Feeding the Hungry

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."
- Matthew 25:35-40

I have added a new link to The Hunger Site. By simply clicking on a link on their home page, you can help feed the hungry of this world, at no monetary cost to you. Here's some information about hunger from the site;

It is estimated that one billion people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition. That's roughly 100 times as many as those who actually die from these causes each year.

About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.

Famine and wars cause about 10% of hunger deaths, although these tend to be the ones you hear about most often. The majority of hunger deaths are caused by chronic malnutrition. Families facing extreme poverty are simply unable to get enough food to eat.

In 1999, a year marked by good economic news, 31 million Americans were food insecure, meaning they were either hungry or unsure of where their next meal would come from. Of these Americans, 12 million were children. The Hunger Site began on June 1, 1999.

Please remember to click every day to give help and hope to those with nowhere to turn. Every click counts in the life of a hungry person.

I have a personal passion for the issue of hunger, no doubt derived from my younger years when it was not unusual to go a few days without food. Over the years, I've been involved in the development and implementation of emergency food distribution sites and food banking. In the USA, about 20% of our food ends up in the garbage. I believe that salvaging this food, and getting it into the hands of those in need not only helps the recipient, but is also a way to practice better stewardship of our resources.

Globally, food distribution programs may only be a band aid. More energy needs to be put into developing a sustainable environment. Many of the problems related to hunger are systemic in origin. Yet, as means to overcome these hurdles are sought, 24,000 people die every day. We cannot wait. We need to immediately commit ourselves, as a global community, to not simply alleviate hunger in this world, but to end it.

I want to offer a few thoughts to the Christians who might be reading this regarding our motivation for ending hunger. I've mentioned my personal reasons; memories of getting weaker and weaker as I slowly starved. Today, these memories are not my primary motivation, however. I am driven to feed the hungry because I understand that is what Jesus would have me do.

There is a tendency among programs reaching out to the poor to separate the "worthy" and "unworthy" poor. The worthy are those who appear to have the best chance of becoming a success story. The unworthy are those who seem to be beyond hope; addicts, mentally ill, etc. We have a bias for the poor, not because they are worthy or unworthy, but because they are deserving of the dignity and respect of a creation of God. We do not feed the hungry because they are worthy, but because they are human!

We do not feed the hungry because we are good people. When Christians get into the front trenches of the struggle against hunger, they find lots of other people already there. Some will be there because of a need to be the "good guys," to assure themselves that they are good people. These are wonderful folks, willingly working hard on many a project, but too much patting oneself on the back can develop a community spirit of egoism and elitism.

We do not feed the hungry because we believe we can make this a better world. In the front trenches we will also find lots of social workers, who will be some of the most committed and experienced members of the community. Their goal is to make this a better world for everyone. This is a commendable goal, yet not the primary one for Christians.

We feed the hungry because Jesus told us to do so. Yes, we want to do good deeds. But the goodness of the deed is not enough. Our compassion is a sign of an even greater goodness.

We feed the hungry, not simply because we are good, but to point toward food for the soul; the goodness of God. We feed the hungry, not simply to make this a better world, but to point the way to the compassion of God, which embraces us all. The unique element we bring to the struggle against hunger is the person of Jesus Christ. Our motivation can come closest to being altruistic, as it is not drawn from our need to prove we are good, or save the planet, but from our desire to glorify God. The good deed and good stewardship of creation are fringe benefits springing from our desire to reveal Christ to the world. What better way to reveal Christ than to follow his example?

Sometimes, simple is best. Jesus cared for the hungry. Christians care for the hungry.

J.

I Want More

Please, sir, I want some more.

These words from young Oliver Twist resulted in shock and indignation from his masters. Surely, the only future for such a rebel was to eventually be hung.

Keep in mind that Oliver is the hero of this well-known story. Such rebellion in the face of abuse and oppression is one of the themes on which the USA has been built; the right to life, liberty and property (as originally stated by John Locke; the founding fathers considered it prudent to change "property" to "the pursuit of happiness"). We are a "great" nation because we have never been satisfied with what we have; we always want more.

No one understands this better than the advertising agencies. We never reach Nirvana; it is always one more purchase, one more vacation, one more relationship away. The problem is, the ad agencies themselves believe in the heroism of Oliver as much as we do. They are not content to simply provide for the needs of the consumer. They want more. So, they create new needs, and then set out to convince us that we have the right to pursue happiness; and our previous happiness was simply an illusion. We have a right to a giant 4WD SUV that holds 9 passengers, even though we are an urban family of 3.

This longing for more has served our culture well. As long as we continue to follow the carrot on the end of the stick, in this case, the carrot named "the American Dream," we will not make waves. We will keep that job we hate, because we have to make those mortgage payments. We will not protest injustice too loudly, as it might hinder our climb to our place in the sun. We will avoid risks, make conservative investments, and silently agree with the premise of social darwinism ( we deserve to make a profit from the misfortune of others, because we are better than them).

There are a few indicators that this kind of thinking may not be serving us as well as we thought it was, however. Along with “more stuff” comes some auxillary stuff; more stress, more worry, more anxiety, more health related problems. Is more always better?

There are a couple of other troublesome ideas connected with our longing for more. Sometimes our preoccupation with "getting and spending" seems not just driven by the programming of the psychological geniuses of our age, the ad agencies, but is also driven by fear. Fear that we might not have enough. The fear of scarcity. If we live our lives in fear of never having enough, we will spend our lives chasing the illusive "more."

If true happiness will be achieved when we finally buy that right house, or that right car, we are constantly living for some future event. Once we get the house, we'll realize that the reason we are not truly happy is because now have to have the right interior decorations. When that is done, we have to have the perfect landscaping. Then a pool. Then an addition...and so it goes. We are always one step away from Nirvana. And while we pursue "more," we miss this present moment. We are blind to the here and now.

If a good Buddhist encountered someone who felt Nirvana could be atained by amassing a few million dollars, the Buddhist would help them towards that goal in any way possible. Not because of a belief that this path would indeed lead to enlightenment; but because of the belief that the way to Nirvana often leads to numerous dead ends. Sometimes, when driven by deep seated beliefs, the only way some people will discover if those beliefs are based on truth or illusion is to follow the path to which they lead.

My experience is that suggesting that consumerism is based on premises that rob us of our freedom and endanger our health and peace of mind is not heard by many; especially the middle class. The poor place little hope in consumerism, as many of those dreams are beyond their reach. The wealthy have won the game, and found the prize less than satisfactory. They are open to alternative messages. But those who are still striving for the prize are usually polite, but dismissive; they know that in the real world, what really matters is who collects the most "stuff" before they die. Maybe they are right. And maybe I should not hinder their journey. Maybe I should even assist them along their way?

If someone has come to similar conclusions about "more is better" being an unhealthy message in our society, here's a few suggestions of how to de-program yourself;

1. Let go of the belief in scarcity. Realize there is more than enough. Recognize that the world "out there" is not some dangerous entity that is seeking to rob us and destroy us. Such thinking gives rise to a life driven by fear.

2. Stop seeing ourselves as victims. This is related to the above. We are not trapped by outside forces. We have choices. Stop blaming "them" for our misfortunes. Be responsible for ourselves. Refuse to play the blame game.

3. As we let go of our fear, we become more willing to risk making changes in our lives. We assess our need for creature comforts, full schedules, and career goals. As the old saying goes, "If nothing changes, nothing changes."

4. Simplify. To be here in this present moment doesn't happen all by itself. We have to make a space in our lives for it. That means we may have to let go of some of the baggage we carry around with us.

5. As we are less and less driven by our fears, and the walls come down, the term "community" takes on new meaning. We begin to see our connection to other people, and beyond that, all things. We begin to see that this life is indeed abundant; that not only do we have enough, we have more than enough. We become willing to share, not because the other has earned it, but simply because we can.

6. We recognize that the longing for "something more" remains, and has possibly become even stronger. It is as if there is something missing; something broken on the inside. Now that we've let go of the illusion that there is something "out there" that if we could just get it "in here," we'd be fixed, we realize that the scratch for this particular itch is not discovered in externals. Happiness is found in an interior place.

The nature of that place, and who or what we encounter there, is another discussion.

J.

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.
- William Wordsworth

Under Authority

One of the comments here got me thinking about something. In 15 years as a priest, I've served in 6 different dioceses. Each time I've made a move, one of my first considerations was who the diocesan bishop happened to be.

This may seem old fashion to some folks, but I've always understood a priest to represent the bishop; I work for the bishop, not a congregation. To me, the smallest division in the Church is the diocese. As St. Ignatius said, "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church."

Consequently, I am a person "under authority." If the bishop tells me to do something, we might discuss it, but saying no is never an option. If I ever had to say no to my bishop, I would resign my position, and leave the diocese. I have no problem telling the parish leaders "No!" when necessary, however (not always with an exclamation mark, though...usually more like, "...what if we did it this way instead?").

There are at least two dioceses in the Episcopal Church in which I cannot serve because they do not accept the ordination of women. Out of respect for their theological position, I would never take a cure in these two bishops' jurisdictions. I am quite sure their position is in error. I find the type of theology from which such positions spring to be tedious and legalistic, let alone denying the gifts given to the Church through the ministry of women priests and bishops for the last two decades.

But it's not just about theology. If I was serving in one of these dioceses, and for some reason planned for a visiting woman priest to celebrate the Eucharist, there is a very good chance that I would receive a Godly admonition from the bishop to cease and desist. In that situation, most likely, I would disobey the bishop, and fully expect to be brought up on charges in an ecclesiastical court for my disobedience. Consequently, such placements are simply not an option.

I've never felt terribly oppressed by this. There are a few other bishops whose diocese I avoid as well, based more on leadership style, extreme conservatism and stories from other clergy. I've always considered researching the bishop and the diocese part of my homework before accepting a call.

When I hear stories about David Moyers and Sam Edwards deciding to take on their diocesan bishop, I have to ask; what in the world were they thinking? If they won't accept the authority of a bishop whose theology they disagree with, why in the world did they accept the call in the first place? It wasn't like Bp. Bennison or Bp. Dixon hid the fact that they were progressives.

Sadly, we seem to be following the rest of the Protestant traditions; slowly slipping into congregationalism.

J.

UPDATE: Just so you don't think this is simply another eccentric (or heretical) idea that Jake dreamed up, I refer you to a piece from April, Where Have All the Catholics Gone? in which I quote an excellent address on this topic by Bishop Paul Marshall. Here is the most relevant segment;

There are two grave theological errors afoot today. They come from the very real anxiety that some feel about bishops who persecute members of the right; anxiety is not, however, a reliable basis for theology.

The first error is that a priest can declare her/himself to be out of communion with her/his bishop and still be a priest. The priest is there as a partner of the bishop's in a "ministry which is mine and yours in this place." To reject that relationship is to put oneself out of business as a priest, plain and simple. St. Jerome to the contrary notwithstanding, the presbyterate is not the foundational order of the ordained ministry. The Eastern Orthodox churches are so clear about this relational basis for a priest's function that nobody in the west can bear to discuss their position for very long without trembling.

The second error is the proposal that a bishop cannot choose who will be among the trusted colleagues, cannot determine what priests serve as the bishop's associates in parishes or other ministries. It is the bishop's trust that the letter of institution expresses. If a rector can be imposed as a colleague over the bishop's conscientious refusal, one wonders how the relationship can in fact function. Much more, one wonders what it means theologically. Even the Lutherans cannot imagine this, despite their curious position on ordination.

If we are to have historic order in any meaningful sense of the word, we are going to have to accept the fact that we may not always like episcopal or synodal decisions. For priests to obey their bishops only when they happen to agree with them is not obedience at all, and to this commonwealth's endemic congregationalism we unhappily see added presbyterianism of the most unsubtle kind these days. Again, by clearly teaching the simple doctrines of the catechism and by our living out our relationship with each other, we can overcome this misperception.

Read It and Weep

An excerpt from the President's news conference on Thursday;

Q: Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law.

So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?

BUSH: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. Maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.

We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws. And that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions from me to the government.

Legalizing Torture, from the Washington Post;

THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a matter of grave concern because the use of some of the methods that have been reported in the press is regarded by independent experts as well as some of the Pentagon's legal professionals as illegal. The administration has responded that its civilian lawyers have certified its methods as proper -- but it has refused to disclose, or even provide to Congress, the justifying opinions and memos.

This week, thanks again to an independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers, they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture. In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but refuses to disclose...

Let's not forget the secret CIA detention centers scattered around the world. Heaven knows what's going on there. You can read the Justice Department's memo on torture here (pdf format).

Melanie of Bump on the Beltway draws our attention to the notes of someone who recently heard troubling statements made by Seymour Hersch at the University of Chicago;

...He said the people most horrified by the way the war was planned were the military commanders responsible for protecting their troops.... He talked about the horror of the 1000 civilian deaths in Fallujah (but was careful to note the Marines were doing their job, placing the blame with their superiors)....

He talked about how hard it is to get the truth out in Republican Washington: "If you agree with the neocons you're a genius. If you disagree you're a traitor." Bush, he said, was closing ranks, purging anyone who wasn't 100% with him. Said Tenet has a child in bad health, has heart problems, and seemed to find him generally a decent guy under unimaginable pressure, and that people told him that Tenet feared a heart attack if he had to take one more grilling from Cheney. "When these guys memoirs come out, it will shock all of us."...

He said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."

He looked frightened.

We all need to be frightened. And outraged. And repentant. We cannot escape our role in these atrocities driven by fear. We also cannot escape our responsibility to do what we can to amend this travesty of justice, and end this dishonorable behavior being perpetrated in the name of the United States of America. This is not who we are. Or is it?

J.

Listening to Charles Gore

Within the Anglican Communion, there is quite a bit of shouting going on over who should be allowed to claim the label of "Orthodox." I freely admit to being periodically drawn into this shouting match. I also admit that sometimes I am anything but orthodox in my beliefs; most likely more on the pages of this blog than elsewhere.

How do I explain this? I have no justification, except to say that I am a reader, not a scholar. I was never very good at math. My reasoning is often quite lacking in logic. I trust intuition much more than thought, and will base decisions on a "hunch" even in light of sound arguments against such a course of action. Often, the hunch will prove to be well founded. Other times, the result is disastrous.

Something has been nagging at me lately; some discomfort that I have yet to identify. I suspect it is yoked to the tension between my life within the parish setting, and my solitary life of reading and thinking. I've spoken of this tension before, so I won't belabor it here. When such tensions arise, it is usually evidence that I have not fully thought through some essential ideas. I prefer not to do such thinking. Preparing to do it summons up the feelings of dread I recall when faced with hours of Algebra homework so many years ago.

A "hunch" brought to mind Charles Gore; someone who I haven't read for some time. Possibly I was drawn to him today because during his life he was often accused by conservatives of being too liberal, and by liberals of being too conservative. I certainly do not consider myself in the same league as this giant of a man. But I recall feeling the discovery of a kindred spirit when I read his work some years ago.

Charles Gore was the first principal of Pusey House (named after Edward B. Pusey, one of the original Tractarians), and was a defender of the Oxford Movement, from which came what is often referred to today as Anglo-Catholicism. He was the editor of Lux Mundi, which was an attempt to consider some of the truths of the Christian faith in a way that made them accessible to modern minds. Gore's contribution was an essay entitled On the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture. His claim was that biblical texts were inspired by God but were not infallible on matters of science. This was a very controversial premise in 1889. Gore also supported what is often called "the Social Gospel" as introduced by Maurice, among others, although cannot be considered to have ever fully embraced socialism. In 1905 he was consecrated bishop of the diocese of Birmingham and became Bishop of Oxford in 1911.

I have always understood Anglo-Catholicism to include a bit of socialism, but this may be a personal bias. The figure that drew me to this tradition was James Otis Sargent Huntington, the founder of the Order of the Holy Cross. Unfortunately, that model of Anglo-Catholicism is very rare in the Episcopal Church today. Most of those claiming the label Anglo-Catholic are either preoccupied by "right liturgy" or "right doctrine," to the point of excluding the importance of the Social Gospel when manifesting the Kingdom at hand.

But let me return to Charles Gore. As a bishop Gore was insistent that Christian clergy could not teach doctrines which contradicted the creeds. This was in response to some clergy who were suggesting that the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection could be denied by Christians. Partially as a result of his frustration with some of these teachings, he resigned his bishopric in 1919.

Here is an example of his response against the denial of what many would call the essentials of the faith;

To return to our original question--since so many things have been taught as Christian truth, and afterwards proved false or uncertain, how do I propose, by more or less objective and producible tests, to distinguish essential Christianity from the variable or uncertain or false accompaniments to it?

The first, and to some minds the most obvious, test is that of authority in its broadest sense. There has been a common, a universal, faith of Christendom, which has, most authoritatively, expressed itself in the Catholic Creeds, the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds. There are, indeed, features in the common faith, such as the belief in Atonement, in sacramental grace, in the inspiration of Scripture, which are only slightly or by implication touched on in these formulas of faith; but at least in what they contain they represent what has been universal Christianity.

A review of his life makes it impossible to place the label of "liberal" or "conservative" on this man. I suspect that he would have been pleased that he escapes easy categorization. One of his recurrent themes was to preach against "onesidedness."

What caught my eye today were portions of The Anglo-Catholic Movement Today which he wrote in 1925. I want to start with his conclusion of part III, Some Necessary Modifications, as it outlines his primary points within this section;

Just at this point I have only been concerned to call attention to three modifications or enlargements of the original spirit and temper of the Anglo-Catholic Movement which it is, in my judgment, necessary to welcome. These are (1) the acceptance of the principle of Biblical criticism, while combating the extravagance and prejudice of many of its advocates; (2) the acceptance of the principle of social justice and human brotherhood as a central and essential element of the Christian Gospel, laying upon the church a duty of witness and discipline which is sure to be unpopular with many of its adherents, not least within the sphere of influence of the Anglican communion; and (3) the frank and full recognition that, while the New Testament will not suffer us to draw any distinction between the public and covenanted membership of Christ and obedient membership of the church which is His body, at the same time the final judgment of individuals is not given to the church as one of its functions, and we ought to feel quite sure that the just Judge will repudiate no one, nor refuse to welcome him into His eternal kingdom, who has faithfully sought to be true to the Light which lighteth every man and to 'repent when he did amiss.'

1. The acceptance of the principle of Biblical criticism, while combating the extravagance and prejudice of many of its advocates...In today's climate, such acceptance is assured to get one labeled as a "liberal." What did Gore mean by Biblical criticism? I came across another quote from Gore that is worth noting at this point;

We must lend our ears, then, not only to the wisdom of the gospels but to the wisdom of the ages and of the present age. We must learn to preach "the everlasting Gospel" so that the men of our time may catch in it the reflection of their own best thoughts and aspirations. We must interpret the old creed into modern speech. I am quite aware that some who claim to be doing this are not really interpreting the old message, but ignoring it in part and in part plainly misinterpreting it. We must avoid such rash dealing with what rightly claims to be a divine message and word of God. Nevertheless, if we believe that there is such a permanent Gospel which speaks through all changing ages to the unchanging heart of man, yet it must be able to recognize also a fresh "movement of God" in each age. As of old it spoke in terms intelligible to the spirit and philosophy of the Greco-Roman Empire, and again of the Middle Ages, and again of the Renaissance -- correcting the current spirit and philosophy but also assimilating it -- so also it must be able to assimilate the movement of God in the heart of our own age as well as to correct what it interprets.
- The Everlasting Gospel and the Spirit of the Age
From Charles Gore's Christ and Society; the Halley Stewart Lectures 1927.

This is what many who are charged with being "liberal revisionists" are attempting to do; imperfectly sometimes, no doubt. It is a matter of changing the wrapping, without altering the gift.

2. The acceptance of the principle of social justice and human brotherhood as a central and essential element of the Christian Gospel...This happens to be one of my personal passions. It is why I continue to be a Christian, in spite of the example I see all around me of what passes as Christianity, which, intended or not, is often seen as being primarily about getting one's personal ticket to heaven. Here's a bit more of what Gore had to say on this;

The Tractarian Movement had begun as a protest against 'Liberalism' - not without good reason as Liberalism was. And, though some few of the Tractarians were not Tories, yet the movement, at least till it went out into the towns in the form of Ritualism, was on the whole associated with the Tory party. But there was another contemporary school of religious teachers - F. D. Maurice and Kingsley being its leaders - who were discovering that the existing social and industrial structure of society was fundamentally contrary to the ideas of justice and brotherhood which it is among the primary objects of the Old and New Testaments to instil and maintain among men with all the authority of the word of God. And that wonderful book, Ecce Homo, which appeared anonymously in 1865, had recalled to men's minds how deeply an 'enthusiasm for humanity' had inspired the mission among men of Jesus of Nazareth, and that its expression and propagation ought to be regarded as at least one of the primary objects for which the church exists in the world.

3. The frank and full recognition that...the final judgmentent of individuals is not given to the church as one of its functions, and we ought to feel quite sure that the just Judge will repudiate no one, nor refuse to welcome him into His eternal kingdom, who has faithfully sought to be true to the Light which lighteth every man and to 'repent when he did amiss.'..."The harvest is at the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels." We finite humans are not to weed the wheat field, as in our zeal to uproot the dastardly weed, we trample many innocent stalks of wheat in the process.

I know this has been much too lengthy for some. I also realize that I have not done justice to the great work of Charles Gore. Hopefully some will appreciate this taste, and feast further on their own.

I think I'll continue reading.

J.

Prayers by the Chaplain

81st Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document No. 86...

Prayers offered by the Chaplain; The Rev. Peter Marshall, D.D.,
at the opening of the daily sessions of the Senate of the United States during the eightieth and eighty-first Congresses - 1947-1949:

Thursday, January 27, 1949 -

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Prayer will be offered by Dr. Clarence W. Cranford, minister, Calvary Baptist Church, of Washington D.C.

DR. CRANFORD: The prayer I shall offer this morning was written for this session by Dr. Peter Marshall, as one of the last things he did before he died.

Deliver us, our Father, from futile hopes and from clinging to lost causes, that we may move into ever-growing calm and ever-widening horizons.

Where we cannot convince, let us be willing to persuade, for small deeds done are better than great deeds planned.

We know that we cannot do everything. But help us to do something. For Jesus sake. Amen.

J.

Just the Facts

For the sake of those who are not Episcopalian, and for the sake of those who are stating misinformation in the comments, here's a few of the facts, formulated in a simply Q & A style, courtesy of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh:

Q: Has the Episcopal Church, USA acted unlawfully by violating its own constitution and canons?

A: No. The diocese of New Hampshire and ECUSA followed every procedure spelled out in diocesan and national canons and constitution. Canon Robinson was a priest in good standing in his diocese. This charge is based on two points: that the church acted contrary to the “faith and order” of the Anglican Communion, and that it acted in defiance of Anglican Communion directives. In fact, it is the American Anglican Council and the self-anointed “orthodox” primates who are acting unlawfully. They have tried to undo decisions duly prayed over and passed at the ECUSA’s 74th General Convention by appealing to outside bodies, refusing to acknowledge a legal election and consecration of a bishop of the church, demanding that the Anglican primates assume powers never granted them, and insisting that the ECUSA ignore its own constitution while planning for alternative oversight for dissenting parishes.

Q: Did the ECUSA defy the Anglican Primates by consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop?

A: No. The primates do not have the power to forbid a province to do anything. Clearly a majority of primates wish that New Hampshire had chosen another person as bishop. The statement issued by the primates on October 17 acknowledged that Robinson’s consecration would tear the fabric of the communion, regretted that the Episcopal Church’s actions (and actions of the Canadian Church) did not represent the communion as a whole and short-circuited the dialog on human sexuality called for by the 1998 Lambeth meeting. The primates asked provinces to consider (in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury) providing alternative oversight for dissenting parishes, and requested that the Archbishop appoint a special commission to explore issues of governance within the communion. This commission is to report within a year. Most of all, the primates urged that no province take precipitous action and to wait for the commission report. The primates wrote their statement knowing that the Robinson consecration was going forward, thus the consecration itself should not be considered a “precipitous action.”
(snip)
Q: But isn’t it only fair that a congregation gets to keep its property?

A: The current membership does not individually or personally own a church building, communion silver, endowments, etc. After all, when a family moves to another state, the parish doesn’t buy out their “share” in the assets of the parish. Every generation of a parish cares for church property in trust for those to come, and as a sacred trust to honor the wishes of those who went before. A parish’s claim to property is collective, and parishes are not created as independent congregations but as communities of the Episcopal Church. All of us in the Episcopal Church have a stake in every parish – diocesan, missionary, and national funds may have helped secure loans or encourage specific ministries of a parish; when we travel we expect to find active parishes that we can visit; we work collectively on many forms of ministry all in the name of the Episcopal Church. In other words, no parish is an island.

Q: Why is alternative oversight of dissenting parishes an issue?

A: It shouldn’t be. A diocese is a geographical unit. Diversity of belief and approach within the diocese is healthy and represents the diversity of the Episcopal Church. To insist on dealing only with a bishop or other similar-thinking parishes is to narrow the Episcopal Church and lose what can be learned from other approaches. If we believe the historic documents of the church, alternative oversight is unnecessary. Article XXIII of the Articles of Religion defines a lawful minister as a person “chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers.” Thus anyone ordained or consecrated following the usual procedures of the ECUSA is a valid minister. A belief that a bishop or priest has been immoral does not negate the validity of the orders. Article XXVI states that the worthiness or unworthiness of a minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments. These two Articles were the Anglican way of declaring themselves against the Donatism heresy - a heresy that confuses the office held by an individual with the personal attributes of the individual, and insisted on absolute purity of belief and life. Nonetheless, the ECUSA, in the interests of accommodating diversity, has offered a plan to accommodate parishes that refuse to deal with their own bishop. This plan was being developed before the primates made their request. The AAC has rejected the plan and demanded one that violates a clause of the ECUSA constitution. The clause has been in the constitution unchanged since the first constitution was adopted in 1789.

Q: Why shouldn’t a diocese be the final judge of actions of general convention?

A: The General Convention is the ultimate authority in the ECUSA. From its beginning, the ECUSA has had a requirement that to be admitted to ECUSA a diocese must give unqualified accession to the constitution of the national church. It is the equivalent of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution. Constituent parts of a whole do not have the power to overturn actions of that whole. The requirement for an unqualified accession is a part of the contract that created the diocese. To impair this clause in any way is to break the contract and put the diocese outside the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Pittsburgh was recognized by General Convention in 1865. Given that the country was just bringing to a close four bloody years of civil war (a war that discredited ideas of nullification and secession), it is hard to believe that the Diocese of Pittsburgh somehow did not understand that this accession was permanent.

Q: What is so awful about not funding the national church? Contributions are voluntary aren’t they?

A: We all benefit from the work of ECUSA. It educates clergy and helps with national searches. It develops Sunday school materials, and resources for Altar Guilds and other groups. It is the source of our Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal and other resources for worship. The national church gives money back to parishes through grants and reaches out to those in need around the world. The national church helps fund missions in the U.S. and around the world. To accept services but refuse to help pay for them is selfish and immoral.

Q: I keep hearing the words “apostate,” “schismatic,” and “heresy” – What do they mean and do they apply to the current situation?

A: To be apostate is to rebel against the church and renounce its doctrines. Schism is the act of promoting discord, disharmony or division within a church by rejecting the governing authority of that church. Heresy is a belief that goes against the core doctrines of the church. The AAC has used all three terms to describe the ECUSA. However, it is the AAC that is rejecting the governing authority of the church and seeking to block the duly authorized canons and constitution. By calling for a “new reformation” the AAC is tacitly acknowledging that they are the innovators and are trying to change basic beliefs and polity of the church. A common trait of a schism is that each side will claim to be the protector of the “true” church. In reality, only one side will actually have the legal authority to be the church. In this case that is ECUSA. The AAC has applied both apostasy and heresy to ECUSA for supposedly renouncing the historic faith of the church. However, the core doctrines of Christianity are summed in the Creed, and no party in the current situation is challenging or renouncing the creed. What is tragic is that all parties in this dispute agree on Christology, the creeds, the sacraments and on the apostolic succession. They also agree that Holy Scripture is the revealed Word of God. Where they disagree is on what that Word reveals, and how it is revealed.

The above is the understanding of most Episcopalians concerning what is going on. Roughly 10% of our members would disagree with these statements. Hopefully, this will answer most questions. But if there are others, feel free to ask them.

J.

Just Because You're Paranoid...

doesn't mean they aren't plotting to destroy you. In this case, "they" is reference to the American Anglican Council. "You" would be the Episcopal Church.

Demanding Accountability and Keeping the Faith

"Leave them alone to stew in their own juice, I have better things to do." - The Rev. Canon Edward Rodman.

by The Rev. Canon Mark Harris (poetmark@worldnet.att.net)

That the American Anglican Council means to replace the Episcopal Church with itself (renamed perhaps) as the "true" Anglican expression of the catholic faith in the US, witness their petition to the Primates. The ACC will in any case, and perhaps inadvertently, become a party to the effort to disable the Episcopal Church with mountains of litigation so that it cannot even consider acting as an agent in support of a progressive social and religious agenda. That the two efforts serve two entirely different agendas, agendas with links to one another, is part of the story that is unfolding. The whole story of this concern up to the end of 2001 is well documented in "IDS Insights: A Church at Risk: The Episcopal Renewal Movement."

Other writers, notably Jack Taylor , Leon Howell in his book United Methodism at Risk, Steve Levin of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kevin Jones and Colleen O'Connor of the Every Voice Network, Terry Martin, several others on the General Convention Bishops and Deputies listserve, and I have all commented on elements of the relation between the American Anglican Council, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a wide interwoven network of organizational and board membership links between ACC, IRD and affiliated agencies, all promoting evangelical and religious right efforts, and the support for these efforts provided by a small group of foundations and individuals who also fund radical fundamentalists interested in a theocratic future for this country and the world.

So far there seems to be no "smoking gun" statement that links the work of the AAC to that of the theocratic interests of these foundations. The AAC "merely" seeks a realignment of the member dioceses and churches of the Episcopal Church and a restructuring of the Anglican Communion. The realignment sought by the radical fundamentalists is a restructuring of American society on the basis of biblical laws. (See the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article by Steve Levin)

The Post-Gazette article comes closest to finding an acknowledgement by AAC leaders that they (i) know just exactly where the funding comes from, (ii) do not disassociate themselves from the other interests of those providing the funding, and (iii) know full well that the funding, while seemingly without strings, is none the less a case where "various folks invest their money where they think it's going to have the best impact."

And what might be the "best impact" of monies donated by people interested in a radical realignment of the relationship between church and state? Or by people who believe the mainline Churches, notably the Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, have been captured by liberal, gay, revisionists, heterodox elements? By funding agents who want a biblically based America?

The best impact, of course, is to keep the Episcopal Church occupied - to either see a takeover of the Episcopal Church by persons on the religious right or in any event to see the Episcopal Church disconnected from its liberal social and religious agendas.

From the standpoint of these religious right donors, I suggest, it does not matter if the AAC succeeds or not in its effort to become the recognized American expression of Anglicanism. From the standpoint of the donors it does not matter if the AAC takes with it any property, holdings, clergy, people or even the name of the Episcopal Church. All that matters is that this effort impacts the ability of the Episcopal Church to do anything else at all.

Lewis Daly, in his article for IDS Insights, says "The evangelical drift of the Anglican Communion, and its deployment against ECUSA, is a remarkable recent development within the broader history of anti-mainline politics. The rules have changed significantly with the rise of distinctive international and primatial strategies. These developments in particular must be carefully monitored and firmly challenged." (p. 9) Where is this monitoring and where is the firm challenge?

About the monitoring, I have little hope except in the workings of various reporters and commentators listed earlier. However, my sense is we have two primary avenues for challenge. Even at this late hour there is no reason to give the Episcopal Church away or see it paralyzed. The two challenges are these:

Demand accountability.

I believe the leadership of the Episcopal Church, and particularly the Presiding Bishop, must call the AAC and the IRD to account. They have accepted the funding from people and organizations who are interested in impacting the Episcopal Church by destroying it as a potential opponent to an agenda that reconstructs the United States along stringent biblical norms. What we need to know, and NOW, is if the AAC and the IRD repudiate the efforts of their donors to such reconstruction.

Keep the Faith.

Canon Edward Rodman, himself no stranger to struggles in the Church and new to Executive Council, recently said this about the American Anglican Council: "Leave them alone to stew in their own juice, I have better things to do."

On an important level that is precisely what the Episcopal Church needs to do. The AAC will indeed stew in their own juices and eat the food provided by those who have no care at all for the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion or our internal struggles. And when it is finished these donors will spit whatever Anglican taste is left from their mouths. It will, as they say, unfold.

We need to say, "I have better things to do." Those things to do might actually include the continued struggle to hold ourselves accountable to the poor, the disenfranchised, and even each other on such matters as life in these United States and in this world present. Every struggle, including that of supporting gay and lesbian persons in their civil and religious life, becomes part of that greater struggle to overcome the oppressions that keep us at enmity with one another and with Christ present in the other. And of course the "better things to do" might also include a life of prayer and grace such that the table to which we invite others is a feast of redemption and release, and joy.

The Episcopal Church needs to consider again, through its Executive Council, the support of a national conversation about the social cost of slavery and the issue of reparations. We need to continue, with a renewed purpose, the process of anti-racism training and more, to see this as part of a wider effort to work for justice and reconciliation. And we desperately need to enter, even at this late date, the struggle to be the Church in an urbanized world and a globalized economy.

We have better things to do. And that is our answer to the AAC.

I agree. It's time to move on to other things. But, before doing so, let me offer just a taste of some of the reading material available regarding the American Anglican Council (and the Network, which is the AAC in its newest manifestation), for the benefit of those who might be considering aligning themselves with this extremist organization.

Here is a couple of Jack Taylor's reports.

The Guardian offered this report last October, a segment of which briefly summarizes the imortant role of Howard Ahmanson in the AAC:

What is known is that in the 1990s Ahmanson, whose family made a fortune in banking, subsidised a number of controversial right-wing causes. These include a magazine called the Chalcedon Report , which carried an article calling for gays to be stoned; a think-tank called the Claremont Institute which promoted a video in which Charlton Heston praises 'the God-fearing Caucasian middle class'; and a scientific body which rejects the theory of evolution.

Now Ahmanson has a new crusade, whose repercussions will be felt far beyond the United States. He is using his cash to stir up the most divisive row facing the Anglican Church, one that threatens to rip it apart when its leaders meet in London this week...

...Leading the backlash is the American Anglican Council (AAC) based in Washington. Until recently the AAC's chief executive officer, David C. Anderson, ran St James Church in Newport Beach, California, where Ahmanson is often to be found in the congregation. The AAC's vice-president, Bruce Chapman, is president of the Discovery Institute, on whose board Ahmanson sits and which publishes research insisting Darwin was wrong.

AAC stalwart James M. Stanton, Bishop of Dallas, admits that Ahmanson gives $200,000 a year, although many observers believe it is considerably more. An internal memo from the vice-president makes fascinating reading. 'Fundraising is a critical topic ... But that topic itself is going to be affected directly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy. I know that the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in setting it as the options clarify.'

The AAC's influence is bolstered by its close links to another right-wing religious organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), which operates out of the same Washington office as the AAC, and on whose board Ahmanson's wife, Roberta, sits.

If you want to know more about Ahmanson, the article that first appeared in Salon in January is a must read. The full title of the article is a good summary; "Avenging angel of the religious right - Quirky millionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. is on a mission from God to stop gay marriage, fight evolution, defeat "liberal" churches -- and reelect George W. Bush."

Ahmanson understands the importance of diversification. His wealth is not only funneled to the religious right and his hand picked political candidates. There's an even more direct way to make sure "bible believing Christians" (in this case, defined as reconstructionists) attain political office. Have you heard about the controversial voting machines used in many states that don't provide a hard copy to keep them honest? Sure enough, Howard has his hand in this diabolical plan as well.

The IRD, which graciously offered office space to the AAC, and appointed Roberta Ahmanson to their board, is an interesting organization to keep an eye on. Were you surprised by the recent right hand turn of the United Methodists? If you had been following the action plan of the IRD, you would have known that this turn was almost a foregone conclusion.

One last bit of reading material. What is the AAC doing with all this money? No one really knows, as they are a rather secret society. But, one interesting piece of information is that it appears that for some time now they've been funding international allies:

The American Anglican Council and its leaders have for at least three years been funding a rapidly growing program of education and training of Anglicans around the world in their principles and tactics.

The International Fellowship of Evangelical Mission Theologians (INFEMIT), a group which derives part of its funding from the AAC and whose board includes Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, an AAC founder, has been paying stipends to university groups and religious educators in half a dozen African countries, as well as groups in Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines and India...

One would like to think that the "indignant outrage" we are hearing from Anglican leaders from these countries is completely fueled by a misguided passion based on the premise of biblical inerrancy, but, being human, it does make one wonder if the offer of a stipend might not have influenced the level of their passion?

There's plenty more info on this out there. Is it just another conspiracy theory? I'll let you decide. I'd prefer to move on now, as I've got better things to do.

J.

Bishop Barred in His Own Backyard

This is absolutely unbelievable:

Bishop's Refusal to Sign Statement Bars Him From Conference
Leaders of a conservative Episcopal gathering require those attending to agree that belief in Jesus is the only way to reach heaven.
By Larry B. Stammer, Times Staff Writer

The Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles was forbidden from delivering a welcoming speech at a regional meeting of conservative Episcopalians that opened Thursday in Long Beach because he refused to sign a statement declaring that belief in Jesus as savior was the only way to get to heaven.

By requiring such a statement for conference attendance, leaders of the conservative American Anglican Council said they wanted the meeting to be a "safe place" for Episcopalians who dissented from the U.S. church's liberal stances on biblical interpretation and homosexuality.

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno's presence would "create a sense of discomfort," said the Rev. William Thompson, an official of the American Anglican Council and rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Long Beach.

Bruno called the decision to bar him from the conference in his diocese "disconcerting to me at best."

"I had no intention of making an issue of any of my views," Bruno said in an interview, "just welcoming people to our diocese as they participated and discussed their issues of faith and Christianity in an environment they found safe. That was my intent."

The rebuff underscored sharp divisions within the six-county Los Angeles Episcopal Diocese and the 2.3-million member national Episcopal Church. The council and the new Anglican Communion Network have been preparing to create a church within a church made up of what they describe as orthodox Episcopalians.

Bruno has been an outspoken advocate of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church and, in an action criticized by conservatives, blessed the same-sex union last month of a prominent gay priest and his partner. But Bruno and conservatives said that it wasn't his views on homosexuality that prevented him from addressing the two-day conference, attended by an estimated 800 people from Western states.

Instead, it was a sentence in the group's faith statement.

The sentence that gave Bruno problems declared: "I believe in and accept Jesus as Savior and Lord and that He is the only way into the heavenly kingdom." Conference organizers said the requirement to sign the faith statement was set before Bruno asked to attend.

Bruno said that line "basically excludes all people of Judaism, Islam and Buddhism as being within the love of God. I'm not willing to say that God has made that decision. I know that Christianity is the way for me, that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. But I cannot say that God will make that decision on the last day. I don't know what God's decision will be"...

Barring the way to the bishop of the diocese in which you are holding a meeting to plan schism because he won't sign a statement that would suggest Gandhi's eternal destination to be the fires of hell. What a very strange manifestation of Christianity these folks are.

J.

Right on Schedule...

Breakaway Clerics Seek Recognition

Conservative Episcopalian called on the world's leading Anglican archbishops Friday to recognize their emerging network as a separate church within the worldwide Anglican Communion unless the Episcopal Church reverses its liberal views on homosexuality.

Conservatives associated with the newly developing Anglican Communion Network had been careful not to imply that they wanted the group to be recognized as a legitimate national church separate from the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church.

But at the end of a two-day meeting in Long Beach, the conference's steering committee urged Anglican primates, archbishops of national Anglican churches, to "recognize the Anglican Communion Network as a true Anglican province [church] in North America if the Episcopal Church does not repent."

The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide 77-million-member Anglican Communion, whose spiritual leader is the archbishop of Canterbury. Each self-governing national church is known as a province.

The Long Beach statement also urged the primates to "discipline and censure" the Episcopal Church "for its ongoing ungodly actions."

Despite the strong plea from conservatives in the Western states, there was no immediate support from national conservative leaders for a separate province, although they said they could understand the frustration of those who did. The Rev. Canon David Anderson, national president of the American Anglican Council, which supports the network, said Friday that his organization was not prepared to join in a call for a separate province.

"The leadership of the AAC would not want to go that far at this point," Anderson said.

The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a member of the Anglican Communion Network national steering committee, said the Long Beach statement should be seen only as a grass-roots call by network members from the Western states. He said he would have worded it differently.

A high-level commission appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is examining developments in the United States as well as in Canada, where the Anglican Church also is debating whether to bless same-sex unions. The commission was expected to forward its findings to Williams this fall.

Hours before the Long Beach plea, Anderson said he expected the conservative network to remain within the Episcopal Church, at least for the time being.

"It's like a marriage where there is severe estrangement. Everyone is still under the same roof and gets their mail at the same address, but more and more live lives that go different directions," he said.

In a speech to the network's so-called Plano West conference (the first such conference was last year in Plano, Texas), Anderson berated the Episcopal Church. But he also urged conservatives to be patient.

"I would like to see the Episcopal Church censured by the primates and the archbishop of Canterbury," Anderson said in remarks that drew an estimated 800 attendees to their feet. "I would like to see the Episcopal Church censured, put on a probation status and called to repentance. If they do not repent, then certain things need to happen of a long-term nature. But if they did repent, God's grace and forgiveness could be poured abundantly on the whole church, upon hearts that would turn back to God."

Anderson said Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno's decision last month to bless the same-sex partnership of a prominent gay priest underscored what Anderson said was the Episcopal Church's slide toward "heresy and apostasy."

"How do words begin to describe the scope and the depth of the offense against the church [universal], against the communion members, against the Gospel itself that this is," Anderson said. He also chastised the Episcopal bishop of Washington, the Rt. Rev. John Chane, who has planned a similar same-sex blessing for later this month.

As Bruno and Chane came under fire, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, Claiming the Blessing, came to their defense Friday. The group said the blessings were "celebrations of holy love" that gave "glory to God."

The plan to take over the Episcopal Church is unfolding right on schedule, it seems. The call for repentance is about as absurd as the old line, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

In case you missed the plan launched by the AAC some time ago, the details can be found in the Chapman letter.

An excerpt worth noting:

During the months of Stage 1, we will begin to reform our relationships to build the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We will move to initiate support structures for fellowship and strategy, We will act courageously and faithfully to support "at risk" parishes. We will creatively redirect finances. We will refocus on Gospel initiatives. We will innovatively move around, beyond or within the canons to "act like the church God is making us". Stage 1 will enable congregations/clusters to keep clear use of their buildings for the foreseeable future, and would give critical time to strengthen our leadership circles for what promises to be a turbulent spiritual season.

Stage 2 will launch at some yet to be determined moment, probably in 2004. During this phase, we will seek, under the guidance of the Primates, negotiated settlements in matters of property, jurisdiction, pastoral succession and communion, If adequate settlements are not within reach, a faithful disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary.

The Via Media groups interpreted the letter this way;

The letter speaks for itself. Property, not piety is keeping dissident parishes in the Episcopal Church. In the longer term, the AAC expects to use foreign intervention to trump American law and the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons. Its leaders are assuring dissident parishes that the Anglican primates, a consultative body with no governing authority or standing in the United States, will ride to the rescue of Network parishes, negotiate property settlements and transfer the assets of 2.3-million-member church to a group representing perhaps a tenth of that body. The Chapman letter reveals the AAC's "realignment" for what it really is -- the overthrow of the Episcopal Church by extra-legal means.

That's about how I read it as well. And now we see the plan unfolding. And those who see what the AAC, or Network are doing are not to get upset; just compassionately let the Church we love be stolen by less than 10% of her members? Actually, much less than 10%; seven of the 107 Episcopal dioceses, and less than 70 of the 6,800 congregations in other dioceses, have joined the Network. But I'm reeeeealy trying to be generous here. Does it show?

The Lambeth Commission has asked us not to escalate things. On that basis, the Canadians backed down. This sure looks like an escalation to me.

J.

Trinity Sunday

Today is Trinity Sunday. Do we understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Does it matter if we understand it or not?

Some years ago, freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide because:

1. It can cause excessive sweating and vomiting.
2. It is a major component of acid rain.
3. It can cause severe burns in its gaseous state.
4. Accidental inhalation can kill you.
5. It contributes to erosion.
6. It decreases the effectiveness of automobile brakes.

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of this dreaded chemical. 43 said yes, 6 were undecided, and only one knew what the chemical was.

The dangerous chemical in question was water.

We could probably come up with a similar list of dangerous and negative aspects of the idea of the Trinity, and probably get at least 43 out of 50 interviewees to say that we need to nix the whole idea, based on their lack of understanding.

Can we understand it, though? There’s an old story of St. Augustine walking along the beach contemplating the Trinity. Up ahead he saw a little boy digging a hole in the sand. The boy then ran out into the waves, scooped up a bucket of water, and ran back to pour it into the hole. He did this a few times until finally Augustine approached him and asked, “Boy, what are you doing?”

“See that ocean out there?” the boy asked. “I’m going to pour that ocean into this hole.”

“That’s impossible,” said Augustine. “You cannot fit the ocean in that tiny hole.”

The boy looked up at him and replied, “And neither can you, Augustine, fit the Trinity in that tiny little brain.” The story goes on to say that the boy then disappeared, as apparently he was an angel.

We have to be careful when comes to defining the Trinity, or any other doctrine that attempts to describe the nature of God. God is much more than we can ever imagine. Any definition falls short of the mark, because we can't fit the Trinity in our little brains.

But we try just the same, don’t we?

One frequent way to attempt to understand the Trinity is to speak of water (or should I say “dihydrogen monoxide?), steam and ice. That seems helpful, although it would be difficult to have a relationship with an ice cube, wouldn’t it?

Creator, redeemer and sanctifier is popular today. The difficulty I have with that is the inclination to describe God by what God does, rather than by what God is.

I have mentioned before my preferred model of understanding the Trinity; Lover, Beloved and the Flow of Love between them that has constantly flowed before time began. Through the Incarnation, the Beloved came to dwell among us. When we stand in the place of the Beloved, when we accept the offer to become the adopted sons and daughters of God, we also become the Beloved of God, and share in this same Flow of Love.

But, even that way of understanding falls short. The Church teaches us that God is three persons in one nature; that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are God. Beyond that is nothing more than the speculation of tiny brains.

Even though we may never really understand the Trinity, I feel strongly that we need to hold on to it. The Western mind’s temptation is to look at any concept as a problem, with our job being to solve it, or get rid of it. I see the Trinity much more as a mystery that contains clues about the truth. We solve problems. We stand in awe before mysteries.

What are these clues about the truth the Trinity offers us? Mostly, they are about community. If we say God is love, with whom was God in love before the creation of the world? We teach that the Son was with the Father before creation. This image depicts God being in relationship, part of a community, from the very beginning.

My experience has shown me that being part of a community is essential to my spiritual health. There is no such thing as a solo Christian. We were created to be part of a community, to be a part of the household of God.

Why is community important? We are able to support one another, through the good times, and the bad times. We can pool our knowledge and our wealth, and so offer more resources for our common mission.

But, most importantly, as we intentionally choose to be part of a community, we find ourselves moving beyond our individuality. As we live within a community, we begin to sense our connectedness with other members of the community. We begin to realize that what happens to others matters to me. This sense of connectedness can then begin to grow to embrace all people, and beyond that, all of creation.

The Trinity is the doctrine of inclusiveness. There is no one who is outside the kingdom of God. There is no “us” and “them”. There is only “we.” And we are all connected.

The Trinity embraces diversity. We are not asked to be clones of Jesus. We are asked to offer our unique gifts for the good of the community. We are not asked to all be the same. As the old song goes, “Wouldn’t it be a real drag if we were all the same?”

The Trinity moves us to stand in awe before the mystery of God. We are reminded that we have seen nothing more than the tip of the iceberg. God is much more than we can ever imagine. The mystery informs our discussions of God, and keeps us from the temptation to try and “save” God by insisting on specific doctrines as the only “true” belief.

Community, inclusivity, diversity, and mystery. These are the clues the Trinity offers us into the nature of God. They are only clues, but they seem to dance near to the truth. Let us humbly seek almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that we might be empowered to proclaim God’s love for all of creation with our every word and our every deed.

J.

Pre-emptive State of Emergency?

There's more than one way to muzzle the masses;

State Of Emergency Allows Brunswick Police To Halt G8 Protests
Governor's Order Covers Six Counties Including Glynn, Camden, Chatham

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- A new city law in Brunswick gives police the power to halt protests during the G-8 summit now that the governor has declared a pre-emptive state of emergency in coastal Georgia through June 20.

Activists said the change allows authorities to squelch lawful dissent without reason when President Bush meets with world leaders June 8-10 at nearby Sea Island. Brunswick's mayor and Gov. Sonny Perdue's top lawyer denied any such intent.

Perdue signed an order May 7 declaring a state of emergency in six coastal counties beginning Monday, citing "potential danger ... from unlawful assemblages, threats of violence and otherwise."

The governor's order places no limitations on demonstrations. However, the Brunswick City Council amended its laws last week to give police authority to terminate protests if a "state of emergency or disaster is lawfully declared."

Brunswick is the nearest mainland city to Sea Island, 80 miles south of Savannah, where Bush and other G-8 leaders will meet. Protest groups have been trying for months to get a permit to demonstrate in the city when the summit arrives in two weeks...

Let's hope this little ploy fails. Imagine the possibilities if it is successful. We know another leader who does not hesitate to act pre-emptively.

J.

A Clarification...

It may be necessary to clarify a couple of statements from my previous post:

I don't see one word of scripture that addresses this issue.

The bible is not clear on this issue. I've provided links before about this. To use faulty interpretations of the bible as a weapon to mandate the behavior of another is an ugly form of oppression that must be condemned. If you want the links again, just ask.

Although no one specifically asked, I'm going to provide a link anyway;
The Christian Bible and the Homosexual, by Dean Worbois. Every passage that supposedly refers to homosexuality is discussed.

In reference to not seeing anything in the bible that addresses the issue, Worbois points out that the very most that can be claimed is that homosexual acts are mentioned, but never homosexual persons. Two people in a committed long-term relationship is never mentioned. That is the issue; the question about specific sex acts is tangential to it, as Demi pointed out in the previous comments.

Since I'm still a bit upset about this, and getting angry tends to cut off the blood flow to my brain (thus the bias, self-righteousness and lack of good logic in the previous post), let me allow Dean Worbois to make the point with more clarity;

Scriptural references only speak of homosexual acts - not homosexual people. Not until the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (revised from the King James version in 1885) do we find references to homosexuals themselves. These occur in translating the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" in Paul's letters.

Never is the issue of homosexual behavior between loving, homosexual partners addressed in Scripture. The reason is simple: biblical cultures did not have knowledge of homosexuality as a psychological identity. In biblical times homosexuality was known only by the acts people committed, not as a sexual personality. A person born heterosexual assumed homosexual acts to be something people did for dominance or in perversion of their inner identity.

For some insight into what conservatives really mean when they talk about how "gay unions will destroy the institution of marriage", read this excellent article; Fear of the Feminine;

What is driving the intensity of our current church infighting? Is it really just about what people do sexually with each other?

Probably not. A more likely reason for a significant amount of the negativism is that same-sex relationships violate the rules laid down by all patriarchal cultures about how men and women should behave in relationship to one another. The same rules also narrowly define acceptable relationships between people of the same sex.

Looking through this lens, we can see that the offenses pile up rapidly. If a lesbian woman does not need a man to satisfy her, protect her and keep her in line, the threat of the feminine is there; if a gay man is able to access the feminine side of his being, his every move can be considered suspect and an affront to many. If long-term relationships between two people of the same sex toss the age-old formulas attached to male dominance and female submission out the window, what are we left with? And if we must allow people who are partnered in this way to live openly and with our blessing -- so that we can't pretend that this is not happening -- how offensive is that? It is only offensive if we continue to cling to a patriarchal framework which keeps the feminine in her "proper" place...

...Raising awareness is nearly always the first step that has to precede societal change. The interrelationship between homophobia and misogyny is real, and we still have a big job ahead of us. There will probably be yet more sexuality studies by the churches to help people cope with the significant changes that are hopefully before us. We would do well to incorporate consciousness-raising about dominance/submission to help people recognize and resist these destructive messages. It is time to take the blinders off.

J.

Oh Canada!

From the Anglican Journal, the national newspaper of the Anglican Church of Canada:

Synod 'affirms' same-sex relationships
SOLANGE DE SANTIS, STAFF WRITER
ANGLICAN JOURNAL

St. Catharines, Ont., June 2, 2004 - One day after delaying a decision on whether to bless gay relationships, Canadian Anglicans approved a statement that "affirms the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships."

Delegates meeting here at the triennial General Synod governing convention said the statement was intended to send gay and lesbian Anglicans a message after yesterday's vote.

"Our church has always had gay couples and they have been welcome. This would affirm we recognize them as children of God," said delegate Cassandra McCollum of the Yukon, who identified herself as bisexual.

Passage of the statement assuaged gay Anglicans who were disappointed by Wednesday night's action. "It is the first time gay relationships have been affirmed," said Steve Schuh, synod member and chair of the Vancouver chapter of Integrity, a group of gay Anglicans and supporters.

The debate over the motion heard several speakers express disappointment at Wednesday night's decision to defer until 2007 the question of whether to offer blessing ceremonies to gay couples. The vote asked the Primate's Theological Commission, a group that considers questions of biblical interpretation, to rule whether the matter is a question of doctrine, or rules of the faith, or not.

"I am disgusted with the inability of this synod to make a decision. It's been 30 years since we started this debate," said David Thomas, a youth member of the Canadian Forces. "I refuse to pass the buck."

Younger members of synod, particularly, expressed frustration. "I feel shame that we neglected our duty," said Erik Miller of Ottawa. "I am disheartened and disgusted with the decision yesterday," said Rachel Taylor of the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior (of British Columbia).

"Yesterday, we agreed to err on the side of unity. I hope our final word on this matter will be compassion," said Rev. Peter John Hobbs.

However, traditionalists had difficulty with the statement. "God made us in his own image, male and female. I cannot accept a man lying with a man. I don't believe that is the way we were created. I really believe it goes against the Bible," said Ruby Lockhart of Central Newfoundland.

Others questioned whether using the word "sanctity" in relation to same-sex relationships made the motion a matter of doctrine, though Rev. Dennis Drainville of Quebec said that was not the case, adding the word "sanctity" was used because "God is in the midst of that relationship between two committed partners."

Following the vote Essentials, a coalition of conservative Anglican groups, issued a press release that said the "affirming" motion went a step further than the earlier motion that was deferred that would have left dioceses to decide whether to permit same-sex blessings.

The group said it would wait for "the response from the international community" before making any decisions about its future.

I read somewhere that Canterbury had pleaded with them to not pass the resolution of the day before that would have allowed same-sex blessings. As I can't find that link again, let's just call it a rumor. The response from Canterbury suggests that this is indeed the case, however:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, has welcomed the decision by the Canadian General Synod to defer a decision on the question of same sex blessings until 2007.

"The decision to defer the question of the right of dioceses over same sex blessings offers hope for the continuing collegiality of the Anglican Communion.

"It is important that the Canadian church has held back from a structural shift that would have run counter to the pleas and wishes of the Primates' meeting last Autumn and of so many around the Communion. In doing so, it has avoided complicating still further the work of the Lambeth Commission."

I'm going to try to use a bit of restraint in my comments here. It's not easy, as I am quite angry about this. I realize that in becoming so angry, I have fallen into the trap of being exactly the same as those whom I oppose.

I am angry about the conservatives who have decided to use whatever means at their disposal to deny access to the Kingdom of God to those who they don't deem worthy.

Once again, Rowan Williams has given in to these extremists, who hide behind scripture and tradition to justify their self-appointed role as gate-keepers. I don't see one word of scripture that addresses this issue. And the tradition has pretended to be oblivious, while actually being downright dishonest, regarding it. If the conservatives would decide to be honest, and just say what their real motivation is, maybe some form of dialogue could continue. But they won't. They won't because they cannot even admit the truth to themselves, because, if they did, they would see that their position is not only unethical, but unChristian.

What is the honest motivation? "We think homosexual sex is disgusting." There it is. It will be denied, of course. But the page after page of biblical and theological condemnations of homosexuality make no sense to me, and many others, without this personal bias included. It is clear to everyone, except the author and those like him (yes, almost exclusively male authors, btw), that the writer has brought numerous personal biases with him before engaging in the issue.

The bible is not clear on this issue. I've provided links before about this. To use faulty interpretations of the bible as a weapon to mandate the behavior of another is an ugly form of oppression that must be condemned. If you want the links again, just ask.

The tradition is not clear on this issue. There have always been homosexuals in the Church, and some happened to be clergy.

The tradition has embraced a number of models of marriage over the years. In Africa (ironically the source of the most voracious diatribes against homosexuality), those in polygamous marriages are allowed to convert to Anglicanism without dissolving the multiple marriages. Serial polygamy (divorce) may be publicly challenged in some places, but is mostly quietly affirmed as a viable option.

The idea that marriage is all about procreation is no longer emphasized. The disclaimer added to the marriage rite (and, if it be God's will) in the BCP makes this rather clear. Thousands die daily from starvation. Until we learn to care for those who are among us now, the idea that sex is always about procreation is ethically questionable. Abraham's offspring numbering more than the stars was a promise that through sheer numbers, the children of Abraham would prevail. This is the thinking of the Roman Catholics as well; it is our duty to bring more Christians into the world, in order to overcome it. At least they are consistent. They condemn birth control and abortion on this same premise.

I do not see this same consistency in the self-appointed "protectors of the faith" within Anglicanism either on the issue of procreation or their so-called "biblical" model of marriage.

I know, I am buying right in to the "us" verses "them" thinking. And I apologize for that. I have been told that the best way forward is for the progressives (labeled by those who despise us as revisionists, apostates, heretics, etc...such lovely, Christian folks, eh?) to be people of grace, and not respond with anger to the hate speech that is so popular in conservative circles. The problem is, if no one responds, then things like this happen. Rowan is concerned that these angry bible thumpers might get even more upset, and being a man of grace, he backs down, and asks the Canadians to back down. Fine, so be it. But let's call them on their exclusionary, unChristian behavior.

I know these conservatives. For many years, I traveled in their circles. I have heard, repeatedly, the ugly things that are said not only about "queers," but about uppity women, depraved Calvinists, and anyone else that didn't fit their criteria as worthy of being a part of their little club.

They might be disgusted by homosexuality, but I am disgusted with their elitist, self-righteous condemnations. I have no desire to dialogue with these folks, or even be around them. They are threatening to maneuver to have ECUSA kicked out of the Anglican Communion over this. I'm getting to the point where I'm not so sure I care anymore. Why would one want to associate with such self-righteous megalomaniacs?

Having said that, I will also not allow this site to become a place of debate on this issue. This is Jake's place. If you want to bash gay Christians, get your own blog. If you came to my home, and started trashing my friends, I would tell you to leave. If you come to my site, and try the same rude behavior, I'll delete your comment and block you.

So much for restraint. Forgive the rant. May God have mercy on us all.

J.

Heartstrings Pulled

I got a letter from my oldest son the other day. Yes, an actual hand-written letter. It was about five pages long. Three pages of poetry of sorts...more flow of consciousness prose perhaps.

He is out in California; 3,000 miles away from me. After trying a few different things, he has chosen to return to the town from which he graduated from High School. He's got a place with some friends, works every day, and squeezes in a class here and there at the community college.

How do I describe him? So many stories. Let me try the first one that springs to mind;

When he was about two, his sisters and I were playing make-believe with him. I was Lex Luther, terrorizing two damsels in distress (his sisters, ages 4 and 6). He was Superman, complete with flowing cape (no, this is not the "Santa" son. We're just into costumes. Dad still is, especially on Sunday mornings!). The old house in which we lived had numerous doors connecting the rooms, which allowed us to run from room to room in a circle. I would chase the girls, with a villaneous laugh and Lutheresque rants; "I will rule the world!" "I am invincible!" "You cannot escape!" The girls would scream, and lead the chase.

The fun part for them was that another aspect of this game was a variation on follow-the-leader. I had to chase them using the same exact route. If they jumped on the couch, then to the coffee table, then to a chair, I had follow the same path. My son would bring up the rear, chasing the evil Luther. Sometimes we'd have to slow down so he could catch up, as it was not so easy for him to go from couch, to coffee table to chair. Every once in awhile, he would catch up with us. I would then show great fear and tremble; "Please don't hurt me Superman!" Then I would begin a new procession, with Superman chasing me, and the girls following behind cheering on their champion (I know, it's all so terribly chauvenistic, isn't it?)

In one pass through the dining room, I spotted a small wooden box. Snatching it up, I turned and faced this miniature man of steel. "I've got you now Superman!" I bellowed. "In this box is the one thing that can defeat you; kryptonite! When I open this box, you will become weaker, and weaker." His eyes got big, and with a loud scream, he turned and ran, changing the order of the chase once again. He changed the course as well, which resulted in him ending up in a corner with no way out. As I approached with the box, he suddenly burst into tears, and began wailing loudly, "No! NO!" I put down the box, and tried to hold him. He ran away, still screaming. Eventually, with much quiet coaxing, he calmed down, and we talked about how "make-believe" is just a game. He asked if we could play it some more. I suggested maybe another time. We never played out that particular script again.

The line between what is real and what is not has always been a bit thin for my son. He has always loved to play "what if...?" Sometimes I wonder if what we call reality is the illusion, and his imaginary worlds are closer to the truth. In grade school, one of his teachers called us in for a conference. Our son was having difficulty getting his work done. The teacher seemed to think it wasn't a learning disability, or some other kind of handicap. His observation was that our son absorbed knowledge differently than most of the other children. Rather than soaking it up like a sponge, he would take a piece of information and turn it this way and that, playing with it, reshaping it, and then carefully filing it away. The observed behavior was that our son was often the one staring off into the distance while the rest of the class was diligently working away on the assignment.

This young man, with his gentle spirit, is now trying to find his own way in a world that insists on empirical data being the highest priority. Not easy, for one who sometimes experiences the imaginary as being just as real as the concrete. I worry about him. And I miss him. May God keep you safe my son. And never change. This twisted world needs more visionaries.

Here's one of his flow-of consciousness prose pieces;

Steam rises from white styrafoam.
The thick aroma makes me think of church and librarians.
I'm not saying librarians drink coffee.
All I'm saying is the smell reminds me of librarians.

If I was a librarian, I'd drink coffee.
If I was a firefighter, I'd drink coffee.
If I was a janitor at McDonald's, I'd still drink coffee.
I don't know. I just like the stuff.
.
It makes me feel all grown up
My dad drank lots of coffee.
Maybe, deep down, I want to be just like him.
I think I'm at least half like him.
And that is enough.

He would sit up reading, writing and drinking coffee.
I didn't know, or even care, what he was up to.
Now, after he left across the country, I wonder what it was all about?
The reality couldn't possibly match my imagination.
Still, I get a taste of his life with this coffee.

J.

A Good Tuesday

I've learned to cherish good days. Today was one of them. Not spectacular. Not terribly productive. But a good day.

5:00 a.m. Managed to get to the alarm and shut it off without stubbing my toe or falling on my face. Did not crawl back under the covers and go back to sleep.

5:20 a.m. There was coffee, and cream, and sugar. Things are looking promising already.

5:45 a.m. The Texaco was open, and the attendant was efficient. Back on the road in 6 minutes.

6:10 a.m. Hit the Parkway. Traffic was light. New car comfy. Remembered to set the cruise. 2 tickets in 6 months is already 2 too many. NPR tells me a new president selected for Iraq. Good news! The events in Saudi Arabia lead to tangential reflections about buying a horse.

7:05 a.m. Pull up to the church. Half a dozen cars already in the lot. Chapel already open, candles lit. Assign reader for the commemoration of Justin. Vest. Pray.

7:15 a.m. The Holy Eucharist. 8 present.

8:00 a.m. Breakfast at local cafe. Lively conversation. One of the group recently returned from a trip overseas. Discussion of separation of church and state.

9:00 a.m. Staff meeting. Final approval of wording of a mailing going out and upcoming bulletins.

9:45 a.m. Compiled details of committee being formed, and sent out info.

10:15 a.m. Meeting with lay leader of nearby parish. Discussion of a 90 minute song and dance I offered to the leadership of his parish the previous week. Lovely folks. Discussion of future possibilities. A line on a possible way to be a liaison with this group and a local non-profit. Got to remember to follow up.

11:15 a.m. Three drop-in visits. Pleasant, casual, but still informative and nurturing.

11:45 a.m. Notice a fax sitting on machine. A bid has been accepted to air condition the parish hall. Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleeluuia! Is my enthusiasm showing?

12:00 After making a call, I realized that most likely I'll have to miss this after all. A shame. Howard Dean, John Edwards, James Forbes, Arianna Huffington and Jim Hightower are going to be there. But, I've got a meeting at the diocesan office the same day that it would be prudent not to miss. I'm going to keep my reservation for Washington open, though. It's just for Thursday. I'll make a couple of calls tomorrow, and see if I can come up with some creative compromise other than cloning myself.

12:30 p.m. Lunch at 7-11 on my way to the hospital. Hot dog and coffee. Sound disgusting? How about an all beef hot dog chased by fresh coffee with caramel syrup? You're right. It still sounds disgusting.

1:15 p.m. Brief visit with an elderly member. They wheeled her away for physical therapy. Just saying that makes me go "Ouch!"

1:45 p.m. Visit with another member at a rehab center. Much improvement. We share some laughter, and a prayer.

2:45 p.m. Head back to the Parkway. Longer days ahead this week. Decide to head south before the coming storm hits.

4:00 p.m. Stop to see Jeff the tailor. Yes, I'm actually getting a new suit. I've only got one decent one left, and I've got some important meetings coming up. Sometimes, just showing up is half the trick. And sometimes looking good can be at least another quarter of the deal.

4:30 p.m. Arrive home about same time as Demi. Fierce thunderstorm hits. I watch from the porch. The branches of giant trees dance vigorously on a stage of gray; now white light; now again gray. Crashing cymbals follow close behind. The poor pup in the basement below quietly whimpers.

5:00 p.m. As quickly as it arrived, the storm moves on. The sun reappears. Ornate rain drops decorate the leaves, as precious gems awarded to their host branches for surviving the brutal beating. We walk down the street to Demi's parent's house. Tuesday is cheese steak night!

6:30 p.m. We drive to the store for an odd assortment of things previously forgotten. The franticness of "getting and spending" threatens to rob us of this good day. But not quite. The full moon smiles, and graciously illuminates our path home.

9:00 p.m. Settle in with a new novel, The Heartbreaker by Susan Howatch. She is one of my all time favorites. I love the feel and smell of a new book. Especially one written by a tried and true storyteller;

Part One; Setting Out

Our identity is being forged in the crucible of whatever suffering turns out to be inextricable from the particular journey of each person...into fullness of life.

"Mud and Stars"
A report of a working party consisting mainly of doctors, nurses and clergy

9:45 p.m. Check to see what's going on in Jake's place. Write something, anything, just as long as you keep Jake disciplined about writing every day. And no cheating tonight. No long quotes. Just dull drivel, the kind that makes Jake's heart sing, even if the words have not quite learned how to teach others the tune. Keep writing. Keep singing. Keep dancing.

10:45 p.m. Time to visit the animals before heading for bed.

Yes indeed, a very good day. And now, my imaginary audience, I bid you a very good night.

J.