The hymns were good and appropriately gender inclusive, "The God of Abraham/Sarah Praise," "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" etc. The guest preacher was excellent, taking a rather Ignatian approach to the Feeding of the Five Thousand in light of the Parable of the Talents. The Nicene Creed was said with the inclusive and slightly more accurate translation. I didn't recognize the source of the Eucharistic Prayer, but I gushed over it. There was a slight bump when we started chanting a Taize Veni Sancte Spiritus from the Epiclesis until the Great Amen, because the Great Amen was missed by almost everyone, which Randall and Archdeacon Ed taught me might affect regularity. But I notice such things because I am anal. It indeed felt like "Reasonable Service" or "Spiritual Worship," the Body and Blood overflowing in return for our thanksgiving to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the perfect plenitude of praise. After church, I spent eighty minutes lecturing on oceanography, saw an awful movie, and purchased cleaning supplies. I live in a comfortable and self-satisfied corner of the world in a relatively comfortable age (still very miserable for most of the world), but the Eucharist can be no less praegustatory of heaven than it was in former and more wretched ages. And for that, I thank God heartily.
This is Getting Loco, Ese, and It's Gotta Stop
A colleague of mine opined yesterday that we are most political about the works of our own hands (brat of our brains etc.). This might be called the Ouaididocratic Principle, since it tends toward the rule of those who give a damn ( ouai didein ). Thus, having no stake in the liberal and conservative organizations that have been striving to realign the church for their particular ends for the last three decades, I can't really get particularly worked up now that the denouement of these struggles is coming. I go through stages in dealing with every apparent outrage: (1) I briefly wish to find some way to restore De Haeritico Comburendo ; (2) I then desire more moderate canonical penalties; (3) then I want to yell a lot; (4) and finally I just want to laugh and hug the outrageous person. If the Dean of St. Vincent's wants to accuse General Convention and me by implication of departing from the apostolic faith, I hold him casually in derision. His diocese is alternately pomo and byzantine at this point. And that's just the first vexation I had since I returned from Canada.
At this point, I can understand why almost no one in Gen Y outside of their parents' power wants anything to do with TEC at this point or Anglicanism in general. If you find yourself in the wrong circumstances, you may find (these are real life examples):
(1) yourself driven out of your church because your priest at college is gay (Father Heidt, that is what I call Donatism.)
(2) unable to worship in your eucharistic community because you are sickened spiritually by conflict within it. The Holy Spirit defend such as these!
(3) unable to worship at college for fear of (1)
(4) unable to worship anywhere because you live in the same place all year and have insufficient ideological purity of one sort or another for your home diocese
(5) Unable to worship because those Episcopalians your age you know who take any of it seriously become total nutcases eventually, and you already feel too much like a nutcase as it is.
Add to this the problem of inadequate catechesis and arrogant priests and bishops (of one sort or another). The Holy Spirit forfend arrogance in deacons!
And since Christianity is finally voluntary in much of the US, most of my generation will shake off the dust from their feet. If they are conservative, they will go elsewhere. If they are liberal, they will leave and might raise their children as conservative Unitarians or something (like some Gen Xers I know).
I feel as if I've been oppressed by some outrageous sarcosic phronemation since the Octave of Christian Unity in 2003 and I want some deliverance, some "kairos moment": a day of salvation. But all I seem to find is the Lord Jesus still descending from heaven into this broken world in bread and wine and water. It will have to do.
So to the cloaks, the daggers, the malicious chatterers, the rebel chancellors, the false teachers of every stripe, and the naughty candles that dimly enlighten this world, I warn you that the Lord is coming with terrible recompense to call you to account for your management of nature and rational souls (and indeed your own). But until then, I love you. How about some Articles?
Monday, July 31, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Seen in Canada
"St. ----: The Thinking Person's Church"
"St. ---------'s Anglican Church (Episcopal)"
"St. ---------'s Anglican Church (Episcopal)"
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Credo in Uno Deo Meliore cum Mathematicis quam ego
I was at a party this evening, talking to someone about my work. In my business, cocktail party conversation from those outside the field usually begins, "Do you think there's life on Mars?" I answer, "We'll know in a hundred years." Softballs. Then I hear, "Do you believe God made the planets?" Very briefly surprised because of the setting, I reply, "Yeah, but really far back, about fourteen billion years ago, but I honestly don't understand how. I'm not good enough at math to understand the physics. I deal with simpler stuff."
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork. One day tells its tale to another, and one night imparts knowledge to another. Although they have no words or language, and their voices are not heard, their sound has gone out into all lands, and their message to the ends of the world. : Ps. 19:1-4.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork. One day tells its tale to another, and one night imparts knowledge to another. Although they have no words or language, and their voices are not heard, their sound has gone out into all lands, and their message to the ends of the world. : Ps. 19:1-4.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Utligacity and the Centrist Ascendancy
There is an odd word you find in the Latin sources of early English law about the time of the Norman conquest (but my memory is not good enough to remember which side), and this word is distinctive in that it is unintentionally onomatopoetic. The word is utliga or "outlaw," surely the creation of a Saxon clerk who knew not of interdiction from fire and water, nor perhaps much else, but had enough Latin for law and some creativity to boot. For an outlaw is a strange hybrid of things, not of German and Latin roots, but simultaneously a claimant of conformity to the law without actually conforming. There is, of course, a bit of the outlaw in the Christian, for our kingdom is not of this world, nor our citizenship exclusively of this city. We are simul iustus et peccator , expecting justification and vindication from our sin from "a great high priest who has passed through the heavens."
But the outlaw simple refuses at appear at any tribunal and so my forebears seized his goods and forbade him from civil life. Contrary to popular belief, his human rights never were terminated. It was still unlawful to murder, rape, and otherwise commit common law offenses against the outlaw. Indeed, the Crown had no especial rights besides the seizure of his goods and body in order to compel him to law. Thus, the outlaw had no especial dignity but the unwillingness to be accountable, either to admit his transgression, prove his innocence, or make appeal against the law itself as against the liberty of an Englishman. In some cases, the outlaw had the reasonable excuse of expecting an unfair trial. In other cases, outlaws were disrespectful or merely negligent concerning the law. There is a case in the reign of James I of a knight elected to Parliament, whose election is argued void on the grounds of outlawry. And indeed one can be an outlaw in court, too, as men like Milosevic, Hussein, and Moussaoui have shown, mainly by seeking to call others to trial or disdaining the law. Most of all, the outlaw is "a law unto himself." And thus the outlaw is also known in our time as the scofflaw, one who is indifferent to the operations of the law against him. Scofflaws are mostly petty offenders, because their strongest argument these days is that their offense is minor and harmless.
Outlawry suffuses certain parts of this Church. It is found in the priest who neglects the custom (as the rubric saith) of mixing a little water in the wine and pays little attention to the titterings of his congregation about it, though they whisper of Him "out of whose side flowed both water and blood." It is found in the parish that decides to institute Communion Without Baptism and fails to warn the parish of the canonical violation until a key element of the parish's common life becomes fodder for schism. I would say it was found in the priest who performed same-sex blessings except that it is unclear whether to me whether it was ever wrong to do so as long as it never was called "marriage" and the bishop approved. It is found in the bishops who allow errant priests to be shuttled from parish to parish where they wound the sheep etc.
One of these examples certainly is petty. And there may be some justification for some but not all of others, And in some cases, the outlaws might further justify themselves by transparency. The clear evidence of the Standing Committee being outlaws is if the membership of the Standing Committee has been kept secret from all who did not attend Diocesan Convention, for instance. The outlaw rarely tells anyone he is an outlaw, or his true identity. And remember, too, that outlawry is popular and almost institutional in America, where the local seeks to be the laboratory for the national. But there, too, there is always the goal of reception.
All of this talk of outlaws does have a point. The centrists are ascendant, because they can endure outlawry no longer. Some work was done to try to goad them, of course. The centrists were taking a wait and see attitude about LGBT inclusion. So the liberals attacked with talk of boundary crossing, church theft, and efforts to kick TEC out of the Anglican Communion. On the Communion level, we hear of lay presidency quietly in Sydney and somewhere in the vicinity of Wimbledon. The conservatives countered with Windsor and Lambeth as law or Communion Without Baptism or liturgical abuses or liberal bishops hushing up child abuse. The two sides figured that their negative attacks might galvanize the centrists in one direction or another, for they figured quite correctly that the centrists do not like outlaws.
Ah, but quam res conversa est (Cicero), General Convention came and went and the burden of outlawry fell more on one side than the other. The centrists were offended by the breaking of the Eucharistic community, the UTO incident, the rumors of conservative bishops alternately electing +Kathryn and denouncing her, and the attempts of both sides to pollute the work of the Convention. But they were most offended by AlPO, for this was outlawry par excellence, maintaining that one's actions were in agreement with the Constitution and Canons (only in that no canon in particular is transgressed) while seeking metropolitical authority other than that of General Convention. And already we hear rumors of great doings in the AlPO dioceses, where liberals and moderates are coming together in order to stop one set of outlaws from their ecclesial banditry. Already we hear that one bishop is soon to be brought to law. You can read Father Jake for the details.
The centrists are finding their voice on the Anglosphere, too. One can read Father Nick and his fellow Father Andrew of the Diocese of Bethlehem. Or you can read Father Jones or at least a half a dozen others. And already the critiques are coming. Canon Harmon cited Robert Gagnon against his fellow Presbyterians. *Christopher has explained rather clearly today that he doesn't care whether someone is liberal, centrist, or conservative but only that they are honest about how they are going to treat him as a faithful partnered gay man. That seems fair to me.
But what of me? Am I an Anglican centrist? I'm not sure. I usually describe myself as a Radical Anglo-Catholic, which suggests that I can reconcile Maurice and Newman somehow (right...). But it's true that I have great angst about outlawry, especially in my present context. And I think this might be the chief mark of the centrists, not a theological bent per se but a commitment to constitutional process and order generally, or a willingness to act in the wilderness rather than stirring up further confusion in the camp. For in doing these things with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I do believe that I will hand over to each his or her own and live justly. But recall also that the Lord Jesus was a centrist in this way, too, for he rejected all parties and turned over the tables of the moneychangers, but when he could have stirred up all Jerusalem against the authorities and become king over Israel, He decided against this in favor of a painful death and the transformation of the entire order of the world. Being a centrist might mean living sacrificially, too.
And so I'm not going to critique the centrists. I'm going to wait and see what the fruits of their ascendancy may be and pray that God sustain us all in accountability to all the holy people of God who shall judge the world with Jesus Christ.
But the outlaw simple refuses at appear at any tribunal and so my forebears seized his goods and forbade him from civil life. Contrary to popular belief, his human rights never were terminated. It was still unlawful to murder, rape, and otherwise commit common law offenses against the outlaw. Indeed, the Crown had no especial rights besides the seizure of his goods and body in order to compel him to law. Thus, the outlaw had no especial dignity but the unwillingness to be accountable, either to admit his transgression, prove his innocence, or make appeal against the law itself as against the liberty of an Englishman. In some cases, the outlaw had the reasonable excuse of expecting an unfair trial. In other cases, outlaws were disrespectful or merely negligent concerning the law. There is a case in the reign of James I of a knight elected to Parliament, whose election is argued void on the grounds of outlawry. And indeed one can be an outlaw in court, too, as men like Milosevic, Hussein, and Moussaoui have shown, mainly by seeking to call others to trial or disdaining the law. Most of all, the outlaw is "a law unto himself." And thus the outlaw is also known in our time as the scofflaw, one who is indifferent to the operations of the law against him. Scofflaws are mostly petty offenders, because their strongest argument these days is that their offense is minor and harmless.
Outlawry suffuses certain parts of this Church. It is found in the priest who neglects the custom (as the rubric saith) of mixing a little water in the wine and pays little attention to the titterings of his congregation about it, though they whisper of Him "out of whose side flowed both water and blood." It is found in the parish that decides to institute Communion Without Baptism and fails to warn the parish of the canonical violation until a key element of the parish's common life becomes fodder for schism. I would say it was found in the priest who performed same-sex blessings except that it is unclear whether to me whether it was ever wrong to do so as long as it never was called "marriage" and the bishop approved. It is found in the bishops who allow errant priests to be shuttled from parish to parish where they wound the sheep etc.
One of these examples certainly is petty. And there may be some justification for some but not all of others, And in some cases, the outlaws might further justify themselves by transparency. The clear evidence of the Standing Committee being outlaws is if the membership of the Standing Committee has been kept secret from all who did not attend Diocesan Convention, for instance. The outlaw rarely tells anyone he is an outlaw, or his true identity. And remember, too, that outlawry is popular and almost institutional in America, where the local seeks to be the laboratory for the national. But there, too, there is always the goal of reception.
All of this talk of outlaws does have a point. The centrists are ascendant, because they can endure outlawry no longer. Some work was done to try to goad them, of course. The centrists were taking a wait and see attitude about LGBT inclusion. So the liberals attacked with talk of boundary crossing, church theft, and efforts to kick TEC out of the Anglican Communion. On the Communion level, we hear of lay presidency quietly in Sydney and somewhere in the vicinity of Wimbledon. The conservatives countered with Windsor and Lambeth as law or Communion Without Baptism or liturgical abuses or liberal bishops hushing up child abuse. The two sides figured that their negative attacks might galvanize the centrists in one direction or another, for they figured quite correctly that the centrists do not like outlaws.
Ah, but quam res conversa est (Cicero), General Convention came and went and the burden of outlawry fell more on one side than the other. The centrists were offended by the breaking of the Eucharistic community, the UTO incident, the rumors of conservative bishops alternately electing +Kathryn and denouncing her, and the attempts of both sides to pollute the work of the Convention. But they were most offended by AlPO, for this was outlawry par excellence, maintaining that one's actions were in agreement with the Constitution and Canons (only in that no canon in particular is transgressed) while seeking metropolitical authority other than that of General Convention. And already we hear rumors of great doings in the AlPO dioceses, where liberals and moderates are coming together in order to stop one set of outlaws from their ecclesial banditry. Already we hear that one bishop is soon to be brought to law. You can read Father Jake for the details.
The centrists are finding their voice on the Anglosphere, too. One can read Father Nick and his fellow Father Andrew of the Diocese of Bethlehem. Or you can read Father Jones or at least a half a dozen others. And already the critiques are coming. Canon Harmon cited Robert Gagnon against his fellow Presbyterians. *Christopher has explained rather clearly today that he doesn't care whether someone is liberal, centrist, or conservative but only that they are honest about how they are going to treat him as a faithful partnered gay man. That seems fair to me.
But what of me? Am I an Anglican centrist? I'm not sure. I usually describe myself as a Radical Anglo-Catholic, which suggests that I can reconcile Maurice and Newman somehow (right...). But it's true that I have great angst about outlawry, especially in my present context. And I think this might be the chief mark of the centrists, not a theological bent per se but a commitment to constitutional process and order generally, or a willingness to act in the wilderness rather than stirring up further confusion in the camp. For in doing these things with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I do believe that I will hand over to each his or her own and live justly. But recall also that the Lord Jesus was a centrist in this way, too, for he rejected all parties and turned over the tables of the moneychangers, but when he could have stirred up all Jerusalem against the authorities and become king over Israel, He decided against this in favor of a painful death and the transformation of the entire order of the world. Being a centrist might mean living sacrificially, too.
And so I'm not going to critique the centrists. I'm going to wait and see what the fruits of their ascendancy may be and pray that God sustain us all in accountability to all the holy people of God who shall judge the world with Jesus Christ.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Who Shall We Put on the Kalendar?: The Episcopal Church and Her Saints
Derek has been thinking about saints lately. His research, no doubt, takes him through some bizarre parts of the hagiography, and so he has been wondering why we canonize particular people and what meaning sainthood has in the ascendant theology of the TEC today. Most compellingly, Derek has a good summary of the Scriptural landscape.
The modern Episcopal view is really a form of pristinism, and I say that in the least pejorative sense possible. In most cases when saints or hagioi in Greek, literally "the holy people" are discussed in the New Testament, it is Paul's general use of the term to refer to the Church Militant in good standing in the various communities to which he provided counsel. Paul's letters occasionally contain things like, "Give my best regards to all the saints of the Church of X, you rock, dudes." It is not an idle term. It asserts Paul's belief that the Church is a new Israel, called to be holy as the Lord God is holy just as Israel was in the wilderness. And whereas the first Israelites sinned and died in the wilderness, the relationship of the Church to Jesus gives a holy standing to her members without them being fully righteous, for they are righteous through Him. The Church thus is Holy because Christ is Holy, righteous as both man and God. And thus by imputation (or Paul's presumably consonant soteriological teaching), the Church's members indeed are holy people. Thus, the Church's members indeed are saints in the earliest sense.
Derek, however, directs us to Revelation where we see a group of the saints before the Last Judgment already in the presence of God. This is odd, considering most evidence in Scripture until that time suggests that no one is in God's presence until the Last Judgment except Enoch and Elijah. At most, there are some people like the poor Lazarus in some sort of holding state called "Abraham's bosom." Otherwise, it's "the trumpet shall sound and the dead be raised" and summoned into the Valley of Josaphat or some other proper place for judgment.
Revelation is an odd duck in the Canon, so it took some time for Christianity to process the implications of its view of heaven. In Bede, we hear the story of a monk who gets into a cold spring every morning to recite the psalms. This practice is explained by a vision he had of various things, including a place of happy people in white who frolicked hither and yon and a place where people were cruelly tortured in fire. The man supposed these were heaven and hell but was told that the gates of Heaven were closed to all but the most holy until the Judgment, and he had seen two versions of the holding area: one in which people were purified and another where people rested happily but without the fullness of the Divine Presence. The man asked what Hell was like and was told that he had seen the entrance to Hell, which was some sort of dank, vaguely living hole. In other words, Heaven is too wonderful to see and Hell too horrible. This story is an early account of Purgatory, whose architecture became considerably more complicated and impact on soteriology increasingly problematic as time went on. But the point remains, Purgatory was a modification of Abraham's Bosom, and Dante seems to have made that happy place into the Terrestrial Paradise. But it should be remembered that reception takes time, and so you can read poetry in Middle English from Ireland concerning the Land of Cockyange, which is said to be better than Heaven, because (a) there is only fruit to eat in heaven, whereas Cockyange has both meat and fruit (b) Enoch and Elijah are the only people in Heaven, whereas the people in Cockyange are much more fun.
But whatever the reason, people relatively early in Tradition kept having visions of the holy martyrs crowned with glory as described in Revelation, and thus experience confirmed what the Scripture taught: some of the saints were admitted to the Divine Presence immediately. First, it was just the martyrs, but when the era of persecutions ended, there was a recognition that some people (traditionally called confessors and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims these were often called "bloodless martyrs" or somesuch) had "especial sanctity" even if they just died quietly after vespers without fuss or bother (in fact, this was often proof of sanctity, especially if you predicted it first, e.g. St Columba). [Random Etymological Note: Saints in Irish are called Naomh, and I've always wondered whether there was any etymological link between this and the Greek word for a temple's inner sanctuary, naos , which is still used in Greek to refer to a church.] Derek has a good entry in Open Thou Our Lips about saints being patrones in the Roman sense, which is worth looking up.
But the saint business seems to have become complicated for a variety of reasons. First of all, there are some cases in which saints have been conflated with pagan deities. St. Brigid is one example, but it's likely that the explanation given in the hagiography, that Brigid's father meant her as an oblate to the service of the goddess explains some of the coincidences between her and the Irish goddess. Irish saints also have strong associations with springs, which if you know anything about Celtic religion, connects them with pagan beliefs about places of strong spiritual energy. But after all, the Lord Jesus, too, was very skillful with springs and water generally. Perhaps the best example of a pagan saint are the rituals associated with St. Gennaro, the patron of Naples. Every year, a vial containing his blood is observed to liquefy. But the miracle of San Gennaro takes time, so while the congregants play the waiting game, women sing a variety of indecent and insulting songs to get the blood to liquefy. There is some incentive in this, because if the blood should take a long time to liquefy or fail to liquefy at all, great misfortune is supposed to befall the city in the next year. St. Augustine of Hippo describes similar rites in his works, involving songs being sung to divinities that never would be sung in polite company, but these involve Cybele etc. and not a Christian martyr. I suspect the liquefaction refers to some old ritual of Neapolitan haruspicy, which has been transformed in some odd way as with all Italian religion. After all, if the Romans replaced a festival of human sacrifice with a fishing tournament (as Ovid claims in the Fasti ), anything is possible.
Second, saints, especially in the High Middle Ages, had economic potential. So it was in the best interest of a parish to preserve the remains of any local hermit of any repute and look for evidence of miraculous doings. While it's fairly easy to snipe at such activities, I've read enough descriptions of these episodes in medieval parish records (I used to read a lot of history of the pre-Reformation Church of England) to think these efforts mostly were in good faith. Occasionally, saints were made up. Eventually, some sort of canonical order was established in the West about who could be venerated or not. Initially (and again I'm following the Catholic Encyclopedia and my memory of medieval English practice), it was possible for veneration to be authorized in a diocese by decree. The usual custom then was for the feast of this saint to become universal by Roman reception. The idea of a Roman martyrology dates to the 3rd century, when the deacons were ordered to record the martyrdoms in their district but it became an increasingly "universal" martyrology later. But canonization was centralized at Rome by the late 12th century. The bureaucratic process presently used in the Roman Catholic Church has evolved since then, and the business of cleaning up what happened before then has been left to the bureaucratic organs and the research activities of the most supercool of the Jesuits, the Bollandists.
But what about Anglicans? Do we canonize? How and why? Well, the place to look first is a kalendar for an edition of the 1662 Prayer Book. I found an online version of the 1771 edition that has a most fascinating calendar, in that it maintains the Feasts of the Apostles, notable early martyrs, and various figures connected the Order of Saint Benedict or the evangelization of the British Isles. It even includes the Invention of the Holy Cross and tells you when to start the O Antiphons in Advent. The only post-Reformation observances are the Feast of King Charles Martyr (one of the patronal feasts of the Monastery, not presently on the American kalendar) and "Papist Conspiracy" or Guy Fawkes Day. No Ridley or Latimer or Cranmer. It was a stripped-down pre-Reformation kalendar only modified by politics. The new feasts famously were opportunities for the High Anglican Ascendancy to glory in its victory over the Puritans (now Nonconformists) and the Roman Catholics. Sick, frankly.
The new American church would have none of the politics in the kalendar, so they removed everyone who could not be found in the Holy Scriptures, maintaining only All Saints (this feast is Gallican in origin and was received at Rome in the 9th century). And so it apparently was until 1979, since the 1928 BCP has the same kalendar as 1789. The story of how we suddenly restored most of the saints of the Scottish kalendar (Laud's Book) and added so many new ones should be told someone who remembers, since some are likely still alive.
So does TEC canonize people? Well, I think we do. All the Roman Pontiff does to canonize is to declare someone a Saint, inscribe their name in a catalog, and appoint a feast day. General Convention does little less. But still we are uncomfortable with our form of canonization, and I just realized why: this practice hasn't been around very long. I once suggested that my campus ministry celebrate the feast day of the patron of the house we used as our base of operations. But despite our willingness to celebrate the feasts of other saints, it seemed odd to celebrate the feast of a man of whom we had two photographs in the house: one of him in clericals and one from his student days in which he was dressed as a woman for a dramatic production. No one normally talks about St. William White or St. Phillips Brooks.
But in the last thirty years, we have put an entire slew of new people on the kalendar with little discussion of why. Most recently, this issue arose with the proposal that Thurgood Marshall be included in the kalendar. Frankly, the proposal was worth it just for the distraction of the newspapers from other matters at General Convention, but it brought up an important question: Thurgood Marshall certainly did a lot of important things for American civil liberties but did he have "especial sanctity" or was a sufficient witness to Christ in his actions? Does it really matter? The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music will consider this question during the next three years.
Fortunately, this Triennium they proposed guidelines in their Report about who to include in the kalendar prefaced with this gem from the Passion of Polycarp:
1. Historicity
Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.
I really don't understand what this means, unless it's some convoluted explanation of why we generally don't commemorate Corpus Christi. We commemorate people and not doctrines or the Holy Club or something.
2. Christian Discipleship
The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.
Baptism in blood hopefully is legitimate here. If you die for Christ, you die with Christ. This recommendation is good in that it instructs us not to commemorate non-Christians but says in a way that make people feel better about it because it is linked with the popular baptismal theology.
3. Significance
Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.
There is attempt here to use the Roman Catholic language of "heroic virtue" without actually using it. But the point is solid. Those commemorated are exemplars and must be exemplary.
4. Memorability
The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).
God bless James Kiefer for bringing the kalendar to life. Basically, this recommendation says that those commemorated must be relevant to us even if they are presently obscure. I really fear for the Cappadocian Fathers, since I don't hear too many priests preach the "good doctrine is important" sermon these days.
5. Range of Inclusion
Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of laypeople (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.
Mission St. Clare puts a lot of fun Lutheran observances on the kalendar. I could go for those. Speaking of ecumenism, how about Brother Roger of Taize? Note that our kalendar is much fuller than the rest of the Communion these days. But again, the chief concern is the saint as exemplar. And I think the idea here is that the best exemplars are those with which we identify or will encourage us to learn about other cultures.
6. Local Observance
Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.
One question: who authorizes local commemoration?
7. Perspective
It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.
Very good. So I guess we'll have to wait on Brother Roger.
Levels of Commemoration
Principal Feasts, Sundays, and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).
Makes sense. If I do both Morning and Evening Prayer, I do the regular Lectionary in the morning and the Festal in the evening. But I've noticed that some commemorations have more readings than others.
9. Combined Commemorations
The present edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2003) recognizes that not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation”. Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (cf. The Cappadocians - Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina— and the Reformation martyrs—Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley).
We need some sort of shorthand though. How about the Feast of the Three Anglican Hierarchs (Proto-Martyrs)?
10. Common of Saints
A greater range of “Commons of Saints” should be provided to allow for optional commemorations at the local and regional levels. Presently there are propers provided for martyrs, missionaries, pastors, theologians and teachers, monastics, and “saints.” Possible additional categories could include musicians and other artists, reformers of society, and “stewards of creation,” for example, scientists and environmentalists.
Steward of creation has a nice ring to it actually.
These recommendations have the imprimatur of General Convention as Resolution A057 of this past Convention.
Some Summary Comments
Commemorations really could go either way at this point. Either they could be treated as an opportunity to satisfy interest groups or score political points with the wider culture as in the Church of England in the 17th century or they could be carefully chosen as an encouragement to us, the Church Militant, looking throughout salvation history for lanterns to light the way to Christ's standard. But I think these recommendations are lacking in one thing: although they cite "heroic virtue," they focus on our own opinions of what that is. I am not one to suggest that we require miracles of those we commemorate, but I do think that there are gifts in the church by which especial sanctity can be detected or in which God reveals those he sets apart for his heavenly service. Perhaps, we should consider these as well.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting.
The modern Episcopal view is really a form of pristinism, and I say that in the least pejorative sense possible. In most cases when saints or hagioi in Greek, literally "the holy people" are discussed in the New Testament, it is Paul's general use of the term to refer to the Church Militant in good standing in the various communities to which he provided counsel. Paul's letters occasionally contain things like, "Give my best regards to all the saints of the Church of X, you rock, dudes." It is not an idle term. It asserts Paul's belief that the Church is a new Israel, called to be holy as the Lord God is holy just as Israel was in the wilderness. And whereas the first Israelites sinned and died in the wilderness, the relationship of the Church to Jesus gives a holy standing to her members without them being fully righteous, for they are righteous through Him. The Church thus is Holy because Christ is Holy, righteous as both man and God. And thus by imputation (or Paul's presumably consonant soteriological teaching), the Church's members indeed are holy people. Thus, the Church's members indeed are saints in the earliest sense.
Derek, however, directs us to Revelation where we see a group of the saints before the Last Judgment already in the presence of God. This is odd, considering most evidence in Scripture until that time suggests that no one is in God's presence until the Last Judgment except Enoch and Elijah. At most, there are some people like the poor Lazarus in some sort of holding state called "Abraham's bosom." Otherwise, it's "the trumpet shall sound and the dead be raised" and summoned into the Valley of Josaphat or some other proper place for judgment.
Revelation is an odd duck in the Canon, so it took some time for Christianity to process the implications of its view of heaven. In Bede, we hear the story of a monk who gets into a cold spring every morning to recite the psalms. This practice is explained by a vision he had of various things, including a place of happy people in white who frolicked hither and yon and a place where people were cruelly tortured in fire. The man supposed these were heaven and hell but was told that the gates of Heaven were closed to all but the most holy until the Judgment, and he had seen two versions of the holding area: one in which people were purified and another where people rested happily but without the fullness of the Divine Presence. The man asked what Hell was like and was told that he had seen the entrance to Hell, which was some sort of dank, vaguely living hole. In other words, Heaven is too wonderful to see and Hell too horrible. This story is an early account of Purgatory, whose architecture became considerably more complicated and impact on soteriology increasingly problematic as time went on. But the point remains, Purgatory was a modification of Abraham's Bosom, and Dante seems to have made that happy place into the Terrestrial Paradise. But it should be remembered that reception takes time, and so you can read poetry in Middle English from Ireland concerning the Land of Cockyange, which is said to be better than Heaven, because (a) there is only fruit to eat in heaven, whereas Cockyange has both meat and fruit (b) Enoch and Elijah are the only people in Heaven, whereas the people in Cockyange are much more fun.
But whatever the reason, people relatively early in Tradition kept having visions of the holy martyrs crowned with glory as described in Revelation, and thus experience confirmed what the Scripture taught: some of the saints were admitted to the Divine Presence immediately. First, it was just the martyrs, but when the era of persecutions ended, there was a recognition that some people (traditionally called confessors and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims these were often called "bloodless martyrs" or somesuch) had "especial sanctity" even if they just died quietly after vespers without fuss or bother (in fact, this was often proof of sanctity, especially if you predicted it first, e.g. St Columba). [Random Etymological Note: Saints in Irish are called Naomh, and I've always wondered whether there was any etymological link between this and the Greek word for a temple's inner sanctuary, naos , which is still used in Greek to refer to a church.] Derek has a good entry in Open Thou Our Lips about saints being patrones in the Roman sense, which is worth looking up.
But the saint business seems to have become complicated for a variety of reasons. First of all, there are some cases in which saints have been conflated with pagan deities. St. Brigid is one example, but it's likely that the explanation given in the hagiography, that Brigid's father meant her as an oblate to the service of the goddess explains some of the coincidences between her and the Irish goddess. Irish saints also have strong associations with springs, which if you know anything about Celtic religion, connects them with pagan beliefs about places of strong spiritual energy. But after all, the Lord Jesus, too, was very skillful with springs and water generally. Perhaps the best example of a pagan saint are the rituals associated with St. Gennaro, the patron of Naples. Every year, a vial containing his blood is observed to liquefy. But the miracle of San Gennaro takes time, so while the congregants play the waiting game, women sing a variety of indecent and insulting songs to get the blood to liquefy. There is some incentive in this, because if the blood should take a long time to liquefy or fail to liquefy at all, great misfortune is supposed to befall the city in the next year. St. Augustine of Hippo describes similar rites in his works, involving songs being sung to divinities that never would be sung in polite company, but these involve Cybele etc. and not a Christian martyr. I suspect the liquefaction refers to some old ritual of Neapolitan haruspicy, which has been transformed in some odd way as with all Italian religion. After all, if the Romans replaced a festival of human sacrifice with a fishing tournament (as Ovid claims in the Fasti ), anything is possible.
Second, saints, especially in the High Middle Ages, had economic potential. So it was in the best interest of a parish to preserve the remains of any local hermit of any repute and look for evidence of miraculous doings. While it's fairly easy to snipe at such activities, I've read enough descriptions of these episodes in medieval parish records (I used to read a lot of history of the pre-Reformation Church of England) to think these efforts mostly were in good faith. Occasionally, saints were made up. Eventually, some sort of canonical order was established in the West about who could be venerated or not. Initially (and again I'm following the Catholic Encyclopedia and my memory of medieval English practice), it was possible for veneration to be authorized in a diocese by decree. The usual custom then was for the feast of this saint to become universal by Roman reception. The idea of a Roman martyrology dates to the 3rd century, when the deacons were ordered to record the martyrdoms in their district but it became an increasingly "universal" martyrology later. But canonization was centralized at Rome by the late 12th century. The bureaucratic process presently used in the Roman Catholic Church has evolved since then, and the business of cleaning up what happened before then has been left to the bureaucratic organs and the research activities of the most supercool of the Jesuits, the Bollandists.
But what about Anglicans? Do we canonize? How and why? Well, the place to look first is a kalendar for an edition of the 1662 Prayer Book. I found an online version of the 1771 edition that has a most fascinating calendar, in that it maintains the Feasts of the Apostles, notable early martyrs, and various figures connected the Order of Saint Benedict or the evangelization of the British Isles. It even includes the Invention of the Holy Cross and tells you when to start the O Antiphons in Advent. The only post-Reformation observances are the Feast of King Charles Martyr (one of the patronal feasts of the Monastery, not presently on the American kalendar) and "Papist Conspiracy" or Guy Fawkes Day. No Ridley or Latimer or Cranmer. It was a stripped-down pre-Reformation kalendar only modified by politics. The new feasts famously were opportunities for the High Anglican Ascendancy to glory in its victory over the Puritans (now Nonconformists) and the Roman Catholics. Sick, frankly.
The new American church would have none of the politics in the kalendar, so they removed everyone who could not be found in the Holy Scriptures, maintaining only All Saints (this feast is Gallican in origin and was received at Rome in the 9th century). And so it apparently was until 1979, since the 1928 BCP has the same kalendar as 1789. The story of how we suddenly restored most of the saints of the Scottish kalendar (Laud's Book) and added so many new ones should be told someone who remembers, since some are likely still alive.
So does TEC canonize people? Well, I think we do. All the Roman Pontiff does to canonize is to declare someone a Saint, inscribe their name in a catalog, and appoint a feast day. General Convention does little less. But still we are uncomfortable with our form of canonization, and I just realized why: this practice hasn't been around very long. I once suggested that my campus ministry celebrate the feast day of the patron of the house we used as our base of operations. But despite our willingness to celebrate the feasts of other saints, it seemed odd to celebrate the feast of a man of whom we had two photographs in the house: one of him in clericals and one from his student days in which he was dressed as a woman for a dramatic production. No one normally talks about St. William White or St. Phillips Brooks.
But in the last thirty years, we have put an entire slew of new people on the kalendar with little discussion of why. Most recently, this issue arose with the proposal that Thurgood Marshall be included in the kalendar. Frankly, the proposal was worth it just for the distraction of the newspapers from other matters at General Convention, but it brought up an important question: Thurgood Marshall certainly did a lot of important things for American civil liberties but did he have "especial sanctity" or was a sufficient witness to Christ in his actions? Does it really matter? The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music will consider this question during the next three years.
Fortunately, this Triennium they proposed guidelines in their Report about who to include in the kalendar prefaced with this gem from the Passion of Polycarp:
“There the Lord will permit us, so far as possible, to gather together in joy and gladness to celebrate the day of his martyrdom as a birthday, in memory of those athletes who have gone before, and to train and make ready those who are to come hereafter.”
1. Historicity
Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.
I really don't understand what this means, unless it's some convoluted explanation of why we generally don't commemorate Corpus Christi. We commemorate people and not doctrines or the Holy Club or something.
2. Christian Discipleship
The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.
Baptism in blood hopefully is legitimate here. If you die for Christ, you die with Christ. This recommendation is good in that it instructs us not to commemorate non-Christians but says in a way that make people feel better about it because it is linked with the popular baptismal theology.
3. Significance
Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.
There is attempt here to use the Roman Catholic language of "heroic virtue" without actually using it. But the point is solid. Those commemorated are exemplars and must be exemplary.
4. Memorability
The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).
God bless James Kiefer for bringing the kalendar to life. Basically, this recommendation says that those commemorated must be relevant to us even if they are presently obscure. I really fear for the Cappadocian Fathers, since I don't hear too many priests preach the "good doctrine is important" sermon these days.
5. Range of Inclusion
Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of laypeople (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.
Mission St. Clare puts a lot of fun Lutheran observances on the kalendar. I could go for those. Speaking of ecumenism, how about Brother Roger of Taize? Note that our kalendar is much fuller than the rest of the Communion these days. But again, the chief concern is the saint as exemplar. And I think the idea here is that the best exemplars are those with which we identify or will encourage us to learn about other cultures.
6. Local Observance
Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.
One question: who authorizes local commemoration?
7. Perspective
It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.
Very good. So I guess we'll have to wait on Brother Roger.
Levels of Commemoration
Principal Feasts, Sundays, and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).
Makes sense. If I do both Morning and Evening Prayer, I do the regular Lectionary in the morning and the Festal in the evening. But I've noticed that some commemorations have more readings than others.
9. Combined Commemorations
The present edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2003) recognizes that not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation”. Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (cf. The Cappadocians - Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina— and the Reformation martyrs—Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley).
We need some sort of shorthand though. How about the Feast of the Three Anglican Hierarchs (Proto-Martyrs)?
10. Common of Saints
A greater range of “Commons of Saints” should be provided to allow for optional commemorations at the local and regional levels. Presently there are propers provided for martyrs, missionaries, pastors, theologians and teachers, monastics, and “saints.” Possible additional categories could include musicians and other artists, reformers of society, and “stewards of creation,” for example, scientists and environmentalists.
Steward of creation has a nice ring to it actually.
These recommendations have the imprimatur of General Convention as Resolution A057 of this past Convention.
Some Summary Comments
Commemorations really could go either way at this point. Either they could be treated as an opportunity to satisfy interest groups or score political points with the wider culture as in the Church of England in the 17th century or they could be carefully chosen as an encouragement to us, the Church Militant, looking throughout salvation history for lanterns to light the way to Christ's standard. But I think these recommendations are lacking in one thing: although they cite "heroic virtue," they focus on our own opinions of what that is. I am not one to suggest that we require miracles of those we commemorate, but I do think that there are gifts in the church by which especial sanctity can be detected or in which God reveals those he sets apart for his heavenly service. Perhaps, we should consider these as well.
O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys which thou hast prepared for those who unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, in glory everlasting.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Another Response to Father Harding
Father Wilkins has taken a stab at this already, but he started going places that I reserved for my Latin exams in high school. I also was not at General Convention nor have much to do with the leadership of The Episcopal Church unless you start playing the Kevin Bacon game. Frankly, I was thinking seriously about doing some sort of Twilight Zone parody of Rev. Canon Minns' present situation, but I will leave him to the mercy of his ordinary, whoever that might be at this point.
Father Harding's Epitomes of General Convention 2006
1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.
No, Father Harding. Homosexuality is not a matter of special providence, a particular and virtue-oriented interference in the life of a civilly righteous person or Christian believer, it is clearly common grace in that it rises like the Sun or falls like the rain on the good and evil alike (Matthew 5:45). I.e., by the operation of the natural law, which is still indistinct and unclear to man. But, of course, rain doesn't fall on everyone, especially if they live in the Atacama Desert, and you really can't see much of a sunrise on Quaoar. Common grace is not particular but no means universal. And it's that same common grace which makes you and me heterosexual. But, yes, the operation of the natural law "includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes," whose details still are provisional. As for the inquiry you propose, such an inquiry does matter, for we would not in wickedness suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and is part of discernment with gay and lesbian persons that is taking place within the Eucharistic community of the Body of Christ as presently constituted in this church, but our present judgment is that nurture is a minimal factor.
2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.
I think that "Gay" and "Lesbian" are primary characteristics, which often have deep relations to other aspects of personhood in the same way "male" and "female" are primary characteristics that have a strong organizing imprint on personhood. But handedness also is a primary characteristic in this way. "Male" and "female" however stand at the pinnacle of primary characteristics, and thus have greater theological significance in that it is recognized explicitly in the Scriptures from the beginning, whereas homosexual orientation is more vaguely discussed.
3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.
See #1
4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.
It's not irrelevant, and I will admit that there is a case to make that male bisexuality is extremely rare.
5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.
You make it sound like this is new,
6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.
I believe this whole business began in 1976, before I was born.
7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.
It's fairly easy how the church can "accomodate" bisexual persons. They are encouraged to remain chaste in celibacy (vowed or otherwise) or may enter into matrimony, fratrimony, or sororimony as they are called. I have not considered transgendered persons seriously, but you are right to point out that this is a less obvious case which will require consideration of Scripture and Tradition, which warn us that self-mutilation is a bar to holiness.
8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.
The authoritative reading of the Messiah before the coming of the Lord Jesus was as a military leader who would liberate Israel as a civil entity. St. Augustine of Hippo certainly didn't have the authoritative readings on soteriology behind him for most of his life. Or when Cephalus in the Republic cites various authorities on justice, Socrates replies,
I can assure you that I never intend that anyone's certainty be impugned by having to officiate at a same-sex blessing. And I hope that General Convention probably will conclude that, too. You might cite WO against that idea, but there are increasing worries that "the authoritative readings" on this question actually may be heretical at present knowledge but not according to the knowledge possessed by the authorities. This problem arose at the early Councils, too, so it should be handled under the same principle. The past is orthodox according to their lights until proven otherwise.
9. Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological certainty on this question which the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the church cannot by virtue of the nature of the documents provide.
You appear to suggest that experience is being treated as superior to Scripture and "traditional teaching." Let me rephrase, "Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological clarity on this question in conversation with scripture and the traditional teaching of the church regarding all matters of faith and morals, not just the isolated questions of homosexual activity.
10. Christians who feel bound by the scriptures should understand that the fact that there are different interpretations of the scriptures which touch on same-sex attraction means that no single interpretation can possibly be authoritative.
Not quite. There are various reasons why the traditionally authoritative reading might not be the veracious one. Thus, some Muslims read the Bible and say the Paraclete is the Prophet Muhammad. That is the authoritative reading for that community but our experience of the Spirit teaches us that He is the Paraclete.
11. Since the scriptures cannot possibly be authoritative on this issue and since self-reported spiritual experience provides the only reliable certainty on the subject, any objections to same-sex blessings on the basis of scripture are irrelevant a priori.
I hope not. That would mean that any Scriptural support of same-sex blessings is irrelevant a priori .
12. Exegetical discussion of specific texts which seem to forbid blessing same-sex erotic behavior can only be for the benefit of quieting the consciences of people who take the bible literally. At the end of the day the inherent uncertainty of the scriptures must give way before the certainty of the personal spiritual experience of the same-sex attracted and their supporters and the felt experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit in two succeeding General Conventions.
All I'm asking for is a complete assessment of Scripture, Tradition, and reason that does not just consider homosexuality as something discussed in a few verses of Scripture or Patristic writings etc. but as something whose existence in nature and lived experience must be considered in the light of the entire divine economy as revealed in the same sources. I don't exegete to soothe anyone's conscience except my own but only to learn the truth.
13. The most meaningful dialogue in which the church can engage is dialogue that allows same-sex attracted people and their supporters to share their perceptions of the ways in which God has blessed individuals and specific Christian communities through covenanted same-sex relationships. Actual argument about scripture or the teaching tradition of the church or the state of the scientific question could never produce any legitimate objections to the new thing the Holy Spirit is doing.
See 12. You also might read the Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus as a way of understanding how lived experience can be read in the light of the Holy Scriptures.
14. The experience of people who describe themselves as having been cured or freed from same-sex attraction is irrelevant and the church should not give such people a serious hearing. They either were never really same-sex attracted to begin with or are deluded about their claim to be freed or cured. The personal religious experiences of such people are not of the same quality and reliability as the experiences of the same-sex attracted in the church. These experiences are not to be seen as legitimate experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit in spite of all claims to the contrary. Likewise scientific reporting of the overcoming of same sex attraction is deeply suspect as ideologically tainted and can with confidence be dismissed without a serious reading.
I have given such persons a serious hearing before, though I would have preferred to do so Eucharistically. My provisional opinion is that such deliverance is a case of Special Providence. But I have heard other people on the subject who have repented of seeking such a thing. The last sentence of this epitome is my current reading of the scientific evidence.
15. Same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships should be recommended to our children as entirely equal to and as preferable as marriage between a man and woman. If any young person feels any same-sex attraction it is by God’s express intention and not to act upon it is to dishonor God. To discourage young people to act upon same-sex attraction is to dishonor God’s intention in the creation. The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances. Young people who are experiencing same-sex attraction can be helped by being mentored by older same-sex attracted adults and the church should be proactive in facilitating these relationships.
As long as the key sentence is, " The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances.," this is exactly correct.
16. It is wrong for the Episcopal Church to dictate to any other province of the Anglican Church what its policy on same-sex relationships should be.
Yes, it is wrong for TEC to compel another Province's reception of something that was never received entirely by the church catholic. However, TEC is free to encourage other Provinces to promote greater liberty for gay and lesbian persons.
17. It is wrong for any other province of the Anglican Communion to interfere with the leading of the Holy Spirit in this province. What the Holy Spirit demands at any particular time must be determined locally.
Why is all of this so pneumatological? Look at John above. Or "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." Actually, forget that. ++Drexel Gomez is quite free to reprove us with works such as True Union in the Body provided that we can reprove him, too, if we find his arguments to disagree with our reasoning and conclusions. It is wrong for another province to stir up disorder in this province by offering to exercise episcopal authority without permission of the metropolitical authority or promise to foment schism within this province in order to enhance the feelings of sanctity of those in this province. Well, at least at this point in time. The ideal of catholic discernment is you wait a few generations to see if anything changes. If it's of the Holy Spirit, it will die down or reveal how infernal it is by expression of the lust for mastery.
18. What the Holy Spirit is demanding must be determined provincially. Those dioceses which are members of the Episcopal Church and which resist the new teaching cannot legitimately be thought to be led by the Holy Spirit and must be resisted with all the canonical and legal means available.
For the sake of souls of minority conscience and for the sake of God's Holy Name, I am quite willing to do good to those Dioceses and parishes who find this intolerable by an amicable transfer to another Province, such as the West Indies or the Southern Cone, within a canonical framework. See below. However, if there are further attempts to turn parts of TEC into the Twilight Zone and stir up disorder in this province, sterner measures may be necessary.
19. A variety of interpretations of scripture can be tolerated in the church. The canons of the church especially with regard to the territorial integrity of Episcopal jurisdiction allow for no variation in interpretation.
"And they shall see him, even they who pierced him." Let the reader understand. But I admit the Canons are rather vague. However in this case, I expect the orthodox to act according to the authoritative teachings on ecclesiastical polity and order.
20. The proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a new Anglican covenant and for churches to choose constituent or associate status in the communion represents a dire threat to capacity of the church to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It represents the prospect of a quenching of the Spirit.
Possibly. If the covenant establishes particular perikerygmal dogma, it may quench the Spirit. But if it establishes procedures for discernment and mutual accountability, it may be very good indeed.
21. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has been uniquely privileged to hear from the Holy Spirit in a way that has been denied to the rest of world wide Anglicanism, The Roman Catholic Church, The Orthodox Churches and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Episcopal Church must at all costs maintain its witness to the unique agency of the Holy Spirit in its midst. Those who oppose the new teaching are enemies of the Holy Spirit who are making an idol of the past at the expense of the future to which God is calling us.
First of all, this revelation is not the unique privilege of TEC. If you look hard enough through the rest of the Christian Church, you will notice that the Holy Spirit seems to be opening the Scriptures and Tradition for others as well. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has been working not just at the present but in other times and places in this particular matter. But you are right to say that the majority of opinion is against our doctrinal direction. I will not call anyone an enemy of the Holy Spirit. But I do notice that there are some who falsify the world to strengthen their arguments in this or other matters or make arguments that have relevance to this question but contradict themselves in order to exclude the possibility of approving same-sex unions. It is hard to see how the Spirit of truth can do much for those in love with falsehood.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that thy tents might be fair, thy encampments like long palm groves or aloe trees of the Lord's cultivation, and the Lord like the horns of an ox to direct thee in thy way.
Nevertheless I assure that is in your interest that I am leaving you. If I do not go, the Advocate will not come, whereas if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes, He will prove the world wrong about sin, justice and judgment: about sin, because they refuse to believe in Me; about justice, because I go to the Father when I pass from your sight; about judgement, because the prince of this world stands condemned. There is much more that I could say to you, but the burden is too great for you now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but He will not speak on His own authority, but will speak only what he hears; and he will make known to you what is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and make it known to you. John 16:7-14
Then Balak said to Balaam, 'You will not put a curse on them; then at least do not bless them.' He answered, 'Did I not warn you that I must do whatever the LORD tells me?" Numbers 23:25-26.
Father Harding's Epitomes of General Convention 2006
1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.
No, Father Harding. Homosexuality is not a matter of special providence, a particular and virtue-oriented interference in the life of a civilly righteous person or Christian believer, it is clearly common grace in that it rises like the Sun or falls like the rain on the good and evil alike (Matthew 5:45). I.e., by the operation of the natural law, which is still indistinct and unclear to man. But, of course, rain doesn't fall on everyone, especially if they live in the Atacama Desert, and you really can't see much of a sunrise on Quaoar. Common grace is not particular but no means universal. And it's that same common grace which makes you and me heterosexual. But, yes, the operation of the natural law "includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes," whose details still are provisional. As for the inquiry you propose, such an inquiry does matter, for we would not in wickedness suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and is part of discernment with gay and lesbian persons that is taking place within the Eucharistic community of the Body of Christ as presently constituted in this church, but our present judgment is that nurture is a minimal factor.
2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.
I think that "Gay" and "Lesbian" are primary characteristics, which often have deep relations to other aspects of personhood in the same way "male" and "female" are primary characteristics that have a strong organizing imprint on personhood. But handedness also is a primary characteristic in this way. "Male" and "female" however stand at the pinnacle of primary characteristics, and thus have greater theological significance in that it is recognized explicitly in the Scriptures from the beginning, whereas homosexual orientation is more vaguely discussed.
3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.
See #1
4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.
It's not irrelevant, and I will admit that there is a case to make that male bisexuality is extremely rare.
5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.
You make it sound like this is new,
"They stood outside and prayed as with one mouth, saying, "King of Kings and Lord of lords, who alone possess immortality and inhabit unapproachable light, shed light on the eyes of their minds, because they walk in the darkness of their unknowing; they have exchanged your glory, uncorruptible God, for the likeness of corruptible men and birds and beasts and snakes; and they worship the created rather than you, the creator. Turn them to knowledge of you, that they may know you, the one true God, and your only-begotten Son, our Lord ]esus Christ, who for us and for our salvation suffered and rose from the dead, that he might free us from the bonds of the law and rescue us from the folly of vain idols. Preserve us, God, pure and spotless in the path of your martyrs, walking in your commandments."-- The Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (tr. John Boswell). .This account makes absolutely no sense unless at least someone at least 1100 years ago (and probably more) had similar thoughts about same-sex desire as I do.
6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.
I believe this whole business began in 1976, before I was born.
7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.
It's fairly easy how the church can "accomodate" bisexual persons. They are encouraged to remain chaste in celibacy (vowed or otherwise) or may enter into matrimony, fratrimony, or sororimony as they are called. I have not considered transgendered persons seriously, but you are right to point out that this is a less obvious case which will require consideration of Scripture and Tradition, which warn us that self-mutilation is a bar to holiness.
8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.
The authoritative reading of the Messiah before the coming of the Lord Jesus was as a military leader who would liberate Israel as a civil entity. St. Augustine of Hippo certainly didn't have the authoritative readings on soteriology behind him for most of his life. Or when Cephalus in the Republic cites various authorities on justice, Socrates replies,
"Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition. Book I: tr. Benjamin JowettThe authorities of the Church in the communion of saints saw like we do "through a glass darkly" without knowledge of many things of God and nature. We must consider when we come into new knowledge of these matters or of the tradition generally whether the grounds and reasoning of the authorities are still valid. If they are not, we do them honor by correcting these details of the faith that have come down to us according to the best of our knowledge, for "God is the God of the living and not the dead", and they living in full knowledge may agree with us. But we must be careful to discern whether we actually know anything new or not.
I can assure you that I never intend that anyone's certainty be impugned by having to officiate at a same-sex blessing. And I hope that General Convention probably will conclude that, too. You might cite WO against that idea, but there are increasing worries that "the authoritative readings" on this question actually may be heretical at present knowledge but not according to the knowledge possessed by the authorities. This problem arose at the early Councils, too, so it should be handled under the same principle. The past is orthodox according to their lights until proven otherwise.
9. Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological certainty on this question which the scriptures and the traditional teaching of the church cannot by virtue of the nature of the documents provide.
You appear to suggest that experience is being treated as superior to Scripture and "traditional teaching." Let me rephrase, "Contemporary reports of personal spiritual experience by same-sex attracted people and their supporters about the spiritual blessedness of same-sex relationships provide a basis for moral and theological clarity on this question in conversation with scripture and the traditional teaching of the church regarding all matters of faith and morals, not just the isolated questions of homosexual activity.
10. Christians who feel bound by the scriptures should understand that the fact that there are different interpretations of the scriptures which touch on same-sex attraction means that no single interpretation can possibly be authoritative.
Not quite. There are various reasons why the traditionally authoritative reading might not be the veracious one. Thus, some Muslims read the Bible and say the Paraclete is the Prophet Muhammad. That is the authoritative reading for that community but our experience of the Spirit teaches us that He is the Paraclete.
11. Since the scriptures cannot possibly be authoritative on this issue and since self-reported spiritual experience provides the only reliable certainty on the subject, any objections to same-sex blessings on the basis of scripture are irrelevant a priori.
I hope not. That would mean that any Scriptural support of same-sex blessings is irrelevant a priori .
12. Exegetical discussion of specific texts which seem to forbid blessing same-sex erotic behavior can only be for the benefit of quieting the consciences of people who take the bible literally. At the end of the day the inherent uncertainty of the scriptures must give way before the certainty of the personal spiritual experience of the same-sex attracted and their supporters and the felt experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit in two succeeding General Conventions.
All I'm asking for is a complete assessment of Scripture, Tradition, and reason that does not just consider homosexuality as something discussed in a few verses of Scripture or Patristic writings etc. but as something whose existence in nature and lived experience must be considered in the light of the entire divine economy as revealed in the same sources. I don't exegete to soothe anyone's conscience except my own but only to learn the truth.
13. The most meaningful dialogue in which the church can engage is dialogue that allows same-sex attracted people and their supporters to share their perceptions of the ways in which God has blessed individuals and specific Christian communities through covenanted same-sex relationships. Actual argument about scripture or the teaching tradition of the church or the state of the scientific question could never produce any legitimate objections to the new thing the Holy Spirit is doing.
See 12. You also might read the Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus as a way of understanding how lived experience can be read in the light of the Holy Scriptures.
14. The experience of people who describe themselves as having been cured or freed from same-sex attraction is irrelevant and the church should not give such people a serious hearing. They either were never really same-sex attracted to begin with or are deluded about their claim to be freed or cured. The personal religious experiences of such people are not of the same quality and reliability as the experiences of the same-sex attracted in the church. These experiences are not to be seen as legitimate experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit in spite of all claims to the contrary. Likewise scientific reporting of the overcoming of same sex attraction is deeply suspect as ideologically tainted and can with confidence be dismissed without a serious reading.
I have given such persons a serious hearing before, though I would have preferred to do so Eucharistically. My provisional opinion is that such deliverance is a case of Special Providence. But I have heard other people on the subject who have repented of seeking such a thing. The last sentence of this epitome is my current reading of the scientific evidence.
15. Same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships should be recommended to our children as entirely equal to and as preferable as marriage between a man and woman. If any young person feels any same-sex attraction it is by God’s express intention and not to act upon it is to dishonor God. To discourage young people to act upon same-sex attraction is to dishonor God’s intention in the creation. The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances. Young people who are experiencing same-sex attraction can be helped by being mentored by older same-sex attracted adults and the church should be proactive in facilitating these relationships.
As long as the key sentence is, " The question is not whether young people should act on their same-sex attractions but when and under what circumstances.," this is exactly correct.
16. It is wrong for the Episcopal Church to dictate to any other province of the Anglican Church what its policy on same-sex relationships should be.
Yes, it is wrong for TEC to compel another Province's reception of something that was never received entirely by the church catholic. However, TEC is free to encourage other Provinces to promote greater liberty for gay and lesbian persons.
17. It is wrong for any other province of the Anglican Communion to interfere with the leading of the Holy Spirit in this province. What the Holy Spirit demands at any particular time must be determined locally.
Why is all of this so pneumatological? Look at John above. Or "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." Actually, forget that. ++Drexel Gomez is quite free to reprove us with works such as True Union in the Body provided that we can reprove him, too, if we find his arguments to disagree with our reasoning and conclusions. It is wrong for another province to stir up disorder in this province by offering to exercise episcopal authority without permission of the metropolitical authority or promise to foment schism within this province in order to enhance the feelings of sanctity of those in this province. Well, at least at this point in time. The ideal of catholic discernment is you wait a few generations to see if anything changes. If it's of the Holy Spirit, it will die down or reveal how infernal it is by expression of the lust for mastery.
18. What the Holy Spirit is demanding must be determined provincially. Those dioceses which are members of the Episcopal Church and which resist the new teaching cannot legitimately be thought to be led by the Holy Spirit and must be resisted with all the canonical and legal means available.
For the sake of souls of minority conscience and for the sake of God's Holy Name, I am quite willing to do good to those Dioceses and parishes who find this intolerable by an amicable transfer to another Province, such as the West Indies or the Southern Cone, within a canonical framework. See below. However, if there are further attempts to turn parts of TEC into the Twilight Zone and stir up disorder in this province, sterner measures may be necessary.
19. A variety of interpretations of scripture can be tolerated in the church. The canons of the church especially with regard to the territorial integrity of Episcopal jurisdiction allow for no variation in interpretation.
"And they shall see him, even they who pierced him." Let the reader understand. But I admit the Canons are rather vague. However in this case, I expect the orthodox to act according to the authoritative teachings on ecclesiastical polity and order.
20. The proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a new Anglican covenant and for churches to choose constituent or associate status in the communion represents a dire threat to capacity of the church to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It represents the prospect of a quenching of the Spirit.
Possibly. If the covenant establishes particular perikerygmal dogma, it may quench the Spirit. But if it establishes procedures for discernment and mutual accountability, it may be very good indeed.
21. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has been uniquely privileged to hear from the Holy Spirit in a way that has been denied to the rest of world wide Anglicanism, The Roman Catholic Church, The Orthodox Churches and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Episcopal Church must at all costs maintain its witness to the unique agency of the Holy Spirit in its midst. Those who oppose the new teaching are enemies of the Holy Spirit who are making an idol of the past at the expense of the future to which God is calling us.
First of all, this revelation is not the unique privilege of TEC. If you look hard enough through the rest of the Christian Church, you will notice that the Holy Spirit seems to be opening the Scriptures and Tradition for others as well. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has been working not just at the present but in other times and places in this particular matter. But you are right to say that the majority of opinion is against our doctrinal direction. I will not call anyone an enemy of the Holy Spirit. But I do notice that there are some who falsify the world to strengthen their arguments in this or other matters or make arguments that have relevance to this question but contradict themselves in order to exclude the possibility of approving same-sex unions. It is hard to see how the Spirit of truth can do much for those in love with falsehood.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that thy tents might be fair, thy encampments like long palm groves or aloe trees of the Lord's cultivation, and the Lord like the horns of an ox to direct thee in thy way.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Food for Thought
Oliver O'Donovan+ puts forth the first of a seven part series of "sermons" on contemporary issues. I use sneer quotes for sermon, because a sermon is a genre located in time and space within divine worship. O'Donovan's piece is an essay, not a sermon. I really can't imagine it preached (by O'Donovan at least). Issues of genre aside, Donovan attempts the critique that a few of the readers of this blog are struggling with because we identify ourselves with some of the liberal ends but do not share liberal values in ecclesiastical affairs (as presently manifested). We ask as Rousseau did concerning the origins of civil society, "How did this change come about? .... What can make it legitimate?"
O'Donovan is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, and thus at the heights of the Anglican intelligentsia (as is Marilyn McCord Adams). I thought about making some sauce for the essay, but I'll let it stand alone. I also went to the discussion page, where it was clear that one of the points of the essay had been missed completely. One of the liberalism's chief faults is that it assumes ethics as first principles without considering the foundation of its postulates. But one commenter interpreted O'Donovan in this way,
This, I think, is dictating the discourse beforehand, which I really hope wasn't O'Donovan's message.
The other solid critique, of course, concerns the theological drift toward the belief that the present is the eschaton, which grounds the Communion Without Baptism movement in a way that missiology never could.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the liberty of civil righteousness that is but a shadow of that blessed liberty we have in Jesus Christ be made available to all mankind.
O'Donovan is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church, and thus at the heights of the Anglican intelligentsia (as is Marilyn McCord Adams). I thought about making some sauce for the essay, but I'll let it stand alone. I also went to the discussion page, where it was clear that one of the points of the essay had been missed completely. One of the liberalism's chief faults is that it assumes ethics as first principles without considering the foundation of its postulates. But one commenter interpreted O'Donovan in this way,
"I would suspect that what this might look like is an increasing acceptance of the fact (as opposed to the 'sin') of homosexual orientation and identity (and openess [sic] and love towards those so self-defined) combined with the ability, however, to say, 'No' to such sexual expression as defining the model of human sexuality (with consequent significance for those whose role it is to 'model' the ideal humanity (=Christ) as much as possible = Christian leaders)."
This, I think, is dictating the discourse beforehand, which I really hope wasn't O'Donovan's message.
The other solid critique, of course, concerns the theological drift toward the belief that the present is the eschaton, which grounds the Communion Without Baptism movement in a way that missiology never could.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that the liberty of civil righteousness that is but a shadow of that blessed liberty we have in Jesus Christ be made available to all mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)