We all need the Anglicans right now
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | Sept. 17, 2007 |
| Vol. 5, No. 13 |
Blaise Pascal wrote once, "The multitude which is not brought to act as a unity is confusion." But in the same place he wrote immediately thereafter, "That unity which has not its origin in the multitude is tyranny." Translation: The multitude needs unity but unity, to be real, requires the assent of the multitude.
Understanding the conjunction of those two ideas -- confusion in the face of uncertainty and tyranny as the substitute for consensus -- may have never been more important than it is right now. If a country, if a religious body, cannot develop a common vision, the chances that they will survive, let alone be effective, are at best low.
That possibility is about to be sorely tested in worldwide Anglicanism. And no one of us need take any comfort in seeing it happen to someone else rather than to us. Yet.
Riven by the internal tension arising over the question of clerical homosexuality among the national churches of the denomination around the world, the delicately structured Anglican Communion, many say, is threatened by schism.
Some would say, "If you don't like it, get out." This "We-are-the-church-crowd" put themselves up as norms of the faith. Those who do not agree with them, who dare to question anything, who open issues deemed by some to be closed for all time, they label "evil" or "dissident" or "unfaithful." Catholics who accepted the notion of separation of church and state, for instance, labored under a shadow of suspicion for years. The loss of the theocratic state after the Protestant Reformation struck a blow at the very theology of power and authority. Not until Vatican II, did the church really accept as theologically acceptable the whole idea of sectarian -- that is, non-theologically aligned -- governments.
The debate over sectarianism may seem almost laughable now, but it was not funny when John F. Kennedy was running for president. The major political question of the time was whether or not a Catholic president could really be trusted to lead a government for the good of all the people, Catholic or not, or be expected to take orders from the pope -- as did the medieval kings before him.
Theology and government are clearly not parallel institutions. They are interactive ones. What affects one will surely affect the other. Which is where Pascal's second insight is the other side of the coin. "Unity that does not have its origin in the multitude is tyranny," he says. Groups themselves, in other words, must have a part in the making of law if the group is to be unified rather than simply repressed.
So the question the Anglican communion is facing for us all right now is a clear one: What happens to a group, to a church, that stands poised to choose either confusion or tyranny, either anarchy or authoritarianism, either unity or uniformity? Are there really only two choices possible at such a moment? Is there nowhere in-between?
The struggle going on inside the Anglican Communion about the episcopal ordination of homosexual priests and the recognition of the homosexual lifestyle as a natural state is not peculiar to Anglicanism. The issue is in the air we breathe. The Anglicans simply got there earlier than most. And so they may well become a model to the rest of us of how to handle such questions. If the rate and kinds of social, biological, scientific and global change continue at the present pace, every religious group may well find itself at the breakpoint between "tradition" and "science" sooner rather than later.
Theological questions driven by new scientific findings, new social realities, new technological possibilities abound. How moral is it to take cells from one person for the treatment of another if all human cells are potentially life generating? Is that the destruction of life? If homosexuality is "natural," meaning biologically configured at birth, why is it immoral for homosexuals to live in homosexual unions -- even if they are bishops? After all, isn't that what we said -- in fact, did -- when we argued "scientifically" that blacks were not fit for ordination because blacks weren't quite as human as whites? And so we kept them out of our seminaries and called ourselves "Christian" for doing it. Without even the grace to blush.
It is not so much how moral we think we are that is the test of a church. Perhaps the measure of our own morality is how certain we have been of our immoral morality across the ages. That should give us caution. We said, at one time, that it was gravely immoral to charge interest on loans, that it was mortally sinful to miss Mass on Sunday, that people could not read books on the Index, that the divorced could not remarry. And we brooked no question on any of these things. People were either in or out, good or bad, religious or not, depending on whether they stood at one end or another of those spectrums.
Clearly, the problem is not that definitions of morality can shift in the light of new information or social reality. The problem is that we don't seem to know how to deal with the questions that precede the new insights. We seem to think that we have only two possible choices: the authoritarianism model, which requires intellectual uniformity and calls it "community" or a kind of intellectual anarchism, which eats away at the very cloth of tradition in a changing world.
The problem is that threatened by change we are more inclined to suppress the prophetic question than we are to find the kind of structures that can release the Spirit, that can lead us beyond unthinking submission while honoring the tradition and testing the spirits.
It's not an easy task. And we have had schisms aplenty to prove it. Catholicism, interestingly enough, has done better at preserving theological differences than we may give it credit for doing. We called the differences "ancient traditions" or ethnic "rites," or "custom," or "the private arena." The church recognized that there were instances or cultures for whom some ideals simply were not true. But those things functioned in a sea of sameness, in cultures essentially monochromatic and in countries basically one-dimensional in language and history.
But now we live in an avalanche of awareness, of cultural interaction, of scientific-technological possibilities. To take too certain a position too quickly can shred groups to pieces now. Churches everywhere are polarized. In a study of churchgoers done in Minnesota in 1983, conservative Catholics and conservative Lutherans had more in common than conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics. But in a social climate like that, how do we maintain the best of the old and admit the best of the new?
Absolutism and judgementalism, insult and downright slander, have poisoned the atmosphere, are making unholy the search, have stifled conversation.
Conservatives, devoted to what they consider unchanging truth, adopt a mantle of fidelity to the past. Liberals, devoted to exploring the moral dimensions of new questions, see themselves as faithful to the future envisioned by Vatican II. But truth is commitment to what's under the changes and renewal is what's devoted to developing a tradition as well as reshaping it. They are not opposites. They are two faces of the same thing and, if we are all to survive together, we must learn to respect one another until the dawn comes and the light shines.
From where I stand, we need those who can develop a model of faith in times of uncertainty in which the tradition is revered and the prophetic is honored. Unless we want to see ourselves go into either tyranny or anarchy, we better pray for the Anglicans so that they can show us how to do that.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Sr. Chittister: Is there any
Sr. Chittister:
Is there any point in any further discussing the Anglican Church?
The Mother Church of Anglicanism has been dethroned from its #1 position in the Mother Country, as Jonathan Wynne-Jones tells it in his 12/22/2007 article (“Britain has become a ‘Catholic country’”) in the Daily Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk/news). It is a church that has become so soft in its attempt to compromise its internal divisions that it is no longer compels belief and is being abandoned by believers in droves.
Only last week Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, told us the story of the Three Wise Men is a legend and should be understood as such. This made even an unbeliever like Ian Bell note (in the UK’s Sunday Herald), “it often seems that God’s messengers fumble their lines,” and then ask:
• “but is Dr Rowan Williams helping the cause when he picks this time of year to dismiss the Three Wise Men as ‘legend’?”
• “whatever happened to the mystery of faith?”
• “but hasn’t the archbishop stopped to notice some of the other things people are believing these days?”
• “how is a religion maintained when a story told to children for centuries is discarded, just like that, by a jolly old man with a big white beard who wears funny robes?”
Concluded Wynne-Jones: “A belief in the probably-not is beyond some of us, but a leap in the dark, a bungee jump in the direction of myth or an immanent truth, is supposed to be in Williams’s job description.... Canterbury reminds us that some grown Christians are, in fact, unbelievable.”
Joe536
Three Wise Men. Raymond E
Three Wise Men.
Raymond E Brown's book 'an ADULT CHRIST at CHRISTMAS' has three essays on the nativity narrative and there is a problem with the origen and veracity of the narrative. Dr Rowan could not pick a better time to accept the fact that there are questions concerning the infancy narratives. Dr Rowan seems to accept the fact that survival of the Anglican community is closely tied to Rome. Should he try to prevent a split in Anglicanism? No! He should keep the loyalty of the community but encourage the freedom of conscience that we have in Catholicism.
The welcoming of TONY BLAIR into the the Roman church was expected for years.[Tony Blair joined the Roman church last Friday,Dec 21st]There is an emptiness in an
English church or Cathedral. An emptiness of spirit,an emptiness of future,an emptiness of the Eucharistic presence. The education and spirit of the Episcopalian church here is better than among the rest of us and the same is true in England but to a lesser extent.
The other question is should the Anglican Church give back as a Christmas present some of the magnificent cathedrals that were confiscated in the past. I visited the old Cathedral in Armagh once and was given a list of all the Archbishops of Armagh since the time of St Patrick--it was a seamless list with no explanation of any change at the time of the reformation.There were no asterisks or change of script or footnotes.That 'lie' of historicity is true all over England and once that is owned up to, there will be less reason to be defensive and more freedom to be open. The Anglican church with it's great open conservation of faith has a lot to offer Rome,it should not emphasise the differences in faith but encourage a closer bond with Rome in the individual and public conscience. All manner of things will be all right.
To those following the U.S.
To those following the U.S. Episcopal Church saga through all its twists and turns:
News broke across the wires this day of the Diocese of San Joaquin (Fresno, CA) voting by a greater than 2/3 majority to secede from the U.S. Episcopal Church and place itself under the protective wing of a conservative Anglican Primate in South America. Apparently this is the first diocese in the long history of the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion ever to do such a thing.
It, however, is only the backdrop I’m offering for an article published in the New York Times, New Jersey Edition that I want to recommend: “Afterlife Hard for Once-Grand Church” accessible online at www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/09colnj.html.
True, the NYT essay is specifically about St. John’s Episcopal, “a grand but moldering granite church in the Bergen Hill neighborhood” of Jersey City (NJ) sitting empty and awaiting its fate either for demolition or for historic preservation. But it’s so tempting to read the decline of St. John’s as a metaphor for the parent church.
At least I’m so tempted.
Ken
Dear Ken, I'm just
Dear Ken,
I'm just re-reading this thread in light of today's news that, in a BBC radio interview to be aired this coming Tuesday, Bishop Desmond Tutu takes the worldwide Anglican communion to task for what he sees as increasing homophobia following the elevation of Rev. Gene Robinson to the episcopate.
I am very heartened to read that Archbishop Tutu framed his comments around a theology of the always welcoming God, whom the church ought to try to emulate in its own always welcoming stance.
According to news reports on many websites today, Archbishop Tutu asks, re: the current Archbishop of Canterbury, "Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God?" When asked if he feels ashamed at those within his church who want to keep gay Christians at bay, Archbishop Tutu replied: “If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes." And then, the reports state, Archbishop Tutu added, "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."
I find this witness to the Christian virtue of welcome very impressive, coming as it does from an African Christian leader of the global South. As you so rightly say in one of the postings on this thread, "The thing of it is, the Global South will have a real big say in the finishing [of the unfinished ecclesiological project of Vatican II]. Probably the definitive say. The Global North ain’t gonna have things its way.
And not to worry about 'justice' and 'the prophetic' and 'diversity' and so much more not being there. They’ll be part of the final mix."
Amen. Archbishop Tutu proves you very right.
I think these themes of welcoming the despised stranger at the doorstep have a particular pertinence as we enter the Advent season, don't you? Mary and Joseph trekked hither and yon to find an inn that would welcome them, so that Jesus could be born to bring us a message of universal love, of welcome that embraces all of God's creatures.
In my view, Archbishop Tutu's words prove Sr. Joan to be right on target re: the lessons Anglicanism at its best can teach Roman Catholicism at its best today.
William D. Lindsey
No sweat, Elaine. I once
No sweat, Elaine.
I once got a reply like yours from another Episcopalian Rev. after I wondered whether it was appropriate to pay (then) Presiding Bishop Frank Tracy Griswold a quarter of a mil annually in salary and compensation (travel and offices expenses extra, of course) and after she said his pay was perfectly in line with other CEOs and after I, a second time, wondered whether the pay of the head of a church should be set according to what CEOs in the business world were making.
Mama knows best.
Ken
There’s news this Tuesday
There’s news this Tuesday morning of the wife of the (Anglican) Church of Ireland Bishop Richard Henderson, United Diocese of Tuam, Killala and Achonry, being received into the Church of Rome by John Fleming, Catholic Bishop of Killala. Her bishop husband, 2 daughters and son attended the welcome-to ceremony.
Anita Henderson says of her decision, “I feel under God that is what I am being called to do.”
The Irish media describes it as “unprecedented in modern Irish church history”. And the “close-knit Anglican community in the west [of Ireland] has been stunned by the shock conversion.”
Her decision follows hard on that of the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson of the USA to turn to Rome. He’s the sitting Episcopal Church Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande.
Said he at the time of his announcement, “My conscience is deeply troubled, because I sense that the obligations of my ministry in The Episcopal Church may lead me to a place apart from scripture and tradition. I am concerned that if I do not listen to and act in accordance with conscience now, it will become harder and harder to hear God’s voice.”
Earlier in the year 2 other U.S. Episcopal Church bishops made the same trek to Rome: Bishop Dan Herzog of Albany, New York, and Bishop Clarence C. Pope of Forth Worth, Texas. Both had retired before announcing their conversions.
Ken
Dear Elaine: What is it with
Dear Elaine:
What is it with Episcopalianism today?
On the one hand, it speaks of “God’s always-surprising and always-magnanimous revelation of the Spirit” and quotes Malachi 2:10: “Why then are we faithless to one another....”
On the other hand, it addresses its critics with words like “defamation” and phrases like “opportunistic exploitation” and “homophobic ‘agenda’” and “strongman’s political tactic”.
Episcopalianism has always prided itself on its Civility and its exercise of Reason. These must only have been written on the wind, I guess.
Ken
Dear Elaine & Bill: Let me
Dear Elaine & Bill:
Let me start with Elaine’s “tsk, tsk, tsk”.
Ah, yes, all those foreigners you cite.
Let’s see. Among them is a single province belonging the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), but I’ll set that one aside for the moment to deal with the 11 others. These include The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) with 18 million members, The Church of the Province of West Africa with 1 million members, The Anglican Church of Tanzania with 4 million members, Province de L’Eglise Anglicane Du Congo with an estimated 40,000 members, The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean with 120,000 members, L’Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda with 1 million members, The Church of the Province of Central Africa with 600,000 members, The Anglican Church of Burundi with 625,000 members, The Anglican Church of Kenya with 3 million members, The Church of the Province of Uganda with 9 million members, and The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East with 35,000 members.
The bonds of affection with the U.S.Episcopal Church have been severed by these 11. Yet, it’s these 11 that hold 35 million of the worldwide 77-million Anglican Communion membership.
Them’s the foreigners I’m talking about, Elaine. Do the math!
But there’s more: The Anglican Church of Southern Africa and member of CAPA you did mention with its 2.4 million members.
It’s the most liberal Anglican province in Africa and keeps intact the bonds of affection with the U.S. Episcopal Church. Nevertheless, it’s among 4 Christian denominations in South Africa that “will not conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ despite the country’s legalization of the practice last winter ... [nor] to officiate or bless gay unions.” And it’s just elected The Rt. Rev. Thabo Cecil Makgoba, Bishop of Grahamstown, as Primate to replace Njongonkulu Ndungane, who in turn replaced Desmond Tutu. This new primate, who’ll assume office on 1 January 2008, is “viewed as a conservative on issues of human sexuality [and] expected to try to move the South African church closer to the other African Anglican provinces.”
Bye-bye bonds of affection?
But that’s not all: you name a number of Anglican provinces in Asia and Latin America as having good relations with the U.S. Episcopal Church. These include The Church of Bangladesh with 15,000 members, Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America with 25,000 members, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui with 31,000 members, The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean with 120,000 members, and The Nippon Sei Ko Kai with 57,000 members.
Sho’ enuf they ain’t white, but they also ain’t many.
Let me not forget several other provinces you cite for their friendly relations with the U.S. Episcopal Church, these to be classified as Western rather than anything else.
There’s The Scottish Episcopal Church (its official name, not The Anglican Church of Scotland) with 44,000 members, The Anglican Church of Canada with some 2 million members, The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia with 585,000 members (mainly white New Zealanders), and The Church of England with 26 million members. Or should I say vaporizing members, since Sunday church attendance in England stands at 1 million on average.
Not only are these 4 almost entirely white, but their religion-practicing whites aren’t even half the total of The Church of the Province of Uganda’s blacks.
And what about other Anglican provinces you didn’t name? The Anglican Church of Australia. Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil. Church of Ireland. The Anglican Church of Korea. The Church of the Province of Melanesia. La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico. The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma). The Church of North India (United). The Church of Pakistan (United). The Episcopal Church of Papua New Guinea. The Episcopal Church in the Phillipines. The Church of the Province of South East Asia. The Church of South India (United). Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America. The Episcopal Church of the Sudan. The Church in Wales. The Church of the Province of the West Indies. (And The Church of Ceylon, Iglesia Episcopal de Cuba, Bermuda, The Lusitanian Church, The Reformed Episcopal Church of Spain, Falkland Islands, all 6 of these extra-provincial.)
The total membership number is small, with the non-white half sympathetic to the Africans. At least, as I heard tell.
So, here comes your “tsk, tsk, tsk” back to you.
On to Bill.
Though I gave you answer of sorts on the weekend, it’s now Monday and my answer’s not been posted. Perhaps it’s been censored. Probably less for the point I made than for how I made it. It’s happened before.
Have a little chit-chat with NCR Café’s Dennis Coday.
Ken
Ken, thank you for your
Ken, thank you for your reply and attempt to respond to my questions. I would welcome your response, if your posting gets through. I am not in touch with the blog moderators--haven't ever been in the past. I just...blog and trust them to sort things out--no simple task, and one that keeps me re-subscribing to NCR even when my pocketbook is lean.
I do feel uneasy carrying on conversations in a vacuum, so to speak. When I sense that there are hidden hands of cards that aren't being played, I tend to back away from a conversation, since it doesn't appear to have much of a future in the absence of as much honesty as all dialogue partners can muster.
When all cards are out on the table, I like a lively exchange, even a fractious one. After all, as American Catholic theologian David Tracy says somewhere, when we just shrug our shoulders and say each person is entitled to her opinion, we don't truly respect the positions of others. Tracy says that when we care enough to argue with others, we show respect for the positions of others.
William D. Lindsey
Just too many errors of fact
Just too many errors of fact here to bother with. I see that you can add but, alas, your math skills seem to reflect the fundamentals of your misunderstanding: you add the wrong things in the wrong way for the wrong reason.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?" (Malachi 2:10)
Dear Bill: The funny thing
Dear Bill:
The funny thing is I have in my personal collection this wonderful Flemish-lace Latin cross in conservation mounting. And I enjoy watching the annual Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show on TV. And only last Sunday I treated myself to a puff pastry filled with braised red onion smothered with Gouda cheese, one of my favorite sometime eats.
There’s not one among my paired terms—on the left side or the right—that’s something I DON’T like. In fact, I put my list together with that principle in mind.
I’m still waiting for a critic to complain about Akinola being likened to scratchy wool or a pasture dog or a refined-carbohydrate bagel. There’s been nothing yet, but maybe it’s not to be expected in the NCR Café.
Both Schori and Akinola figure in the Christian Symphony of God’s creation, though I think it’s obvious her voice is untouched by any danger at any time in her life of being ground up into “concoctions” to ward off evil spirits. Had she ever been, she’d sound far different today.
I intend to judge her only by how well she serves the internal needs of her church—and the external. And on the latter she’s not doing so well. You know—don’t you?—that Akinola did post-ordination study at Virginia Theological Seminary in the USA? Schori has no parallel experience in Africa, and I’m afraid it shows. Had she, she’d can her Americanish “let’s just sit down together, and when you get to know me and I get to know you everything will be just fine.” Foreigners find this dreadfully deceitful (pretending hard issues are no more than personal issues) and demeaning (not wanting to tax overmuch those perceived to be intellectually inferior).
Though she rubs her own flock at home the right way, she’s managed to rub much of the rest of the flock abroad the wrong way. Maybe Schori’s too American to figure out why. Maybe she’ll figure it out when it’s too late.
Ken
In FACT, "foreigners" whom
In FACT, "foreigners" whom the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has rubbed well and with a shared exuberant faith are the striking majority of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion including, The Anglican Church of Southern Africa, the Anglican Church of Scotland, the Anglican Church of Canada, The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, The Church of Bangladesh, The Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central America, Sheng Kung Hui (Hong Kong Anglican Church [Episcopal]), The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, and The Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican Communion in Japan) among others INCLUDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
You are ill-informed both about the structures of Provinces within the Anglican Communion as well as the basis for Anglican identity and affection that comprise the "bonds of affection" within which dialogue - even difficult dialogue - takes place. The matter of shared faith is simple, even when the discourse is strained, viz., The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 which serves as the basis for both identity and ecclesiology. This is:
* "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as 'containing all things necessary to salvation', and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith."
* "The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith."
* "The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him."
* "The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church."
Please note especially, the fourth quadrilateral principle.
I wonder ... upon what basis do you speak for "foreigners"? Your claim to represent a voice of any kind within Anglicanism, let alone, a faithful and informed one, seems more a matter of bald assertion laced with personal bile than an effort to inform.
Tsk, tsk, tsk ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?" (Malachi 2:10)
Ken, a follow-up to the post
Ken, a follow-up to the post I just sent replying to yours above.
I've just now read Rick Delvecchio's excellent article commenting on a recent lecture by Rev. Peter Phan at Franciscan School of Theology. What Phan has to say in his lecture seems very germane to our discussion about the role of the Western churches vis-a-vis the churches of Africa and Asia.
Delvecchio states,
"By 2050, Phan said, 80 percent of the world’s three billion Christians will live in the Southern Hemisphere.
'By that time a white Christian is an oxymoron,' he said. 'That is a shock. Wake up; this is the reality you cannot avoid.'
The church should respond by building a new pluralistic social compact on the foundation of a century of modern church teachings on human dignity, the preference for the poor in the exercise of Christian charity, justice, human rights, international relations and the environment, Phan said.
At the heart of the social compact must be a more open-ended view of ecclesiastical authority, he said.
'In globalization,' he said, 'stratification has shifted to function. It doesn’t matter who you are, whether you are ordained or not ordained. It doesn’t matter. The question is, "Can you do (it) and do it well?"'."
Wonderful summary, it seems to me: the church should respond to the wonderful emerging reality of a non-white church "by building a new pluralistic social compact on the foundation of...church teachings on human dignity, the preference for the poor in the exercise of Christian charity, justice, human rights, international relations and the environment."
Do you agree?
In a nutshell, whatever shortcomings church leaders such as KJS may have (and I myself find her thoughtful, committed, engaged, and capable of listening widely), I see her and those with whom she is allied trying to promote the vision Phan sets before us.
Unfortunately, I don't see Akinola and his political-ecclesiastical allies in the developed nations promoting that vision. In fact, I see just the opposite in the movement resisting women's leadership in the churches and the full inclusion of gays and lesbians.
William D. Lindsey
Thanks Bill. FYI: Primate
Thanks Bill. FYI: Primate Akinola speaks neither for the Provinces of the African Church nor for the Nigerian Church. His defamation of our sister and brother Anglicans is HIS OWN and is an opportunistic exploitation of a difficult yet open dialogue within the Communion; alas he has a big soap box to stand on ... AND .. many foreign White colonials who, while correctly noting (some with sorrow and some with glee) the legacy of colonialism expressed as African fundamentalism, are all too willing to join their own homophobic 'agenda' with the strong man's political tactic.
None of this is to deny the seriousness of the ecclesial roiling within the Anglican Communion but only to try and remind all who participate and watch from afar that the opportunities to OPEN to God's always-surprising and always-magnaminous revelation of the Spirit are FOR SOULS and not for power-plays.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?" (Malachi 2:10)
Elaine, your insider
Elaine, your insider Anglican/Episcopalian perspective is a refreshing addition to our conversation on this thread.
I keep thinking that, if the conversation is really about inclusion of people of color, then it's one that interests me greatly.
But if it's really about exclusion of women and openly gay persons from ministerial positions, then I can't say that I find a lot of hope in the conversation.
I'm not sure why I feel this so strongly, but I feel quite strongly that many of those arguing for inclusion of people of color in worldwide Anglicanism are actually arguing for exclusion of women and openly gay people from ministry.
If so, then it seems people of color in non-Western nations are simply being used in our own political games for our own political agendas. When I read people like Peter Phan and Desmond Tutu, I'm reminded that there is great hope in the churches of the non-Western parts of the world--hope for all of us.
We surely need to hear those voices. But as we do so, we also don't want to try to reduce all voices to the basso profundo of the same men who have tried to rule everything in both the world and the church for so long. I find hope in the full symphony of voices, particularly when those voices sing about the liberation of all creation to sing the song of hope, joy, and love.
William D. Lindsey
Ken, I love to read what you
Ken, I love to read what you write.
But I've come to a point in the conversation where I'm a bit baffled by where you're coming from.
I did put a very direct question to you in my last posting: "What is your theological position on the role women should be playing in the church, by the way?"
And you have, of course, every right not to answer that question.
At this point, though, I believe we're in sparring mode, and that it doesn't move the theological conversation forward. I've laid my cards on the table. You have, in various ways, but not directly.
Speaking of KJS, you say, "Foreigners find this dreadfully deceitful (pretending hard issues are no more than personal issues) and demeaning (not wanting to tax overmuch those perceived to be intellectually inferior)."
Are you speaking as an African? Or an African-American?
Or on behalf of "foreigners"?
Would you be willing to tell me from what theological and church-political standpoint you're making your statements? What is your position on the role of women in the church, or on the role of openly gay persons?
I'm glad to continue the conversation, if you would wish to move it to that level of open exchange in which we both avow our starting points. Otherwise, it seems we're simply two trains passing each other in the night, blowing our whistles at each other as we do so....
William D. Lindsey
Dear Bill: I’m going to
Dear Bill:
I’m going to pick up your phrase “symphonic voice” (it’s nice) and give back to you 2 voices from the international Christian symphony. One is American and white and female. The second is African and black and male. True, they’re not Roman Catholic voices, but Anglican will do just as nicely. I propose to let the 2 speak out and, then, to comment afterwards.
First, KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI, Presiding Bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church (the first 5 paragraphs, 2 very short, from her November 4, 2006 investiture sermon):
“Where is home for you? How would you define your home? A friend in Nevada said to me just before I left that he had thought I would only leave Nevada to go home, and in his mind, that meant Oregon. But in the six years I spent there, Nevada became home. The state song is even called, ‘Home Means Nevada.’ And for a place filled with folk who have come from elsewhere, that is quite remarkable—all sorts and conditions of rootless people trying to grow new roots in the desert.
“So where is home for you? Des Moines or Anchorage or Taipei or San Salvador or Port au Prince?
“What makes it home? Familiar landscape, a quality of life, or the presence of particular people?
“Some people who engage this journey we call Christianity discover that home is found on the road, whether literally the restless travel that occupies some of us, or the hodos [Greek for “way”] that is the Way of following the one we call the Christ. The home we ultimately seek is found in relationship with creator, with redeemer, with spirit. When Augustine says ‘our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O Lord’ he means that our natural home is in God.
“The great journey stories of the Hebrew Bible begin with leaving our home in Eden, they tell of wandering for a very long time in search of a new home in the land of promise, and they tell later of returning home from exile. And eventually Israel begins to realize that they are meant to build a home that will draw all the nations to Mount Zion. Isaiah’s great vision of a thanksgiving feast on a mountain, to which the whole world is invited, is part of that initial discovery of a universal home-building mission, meant for all. Jesus’ inauguration and incarnation of the heavenly banquet is about a home that does not depend on place, but on community gathered in the conscious presence of God.”
Second, PETER JASPER AKINOLA, Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria (his words as woven into a July 5, 2007 story-interview by Ruth Gledhill of The Times, from 4 paragraphs in a sequence of 7 near the beginning of her piece):
“I met this enigmatic Archbishop, who in his 63 years has never given an interview to a British national newspaper, in his office in the Abuja diocese. In the small room up a narrow stairway, the most ornate structure was a set of beautifully crafted wooden shelves that this former carpenter designed himself. ‘God has used my upbringing in carpentry to bear in my work as a bishop,’ he says. He wouldn’t be the first to say so. He wore a clerical shirt with no collar, a cross around his neck. His feet were bare. The contrast between this and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s splendid palaces in Lambeth and Canterbury could not have been greater....
Akin, a common name in the western part of the country, means courageousness, boldness, warlike valour. Ola means wealth and prosperity. With his own business and a Vespa scooter in the 1960s, he was indeed heading for a life of prosperity when he was called to give it all up and follow Christ into the seminary. But he almost had no adult life at all. As a young man, he told me, he narrowly escaped being a victim of a ritual sacrifice. His body parts were to be made into ‘concoctions’, he said, and sold. He was vulnerable because, when he was 5, his father, who would have protected him against such abuse, died. ‘Unfortunately my father died on December 12, 1948, before I could get to know him,’ he says. ‘Before he could make any impact on my life he was gone. So my mother had the responsibility of bringing me up.'
He was sent to live with a paternal uncle who was a carpenter, and was not sent to school until the age of 10. ‘I grew up in a very hard way.’ At 16, he wanted to go to secondary school, but was sent instead to northeastern Nigeria to learn a trade. From there he was apprenticed as a cabinetmaker in Lagos. He was living with a relative. ‘Very ugly things happened to me while I was there,’ he says. ‘Another uncle of mine was not thinking well of me. He was going to sacrifice me for a ritual to make money. That is one of the mysteries of my life. God is gracious. It is a very long story. But let me just say I had premonitions. I saw a very clear vision of what was going to happen. The following day, things began to happen the way I saw them. It was not a dream, it was a real vision. It was a serious matter. Frightening. Overwhelming.
“‘But I came out of the house to go to where I was supposed to be sacrificed and I saw this figure far away at the other end of the road, beckoning me to come. In white. I ran and ran and ran. The faster I ran, the further distance between me and the figure. I never found it. I believe very strongly that the Lord was taking me away from that dungeon.’”
I’ll comment on the voices offering these contrasting word pairs:
• lace vs wool;
• moon vs sun;
• show dog vs sheepdog;
• puff pastry vs bagel;
• caffeine-free vs caffeinated;
• My Fair Lady vs Citizen Kane;
• Columbia Pinot Gris vs Templeton Rye;
• Shakespeare sonnets vs Dante’s Divine Comedy.
No need to go on.
In the symphony that Christianity is, some voices are light and airy, others mellow and soulful. Some tickle the ears, others sink deep into the marrow of one’s bones.
You should have no trouble identifying which Katharine is and which Peter.
Ken
Ken, I've found a lot of
Ken, I've found a lot of your writing to be interesting and at times humorous, but this time I was insulted. The implication of your comparisons is that women have nothing of substance to offer either the West or the South in terms of 'meaty' spiritual insight. I beg to differ.
I have living with me a Native American Holy Man. He wound up in my world because he was homeless and destitute, and felt the only safe place for him in a time of deep trouble was my little home. His story closely parallels Akinola's, and mine closely parallels Shori's--at least in terms of poverty, class, race, education, and gender. We have become virtually inseparable spiritual friends, working together with all kinds of people, bringing disparate groups together for shared ceremonial experiences.
He will conduct a sweat lodge tonight for some 40 different people from all walks of life. Urban Natives will sit in the dark and share their lives with Yuppie professionals, on a piece of property donated for this use by a retired white male who had a dream that he was to do this. This man is still perplexed that he would have such a dream because heretofor he had had nothing to do with Native Americans. His life has changed dramatically.
My friend and I have spent hundreds of hours discussing spiritual issues. He would not agree with your assessment of spiritual women as light and airy, nor would he accept your characterization of a life such as his, as mellow and soulful, inherently more substantial than mine.
One last insight from my friend. I once asked him why his tribe did not have medicine societies for their women. He laughed and said women didn't need them, just men did. The reason women didn't need them was because women were inherently more powerful in the spiritual realm and didn't need the discipline of medicine societies. Women's real muscles were flexed in the spiritual realms like men's were flexed in the Earth realm. That's why Holy men and medicine men always had a female 'sit beside' when engaged in spiritual business. Her job was to protect the male because she had more strength and power in the realms outside this Earth one. Men were to protect women in this earth life, and women were to protect men in the spiritual realms. This was the Creator's plan.
Maybe some day we will see the same respect and honoring of women's spiritual abilities in our Christian churches, and Bishop Shori will find herself Bishop Akinola's 'sit beside'. But before that ever happens, Western Christianity will have to get over a lot of misogynist theology which denies women their rightful place in the life of the Christian Church. After all, it was women who sat beside Jesus at the foot of the cross--oh and that less than Petrine masculine apostle, John.
Ken, I'll give you an
Ken, I'll give you an outright honest visceral response.
As I read your analysis, I was hooked, until I came to the final section of contrasts: lace (full of holes and insubstantial) vs. wool (carefully woven, serviceable); puff pastry vs. bagel (ditto). And most damning of all, show dog vs. sheepdog--a comparison that seems to me to be quite unfair to Katharine Jefferts Schori, with its implication that she's all about image, while Akinola is substantial and solid.
And yet some of the articles of his fellow African priests I've read about him depict him as the showman of the African Anglican church, a hired gun of the right-wing contingent of the American church.
I have to say, the final comparison--light and airy/mellow and soulful--sounds downright misogynistic to me. Particularly when it's qualified by that statement about tickling the ears or sinking deep into the marrow of one's bones.
That leaves little doubt about who's doing the real Lord's work, who's representing the real manly God who runs the show, who manages everything with might and power.
Of course, for generations we've been conditioned to see males as symbols of might, majesty, and power, and females as the opposite--as subservient, as quiet supporters. And any female who gets out of that role and pretends to parade around in those male garments of dignity (e.g., vestments) is likely to be ridiculed as insubstantial, light and airy, lacy, all image, incapable of making a deep (as in baritone) impression that goes to the marrow of one's bones.
All I can think of as I read that final section is Elijah's meeting with God in the midst of the storm. The Hebrew text says that Elijah hears the tiny, small voice of a girl from the midst of the storm.
And knows that this voice is God's.
The church needs to recognize that God speaks in such a voice, quite powerfully. For me, Akinola evokes a visceral response that is anything but Spirit-struck.
I think a lot--everything--depends on how we regard the role of women in the church.
What is your theological position on the role women should be playing in the church, by the way?
William D. Lindsey
Dear Bill: “Where the
Dear Bill:
“Where the Spirit is, there are always surprises,” you aver. And on that I—for one—won’t disagree ... can’t disagree.
U.S. Catholics of Color will explode into the majority by quarter century, and as the Spirit rouses that majority to action, we must be ready to accept transformations in:
• the U.S. Catholic Diaconate, where currently only 2 in 10 are non-White (according to a study commissioned by the USCCB in 2003);
• the U.S. Catholic Clergy, where under 10% are currently non-White, though the non-White Catholic population is over 40% (USCCB);
• the U.S. Catholic Episcopate, where currently 13% are non-White, though the Catholic population is over 40% non-White (USCCB);
• the U.S. Catholic Sisterhood, where no reliable statistics on race or ethnicity are available, though non-White is most certainly far below the 40%+ figure for the non-White U.S. Catholic population;
• the U.S. Church’s links to the rest of the world, where currently ties to Catholic Europe are stronger than to the Catholic Global South; and to toss this last one in for good measure
• the color-lock on NCR’s Web Exclusives, which is currently 100% White.
To round this off, a brief comment on the unauthorized "diverse priesthood" is in order. Photos from the renegade ordination of Catholic women last summer at the interfaith center in Santa Barbara, CA, reveal only one white face after another. But this is perfectly in line with the photos of all-white faces from ordination ceremonies in Toronto (earlier in 2007) and on a boat in the waters around Pittsburgh (2006) and on the St. Lawrence Seaway (2005).
While Catholics advancing a diverse priesthood are mouthing the word "Women", their actions seem to be qualifying it to "White". And the on-the-ground result is "White Only".
It’s pretty clear what needs to happen, isn’t it, Bill? I trust the Spirit realizes it too.
In the years ahead, with a Spirit-led ethnic and racial transformation, the U.S. Catholic Church is in for a bout of turbulence ... a considerable bout ... a long overdue bout.
Ken
I think there it is not
I think there it is not appropriate to lump people into a non-white category. How non-white is non-white? Are people from Mexico non-white? How about Spain or Portugal? Are the Chinese? People from India? Are we trying to claim an economic disadvantage based on race? Are we trying to predict a clash of cultures based on skin color? I don't sense anyone wanting to limit the priesthood to people of a particular skin color. I think hoping to expose a racial prejudice in order to discredit the efforts of those who are trying to be inclusive will not work.
Marie, you're exactly right.
Marie, you're exactly right. The classification of people according to the color of their skins is absurd. Genetics show that we all come from the same genetic roots: in the tree of life, all of our roots are intertwined.
To try to get my students to understand the social construction of race, I often have them try to imagine a society that chooses to classify (and demean) groups of people on the basis of foot size, or or the size of their nose.
Students immediately see the absurdity of this arbitrary choice. But they don't see the absurdity of racial classification, since we live in a society that has, for so long, chosen to make these judgments, they appear "natural."
I have taught in settings in which some of my students were fair-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired, but considered black. Nothing demonstrates the absurdity of the arbitrary choice to classify folks by the color of their skin than the fact that, in some areas of the U.S., one has historically been considered black if one has even a trace of African blood, regardless of one's looks.
Despite the fact that, when we trace all our lineages back to their origin, they all trace to an African origin....
That being said, it seems to me race matters. I have just read an interview with Paul Krugman in which he points out that the choice of Southern whites to vote Republican following the Civil Rights era--as the race card was played--is the single most decisive event that has occurred in American politics since the 1960.
Since we live in a society laden with racial (and racist) ways of viewing the world, my own inclination is to push for us to keep discussing these, exposing these, examining these--and opposing the racism. I say this as a white person who is aware of my privilege, due to my own skin color. I grew up in a time and place in which I have had no choice except to grapple with race, and to confront my own racism head-on.
Race has definitely affected how people of color have been viewed in the churches. In the U.S. Catholic church, when Bishop Healey was made the first African-American bishop, he encountered overt racism within his diocese.
When Henriette de Lisle wanted to join a "white" religious community in New Orleans, she was told that women of color were unable to keep the vow of chastity. She founded her own religious community of women of color.
During the civil rights period, one of the priests at my alma mater, who had written a biography of Bishop Healey and who took part openly in civil rights protests, often had hate notes pinned on his door at night. Since he lived in a locked house accessible only to members of his own religious community, those notes could only have been placed there by his religious confreres.
Race matters. I find it questionable, to say the least, that some of those now using the race issue to try to throw a wrench into the movement for full inclusion of women in the churches are from constituencies that have previously been most resistant to racial inclusion and rights of African Americans.
William D. Lindsey
P.S. When I say I have seen
P.S. When I say I have seen things from "the other side" through my work in HBCUs, I don't by any means want to imply that I can understand the experience of people of color from the inside. I am white and will always have the privileges that come along with my skin color.
What I mean is that, to the extent I can via imaginative leaps of empathy and solidarity of action, I can at least appreciate, insofar as any human being can, a bit of what it must be like to live in this racist society, as a person of color.
One of the implications of my previous post is that perhaps it would be better if those of us meddling in the internal affairs of people of color and their institutions--from any ideological standpoint--simply admitted that we have for far too long assumed that people of color need us and "our" answers to "their" questions.
That's an insulting assumption. It will be interesting to see the contours of a church that has for long assumed such a messianic stance, as it begins to admit the energies and perspectives of this long-dominated by very vibrant part of its symphonic voice.
William D. Lindsey
I couldn't agree more, Ken.
I couldn't agree more, Ken. This transformation is long overdue. Having spent much of my life working at historically black colleges and universities, I have seen from
"the other side," if you will, the draconian process of marginalization of people of color in the "white" churches.
What I believe remains open to discussion--what remains in the realm of the Spirit's surprises--is how this coming inclusion of peoples of color in the churches will play out in terms of women's rights and gay rights.
The right wing in this country has worked long and hard to assure that Latinos and African Americans (and now, people of color elsewhere in the world) toe the misogynistic and homophobic line.
There's a tremendous level of hidden colonialism in the assumption that "all" Latinos and "all" Africans or African Americans endorse the North American right wing's misogyny and homophobia. In the name of promoting inclusion, the right wing is continuing to use people of color--whom it has historically excluded--to further its own political causes.
In my view, the right of people to make their own cultural decisions and work out political problems in terms of their own cultural backgrounds should be respected. The meddling, from either side, should stop.
At the same time, I also maintain that Christianity adheres to core values that have to norm the discussion and the cultural development of peoples everywhere. One of these is to respect all life. Another is to open our hearts, minds and doors to those who are strangers to us--including gays and lesbians. Another is to recognize the full equality of women with men, which, in church polity, demands equal access of women to power in the churches.
Let the Spirit continue her work, and hurrah for the turbulence that comes as the Spirit blows freely!
William D. Lindsey
"So the question the
"So the question the Anglican communion is facing for us all right now is a clear one: What happens to a group, to a church, that stands poised to choose either confusion or tyranny, either anarchy or authoritarianism, either unity or uniformity? Are there really only two choices possible at such a moment? Is there nowhere in-between?" JS, OSB
Thank you for this discussion. Perhaps we have become too obsessed with laws and we have lost sight of the simple teachings of Christ, which are clearly written. We must love one another. We must not judge one another. We are to give freely to those in need. We are to share Christ's teachings and strengthen each other in times of temptation. We must continue the works of mercy as God intended us to do.
Thank you for giving us guidelines that will help us work through this in a productive manner.
Oh, Bill: Turbulence in the
Oh, Bill:
Turbulence in the Roman Catholic Church is ongoing. At the moment Modernists and Traditionalists are just fighting one another through their surrogates in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, and that battle is raging red hot.
You speak of the “unfinished ecclesiological project of Vatican II,” and so it’ll be until the end of time and every last Catholic has gone to Heaven or Hell or somewhere in between. Can it be any other way in a Living Church?
The thing of it is, the Global South will have a real big say in the finishing. Probably the definitive say. The Global North ain’t gonna have things its way.
And not to worry about "justice" and "the prophetic" and "diversity" and so much more not being there. They’ll be part of the final mix.
Ken
Ken, I agree with your
Ken, I agree with your assessment that Modernists and Traditionalists are using the Anglican battle as a surrogate war, however I don't agree with the terms Modernists and Traditionalists. I prefer the designations of inclusiveness vs exclusiveness. I think these two terms are more of a meta statement on more issues than sexuality.
There are representatives of these two poles in the Global south as well. There are the inclusionists along the lines of Bishops Tutu and Romero, and there are the exclusionists along the lines of Bishop Akinola and Cardinal Arindze. It's yet to be seen which of these two lines of Christian understanding will epotimize the South.
The hope I have, is that in many indigenous populations, the trend is to incorporate their spiritual capabilities with other races and creeds. Where as silence and seclusion used to rule their willingness to share their prophecies, ceremonies, and talents, cooperation has now become far more prevalent.
It is in this sharing of spiritual talent that I place my hope about which paradigm is eventually endorsed by the South. Many indigenous tribes around the world have a prophecy about a time in which all races and all creeds will come together to protect the common good and heal the Earth. It's happening now, and this may indicate just what time we really live in.
I don't know, Ken. I think
I don't know, Ken. I think we're seeing the same picture, but interpreting it very differently.
From where I stand, the Catholic church could benefit from an injection of turbulence. It might even be argued that where the Spirit is active, there turbulence is. Look at the history of the early church: if you ever want to see rocking and rolling over issues of church polity and definitions of doctrine, you just have to read the New Testament.
To my way of thinking, Catholics are disspirited right now. The hatches are battened down. We've chosen to retreat to the fortress and hope that our prayers (in God's approved language, of course) save a world going to hell in a handbasket, a world we can't control any longer.
I'll agree with you that many folks are using the Anglican battle to fight their own intra-ecclesial and political battles covertly. I've been astonished, but not surprised, at the good press the Anglican right wing is able to buy for itself in leading American publications that purport to be objective.
But that's another story, one I have seen played out again and again when religion, sexual orientation, and gender issues coalesce....
Where I think we disagree is in our assurance about the future. I'm not able and willing to predict the demise of Christianity in the North and the re-evangelization of the North by the South.
Where the Spirit is, there are always surprises, try as we will to harness and control that energy for our own small ends. One thing I have learned in life is never to say with certainty that something will or won't happen in the future. The future belongs to God, and I have a heck of a time figuring Her and Her ways out--except that I know that where God is, peace, justice, and loving compassion abound.
William D. Lindsey
Frederick Douglass said you
Frederick Douglass said you could never reap a harvest if you're afraid to tear up the ground. The gospel says that miracles happen when the water is stirred up.
Dear Colkoch &
Dear Colkoch & William:
First, to “Col” (as someone among all these postings has called you and I hope you don’t mind if I do too).
Your final point is spot on. You’re not unlike Philip Jenkins saying about African Christians that they recognize the Bible (with its demons, castings out and healings, and gifts of the Spirit) as mirroring exactly the world around them and, likewise, saying about the Christians of the North that they throw out half of the Bible because it makes no sense to them anymore. So, if you mean the North has plenty to learn (or should I say RELEARN) from the South, I’m with you ... absolutely with you.
Now, to polygamy. I realize it’s traditional in African societies. I also know it is Koranic (the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH, had 4 wives) and is, therefore, acceptable in an Islam sharing Africa with—and surrounding—African Christian communities. I’m personally waiting, with some eagerness, for Muslims living in Europe and America to initiate court action claiming their religious rights are being violated because they’re denied their right to multiple wives (i.e., up to 4 at a time). THAT’s a real interesting prospect.
Finally, to filthy lucre. The North has it. And, yes, the North will seek to use it to gain political, economic, and social advantages anywhere in the world. This is only the way of the world.
But here’s the 9/21/2007 riposte to such by Bishop Nolbert Kunong of the Anglican Diocese of Harare:
“Our knowledge of the interests and agenda of ECUSA made us very concerned.... We have read elsewhere of the concerted efforts being made to subvert and undermine orthodox African bishops with promise of a lot of money in exchange ... and we refuse to be part to this daylight robbery of our conscience and faith by silver shekels.”
Money from the North may be "charity" or it may be "30 pieces of silver". (Not beauty alone is only in the eye of the beholder!) The South can accept the one and must refuse the other. And, increasingly, that’s what the South is doing, with African Anglicans in the lead.
Second, to “Bill” (am I being presumptuous?).
I concede to most everything you say.
But I’m still guessing the Roman Catholic Church won’t be ready anytime soon for the turbulence of a Vatican III since the turbulence of Vatican II hasn’t yet abated. One turbulence at a time, to my way of thinking. I wouldn’t concede to you, however, if I were as bold as the New Episcopalians among us in asserting their “voice” is “prophetic”. I know mine isn’t (and, frankly, I don’t think theirs is either, but that’s neither here nor there at the present moment).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the doors and windows of the Roman Catholic Church fling open last after the Spirit spoke to Pope John XXIII? And while the Spirit may be talking of opening doors and windows to—say, Sr. Joan—isn’t it unlikely to have the same result? I’d say it’s probably not about doors and windows opening that the Spirit’s chatting up the papal incumbent.
Correct me again if I’m wrong, but the Common Cause bishops, who mere days ago ended their meeting in Pittsburgh, have embarked on the creation of a “new ecclesiastic structure” for Anglicanism in North America that will exclude "non-celibate" homosexuals from their priesthood, but not "celibate". With their ranks split 50/50 on the issue of female clergy, they’ve put off until much, much later any final decision.
"Back to the future," as those far wiser than I so often say.
Ken
Ken, yes, please feel free
Ken, yes, please feel free to call me Bill.
I may be misunderstanding several of the points you're making in response to my posting, and, if my reply is meandering, please tell me.
In my view, the turbulence following Vatican II has--sadly--abated in the Catholic church. I see the last several decades as ones of retrenchment, with a slow erosion of the ecclesiological promise of Vatican II. Our situation today seems far from turbulent or energetic. We are enervated and divided, howling slogans across ever deepening ideological lines.
The retrenchment process engineered from on high has had a chilling effect in the Catholic church, theologically and otherwise. It has left us unwilling or unable to make our voice heard in the public arena, except insofar as we say no, and no, and no again--but only to select "threats" to our core values, such as abortion or gay marriage. We seem timorous and unwilling to address other situations about which our tradition would presumably have much more to say.
And our credibility has been immeasurably eroded by the sexual abuse crisis, which, to my way of thinking, is strongly intertwined with the intractable clericalism that is the raison d'etre for the retrenchment. We have retrenched because we cannot rethink the system of clerical power and privilege that we have taken as immutable, rather than as part of a polity developed for historical reasons, which may be questioned and changed.
Moreover, far too many of our pastoral leaders have identified our church and its future with select political options--and even with one political party (I'm speaking here of the U.S. Catholic church). This has had tremendously destructive effects on our church.
If a church ever needed revitalization, we do so now. The unfinished ecclesiological project of Vatican II will some day have to be completed, if we are to rehabilitate parish life, make church life a viable option for the majority of the young, and make our voices heard in any compelling way in the public arena.
Personally, I suspect that at this moment in Christian history, the Spirit may make Her voice heard more through grassroots movements than from on high, from the mouths of the men who rule us. I agree with you about the wisdom of doubting any of us who claim prophetic status of who glibly claim that our own voice is prophetic.
Still, I see a valuable role for the prophetic office in the church, and I don't have a problem with using the language "prophetic" to refer to movements that seek to revitalize the church, to allow the energy of the Spirit to infuse the church from below.
I suspect that these movements will often make common cause with secular movements that are moving towards the same transformative horizon as that envisaged by church reform movements. I see justice for all as a large part of that transformative horizon, and, as I think I have made clear, it seems to me that the church can never forfeit its pursuit of justice for any marginalized group, if it wishes to speak a compelling message to the world.
As you have rightly insisted, this pursuit of justice has to be global. No one corner of the globe has encapsulated justice. Each of us can learn tremendously from others. Whereas Western cultures may have moved the discussion of the place of women in the world forward in a way that offers hope to women everywhere, we in the West may have much to learn from the non-capitalistic and communitarian focus of economic and social systems of what we like to call the "underdeveloped" nations of the world.
I have long been convinced that philosopher Ernst Bloch is correct in his book "Principle of Hope" when he says that progress is never a straight line emanating from any single culture. It's more like a symphonic piece being sung by everyone on earth, with high points here and low points there. It takes all of us singing together to move towards the transformative humanistic horizon that Christians call the reign of God, and the forward movement is never ineluctable or automatic, in a world marred by sin.
William D. Lindsey
Dear Alb: Our world is a
Dear Alb:
Our world is a messy place. In it you find people talking a certain talk who suddenly you find walking a different walk. It’s a world where even a locally common vision in Scripture just isn’t enough.
Take, for instance, St. Mark’s Cathedral in the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia (WA).
Just a very few months back there arose (let’s say) a situation. St. Mark’s was facing a projected budget shortfall of $100,000, so cuts in operating expenses had to be made. Staff had to be let go.
I’ll outline the specifics of what happened:
• the 3 staff excessed—including 2 priests, 1 of them black—were all female;
• the one deciding all by himself who to excess was a white male;
• that deciding white male was the Dean of St. Mark’s, a gay man living openly in a same-sex relationship;
• that man, it almost immediately came out, was himself up for a salary increase lifting his annual take to $175,000 (over $200,000 with pension, health insurance, housing allowance added in); meantime
• the bishop suffragan of the diocese let slip that she, an Hispanic, was by contrast on part-time salary due to money problems in the diocese;
• those money problems did not, however, extend to the soon-to-retire bishop, who continued to receive full salary;
• that bishop was a white male;
• nor would the diocese’s money problems bar paying full salary to the soon-to-retire bishop’s successor;
• that successor was also a white male.
Some of the good folks at St. Mark’s detected a pattern of behaviors violating their common vision of Scripture, and they could hardly believe their just and compassionate St. Mark’s leadership would ever be guilty of it. If at Roman Catholic St. James Cathedral across town, well ... but at St. Mark’s Episcopal?
Thus, broken was God’s peace at St. Mark’s. Some, mostly women, withdrew from its membership in high dudgeon.
But, in the end, calm returned as it always does. So where now do things stand at St. Mark’s?
• the 1 black and 2 white females excessed are gone, restoring St. Mark’s budget to balance;
• the gay, white Dean of St. Mark’s is still in charge, is still living openly in a same-sex relationship, and is banking his $175,000-a-year salary (over $200,000 with pension, health insurance, housing allowance added in);
• the white male ex-Bishop of Olympia is on full church pension;
• his white male successor, consecrated recently, is regularly being paid his “around $135,000-a-year” salary, only an understandably few thousands less that his predecessor’s $157,000; and
• the Hispanic female Bishop Suffragan of Olympia is hoping for a break soon.
So, sails ever virtuously onward the USS Episcopalia, oblivious to its listing to one side slightly more now than before.
Ken
"If ... a religious body,
"If ... a religious body, cannot develop a com
On this eve of the
On this eve of the celebration of the birth of Jesus, I find great hope as I look at worldwide Anglicanism. It's similar to the hope I see in the story of Jesus's birth itself.
Just when it seemed that the controlling powers of the world into which Jesus was born had everything sewn up--everything neat and orderly, with power (naturally!) aligned on the side of wealth and might--along came a little baby born to an unwed mother, born in a manger, and the world turned upside down.
And from that moment, the worldview of Christianity has consistently held, at its best, that the future is always in God's hands. And that God never fails to take the side of the oppressed.
I thought of these themes recently, and related them to the worldwide Anglican communion, as I watched the new documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So." The clips in which that prophet of the Anglican communion of the South, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, spoke about the church's need to repent of its persecution of gays and lesbians, were eloquent. They were full of hope, as have been Tutu's many comments recently on this subject.
Tutu is a voice of hope in the worldwide Anglican communion, and a voice speaking out of the churches of the South, which have historically been marginalized as Anglicanism withered on the vine in the mother country from the Industrial Revolution forward, while it moved all too slowly to extend itself to dispossessed industrial workers.
I also found such hope in the clips showing the elevation of Bishop Gene Robinson to the episcopate. The jubilation among the participants in this ground-breaking event was palpable even on film.
I did find it shocking that Bishop Robinson had to be made bishop wearing a bullet-proof vest, and I was horrified at the vile hate letters the documentary showed, which Robinson received from "Christians" opposing his elevation to the episcopate and even in some cases threatening his life.
But so it has ever been when the Spirit breaks through in history: new visions that enact the foundational vision of the gospel in new cultural contexts are always met with bitter resistance, especially by the powers that be, who have vested so much in keeping things as they are and in reading the gospels in straitjackets of power and privilege.
I see hope where some others find gloom and doom, and I am challenging myself this Christmas time to live towards that vision of hope, which Sr. Joan outlines in this posting very lucidly.
William D. Lindsey