Blogging from 38,000 feet

I'm on my way to Anaheim, CA to work at the Anglican Centre in Rome booth at the Episcopal General Convention. I'm flying Airtrans, so I decided I had to try out the inflight wifi. Not sure I would pay for it every time, but it is pretty smooth and fast.

Generation Gap

The recent tallying in the case of Kevin Thew Forrester points to something that I have been saying for a while. As related on Anglican Centrist,

"Several of the leading members of what I will call the 'establishment Left' are quite upset with the lack of consents in the election of Thew Forrester. They are beginning to cry, 'witch hunt,' and 'theological oppression.' Others are beginning to cry, 'but he's actually orthodox.' Still others, 'this is the beginning of the end of true intellectualism in the Church.' Still others seem to have begun a process of shaming those 'fellow liberals' who voted against Thew Forrester.

What we are seeing is the Gap between parties in the Episcopal Church who have not historically been seen to be different. The party of theological 'free thinkers' who have eschewed since the 1960s any appreciation for theological and liturgical coherence are awakening to see that there are also Episcopalians who favor the ample and generous orthodoxy of the Prayer Book and Hymnal, and are looking for a more inclusive church, but who are not looking to tweak, revise, redact or avoid the core elements of the faith, or make revision and innovation the constant modus operandi of the church either."

This also causes consternation on the right, as it punches a hole in the entire "The consecration of Gene Robinson is only the tip of the iceberg with a trend towards liberal theology the part you can't see" argument. This argument is necessary for them because they need to to make schism more palatable - a gay bishop just won't do that.

The confusion on both sides is centered in the generation of baby boomers, who are used to breaking things down along clearly-defined lines. You must choose option A or B.

A - Liberal - Same-sex blessings and ordinations - Liberal theology (Spong, Borg) - Constant liturgical innovation

B - Conservative - Uphold "Traditional Marriage" - Conservative theology (Wright, Hays) - Stick to the Prayer Book (or roll back to 1928)

But what I experience among post-modern Episcopalians (those in Gen X and Y) is that these boundaries that have hardened over decades through constant political in-fighting just don't exist. There are very few young Episcopalians I have met who are obsessed with liberal theology or liturgical innovation in the way the previous generation was, but attitudes towards issues of sexuality are a lot more fluid. Younger Episcopalians are more interested in traditional liturgy and theology than their forebears, but may be more "progressive" in their outreach attitudes. This is often hard for boomers to understand, because their world has always been divided in a dualistic way, stemming from the politics of the 50s and 60s they were raised in.

As we head towards General Convention, I would hope that those in power would recognize that any "Victory" won by either side would be short lived. Those of us coming up through the ranks are tired of the constant conflict, the myopia on both sides, and the distraction from our mission of proclaiming the Gospel that this obsession of seeing the world in a strictly dualistic way creates.

At a Gen X clergy conference several years ago, one of my colleagues told PB Griswold, "Just don't destroy the church before we get a chance to lead." For me, that is my continued prayer. I don't think we will be particularly better at leadership, but I do believe that if the church is to survive and bring Jesus to those who should know him, the political power struggles of the last several decades must cease, or at lease cease to be the be-all end-all of the church. My hope is that we will be able to do that.

David+

---

Further links:

Generation Gap and The Gap II at Anglican Centrist.

Mythopoeic Awards Finalists

The Mythopoeic Society has announced the finalists for the 2009 Mythopoeic Awards.

The winners of this year’s awards will be announced during Mythcon XL, to be held July 17-20, 2009, in Los Angeles, California.

Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature

   Carol Berg, Flesh and Spirit and Breath and Bone (Roc)

   Daryl Gregory, Pandemonium (Del Rey)

   Ursula K. Le Guin, Lavinia (Harcourt)

   Patricia A. McKillip, The Bell at Sealey Head (Ace)

   Gene Wolfe, An Evil Guest (Tor)

Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Children’s Literature

   Kristin Cashore, Graceling (Harcourt Children’s Books)

   Neil Gaiman, The Graveyard Book (HarperCollins)

   Diana Wynne Jones, House of Many Ways (HarperCollins)

   Ingrid Law, Savvy (Dial)

   Terry Pratchett, Nation (HarperCollins)

Mythopoeic Scholarship Award in Inklings Studies

   Gavin Ashenden, Charles Williams: Alchemy and Integration (Kent State, 2008)

   Veryln Flieger and Douglas A. Anderson, eds. Tolkien on Fairy-stories: Expanded Edition, with Commentary and Notes (HarperCollins, 2008)

   John Rateliff, The History of the Hobbit, Part One: Mr. Baggins; Part Two: Return to Bag-end (Houghton Mifflin, 2007)

   Michael Ward, Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis (Oxford, 2008)

   Elizabeth A. Whittingham, The Evolution of Tolkien’s Mythology: A Study of the History of Middle-earth (McFarland, 2008)

Mythopoeic Scholarship Award in Myth and Fantasy Studies

   Charles Butler, Four British Fantasists: Place and Culture in the Children’s Fantasies of Penelope Lively, Alan Garner, Diana Wynne Jones, and Susan Cooper (Children’s Literature Association & Scarecrow Press, 2006)

   Jason Marc Harris, Folklore and the Fantastic in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction (Ashgate, 2008)

   Farah Mendlesohn, Rhetorics of Fantasy (Wesleyan Univ. Press, 2008)

   Marek Oziewicz, One Earth, One People: The Mythopoeic Fantasy Series of Ursula K. Le Guin, Madeleine L’Engle and Orson Scott Card (McFarland, 2008)

   Richard Carl Tuerk, Oz in Perspective: Magic and Myth in the Frank L. Baum Books (McFarland, 2007)

For more information about the Mythopoeic Society please contact:

Edith L. Crowe, Corresponding Secretary

The Mythopoeic Society

PO Box 6707

Altadena, CA 91003

E-mail: correspondence@mythsoc.org

"It's never been this bad before!"

From a leading New York paper:

"The controversy is not a new one to the Episcopal church, but the present crisis has new elements of danger which seem to be fully realized by the leaders of the contending parties. Not the least of these dangers is found in the fact that a new church under the leadership of one who received his ministry and his bishopric in the old church, stands with wide open doors to receive the malcontents. Under these circumstances the religious world will look forward with great interest to the next triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church, will will assemble a few months hence. Upon its action largely depends not only the future of the Church as a body, but the individual denominational relations of thousands of earnest Christians in all parts of the United States."

This is a quote from the Times about the Robinson controversy, right? Or maybe about the controversial Forrester Election in Michigan? Or about the schisimatic ACNA church attempting to get recognition? Wrong, wrong and wrong. This is a quote from the May 30, 1874 New York Tribune. (I've removed some wording from the original to make it more current - the original quote is here in footnote three.) The crisis referred to is the Ritualistic Controversy, and the schism cited is the Cummins Schism which created the Reformed Episcopal Church.

So what was this controversy that shook the church of the 1800's so much that a schism occurred and the Tribune questioned the future of the Episcopal Church? Ritualism was the descendant of the Oxford Movement, a movement within the Church of England that sought to restore the church to independence from the meddling of civil authority. The Oxford Movement moved to return the Church of England to a more catholic basis from the perceived protestant extremes of the times. Ritualism was the natural follow-up - if you restore catholic doctrine, should you not also restore catholic ceremonial? In many cases, this meant taking the ceremonial from the then-current Roman mass and tacking it onto Prayer Book liturgy - a somewhat strange fit. In England, this led to riots, legislation, and jailings.

In America, the effects of the Ritualist controversy were less pronounced. One reason for this is that the decision to adopt the Scottish eucharistic prayer for the first American BCP instead of the English one already put the American church on a more "High-Church" footing. The other factor was probably the fact that the American Church's hierarchy was always less monarchical than the Church of England's, so more diversity was tolerated. Nevertheless, by 1873, the Ritualist Controversy was at a head in the Episcopal Church.

What issues were specifically being questioned? There were two main theological issues and several ceremonial issues. The theological issues were:

1. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Despite the positions of most of the Anglican Divines and Archbishop Cranmer himself, many in the Episcopal Church questioned the doctrine of the Real Presence, considering it too close to the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation to be trusted. Ritualists fought against this memorialization and insisted that it was proper to adore the consecrated elements - indeed, the Prayer Book rubric that required the people to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer seemed to command this. Some went to the extremes of Solemn Benediction, but most did not.

2. The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration

An implied doctrine in the Prayer Book is Baptismal Regeneration, which means that baptism is really a sacrament and that when it is performed it is not simply a symbol, but a means of salvation. People who opposed this claimed that baptism was only a symbol.

The ceremonial issues included the use of incense, clerical vestiture beyond cassock and surplice, vested choirs, flowers and candles on the altar, making the sign of the cross, the use of crucifixes and processional crosses, and several other uses. These were referred to as "Advanced Uses."

To look at an example, we can turn to the tract that the quote from the Tribune above is drawn from. This tract, The Wisconsin Issue, by John B. Pradt, lays out the case that the Rev. Dr. James DeKoven, warden of Racine College, was a poor choice to be bishop of Wisconsin due to his "Romanizing Tendencies." What were these tendencies? He held the views of the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration, and his chapel at the college included a processional cross, a vested choir, and flower arrangements. He also was known to hear private confession. On the basis of these, he was defeated in the Wisconsin election. At the General Convention in 1874, when the Bishop-Elect of Illinois, the Very Rev. George Seymour, was put forward for confirmation, the House of Deputies met in secret session for six days to discuss his qualifications. When he was denied consecration on the fourteenth day of convention, is was for "Romanizing Tendencies" similar to those that had caused DeKoven to lose the Wisconsin election. It is interesting that all of the "Romanizing Tendencies" that DeKoven and Seymour championed are now within the standard doctrine and practice of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, incense is now used at least occasionally throughout the church - something DeKoven thought was a little too advanced.

What does this teach us? First of all that today's hot issue is tomorrow's cause for puzzlement. Most of us cannot fathom denying consent to an episcopal election because the bishop-elect favors vested choirs or hears private confession. For those in the midst of this controversy, the very future and fidelity of the church was at stake. We can smirk, but only because we are not in the heat of it. I know that people on both sides of the issues that face our church believe that the very essence of the church is at stake, but is it really, or are we just elevating our own preferences and prejudices to a level that will cause amusement in 100 years?

Second, the idea that our current crisis is unique or worse than anything we've faced before is a product of our own obsessions. Although the numbers of possible schisimatics in our current situation is much higher than the Cummins schism, they pale in comparison to the Methodist schism after the American Revolution or the Puritan schism in England.

An article from the Religion News Service about the Forrester election states,

"At another time, a new bishop for a sparsely populated string of 27 Great Lakes parishes might have been the end of the story. But in the Age of the Internet, when all politics are global, it's just the beginning."

It's apparent from the stories of DeKoven and Seymour that this is a little overstated. The Episcopal Church has always been critical of those it consecrates as Bishops. Even before the Internet, the choice of a bishop could resound throughout the church and cause its governance to tie itself in knots. The Internet simply speeds up and democratizes that process.

So, without saying that the issues around Gene Robinson, Kevin Forrester, Same-sex blessings and the Anglican Covenant are of no importance, because they are, can we at least accept that they may not be as important as we think they are? Can we back off of the rhetoric of all or nothing? Can we take ourselves a little less seriously so that future generations don't giggle about our writings when they come across them on Project Canterbury? To quote blessed DeKoven - a confessor for toleration from a bygone time,

"Oh, let us beware of any lack of toleration! It enlists, even on the side of error, generosity, kindness of heart, largeness of thinking, and the love of truth. It stops freedom of utterance, the ready proclamation of belief, the due investigation of subjects. It drives away generous hearts, youthful enthusiasm, loving self-surrender. It narrows and belittles; and whensoever the Church of God surrenders herself to it, be it in never so small a degree, she forgets that she is the Bride of Him who made man in His own image, and the world and all things therein, no less than His Written Word, and herself whom He purchased with his own blood." (From here)

May we be the tolerant church he preached, but seldom experienced.

David+

Alleluia!

Sir Colbert gets Tolkien-Geeky Again

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
H.M. Queen Noor
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

During the interview with Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, Stephen Colbert trades a signature on the Zero Declaration for knighthood. He's knighted with (at least a replica of) Anduril from the Lord of the Rings movie that was given to him by Viggo Mortensen (see clip below).

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen for President - Answering the Call
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

The question now is, does that make Sir Colbert a knight of Gondor, of Jordan, or both?

colbert, humor, politics, tolkien, nuclear weapons

RIP Dave Arneson

Another sad day for gaming....

"Dave Arneson, born in 1947, an American game designer, teacher and entrepreneur and the co-creator of the seminal Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, passed away on Tuesday, April 7, after a long battle with cancer. He is survived by his wife and daughter."

Read more here.

culture, gaming, d20

Openness vs. Syncretism

There is a continuing debate in the Episcopal Church (and other denominations) about the value of praxis from other faiths being integrated into our own Christian faith. Two outstanding cases lately have been the election of The Rev. Kevin Forrester (Who practices Zen meditation) as the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan and the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding in Seattle who professes herself as a Muslim as well as an Episcopal Priest.

The issue here is one of drawing lines - when does integration of praxis into the Christian faith so transform it that it is no longer recognizable as such? How much openness to cross-pollination from another religion can we have before ending up as syncretists - simply a mix of two faiths that may possibly honor neither? In both of these cases, the additional issue is that both of these persons are ordained. While many of the same questions might apply to a lay Episcopalian, there is an added issue in that both of these people are specifically called by their ordination vows to upholding the Christian faith as received from the saints and transmitting it to the next generation. We certainly cannot say that practices from other religions cannot be allowed, as much of our existing tradition, especially around Christmas and Easter, come from pre-Christian sources. Instead of some sort of blanket statement, we need to evaluate each case on its own merit.

Let’s start with the case of Rev. Forrester. Putting aside the questions about the method of election in Northern Michigan, which is off-topic for the sake of this writing, what kind of tradition and praxis from Buddhism is Rev. Forrester bringing into his Christianity? The branch of Buddhist practice that he is engaging in is Zen, which is one of the major branches of Buddhism and is especially strong in Japan. While many branches of Buddhism are theistic, Zen Buddhism emphasizes experiential wisdom, gained through the practice of meditation, called zazen, which brings enlightenment. Zen eschews Buddhist religious practice in favor of direct insight. Therefore, people who engage in Zen meditation are not enjoined to take part in any religious practice or adopt any particular view of divinity. Zen is agnostic in its purest sense.

Does that mean it has no effect on Rev. Forrester’s Christianity? Of course not! We are embodied beings in human cultures and every aspect of our individual and corporate lives effect the lens we see the Gospel through. A Christian who listens to Rush Limbaugh often has a very different take on the Gospel than a Christian who watches Jon Stewart. Roman Christians who undergird their theology with a Neo-Platonic philosophical framework believe in a doctrine of transubstantiation, while Anglican Christians who work within a more utilitarian framework believe in real presence. A Christian who practices zazen is going to have a different idea about the Gospel than one who bases their praxis on The Purpose Driven Life. The question is, can you practice zazen and still remain within the fold of Christianity?

Zen Buddhism in its pure form certainly has a different emphasis on reality than orthodox Christianity. In Zen, the point is to get away from external sources and search for the “Buddha within,” which can bring about freedom from the karmic cycle. Christian contemplative meditation, on the other hand, generally emphasizes the external - getting the self out of the way so that we can contemplate the Trinity. However, many leaders in Christian contemplative practice including Thomas Merton and Thomas Keating have noted the similarities between the praxis of oriental and Christian contemplation, even if the goals are different. Many aspects of Zen mediation techniques have been adopted by Keating and his followers in the Centering Prayer movement to augment and help formalize the revival of ancient Christian meditative praxis.

Therefore, the issue should not be whether Rev. Forrester is using Zen techniques, but whether the practice is directed in a way that is compatible with Christian belief. In the document, “My Christian Faith & the Practice of Zen Buddhist Meditation” from the Diocese of Northern Michigan’s website, Rev. Forrester states, “My experience continues to be that through the grace of meditation I am drawn ever deeper into the Trinitarian contemplative Christian tradition.” If this is indeed the case, he stands with Merton and Keating in the long tradition of taking what is good from other cultures and traditions and bringing them to Christ. The fact that he received “Lay ordination” in Zen does not seem to signify much, although one could certainly say that, in hindsight, it might not have been an astute move.

This situation is one that is gray, as Rev. Forrester is working near the edges of Christian meditative practice. In such cases, I would generally defer to the people and clergy of the diocese he is to serve as to whether he can effectively serve as a chief pastor and teacher.

I find the case of Rev. Redding to be less ambivalent. Rev. Redding has been an Episcopal Priest for 25 years. In 2006, she became a practicing Muslim and claims that it is possible to be both. The difference in the case between Rev. Redding and Rev. Forrester is that while Rev. Forrester has adopted praxis from another religion while working it into trinitarian theology, Rev. Redding is claiming the full theology of both religions. In order to become a practicing Muslim, she had to recite the shahadah, “I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” The problem here is that orthodox Christianity explicitly teaches that Jesus is God as a person of the Holy Trinity, a claim which Muslims explicitly reject.

Once again, this is complicated by her priesthood. While it might be possible for a layperson in the Episcopal Church to hold those tensions together, a priest has to affirm the divinity of Christ in every eucharist - a non-sequitur for a practicing Muslim. A priest stands in persona Christi at the eucharist, something that is impossible if you can’t affirm his divinity. Rev. Redding is under the authority of the Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, who has given her until the end of this month to recant or be defrocked. In this case, I have to agree. Had she simply adopted prayer methods from Islam or the concept of surrender to God, the result might be different. I can see no way in which a Christian Priest can be a confessing Muslim - it lends integrity to neither religion.

We have to be careful when looking at this line between openness and syncretism. It is possible to be too close-minded and to mistake the cultural trappings of Christianity for Christianity itself. When we do this, we risk losing insights from the Holy Spirit that indeed can come from sources outside the church. It is also possible to be so enamored of the concept of “pluralism” that we lose what is best in a religion in a rush to create a politically-correct theological porridge that is neither beautiful, nor palatable, nor sustaining. Only through careful examinations of the fault-lines between Christianity and other religions can we find those insights which can add beauty and depth to our tradition.

David+

anglican, buddhism, christianity, clergy, episcopal, islam, religion, theology

Supercessionism and the Stewards of Gondor

Couldn't pass this one up - A graduate Student, Ken Brown, is writing a thesis on the problem of "Replacement Theology" (ie, what role does Judaism play vis a vis Christianity) and goes at it using the metaphor of the Steward of Gondor,

Imagine a king went away on a journey and left an emissary a regent to govern in his stead. The regent is charged with reminding his people of the king’s wishes and keeping them expectant of his eventual return. The regent does his job well, but when the king finally does return, it is in a manner that no one expects, and most do not recognize him as the king at all. At that point, the king’s regent is, technically speaking, no longer necessary–no one needs to ask the regent about the king’s wishes because they can now ask the king directly–but since the regent is one of the few who knows the king’s true identity, he does continue to serve as a “witness” to that fact, valuable to those who have come to trust the regent but are not yet convinced that this late-comer is truly their king.

and

Such is how, I believe, John views Moses, the Torah and the Temple. As the incarnation of the one God of Israel, Jesus does not replace those “predecessors” (after all, he thinks Jesus, as the logos, predates them), nor is their status as “witnesses” (John 5) a demotion from their previous roles. Instead, John seems to be saying that this is the purpose they have always served. Jesus is not a new Moses, a new Torah or a new Temple, but the divine king to whom all three have always pointed.

It's worth a read, both the original post here and its follow-up here.

Thanks to Entangled States for the heads-up.

David+

christianity, episcopal, religion, tolkien, supercessionism, judaism

One-ed into God

My March newsletter article...

---

“Our soul is so completely one-ed to God by His own goodness, that there can be absolutely nothing at all separating God and soul.”

- Chapter 46, “A Lesson of Love” by Julian of Norwich

In her first talk to us during our Lenten series, Mother Hilary of the Order of Julian of Norwich talked to us about Julian’s reflection on the relationship between God and humanity. For Julian, God is intimately close to every one of us. We are made in the image of God, the second person of the holy Trinity became one of us, and in the Holy Spirit we are constantly brought back into communion. It is only a “Dream of Separateness” (as Thomas Merton put it) that keeps us unaware of our constant connection. Likewise, we are connected one to another through our common humanity in Christ. This is a fact of being. There is nothing we can do about it. Not even sin can separate us completely from the love of God.

As we travel through the season of Lent, it is a time to reflect on what the role of the church is, and our role within her. It seems like all to often, the term “church” in America means another place to do things. In a city I lived in, there is a large mega-church with four balconies, its’ own health club, bookstore, and even a pizza franchise to feed the huge youth group. It offered a bewildering array of programs every night, including it’s own internal baseball and soccer leagues. It is a place to do things – a one-stop shop for all of your needs spiritual and physical.

As Episcopalians, we are often critical of such churches, but usually with at least a little bit of envy. If only we could be that large! The temptation is there to rush about, implementing programs and desperately trying to compete with other churches or with secular groups. It’s common to hear youth leaders bemoaning how hard it is to compete with sports, scouts, band, etc.. But if we take the page from Julian seriously, is that what we should be about? Should we even enter that competition?

The task before us as Christians is not one that can be accomplished by solely “doing.” We cannot add to our relationship with God - it is already there in its fullness waiting to be accepted. The task of the church is calling to remembrance that relationship. The church does not create Christians, it simply calls us to remember the relationship to Christ that already exists.

If we take this seriously, it changes how we operate as a church. Programs must be evaluated not on the basis of how much they do, but how well they call us to remembrance. Likewise, as we walk through Lent, it is a time for us to look at our lives. What helps us remember our value to God? What keeps us from remembering? When we do charitable works, is it because it’s the “right thing to do” or because when we do it, we remember that those we help are also beloved of our Father?

This Lenten season, take some time, as Mother Hilary put it, to simply sit and let Jesus love you. Remember that you are of infinite worth to God, and let your life fall into line behind that truth.

David+

anglican, christianity, episcopal, Julian of Norwich, lent, religion, theology