Father Matthew Presents - Lectio Divina

A how-to guide of the Christian practice of "Lectio Divina" produced by the Rev. Matthew Moretz. Lectio Divina is a method of "praying the scriptures" that has been around since the 3rd century. This video is part of the "Father Matthew Presents" series, produced by an Episcopal Priest since 2006. Check out his YouTube account for dozens more videos. Also, check out www.fathermatthewpresents.com for more info.

His home parish is Christ's Church in Rye, New York. www.ccrye.org

You can purchase his DVD on the Sacraments at https://www.createspace.com/260580

New Podcast Item

New Podcast Item

Former three-term senator Danforth, who is also an Episcopal Priest, talks about "Faith, Evangelicals and Politics" on NPR's "Tell Me More."

The podcasting feed can be found on the sidebar or at: http://podcast.askthepriest.org and is listed in the iTunes, Odeo and podcast.net directories.

More information & podcasting software can be found at http://www.ipodder.org

"It's never been this bad before!"

I've written an opinion piece that draws heavily on the history of the Ritualistic Controversy within the Episcopal Church. Since it is opinion about current events, I have posted it on my personal blog, Ayia Illuvatar.

Father Matthew Presents: Biblical Inerrancy

A presentation on Biblical Inerrancy by Episcopal priest, Matthew Moretz. The piece deals with the problems that come with believing that the Scriptures are infallible in every way. Biblical inerrancy can be an obstacle to Christian faith, and a kind of idolatry if one isn't careful. As suggested in the video, something doesn't have to be infinitely perfect for God to speak through it. This is an installment of the "Father Matthew Presents" series, now in stunning HD. Father Matthew is a priest at Christ's Church (Episcopal) in Rye, New York.

For further information:
AskThePriest - The Heresy of Literalism AskThePriest - Literalism: The Heresy of the 20th Century Wikipedia - Biblical Literalism Wikipedia - Biblical Inerrancy

Alleluia!

Is there a place for me?

A reader writes in, "What exactly does the bible say about homosexuality and is there a place for people like me in the Church?"

The issue with Homosexuality in the Bible is not what the text SAYS, but what it MEANS and how we have to interpret it for a situation that was unknown in Biblical culture - namely two people of the same gender living in a long-term monogamous sexual relationship. I read an excellent article yesterday by my former Old Testament professor, Ellen Davis. (The article can be found here.) She states, "The Bible does not unambiguously endorse any position, either for or against committed same-sex unions, and both positions are open to serious challenge from the Gospel." I will present the most common texts and a summary of Davis' commentary.

Gen. 2:24 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."

This is a positive statement. As Davis puts it, "Producing a valid prohibition from a positive Biblical statement is a dicey matter." Some Roman Catholics read, "Be fruitful and multiply" as a prohibition against birth control, while protestants do not.

Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

and

Lev. 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

These are actually two of the most popular verses to cite, although Christians routinely ignore the rest of Leviticus. Sometimes, the argument is made that there is a division between "moral" and "cultic" law in Leviticus, and that Christians are still bound by the moral law, but this distinction is something Leviticus itself does not recognize. The commandments of Leviticus are a holiness code that regulates an integrated cultic and moral life for the people of Israel in the promised land that cannot be taken apart piecemeal. Leviticus scholar Jacob Milgrom argues that the prohibition on homosexuality is clear and binding, but is limited only to males of the people of Israel who inhabit the Holy Land.

Rom. 1:26-27 ¶ For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,  and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1Cor. 6:9-10 ¶ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

In these passages, Paul is criticizing behavior that "taken as a whole reveal contempt or hatred for God." They are acts that are "purient, exploitative, and wholly devoid of commitment or mutual nurturance." The interpretational question is whether the acts that Paul condemns are in the same category as those in a long-term same-gender relationship.

There are no passages in the Gospels that address this issue directly.

On the other hand, there is no specific scriptural support for same-gender relationships. However, the most thoughtful proponents of this position also engage with scripture.

New Testament scholar Walter Wink argues that, while the Bible has no sexual ethic as such, it does have a love ethic, “which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in a given . . . culture.” Those whohold this position view the mutual loving commitment demonstrated by same-sex couples within the Christian community as a faithful witness that constrains the church as a whole to reevaluate how the Spirit of God is working among us.

Despite what some may say, the proponents of both positions come to their conclusions with great respect for the Bible and it is unlikely that this debate will be settled anytime soon. Respect is called for in a debate between believers who are engaged at a deep level with the Holy Scriptures.

As far as whether there is a place in the Episcopal Church for people of Homosexual orientation, my answer is "yes," although I will defer to Integrity, which represents GLBT Epsicopalians for a fuller explanation:

Q: Where does the Episcopal Church stand on gay and lesbian issues?

A:The Episcopal Church is still wrestling with the full inclusion of gay and lesbian folk and their equal access to the sacraments--though we are further ahead than most denominations. Many dioceses and congregations are actively supportive, a few are actively hostile, and most are somewhere in between.

In 1976 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed the following resolutions...

Resolved, that it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God and have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.

Resolved, that this General Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality.

In 1994 the General Convention of passed the following resolution...

No person shall be denied rights, status, or an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon.

In 1997 the General Convention Church passed the following resolution...

That this 72nd General Convention apologizes on behalf of the Episcopal Church to its members who are gay or lesbian and to lesbians and gay men outside the Church for years of rejection and maltreatment by the Church; . . . That this Church repents of its sins committed against lesbian and gay people—physical, psychological and spiritual—through covert and overt action and inaction. We seek amendment of our life together and we ask for God’s help in sharing the Good News with all people.

David+

Further Information:

Anglican Theological Review, Summer 2008, Homosexuality, Ethics and the Church

Inclusive Orthodoxy

Integrity Website

Anglican, Bible, Christianity, Episcopal, homosexuality, theology

Father Matthew Presents: Pastime Pardon

What is the deal with the saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" Is it of any value? Episcopal priest, Matthew Moretz, plays a game of Scrabble with his friend, Jehosephat, they have a fight, and the character of forgiveness is explored. This video is part of the "Father Matthew Presents" series, produced out of Christ's Church, one of the oldest Episcopal parishes in the country, in Rye, New York. www.ccrye.org

Anglican, Episcopal, Father Matthew Presents, Podcast, theology, YouTube, forgiveness

Excellent Video on Julian of Norwich

Episcopal Café has an excellent video from Trinity Television on the patron saint of my religious order, Julian of Norwich (see my post here). Click on the image to link to the video there.

Anglican, Christianity, Episcopal, Julian of Norwich, Religion, saints, theology

Science and Religion Redux

A lot of activity in the Science and Religion area around Darwin's Birthday....

A reader writes in (edited).....

I am a doctoral student in the behavioral sciences at one of the top universities in the nation. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. At the age of 16 I became a reactionary atheist due to the horrific treatment I received at the hands of Christians. As my knowledge of science and the scientific method grew as my education progressed, my reactionary atheism transformed into a rational and dispassionate atheism grounded in science.

Last year, I felt the need to find a way to reconnect with my Christian faith. I had a "conversion experience" last year, and I eventually found my way to the Episcopal Church where I was confirmed. Initially, faith came to me quite easily. I immediately became active in the parish, and I currently lead evening prayers and participate in spiritual direction. My initial burst of faith was unfortunately short-lived. I have nonetheless remained active in my parish and try to attend mass several times during the week and, of course, on Sundays. As a scientist, however, I am finding it increasingly difficult to have faith due to my knowledge of science. No matter how much I try to reconcile faith and reason, as a scientist I cannot escape the conclusion that atheism is the only intellectually honest position one can take. Intellectually, I would describe myself as an atheist-leaning agnostic. I desperately want to be able to recite the creeds with conviction, but right now I simply cannot do so. This saddens me. As a scientist I know that the existence of the God of the Nicene Creed is so statistically improbable that this God almost certainly does not exist. Nonetheless, when I approach faith from a phenomenological perspective, I am absolutely certain that there is a God. Indeed, I have felt God's presence in prayer and meditation.

As a scientist, though, I simply cannot abdicate my knowledge of and appreciation for the elegance of the epistemology of the scientific method. So while I can accept a phenomenological argument for the existence of a nebulous Higher Power as valid, I find a phenomenological argument for the existence of the Christian God (or the God of any religion for that matter) to be woefully inadequate.   Phenomenology is incapable of confirming the truth of the Creeds, and the scientific method essentially disproves the creeds (although the scientific method cannot prove a universal negative, it has certainly compiled an overwhelming amount of evidence that comes close to doing just that). My doubts are unfortunately impossible to shake because facts are facts. When reason and faith are at odds, I am incapable of choosing faith over reason because I would have to lie to myself in order to do so.

I may sound like I am parroting Richard Dawkins, but the truth is that I desperately want to have faith. In fact, I constantly pray for the gift of faith but so far that request has not been granted.

Dear Reader,

First, you might read "Blasphemy Challenge Coda - Reading Dawkins and Polkinghorne" and the entries that are linked on that page. I did a lot of dialog with a Swedish Atheist a year ago or so.

Since we are commemorating Darwin this week, it might be good to give this a shot from another direction - let's look at the series of deductions that might lead a person from observation (in this case in biology) to the conclusion that there is no God....

1. I've observed multiple generations of fruit flies and those with better adapting mutations survive better.

2. I've observed multiple species, noticed the vast similarities, and come to the conclusion that this process of mutation, over a long period, led to the development of more complex life from simpler life forms.

3. Noting that the strong survive, I've concluded that struggle is the motive force behind evolution. "Survival of the Fittest" is the law of the biological universe.

4. Religion claims that God is in control of the universe, but I have established that natural forces do so through struggle. Religion also claims miracles as "Supernatural" interventions by God. I have no empirical evidence of this. Religion also claims that a higher power created the world, but there is again no empirical evidence.

5. All the claims by religion are not backed up by empirical evidence. Therefore, the primary claim of religion, that a higher power exists, is also false.

Let's take this one by one - note that we move further from observation the further we go....

1. This is an obvious claim supported by common observation - even Creationists allow for mutation.

2. This is where Creationists drop off due to belief in Biblical Literalism (See The Heresy of Literalism). Christians who are not literalists see no issue with evolution. Even with gaps in the evolutionary record, the evidence is overwhelming and the basis of modern Biology. It's important to note here, though, that we are moving away from simple observation into extrapolation of data. This is a hypothesis without complete proof, even if the preponderance of evidence leans overwhelmingly towards this view.

3. Now we have moved to hypothesis. This was Darwin's understanding of the motive force behind evolution. However, it was a hypothesis tied to his time. As Elisabet Sahtouris has pointed out, this is an Economic model of evolution, which was the popular model for everything in Darwin's time. This assumption is being challenged from several sides these days. Sahtouris' challenge is especially interesting because she puts forth the idea that consciousness controls evolution and claims that evolution is actually more about cooperation than competition. I've often wondered what evolutionary models would look like if Evolution had been first described by a woman - now I have at least one answer.

4. Now we have moved from hypothesis to conjecture, and conjecture not just on science, but on what religion "is about." While science is rightfully concerned about our origins, it is almost a sidebar for religion, except for fundamentalists who are essentially practicing a strange fusion of religion and scientific epistemology. (Once again, see The Heresy of Literalism) Religion is about meaning in life, a question that responsible science cannot hope to answer in more than a mechanistic way. Scientists can speculate on meaning, but when they do so, they are engaging in philosophy, not science (Most of Dawkins' books are this kind of philosophical conjecture). Religion does not rely on a creation story or a set of miracles - that kind of reduction of religion is a misuse of the scientific method.

5. If the hypothesis is that God exists and that we are not God, then it stands to reason that God may not be discernible by methods we develop. A lack of empirical evidence does not make for proof. This level is a purely philosophical jump and would never come up if there was not an axe to grind.

The problem is, we get so wrapped up in what we see as the scientific method, that we are seldom critical of it. John Polkinghorne has pointed out the divide between Quantum Physicists (who are often mystical emergentists) and Evolutionary Biologists (who are often Practical Reductionists) in regards to the philosophy of science (see again Blasphemy Challenge Coda - Reading Dawkins and Polkinghorne) People who are educated in science are often indoctrinated into a particular scientific school of philosophy without realizing it. This leads scientists to make philosophical statements that are as unfounded in actual scientific data as fundamentalist statements about science that are unfounded in the Biblical witness.

Uncritical training in science can also lead to a scientific over-scrutiny of everything. For instance, the creed. In my reading, I can see nothing there that can be scientifically tested. The creed is poetry - a love song to God. It talks in purely philosophical terms about how the church has come to know God. When we recite the creed, we are not stating a set of scientific propositions, we are engaging in an artistic endeavor. Many liturgists now suggest that the creed be sung, so that we get the feeling for this - otherwise, it begins to sound like an orthodox "Pledge of Allegiance."

We have to find a balance. Science is not the only valid epistemology - neither is religion. The two can be complimentary, even if sometimes their intersections are not seamless.

David+

Further Reading:

"Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense" (N.T. Wright)

"Belief in God in an Age of Science" (John Polkinghorne)

"Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution" (Elisabet Sahtouris)

Anglican, Bible, Christianity, dawkins, Episcopal, evolution, fundamentalism, literalism, polkinghorne, Religion, sahtouris, science

2009 Resolution

A resolution for 2009 - to get back on track with my blogging! I hope to make sure that both ATP and Ayia Iluvatar are fed once a week! Poor blogs, you've been so neglected.....