Lambeth Conference begins today

Every 10 years or so, all of the Anglican bishops from around the world gather in England, at Canterbury, the historic seat of the Archbishops of Canterbury for almost 1500 years, for the Lambeth Conference (named for the original meeting place in London).

The Conference begins today and promises to be, one way or the other, one of the most significant Lambeth Conferences in the whole history of the Anglican Communion. Many believe that the crisis in the common life of the Communion has reached such a point that only the Lambeth Conference can decisively address the issues and set a way forward - and that it must do so if Anglicanism is to survive as a coherent movement. Many have also pointed to the structuring of the schedule at Lambeth and complained that it seems decisive action has been ruled out in advance. This is one (but not the only one) reason that around 200 of the over 800 Anglican bishops have boycotted the conference.

I fear that these boycotts themselves may prevent the Conference from having either the will or the moral authority necessary to address the crisis in the Anglican Communion in a decisive way. The picture on the left, I think, powerfully illustrates the nature of this crisis. There will be no final compromise; all parties within the church simply CANNOT be appeased. The Church must decide where she stands. Or she will fall. I know that might sound a bit dramatic, but in my estimation (and more significantly, that of a huge number of Anglicans on both 'sides' of the current debates) that is the point to which Anglicanism has come.

Some even fear that this could, in effect, be the last Lambeth Conference if it should not act for the preservation of the Anglican Communion. An open letter to the bishops over at the Covenant Blog highlights many of the hopes and fears associated with this Lambeth from all sides.

I love this bit from the end of that letter:

"The grave concern that many of us have is that your conference will come and go without any of these matters being dealt with straightforwardly and positively. We know that there are many among you even who do not believe that your conference should be dealing with such matters, and would like the format of your meeting to exclude any decisions.

I cannot say what formal means are open to you. But I can say this: you are bishops of this church, you are gathering in the great name of Jesus Christ, and you are called to be faithful stewards of the mysteries entrusted to you (1 Cor. 4;1). "

You can follow the Conference at http://www.lambethconference.org/

Almighty and everlasting Father, you have given the Holy Spirit to abide with us forever: Bless, we pray, with his grace and presence the bishops and others now assembled in your Name, that your Church, being preserved in true faith and godly discipline, may fulfill all the mind of him who loved it and gave himself for it, your Son Jesus Christ our Savior; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

-from The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, p. 255

Elections for bishops

It is one of the strange (and perhaps unholy) side-effects of our modeling much of our Church's organization on the US government, that our bishops must, in effect, 'run for office.' Of course, the election of episcopal oversight by the clergy or even the laity has precedents in the ancient Church, which no-doubt also saw its share of election campaigning.

Starting today, the 13th, the Jurisdictions of the United Methodist Church shall begin their meetings at which they will elect new bishops to replace a few retiring bishops. You can follow along here.

I've heard that the last crop of bishops, elected in 04 (we share the same election year as the government as well) really brought a fresh attitude and "shook up" the Council of Bishops somewhat, whose overall leadership and oversight is invaluable to the church. My hope and prayer is that God, by the strange working of the Spirit - even in spite of our democratic processes - should bring to that honored office individuals committed to renewing the theological integrity and unity of the church, and to starting new congregations and reaching those who do not yet believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. And that our new bishops will continue the good work of actively embodying the Kingdom in various ways - especially in continuing our work among the poor and the sick.

Almighty God, giver of every good gift: Look graciously on your Church, and so guide the minds of those who shall choose bishops for the Church, that we may recieve faithful pastors, who will care for your people and equip us for our ministries; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

-From The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, p. 818

On Spiritual Deliverance

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an exessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.

-C.S. Lewis (Preface to The Screwtape Letters)

When I was in seminary at SMU, I was asked in my Word and Worship Class (we studied liturgy) to prepare two liturgies for my final paper, with a running commentary on each. I thought it would be fun to do something different that would stir the biblical imagination of my professor, so I prepared a liturgy for performing an exorcism. That might sound absurd "this day and age" but (no doubt, partly due to the Pentecostal/Charismatic influences in my own faith journey) I felt then, and still do, that the topic of Spiritual Warfare in general and of exorcism in particular requires new attention among United Methodists, and among Christians more generally. I believe I talked a little bit about this in my post on The Exorcism of Emily Rose way back in September 2005 when I first started blogging. Maybe I should say before going further that I realize the word "exorcism" itself calls up a whole series of images - thanks in large part to Hollywood - that may or may not be helpful, and for this reason the language of spiritual "deliverance" may be more useful.

Now preparing this assigned paper I did not undertake lightly, but did much research, especially examining Anglican/Church of England sources (the 'Exeter Report' and related material I found to be especially useful), since they and the Roman Catholics are the only non-Pentecostal Churches that seem to have given this subject much serious attention during the 20th century.

So, I would like to open a conversation on this subject (that is not getting much treatment in blog-land at the moment, so far as I can tell). I think it is important to come to grips with the reality that Christians do believe in what the Nicene Creed calls "the unseen" elements of creation. Whether it is appropriate to call them "supernatural" is debatable, but they are in some sense beyond the material world (and therefore, most likely beyond the purview of the physical sciences). This is of course the reason why Modernity, as an intellectual perspective, taught us to be so skeptical about the unseen realities. But Modernity's hold upon our imaginations is waning, and we can now with fresh eyes look at these questions.

Of course, the reality of "spiritual forces of wickedness" (to quote the United Methodist baptismal liturgy) is quite plain in the Bible, as the numerous accounts of exorcism do demonstrate. In the ancient Church, because Paul equates idol worship with "communion with demons" in 1 Cor. 10, an exorcism was performed on all converts as part of the baptismal ritual (since they were all converting from Paganism). This exorcism actually still exists in our own United Methodist baptismal liturgy, as I have already noted, when the candidate for baptism is asked to reject the "spiritual forces of wickedness and evil powers of this world". So according to both the Bible, and the tradition as it has come to and been passed along by our Church, there are unseen spiritual powers and some of them are set against God and his people (therefore we call them "wicked").

Now I realize that very many people within my Church will nevertheless find this whole conversation to be absurd, even dangerous, because they do not believe in any sort of evil spirits. As I have said, I believe this in large part comes from an uncritical acceptance of certain tenets of Modernity's worldview that ought to be challenged. I am aware of some new interest in "powers and principalities" in mainline circles, however they often seem not to get to the point of admitting the reality of something like personal entities that occupy the unseen realm (rather talking more about 'systems' - though this may be a 'both-and' case). It might be profitable if some of us would ask ourselves "exactly why do I have trouble believing in this?"

I am reminded of a moment at General Conference at which point an African Methodist pastor stated that certain practices were inspired by the devil. The presiding bishop (an American) scolded him for such 'mud-slinging'/unfriendly language and seemed to totally miss the point that a theological claim had just been made, perhaps one that deserved to be examined rather than simply ridiculed and dismissed. (It is quite plain to me that, of course, General Conference is organized in such a fashion to make 'holy conferencing' - in the sense of deep and probing theological discussion - nearly impossible. Such issues will likely need to be explored through other venues).

The question naturally arises then, if these unseen realities (both God-serving and the wicked) do exist - what does this mean for our own spiritual lives? What interaction do we have - knowingly or (scary thought) unknowingly with these spiritual forces or beings? How should it affect the way we pray? All of these questions make me somewhat uncomfortable, and that is why I think I need to look into them a bit more.

As the writers I engaged pointed out, the language of "demonic oppression" is probably more helpful than "demonic possession." Demonic oppression runs a whole spectrum from simple temptation to the more extreme levels of oppression that have in the past been called "demon possession." This gets us past the fruitless question of whether a water-washed and Spirit-born Christian could be 'possessed' by a devil or not. Clearly, in this way of looking at things, all of us experience various levels of demonic oppression in our life as disciples, and should seek to be equipped to deal with it. We may have already done so without realizing it. (This does not mean, however, that anytime we are feeling tempted it therefore follows that we are being attacked by an evil spirit, since some temptations will simply come from within ourselves).

SO, I propose that The United Methodist Church - her bishops, pastors, and theologians (both lay and clergy, both formally and informally trained) ought to investigate these questions with all due seriousness so as to avoid the near total ignorance and discomfort that now holds sway on the one hand, and also to avoid any kind of paranoia or fanaticism that may come from being un-informed on the other hand (there is a disturbing tendency among some to see a demon under every rock and behind every tree; this is surely unhealthy and perhaps a clearer teaching might help bring clearer discernment on these matters). Perhaps a theological guidebook or pamphlet may be prepared by the General Board of Discipleship in connection with the Aldersgate Renewal Ministry? Perhaps it can even be included in the Book of Resolutions as has been done with similar guilde-line pamphlets.

Our own heritage within the Anglican Tradition will no doubt be especially instructive and appropriate for our use. In the Church of England, each diocese has a designated (and properly trained) exorcist who can be called upon to perform or coordinate any services of deliverance and spiritual healing that are found to be necessary, after due consultation with psychological professionals. The deliverance service is closely related to the healing services that are already becoming popular among United Methodists, thanks in large part to the Charismatic movement.

Just so this doesn't sound any more threatening than it already may for many readers, let me point you to some resources for prayer on this subect with which you may already be familiar:

1. The Lord's Prayer. Most of us pray it every week in the liturgy, and perhaps every day as well. The last petition is of course "but deliver us from evil." The NRSV has it in Matthew 6 as "but rescue us from the evil one" - a clear reference to the devil, the chief of these 'fallen angels' or evil spirits or whatever we want to call them. This is, as my Anglican sources pointed out, quite properly understood to be a 'minor' exorcism.

2. The baptismal vows (see The United Methodist Hymnal p. 34), as I've already mentioned, include elements of an exorcism. It involves the renunciation of demonic powers and then a profession of faith in Jesus as Lord and savior. Because "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' but by the Spirit of God" (see 1 Cor. 12:3) the Early Church reasoned that once one had sincerely made these vows, then demonic influences could not at that moment have control over them (or they would not have been able to make the good confession). The language has been retained in Baptismal liturgies since the days of the Early Church.

3. The Great Litany in The Book of Common Prayer, 1979 (p. 148-155, a rather long prayer) contains some remarkable prayers for deliverance, including the very second petition:

"From all evil and wickedness; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; and from everlasting damnation, Good Lord, deliver us!"

4. Many traditional night-time prayers contain petitions for deliverance from spiritual darkness (see, for example #689 in The United Methodist Hymnal) including especially the prayer found in the Order for Compline (again, 1979 BCP) on p. 133:

"Visit this place, O Lord, and drive far from it all snares of the enemy; let your holy angels dwill with us to preserve us in peace; and let your blessing be upon us always; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

My research suggested that this prayer was also especially appropriated for claiming the reality of the Kingdom in and over places that had been particularly affected by evil spirits (in some instances, we might call them 'haunted' or otherwise 'dark' places, though clearly not all alleged hauntings would fall into this category).

5. The mention of Angels in that last prayer brings up the important point that there are also spiritual forces of goodness that are obedient to the will of God and are seeking to uphold and defend us in various ways. St. Michael the Archangel is viewed as chief among them as a sort of general of the heavenly armies. It is within that framework that the following prayer, popular in the Roman Catholic/Anglo-Catholic tradition, may be used profitably (wording slightly altered to be more congeneal to my Evangelical/Protestant sensibilities):

"May St. Michael the Archangel defend us in the day of battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and may the Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust down to hell Satan and all wicked spirits, who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen"

Now (with much trepidation) I would like to hear what others may think about these things. Has anyone else taken this further than me? Are there already pastors, bishops, and theologians looking into these issues? I saw that Ben Witherington III recommended a book on the subject called The Dark Sacrament, but I've not yet read it.

Starbucks recedes; local shops rejoice

Here is an interesting story. It seems that in a slowing economy where gas costs more than $4 a gallon, luxuriously over-priced cups of non-essential stimulants are one of the first cuts we make in our family budgets. I find it interesting that we were willing to pay so much more for coffee than for gas, considering we could make our own coffee (even buy our own paper-cups) for far less.

For many, Starbucks is a symbol of contemporary pop-culture (at least the culture of white professionals) and a place of comfort in the midst of a fast-paced world. For others it is the evil empire that has, in only a few years, driven vast numbers of quirky and beloved independent coffee shops to their graves. So the annoucement that Starbucks is closing hundreds of stores will no doubt recieve mixed reactions. Perhaps they had more than really made sense in someplaces any ways.

So what do you think? Is Starbucks' decline a personal and national tragedy, or a great moment of hope for the coffee-shop world? Or neither?

I can tell you that when I took the above picture in Oxford (UK), I thought "It's the end of Western Civilization!" But as I reflected later...I suppose it's possible that the space would have otherwise been vacant (though I don't remember seeing a single vacant storefront while there, so I doubt it).

Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON

Click here for his entire statement posted on the blog "Apostolicity." The very short version: Archbishop Williams also agrees that the 14 theological points in the Final Statement represent historic Anglicanism (and like me, he suspects some Anglicans might want to tweak points of emphasis).

The Archbishop's primary concerns are, not surprisingly, with the practical steps forward offered by GAFCON - the creation of a self-selecting council of Primates (major archbishops or leaders of national churches) and the continuation and expansion of cross-provincial church planting/administration (as with the Anglican Mission in American Churches that are under African bishops).

He says that a major goal of the upcoming Lambeth is to reaffirm the shared Anglican identity and to renew the structures of Communion and common discipline. The fear that Lambeth will not be allowed to address these issues in deep and meaningful (and decisive) ways has in part led to the large number of boycotts from conservative bishops. We'll see what really happens.

GAFCON conclusion and initial reactions

Yesterday, June 29th, the feast of the martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul under Nero, and my birthday (hurah!), was also the final day of the GAFCON Conference in the Holy Land (see below for more info). Nearly 300 bishops and over 1100 Anglicans of all orders (so this was a very large affair) met in Jerusalem for a period of prayer, pilgrimage, and reflection together on the current crisis within the Anglican Communion. The leaders present represent a large majority of the Anglican Communion's total membership, and also its fastest-growing provinces.

On their final day, the participants issued their Final Statement on Global Anglican Future. This very interesting document lays out the development of the crisis that led to GAFCON's creation, and the proposed response by the GAFCON movement. Anyone intersted in Anglicanism in particular and, more generally, in the possible responses by the Church to the current cultural pressures and crises in which we find ourselves in this new and pluralistic age should definitely read the statement.

Some interesting (to me) highlights:

"GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby:
launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
encourage GAFCON Primates to form a Council."

While it starts out sounding like they are going to form something like the caucus groups we have in The United Methodist Church, perhaps similar to The Confessing Movement, the last point of action, to form a council of GAFCON Primates is significant - this is a large number of the major archbishops of Anglicanism. It has (to my ear) a very "official" edge to it, which is interestingly due to the fact that the Traditional/Apostolic Succession Churches concieve of the Church not as an institution, but as a series of relationships among bishops, and the Christians who recieve Holy Communion through those bishops (that is, the Church as Communion). If a large group of bishops form a new relationship then it is part of the Church - the divide between 'official' and 'unofficial' or between 'formal' and 'informal' gets a bit hazy (contrast this to a more constitutional or legal document-centered approach that we have in the UMC).

The "three undeniable facts" that have necessitated GAFCON, according to the statement, are:

1) the promotion of a 'new gospel' within some parts of the Communion (whether this is an 'undeniable fact' will be debatable, I tend to agree that in some of the more radical stuff I have read about, we are looking at a worldview that is a pretty significant departure from that of the New Testament and of the Early Fathers).

2) The declaration of broken Communion by certain provinces with certain other provinces in the Communion (this is an undeniable fact)

and 3) the "manifest failure" of the instruments of unity (The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consutive Council, and the Primates meeting) to take action to alleviate the crisis.

Now to be fair, the various instruments of unity HAVE addressed the crisis (the beginning of the Windsor Process is certainly a part of their work in this area). Furthermore, the Lambeth Conference hasn't met since it began. But the point is well-taken: Gene Robinson was consecrated in violation of the catholic tradition and of the previous Lambeth Conference's guidelines in 2003. That was 5 years ago, and many orthodox Anglicans in the US are STILL waiting to discover what will become of the Church (this is especially difficult for many of my friends from seminary who are Anglicans in Texas and would certainly align themselves with the orthodox majority over against the actions of the Episcopal Church's leadership).

Very disturbing also is the accusation that the schedule of the Lambeth Conference has been orchestrated to prevent that body from addressing these issues in any decisive way (this is one reason why some bishops are boycotting). This accusation I have heard from other bloggers, but I do not know nearly enough about Lambeth to comment on its accuracy.

The statement concludes with "The Jerusalem Declaration" laying out 14 tenents of historic Anglican Christianity. Based on my limited knowledge (I have only taken one formal seminary class on Anglican history and theology, but have done much reading besides) I would concur that these points do represent the classical mainstream of Anglican theology, although I should expect that the Catholic wing of the Church might want to add to or expand a couple of these brief statements.

The Jerusalem declaration calls for the establishment of an on-going GAFCON movement that will, very explicitly, remain within Anglicanism. Provinces, Primates, bishops, dioceses, churches, and individual Anglicans are called to allign themselves with the GAFCON movement in support of Anglican orthodoxy. This movement will presumably develop its own structure of councils or other meetings that may - if they hold the sort of numerical superiority that everyone thinks they do - come to be a powerful influence over the official instruments of communion (I am thinking in particular of the sort of coordinated voting and caucusing that we see in my own Church, though I suspect it will go far beyond that).

I am very interested to see how this movement will grow or fizzle out in the comming years, and how it will be greeted by other Churches - the Vatican, the Orthodox, and the United Methodists in particular. I'm also interested to see how it will be greeted by other moderate, orthodox, and evangelical Anglicans, who did not attend GAFCON.

The GAFCON site also has Q&A from the final press release and some final interviews.

Pretense of Communion?

I have been (and still am) very critical of those orthodox bishops in the Anglican Communion who have decided to boycott the Lambeth Conference this year because I believe they are hurting the cause of unity in faith and love. So, to be fair, I'll let them have their say:

Bishop Benn of Lewes in the Church of England is one of the folks that has decided to skip out on the Lambeth Conference. According to an audio statement (click the play button) Bishop Benn said the decision was very difficult, but he felt that by attending Lambeth he would be colluding with a pretense of communion as if nothing has happened, when in fact there are serious breaks in Communion that need to be recognized.

Faith and Political Party statistics

Check it out.

GAFCON starts today

It's been a while since I wrote much on the goings on in world-wide Anglicanism. The once-a-decade Lambeth Conference is next month (July). Many conservative bishops, however, feel that their concerns will not be adequately addressed. For this reason, a number of key leaders decided to have their own conference in Jerusalem called the "Global Anglican Future Conference" (GAFCON), which starts today. The weblink is http://www.gafcon.org/, where you can watch streaming video starting at 2pm today (Central Time).

Now I must admit I am a bit fuzy about just what GAFCON represents (as are many others, I suspect), and for that reason I am not especially enthusiastic about it. Some of the participants, included the primary organizers, are boycotting Lambeth so that this looks like a schismatic event - an alternate Lambeth Conference. Others are attending both so that it also looks like a "prepare for Lambeth" conference (something quite different). While GAFCON is a gathering of many of the most traditionalist, conservative, evangelical, and charismatic bishops, it is also true that many prominent evangelical bishops refused to attend GAFCON, perhaps because they too were concerned about its being a force for further disunity.

As the conference has begun, the leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of breaking with world-wide Anglicanism (even though some may be boycotting this particular Lambeth Conference).

I for my part will pray for the bishops (present among them is my own local Anglican bishop, the Rt Rev Bruce MacPherson, along with several priests from this diocese), that their meeting will indeed be a force for renewal and unity-in-orthodoxy and love within the larger communion. I will pray that those planning to boycott Lambeth will reconsider and decide rather to come. It seems to me far better that they come to discuss and to pray about the difficult issues along with the bishops of the world-wide Church, since their absence or boycott will surely not strengthen the Lambeth Conference or the cause of traditional Anglicanism in any way.

Voting in "the year of 'change'"

I don't know if you've heard yet, but there is an election this year. A Presidential election...in about 6 months. The 2 major parties have basically ralied behind their candidates. On the one side we have Barak Obama the Democrat who could well be the first man of color elected president, and who seems to talk about nothing else but "change" (in the abstract, whatever that means).

On the other side we have John McCain, who isn't exactly a "straight-laced" party man either; McCain has made a career out of maverick politics, crossing the aisle to sponsor bills with Democrats, and being a thorn in the side of Republican leadership in general. All of these are reasons I've sort of liked him for a while, and I suppose it says something about the national mood that these candidates are both so unique.

So I predict it is going to be an interesting election and presidency no matter what happens. I expect it will be another close election, but not quite so close as the last two. (I hate to pick a winner at this early stage since, according to studies by political scientists, most voters actually make up their mind in the two weeks prior to the elections so that, all the polls you hear each day on the cable news channels are basically meaningless, except that they help create an "atmosphere of expectation").

Gloria Deo is not going to endorse a particular candidate (though I will most probably vote), but I do want my readers to consider making a real vote for change: abandon the two major parties for a third party!

I've been arguing for years that this country needs 4 or 5 major parties if our system is to become healthier, but the Dems and the GOP are deeply entrenched as the unassailable establishment as if there were no other way that it could be (note who gets all the coverage, who gets invited to the debates, etc.). So if everyone really wants change, then this election year presents us with a moment of opportunity for REAL change, far more significant than anything Obama OR McCain could possibly represent.

Now if you are like the vast majority of Americans, you may not even know the names of the major '3rd party' candidates. So here are their websites:

Charles Baldwin - Constitution Party

Bob Barr - Libertarian Party

Cynthia McKinny - Green Party

Brian Moore - Socialist Party

Ralph Nader (running as Independent)

Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation (I think some of my seminary professors were in this one...?)

And also, at the moment of this posting, Ron Paul is still in the Republican race (and many college students would love to see him run as an independent - if somehow he were to fail to gain the Republican nomination).

While I'm somewhat disappointed that there are no 'Constitutional Monarchy' candidates on the ballot this time around (actually, I am serious), I would nevertheless love to see a great swelling of support for all of these parties. I hope you will all take a break from the endless repitition of 24-hour election coverage on cable, and seriously investigate these other options that you will most likely not hear about on cable. We can do better politically. We can get past the cliches that have held our attention for decades. We can inject radically new voices into a stale noise that passes itself off for "debate." (To borrow a line from Obama), Yes we can. Yes we can!

Happy Trinity Sunday!

Holy God,

you have given us grace, by the confession of your holy church,

to acknowledge the mystery of the eternal Trinity

and, in the power of your divine majesty, to worship the Unity.

Keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see in your eternal glory

One God, now and forever.

Amen.

(The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Methodist Worship, #76;

see also The Book of Common Prayer (1979), p. 228)

The Liturgy questions us: what is "relevant" anyway?

Here is a wonderful article called A Deeper Relevance from Christianity Today, discussing why many evangelicals are attracted to liturgy. It raises questions of the obsession with "relevance" found in many Evangelical and Emergent/ing churches and asks the question of just what that really means (the first few paragraphs are great at laying out the stark contrast between the liturgical church and the 'relevant' church).

The questions are before us:
Relevant for whom? The liturgy of the Church isn't carefully crafted to attract young (white) urban professionals, or any other demographic group either - it has been prayed across the ages, by people of virtually every culture and class, by Christians across time and place and denomination - by kings and paupers alike, popes, martyrs and theives. This liturgy isn't particularly relevant to any one group. It is what it is.

And what could be more genuinely relevant for the human creature than being drawn into the heavenly and creative life-work of the living and glorious Holy Trinity? If "relevant" in our culture means Starbucks or the Outlet Mall, maybe the Church should learn to rejoice in our irrelevance. It is a far far better thing to be drawn by the ancient dance of the liturgy into the 'mysteries' God has ordained. Those hallowed rhythms lead us taste and see that the Lord is good (Ps. 34) and ultimately to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ our God (John 6) and so to have Life himself flowing and rushing through our bodies and souls, even as the benefits of his Passion are somehow conveyed through Word and prayer, through physical elements of bread and cup.

I was going to comment on this article at length, but the author writes so well, I think you should just go read it.

Bishop Whitaker: Same-sex-attraction and the Church

Starting probably tommorow, the 2008 General Conference will begin debating and voting on several issues. Among them, though perhaps less prominent this year since there is little chance of a change, will be the debate over sexual ethics within the body of Christian disciples.

Bishop Timothy Whitaker of Florida published an essay a few months ago to contribute to this debate that I think deserves our attention because of it's thoughtfulness in presenting the faith of the Church. As an aside, one of the historic duties of bishops is to safeguard and transmit this historic catholic faith of the whole church. While bishops sometimes feel they should use their office to attack any teachings of the church with which they feel a personal disagreement, this is - in the classical understanding - a fundamental misuse of the office. So I also want to highlight Bishop Whitaker's essay because he is one of the few (that I am aware of, I'm sure there are more than I know) bishops who has actually addressed this particular issue in fulfillment of his teaching office as a bishop to offer an apologia or exposition of the Church's position.

1) The first point that Bishop Whitaker makes is indeed along these same lines, regardless of how individuals within her may feel, The United Methodist Church, as a body, has an official teaching on "homosexual practice" (again I must point out we are talking about practice, not desires per se, and certainly not people) - namely we "do not condone" such practice and "consider it incompatible with Christian teaching" (Book of Discipline para. 161):

"While there is division in the church over homosexuality, it should be
stated that the church has a position. I am in agreement with the basic position of the church, which is consistent with the historic Christian view and larger ecumenical consensus in the world today."

That last phrase is significant. The UM Church's position is consistent with the Biblical teaching of the larger catholic/ecumenical Church - both today and throughout history. Any departure from this stand would be a departure from that catholic moral teaching on a very significant (in some views, even a 'sacramental') issue. This is exactly why the vast majority of the Anglican Communion has found the actions of the US and Canadian Churches as unacceptable as calling a sin a sacrament, or vice versa.

2) The second thing that Bishop Whitaker says (and which is being said by others as well) is extremely important in my view, so I want to quote him at length:

"One of the problems in the discussion is that the language being used is laden with assumptions on which there is no agreement. I prefer the term “same-sex attraction” to describe the phenomenon usually called “homosexuality.” This term describes the fact there are persons who are attracted to other persons of the same sex. It does not imply what the possible causes of the phenomenon might be. It does not imply that this attraction is constitutional, as “orientation” does, nor does it deny it. It does not denigrate a person’s dignity, nor advocate for an understanding of that person’s identity in terms of his or her sexuality as the terms “gay” and “lesbian” do. I think the term “homosexuality” lacks the neutrality of “same-sex attraction,” but I use it because of its common acceptance.

The main reason I prefer to refer to someone as a person who experiences same-sex attraction rather than as a “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” is because this way of speaking is more fitting for the church, which views all people as persons created in the image of God. That is, the church views our identity in terms of our relationship to God, not in terms of our sexual identity. Once the church succumbs to the idea that our basic identity is sexual rather than theological in nature, then the church has already lost its way in the discussion."

Here Bishop Whitaker highlights some important points, often missed in the various debates around sexual ethics, including debates about "orientation" and "choice" and "nature/genes" etc. The orthodox position as it is represented in mainline and the more moderate evangelical & Charismatic churches (I'm not talking about the "angry ultra-fundamentalist" brand of churches - there are clearly different strands within evangelicalism) is that while same-sex attraction may not be a choice, the decision to act upon that attraction IS a choice. The whole category of "orientation" assumes a certain ontology about sex that I do not believe any Christian should conceed, since it is a philosophical distinction, not one that can in any sense be "proved."

What we do have - and can observe that we do have - is that some individuals do actually feel attraction to members of the same sex. Thus, "same-sex attraction" is merely a statement of the fact and (unlike both "sexual preference" on the one hand or "sexual orientation" on the other) it does not decide the philosophical or ontological questions before the discussion even begins (which is clearly a mistake if one is committed to reasonable dialogue).
The question of how one's sexuality connects to one's being or personhood or ontology and the corollary question of the relation between sexual activity and human fulfillment are also philosophical (not scientific) questions - they address "anthropology" in the classical sense of the word - "what does it mean to be (fully) human?" Here the question clearly moves into the realm of the theological.

This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. We have observed certain things and labeled it in various ways that not only describe, but also attempt to explain "choice" or "orientation/sexual identity." I think this is a bad thing do to, because it short-circuits the process of actually thinking through these things thoroughly. The language we use has assumptions built into it that need to be aired, as Bishop Whitaker does here.

3) Finally he raises the important issue of the relationship of the Church to the values of the wider culture. We live in a culture that has been largely shaped by a Judeo-Christian value system, so that in the past the assumptions of the culture and of the Christian Church significantly overlaped. However, cultural changes over the last 50 years or more have led to a gradual divide between Christian and cultural values so that there is much less overlap than there once was. And the 'mainline' Churches (the name itself may suggest the reason) seem to have had particular trouble adapting to this.

At the same time (and not causally unconnected, I suspect) that the culture was shifting, the rise of mass media has ensured that the various moralities or values of our culture have a much larger voice in our lives than they once did. Christian people must recognize that our culture "preaches" to us every hour that we spend watching TV/movies or reading magazines or popular (non-religious) websites. How many hours a week do you suppose it is on average? 15 hours maybe? Probably more. Compare this to the 55 minutes of liturgy and sermon that a (very regular) Churchgoer may encounter in a given week. It is very clear that in any place where Christian values conflict with those of the culture (as is particularly the case with issues of sexuality, and money/possessions) the culture is going to have a much greater opportunity to influence us than the Church will.

Unless we learn to engage critically - on a very sophisticated level - the cultural messages all around us, it is almost certain that our faith will be diluted or confused as we absorb messages that are subtly or blatantly opposed to Christian teaching (thus "anti-Christian"). Here also, I think, we have reason to appreciate the liturgy of the Church - the dance or words and actions that week in and week out remains the same (unless the church changes it every few years for the sake of "innovation" or to satisfy the latest theological fads - perhaps in the name of cultural relevance!). This liturgical rythm, with prayers and statements and creeds that can be memorized and internalized thanks to their repitition, may be of great value in helping us to understand our own identity as a 'set apart people' in the midst of our culture.

Easter Prayer

Almighty God,

Through Jesus Christ you overcame death

and opened to us the gate to everlasting life.

Grant that we, who celebrate the day of our Lord's Resurrection,

may, by the renewing of your Spirit

arise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness;

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Methodist Worship #320; and see also The Book of Common Prayer [1979] p.222)

The Lord is Risen Indeed!

That is what N.T. Wright argues in this video lecture. He makes his case, a summary of the book The Resurrection of the Son of God (the same summary is presented in Chapter 4 of Surprised by Hope, so this lecture is a preview of that book), that, given the historical evidence at hand, the actual event of the Resurrection is the most probable explanation currently available. This explanation is literally world-shattering (and world-forming), and it calls for the re-orientation of everything since it is in fact the first instance of New Creation, bursting forth by the work of the Creator God, in the midst of the fallen creation.

(It loads rather slowly, I would open the lecture in a new window, so you can keep an eye on it).

Hitchens on Iraq causes media influence ponderings

I've run across an interesting piece by militant and anti-Christian atheist, Christopher Hitchens. His contention is that in fact, in spite of popular opinion, the Anglo-American Iraq war has been a big success. He attempts to contextualize the war in the larger picture of 20th century international relations to show that it was in fact inevitable that something of the sort should happen, in fact that the Iraq war had begun long, long before the actual invasion in 2003.

This article raises several questions for me. 1) what, if any, level of agreement with an atheist can a Christian have on what constitutes "success" in international relations, since Hitchens' evaluations are based upon materialistic considerations, and mine are based upon eternal considerations. What does constitute 'success' from the point of view of a citizen of heaven (rather than of the country in which I happen to be journeying)?

2) A number of the 'successes' he mentions I have never heard of before, namely because a) I have never done much significant research on the state of affairs in Iraq and b) the News Media has never told me about them. If I had heard of them, my whole feeling (not so much my thinking, but my gut feeling) about the appropriateness of the war might be totally different. This raises the (I think HUGELY important) question of the influence that media, in particular media biases may have upon the American populace (who, I strongly suspect, have by-and-large also failed to conduct independent research).

This may be controversial, but I believe Americans have grown weary of the war, and in fact out-and-out opposed to it for no reason other than the sustained attention given by the popular media outlets to the negative aspects of it (military and civilian casualties, political instability - that sort of thing). So, I wonder what would be the popular mood if the positive accomplishments recieved sustained attention while the more negative aspects were given a more passing treatment?

Let me take another example: the paper in the coffeeshop I am in this morning has the front page headline "3 of 4 believe US in recession." Now I ask you, why would such a poll even be newsworthy at all? How much do 3 of 4, or for that matter 9 of 10 Americans REALLY know about macro-economics? I have a masters degree and I can tell you, I know very little about it all. This is not about informing us of the great issues of the day - it is about selling Newspapers!

It has long been said that "there is no news like bad news." And our popular media outlets have taken this to heart. How different might the popular mood in our country be if media outlets believed that it was good news that sells? Of course, if all the news in the paper was good news, we'd quit buying papers - instead we'd feel very secure about the world, and with a weight lifted off our shoulders, go out and play with our kids or take a relaxed stroll in the park. But if somehow our very survival depends upon knowing all the bad things going on (so that we may plan accordingly) then naturally we will continue to buy the papers, to keep abreast of the smallest details that might concern us. I personally can think of no time in my life when I watched so much CNN as in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. How good it would be for their business if we had (or seemed to have) such an event every week or two! If they can keep us anxious about the future in the way real events are covered, then they can keep our attention. This is the golden rule of the popular press.

It is also, interestingly, the rule of thumb observed by the demons in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. In Letter 15, Screwtape (a devil) advises Wormwood (another devil) to try to keep his patient (the man they are tempting) living in the future, rather than in the present. Actual virtue and duty are lived out in the present, but if a man is fixated on the future - on what terrible things might happen to him or on what brave new world he might help bring about - he is much less likely to experience true Joy, or true God-given abundant life in this present moment (or the next). It is a way of distracting him from reality, which is only experienced in the present (the future is, from our point of view, not yet real).

Our problem is that both our government and our economy are run in accordance with popular perception - the very perception that is being skewed by the media' preference for negative reporting. Many of us potential home-buyers are now very reticent to attempt to buy a home so long as the market is in such a state of upheaval. The Fed can cut rates all they want, but that will only capture headlines for a few days until "new downturns" will spawn speculation as to whether they will do so again. In other words the media's negative portrayal of the US economy is a self-fulfilling prophecy precisely because it will cause people to be more cautious with their money, which in turn really will cause the economy to contract. I wonder what we would see in the markets across the board if all major media outlets put upon themselves a 30 day moratorium for talking economics. What if they said nothing whatever for an entire month? Of course, then what would they have to talk about for 24 hours a day (in order to sell commercial spots to sponsors)? Well the Democratic Primaries of course! But that is a whole different debacle of press coverage, I believe.

Maybe we should all collectively just turn their 24 hour news channels off? Give it a 40 day fast or something. We might be wiser at the end of it.

I believe this issue is addressed in some books I've been meaning to read, Amusing ourselves to death by the Postmans, and Mediated by Thomas De Zengotita. Has anyone read them?

Lenten Prayer

O God our Deliverer, you led your people of old through the wilderness

and brought them to the promised land.

Guide now the people of your church, that, following our Savior,

we may walk through the wilderness of this world

toward the glory of the world to come;

through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

One God, now and forever. Amen.

(The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Methodist Worship, #268)

The Global South Churches: not our Saviors?

(pictured: Peter Akinola, Anglican archbishop of Nigeria)

The relationship between the Western Churches and those younger churches of the Global South espectially in South America, Africa and Asia is much discussed these days. As has been frequently repeated, Christianity is growing at an amazing pace outside of the West and we should sit back and savor the fact that we are living through a movement of the Holy Spirit of historic proportions. The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins is one of the most comprehensive treatments of this transition that I know of, though it is written from a somewhat Post-Enlightenment perspective. The author attempts a "secular" analysis of the situation, and is much less inclined than I am to be sympathetic to the character of these young churches.

On the one hand we are very enthusiastic about these young and growing churches: many conservatives and traditionalists in Western Churches (including many United Methodists) see the evangelical vitality and the orthodoxy of the Global South Churches as a sign of hope for the future, and many progressives celebrate the diversity that these new voices bring to the churches (in theory at least, when these new voices are not talking about Biblical innerancy or sexual ethics).

Yet there is good reason for all Western Christians to feel some ambivalence about the impact that the vital churches of the South will have on the faith.

Here are two Christianity Today (CT) articles that outline issues that Westerners, especially evangelicals, may need to come to terms with as we embrace our brethren of the Global South:

1) The First big issue is cultural baggage, especially including Erastianism. Erasianism is the subordination of the Church to the state, and - 4th of July "worship services" aside - is something very foreign to most American Christians.

Are two stories from one Denomination that illustrate this Erastian baggage: The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) is an outreach of the Anglican Church in Rwanda that was started by Anglicans on both continents who felt that the Episcopal Church in the USA was no longer a viable Anglican presence in North America because doctrinal innovation had carried it outside of the Anglican Tradition. So the AMiA is a conservative and evangelical alternative Anglican Group in the USA that it ultimately under the oversite of an African Archbishop.

CT tells us of an instance when Rwandan Church leaders, at the behest of the Rwandan President, instructed a US congregation to un-invite a planned fund-raising key-note speaker. The event was raising funds for a school in Rwanda, and the speaker was known for being critical of the government there. Anglican leaders in Rwanda felt this could put an unnecessary strain on their relationship with the government.

Another illustration of the cultural baggage (covered in the same CT article) that can surprise Americans in the AMiA occured at a Denver Church, when members of the American congregation were asked to bow before a visiting Ugandan King, just as they would have done back in Uganda!

2) The second major issue that Western evangelicals might be ruffled by is actually theological. This may come as a surprise since, especially in the mainline churches, many conservatives and evangelicals look to the Global South churches to help them re-assert the orthodox faith in Churches that are seen as having lost a clear handle on their own doctrinal standards and ethical convictions (especially with regards to sex and family).

And it is true that on issues like miracles (past and present), or how the atonement works, or the nature of Biblical authority, or the danger of hell to unbelievers, Western evangelicals and Global South believers will often have very similar views, both in firm opposition to many of the "classic liberal" views that have developed in the West as an attempt to accomodate the faith to Modernity.

However, there are other issues upon which they may find themselves in profound disagreement. Our second CT Article deals with what beliefs are most common among the world's Pentecostals. This article is dealing then with trans-denomination trends that are associated specifically with the Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal movements. This is relevant to our discussion here since, as was discussed at length in The Next Christendom (mentioned above), the Global South Churches have, across denominational lines a Charismatic tone to their common life more so than Western Churches. Presumably then (though this was not the specific focus of this study) it will follow that Global South Christians, regardless of denominational affiliation, will follow these trends far more often than Western Mainline Christians. If this turns out to be the case, it will distress many American Evangelicals within mainline churches who are looking to the Global South for theological leadership.

SO, according to the articles what trends do we see when we ask what do Pentecostal believers the world over hold MOST in common?

Tongues? According to the CT article, while most Pentecostals/Charismatics speak in tongues, a great many do not. Miracles? According to the study that CT is reporting around 85% of Pentecostals worldwide believe that miracles still happen today, as in Biblical times. However the percentages are much higher when asked about central tenants of "prosperity gospel":

"As common as belief in miraculous gifts, however, is faith in the prosperity gospel. Renewalists overwhelmingly agree that "God will grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith." In Nigeria, 95 percent of Pentecostals agree with that statement, and 97 percent agree that "God will grant good health and relief from sickness to believers who have enough faith." In the Philippines, 99 percent of Pentecostals agreed with the latter statement."

The Church catholic has traditionally held that material prosperity may very often be a hindrance to true spiritual growth (as in the Biblical story of the Rich Young Man) and encouraged Christians to simplicity and even voluntary poverty. The decline of faith in many of the wealthiest nations of the world seems to support the words of Jesus after that encounter: it is "easier for a camel to pass through the the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:24.

The Church has traditionally held that God is more interested in forming our eternal spirits in virtue (which may involve temporal hardship, see for example 2 Cor. 4:17) than he is interested in blessing us with temporary material wealth (though he may do that as well in some instances). To use a rather mundane example: God may be interested in blessing me with a front-row parking spot at the super-market, but he may be even more intersted in making me into a patient person, which might be better effected by giving me a back-row spot. This traditional emphasis of "cross-bearing" for the sake of sanctity is often completely missing from "prosperity gospel" preaching (no doubt, this is one reason why "prosperity" is so popular).

So, why am I writing all this? Basically I want to caution myself, and anyone else who reads my blog - especially evangelicals within Mainline denominations - who may be apt to somewhat idealize the state of the Church in the Global South. We should not be tempted to denegrate all theology and spirituality that is "Western" (and in turn get on board some "Global South" fad) simply because we are more familiar with our own failings than with those of our distant brethren. We all have failings. I don't forsee any "quick fixes" for the health of the Church - it has always been a people in the wilderness, and this always involves spiritual dangers and theological pitfalls. Our call is to walk steadily through this wilderness - knowing that the Church as a body will always have problems while we are in the wilderness - but we walk, following the glorious presence of our God, led by the Word of his lips, and moved by the Breath of his mouth, into his ultimated Promised Land.

Hear any preaching like this?

Probably in a 'mainline' church? Or a non-denom/prosperity church, perhaps?
The more you watch it, to the more ridiculous it is!

Temptation

"The Tempter came and said to him, 'If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.'..." Matthew 4:3 (NRSV)

Such power was his, not to take care of himself, but to work the work of Him that sent him...To make that stone bread would be to take the care out of the Father's hands, and turn the divinest thing in the universe into the merest commonplace of self-preservation. And in nothing was he to be beyond his brethren, save in faith. No refuge for him, any more than for them, save in the love and care of the Father. Other refuge, let it be miraculous power or what you will, would be but hell to him. God is refuge. God is life.
-George MacDonald (from: "The Temptation in the Wilderness)

The Pontificator is back!

Al Kimel, the famed "Pontificator" has returned to writing extremely profound theological commentary at his blog. If you've read every post at "Gloria Deo" you'll know that this is one of my favorites.

Ash Wednesday

O God,
maker of every thing and judge of all that you have made,
from the dust of the earth you have formed us
and from the dust of death you would raise us up.
By the redemptive power of the cross,
create in us clean hearts and put within us a new spirit,
that we may repent of our sins and lead lives worthy of your calling;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

United Methodist Hymnal # 353

Bishop Willimon on Abortion

Methodist Bishop Will Willimon was the featured preacher at a chapel service in The Methodist Building (next to the Supreme Court Building in D.C.) on January 21, the day of the National March for Life. The worship sevrice was sponsored by "LifeWatch" a pro-life Methodist group. I would love to find the entire sermon transcript if anyone has a link to it, here is an excerpt from the UMNS article:

When Willimon was a chaplain at Duke University, a graduate student interviewed women who had had abortions. Their No. 1 reason for doing so, they said, was that they felt they “had no other options.”

“Ironically, we call this freedom to choose,” the student remarked.

But for Bishop Willimon it pointed out a lack of imagination within the church. "The role of the church is to stoke, fund and fuel alternatives we could not have come up with if we looked only at the alternatives the world gives us,”

Greek Orthodox Leader dies

Archbishop Christodoulos of the Greek Orthodox Church died today (Monday) after a battle with liver cancer. Christodoulos led the Greek Church to a boost in membership after decades of decline, and was the first Greek Primate to welcome a Pope (John Paul II/the Great) to Athens in over a millenium. He was a popular leader, though his firm and abrasive style of leadership did not please everyone. Read the whole story here.

St. Chrysostom: 'Christ died for me'

"May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14 (NRSV)

"But what is boasting in the cross? Boasting in the fact that Christ took on the form of a slave for my sake and suffered for me when I was the slave, the enemy, the unfeeling one. He loved me so much that he gave himself over to a curse for me. What can compare to this?...He wasn't ashamed of being crucified for you - will you be ashamed to confess his infinite care for you?"

-St. John Chrysostom (died A.D. 407) from his "Commentary on Galatians".

I really love this simple quote. Chrysostom, one of the great fathers of the Eastern Church, sounds alot like John Wesley after his experience of the Holy Spirit at Aldersgate or like a contemporary evangelical. Here we encounter the mystery of divine love at the very heart of that faith upon which all Christians agree.