Occasional thoughts of an Anglican Episcopal priest

Category: Scripture (Page 32 of 43)

Do We Lack Madmen? – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Daily Office Lectionary for Friday in the week of Proper 10, Yr 1 (Pentecost 7, 2015)

1 Samuel 21:15 ~ Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?

“Do I lack madmen?” asked Achish, King of Gath, when David, pretending to be mad, was brought before him. Consider what has been brought before us in recent days . . . . ~ Members of Congress condemn an important nuclear arms agreement before even reading it simply because they believe it not perfect and (more importantly) because they are in the habit of opposing everything the president (from the other party) champions. Perfection thus becomes the enemy of good and party politics the enemy of governing. ~ White citizens stand at the side of the road in Oklahoma and wave Confederate battle flags as the black President of the United States drives by. Free speech and public expression become the enemy of patriotism and simple good manners. ~ The Pope issues a statement on the moral implications of human activity causing climate change and calling for repentance and change of behavior; his decree is meant with opposition by fossil-fuel industry spokespersons (and from politicians given large donations by that industry) who suggest that the Pope leave science to the scientists. Business becomes the enemy of religion and ethics. ~ The bishops of the Episcopal Church refuse to even consider the possibility of taking a position with regard to the Israeli occupation of Palestine out of fear that church-run hospitals and schools might be impacted by government reprisals. Medical and educational ministries become the enemy of prophetic action. ~ Do we lack madmen? Have we ever lacked madmen?

Use Your Imagination – From the Daily Office

From the Daily Office Lectionary for Wednesday in the week of Proper 10B (Pentecost 7, 2015)

Mark 2:14 ~ “As [Jesus] was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him.”

This is one of those mornings when what I read in the appointed Scriptures dovetails so nicely with something I read in the news (or in this case on a friend’s Facebook page) that I can hardly believe it. I don’t often read the Episcopal Cafe blog, but a colleague posted a link to yesterday’s notice there of comments by a Baptist preacher (pastor of a megachurch in Dallas, Texas) when interviewed on Fox & Friends (a show I admit to never ever watching). I linked to a clip of his interview and, sure enough, just as reported in the Episcopal Cafe headline, this fellow said that liberal churches “are following the Jesus of their imagination rather than the Jesus of the Bible.” ~ It occurred to me that since at least 33 A.D. not a single human being who follows Jesus as Lord has done anything differently. Levi (who is sometimes also identified as Matthew) and his colleagues “got up and followed” Jesus, a real flesh-and-blood guy whom they could reach and touch and with whom they could eat, walk, talk, cry, laugh, and tell jokes. Since his Ascension, however, not one other person has been able to do that. We follow a “Jesus of the imagination,” just like the Baptist preacher said. Even the Baptist preacher follows a “Jesus of the imagination.” ~ To start off, we follow a Jesus of the imaginations of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament. These men (any women there?) like every writer of every genre of literature made use of imagination in setting pen to paper (or parchment or velum or whatever) to tell their stories. Then each reader employs his or her own imagination in bringing to life in his or her mind the characters and events of the story. The Gospels and other documents of the New Testament are not verbatim histories; they are personal stories infused with imagination and read with imagination and, as a result, we all follow “the Jesus of [our] imagination.” We can’t help it. ~ It is when one comes to that realization that it is possible to abandon dogma, bigotry, and ignorance, to enter into real conversation with Scripture, and to actually engage with and follow Jesus. Then, and only then, can a follower of Jesus encounter and engage with others in real dialog. ~ One is tempted to note that, in a very real way, even our encounters with, our following of “real-life flesh-and-blood” human beings are encounters with imagination! Our imaginations filter, color, and influence every interpersonal encounter we experience. So, my advice to my Baptist colleague: stop denying and start using your imagination.

Irredeemable Name-Calling – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Daily Office Lectionary for Monday in the week of RCL Proper 10B (Pentecost 7, 2015)
Acts 11:26 – “…. and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’.”

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the power of naming or, more accurately, name-calling. ~ That is the origin of the term “Christian,” after all. The followers of Jesus did not use this term of themselves; they simply called themselves “followers of the Way.” It was their neighbors and detractors who first called them “Christian,” and there is some evidence that the word used was actually “Chrestian,” note the “e” rather than an “i” in the first syllable. This is not simply an orthographic error; this variant spelling has its own meaning, something like “Goody Two-Shoes”…. The early followers of Jesus held themselves to a high ethical code and so their neighbors believed they may have thought themselves better than others; they made fun of them as excessively virtuous do-gooders. The Christians, however, embraced the epithet, changed its spelling, and made it their own. ~ Name-calling has been on my mind because of the experience of a teenage girl in my parish who’s been the brunt of some particularly vicious bullying and obscene name-calling at school. When she made a complaint to a teacher, the response from the school authorities was to suggest to her and to her parents that she should dress “less provocatively” (she doesn’t dress any differently than others of her age and class, by the way). ~ Years ago it was pretty common to hurl the word “queer” at contemporaries who were suspected of being homosexual, but like the Christians of Antioch the LGBT community has embraced the epithet and made it their own. My young parishioner cannot do that; the name-calling being hurled in her direction is simply irredeemable. ~ This is not a case where the victim can take positive action of that sort. But it is a case where the church can take action; if nothing else, as her parish priest I can write a letter of protest to her school authorities, and stand by her and her parents as they wend their way through the bureaucratic nightmare of victim-blaming that is so often the response to bullying in our public schools. That’s one small step in combatting a very big problem. The church as an institution needs to do more. We need to live up to the Antiochene epithet; we need to be excessively virtuous do-gooders in opposition to irredeemable name-calling!

Neither Hot Nor Cold: A Sermon of Ecclesial Disappointment – 12 July 2015

====================

A sermon offered on Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 10B, Track 1, RCL), July 12, 2015, to the people of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio, where Fr. Funston is rector.

(The lessons for the day are 2 Samuel 6:1-19; Psalm 24; Ephesians 1:3-14; and Mark 6:14-29. These lessons may be found at The Lectionary Page. Note: The Revised Common Lectionary provides that the first lesson is 2 Samuel 6:1-5,12b-19.)

====================

Israel-Palestine MapWhy do people in church seem like cheerful, brainless tourists on a packaged tour of the Absolute? On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return. (Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters [New York: Harper & Row, 1982], pp. 40-41.)

I wonder if Ms. Dillard might not have had in mind the episode recounted today in our reading from the Second Book of Samuel. Confession: The Lectionary edited out the verse that describe the death of the priest Uzzah and the circumstances and causes thereof. I put them back in because they explain the sudden reluctance of David to take the Ark of the Covenant into his city, and his three-month delay in doing so. With Uzzah’s death David, as the writer of Second Samuel tells us, got a notion of “what sort of power we so blithely invoke,” of what sort of power he was bringing into Jerusalem, and it frightened him.

After all, what had Uzzah done. Nothing disrespectful of God, that’s for sure. If anything, he saved the Almighty the indignity of the Ark tumbling out of the ox cart and falling to the ground. All he had done was reach out to steady it when it was jostled by the oxen; he was doing only what comes naturally when one is moving a large, heavy object over rough terrain. And for this, for touching the Ark with the most innocent and benign of intentions, he was stricken dead. At first, David was angry with God about that; apparently he cursed up a storm because the place gets renamed “Perez-uzzah” which means “outburst about Uzzah” – could be God’s outburst that killed Uzzah, more likely it’s David’s outburst of anger after Uzzah is dead. Once he vents, however, David becomes frightened; we are told, “David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come into my care?'” So, he leaves the Ark right there in the care of a foreigner, Obed-edom the Gittite, for three months. David has realized that he may need a crash helmet when dealing with the power of the Almighty.

And then there’s John the Baptizer. John knew all too well the Power he’s been dealing with; he’d talked directly with God (“The one who sent me to baptize with water said to me,” he claimed – Jn 1:33) and John spoke to earthly power on God’s behalf. He said to the crowds that came out to him, to the scribes and the Pharisee, the priests and the Sadducees, to all who came to him at the River Jordan, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor;’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Lk 3:7-9) John knew there was danger, terrible danger when one becomes involved with Almighty God. It was the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who said it, but John knew well, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:31) Because even if the power of God doesn’t kill you, the ministry demanded of you by God may well put you in harm’s way . . . and that, in the end, is what happened with John.

Speaking truth to power, John publicly denounced Herod Antipas for his sinful, adulterous relationship with his half-brother Philip’s wife Herodias, who also happened to be Antipas’s niece. For that public reproof, John was arrested and held for a time in prison; the Gospel lesson tells us that Herod protected John after his arrest because he feared him! – Even Herod Antipas felt the danger of involvement with the Almighty at second hand, the danger of dealing with God’s anointed prophet. But in the end, tricked by his own foolish behavior, Antipas must order John beheaded; for John the ax is laid not at the foot of the tree, but at the base of his neck. As Ms. Dillard might put it, “The waking god drew John out to where he could never return.”

We, the Episcopal Church, take this dangerous prophetic step out to where we might never return every time we make a statement or take an action and proclaim to the world, “We do this because we are called to do so by our Lord and our God.” I do it every time I step into this pulpit and dare to preach a sermon. You do it every time you take a stand on an issue or behave in a particular way and say, “I do this because I am a Christian, because I am an Episcopalian.” Our church does it when it meets in deliberative council, in vestry meetings, in diocesan conventions, or as we have just done in our triennial General Convention; we do it when we issue public statements on important issues of the day.

We feel like we have done it now in the aftermath of our 78th General Convention because, for example, we have taken the bold step of opening our marriage liturgies to same-sex couples. However, I would suggest to you that that was not a very prophetic step after all. We had already, several years ago, declared that gay and lesbian persons are beloved children of God entitled to the full ministry of and to full inclusion within the body of the faithful. We underscored that a dozen years ago when we approved the election and consecration of the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. When we declared last week that same-sex couples could marry in the church, we were only continuing down a path we had already been walking, a path which (frankly) the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and the United States Supreme Court had just walked before us. It’s easy to be prophetic when others have already done so before you.

We feel like we have taken a prophetic stance because 1,500 bishops, deputies, and other Episcopalians marched the streets of Salt Lake City to protest against gun violence and to call for rational handgun licensing laws and for background checks on all gun sales including gun show and private transactions. We feel like we have done so because, a few days after that protest march, the General Convention passed a resolution making that same call; but in all honesty it’s a call we have made before. We have been on record as a church in support of reasonable regulation of gun manufacture, sale, and ownership for nearly 40 years; we have passed resolution after resolution urging registration, licensing, and insuring of handguns, as well as the banning of civilian sale and ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons since at least 1976. And we have not been alone among the churches in doing so. It’s not particularly original or prophetic to do and say again that which you and many others have done and said many, many times.

We feel like we have been prophetic in the House of Bishop’s election of Michael B. Curry of North Carolina to be our Presiding Bishop, our first black Presiding Bishop! But, folks, we have had black bishops in the Episcopal Church for over 140 years since the consecration of James Theodore Holly to be Bishop of Haiti in 1874. Neither God nor the world would be out of line in telling us that Bishop Curry’s election is not particularly prophetic and asking, “What took you so long?”

It’s not that these are not important and vital issues; they are. It’s not that our voice, added to so many others, is not worth raising about these issues; it is. It’s not that we should not be taking a stand on these matters; we should. We should and we have and we will continue to do so, but we are not being particularly prophetic when we do so. We are merely doing what comes naturally moving a large, heavy institution over the rough terrain of difficult issues. Like Uzzah steadying the Ark of the Covenant, it may be dangerous, but it’s not particularly prophetic.

We did have the opportunity to be prophetic, but we failed to take it. A resolution numbered D016 was offered for our consideration. It would have called upon our church and our leadership to

work earnestly and with haste to avoid profiting from the illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and [to] seek to align itself with, and learn from, the good work of our Ecumenical and Anglican Communion partners, who have worked for decades in support of our Palestinian Christian sisters and brothers and others oppressed by occupation. (Resolution D016 as originally proposed)

It did not call for divestment from Israeli investments. It did not call for the boycotting of products made in the occupied territories. It did not call for sanctions against Israel. It did not call upon us to join the “BDS” movement as it is called – Boycott, Divest, Sanction. It was opposed on the grounds that it did, but in truth it did not.

We could have taken such action; we could have joined BDS although the resolution did not call for it. Alternatively, we could have proclaimed that, instead of doing that, we would work through positive investment and constructive engagement with both Israelis and Palestinians to foster reconciliation and peace. Or, we could simply have done as the resolution sought and undertaken a time of intentional study and discernment as to what our ministry as a church with important ties to the Holy Land might be, how we might try to encourage healing in that broken, wounded, and bleeding place. We could have done any of those things, any of those prophetic things. But do you know what we did?

We ducked the issue. We played it safe. We closed off debate. We failed to act. The House of Bishops rejected Resolution D016 so the House of Deputies never had a chance to consider it and, thus, we did nothing. – We should know better! As Paul wrote to the Ephesians,

With all wisdom and insight [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:8b-10)

We know that! We have declared as much in our catechism that “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ,” and that “the Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.” (BCP 1979, page 305) We are a church for whom the ministry of reconciliation should come as naturally as reaching out to steady the cargo on an ox cart came to Uzzah. And yet with respect to our brothers and sisters in Israel and Palestine, we did nothing…. We are a church who believes itself to speak like John the Baptizer prophetically to power on any number of subjects. And yet with respect to our brothers and sisters in Israel and Palestine, we said nothing….

As a church meeting in deliberative assembly and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we did nothing, we said nothing to promote justice, peace, love, and reconciliation in the Holy Land.

When John of Patmos had the vision recorded in the Book of Revelation, he was instructed to deliver a message from Jesus to the church in Laodicea. He was told to write these words to them: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16) With regard to those living in the land where Jesus was born, where he lived and taught and loved and died, where he rose from the dead for our salvation . . . with regard to our brothers and sisters living in that land, our General Convention action (or, really, lack of action) was lukewarm; it was tepid; neither hot nor cold, worthy only to be spit out.

I love my church. I love what we do in our synods and our conventions. I love that we take positions, sometimes unpopular positions. I love that we take risks with power, the kind of risks that Uzzah took, the kind of risks that John the Baptizer took, the kind of risks for which we should be wearing crash helmets and life preservers and holding signal flares. But we failed to do that with regard to the occupation of Palestine and the strife existing between our Israeli and Palestinian brothers and sisters, and I am disappointed in the church I love. As the Rev. Winnie Varghese, a priest from New York who was one of the supporters of Resolution D016, wrote after its rejection: “I will never understand why we would not listen … to our brothers and sisters truly on the ground, the lay and ordained Palestinian Christians who have been displaced; who work for justice; and who ask for our help.” (Huffington Post, July 10, 2015) Nor will I. I will never understand.

Let us pray:

Lord our God, the earth is yours and all that is in it, so we lift up our heads, we open our gates, and we give you glory; the Psalmist asked who could stand in your holy places and answered his own question saying, “Those who have clean hands and a pure heart;” give us clean hands and pure hearts that we may follow through on the promises made at our baptism, promises to “proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ,” to “respect the dignity of every human being,” and to “work for justice and peace;” give us grace that we, as the Episcopal Church, may do so in solidarity with those who have dedicated their lives to justice for Palestinians and security for Israel, that we may be either hot or cold, never tepid or lukewarm; give us the strength to do what should come naturally and to speak prophetically in your name; all this we ask through your Son, our Savior, the King of Glory. Amen.

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Teaching, Not Nature – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Daily Office Lectionary (Yr 1), Saturday in the week of Proper 9B (Pentecost 6, 2015)
1 Samuel 17
43 The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

Yesterday, I was listening to a news commentary on NPR while there was a discussion of the so-called “Islamic State” (“ISIS”) and whether it had any pretentions of attacking Israel. There have apparently been some arrests of Bedouins in the occupied West Bank and of Palestinians in East Jerusalem who are claimed to be ISIS confederates. An expert “talking head” was being interviewed and in the course of his comments said of Jews and Muslims, “They are natural enemies, of course.” ~ I frequently talk back to my radio . . . and talk back I did: “No!” I shouted. “They are not!” I’m willing to admit that in the animal kingdom there may be a few sorts “natural enemies;” the cobra and the mongoose, for example, seem always to be at odds, and there may be other pairs like them. Between differing species there may be natural enmity, but I am unwilling to say there is natural enmity between groups of the same species, especially between groups of human beings. There may be natural rivalry, but not natural enmity. ~ Enmity is not natural; it must be taught. Even the relationship of predator and prey, though it may be “natural,” is not necessarily one of enmity. The young of predator and prey species, raised together, coexist peacefully. The internet is filled with videos of cats and mice being chummy, of dogs and deer who are best buds, of cats and birds playing together. Unless a parent animal teaches her offspring to hunt and kill their “natural prey,” they will not do so. Unless a parent human teaches his or her offspring to fight and kill those of another group, they will not do so. David the Israelite and Goliath the Philistine need not have been enemies; contemporary Israelis and Palestinians need not be enemies. The former were and the latter are taught to hate, taught to fight, taught to kill. As Lieutenant Cable sings in Rogers and Hammerstein’s South Pacific:

You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

It’s teaching that makes enemies, not nature.

Back at the Beginning – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Daily Office Lectionary (Yr 1), Friday in the week of Proper 9B (Pentecost 6, 2015)
Mark 1
1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Here we are, a little past half-way through the calendar year, somewhat further along in the church’s liturgical year, and we’re starting over. The middle of July and we’re back at the beginning. For an Episcopalian recently returned from the General Convention, this is a good thing! As important as the triennial governing synod is, as vital as the issues we addressed (or failed to address) in our legislative hearings and floor debates are, as necessary as elections and budgets may be, those things are also, in a very real sense, distractions. Jesus once reminded the Jews of his day that “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath.” (Mk 2:27) We need the same kind of reminder that the General Convention exists to serve the Gospel, not the other way around; beginning at the beginning does that for us. The General Convention and its results are important, but only to the extent that they serve the church in spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. When the issues of the day take our attention away from our main business, then the General Convention is dangerous distraction. ~ My son and daughter-in-law, both deputies to this recent Convention, took a few days of vacation to hike the mountains of Colorado. Friends (at whose stamina I marvel) flew to their homes from Salt Lake City (the location of this triennium’s synod) and almost immediately boarded other planes to fly to China or to Japan or to the Holy Land. Unlike them, I returned to home and church office and immediately dove into the minutiae of parish ministry. Unlike them, I returned to home and church office and to a barrage of questions about the work of the Convention. Unlike them, I didn’t take the time to clear my head of resolutions, elections, and budgets. I thought they were crazy to embark on vacations with such immediacy; now I see that they were wiser than me. When they return, they will be better able to focus on the beginning of the Good News. Perhaps that should be made a requirement for everyone who serves in any capacity at the General Convention: “You shall take vacation when this is finished! You shall clear your heads of all this stuff!” ~ In any event, the Convention has done its work. We have a new church reality in which to work. We are back at the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Yeah, Not So Much – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Daily Office Lectionary (Yr 1), Thursday in the week of Proper 9B (Pentecost 6, 2015)
1 Samuel 16
14 Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.

I can relate. At least to the first part of the verse. How often have I stared at a blank paper or a blank computer screen wondering what to write? Whether it be a letter of condolence to a parishioner who’s lost a family member, note of congratulations to someone, a report to the vestry, or (worst of all) a sermon for next Sunday, what secular authors know as “writer’s block” hits hard and I am left completely uninspired (which, as you know, means that the spirit is absent). That’s been the case most of this week. I’ve had to write two letters of condolence, one newsletter squib, a letter in response to a complaint about a sermon (thank heaven, those aren’t often required), and some sort of something to preach next Sunday, and it’s been like pulling teeth without anesthetic to get the words put together. When I’ve tried to write for this blog . . . nothing; that’s why there’s been no entry for a few days. So I read this verse (or the first half of this verse, anyway) and I can relate. – But “an evil spirit from the Lord”? I don’t get that. What does that mean? If the text simply said “an evil spirit,” it would make sense to me. If it say “an evil spirit from Satan (or the tempter or the devil or Baal or some other agency),” that would make sense. But “an evil spirit from the Lord”? I don’t get that. Does God really send “evil spirits to torment” God’s people? This is, honestly, one of those times when I have to look at the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the Gospel, squint, and say, “Yeah. Not so much. I think you got that one wrong.” As one of my seminar professors would have said, “The Gospel trumps the Bible.”

Sacrificing Orthodoxy – From the Daily Office Lectionary (6 July 2015)

From the Daily Office Lectionary (Yr 1), Monday in the week of Proper 9B (Pentecost 6, 2015)
1 Samuel 15
22 Samuel said [to Saul], “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obedience to the voice of the Lord? Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”

I’ve just returned from two weeks in Salt Lake City, Utah, attending the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church as an alternate deputy for the Diocese of Ohio and working as a legislative aide to the committee on Prayer Book, liturgy, and church music. The Episcopal General Convention is a huge and fairly unwieldy legislative body, bicameral legislature made up of a House of Deputies (four clergy and four lay representatives from each diocese) and a House of Bishops (every bishop whether active or retired). About 1,000 people meet every three years to state the church’s positions on various issues, to adopt or amend canons (church laws), to make changes the church’s constitution or Prayer Book, and to adopt a budget. Parachurch organizations, seminaries, vendors of church wares, religious communities, missionary societies, and hundreds of volunteers come along for the ride. One participant the past fortnight described the convention as “summer camp for adult church geeks;” that pretty much describes it accurately. It’s also very much a big family reunion with a lot of activity, including a good deal of bickering.

The bickering, I think, is the result of a lot of people all trying to heed and obey the voice of the Lord, which each hears in a somewhat different way. Coming away from the convention I had several hours of opportunity to scan the Twitterverse and Facebookistan (terms I learned from a friend) and one huge word kept recurring in the serious posts (there were a lot of fun ones as people’s senses of humor took over): that word was “orthodoxy.” In one conversation thread, I typed in something like, “Oh … groan … I am so tired of seeing that word used as a barrier to communication, as a ‘fighting word”.” I was, in turn, accused of being “dismissive.” But I am tired of this misuse of the word “orthodoxy” and similar terms! I really am! “Orthodoxy” and its synonyms and antonyms have become an epithets which close off discussion.

Originally a word which meant “proper praise of God,” it morphed to mean something like “proper belief about God,” and now has become personalized in most usages into “what I believe to be correct about anything churchy.” So we heard (and will continue to hear) some people claim to hold “orthodox” views about marriage or the Prayer Book or the Hymnal or church investments or whatever, while disparaging others as not “orthodox.” What this really means is that the speaker has closed his or her mind and ears, and is sacrificing open communication on the altar of their personal opinion.

All that “orthodoxy” really means anymore is that each of us, individually or in our small affinity groups, hears God speaking in different ways; each of us seeks to obey the voice of God as we perceive it. Thus, my “orthodoxy” may not be your “orthodoxy.” When someone uses this word, though, they are not claiming to speak only for themselves; rather, they are claiming that their opinion is the agreed-upon opinion of the ancient, historic church. They are covering themselves in a mantle of traditional authority, and that cloak has the unfortunate effect of muffling their hearing so that, if God is speaking through another with a new voice, they cannot hear it. If one cannot hear, one cannot heed and obey.

Here’s an idea. Let’s declare a moratorium on the word “orthodoxy” and all its permutations. If tempted to use the word, say instead, “This is what I believe and what I believe the church to have been teaching throughout the past, what do you believe?” or “This is the metaphor for God that makes most sense to me, what metaphors work for you?” or “This is what resonates in my spirit, what reverberates in your soul?” Let’s hear and heed rather than sacrifice communication on the altar of our personal, allegedly “orthodox” opinion.

New Tools, New Generation – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Gospel lesson for Friday in the week of Proper 7B (Pentecost 4, 2015)
Luke 22
35 Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.”
36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.”

It has always confused me why Jesus, near the end and close to his anticipated arrest, tells his disciples (the Twelve) to go buy weapons. When the time comes to use the swords, he does not let them. Perhaps the swords are for a later time, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, a time when the church will be persecuted and need protection. Hard to know. However, it’s possible the conversation is simply metaphorical. Perhaps the lesson is not specifically about weapons but more generally about having the tools and equipment one needs for the task one faces. When the disciples were sent out on their missionary journey, they took nothing because there was nothing needed other than their message; now that the message has been rejected (and will be fully spurned when the world tries to kill the Messenger who is the Message) different tools are required. ~ In the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church now happening in Salt Lake City, Utah, the deputies and bishops are debating resolutions, theology, canons, structures, and practices, but I believe they are really talking about tools. What tools are required for the tasks the church faces in the 21st Century. Some of that re-tooling has already begun in the use of electronic technologies (the “Virtual Binder” – a real-time, instantly downloaded version of the old three-ring binders filled with reams of paper – the website on which the rest of the church and the world can follow the deliberations, texting and Tweeting and Facebook and “selfies”; it’s all here and it’s all in use). ~ It’s a generational change, tectonic shift in the ground on which the church moves about. President of the House of Deputies Gay Jennings continues to remark that 46% of the deputies are first-timers; another 20% are at their second convention. She underscored this by sending, as the messaging committee to the House of Bishops bearing the information that the House was organized and ready for business, the deputies born after 1990; it was a very large committee, and I was deeply moved watching them gather, receive their commission, and depart the house to do their business. The generational shift was then underscored when the House of Bishops’ committee made its visit to the Deputies and the Bishop of Kansas’ opening words were, “We were born in the 1950s.” ~ A new generation, one that is “native” to the new tools and new ways the church must adopt and use, is taking over. Thanks be to God!

The Youngest Who Serve – From the Daily Office Lectionary

From the Gospel lesson for Thursday in the week of Proper 7b (Pentecost 4, 2015)
Luke 22
25 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
26 But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.”

Within the next couple of days the Episcopal Church will have a new Presiding Bishop. Yesterday we had something akin to a group job interview in which the four nominees sat on the dais of the House of Deputies and answered questions posed by members of the Joint Nominating Committee speaking on behalf of the church. It was also somewhat like a beauty contest; anyone who has been through an episcopal election as candidate, elector, search committee member, or member of an electing diocese is familiar with the metaphor and the form. The four candidates are all men; one is black, the rest white. All are distinguished churchmen of middle age; the youngest is 56, the eldest 64 (there was plenty of grey hair on that platform). They all had lovely things to say; each said something I could whoop and holler about; each said something that made me unhappy. What none of them said was, “I will become like the youngest;” what none of them said was, “I will be like one who serves.” ~ One of the things I’ve noticed about this General Convention is the number of young deputies. My son and daughter-in-law (who are in their early thirties and late twenties) who are both deputies have many, many colleagues among those who are now governing our church. None of them, of course, is qualified by our canons to become Presiding Bishop. However, I couldn’t help but wonder what it might be like if one of them were to take the helm. How might this church be different if our leadership truly were like these, the youngest who serve among us? ~ I wish the new Presiding Bishop well. Whichever one of these distinguished bishops is chosen to serve, he will be in my daily prayers, one of which will be, “May he be like the youngest, and like one who serves.”

« Older posts Newer posts »