For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11
It's happening again. An Episcopal diocese has elected a bishop and stormclouds are swirling around the result. Is it a sign of growing maturity that the bishop's sexual orientation isn't the issue? I think not.
For information on the dispute, see Episcopal Cafe's current round-up .
Part of the dispute stems from the organizational framework of the Diocese since the mid 1980s, which emphasizes a concept called "Mutual Ministry." You'll note that I have intentionally linked to the Diocese's description of this framework. In theory, I like the idea of mutual ministry. Recently (while taking a break while writing draft chapters of my thesis...or published articles), I read Three Minute Theologian's online version of his book, Killing George Herbert . It's a tour de force on how defective present models of Anglican ministry are and finds considerable insight in reform from Bonhoeffer, Rowan Williams, and others. But the key problem of the book that most parishes are still somewhere in the leftmost two models of ministry described in the pyramid plots on the Northern Michigan page. Northern Michigan's aging and shrinking population has been forced toward a model of ministry that may have benefits for the wider church. The details can vary, however. Rather than calling this model uncatholic etc., let's use this dispute as an opportunity to learn from N. Michigan. Maybe, some sort of FAQ could be provided to Standing Committees. Does it concern me that the election was non-competitive? Of course. The Holy Spirit should be free to work in such cases, viz Pope Fabian. But the circumstances aren't yet clear.
Part of the dispute involves the Zen Buddhist practice of the Bishop-elect, Kevin Thew Forrester. In light of pagan and Muslim syncretism by Episcopal priests in recent years, we should ask whether the Buddhist principles Forrester embraces contradict Christian principles, as is quite clear in the former two cases, which imply worship of the asheroth /erotoliturgical expression and denial of Jesus' divine equality with the Father in each case respectively. In both of these cases, it's fairly clear that the foundation upon which these priests were building was not Jesus Christ, God of Israel and human being, crucified, died, and risen. I don't have enough the facts of the case to judge.
The final part of the dispute involves accusations of some of the exact liturgical abuses that go on in my parish most of the time, often to my vexation. There is a part of me that would like to Forrester's alleged total disregard for the authorized worship of the Church severely punished, considering he has been elected to an office of oversight in this matter. I feel especially tempted, knowing how these kinds of changes forced down a parish's throat can have serious consequences for the faith of the faithful. But I also know that some of these changes really can be healing for some people. I think it's more important for us to talk about why liturgical abuses go on and what effect they have and what processes liturgical change be implemented than punishing the abusive. Often the problem is one of ignorance rather than malice. Liturgical abusers need counseling, not punishment.
3 comments:
Our diocese is also heading in a Mutual Ministry direction. It's necessary for many reasons, one of which is that we simply cannot afford so many clergy as economies of scale have changed. My parish is at the forefront of this change, working with our only Latino congregation with whom we now share a space. It's quite enriching in my opinion. Not to mention that a networking model of the Church is the very earliest catholic model! And that a fulsome understanding of the lay estate is well, catholic and biblical.
I found the election troubling in that a lineup of candidates didn't seem to be presented. There seems to be, at least from what I've read, too close a tie between the Bp.-elect and the committee. This is about transparency in process and openness to the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the question of Bp.-elect Thewer is whether or not his Buddhist principles conflict with Christian faith in Jesus Christ as set out particularly in the Symbol. Is there a teaching denigrating Creation, for example, that negatively construes desires rather than orders them? But then, some Christians do the same. These questions should be asked, but without the vitriol. I would also like to ask though why it is that we are so weak on tradition that we don't know our own riches? We have at least two forms of Christian contemplative prayer--Prayer of the Heart (prayer with a word) and Unknowing/Centering Prayer. We have our own ordering of the day by prayer--the Offices (to address a reason the priest in Seattle took up Islam).
As to liturgical abuse. I think it sensible and wise to ask questions of why in any given context. I find it especially rich when Anglo-Catholics get in such a huff when they were on the receiving end of real persecution and prosecution just a century ago for precisely "liturgical abuse". Candles, incense, and genuflection were reason for concern, even as they misinterpretted Andrewes to try to sneak in Adoration. There is more flexibility in our present BCP than some wish were there, but it is there, and my parish benefits. We have some amazing settings of music locally composed and rites that tend more East than West. I draw a line in a couple of places, however, and they're die in the ditch lines--meaning non-negotiable: 1) The Symbol is to be said or sung at the principle Sunday Holy Communion (this offsets any deviative tendencies found in experiments in prayers elsewherewise); 2) The opening must be in the Name of the Blessed Trinity (and some of our present additions are not quite up to snuff); 3) Any Prayer of Consecration must be able to maintain the very fine balance--teaching on Real Presence, etc. of teaching found in our present formularies.
I can't really respond to the issues of canonical correctness or liturgical abuse (I'm curious about what the liturgical abuse actually is, as I can't find information on it online so far). Regarding the Zen Buddhist meditation, in my experience (I've spent a week in a Zen monastery as well as meditating independently, though irregularly), it is not the same as Christian prayer at all. Centering prayer is quite different. Christian prayer is directed at a trinitarian being, a personal being with purpose who can respond and who is listening. Zen Buddhist meditation is not directed at anything; it is a silent observation and exploration of self and ego which permits the meditator, after much practice, to perceive the ways in which ego distorts compassion and inspires mistaken deeds and attitudes. There is no worship or doctrine involved. In my experience, it works as a spiritual technology rather than as a prayer: it is a disciplined method by which one can deepen one's self-knowledge and humility in the service of Christ. I would argue that Buddhist-style meditation per se is no threat or obstacle to being a Christian.
How widespread is the support for mutual ministry within the church? Is there growing support for this model?
I watch with interest what happens in this diocese. I am by no means a right wing Christian, but I believe a solid foundation in the Christian faith should be required of our Bishops. So I wonder what the Bishop Elect actually holds too and how he reconciles the two faiths.
Post a Comment