would not be taxed at a higher rate--but the excesses of our most recent gilded age would be brought to an end. With all the griping about Wall Street executive pay in Congress, on the editorial pages and among taxpayers, the President set new limits on pay at financial firms getting government assistance. CEOs at companies getting the most help from the government saw their salaries capped at a half million dollars a year. This came after President Obama described the huge bonuses and perks on Wall Street as shameful. It is not, however, just banking and Wall Street CEO's, but anyone with income more than 10 times the minimum wage.

In England, the "Statute of Artificers of 1563" implemented statutes of fixed maximum wage scales; Justices of the Peace could fix wages according "to the plenty or scarcity of the time". We need a modern version of the "Statute of Artificers." We need a maximum wage.

To counteract the increase in prevailing wages due to scarcity of labor, American colonies in the 17th century created a ceiling wage. We need a new ceiling wage. We need a maximum wage.

No one's work is of such quantity or quality to justifiy the compensation recieved by the top 2%. Enough is enough. It's time for a maximum wage law.

2010-01-19T09:54:00.001-05:00

The following is from Martin Marty of the University of Chicago on Pat Robertson's recent remark concerning Haiti:

"...The incident shows development and expansiveness in Robertson, who has been one of the most consistent critics of secular humanism in all its forms. Yet for this – his televised revelation of the meaning of the catastrophe – the evangelist drew not on the Bible but on secular humanist sources.

You won’t find “pact with the devil” in your biblical concordance, as the phrase did not enter our culture from the Bible. Mention a “pact with the devil” and you will immediately be dredging up the explicit language of the Faust legend, whether from Marlowe or Goethe or Thomas Mann, who told classic versions of Dr. Faust’s famed contract. Search the literature and you will find secular humanists touting the greatest, Goethe’s Faust, as a “secular humanist manifesto.” Something good to say about Robertson, then? Yes: We like to document popular evangelicalism’s enlarging scope; here is an instance. Could Robertson have been courting secular humanists with this turn to non-Biblical sources?

Goethe’s Faust is big in college curricula and Great Books clubs and among opera goers; but the story of a pact with the devil also shows up in less elite circles, including one most explicit source. Guy Endore’s Babouk (1934) is a fictionalized version of the incident Robertson used to explain the curse on the Haitian people, who, in his estimation, deserved the earthquake because of an ancestral pact with the devil. Stalinist Endore did his research in Haiti, and came back to tell the story of Babouk, his version of Duffy Boukman, believed to have been the agent of the Haitian revolution against the French. Could Endore’s bad Communist novel have been Robertson’s source? If so, then we see the scope of sources that Robertson takes to be “true stories.” "

2010-01-16T16:20:00.001-05:00

The following review has appeared (proof that someone read my book!)

Charles Hawkins, Beyond Anarchy and Tyranny in Religious Epistemology: Postliberalism, Poststructuralism, and Critical Theory, University Press of America, (1997) - Read in December 2007. Charles Hawkins takes as the underlying premise that postliberal theology could learn much from comparison with poststructuralist theory. Both approaches are open to charges of relativism; Hawkins suggests that poststructuralism's more nuanced approach to the relativist charg. Hawkins quotes Richard Bernstein's diagnosis of cartesian anxiety which has as its sympton the problem that either there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelop us with madness, with intellectual and moral chaos" (p. 156). The emphasis on context in both poststructuralism and postliberalism has made this (universal) fixed foundation unobtainable. The result is not, argues Hawkins, an intellectual and moral chaos because both traditions are open to alternate readings. Although the comparison between postliberalism and poststructuralism was a little forced this was an interesting book worth a read if you can pick it up second hand.

Richard Gillingham, Liverpool, United Kingdom
BTh in Theology from Chester Univeristy (2002)
MA in Religion, Politics and International Relations from the University of Wales, Lampeter (2004).

http://www.subrationedei.com

2010-01-15T15:40:00.000-05:00

News from the Episcopal Church in Haiti:

"We have devastating news to share with you from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake yesterday...the damage in Port au Prince and areas around it is terrible.

There is no Cathedral. The entire Holy Trinity complex is gone. The convent for the Sisters of St. Margaret is gone. The Bishop's house is gone. College St. Pierre is gone...In Trouin, four people were killed during a service. In Grand Colline, the church is gone.one part of st Martin of tours is gone...In St. Etienne Buteau the church, the rectory and the school are gone.

The Rev. Kesner Ajax"

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-09T21:43:00.000-05:00

Terry Gilliam’s Brazil is one of my favorite movies. When Gilliam is good, he is very good. (His Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Time Bandits are guilty pleasures for me). Therefore, I looked forward to viewing his latest film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. It is his best work since Twelve Monkeys. I was not disappointed. It is worth seeing (even though it does not rise to the cinematic heights of Brazil).

The film is an allegory and a morality tale; a coming of age story and the age old story--good verses evil. Not everyone will appreciate its mythic quality. But for those who, like me, do--they (maybe you?) are in for a real treat.

I remind you that Parnassus is the home of poetry, literature, music, and learning. Mount Parnassus is named after Parnassos, the son of Kleodora and Kleopompus or Poseidon (all mythical Greek figures). The club “Rain on Fifth” in the film is a play on the story of Parnassos. Parnassos was the leader of a city flooded by torrential rain. The citizens escaped the flood by fleeing up the mountain slope.

In another tale, Orpheus is said to have lived on Mt. Parnassus. When Apollo was courting another resident of the mount (the muse Thalia), he developed a fondness for Orpheus and gave him a golden lyre and taught him to play. Tony’s golden flute is a play on Orpheus’ golden lyre. The golden flute gets Tony out of trouble time and again. Just as Orpheus’ mother teaches him to write verse to music of the lyre, Doctor Parnassus teaches his daughter to dream, to use her imagination and shape the world.

In Paris, Montparnasse is the nick name of an area of the city known for its public recitations of poetry. The film is perhaps best viewed as visual poem, epic in scope, and not far removed from the sort of tale Homer or Hesiod might have told if they had trafficked in video rather than parchment.

Hermann Hesse (twentieth-century, German author) used the fountain at the base of Mt. Parnassus (Castalia) as the name of a fictional province in The Glass Bead Game. Castalia had been a nymph until Apollo turned her into a fountain. Dedicated by Apollo to the muses, poets would come and drink of its sacred water for inspiration. The temple at Delphi was washed in the water of this fountain. Many poets and oracles have inspiration in the once nymph. Gilliam drank deeply at the fount. Hesse’s main character is Knecht (Knight) whose best friend is modeled on the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche. Knecht, at the end of the novel, imagines other lives he might have lived. Gilliam’s film is like the game of which Knecht becomes a master--requiring years of hard study in music, mathematics, and cultural history. Essentially the game is an abstract synthesis of all arts and scholarship. It proceeds by players making deep connections between seemingly unrelated topics. Imagine that.

Back in ancient (mythical) Greece, Zeus sends a flood to destroy the Pelasgians and Prometheus saves his son from the deluge by building him an ark; an ark that comes to rest on Mt. Parnassus. Like Prometheus, Doctor Parnassus wishes to save his child. Mining a vein that would make any existentialist rich, Gilliam works these themes the way Camus worked the Myth of Sisyphus.

Doctor Parnassus was once a monk; a monk dedicated to telling the sacred story, a story he believed brought order to the universe and sustained that universe. When a Mr. Nick silences the monks and the world does not cease to exist, Parnassus refuses to stop believing. Like Kierkegaard’s Knight of Faith, he takes a leap. Mr. Nick (like Doctor Faust’s Mephistopheles) makes a wager with Doctor Parnassus. Parnassus wins the bet and is given immortality. As you know, you should be careful for what you wish, your wish might be granted. Immortality (not surprisingly) has a down side.

Mr. Nick likes a man who will wager with him, so he and Doctor Parnassus fight an endless battle for souls. Will a soul dare to imagine, to dream, and if so, will the dream create a world of goodness, or a world of evil. Choices. Its all about freedom and choices. At one point in the film Doctor Parnassus, exhausted from the cosmic struggle, says he is tired of choosing (but he must, there is no choice but to choose).

Like Eve, Doctor Parnassus‘ daughter will be tempted (apples appear several times in the film and in one scene the daughter, Valentinia, strikes an Eve-like (nude) pose. Valentinia reaches the age when one must choose for oneself and leave the dreams of one’s parents behind. It is a difficult moment for both child and parent. Doctor Parnassus fights for the soul of his daughter, but ultimately it is she who must do the choosing. Her salvation is not his anyone’s hands but her own. Her name, reminiscent of the patron saint of romantic love (thanks to Chaucer), is no coincidence. Neither are the name(s) of her potential lovers. Both are named Anthony. One goes by Anton and the other Tony (you will remember that Mark Anthony was famous for being the lover of Cleopatra). The parent in us all aches for both Parnassus and Valintina and the choices they must make.

The connections (like the glass bead game) are seemingly endless. Mark Anthony claimed he was a descendant of the demi-god Anton, the son of Hercules. Hercules’ winged horse was Pegasus and--can you guess--Pegasus came from Mt. Parnassus.

The Corycian Cave (named for the nymph Corycia), on the slope of Mt. Parnassus, is sacred to both the muses and to the god Pan. One enters the cave to bath in the spring waters, sleep, dream, and be inspired. In modern day London, one enters “The Imaginarium” of Doctor Parnassus. When you enter, how will you choose?

The Emerging Church

2010-01-09T11:35:00.004-05:00

Leslie Nipps in an article for the Journal of Associated Parishes (the august body that lead the way toward the 1979 Book of Common Prayer) has written on a topic of interest to those who attend the Saturday evening (vigil) service at St. Mark's. In talk about the "emerging church" she says (in part): "They are grounded in the Tradition as they insist the Church be relevant to today. The portmanteau word is “AncientFuture,” and it implies a critique of Church which is either mired in out-of-date conventions, practices and doctrinal debates; or superficially guided only by the passing fads of modern American life. A “Living Tradition” is the conviction of emerging church practitioners. It also especially refers to worship expressions; these evangelically grounded leaders are re-discovering the richness both of ancient liturgical forms, and of more expressive ceremonial."

You can read more at the link above.

Mary Daly Remembered

2010-01-08T16:44:00.003-05:00

I just learned that Mary Daly died on Sunday. She was 81 years old. I was her sole defender in my M.Div. theology class. She, naturally, would have told me that she did not need a male to defend her. She, naturally, would have been right.

She called herself a "post-Christian radical feminist." I cannot improve upon that moniker.

Her work was not easy reading for male Christians preparing for service to the Church. I enjoyed her irreverence and that she made the fundamentalist's blood pressure rise. The later was great fun to watch. But her work (and the reactions to it) were more than merely some species of performance art. With regard to the substance of her work, it seemed to me that she was nearly always right. The question for me was always "as a male, Christian, serving the Church, how do I act given the truth she speaks?" Most of my classmates were merely interested in responding to Daly--not to the world as Daly unveiled it.

Daly called my attention to the scandal of particularity of the incarnation. For her purposes, it was the gender of the Christ that bore scrutiny. On this point, she seemed to me to be obviously correct: Christians claim that God was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, a male living in Palestine, a couple of thousand years ago. Given that the Christ was male, and there is a long history of sexism with males as the perpetrators, will Jesus' maleness not further oppress women--not liberate them? If the face of God is a male face, what are women to think? Further, she was right--there was no escaping it.

We will, I believe, do well not to dismiss these observations to quickly, but rather acknowledge them and struggle with them as Jacob wrestled with his angel. I am not willing to turn lose of Christianity, but neither am I willing to turn lose Mary Daly.

2010-01-03T22:55:00.001-05:00

Excellent 0n-line course being offered by Harvard. Surf over and check it out. http://www.justiceharvard.org/

Happy New Year.

2010-01-01T22:14:00.002-05:00

The C-J ran an article today concerning tax reform. Some months ago I (and other religious leaders) were scheduled to meet with the Governor. I was unable to attend, however, so I sent a letter instead. My letter was about tax reform. I am, therefore, glad that the issue is getting some attention. Taxation in Kentucky is in need of reform.

Currently in Kentucky low-and middle-income families pay more as a share of their income in taxes than do Kentuckians with high-incomes. The tax burden needs to be lifted from the shoulders of low-and middle-income families.

In 2007, the poorest 20% of Kentucky residents paid 7.8% of their incomes in state and local taxes. The richest 1% paid 5.8% of their income in Kentucky taxes. Fairness would dictate the opposite--that those who can best afford to spend a greater percentage of their income for the common good do so.

The wealthiest 20% of Kentuckians have more income than the poorest 80% put together. Furthermore, between 1988 and 2008 Kentuckians in the top 1% saw
their (inflation-adjusted) average incomes rise by 34%. Meanwhile, middle-income earnings grew by 5.9%, and the poorest 20% saw their real incomes rise by just 3.5% over this period. Taxing the poor is not only immoral, it is not apt to raise much revenue (hence Kentucky's budget woes).

Kentucky needs a new "property" tax. Property is more than real-estate. What should be taxed is one's net worth--a levy based on the aggregate value of all household holdings, including real-estate, but also including cash, stocks, bonds, trusts, annuities--anything of value.

Kentucky could require declaration of the tax payer's balance sheet (assets and liabilities), and from that ask for a tax on net worth (assets minus liabilities), as a percentage of the net worth exceeding a certain level.

India, Switzerland, and France all impose this sort of tax.

Further, the sales tax should be eliminated altogether (vice taxes would remain). Income tax should be retained, but re-structured. The bottom third of households (with regard to income) should be exempted from the income tax. Beginning with the 34th percentile, the current system of taxing 2%-6% could be expanded. 1% tax rate on 34th percentile; 2% on 50th percentile; 3% on 60th percentile; 4% on 80th percentile; 5% on 90th percentile; 6% on 95th percentile and 7% on the top 1%.

The combination of a net-worth tax and an income tax would remove the tax burden from the poor (the bottom third) and ease the burden on middle-income households (the middle-third) and place the burden in its proper place--with those best able to support the common good.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T13:58:00.001-05:00

In the words of Tiny Tim, "God bless us, every one!"

Thanksgiving: Not Good for My Diet

2009-12-03T21:09:00.002-05:00

I've been "off the farm" for a couple of weeks. Tonight, however, I weighed-in. Gain of 1.6 lbs. Oh, well. Tomorrow begins a new week.

No loss of weight this week.

2009-11-13T16:16:00.003-05:00

in fact, not only did I not lose weight I gained 0.4 pounds. But I was really bad. I didn't record my intake of food all week and I ate whatever I wanted. This week, I gotta get back on the wagon.

2.4 more pounds!

2009-11-06T10:15:00.003-05:00

I moved in the right direction again this week! Weight Watchers tells me I have lost 2.4 more pounds.

Lost 3 pounds this week.

2009-10-29T21:20:00.002-04:00

Weight Watchers thinks I have lost 11.8 pounds so far. 3 pounds in the last week! Much better than last week!

39 Articles of Religion

2009-10-27T17:09:00.002-04:00

In the back of the Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, in the "Historic Documents" section, you will find a copy of the "39 Articles of Religion." While these articles have no formal authority in the Episcopal Church, they do still have formal authority for many other places in the Anglican Communion. Given their historic role in the shaping of Anglicanism, I find the interest of some Anglicans in becoming Roman Catholic rather interesting.

Here are some excerpts to give you an idea of what I speak:

Article XIX. Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Article XXII. Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Article XXXVII.
...The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England…

Saying Bye to MySpace

2009-10-27T14:07:00.002-04:00

I put up a My Space page a couple of years ago to promote the reform of the health insurance industry in Kentucky. Given the current political state and the role of reform of the health insurance industry nationally, I have deleted my site. If I have anything interesting to ad to the discussion, I will ad it here. If I come across any interesting links, I will add them here.

Unhappy on Bayly

2009-10-23T16:56:00.003-04:00

I gained weight this week. :=(

I am 1.3 pounds heavier this week than I was last week. I didn't exceed my "points" and I dutifully recorded everything. I am told some weeks are like this--but it is discouraging.

Church Shopping

2009-10-22T15:59:00.003-04:00

A fifth to a third of my parish is comprised of former Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics make very good Episcopalians. I have heard them tease "All the liturgy--none of the guilt" as though they were intoning a commercial for Anglicanism. Would that all my parishioners felt such pride and joy in being Episcopalian.

The former Roman Catholics in the parish I serve appreciate the Episcopal Church in ways that cradle Episcopalians sometimes take for granted. Those Roman Catholics who migrate to Canterbury come because they seek a place where their heart and their head can co-exist. The Roman Catholic Church ceased to be that place for them. They became convinced that women should be allowed to be priests, or that priests should be allowed to marry, or gay and lesbian persons should be treated with dignity and respect, or the use of contraception is not immoral, or that abortion should be a woman's choice even if it is always a tragic choice, or they are divorced and they don't want to have to pretend they were not married the first time in order to marry again, or....I could go on and on here--but you get the idea. Their convictions change and they don't want to pretend they believe other than the way they do and so they leave and in their exile they stumble across the Episcopal Church and find a new home. Call it Catholics on the Canterbury trail. Would that we all could better see ourselves as pilgrims.

Likewise, since Henry VIII made himself (rather than the Pope) the head of the Church in England, some Anglicans have crossed the Tiber and returned to Rome. The Anglicans (or Episcopalians as we call ourselves here in the States) have been too Protestant for the liking of some born Anglican and they have found themselves in Rome and at home. Would that all could find a place to call home.

News has come this week that the Vatican is making the journey to Rome easier for those Anglicans so inclined. Anglicans except Romans as properly baptized and confirmed and ordained. So, the transition has always been easy for those moving toward Canterbury. Historically, Rome has been less hospitable--but the rigidity has been part of the attraction and the lack thereof amongst Episcopalians part of the repulsion. This week the Pope made it a bit easier. Hospitality is a Christian virtue. Would that we all were more hospitable.

I am sympathetic with those who feel like refugees from the faith of their childhood. I left the religious tradition of my youth and as an adult did my own migrating. I understand why people leave and why they come--on an existential level. I also think it is unfortunate and tragic.

We are all poorer after we Church Shop. The cost is sometimes necessary--but it is still expensive. The places we leave are poorer for our going. Admittedly, the places to which we travel are enriched--but the new theological segregation makes us all poorer. It is not a zero sum game. The Church is richer when our diversity is visible on a local level. We are poorer when that diversity is hidden behind denominational labels. Would that we were richer, as well as hospitable.

Doing the Math

2009-10-16T09:26:00.002-04:00

With regard to my goal of loosing 104 pounds in 52 weeks, I am on track. Two weeks down and ten pounds down. Fifty weeks to go. 94 pounds to go.

Week 2 a Success

2009-10-15T18:46:00.002-04:00

I am pleased to inform you that I lost 5 pounds in the last week. I now have lost a total of 10 pounds since I started Weight Watchers. I have, however, one less point a day for week 3.

Traveling and Dieting

2009-10-14T22:08:00.002-04:00

If I lose any weight this week it will surprise me. I haven't cheated--but I have used a lot of my allotted points! On a good note, I managed to drink all my water today.

Long Car Trips are Tough on the Diet

2009-10-13T17:22:00.002-04:00

I only have 3 points left for the day and I haven't had dinner yet! Like the prodigal son, I squandered my resources (weight watcher points) in riotous living (fast food).

Day 10 or so

2009-10-11T18:16:00.002-04:00

Truth is, I have lost count. But the good news is that I have been very good. I have yet to exceed my allotment of Weight Watcher's points. I still can improve, however, on the quality of my spent points. I need more vegies in my diet and I still need to up the water intake. Oh well, tomorrow is another day! We will keep on keeping on.

Lost 5 Pounds this Week

2009-10-08T20:37:00.003-04:00

I am pleased to inform you that I lost 5 pounds in my first week on Weight Watchers. 1 week down and 51 to go. 5 pounds down and 99 to go. Remember: my goal is 104 pounds in 52 weeks. All in all, a good start.

Day Five

2009-10-07T11:02:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I managed to get all my water down my throat (thanks Crystal Light!). I learned I really need to change my "regular order" at my favorite oriental restaurant (I consumed way too many points at lunch).

Day Four

2009-10-05T21:25:00.003-04:00

Gotta drink more water. I did really poorly on the water today. I still have not exceeded my allotment of points! And I played football tonight (played on the offensive line so I wouldn't have to run--I fall down when I try to run--its a brain thing).

Day Three

2009-10-04T21:23:00.002-04:00

So far so good. I haven't "cheated" on my diet. I have very faithfully recorded everything I have eaten and I have stayed under my allotment of Weight Watcher points. My children are a little concerned they will never get to eat at their favorite establishments again (they were trying to figure out how many points were in my usual Mexican meal). I went for a nice bicycle ride yesterday. If the weather is nice, I hope to do it again tomorrow.

I am supplementing my water drinking with crystal light. I haven't given up on just water, but a little flavor makes it a bit easier for me at this point.

Day One

2009-10-02T22:07:00.003-04:00

One day down, 364 days to go. I was very good. I ate fewer points than I was allotted. I still, however, need to work on drinking more water and eating more vegetables. My children are not very excited about Dad's diet. But it will be good for them too.

Honoring the Body

2009-10-01T21:53:00.002-04:00

Before I got sick and was out for a bit, I resolved to take better care of my body. I determined that I would reduce my Body Mass Index to below the recommended 25. I got sick, however, and gained more weight during my illness and recovery. Now that I am better, I find I have more weight than ever to lose. To help me reach my goal, I have joined Weight Watchers.

As I was sitting in the meeting tonight, I was mulling the movie Julia and Julie (or is it the other way around?). Like Julie, I am going to give myself a year to complete my goal. In my case, however, it is not recipes, but pounds. I am going to lose 104 pounds in 52 weeks.

I will keep you posted.

Third Reflection on Rowan's Reflection

2009-09-21T21:31:00.001-04:00

In the Archbishop’s view, for any province to undertake blessing same-sex unions or consecrating openly gay bishops, would be a major break with the way that the church has consistently read the Bible for two thousand years, and would be unacceptable unless a strong theological case were to be made and a high level of consensus achieved among Anglicans and across the ecumenical spectrum, which has not happened. At present, he suggests, anyone in a same-sex union is in a similar position to a heterosexual person living with a lover to whom he or she is not married, and so not able to have a role which involves representing the church. This standard would condemn Cranmer and Parker, both bishops “representing” the church.  Please note that Canon 7 of the Second Lateran Council (1139) provided that marriages contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law regarding celibacy would not be regarded as matrimony--i.e., would be invalid. Thus, priests could not (in the eyes of the Church) marry. Those outside of the Church might recognize a couple as married, but the Church would view the priest as merely living with a woman not his wife. Such a priest would, according to Williams, be in the same position as a gay person living with a partner. 

Consider the first two Archbishops of the Reformation. Thomas Cranmer, a widower, was ordained priest c. 1520; in July, 1532, he married again, but the marriage was invalid under Canon 7 of Lateran II. As Cranmer was consecrated with papal approbation on 30 March 1533, it might be argued that Clement VI knew about the secret marriage and decided to overlook it. Unless that is the case, however, Cranmer was, by Rowan Williams’ standards, precisely as unable to serve as a bishop as Gene Robinson.  Consider further Matthew Parker. Parker was ordained priest in 1527; in 1547, the first year of Edward VI, he married. Again, the marriage was in violation of both canon (changed in December of that year) and statute (changed in 1549). The statute of 1549 was repealed by Queen Mary's First Act of Repeal in 1553, and under Mary's Injunctions of 1554, all "married" priests were required to be deprived and divorced. Elizabeth then recognized existing clerical marriages by section XXIX of her own Injunctions in June of 1559, just in time for Parker to be nominated as Archbishop in August. So Parker, unlike Cranmer, had a valid marriage at the time of his consecration in December, albeit one that had been invalid when contracted and also for the preceding five years. (We might also note that its 1559 re-validization depended on the lay Royal Supremacy, rather than on any clerical power.) But so far as I know, Parker did not put away his wife during the time in which the then-invalid marriage would have made him, as a priest, an inappropriate representative of the Church.  It is particularly problematic that two of Dr. Williams' predecessors might not qualify for an invitation to Lambeth.

(Thanks to “4 May 1535+” for putting me on to this. See “4 May 1535+” comment at http://jintoku.blogspot.com/ I am curious as to "4 May 1535+" relation to the Carthusian Martyrs.)

More on Rowan Williams

2009-09-20T14:52:00.000-04:00

The second in a series of reflections
on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection

“The truth shall set you free”--Jesus.

The Archbishop asks, “Is the Church free to recognize same-sex unions by means of public blessings?” The Rev. Anne Vouga, Priest of the Episcopal Church canonically resident in the Diocese of Kentucky and passionate reader of the Archbishop’s theological work, has suggested that I should say more about the Archbishop’s use of the word “free.” She suspects it may be for him an important concept and his use of it may mean that he is indeed being proscriptive rather than descriptive.

I have already indicated some of the problems with a “proscriptive” reading of his reflection and have concluded that his reflection is best understood as “descriptive.” Further, I have said that if descriptive, I can find no fault in his requirements for a positive answer to the question he posits. If, however, his reflection is taken as proscriptive, I find his requirements to be problematic. Finally, I have suggested that we be generous in our reading and assume he is being descriptive. I now turn to a less generous reading.

As Archbishop, Rowan Williams has felt constrained. He has said that his office, as Archbishop of Canterbury, constrains him to speak only of behalf of the Anglican Communion and forces him to lay aside his own theological convictions. Perhaps, better said, would be to say that he “brackets” his theological convictions in a Husserlian sort of way, perhaps unbracketing them at such a time when he no longer finds himself encumbered by the duties and obligations of being the Archbishop of Canterbury. Conversely, one could say he does not feel free to speak his mind--only the mind of the Anglican Communion. Thus, it is easy for observers to conclude that his deepest theological conviction (a particular ecclesiology perhaps) supersedes his theological commitment to the theological concept of being free. In fact, he may not see “freedom” as theological at all, but merely political or social.

I suppose that when a Yankee speaks of freedom to a Brit, the specter of the American Revolution necessarily raises its head. The British do seem to be rather preoccupied by Colonization, the British Empire (and its fragmentation), et.al., in a way reminiscent to the way the Vietnam War haunted Americans two decades ago (and still haunts in some quarters). Since, arguably, the Anglican Communion is the last vestige of British Empire, perhaps it would not be shocking for the Archbishop to hear the word “free” in a political and not a theological way. Certainly, in the quote from Jesus with which I opened this essay, it is not easy (if even possible) to disentangle the political from the theological. One must remember that the context of Jesus’ remark was his living under the colonization of another empire--the Roman Empire.

With that caveat, however, I find it hard to believe the Archbishop would be vulnerable to that particular British malady. He is, no doubt, familiar with the theological concept of freedom and its importance. Despite his reference to “civil liberties,” I find it difficult to believe that he hears all talk of freedom to be outside the bounds of theology. Perhaps, he simply believes that some in the conversation have a merely secular understanding of freedom that is forming the basis of their convictions on this particular issue. In so far as that is true (and I cannot say one way or the other), then he is certainly correct to say that a purely secular understanding of civil liberties is insufficient to ground a doctrine of the Church. Likewise, if one’s belief in human dignity is grounded in the United Nations declaration of Human Rights, then such a grounding would be insufficient for the grounding of a doctrine of the Church.

He does not allude to the freedom one finds in Christ. He does not speak to the notions of justice and love embodied in the prophets. His mentioning of the forming of the individual conscious of the believer, does, however, bring to mind the Baptist doctrine of “soul competency.” Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ have also done considerable theological work in this area. I am supposing that this is the theological background for his use of the word “free.” He combines this background with the Christian obligation to be “pastoral” in our response to those in need or want. For the prophets those in need or want were the widows and orphans and others marginalized by their society. For Jesus it was women, Samaritans, tax collectors, lepers, and others marginalized by their society.

While he chastises those who do not have a theological understanding of being “free.” He also suggests that even those who do, are not appropriately applying the concept in this conversation. If this is the correct reading of his phrase, “...the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter,” then he perhaps setting up a dichotomy between the sort of freedom individuals have and the sort of freedom the Church has. Perhaps, this dichotomy is rooted in his own experience in being the Archbishop of Canterbury. Remember he feels that while he has the freedom of forming his own conscience, he does not have the freedom of expressing that conscience in his role as the Archbishop of Canterbury--he can only express the conscience of the Anglican Communion. Likewise, perhaps he is suggesting that while other individual members of the Episcopal Church have the same freedom, the Episcopal Church as a whole should only express the conscience of the Anglican Communion (or the Church with a capital C). If so, perhaps his requirements are indeed proscribing the appropriate behavior (in his mind) of the Episcopal Church.

I am tempted at this point to explore the notion of a group having a conscience analogous to that of an individual. I am also tempted to explore the paradox of one acting upon their conviction that others cannot act on their convictions. I will, however, resist these temptations and instead continue on the course already set.

The Archbishop’s comments on the Anglican Communion being a “mere federation” might be instructive here. Some have taken his dismissive attitude to “federation” as preferring some other way of organizing ourselves--such as monarchical. Perhaps, however, he is simply dismissing as unimportant a political analysis of the situation. If all we are is a particular way of organizing ourselves (whether federal, monarchical or whatever), then we are not Church. Perhaps, he does not want to engage a political analysis, but to raise the conversation to the theological. Perhaps he feels we are stuck on the level of political analysis and we should be moving on to a theological analysis of the situation.

If this is his intent--I have a word of caution for the Archbishop. Just as it is difficult to disentangle the political from the theological in my opening quote from Jesus, likewise it is difficult to disentangle the political from the theological in this situation. Aristotle’s great insight was that form and substance are always found together. Thomas of Aquinas found Aristotle helpful to his theological project, perhaps the Archbishop should as well.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop may be suggesting that if we only understood the organic nature of the Church, we would bracket our convictions the way he has done as Archbishop, and do nothing that is not representative of the whole. In this, if this is indeed his intent, I fear he is in error.

First, the Episcopal Church is not the Archbishop of Canterbury. He may feel that he represents the whole of the Anglican Communion and cannot take any stance that is not representative of the whole. The Episcopal Church, however, does not represent the whole of the Anglican Communion. We are but one of thirty-eight provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Second, I do not know why he feels compelled to use Lambeth Resolutions as infallible doctrinal statements reflecting “the mind” of the Anglican Communion. If that is the role of such resolutions, we should not pass anymore resolutions. The Episcopal Church has never agreed to the Anglican Communion having any binding authority upon us. No instrument of unity, no resolution of any one of the instruments of unity, are binding or enforceable. This is the political analysis the Archbishop dismisses, but it is the concrete manifestation of our theological convictions. The same theology that prevents the Eastern Orthodox Church from recognizing papal authority, prevents the Episcopal Church from recognizing the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and any of the “instruments” that office has developed in recent years in the hope of promoting some sort of “unity” among Anglicans. If the concrete manifestation of his theology is converting the Primates meeting into a Roman style Curia, then his theology is in error. If the concrete manifestation of his theology is converting the Archbishop of Canterbury into a Roman style Pope, then his theology is in error. He would be better served looking to the East (as he has often done) for better models of organizing. Further, the theological impulse he dislikes and sees as merely secular, is rooted in our reformation heritage. Being Anglican means being both Catholic and Reformed. As Archbishop of Canterbury he needs to remember, if he is to represent the whole, to be both--not just Catholic, but Catholic and Reformed.

Catechesis with the Rector

2009-09-01T10:57:00.001-04:00

“Catechesis (pronounced /ˌkætəˈkiːsɪs/) is an education in the faith which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.”

The Rector of St. Mark’s is the Rev. Charles Hawkins. Dr. Hawkins has been the Rector of St. Mark’s since August of 2000. He holds two master degrees and a Ph.D. in theology and has done additional study at Oxford University (Oxford, England) and the University of the South (Sewanee, Tennessee).

This year, the Rector will be regularly conducting a class on Sunday mornings during our Church School Hour. All adults are invited and welcomed but those adults who are considering baptism, reaffirming their baptismal vows, being received into the Episcopal Church, or being Confirmed are especially encouraged to attend this class.

Topics will vary widely (watch the weekly “Parish Announcements” for the topic each week). Topics will include scripture study, church history, liturgy, theology, and ethics.

Format of the class will also vary. Often there will be audio/visual aids (such as videos or slideshows) followed by a facilitated discussion. Occasionally there will be a lecture followed by a question and answer period. Sometimes the class will be lead through a theological reflection on a particular issue or scripture passage.

Homily for Proper 16 Year B 2009

2009-08-23T18:10:00.000-04:00

You have heard it said: “All is fair in love and war.”
Love and war--uttered in the same breath. The comparison of the two can strike the ear as a sour note, as dis-chord, dissonance, disharmony. But the two are often joined.
Jordin Sparks, who knows not a sour note, sings in her current pop hit: “I never meant to start a war/ Don't even know what we're fighting for” She plaintively asks: “Why does love always feel like a battlefield?” And to ensure you will not forget the name of the song--she repeats the word “battlefield” a bazillion times.
Jordin sings: “I guess you better go and get your armor/ (Get your armor)/ Get your armor/ I guess you better go and get your armor/ (Get your armor)/ Get your armor. More echos for the slow to hear.
Jordin Sparks is not the first to draw upon war as a metaphor for love. Twenty-five years ago Pat Benatar’s single “Love is a Battlefield” was at the top of these same pop music charts. And about two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul drew upon the same metaphor.
Paul, in a letter to the church in Ephesus, encourages them to fight the good fight. He admonishes them to put on the armor of God. This is special armor for a special battle. He warns them that he is using a metaphor-- “our enemies are not flesh and blood.” Like when Jordin Sparks compares romantic love to war, creating an interesting metaphor--Paul does the same sort of thing. Paul, however, is not concerned with romantic love, the greek word eros--but agape--godly love. Turns out--godly love is also a battlefield.
A phrase from Song of Songs is an interesting case study: “His banner over me is love.” I sang it as a worship song as a child in Vacation Bible School. The image is of a military banner with “love” written on it. The War Scroll from Qumran mentions banners bearing such mottos as “the truth of God,” “the righteousness of God,” “the glory of God,” “the justice of God.”1 The woman in the Song may be announcing that she is under the cover, or refuge, of her lover.2 If so, the poet has taken a military image and subverted it to love’s ends: on the male’s banner is written “love.”3 Military metaphors are not unusual in Song of Songs: 6:4,10, and 12; 1:9; 3:7-8; 8:6.4 Jordin Sparks is not the first to connect love and war in this way. So, the next time you sing, “his banner over me is love,’ imagine, if you will, a banner with ‘love’ written on it signifying God’s unquenchable love for his people, but also remember that the phrase in its original context describes the love of a young man through the eyes of the young woman he loves. The text overflows with eros. But synagogue and church found no difficulty in transposing the language onto a register expressive of God’s love for his people, and of their love and worship of God. That audacious hermeneutical move has held generations of believers in its embrace for more than two thousand years.
In our text, Paul tells the Christians in Ephesus to put on righteousness (acting rightly--justice’s first cousin) as if it were a breastplate. Wear truth as a belt. Shod your feet with telling everyone good news of peace. Keep the faith--“Your faith will be your shield,” he says. Truth. Peace. Faith. Righteousness. God’s rescue will be your helmet. Together, these are godly armor.
The Spirit of God is your sword, not a sword of metal--a sword made of Word. When Alexander Pope said that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” he was thinking of battlefield’s of flesh and blood. We, however, are thinking differently.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...Word became flesh--Jesus. When Jesus was being arrested, Peter drew a sword and cut off the ear of one of those who had come to take Jesus away. Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its sheath. Jesus said to Peter, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” Peter was on the wrong battlefield. Peter drew the wrong sword.
It is rather subversive, don’t you think, to use words that connote violence, to advocate non-violence. The words of The Word, were constantly misunderstood by the more literally minded. In our Gospel lesson today Jesus asks (of words he had uttered) “Does this offend you?” Had they answered, they would have answered “Yes.”
Paul’s use of the language of war is both subversive and offensive. But Paul believes that love and war have more in common than a lack fairness--Paul believes love is a battlefield. Are you ready for battle? Will you fight? Will you take up arms against evil? Have you put on your armor--righteousness as a breastplate, salvation as a helmet, shoes of proclaiming the good news of peace? Got your shield--that is, Faith? Is Truth your belt? Ready to take up your sword of the Spirit.
With Jordin Sparks, I can sing (think of it as karaoke): “I guess you better go and get your armor/ (Get your armor)/ Get your armor/ I guess you better go and get your armor/ (Get your armor)/ Get your armor. More echos for the slow to hear.

Reflection on a Reflection

2009-08-11T23:36:00.001-04:00

The first in a series of reflections
on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection

In his reflections upon the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury writes:

“...the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.”

I will frame my reflections on his reflection, by moving toward an answer to his question: Is the Church free to recognize same-sex unions by means of public blessings?

Williams believes that in

“the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.”

A positive answer to the question, he says, needs:

painstaking biblical exegesis
Wide acceptance within the Anglican Communion
Due account taken of the teachings of our ecumenical partners
A strong level of consensus
Solid theological grounding

I agree with his first requirement. And can say that the first has been done. I will, at the end of this reflection, add a short bibliography.

The second is a rather odd requirement and I am afraid I do not understand it. It looks rather straightforward at first, but when you stop to think about it, the requirement is circular. Further, I am unsure why this should be a requirement--the Anglican Communion is not, I remind the Archbishop, the Anglican Church.

Let me say more on the second requirement’s circular nature. Mary-Jane Rubenstein has recently reminded us that toward the end of Three Guineas (1938), Virginia Woolf takes a moment to marvel at the recent findings of the Church of England’s Commission on the Ministry of Women. Although it found no theological support for the position, the Commission continued to bar women from the priesthood because doing so reflected “the mind of the Church” In short, the Commission declared that the church should not ordain women because it did not ordain women. Rubenstein’s suggests that the Anglican Communion cannot accept the blessing of same-sex unions until the Anglican Communion accepts same-sex blessings.

Thus, I am driven to think that the Archbishop must mean something else. Perhaps, he means that the Episcopal Church is not free to recognize same-sex unions until there is widespread acceptance in the Anglican Communion. If this is his meaning, then I think he is mistaken. First, canonically speaking, the Episcopal Church has not (and is not likely to grant) the Anglican Communion such power. Second, within the history of the Anglican Communion, such a requirement would have meant that women’s ordination could not be recognized by the Episcopal Church (thank you Virginia Woolf for reminding me of that reality).

Whether he means the first or the second, matters not. Both are wrong-headed. The first possible meaning circular and the second factually mistaken.

Let me, then, suggest a third possibility and if he means this third possible reading, then let me be the first to say “I agree.” If the Episcopal Church recognizes same-sex unions by means of public blessings, it does not mean that the Anglican Communion recognizes same-sex unions by means of public blessings. The Episcopal Church does not “speak” for the whole of the Anglican Communion. Just because the Episcopal Church ordains women priests it does not mean that the Anglican Communion endorses the ordination of women to be priests. Just because the Episcopal Church consecrates an openly gay man to be bishop, does not mean that the Anglican Communion consecrates openly gay men to be bishops.

Since I do not like to think of the Archbishop as wrong-headed (I deeply admire his work as a theologian), I am inclined to prefer this third possible reading of his second requirement. Further, the context of his second requirement may suggest not widespread acceptance of blessings for same-sex unions, but just the biblical scholarship that would form the basis for such a decision (though one would like to think acceptance of the dictates of Holy Writ would naturally lead to conforming action by all Christians). If so, then the proverb “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” comes to mind. The Biblical scholarship can be provided, but some may refuse to read it. Nonetheless, as a purely descriptive remark, the Archbishop’s second requirement is self-evidently true.

Moving on now to his third requirement: the concept of “due account” is rather ambiguous. Mary Ann Case has remarked on the teachings of one of our ecumenical partners,

“...Pope Benedict XVI, has been quite clear and direct in linking his Church’s recent teachings on homosexuality, on the ordination of women, and on heterosexual marriage in a theological anthropology of essential sex and gender differences. Benedict analogized what he saw as the growing disregard for the essential “nature of the human being as man and woman” to the destruction of the rainforest in his December 22, 2008 address to the members of the Roman Curia. Given the historical exclusion of women from decision-making in the Church, Rowan Williams’s invocation of the “venerable principle” that “what affects the communion of all should be decided by all” (”Quod Omnes Tangit”) as a brake on change in the direction of freedom and equality in matters of sex and gender is, as one of Boccaccio’s heroines suggested on Day Six of the Decameron, deeply problematic.”

Deeply problematic indeed. Unless, “due account” simply means accurately recording our ecumenical partners dissenting opinions on the subject. Again, I am going to suggest that this must be exactly what he means--otherwise the Anglican Communion’s teaching on a host of subjects--the authority of the Pope, the use of contraceptives, the role of women in the Church (to name but a few)--would be called into question. In fact, if he means anything stronger--the very existence of the Anglican Communion is called into question, as is all of the Christian tradition formed by the Reformation. Or for that matter, the whole of Christianity post the great schism of East from West.

No, he must mean something more modest. He must mean simply duly noting their dissenting opinions. Easy enough to accomplish. We can assign the job to Bishop Epting’s office. I am sure a “due account” could be provided in short order.

His forth requirement looks and sounds a great deal like his second, but lacks the second’s specificity. I am left wondering as to what body be believes must form a consensus. As I ponder the various possibilities, I am drawn to the belief that he means the body of Christ--the Church universal. The Church, across time and space, cannot be said to recognize the same-sex unions by means of public blessings, until a consensus (answering the question in the affirmative) within the Church is found to have been formed.

Again, one cannot properly say the Church recognizes same-sex unions just because the Episcopal Church recognizes same-sex unions. Furthermore, should the time come that the Anglican Communion were to recognize same-sex unions (don’t hold your breath on that one), one still could not properly say that the Church Universal recognizes same-sex unions. If this is his meaning, then let me say “I agree.” It is a rather obvious thing to say, but I can find no fault in saying it.

His fifth requirement is perhaps the most interesting--a solid theological grounding. Much work has been done in this regard. I would want to begin, however, with the Archbishop’s own solid theological grounding of the issue in his 1989 essay “The Body’s Grace.” To my reading, he has supplied his fifth requirement himself.

Alternatively, his fourth and fifth requirements may simply be a summary and reiteration of his first three requirements--if so, then see above. I need not repeat myself just because he does.

In conclusion, the Archbishop’s question (Is the Church free to recognize same-sex unions by means of public blessings?) is of limited (if any) immediate consequence. Given his requirements for a positive answer (which seem rather self-evident), the answer is “no.” It is the same answer one would have to give for any number of similar questions. We can substitute “papal authority” for “same-sex…” and be driven to the same “no.” We can substitute “the legitimate use of contraceptives” for “same-sex…” and be driven to the same “no.” Virginia Woolf could have asked “Is the Church free to recognize the ordination of women?” and have been driven to the same answer--”no.”

The answer is of no immediate consequence, for the question on everyone’s mind is not this rather academic question--but rather the very practical question “Should the Episcopal Church recognize same-sex unions by means of public blessings?” Followed by the question “If the Episcopal Church does recognize same-sex unions by means of public blessings, what will be the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury?” On these questions, the Archbishop is silent.

I suspect the Archbishop must then be addressing the Anglican Communion and reassuring those opposed to the actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church that whatever the Episcopal Church does, it does not speak for the whole of the Anglican Communion. Furthermore, I suspect the Archbishop must also be addressing those ecumenical partners of which he speaks and reassuring them that whatever the Episcopal Church does it does not speak on behalf of the whole of the Anglican Communion. If I am correct in this reading, then this one paragraph of his reflection, at least, is descriptive, not proscriptive. He is not indicating how he believes it should be, only trying to accurately describe how it is. If this is indeed his meaning, then I find no fault in it. If, however, I am wrong and he did indeed intend these requirements to be proscriptive, then his argument is seriously flawed (see above).

Next essay--why I may be wrong and the Archbishop may be proscribing requirements for action.

Reflecting on Cal Thomas' Reflection

2009-08-02T21:03:00.003-04:00

Mr. Thomas begins his article by referencing the '70s comedian Flip Wilson who created a character for his NBC television program called "Reverend Leroy" of "The Church of What's Happenin' Now." The reference is meant to make a connection between contemporary culture and the Episcopal Church, suggesting that the Episcopal Church follows contemporary culture, rather than the mandate of the Gospel.

Mr. Thomas (rightly) says that like some contemporary "reverends," Reverend Leroy was a con artist. Without saying it, he manages to place clergy of the Episcopal Church with "con artists." Such an attack is properly called an ad hominem abusive. He further makes that connection by saying that the "Reverend Leroy would feel right at home in the modern Episcopal Church." Mr. Thomas never explains why clergy who are con artists would feel at home in the Episcopal Church. Mr. Thomas "name calls" then moves on. So far, his piece is without substance.

Mr. Thomas then erroneously says that the Episcopal Church "voted at its denominational meeting in Anaheim, Calif., to end the ban on the ordination of gay bishops". In this instance, he is simply inaccurate (see previous blog entry)

He goes on to say that the Episcopal Church voted to "permit marriage "blessings" for same-sex couples." Again, he is inaccurate. More precisely the Episcopal Church voted to ask its liturgists (the Standing Liturgical Commission) to compile resources for meeting the pastoral needs of same-sex couples. If the 2012 General Convention receives the resources, and if those resources contain a blessing for same-sex couples, it is still unlikely to act on them until 2015. At the earliest, the Episcopal Church is not apt to adopt any liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions for another six years. Mr. Thomas should have said: the "Episcopal Church" took the first step toward what may one day be an approved liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions" As it is, what he did say is inaccurate and misleading. Even at that one should always show some humility when predicting the future, just ask any meteorologist. The Episcopal Church may never adopt such a liturgy, or they may adopt one in 2012. Nobody knows.

So far, his article is either without substance or erroneous. So far, nothing in his article has any merit.

He sites un-named denominational leaders who supposedly explained they are attempting to stem the exodus from their church by embracing a new doctrine they call "inclusivity," which they hope will attract young people. (1) I need to see the actual quote. I doubt seriously any leader of the Episcopal Church would use a phrase like "new doctrine." The phrase sounds more like Cal Thomas than Katharine Jefforts-Schori. As to "doctrine" the Episcopal Church uses the two historic creeds in our worship (Nicene and Apostles) and we have an outline of the faith (a catechism) in the back of the prayer book. There are no other explicit officially authorized doctrines. All other "doctrines" are implied in the liturgy. Mr. Thomas simply does not know what he is talking about. (2) I doubt seriously if any leader of the Episcopal Church would believe (much less say) that the actions taken at General Convention were merely a means ("new doctrine") to an end ("to stem the exodus"). DO25 is about respecting the dignity of every human being--something Episcopalians vow to do at their baptisms. Hardly a means to an end.

Mr. Thomas' then says: "Apparently church leaders think that if they can reach people before they have fully matured in their faith, they can sidetrack them into beliefs that have nothing to do with the God that Episcopalians once claimed to worship and that they can be shaped into practical secularists who are willing to seek the approval of men, rather than God." The key word here is "Apparently." His alleged quote from an un-named source that is itself untrue is now morphed into his own conjecture as to motive. We learn more about Mr. Thomas in this line, than we do about the Episcopal Church. Again, there is no substance in his attack. He has created a "straw man."

If you are counting logical fallacies in his article, you will now need a second hand to keep track.

Beginning with faulty premises, Mr. Thomas then attempts to draw conclusions. As we have seen the whole notion of "inclusivity" in his article is a non sequitur, however, his statements manage to be factually wrong on top of being logically flawed, He says "Inclusivity has nothing to do with the foundational truths set forth in Scripture." Jesus, the Truth, seems to be all about inclusivity in his life and work and died to save the whole world (radically inclusive). Mr. Thomas' account of ecclesiology is also flawed. He says, "The church, which belongs to no denomination, but to its Founding Father and His Son, is about exclusivity for those who deny the faith." (1) Episcopalians are Trinitarians, the correct doctrinal formula is not "Founding Father and His Son" but "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Ironically, Mr. Thomas' way of naming the divine makes him a heretic. Something I feel sure he will wish to avoid being. (2) Rather than the "Body of Christ," Mr. Thomas seems to think the Church is a country club, denying membership to some who break the club rules. In short, his understanding of the Church is so theologically problematic that to address it adequately I would need to write at least another essay dedicated to that theme.

He misunderstands the theology of the Church ("The church is inclusive only for those who are adopted by faith into God's family"). His statement implies that faith is assent to intellectual propositions--a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of faith. The metaphor "adopted" is properly joined with "family of God." So one might correctly say something like: All are invited to God's banquet table. Those that accept the invitation are adopted into the family of God. Mr. Thomas has a habit of making "grammatical" mistakes when trying to speak the "language" of faith.

Once again, he commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem abusivee. He says, "There are more biblical references to this than there is room to cite here, but for the Episcopal leadership, biblical references no longer have the power to persuade, much less compel them to conform." To say that any group of Christians would not be persuaded by holy scripture is to "name call." In this particular case, with regard to Episcopalians, it is a false statement. The resolutions with which he is in disagreement are rooted in a faith informed by prayerful reading of holy scripture. Mr. Thomas should, more accurately say that he reads holy scripture differently--not that Episcopalians are not persuaded by holy scripture and fail to conform to its dictates. Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that Episcopalians are not persuaded by Mr. Thomas' understanding or holy scripture and do not conform to Mr. Thomas' reading of the Bible.

Again, Mr. Thomas bases his conclusion on faulty premises. He says, "That's because Episcopal leadership has denied the teachings of Scripture..." The key words here are "That's because." He is attempting to make a logical inference. But in logic, true conclusions only necessarily follow from true premises. As has been shown, his premises are false.

He finishes that sentence with another wrong-headed assertion: "... in favor of, well, inclusivity, a word that appears nowhere in Scripture." Again, the ministry of Jesus was all about being inclusive. If Episcopalians are about inclusivity (and he has not shown that they are--he has just asserted it), then Episcopalians would be in conformity with the life and teachings of Jesus.

He then does more name calling: "Episcopal heretics — for that is what they are".

He supposes that Episcopalians would not want to use the word "inclusivity" but "would choose another word to make them feel more comfortable." While Episcopalians have not used the word "inclusivity" (at least not that Mr. Thomas has cited in his article), he has not shown that the concept is unbiblical or incongruous with the Christian faith. Even with all that said, he misses the point when he concludes "accommodation with the world seems to be a more important objective than the favor of God." Who exactly is making accommodation with the world is not self-evident. If the Episcopal Church did what he claims (and they did not), it is hard to see such an action as accommodating the world when the United States has enacted a "Defense of Marriage Act" and 20 states have amended their constitutions to ensure that marriage is unavailable to same-sex couples" In my own state the amendment passed with a 75% majority. A prima facia case can be made that those who are against same-sex couples being able to marry are following culture rather than the mandate of the Gospel.

Mr. Thomas then attacks President Carter, the most overtly religious of Presidents. President Carter attended Church regularly before, during and after taking office. In Georgia, he taught Sunday School. Even as President, Mr. Thomas correctly notes that he "occasionally taught a Sunday school class." President Carter does indeed claim to believe holy scripture and Mr. Thomas is correct that President Carter is convinced that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is not incompatible with the teachings of scripture. And Mr. Thomas is correct that President Carter recently announced his support for same-sex "civil unions." And Mr. Thomas is correct when he says President Carter "says he sees nothing prohibitive in Scripture to such arrangements." While President Carter is not an Episcopalian (he is a Baptist), Mr. Thomas does demonstrate that someone who is committed to the authority of scripture and has been a student of holy scripture across a lifetime, can hold positions different from those held by Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas misses the point of his own example. Mr. Thomas then commits another ad hominem abusive by saying, "Carter must have gotten hold of a Reader's Digest condensed version [of the Bible]."

Mr. Thomas concludes his piece with another attack on Episcopalians, arguing that they have accommodated culture--rather than being faithful to Christianity. He says, "If the church — Episcopal, Baptist, or whatever — is to be a beacon to an increasingly dark world, it must know not only what it believes but in Whom it has placed its faith. For these Episcopalians and the kinds of Baptists admired by Jimmy Carter, it is a church that has made its bed in the world, and it has as much power to illuminate as a burned-out bulb." In so concluding, Mr. Thomas again fails to recognize that in so far as Episcopalians (or Carter) are guilty of believing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ requires us to take certain actions that may be different from the actions Mr. Thomas has taken, it does not necessarily follow that Episcopalians are the one's simply accommodating culture. One could just as easily make the argument that it is Mr. Thomas who is the accomodationist.

Ultimately, Mr. Thomas' piece is obviously not about being logically sound or factually accurate. In fairness to him, it must be said that he probably did not intend the piece to be either. In the piece, he is acting as "cheerleader" to those readers who already agree with his politics (and/or to a lessor extent his theology). He most likely was not trying to write a substantive and carefully reasoned piece. Thus, the spiritual gift of discernment is therefore beyond the scope of his interests. If, however, he would wish to write a substantive reflection on the recent actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, then I would encourage him to give some thought to how communities of faith determine (that is discern) God's will in the midst of their own context--temporal and geographic. In the United States, in 2009, how should Christians respond to some states legalizing same-sex unions and many more ammending their constitutions to prohibit it?

Cal Thomas & DO25

2009-08-02T19:56:00.003-04:00

Mr. Thomas does not understand or willingly misrepresents the situation in the Episcopal Church in a recent op-ed piece.

Background: Thirteen resolutions were proposed to deal with the 2006 statement that called for a "moratorium" on ordaining gay bishops—a misnomer for the appeal for restraint. Six resolutions called for repealing the statement; another six called for strengthening it.

The 13th resolution included a description of where we are as a church right now. This was the resolution that became DO25. Bishop Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming is reported as having said DO25 was "largely descriptive of where we are today". Affirming my "read" of the resolution (see above).

Mr. Thomas should be more careful in his "reporting" and not base his opinion pieces on misinformation.

General Convention Reflection

2009-07-19T07:39:00.003-04:00

The latest General Convention of the Episcopal Church has concluded. Many matters were taken up to be considered, some were resolved, some were left on the table. Two matters are certain to be news worthy in the secular press. Before commenting on those matters not apt to be addressed in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, let me say a few words about the two issues that you will be reading about in the "news."

First, the convention (the highest earthly authority in the Episcopal Church) will make headlines for doing nothing. Resolution D025 (which passed both houses) says what the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church already made clear--sexual orientation is not a criterion utilized in the consideration of who to ordain. This is not a change, it is not really even a clarification. It is probably best seen as a "bone" thrown to those who were upset by last convention's resolution B033. Therefore, one should read the two resolutions side by side.

For most of us who have forgotten B033, we need to remember that it called for "restraint" in ordaining anyone whose ordination would cause "strain" in the Anglican Communion. Despite that fact that B033 did not explicitly say "sexual orientation", the resolution was widely seen as providing a moratorium on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons to be bishop in the Episcopal Church. And supporting that interpretation is the fact that no openly gay or lesbian person has been ordained Bishop in the Episcopal Church since the passage of B033.

I believe it is best to read the new resolution (D025) in light of B033. The General Convention seems to be saying on the one hand that "we do not wish to cause strain to the Anglican Communion and dioceses and bishops should show restraint when ordaining anyone whose ordination would cause such a strain" and on the other hand that "there is no canonical prohibition against such ordinations." That is to say, "restraint" is not "prohibition." We all knew that to be the case and dioceses have voluntarily (without need of a prohibition) shown "restraint" since the passage of B033. Therefore, D025 does nothing more than state the position in which the Episcopal Church finds itself. In short, we live with ambiguity. For those who hate ambiguity, this state of affairs is intolerable. For those of us who believe that learning to live with ambiguity is essential to a maturing faith--it is par for the course. As for the moritorium, it will hold, until it does not. Frankly, I am surprised it has held as long as it has. Meanwhile, until a diocese elects an openly homosexual person to be bishop, the candidate recieves the necessary approvals from other dioceses, and the consecration of the candidate takes place, the moritorium will be lifted--but not until that moment.

Second, General Convention (in passing C056) voted to ask the Standing Liturgical Commission (the body responsible for such things) to develop a liturgy for responding to the pastoral needs of same-gender couples and voted to give bishops some discretion in utilizing such liturgical resources in the interim. Such discretion was already happening, particularly in states in which civil unions of same-gender couples are legal. This resolution, however, makes it official. Further, it means that at the next General Convention (in 2012) a vote on particular liturgical resources addressing the pastoral needs of same-gender couples will be brought up for a vote. Regardless of the particularities of the resources or the outcome of the vote--it is sure to be news in 2012.

As for all those matters you are not apt to read about in the New York Times, I will be posting about those in the coming days.

All the ads are posted

2009-06-12T10:06:00.001-04:00

I have now posted all the ads developed so far. Which one's should we use (if any)? Tell me what you think.

Ad #5

2009-06-12T10:05:00.003-04:00

Ad #4

2009-06-12T10:03:00.000-04:00

Two ads for the men's room

2009-06-12T09:59:00.000-04:00

Ad #3

2009-06-09T15:48:00.003-04:00

Comment on Ads

2009-06-09T09:44:00.002-04:00

To get the attention of 20 somethings, the ads need to be provocative--which might be shocking to non-twenty-somethings. Because of their provocative nature, there is a chance they will get media attention as "cutting edge" or some such. Free media attention is usually a good thing--but in this case the wider exposure might give us heartburn.

Placement is an issue as well. While the ad was generic, the fact that we advertised the Saturday evening service in Leo and Velocity was the reason that several new members came to St. Mark's. One such person said, "I figured any church that would advertise in Leo was the kind of church I was looking for." Others, however, might wonder why on earth a church would advertise in bars, alternative publications, etc.

But places where 20 somethings dance and hang out to talk, are the best places to reach this unchurched group. To reach the unchurched you have to go where the unchurched are. This is tricky--you will recall how much grief going out with prostitutes, gluttons, and drunkards caused Jesus. As a general rule, the already religious don't like it much.

All of the above is, of course, why parishes don't do more in trying to reach this demographic. It may very well be that we too cannot make this attempt to reach them. The internal downside might just be too high a price to pay for the experiment.

What do you think?

Ad #2

2009-06-09T09:40:00.000-04:00

The first of the Ads

2009-06-08T09:37:00.001-04:00

I want to generate a discussion of the ads. What do you think? Remember, the target audience will be young adults.

New Ad Campaign

2009-06-05T23:24:00.001-04:00

check out a special web-site we are developing to promote our Saturday Evening worship service to young adults (20 somethings without children). Let me know what you think?

http://simplystmarks.com/

Help Needed

2009-05-15T22:39:00.000-04:00

Help! I am in need of people to donate two hours of their time on Wed. May 20th (7 - 9 pm) at St. Mark's. I have to complete a continuing education project that requires the feedback of a gathered group. You will watch six short videos and talk to each other about each briefly. I will take notes. I will provide beverages and munchies! RSVP if you are available.

Organist and Choirmaster at St. Mark's

2009-04-23T14:12:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce that St. Mark’s has called Robert McDowell Fogle to be the Organist and Choirmaster for the parish. Mr. Fogle will begin his duties on June 1.

Known affectionately as “Mac,” Fogle received a Bachelor of Music in Organ Performance and Church Music from the University of Louisville School of Music in 1991. At U of L he studied organ with Melvin Dickinson. In addition to his studies at U of L, he has received a Master of Music in Organ Performance from the prestigious Manhattan School of Music in New York. While in New York, Mac sang in the choir and served as choral rehearsal accompanist at St. John the Divine Episcopal Cathedral.

Mac has been serving congregations since he was in college (1989 to be precise). Most recently he has served as Director of Worship and Music at St. Albert the Great Roman Catholic Church, Louisville.

At St. Mark’s, Mac will bring unity and focus to our music program by playing the organ at all our services, teaching the children and youth sacred music through the Royal School of Church Music program at St. Mark’s, directing all our choirs and choristers, and conducting our hand bell choir. Further, he will assume responsibility for assisting the clergy in the coordination of volunteer worship leaders and the preparation of all aspects of our liturgies.

St. Mark’s had over forty applicants for the position. Many of the applicants had extraordinary training and experience. The Task Force that was advising me in the selection, however, stopped the search process after meeting Mac. As you get to know him, I know you will come to respect him and enjoy being with him as much as I and the task force have. I look forward to planning, preparing and leading worship with Mac at St. Mark’s. I am confident that Mac is the right person to build upon the strong foundation of music excellence that those who have come before him have laid.

I want to thank the Task Force: Mendy Cumberledge, Herb DeLegal, Chuck Eirk, Nancy Urbscheit, Tamara Meinecke, Laurie Duesing, Laura Nevitt, June Gibson, and C. Ann Gittings. I also want to thank David Arnold and David McDaniel for hosting one of the prospective candidates during his visit to the parish. Finally, I want to thank Alice Covell, who encouraged Mac to apply for the job.

We all are grateful for those who have served us during this interim period. As we conclude the season of our life together, be sure and express that gratitude to Jack Ashworth, Robert Lee, Laura Lea Duckworth, and June Bailey. They all have done an outstanding job and we are in their debt.