Kingdom Priorities and Family Values

Our lives are live-out within a place of tension between the Tradition we receive and the demands of the times in which we live. As human beings we like to divide reality into past, present, and future. For us these divisions carry real meaning. The past is gone, the future has yet to arrive. So we are invited to pay attention to living in the present.

This neat division of past, present, and future breaks down when we consider the tradition is the presence of the living past in the midst of our present experience. At the same time the future is always breaking into the present through what we Christians recognize as the expectations of the Kingdom. Daily we pray the words: Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. In God’s sense of time Tradition as the living past, and Kingdom expectations as the direction of that which is not yet, flow in and out of our experience of present reality.

Two weeks ago I preached on the passage from Luke’s Gospel where Jesus heals the woman with curvature of the spine on the Sabbath Day. https://relationalrealities.com/2013/08/24/the-humanizing-of-tradition/

I explored the importance of this healing lying not as an expression of physical cure but as the healing through which Jesus lifted from the woman the moral burden of sin, which popular Jewish belief of the time maintained was the cause of her deformity.

At issue between Jesus and the leader of the synagogue was not the fact of the woman’s deliverance, but that Jesus had infringed and interpretation of God’s command in Genesis to keep the Sabbath day holy through abstaining from all work. Jesus understood his action as releasing the woman from the bondage of Satan, an fitting action for the Sabbath Day.

I went on to explore Jesus’ reference to the bondage of Satan as an expression of the way the interpretation of Tradition becomes subject over time to the hardness of the human heart. For Jesus indicates that Satan is to be found in way the hardness of the human heart turns Tradition into an agent for human oppression rather than an instrument of our liberation.

My title for this sermon of two weeks ago was the Humanizing of Tradition. Luke shows us how Jesus’ uses the circumstances of the here and now to humanize the application of the Tradition of Moses by interpreting-out of the living tradition the distorting effects of human society’s need to find scapegoats to sacrifice.

Some have commented how helpful they found my sermon from two weeks ago. Episcopalians are very comfortable when we read how Jesus again and again seeks to humanize religious tradition. We particularly like the way Luke attends to the human realities encountered in this place of tension in the present time. As Episcopalians, we warm to this Jesus. Ours is a very human interpretation of Christianity. We are at home with there not being easy answers. In fact we are hugely relieved that life requires skillful negotiation of a world of grey rather than feeling locked into the certainties of a world of black and white. We embrace culture and are passionate advocates for the interpreting-out of the hardness of heart from the Christian Tradition. 

Yet our mood changes to unease when we encounter Jesus proclaiming the expectations of the Kingdom. We puzzle at his call for us to take up our cross and follow him on the road of discipleship. We don’t usually think of ourselves as disciples. That’s a little too intense for us. Passages such as Luke 14: 25-33 really disturb us if we allow ourselves to pay attention to them. Our response is to take comfort in Jesus’ use of hyperbole as a teaching tool, whispering reassuringly to one another that when Jesus says: Whoever comes to me and does not hate father or mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple – he doesn’t really mean it, he is just exaggerating for effect!

Yet, Jesus does mean what he says. If he teaches and demonstrates the humanizing of tradition, he also calls for the radicalizing of culture through the expectation of the coming of God’s Kingdom. We welcome the expectations of the kingdom through embarking on the path of discipleship. This is a path that requires us to place relationship with Christ as our first and highest priority. Only if we do this can we become agents of the Kingdom.

Episcopalians may not have much enthusiasm for the notion of discipleship, especially because those Christian’s who do, give it such a bad name! Yet, we really do care about the coming of the Kingdom. We are a Christian tradition that is passionate about social justice and the eradication of discrimination that results in the evils of racism, sexism, homophobia, and poverty.

It’s not possible to ignore Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom and the radical implications of the coming of the Kingdom for our culture. Neither is it enough to explain away his words as simply the use of hyperbole, although this is also true. So what is the way forward for us in relation to this text and other texts in which Jesus proclaims Kingdom expectations?

At Trinity Cathedral summer is passing. Two things for me mark the passing of summer: the Choir returns after its summer recess and we move into the period of the annual renewal program. Financial stewardship is a significant element of our annual renewal. Following the custom developed last year we will commence the annual renewal program on the 6th of October and run through to the Sunday before Thanksgiving. A departure from previous years means that we will have a pretty clear draft budget for 2014 in advance of the renewal campaign so no-one can remain unaware concerning the urgent financial priorities facing us in 2014.

It is urgent that we meet the financial challenges presented by the 2014 budget. Yet, we will not do so if we only rely on those who can afford to be more generous. The only way we will grow into the challenges in 2014 is through taking seriously Christ’s call to discipleship. Generosity without gratitude is not sufficient. Members can be generous. Only disciples experience and are able to express gratitude.

For me the pivotal section in Luke 14:25-33, God’s invitation to conversation with us as a community, comes at the very end when Jesus says: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.  

Unfortunately, the English translation uses the word possessions, which implies things to be given up. However, the Greek can also be translated as possessing. Possessing implies that what is to given up is not a thing – a possession, but an attitude to possessing. Our relation to possessions lies not in having them but in the meaning and importance we give them, i.e. our attitude towards them.

The same is true with relationships. Our relationship with the people we call husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers or sisters becomes a spiritual problem when we seek to possess them. What offends many of us when we hear the phrase family values is the way this phrase operates as short hand for relationships of control and possession. We possess others when we see them as objects to satisfy our own need for security. We glory in them as extensions of our own needs, thus bringing us social approval and acceptance. However, relationships are gifts to be enjoyed. Even our own life is a gift which is given back to us again and again. The danger here is of clinging to a view of our life as the result of our own self-assertion, of something we earn, the success of which we is in our control.

It’s not a matter of hating family members and our own lives in the literal sense. Jesus is inviting us to see our relationships, our possessions, and our own life as flowing from the priority we give to our longing to love God.  As Augustine put it: our hearts are restless Lord, until they find their rest in thee.  

The message of this Gospel passage is this:

  • Success does not lie in the numbers of followers, in fact numbers alone pose a danger, because nothing attracts like success and success alone will not provide the staying power and stamina needed to bring about the expectations of the Kingdom.
  • The problem lies not in family relationships, but in the attitude we harbor towards others as objects to possess, with the power of possessing being the source for our own sense of security.
  • If we cling to our relationships and even our own life as something to congratulate ourselves on having earned through the hard work of self-improvement, we will lose the only thing that is certain, the enjoyment of life as gift and the fruitfulness of life that flows from this.
  • As a community of Christians we will not be able to fulfill our passion for the coming of the Kingdom unless we first accept the call to discipleship. The Kingdom is not furthered simply by our being good people doing what good people like to do.
  • We become disciples through our membership of the self-denying, cross- bearing community of the Body of Christ at the intersection of Central and Roosevelt. This alone defines us as a community of disciples. Discipleship alone has the power to provide us with the resources to complete the task God calls us to.

Discipleship is an expectation of the Kingdom of God. Through responding to the call to follow Christ, the expectations of the coming of the Kingdom break into the present through us as daily we pray: Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

The Humanizing of Tradition

Part I  

I am again watching the TV series The West Wing. The action is set in the first term of a fictitious Democratic presidential administration and this multi-season series aired between 1999 and 2006. I am still watching the episodes in the first series and what is so interesting is that it is possible to trace back the evolution of current political trends to a time when their outline is clear yet, their future trajectory has yet to set in stone. Despite the programs clear liberal-Democrat bias, The West Wing portrays a time when politicians still believed in the importance of political consensus in the service of the best interests of the nation. Thirteen years later, the loss of belief in, the need for, consensus on issues of vital importance to the nation has come to completely characterize a current political scene of governmental gridlock. While this is interestingly instructional, this is not the point to which I want to draw your attention.

In one particular episode concerning a request for the President to pardon a man awaiting execution on death row there is a particularly moving seen between Toby Ziegler, the White House Chief of Communications, and his Rabbi concerning the right and wrong of the death penalty. In his Sabbath sermon, the Rabbi had stated that vengeance is not Jewish. Toby points out to the Rabbi that it is written in the Torah an eye for and eye. Throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy the Torah prescribes the death penalty for a large number of offences mostly, religious in nature. The Rabbi’s reply is powerful. He says that maybe the Torah sanctioned death penalty represented the best teaching at that time. He then tells Toby that the later Rabbi’s who compiled the Talmud, which is the collation of later rabbinic interpretation of the Torah, went to great lengths to confine the meaning of the Torah texts to forms of reparation that did not require death. Jewish thought moved-on as a result of a deepening, over time, of the human understanding of God’s justice.

Witnessing this exchange between Toby and the Rabbi offers a reminder that in Judaism, unlike some branches of Christianity, the literal ferocity and violence present in many Old Testament texts cannot be applied in a timeless manner. Later Jewish thought moderates the violence and ferocity implicit in many passages of the Torah. In our relationship to the Holy Scriptures I am pleased to say that our own Anglican tradition of Biblical interpretation follows in this rabbinical tradition of evolving interpretation in response to social and cultural development. Social and cultural development is very often the indicator of our growing into an ever- deepening sense of God’s truth, which Spiral Dynamics understands as a product of cultural evolutionary development http://spiraldynamics.org/  

Part II

The argument we see in Luke 13:10-17 turns on whether or not it is lawful for Jesus to heal the woman on the Sabbath? If this is a story about physical healing, then, as the leader of the synagogue says, why not wait and perform it on a regular day? However, this is a story where the alleviation of physical suffering is a by-product of a moral action. Jesus performs a moral work of God, which he sees as a fitting action for the Sabbath. Citing the exception that allows for animal welfare on the Sabbath, Jesus asks the synagogue leader:

ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the Sabbath day?

The weightier part of this woman’s burden is not her physical deformity, but the burden of being morally and ritually unclean. The patriarchal interpretation of the Law places upon her and anyone else who suffers from disease or deformity a burden of moral impurity. Such an interpretation attributes disease and deformity to individual or familial sinfulness. It is from this moral burden that Jesus releases her and claims in doing so he is fulfilling God’s Sabbath command to keep this day holy. In his question Jesus couches the woman’s condition in terms of satanic binding. How do we attribute Jesus’ reference to the binding of Satan?

Unfortunately, dualism still characterizes much popular Christian thought. Dualism posits the notion that Satan is a celestial figure in opposition to God; that the world is the battleground for the war between the forces of Satan and the army of God, a battle between evil and good. This is, and has always been declared throughout Christian history to be a serious misunderstanding that flies in the face of the meaning of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. There is no celestial battle, for God is triumphant and supreme. However, in the old myth about the heavenly war between the archangel Lucifer and God, Lucifer- Satan is defeated and we are told his body falls to earth.

We can interpret the fall to earth of Lucifer- Satan to mean that Satan is to be found not as a celestial rival roaming the universe in opposition to God, but as the symbol for the presence of evil rooted in the human heart. As one commentator puts it, Satan exists, because we exist!

The foremost exponent of this view is Rene Girard, a philosopher, we at Trinity Cathedral remember as much loved by Bishop Nicholas Knisely. A Girardian perspective holds that Satan is an anthropological not a metaphysical presence in the world. In other words, Satan is a projection of the hardness and evil that lurks in the human heart in opposition to God. Time and again in the Gospels Jesus stands in powerful opposition to the way the Tradition of Moses falls captive to the hardness of the human heart. History shows that if unchecked even the best traditions and social systems inevitably degrade into instruments of oppression and discrimination.

The example from Luke 13 reveals Jesus in a Giradian light. As a foretaste of the later rabbinic tradition that was to come to flower in the Talmud, Jesus confronts the use of tradition as an instrument for satanic oppression. Satanic oppression is code for the processes by which traditions look for a scapegoat for the collective inability to process projected guilt and fear.

Part III

I was recently asked to articulate in a sentence the essence of my understanding of my priestly ministry.  I believe my ministry is to witness to a personal relationship with God that is lived-out in community where it is forged from within the tensions between the Tradition we receive and the challenges of the lives we live. I trust that for many of you this statement will be confirmed in your experience of me.

We use the word tradition with a small t and Tradition with a capital T interchangeably. The difference between in usage between the two is that small t traditions are non-binding and subject to change all the time.  As Anglican Christians, Episcopalians understand Tradition with a capital T as referring specifically to the Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures and historic creeds. This Tradition is handed-on from one generation to another. So how are we to relate to Tradition with a capital T?

One of the chief characteristics of being Episcopalian comes from our Anglican  understanding that God speaks to us from within that place of tension between the Tradition handed-on to us and the culture in which we live. We understand Scripture to be subject to the interpretation of Tradition, i.e. its meaning is what the consensus or mind of the Church comes to understand it to mean. This interpretation evolves over time. We also understand that both Scripture and Tradition are subject to the scrutiny of Reason. Like Tradition, Reason with a capital R is not just any rational thinking. It is confined to the expression of the higher universal values of love as justice, liberty as freedom from systems of oppression, equality as in non-discrimination.

This place of tension is not an easy place to stay. Our Christian journey forces us to find ways of living lives that are both faithful to Tradition and authentic for the needs of our time. Yet, sitting in this place of tension is what makes Episcopalians stand out in a religious terrain where Tradition is seen by some Churches as a timeless expression of God’s law to be imposed upon culture, and by other Churches as something to be overturned and discarded as a relic of a former age.

As Episcopalians we believe that God communicates through the process of our dynamic interaction with the Tradition. This approach to interpretation is guided by attending to the signs of the times. In last weeks Gospel from Luke 12:49-56 Jesus rebukes his hearers for failing to do just this. He says: you know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time? 

In Conclusion  

In Luke 13:10-17 we discover something of an historical paradox. Jesus confronts the leader of the synagogue, whom we can assume to be of the Pharisee party with an interpretation of the Sabbath Tradition that not only humanizes its application, but proclaims God’s desire that this Tradition be honored in a way that unbinds human beings from the satanic, as in heart-hearted, and scape-goating application of Tradition.

The paradox here lies in the fact that it was the Pharisee party that went on following the destruction of the Temple in 70AD to give birth to Rabbinic Judaism. As witnessed by the West Wing encounter between Toby and his Rabbi, the Rabbis began to restrict the unmediated application of the Torah through increasingly,  humanizing interpretation, interpretations later compiled into the Talmud.

Jesus engages the leader of the synagogue who accuses him of violating the Sabbath by curing the woman suffering from curvature of spine. What we can easily misinterpret as Jesus’ opposition to the Law is really Jesus, as Rabbi, interpreting-out the violence of the human heart from within the Tradition with a capital T.

We can do no better than to follow the example Jesus gives us. To do so is to live our encounter with Tradition in such a way that it becomes an instrument for God’s continual desire for the re-forming of human society. In our hands, the Tradition we receive becomes an instrument for liberation from hardness of heart on the long march of the Children of God.

 

Measuring-up to Luke 11:32-40

Last Sunday, I got to use the new TED-style microphone headset, a result of a generous donation from one of our members – a practice I am keen to encourage through the formation of a Friends of Trinity Cathedral ministry. I first noticed this headset while watching the TED Talks. For those who are not familiar with these, go to Netflix on your TV, or to Ted Talks on your computer. Here are three links to talks I recently posted on Trinity’s FaceBook site.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sasha_dichter.html?source=facebook#.UeH3q0SIFHx.    http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html?utm_source=facebook&source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html?source=facebook – .UeH2hA7PUFw.facebook

What fascinates me about the TED Talks is not only the content of the presentations, but the style of presentation. Presenters do vary in their presentation styles, yet the TED style is a masterful use of the immediacy of conversation, made possible by the combination of verbal and visual stimuli. This is achieved by the engagement of both our eyes and our ears as pictures, key words, and short phrases flash on the big screen behind the speaker’s head, pithily capturing the meaning of the words we are hearing. So when I said last week: now I have the headset, next comes the big screen above the pulpit, many anxiously snickered, hoping that I was making a joke, but sensing I was not!

The Episcopalian Brand features a strong emphasis on traditional worship. Yet, even Episcopalians are increasingly conditioned by the communications revolution, taking place all around us. As the world shifts from the communication style established by the invention of the printing press, we become less oriented to complex verbally based expression of ideas and argument, and more oriented towards a communication style that skillfully mixes the visual with verbal into the message. One picture speaks a thousand words as the old adage goes, captures the increasing return to the use of visual elements in mass communication, which in the digital age works on our minds and stimulates our imaginations through the skillful mixing of sight and sound. Through our ancient liturgy, a medium of sight, sound, and action, the Episcopal Church is already ahead in the game, so why not take further advantage of modern electronic media to further enhance our core communication modality.

One stumbling block to this is that those of us 40 and over have been shaped by a communication style that uses words to stimulate thoughts and ideas. What you said really made me think is a comment I often receive from parishioners following one of my sermons. Well, I am glad to know that, particularly as I am one who loves the interplay between words, thoughts and reflections. Yet, Jesus has a teaching style that does not aim to stimulate thoughtful reflective connections between words and ideas. Jesus teaching style is closer to that of the TED Talks, in that words are used conversationally to evoke powerful, usually contradictory images rather than thoughtful reflections. It is through his confrontative image based message that Jesus, who is not interested in sparking reflective debate, seeks to change lives. These images don’t flash on a big electronic screen behind Jesus, but on the internal screens of his listener’s individual minds. Jesus communication style uses words to evoke images that challenge us directly in ways that expository teaching and preaching cannot!

Unlike the Buddha, Jesus teaches very little about the internal spiritual life. As I said two weeks ago, even when he refers directly to prayer, he does so by provoking uncomfortable images that direct our attention to the quality of our engagement with the world of relationships around us. Recently in his teaching on prayer, known to us as the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus presents an image of shamelessness driving our longing for God.

https://relationalrealities.com/2013/07/27/when-you-pray-say-abba/   He provokes the image of the small child whispering daddy or mummy as the way we are to approach God. Note these are direct and controversial images, not complex metaphysical instructions.

Last week, Canon Rhodes shared his sense of relief that it was I, and not him, who had to deal with the Gospel for today. I have spent a week wrestling with this text from Luke. Like the Ted-Talks, Jesus uses words to provoke images that flash across our internal screens. If taken seriously, these images disturb me deeply because when I measure myself, my attitudes, and my actions against these images, I am uncomfortably aware of how far in my discipleship, I fall short.

In what ways do I fall short of being able to live the fullness of the life of a disciple?  To begin with, my alms are given from my surplus and not by selling my possessions. If my surplus decreases, it would seem eminently reasonable to me that the level of my giving should likewise follow.  Is my treasure where my heart can be found?  This is not a comforting image for me because it requires me to examine the question: what is it I treasure? My treasure is not monetary. Yet, it is personal to me. My heart is devoted to the pursuit of my own competence and self-sufficiency.

I have such a vivid picture of a purse that does not wear out and will contain the wherewithal necessary for life in heaven. If I had a big TED screen behind me now would be the time to flash pictures of moth eaten purses and rust corroded strongboxes, contrasted to a scene of living the good life floating about on clouds in heaven. Pictures of heavenly purses which I have been prudent enough to prepare for in advance remind me that this last week GEICO encouraged me to take advantage of my eligibility for an Umbrella Policy, which for a small increase in my premium will give me a million dollars coverage against evil third parties intent on suing me. Yet, what if heaven is not a future event to be prepared for? Jesus is more likely to be suggesting that heaven is here and now and the heavenly purse is one that is unfailingly useful in bringing about good in this world. Resources that are put to use now are less subject to the decay of moth and rust than if they are amassed and horded, left unused in preparation for some future, and largely imaginary state.

Am I dressed for action? Oh most certainly I am. Yet, a more pertinent question is: how am I dressed for action? My early life experience has given me a prodigious skill to anticipate and be ready for whatever trouble might lurk around the corner. Dressed in armor, I am ready for action. Yet, the action Jesus has us picture here is not that of battle, but of expectation and readiness to welcome with joy and celebration being in loving and trusting relationship. The servants are overjoyed at the return of their master. This is an image that looses its power for us until we remember that in Jesus’ world the relationship between master and servant was one of mutual dependency, trust, and protection.

Am I dressed for expectation? This does not mean being ready for the future before it happens. Jesus means that I should be ready in the present moment and in each successive present moment to celebrate because I trust God and am trusted by God. All that energy expended on anticipating the future is futile for none of us knows at what hour the imaginary threat we anticipate will present itself. Anxious anticipation results in our not being ready for what happens to us in the present. If I am ready now, I am always ready and I have no need to scare myself into a state of anxious anticipation of disaster, which never really arrives anyway. Jesus asks us to focus our attention on the only moment in which we are actually living – the present moment is the only moment in which we are actually alive.

How would my life change if I knew that I was going to die next Sunday. I suspect that the next week would be the most life filled experience of my life. Under the impetus of no time to lose I would turn my attention to what really matters for me. This would be the present celebration of love and friendship.

In the Letter to the Hebrews, the reading, which precedes the Lucan passage with which I am inviting us all to struggle, we hear the greatest definition of the character of faith ever recorded. This anonymous writer tells us that: Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. The great American novelist Mark Twain puts a more idiomatic spin on the character of faith when he has Huck Finn proclaim: Faith is believin what you know ain’t so. 

I have a version of Huck’s comment which I tell people when they ask: how can I risk taking the leap of faith when I don’t know what I feel about God or even if there is a God?  I tell them to fake it till you make it. What I mean by this is that in longing for a trusting and loving relationship with God it’s important to live as if what you most long for is – already true!

So, what is it that we must live-out everyday as if it is true? Jesus begins this particular conversation with us with these words: Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Note that God addresses us as a little flock, i.e. as a community, not as individuals here. God is inviting us to trust and to relax, to be less preoccupied with getting so that we can respond to God’s giving and emulate God’s generosity in our giving. Jesus tells us it is only through being open to God’s initiative, God’s provision, in sum God’s reality that our deepest needs come to be met.

Is not our deepest need to make a difference through living life as an expression of gratitude and generosity? What we most long for is not only that our need is met, but that we live beyond the confines of our self-centeredness so that our life becomes a source of what makes a difference for good in the lives of others who share the world with us! Let this be our prayer today and everyday.

 

 

 

When you pray say Abba

Our granddaughter Claire will be eight on the 15th August. Although we live next door to each other, we went to Italy this last June as a family. I had a special opportunity to observe her enjoying her relationship with her father. Unfortunately, for her mother, Claire is at that terrible age when daughters like to pit their wills against their mothers. This internecine struggle between mother and daughter only intensifies Claire’s adoration of her father. Maybe his turn will come as Claire negotiates the complex process of relational development, but for the time being there is a quality of love, admiration, adoration, and intimacy communicated every time Claire utters the word Daddy.

In speaking of him to me she will often say, my Daddy –this, or my Daddy -that. When I hear Claire utter the word Daddy, I have an internal experience that is akin to a melting sensation. It is a beautiful experience that carries the strongest intimations of warmth, and the intimacy of unquestioned safety. However, as I reflect upon the experience in the light of Luke 11:1-13, I have two questions that arise. Firstly, when Jesus told the disciples: when you pray, say Abba; is my melting experience what Jesus had in mind? Abba most directly translates into English not as Our Father, but as Daddy? If so then my second question is: when I address God as Daddy, why is it so hard for me to capture the experience I glimpse that Claire has in relation to her Daddy?

This intimation of warmth, and the intimacy that can only arise from a sense of unquestioned trust and safety is the experience Jesus clearly had in mind when he told his disciples: when you pray, say Abba hallowed be your name.  Like nearly everything Jesus said to his disciples, this would have provoked in them the error message –this does not compute.  Intimacy, affection, and unquestioning trust were not expectations they had when addressing God. For them, God was the God-of-our Fathers, the creator of the universe. 2,000 years separate us, and yet we are not so different from them in our expectations when addressing God in prayer.

Sadly, and paradoxically, I feel more comfortable with a little distance between me and God. Temperamentally, I am more comfortable addressing God as Our Father, rather than as Daddy – which if truth be told leaves me feeling a little silly. Maybe that’s because I am an Episcopalian? Yet, it seems that it took the early Jewish Christians around 100 years before they could reclaim addressing God as Abba instead of God of our Fathers. There is something in the religious DNA the balks at too much intimacy. How can you hallow, which means to honor and respect the name of God, if you call God Daddy? Yet, this is what my parched soul cries out for.

I am not alone in wanting more in my relationship with God. However, I am mostly aware of fearing to risk wanting more. Comfortable though we may be with a little formal distance, do not our hearts ache with a deep longing for more? Fearing we cannot find the-more-we-long-for in our relationship with God, we seek it in less appropriate places, through less satisfying experiences. The result is we ache with feelings of alienation and loneliness. Do we not all long for that depth of relationship observable in Claire’s feelings towards her Daddy. Here is the quality of love, which alone, is able to satisfy our soul hunger. It is this quality of love and trust that Jesus shockingly holds out to us as the fruit of prayer that always begins with, Daddy, holy is your name.

Jesus’ teaching on prayer is short and simple. He shares his own experience of prayer as the speaking-out of relationship. Relationship characterized by the intimacy expressed through addressing the creator of the universe as Daddy with all the attendant consequences of relationship that I observe my granddaughter enjoying with her Daddy. This realization is so challenging for many of us that we never penetrate beneath the relational filter afforded by the more distancing term, Father. Why is this?

In our human relationships we learn the importance of the right amount of distance. As a generalization, the function of distance in relationship is to protect us from rejection on the one hand, and on the other, the experience of feeling engulfed. We learn these patterns through our early experience of our parents. It’s not just fathers, it’s also mothers that figure significantly in the way we learn to manage distance – by which I mean the achievement of the right amount of distance in our relational lives. We never really get this calibration right. We tend to find a hovering place somewhere on a continuum between merger and separation, that is always unsatisfacory.

Some of us impulsively gravitate towards the merger end with the result that we experience rejection when others are driven by us to push us away. Some of us experience feeling marooned towards the separation end with the result that we experience disconnection no matter how socially skilled we become at masking this. For some of us, we move back and forth in a volatile way, one moment experiencing too much closeness, the next too much separation. This experience, unfortunately more and more common in society. It was aptly caught by the title of Jerold Kereisman and Hal Straus’ little psychological self-help book: I Hate You –Don’t Leave Me http://www.amazon.com/Hate-You-Dont-Leave-Understanding/dp/0380713055

Jesus does not simply hand his disciples a form of words. He demonstrates what the praying of the words involves in the three stories that follow. In the story of the man waking his neighbor at midnight for three loaves of bread we can note two startling characteristics of Jesus’ attitude to prayer.

1. The request for three loaves is an excessive request given that bread was baked fresh each morning and not kept longer than the day of baking. No one would have at midnight that much bread left over from the day. So prayer involves the audacity of asking for a lot rather than a little.

2.  We are told that the neighbor gives-in, not because he pities the man  or feels generous, but because of the man’s perseverance. Perseverance is not the meaning of the Greek word Luke uses. Anaideia does not translate as perseverance but as shamelessness, as in not to feel shame. Prayer involves abandoning our cherished self-respect and exposing ourselves to the shame of wanting and longing. For us, it’s a shameful thing to be dependent upon our longings. For us, it’s also a fearful thing to risk the humiliation of exposing our own need. In our prayer with God we must be audacious, impudent, beyond shame in our expression of our need of God. 

Prayer involves the courage to ask in order to receive, to seek in order to find, to knock so that opportunities will open to us. We often hear this text with the emphasis on the receiving, finding, and opening as if God is some kind of request vending machine. For me, this text is put into perspective in the famous Holman Hunt painting The Light of the World,  now hanging in St Paul’s Cathedral, London. Jesus is pictured standing with ou_kbc_pcf24_largea lamp, knocking at a door overgrown with ivy and brambles. He clearly seeks entry, yet on closer inspection the door has no handle. The implication is that it can only be opened from the inside. What is depicted here is the door of the heart. Hunt captures what it means to knock and the door will be opened. Paradoxically, it is Jesus who is doing the knocking, and it is we who have the power to open or not.

In Jesus’ teaching and personal example on prayer we are given a new revelation of God as Abba or Daddy. Depending on our association to the gendered experience of father, we might need to translate this into God as Amma or Mummy. The meaning is the same either way, for while God is not gendered, our human experience is.

This is really good news! Because it means in that prayer is the articulation of our relationship with God, and it doesn’t matter where we find ourselves on the emotional-relationship continuum between merger and separation. In our relationship with God it is audacious expectation, and shameless vulnerability, which open us to the love of God. In our relationship with God there is no right distance to find.

Can we find buried in our own experience that quality of unquestioning trust and expectation of immediacy and love which Claire currently takes for granted in her relationship with her Daddy? As someone who struggles more with the experience of distance, that is feeling too much distance in my relationships, observing Claire relating to her Daddy evokes feelings of sadness and joy. Sadness in the face of my own thwarted longings. Joy in the prospect that in my relationship with God I too can be more like Claire. She is for me a role model of hopeful joy. The same quality of experience is present also in Claire’s relationship with her Mummy. For despite the relational vicissitudes resulting from the current phase of her developmental and relational chemistry, Claire brings the same unquestioning trust and love to her relationship with both her parents. It’s Mummy’s turn to bear the brunt of Claire’s explorations in relating and relationship. There is nothing surer that at some future point it will be Daddy’s turn to be the one against which she is compelled to test her will.

Let’s embark on an experiment. For the next month, whenever you pray begin your prayer with the relational daddy or mummy, and at the end of the month note the change.

Where Prayer Has Been Valid: a cathedral reaching-out

 

For many of us in the Episcopal Church we feel somewhat surprised by so many spiritual seekers coming through our doors and finding enough of something, often very indefinable, that makes them want to come back. Yet, on deeper reflection, our initial feeling of surprise fades, for was this not also our initial experience on finding our way into relationship with the Episcopal Church?

The Cathedral and the Life of Prayer

In August of 2006, I found myself sitting in Trinity Cathedral for the first time. My partner Al and I, at that time still living in London, were on one of our visits to Phoenix to spend time with our young family who had recently moved here from Washington D.C. My first impression was how different Trinity was from my more familiar experience of an English Cathedral. Yet, as I sat with the light streaming through the stained glass windows the words from T.S. Elliot’s poem Little Gidding drifted into my mind:

You are not here to verify,
Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity

Or carry report. You are here to kneel

Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more

Than an order of words, the conscious occupation

Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.

I knew without doubt that I was kneeling in a place where prayer has been valid. The walls of Trinity Cathedral are saturated with the prayers of generations of Arizonan Episcopalians. From here all Episcopal life in the city of Phoenix traces its origins. Even in this new world, the cathedrals of the Episcopal Church are places that collect the intensity of generations of hearts laid bare in prayer.

What is a Cathedral?

The easy answer is that a cathedral is the church housing the cathedra, or bishop’s chair. Yet, as I remind the members of our diocese on those great family gatherings around diocesan confirmations, and ordinations, the cathedral is also our collective spiritual home. On such occasions I rather enjoy the surprise on many faces as I say, ‘welcome home!’

Unlike a parish church, the cathedral exists as a benefit for the life of the whole diocese. The peculiarity of its clergy being known as canons further drives home the point. For the title of canon simply means appointed for the benefit of the whole Church. Although at Trinity, we have a life that is not unlike that of any parish, it is in our identification with the wider church that we feel most particularly fulfilled. 

Trinity and the Diocese

In the Diocese of Arizona, Trinity Cathedral is the church that everyone has a right to look to for an example of excellence in liturgy, music, and as a source for spiritual guidance. Our sense of service is most potently experienced when the members of the diocese gather together in the presence of our bishop. Bishop Kirk is not only our shepherd; through being in communion with him we are connected to the network of relationships we call the Wider Church.

Although an attitude of elitism is a temptation cathedrals are often vulnerable to, Trinity is a source for excellence and tradition in a world where the value for such is easily lost. Trinity is the place where tradition in worship encounters contemporary ideas as we seek to live out the tensions between the traditions we receive and lives we are actually living in the 21st century. For us this tension is the very essence of being Episcopalian.

Trinity and the City of Phoenix

In the City of Phoenix, Trinity Cathedral is the church for the city. We embrace the city through our ministries of music, the arts and social outreach. Ministry to the arts is an important service to civic life that cathedrals in particular, are able to offer. At Trinity we welcome all who seek a sacred space for those important life occasions such as weddings and funerals. We are a place where the civic life of the city has an opportunity to connect with the dimension of the Divine.

Being placed in Phoenix’s urban heart our embrace of diversity enables us to be a place of refuge and hospitality for those who have found it difficult to find a spiritual home elsewhere. For any person an essential ingredient in finding a spiritual home lies in being able to look around and experience themselves reflected in the faces of others. In this sense, diversity is not simply a quality Trinity aspires to. It is the core quality defining our particular identity. Diversity is what makes us different from many parish churches, which rightly tend to reflect the profiles of their particular neighborhoods.

As the cathedral, Trinity does not exist only for its own members. Neither does it exist only for the diocesan family. It exists for everyone, whether they are Episcopalians or not, our kind of believers, or not.

The Anglican Tradition has been molded within more than a thousand years of interaction between Catholic Christianity and the cultural life of the English Nation. This interaction between Christian Tradition and culture has shaped an attitude of openness to the world. For over 300 years the Episcopal Church has continued that interaction between Church and World within the distinct experience of American culture.

Trinity Cathedral’s particular vocation is to embody in its life the heart of our Anglican Tradition of Benedict and the Benedictine Spirit. Historically, our cathedrals continue the spirit of the Benedictine monastic institutions and traditions they came to replace at the time of the English Reformation. As this spirit comes to be re-embodied afresh in each new generation, not only in our cathedrals but in all our parish churches, at Trinity we understand this to be in particular, our vocation and mission.

Of Neighbors and Eternal Life

Sadao_Watanabe_The_Good_Samaritan_smWith the Zimmerman trial being reported in the news this last week the Good Samaritan parable strikes me as a timely commentary on the question of who is my neighbor? Of course this was at the heart of the lawyer’s questioning of Jesus. Jesus, side steps the question and elicits an answer from the lawyer to a slightly different question: which of the three, the Priest, Scribe and Samaritan acted as a neighbor? The lawyer now does some side stepping of his own and simply replies: the one who showed mercy. In telling the lawyer to go and do likewise, Jesus is answering the lawyer’s original question: what must I do to inherit eternal life?

So there are two questions here. The first is who is my neighbor? The second is what is what is my responsibility to my neighbor? The simple answer to the first question is everyone is my neighbor. You may question this as an impossibility? A simple definition of the word neighbor is the one who comes near. Therefore, for me it’s the second question that is the more significant. If everyone is my neighbor, the real rub is, so what do I owe them; what do they owe to me?

Understanding neighbor in this way, George Zimmerman became Trayvon Martin’s neighbor the moment he came near to him. Such a reading is dramatically at odds with the assumptions that underpin social relations in contemporary America. In our society, a working definition of neighbor might be, not the one who comes near to me, but the one who fears me or of whom I am afraid.

Why is this so? Do we really pose such a threat to one another? Is this a hangover from frontier culture in which the stranger was automatically experienced as a threat until discovered to be otherwise? Perhaps. Having lived in the UK for 30 years and now in the US, I notice how quick Americans are to enthusiastically shake hands with broad smiles. In England such behavior might imply particular interest being shown between people, otherwise the English tend to ignore one another. I have learned not to assume this in the American context. The person vigorously shaking my hand and broadly smiling at me with perfect teeth is not expressing any particular interest in me. He, for usually it’s men who behave like this is simply signaling to me that he poses no threat to me and is hoping I am likewise, nonthreatening.

Yet, the pioneer roots of American culture can’t explain the degree to which we now fear one another in modern America. Listening to the Gospel reading of The Good Samaritan, one sympathizes with Jesus as the lawyer attempts to cross-examine him. The overly litigious nature of American society both reflects and stimulates an environment of mutual fear and suspicion between us.

It seems to me that a better explanation of the situation we find ourselves in as neighbors to one another lies in the nature of modern society viewed from the helpful perspective of a theory called Spiral Dynamics http://spiraldynamics.org/ . Spiral Dynamics is a tool that I found very useful in my former life as a priest within a large secular organizational setting. Here, my task was to be the pastor to organizational structures and relationships.

Spiral Dynamics helps to analyze organizations, and by extension social structures in terms of types of cultural development it calls Memes. A meme is a particular location on an evolutionary continuum that helps to explain the dynamics of social relations and worldview. Spiral Dynamics assigns a color to each meme, which greatly aids comprehension. Each meme represents an organized shared system of values around which a culture structures itself. For instance, purple, tribal cultures based on blood or extended kinship ties, blue, hierarchical-authoritarian cultures, relying on complex stratified bureaucracies, where knowing one’s place in the order is a primary concern.  Orange, scientific- entrepreneurial cultures structure social relations around an ethos of progress, and wealth-creation. Whereas, green, communitarian- egalitarian culture bases its value system on shared notions of equality, consensus, and the common good. There are two rather interesting evolutionary stages identified as the yellow, systemic-integrative, and turquoise, holistic-interdependent memes.

Historically, it has been possible to identify a culture by reference to its monochrome memetic identity: purple, red, or blue, green, etc. It’s also possible to show how a society evolves through the hierarchy of memes; from purple or red to blue, from blue to orange, or from blue to orange to green.

In each memetic location, the concept of neighbor is given a dominant meaning. In a purple, tribal culture my neighbor is my kin or others similarly connected by virtue of belonging within the tribe. Those outside the tribe are not my neighbors, and in fact they are usually seen as my enemies. In blue, authoritarian- hierarchical culture my neighbor is someone of the same class, group, or occupational identity as me. In orange, scientific-entrepreneurial culture there exists a shared yet, individualistic concept of neighbor. Anyone who is not able to embody a strongly individualistic, progress or wealth-driven self-sufficiency is not my neighbor. In green, communitarian culture my neighbor is an extensive concept that includes everyone who agrees to be governed by a shared construction of the common good. Anyone who does not agree to this construction of the common good is not a neighbor, as those who resist the contemporary liberal social agenda, usually blue or orange meme individuals, come to quickly find out. No modern society has yet to achieve a secure hold on yellow or torquoise memes, although small groups among the elites do reflect these memetic locations.

Spiral Dynamics tells us a lot about our competing political and religious cultures. The Army and the Church are classic blue cultures. Republicans tend towards being blue- orange in culture. Democrats are heavily green with sometimes an orange, and sometimes a yellow tinge. Evangelical Christians sometimes are purple, sometimes blue. Roman Catholics tend toward the blue, with purple enclaves and with green on the liberal fringes. Episcopalians are almost uniformly green.

When a society displays a primary memetic location, there exists a consensus within that society concerning both the identity of, and obligations owed, between neighbors. In contemporary American culture there no longer is any consensus on neighborliness. Fear is generated between us as we struggle with competing purple, blue, orange and green notions of who is my neighbor. I suspect competing concepts of neighbor lie at the heart of the violent altercation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin leading to the tragic death of young Martin. Amidst the overwhelming confusions between who is neighbor and who is foe in our global, pluralistic society, Zimmerman seems to have relied upon a more primitive, purple, tribal classification. Zimmerman decided that Martin was not his neighbor, but his enemy; a conclusion reached through a complex process of classifying the identifiers (age, race, on foot rather than in a car, etc) of like and non-like.

Jesus lived in a society structured around two memetic locations. The dominant location was the blue culture of the Roman Empire, which imposed an authoritarian, bureaucratic enforcement of hierarchy and stratification. Along side this, and in reaction against it, there co-exited the earlier purple culture centered on tribal loyalties. Jesus exploits his listener’s purple, tribal construction of neighbor through his parable of the Good Samaritan. For them good and Samaritan couldn’t share the same mental space. In connecting good and Samaritan, Jesus was creating an identity conflict that threatened to burst open his hearers tribal construction of neighbor, or push them into cognitive shut-down.

Jesus conversation with the lawyer had a larger group of people eavesdropping-in on their conversation in a manner similar to our eavesdropping-in on the Zimmerman trial. Jesus invites the lawyer and the eavsdroppers into the turquoise, meme of the Kingdom of God. Here, there are no tribes, nations, or empires, only neighbors. In the Kingdom of God we are not concerned to discriminate between neighbor and non-neighbor on the basis of the costs to us of neighborliness. In the Kingdom of God we are invited to consider as our neighbors all who come near. Our only consideration should be the cost to them if we refuse to be a neighbor to them.

Jesus asked the lawyer: which of the three do you think was a neighbor to the injured man lying in the ditch? The lawyer replied, the one who showed mercy. Jesus said to him- go and do likewise!

The print appearing above is Sado Watanabe’s: The Good Samaritan

For Episcopalian Eyes Only!

The Church of England is a complex animal because it does not share the possibility for consensus more easily arrived at in the Episcopal Church(TEC). TEC has its voices of minority, yet it draws from a narrower and more homogenous range within the wider social spectrum than does the Church of England, which often strikes us from this side of the pond to be bedeviled by the breadth of its constituency and therefore, the strength of different voices competing with that of the predominant voice of progressive liberalism. Here you can see in the Archbishop’s opening address to the General Synod his attempt to address the complexities of difference within his audience while at the same time sounding an unequivocal call to move beyond the confines of our limited imaginings to embrace the winds of change the Spirit is breathing into and through the Church.

Mark+

Pressmail from St Matthew’s Westminster
View this email in your browser

Archbishop’s call for church revolution
Justin Welby, addressing General Synod in York, 5th July 2013

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby

Before I begin I would like to thank all the staff at Lambeth and around the NCIs, and at Bishopthorpe and the Anglican Communion Office, who have been so effective and kind in dealing with the frightening and unsettling impact of a new Archbishop. Transitions are always very complex, and taking on a new Archbishop is as demanding as it gets. But there’s invariably been a warm welcome and extremely hard work, for which I am extremely grateful. Chief amongst those who have led the way through the process is Chris Smith, the Chief of Staff at Lambeth. After more than ten years of faithful service, working night and day and every weekend – he’s the biggest menace to my capacity to have a quiet evening in on a Saturday night because I get an email from him – after more than ten years of never stopping he is moving on to other things later this year. His contribution has been largely behind the scenes, but he has served the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – not only for a long time but with huge effect – and our debt to him is more than we can imagine. So on your behalf I would like to thank him.

As you know too from public announcements, Bishop Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, has with great generosity and considerable sacrifice, I’d imagine, agreed to become the Bishop at Lambeth, in a new configuration for the role, working alongside the new Chief of Staff. I could not be more grateful to have such a wise and experienced person, who will enable my many weaknesses to be compensated for more than adequately.

One of the things about this job is you tend to carry a lot of baggage – physical, metaphorical; probably more than I know. We arrived yesterday, the car having broken down en route – there’s a nasty metaphor there. But we did arrive – and we found ourselves with a ton of baggage to carry from one end of what seemed to be a much bigger campus than last year, to the other. And it reminded me – as I was staggering along with what seemed to be enough robes to rival Wippell’s – that we come to this session of Synod with a certain amount of baggage; and it’s good to find ways of getting rid of it. A friend of ours – of my wife and mine, from our days when we lived in Paris – worked for many years for an American company but living in Paris. We went to stay with them about six of seven years ago – he’s now ordained; there’s no connection – and he was still laughing about an experience at Kennedy airport the day before. It was a February and the weather in New York had been very bad, and he’d arrived and everyone was in a grump and the flights were late. And when he got one from the front of the check-in, the person in front of him was incredibly rude to the poor check-in operator. And John, our friend, is always gracious and polite, and when he got to the front he said, ‘I’m embarrassed to be a passenger when people treat you like that. I don’t know how you were so patient.’ And she said, ‘Well, sir. I shouldn’t really tell you this. There’s sort of bad news and good news. The bad news is he’s sitting next to you on the flight to New York. But the good news is I’ve sent his luggage to Tokyo.’

There are a number of obvious applications to that, one of which is we could do with some people like that at the beginning of a Synod session – for the baggage to go somewhere else.

You don’t want a lot of baggage in a revolution. And we live in a time of revolutions. And the trouble with revolutions is once they start no-one knows where they will go. Of the most serious type, the physical type, the practical type… Bishop Angaelos, Head of the Coptic Church in the UK, whom I met in Egypt last week, and who is sitting with us today, knows exactly about revolutions. While we were in Egypt, we heard much talk of what would happen this week – and we’ve seen. And the grace and leadership of Christians in that country is something to behold.

But we live also in a time of many revolutions in this country. And as the Synod meets today, we are custodians of the gospel that transforms individuals, nations and societies. We are called by God to respond radically and imaginatively to new contexts – contexts that are set up by revolutions. I want to thank you, and to say what a privilege it is to share with you, in the ministry of shouldering the heavy burden of facing these changing contexts, and grappling with them in this Synod, now and over the years to come, and to thank you for your commitment in your work here you show to Jesus Christ and to His church. It is genuinely a privilege to be among you.

The revolutions are huge. The economic context and position of our country has changed, dramatically. With all parties committed to austerity for the foreseeable future, we have to recognise that the profound challenges of social need, food banks, credit injustice, gross differentiation of income – even in many areas of opportunity – pressure on all forms of state provision and spending: all these are here to stay. In and through the church we have the call and potentially the means to be the answer that God provides. As Pope Francis recalled so memorably, we are to be a poor church for the poor, however and wherever poverty is seen, materially or spiritually. That is a revolution. Being a poor church for the poor means both provision and also prophetic challenge in a country that is still able and has the resources to reduce inequality – especially inequality of opportunity and life expectancy. If you travel north from parts of Liverpool to Southport, you gain almost a year in life expectancy for every mile you travel. We are debating these questions in this Synod. But prophetic challenge needs reality as its foundation, or it is mere wishful thinking; and it needs provision as its companion, or it is merely shifting responsibility.

The social context is changing radically. There is a revolution. It may be, it was, that 59% of the population called themselves Christian at the last census, with 25% saying they had no faith. But the YouGov poll a couple of weeks back was the reverse, almost exactly, for those under 25. If we are not shaken by that, we are not listening.

The cultural and political ground is changing. There is a revolution. Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same Sex Marriage Bill Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. Predictable attitudes were no longer there. The opposition to the Bill, which included me and many other bishops, was utterly overwhelmed, with amongst the largest attendance in the House and participation in the debate, and majority, since 1945. There was noticeable hostility to the view of the churches. I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt then and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the bill was uncomfortably close to the bone. Lord Alli said that 97% of gay teenagers in this country report homophobic bullying. In the USA suicide as a result of such bullying is the principle cause of death of gay adolescents. One cannot sit and listen to that sort of reality without being appalled. We may or may not like it, but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it.

The majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it. And sometimes they look at us and see what they don’t like. I don’t like saying that. I’ve resisted that thought. But in that debate I heard it, and I could not walk away from it. We all know that it is utterly horrifying. to hear, as we did this week, of gay people executed in Iran for being gay, or equivalents elsewhere. With nearly a million children educated in our schools we not only must demonstrate a profound commitment to stamp out such stereotyping and bullying; but we must also take action. We are therefore developing a programme for use in our schools, taking the best advice we can find anywhere, that specifically targets such bullying. More than that, we need also to ensure that what we do and say in this Synod, as we debate these issues, demonstrates above all the lavish love of God to all of us, who are all without exception sinners. Again this requires radical and prophetic words which lavish gracious truth.

The three Quinquennial Goals of growing the church, contributing to the common good and reimagining ministry, are utterly suited to a time of revolution. They express confidence in the gospel. They force us to look afresh at all our structures, to reimagine ministry, whether it be the ministry of General Synod, or the parish church, or a great cathedral, or anything between all of those three. For that reimagination to be more than surface deep, we need a renewal of prayer and the Religious Life. That is the most essential emphasis in what I am hoping to do in my time in this role. And if you forget everything else I say, which you may well do – probably will do – please remember that. There has never been a renewal of church life in western Christianity without a renewal of prayer and Religious Communities, in some form or another, often different. It has been said that we can only imagine what is already in our minds as a possibility; and it is in prayer, individually and
together, that God puts into our minds new possibilities of what the Church can be.

The Quinquennial Goals challenge our natural tendency to be inward looking, calling on us to serve the common good. That covers many areas, and between us all, not singly, we are able to face the challenge. May Synod rise to that. But the second of my personal emphases, within that goal, is reconciliation, within the church but most of all fulfilling our particular Anglican charism to be reconcilers in the world, in our communities, in families, even, dare I say it, amongst ourselves. Even if we do sometimes conduct our arguments at high volume and in public, to be reconcilers means enabling diversity to be lived out in love, resisting hatred of the other, demonisation of our opponents.

The common good goes much further than that. Our unique presence across the country enables us to speak with authority both in parliament and here, and in every church and cathedral and synod and gathering place across the country. Our extraordinary presence across the world as Anglicans enables us to speak with intelligence from around the world. As Anglicans we are called to reconcile incredible differences of culture in over 150 countries. What an extraordinary heritage we have under God. So we seek to be renewed here and across the Communion, and to find the reconciling presence of God. This Synod meets in an era of revolution, but we have together the means and the courage to seize the opportunities that revolution brings.

The Quinquennial goals aim at spiritual and numerical growth in the church. That includes evangelism, the third of my emphases. The lead has been set by the Archbishop of York. Here again we need new imagination in evangelism through prayer, and a fierce determination not to let evangelism be squeezed off our agendas. At times I feel it’s rather like me when I have to write a difficult letter, or make an awkward phone call: even things like ironing my socks become more attractive. We treat evangelism too often in the same way. We will talk about anything, especially miscellaneous provisions measures after lunch on Sunday; and we struggle to fit in the call to be the good news in our times through Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed THE good news for our times. God is always good news; we are the ones who make ourselves irrelevant when we are not good news. And when we are good news, God’s people see growing churches.

Attitudes to hierarchy and authority have changed, and continue to change; there’s nothing new in that. And the more they do, the more we are perceived, often wrongly – but genuinely – to say one thing, about grace, community and inclusion, and do another.

And yet with all these revolutions, which raise such huge challenges to us in our lives as the Church, we see clearly that God is working a wonderful and marvelous revolution through the Church in the wind of the Spirit, blowing through our structures and ideas and imagination.There is a new energy in ecumenism, not least shown by Pope Francis. There is a hunger for visible unity. Many churches across England are growing in depth and numbers. People are looking for answers in a time of hardship and when we show holy hospitality and the outflow of grace, we are full of people seeking us. There is every cause for hope. This Synod had a shock, depending on your view, good or bad, last November; but there is here assembled, in weakness or confidence, in all sorts of fear and lack of trust, people with the faith and wisdom who in grace will seek the way to the greater glory of God.

In some things we change course and recognise the new context. Revolutions change culture. In others we stand firm because truth is not set by culture, nor morals by fashion. But let us be clear, pretending that nothing has changed is absurd and impossible. In times of revolution we too in the church, in the Church of England, must have a revolution which enables us to live for the greater glory of God in the freedom which is the gift of Christ. We need not fear. The eternal God is our refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms.

There have been many times where the Church of England felt that change was in the air or this was a moment of crisis. Because we are not an organisation, let alone a business, or even an institution, but in reality the people of God gathered by the Holy Spirit to walk together in a way that leads to the greater glory of God, there are bound to be many crises and turning points.

So let us not imagine for one moment that because we are in revolutionary times what we are going through currently is either more dangerous, more difficult or more complicated than anything faced by the generations before us. We are in the hands of God; the eternal God is our refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. We need not worry, but we must give all that we have and we are, for the uniquely great cause of the service of Jesus Christ.

So how we journey here is essential, and that is why during these next few days, certain things are being reimagined: not least what we do tomorrow. What is clear to all of us is that there exists, as we gather – and let’s be honest about it – a very significant absence of trust between different groups; and, it must be said – and the evidence of this is clear, though sad – an absence of trust towards the Bishops collectively.

One thing I am sure of is that trust is rebuilt and reconciliation happens when whatever we say, we do. For example, if, while doing what we believe is right for the full inclusion of women in the life of the church, we say that all are welcome whatever their views on that, all must be welcome in deed as well as in word. If we don’t mean it, please let us not say it. On the one hand there are horrendous accounts from women priests whose very humanity has sometimes seemed to be challenged. On the other side I recently heard a well-attested account of a meeting between a Diocesan Director of Ordinands and a candidate, who was told that if the DDO had known of the candidate’s views against the ordination of women earlier in the process he would never have been allowed to get as far as he did.

Both attitudes contradict the stated policy of the Church of England, of what we say, and are completely unacceptable. If the General Synod, if we decide, that we are not to be hospitable to some diversity of views, we need to say so bluntly and not mislead. If we say we will ordain women as priests and Bishops we must do so in exactly the same way as we ordain men. If we say that all are welcome even when they disagree, they must be welcome in spirit, in deed, as well as in word.

Lack of integrity and transparency poisons any hope of rebuilding trust, and rebuilding trust in the best of circumstances is going to be the work of years and even decades. There are no magic bullets.

So how we travel, and our capacity to differ without hating each other and to debate without dividing from each other, is crucial to the progress we make.

Integrity and transparency depend utterly on a corporate integrity and transparency before God, above all in our prayer and liturgy. I sometimes wonder if one of the drivers of our lack of trust is that we have lost from our experience and our expectation two of the great moods of liturgy: of lament and of celebration. The ability truly to lament, to rage at circumstances, at loss, at decline, at injustice, at our own sin or the problems we face, is one that enables us to find afresh the mercy and grace of God. Lament is a liturgical mood that builds our capacity to trust God in the face of change, and then we trust each other. Encountering the face of Jesus Christ in pain, grief or anger transforms us.

Equally the capacity to celebrate, to lift our hearts and voices in true and passionate praise and thanksgiving because the presence of God is known among, restores our perspective. Not only does it renew our faith and strengthen weary limbs in the long journey we are undertaking, but also the act of celebrating that which we share together cuts across our great barriers and difficulties. We celebrate because who can not be overwhelmed by the love of God?

Take for example the two Anglican Dioceses I saw a week ago in the Middle East, in Jerusalem and in Egypt. In the midst of terrible and confused situations, with unspeakable human suffering, tension and fear, they shine with brilliant light. And they are part of us. In each of them there is a profound commitment to the common good of the populations in which they live as a minority – populations of whatever faith and ethnicity. In each of them there are more schools, hospitals and clinics than there are churches. In each of them the Bishops have established confident and effective relationships with other churches, with Muslim leaders and with governments that enable them to speak frankly and truly and with great courage. And we need to remember that as what they do there affects us, lifts our hearts, shows us the grace and glory and power of God, even more so what we do here affects them and every other church in the Anglican Communion. We have great responsibilities.

We should do no less, be no less effective, no less bold than our brothers and sisters in Christ in those Dioceses; in Nigeria, in Pakistan, in places of persecution and suffering, of revolution, change and disruption. The eternal God is our refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your people and kindle in them the fire of your love. AMEN.

© Justin Welby 2013

An Amazing Journey – From Galatians to DOMA

Struggling with Paul

I struggle with Paul’s linguistic image of a distinction between the spirit and the flesh. In my living memory our everyday thinking has been dramatically reshaped by the acceptance of psychological models of human development. Paul uses the only language he has on hand. It’s a language shaped by the notion that there is a struggle going on both within us and all around us. This struggle he conceives in terms of a war between spirit and flesh. Why do I struggle with this language?

My struggle is not with Paul. It is with the way Paul’s words have been interpreted. I need to translate this sharp division between spirit and flesh into an understanding that works for me.

That phrase works for me is an immediate warning flag to many who would accuse me of trying to domesticate Paul’s teaching, confining it only to that which I and the modern world that shapes me is able to feel comfortable with. However, what I mean by works for me is more than a demand that Paul’s words have to make sense to my modern understanding and feel comfortable to me within the limitations of my own disenchanted (Charles Taylor) imagination.

Works for me means that I need more not less from Paul’s words. For me, Paul has been too long the prisoner of patriarchy. For Paul to speak to me in the way he clearly intends his words to speak to the Galatian Christians, I need to hear his distinction between spirit and flesh as having the potential to usher me into the freedom which is the major theme of his letter to the Galatians. Chapter 5:1 opens with:

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 

Freedom from things that had a hold over me

I have just described Paul as having for too long been the prisoner of patriarchy. This needs a little amplification. Patriarchy and patriarchal are terms of abuse now much bandied about by feminists and liberals of all shades and hues. Of course, I have been guilty using the terms in this way many times! So here, I am attempting to be more objective.  

By patriarchy I am referring to a way of looking at the world that seeks to maintain order through contrasting flesh as impure and spirit as pure. A way of looking at the world that fears the unfettered expression of freedom, because freedom challenges stable order. Patriarchy’s view of stable order rests upon not only the ranking of men over women, but upon a complex system of power based ranking between males. 

St Paul, like most human beings, oscillates between speaking from within his culture and moving beyond the limitations of his culture and its thought. If I accept less from Paul, I will read him as a supporter of patriarchal order and end up either accepting or rejecting his teaching about what it means to be a Christian. If I want more from Paul, I open my ears to hear his radical call to move beyond the cultural status quo of any social system of ordering human relationships. For Paul, the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ changes everything concerning the vision of relationships between human beings in society. 

Paul and the Galatians

In his letter to the Galatians, we hear Paul’s radical call to be changed by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. In this letter he is confronting the Galatian Christians who have moved away from the challenges of his teaching. He has taught them that life in Christ is about a freedom that transforms the person from within. This freedom is relational and so it also leads to a transformation of society. The Galatians seem to be in favor of the patriarchal Christianity of some conservative Jewish Christians. These Jewish Christians are telling the Galatians that being Christian means submitting to the Law of Moses. The symbol of submission to the law is of course, circumcision. 

A way now opens for me to listen differently to Paul’s language contrasting spirit and flesh. For Paul, circumcision has become the ultimate expression of the perversion of the law of the spirit by the law of the flesh. Circumcision is the ultimate religious symbol of a patriarchal form of control and privileging of the male on the basis that what males have and females don’t have is a penis. Paul is so outraged that this practice should be used as the mark of being a follower of Christ that he rails why then don’t these agitators go the whole hog and make eunuchs of themselves? For Paul, circumcision has become tantamount to the mutilation of castration. 

The freedom Christ offers is the freedom of faith counted as love. Paul sums up love as loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. So, freedom is not unfettered abandon to do as one pleases. It is love disciplined by the privileging of relationship. In contrast the patriarchal regulation of power rests upon the psychological principle of phallic potency. Men rank over women and men rank each other, by among other things, what a man does with penis and with whom he does it. 

The freedom Paul speaks of leads to a new set of social relations defined not by circumcision but by baptism. In chapter 3 Paul proclaims that for those who belong to Christ There is no longer Jew or Greek, …slave or free, …male and female. Building on Paul’s reasoning it seems reasonable to me to add heterosexual or homosexual, to the list.

From Galatians to the Supreme Court 

I don’t suppose that the Justices of the Supreme Court had Paul’s letter to the Galatians in mind when they wrote and delivered their landmark decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. If some of them might have made a connection, they probably felt that Paul would be against their decision rather than in favor. To the extent that DOMA was an expression of the kind of inequalities that lie at the heart of patriarchy, I believe Paul would most definitely have applauded the justices.

Patriarchy is not a psychologically driven conspiracy by men to oppress women. It is more complex than that. Patriarchy harms men as much as it does women. The experience of being a man in the patriarchal world is usually very unsatisfying. The male world is a complex web of ranking according to power. Power can be expressed in a multitude of ways, yet is always traceable back to the psychological principle of the phallus.

In the world of phallic power, homosexual men are at the bottom.  We are seen to have a compromised expression of masculinity, which not only makes us as worthless as women, but makes us dangerous. Women are always identifiable. Gay men can pass and consequently, evoke the paranoia of the enemy within.

In talking about gay men I am not ignoring gay women. It’s just that being a gay woman is not a challenge to patriarchy beyond the challenge already posed by being a woman. Within the patriarchal world view marriage between women can be tolerated as simply another domestic arrangement among women. It is marriage between men that evokes the patriarchal fear of the destruction of marriage.

There is some validity to this fear. If marriage is seen as an expression of love between two people enabling them to create a stable environment for human flourishing, then gay marriage greatly strengthens the ailing social institution. Gays believe in marriage with an intensity no longer characteristic of many heterosexual people. However, if marriage is understood as the ordering of power relations between men and women, and men and children under the law of the father, then gay marriage strikes a blow to the heart.

In Summation

My desire for the teaching of Paul to work for me leads me to challenge the patriarchal interpretive bias that his teaching and all of Christianity has been imprisoned within. Challenging this bias is good for society. In response to this challenge we hear the strident voices proclaiming that what God intends for humanity is patriarchy. Yet, what does God intend for humanity? I can find no better advocate in answer to this question than the Apostle Paul who preaches that God’s intention for humanity is freedom disciplined by mutual love.

When we challenge the assumption of inequality that lies at the heart of all systems of social relations, the Scriptures, as well as the Constitution of these United States, become free to speak of what God is continually dreaming for us to become. In the words of St Paul:

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. For you were call to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. Galatians 5

With Ah! Bright Wings

God’s Grandeur  Gerard Manley Hopkins                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhLCSh4VLmA

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
  It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
  It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;        
  And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
  And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
 
And for all this, nature is never spent;
  There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;        
And though the last lights off the black West went
  Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
  World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

.                                                                                                                                                                                   

      

Creation Window, Trinity Cathedral, Phoenix

Rose WindowAt long last the day has arrived, Pentecost, literally meaning the 50th day of the great 50 days of Easter. Several weeks ago, our Trinity  preacher, Canon Bill Rhodes, employing all the skills and timing of a comedy club veteran, commented on the interminable sense that comes as we near the end of 50 days of Easter. Yes, sometimes we really can have too much of a good thing! His was a humorous lament for the loss of an Anglican tradition of Rogation Sunday. Rogation days represent an older, more primal sensibility recognizing that human beings exist within a network of relationships with the natural world around us, – a web of intertwined, dependencies.

God’s Nature

Christians celebrate the mysterious nature of God as we understand it. For us, Jesus alone is not God, yet, God includes and cannot be spoken about without reference to Jesus. The Holy Spirit alone is not God and yet God cannot be experienced without reference to the Holy Spirit.

For Christians the nature of God is not solitary, but communal. The concept of a trinity offers us a vision of God as a community of interdependencies. God is a playful interpenetration of three identities, which never-the-less share the same nature. Traditionally God is referred to by the gendered names of Father, Son, both masculine, and Holy Spirit, which while feminine in English is still usually referred to as he? Go figure.

We sometimes avoid these gendered terms by referring to God as having three modes or functions. In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier we often say. Yet these modes, as Cathedral graduates of Episcopal 101 will know denote functions and not relationships, and lead us to an ancient heresy called Modalism or Sebellianism.  For non 101 grads you can look this up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism.

The most important insight we have into God is that God is fundamentally relational. One way to avoid the gendered terms and still retain relationality is to see God as Lover, God as also Beloved, and God as Love-Sharer. If Easter is the celebration of love redeemed. Pentecost is the celebration of love shared.  The lections for Pentecost provide us with three differing, yet complimentary perspectives on God as love sharer, or as we traditionally refer to this aspect of God, the Holy Spirit.

Visions of Pentecost

The Apostle Paul, through the metaphor of adoption perceives God as Love-Sharer . Human beings are no longer living enslaved to fear.  God as Love- Sharer adopts us as children. Paul is not content to see the Holy Spirit as adopting us only as privileged children. For him, being children of God is not a state of minority – as in prior to the age of consent.  The Holy Spirit adopts us as nothing less than heirs. Not simply heirs through Christ, but joint heirs with Christ able to participate fully in the promise of new life.

John’s understanding of God as Love-Sharer is as advocate and teacher. Jesus’ ministry comes to an end. In John, the Father is God as Lover and Jesus is God as Beloved in whom God redeems creation. The Holy Spirit, God as Love Sharer becomes the energy empowering us to live more and more deeply so that day by day we grow into the realization of God’s love for us.

The picture of Pentecost as a distinct event within a chronological unfolding of events beginning with the Incarnation, and flowing through the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and descent of the Holy Spirit today at Pentecost, is Luke’s invention. For Luke the coming of the Holy Spirit marks the transition from the ministry of Jesus to the life of the Church, which contains his spirit.

In Luke’s account of the birth of the Church in Acts:2, the descent of the Holy Spirit is depicted through powerful and elemental forces of nature – wind and fire.  Addicted as we are to special effects, we wonder, some with amazement, others with incredulity, at how this could be.

Yet, Luke’s purpose here is to draw our attention to the effects upon human beings of the descent of God as Love-Sharer. He uses the metaphor of an ecstatic eruption into a profusion of different languages among those present, to do so. Hopkins echoes such:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil crushed.

Luke’s theological message is that for human society – born anew as the Church, it is no longer business as usual.

Pentecost Signals An End To The Denial Of Difference

Why do men then now not reck his rod? 
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

Hopkins, questions why humanity so reckless of God’s gift of creation, soiling it with its smudge and smell?   Extending Hopkins’ enquiry I would ask why are we as human beings so fearful of the differences between us?  Deacon Myra Kingsley, our last week’s Trinity preacher, lamented the corruption of Mother’s Day. Once an expression of protest against the futility of war and the injustices of oppression which generations have trod, have trod, have trod- so that we have become insensible to the feel of the earth, now made barren beneath our feetMother’s Day, a movement of protest against human recklessness has, like so much else, become seared with trade, bleared, smeared, with toil sharing man’s smudge. 

Luke’s vision of the Holy Spirit, God as Love-Sharer empowers us to embrace the sheer diversity of expression that lies at the heart of being human. No longer is it impossible for women and men to understand each other because of their differences. At the roots of discrimination, exploitation, and unjust systems  – is the fear of difference. God as Love-Sharer, calms our fears, empowering us to embrace our sheer diversity.

At one level of perception we see that we are not all the same. We notice the obvious differences between us expressed by skin color with its inevitable associations of race, culture, language, and education. These are real differences that evoke fear because they are emblematic of a more profound experience of the differentials of power, privilege, and access to the protections that these differences afford to some and deny to others.

Here in Arizona, as a foreign worker with a work permit, I was allowed a driver’s license from the moment of my arrival. Yet, the children of foreign parents, brought illegally into the country now possessing the same federally extended legal right to remain and work as I enjoyed, are in this, great state of Arizona still denied access to something so fundamental as a drivers license.

There are yet more, fundamental differences between us. We differ in gender and sexual identity. These are the attributes of being human, through which we are profoundly formed and in many instances deformed by our experience of a patriarchal world that deeply fears and is suspicious of the power of the anima –the feminine principle.

God as Love-Sharer calms our fears of the differences between us, inviting us to embrace the incredible richness that difference brings to our human sense of community. God as Love-Sharer is the ever-present energy that permeates our experience. The Holy Spirit – that which I am naming God as Love-Sharer  -is creative, interrelational, dynamic and open to the future. God as Love-Sharer is present in every moment of our lives and in every aspect of the created order within which our living forms only a part. A world that is interconnected to form a giant web of complex interconnections. The complexity of interconnection is the deeper truth that lies beyond all appearances of difference because it is our experience that what harms or blesses one, harms or blesses all.

God as Love-sharer, is powerfully present in this community. Each week as spiritually searching people, we find our way through the cathedral’s Great Doors. Initially, we are somewhat bewildered to find ourselves sitting in the pew of this church, – a church for God’s sake – whose liturgy and welcome seem both strange and wonderful at the same time. This mysterious turn in our lives brings us to return through these doors a second and a third time because those of us who are seeking God as a source of meaning in our lives know that we can be nowhere else.

Luke’s vision of God embracing all kinds of diversity is continually coming true at Trinity Cathedral. As individuals, and as a community, God as Love Sharer guides us beyond the limitations of only that which we can imagine for ourselves. Each time I face the profound disappointment of failing to achieve what I have so longed for, I have discovered that the Holy Spirit, with barely concealed sense of humor, has had something else in mind for me amazingly different from any dream of mine.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

cropped-72.png

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Love Bade me Welcome – Part II

Short Recap from Part I

In the face of the potential fragmentation over internal differences, the Evangelist John calls his community to hold together through the active practice of purposeful love (agape). Not only will the practice of purposeful love (agape) bind the community from within, but it will also commend the community to a hostile external world.  Purposeful Love operates at both community and individual levels:

Love one another; as I have loved you, by this shall the world know, that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)

You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat.
So I did sit and eat. (closing stanza to Love, George Herbert)

Purposeful Love as Right Relationship

What are the qualities of purposeful love (agape)? How does purposeful love define the nature of the community where the members are bound together by a notion of right relationship?

For the Episcopal Church, the historical absence of a centralized teaching authority capable of declaring, and perhaps more to the point, enforcing an authorized interpretation of belief requires us to find some other basis for our holding together in community. We find this is the concept of right relationship. Right relationship is rooted in John’s understanding of purposeful love (agape) both binding a community together from within, as well as providing the means for projecting a discipleship presence into the wider world.

Agape, or purposeful love, has certain key characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of experience covered by the English word love.

  • Purposeful love is not dependent on emotions of attraction or admiration or liking. It does not rest upon the experience of a felt emotional bond between people.
  • Purposeful love honors the other, values mutuality, refrains from judging others simply on the basis of their difference from us.
  • Purposeful love for others does not emerge from our sense of abundance as in a kind of largess that tends to patronize others. It arises from our own prior experience of being loved. We love others in this agape way because of our own experience of being loved by God, often communicated to us through the experience of being loved by other people. In this sense purposeful love is caught, not taught.

Purposeful Love as Worship Centered

The historical absence of a centralized teaching authority capable of declaring and enforcing an authorized interpretation of belief has had a profound effect on the way the Episcopal Church interprets received tradition as we seek to be true to Christ’s teaching amidst the challenges of the world  in which we find ourselves living.  For us right relationship finds its highest expression not simply in that sense of shared common purpose, though this is important, but in the experience of common prayer and worship.

For Episcopalians that ancient Benedictine emphasis on the community defined as the community at prayer or in worship has shaped our Anglican character. Worship becomes for us our unique expression as a community. Our emphasis on worship, where all are welcome, contrasts us from the majority of Christian communities on the American religious landscape who define themselves through enforcement of fixed content and definition of belief, usually referred to as a confessional statement.

As we worship, so we believe. In worship we encounter God’s conversation with us as a community. This conversation comes to us through the liturgical use of Holy Scripture as the sacramental basis of an inspirited encounter with God. For us, it is not only the inspirited encounter that leads to the writing of Scripture in the distant past. Our encounter with the text is equally inspirited in the present. The sermon becomes for us our response to the conversation God seeks to have with us. Both the liturgical reading of Scripture and the reflective homiletic response is guided by the presence of John’s Advocate – the Holy Spirit , whom in chapter 14:15 Jesus declares God gives to us to continue to remind us of all that he has taught us.

Purposeful Love as Justice

The Holy Spirit teaches us as a community through the in-spiritedness of our engagement with Holy Scripture within sacramental setting of worship. Worship thus empowers us as a community to carry that in-spirited engagement out into the world where as disciples we seek to witness to the presence and action on God who is already in the world all around us.

For Episcopalians, extending right relationship into the world requires us to enter into a creative engagement with the issues of the time. This creative engagement leads us to an appreciation of our understanding of all that Jesus has taught us, deepening over time. For we, as a Church, hold that it is possible for the Church to change its mind about the particular meaning of Scripture. Interpretation of Scripture is what constitutes Tradition. Tradition is continually questioned by Reason in the light of current experience. Examples of this process in action is the 19th Century repudiation of  slavery. In the 20th Century the struggle for civil rights in the areas of racial, and gender equality, led us to change our understanding of certain scriptural texts because we came to see in them a contradiction with the Jesus emphasis on inclusion. We continue to engage in a similar way with the issue of sexual identity in the opening years of this 21st Century, along with an ever deepening of our commitment to global justice.

So within the community purposeful love is expressed as mutuality of interdependency. Yet, Christian community has a mission beyond its own internal world. The mission of  Christian community is to provide a base for going out and speaking to the issues of the world around us. William Temple was perhaps the greatest  Archbishop of Canterbury of the 2oth Century. He presided over the Anglican Communion during the dark years of the Second World War and its immediate aftermath. He reminded us that the purpose of the Church is to exist for those who are not yet its members. When we extend right relationship based on purposeful love into the world beyond our immediate communities, purposeful love takes on the expression of justice. For the Holy Spirit is not only a comforter, but also an advocate. An advocate is  one who speaks on behalf of God’s desire for ever greater justice to govern our relationships with one another in the world.

The Enigma of Love

Returning to George Herbert’s poem cited in my previous post . Love has been further immortalized for music lovers by the English composer Ralph Vaughn Williams’ who scored five of Herbert’s poems in his Five Mystical Songs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNMnGNL0-uw                                                                                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5JvpL6nyTc

Herbert highlights the common human experience that it is our shame that misguides us into hiding from, maybe even protecting ourselves from, the experience of love. We cannot take seriously the promise that God makes to love us, no matter what.

Herbert is talking of that love which we experience when we discover that we are beloved by God. We discover God’s love, not merely, despite our human weaknesses, but particularly because of our human vulnerabilities. Being human is to be a glorious creation much beloved by God. We hear in George Herbert that tender Christian humanism, which is an essential aspect of Anglican devotion, deeply rooted in the theology of Creation and the Incarnation.

Love one another; as I have loved you, by this shall the world know, that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)

You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat.
So I did sit and eat. (closing stanza to Love, George Herbert)

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑