Once more into the fray...

It is snowing yet again. This winter belies global warming. It has been an uncomfortable winter. Usually we have a spate of really cold weather, sometimes getting below zero, but this winter has just had a long period of just nasty mid-twenties.

The snow has not been especially problematic—no snow days, no impossible roads. It has just been aggravating. It has just been slow driving and awful sidewalks.

It has been cloudy since October and a low level SAD affects a large portion of the population. You find it in people in stores, the church and most people on the street. It just makes life grumpy.

I’d like to move that the whole world needs to have a July to July fiscal year. Annual Meetings should not be held in January!

These pictures of snow leopards have caught my fancy. They seem to comment the most closely my approach to the day!

'nuff said...

I continue to marvel at the intricacies of working in the Lutheran church while being an Episcopalian. Yesterday I led a service at a parish that is bringing together a Lutheran congregation and an Episcopal parish. They began their journey because of financial necessity. But that isn’t what can keep them together. They will have to make something new that is a compromise of their two equally strong traditions to make the ‘Together in Ministry’ work.
How we worship is central to both traditions so even small changes in the liturgy can be problematic. But compromises can be made when both sides understand that both are sacrificing for the betterment of the congregation. Those sacrifices need to be fairly equal, though. However, one group cannot be the bearer of all the sacrifice in the matter of liturgy and still maintain their sense of rootedness in their own tradition. It will take quite a bit of creativity on the part of that group to develop ways of celebrating Christ among them and spread the good news that is in them. So here are some things that I observe that are different that may need to be addressed:
• Bishops’ offices are not the place to work out difficulties. This is not casting aspersions against our judicatories, but the bishops’ job is to maintain the denomination. Those of us who are working across denominational lines need to tell our judicatories what it is like in ecumenical settings and help our bishops understand the exigencies of this new reality.
• Ethnicity IS an issue. The majority of Episcopalians is ethnically English or has been heavily influenced by English culture. Because American culture is heavily influenced by English culture, most Episcopalians do not even realize that ethnicity or culture is an issue in religion until we confront the Lutherans who constantly have to address the German-Scandinavian divides that are among them.
• Catholicism and Protestantism is STILL an issue. Many Episcopalian see their faith as heavily catholic with a small ‘c’. Lutherans can be almost phobic about catholic theology. They do not trust catholicism because they identify it with Romanism against which they are still leading the protest. It is deeply rooted in their protestant tradition. But the catholicism that Lutherans retain in the Deutche Messe is deeply treasured. They just don’t identify it with being catholic. Episcopalians on the other hand don’t hold with papism but they often ape romanistic ways in the liturgy. Episcopalians need to be aware of the reasons for their actions in the liturgy and Lutherans need to find ways of claiming their own rootedness in a catholic faith.
• There are some stereotypes of Lutheran and Episcopalians that need to be addressed: Episcopalians are often seen as the landed gentry, or the upper class in America. That was once true in American history, but is no longer the case. Since WWII for the most part, Episcopal churches serve in all kinds of ethic and economic worlds. But sometimes we Episcopalians still give off airs of being upper class. We have to address that. The really wealthy tend not to be in any church these days—more’s the pity. Most Episcopalians are just ordinary folks—usually a bit better educated than the average Christian according to the various surveys. Lutherans give off the air of being stodgy, dour hard-headed Germans or Scandinavians. And some of them are. But most of them are as far from the European experience as most Americans are. Our values are usually the same.
• The majority of Lutherans have been Lutheran since birth so family customs dwell deeply in their experience of faith. Eighty percent of Episcopalians, on the other hand, have been some other denomination before landing in the Episcopal Church. Change tends to be more difficult for Lutherans than Episcopalians, but that stereotype doesn’t necessarily hold. I have known Episcopalians who have had just a rough time with the changes of recent years. It is the reason that we have the schism presently.
• I have said before that humor is different among the two denominations. My snarky, sarcastic, sardonic, wordsmithed play with the English language is not appreciated among my Lutheran friends. It is not seen as seemly. This may come from having been an immigrant community for so long, but it pays those who are trying to bring two different ways of understanding together to be aware of it.
• In comparison to the Lutherans, Episcopalians do not understand church organization. The Lutherans do know how to organize and manage things! And don’t try to get in the way. At the diocesan or clergy level, Episcopalians think of the canons. We think of how things fit into the legal realm of things. Lutherans are more likely to try to manage things at the congregational level and the management goes up from there.
• The understanding of the role of the bishop is very distinct. Episcopalians tend to elect their bishops and then treat them like the far-away home office. They provide great pomp and circumstance when they visit, but mostly they ignore them. Lutheran bishops are elected for a length of time. They visit only if invited or if the congregation is without a pastor. Pastors do not have an obedience factor in their relationship with their bishop as a priest does.
• The role of pastor and the role of priest are a bit different too. When I went to seminary I understood the role of priest to be one priest who was prophet and who was teacher. Very little of the idea of “locum Cristi” was part of the theology that I was taught. There was some nod toward the role of pastor in the pastoral counseling skills we were taught. Today in the Episcopal Church I find more of my younger colleagues to have been taught more of that “locum Christi”—standing in the place of Christ—theology. That is too Romish for me but it works for them. Among Lutherans, the role of the clergy is to be PASTOR in large print. And I have seen that theology of ministry from the top (from the Presiding Bishop) down. There is less of a need for a herald, although the evangelical element is constantly emphasized. The leader of the church is to be one who shepherds, cares and brings peace into the community. I can see the benefits of both. I feel that I have become a better pastor through the influence of Lutheran friends. I hope through my emphasis on teaching and proclaiming, I have been able to stir folks to encounter Christ more readily.
• Lastly—at least for today. I see the differences in TEC and the ELCA is that we approach the Christ event from two different points of view. Our doctrine is the same. The prevailing theologies that under pin that doctrine are fairly interchangeable. But Lutherans always look at the Christ event through the lens of the Cross. All emphasis is put on Christ’s saving work of the Cross. All of Scripture is seen through that lens. I think that Episcopalians see the Christ event through the lens of the Incarnation—that God became human that we might know the call to divinity. This is my opinion and there will be some on both sides that will disagree. And that is fine. But it is a good way to begin thinking of how we approach the Christ event and that perhaps we have come to a time when we use more than one lens.

I was reading Susan Russel's blog today and was thrilled with a letter posted that was written by Diarmaid MacCullogh in Sunday's Guardian. I must admit that a Scotsman can speak with a graciousness to the purple coated Welshman better than I. But it has that wonderful Celtic bite too it.

Why we should be thankful for Rowan Williams and his church of common sense

The Church of England has taken a pounding from critics, but Rowan Williams has reasons to be cheerful as Christmas approaches, says a leading Anglican historian and commentator
Dear Archbishop Rowan,

Even though I'm not sending Christmas cards this year – ran out of time – you are not going to escape my seasonal circular letter. It is filled not with the record of my many achievements, holidays taken, operations survived and the GCSE results of my imaginary children, but instead has a few tidings of great joy, because you seem to need them at the moment.

You sounded a bit down the other day when you were talking to the Daily Telegraph, complaining that our government assumes "that religion is a problem, an eccentricity practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities". Well, the government is often right about that, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'd be more worried if the government didn't think religion was a problem.

The Telegraph came up with more why-oh-why material last week, publishing the results of a survey indicating that only half those questioned in this country called themselves Christian. I wouldn't pay too much attention to that either. God will no doubt cope. Let me draw on the words of the Blessed Ian Dury and give you some reasons to be cheerful: one, two, three.

The first reason is the established Church of England. It's true, as that Telegraph survey suggests, that it's not what it was, and the change has been astonishingly quick – encompassing my own still not over-prolonged lifetime. When my father, an Anglican parson, moved in the mid-1950s to become rector of a little country parish in Suffolk, there were still old ladies who would curtsy to him in the street, just because he was the rector.

Worldly power has gone out of the established church, and that is why so many of its adherents have fallen away. Thank goodness for that; churches never handle power well. Think what 1950s England was like when you and I were small boys: the stodgy conformity, the sexual hypocrisy, the complacent, monochrome white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. The Church of England, in its funny, messy, unwitting way, helped us to get out of that – giving vital help, for instance, to the tentative and much opposed moves in that same decade to decriminalise homosexuality. Compare the grim-faced, negative reaction of the Roman Catholic church in Spain in recent years to new freedoms as democratic Spain has thrown off General Franco's legacy; give public thanks for the Church of England's bumbling liberalism.

The C of E doesn't deliver strident moral or doctrinal judgments to make an easy headline. Journalists and broadcasters often sneer at such indecisiveness, even though rarely would they be inclined to subject themselves to any system of moral stridency. The history of Anglicanism is confused and contradictory, and because the C of E never succeeded in achieving the monopoly over national religion that it undoubtedly sought, the church has become an icon of diversity and plurality for the nation.

Its doctrinal statement, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1563, is pleasantly anchored in past history, fighting ancient battles. Any Anglican would be happy to acknowledge the importance of such history, while not having to believe personally, for instance, that "the laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences". Instead, this established church can be a home for those who go to it to express their doubts as well as their faith. It can be a shelter also for the kaleidoscope of culture, faith and no faith that now makes up our cheerfully diverse nation: an inoculation against the fanatics, both religious and anti-religious.

As the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish withdraw into their own search for national identities, please tell the English, whoever they are, to cherish this ecclesiastical symbol of a rainbow nation. At the moment the English church is afflicted by humourless, tidy-minded souls who want everyone in it to think just like them, and who frequently use the Bible to achieve their aim in the manner of a blunt instrument in an Agatha Christie mystery. Resist them, firm in the faith! Remember what Neil Kinnock achieved against the entryism of Militant in the Labour party of the 1980s. You and archbishop John Sentamu could together witness in the same way for sanity in the C of E.

My second reason to be cheerful is the ordination of women in the Anglican priesthood. Anglicans were the first episcopally governed church grouping to ordain women, way back in the Second World War, in a dire emergency in Japanese-occupied Hong Kong, when the only person available to do one priestly job was a woman, Florence Li Tim-Oi. Loud were the condemnations then, and there has been much angry noise since. But what riches the Church of England has gained since it joined sister-Anglican churches in ordaining women in 1994!

Women priests have faced some extraordinarily childish behaviour from many male counterparts: bullying, condescension and frank undervaluing of their ministry. Besides this has been the glass ceiling that prevented them from being eligible for choice as bishops. Now all that is about to change, and not least among the considerations behind the General Synod's overwhelming vote for change has been the grace so many women have displayed in the face of masculine bad manners. But there is also an everyday grace that women have brought to the ministry: a general reluctance to join in the theological party strife so common among male clergy, who like nothing better than to line up as Anglo-Catholics or evangelicals, as if they were a set of football hooligans out on the streets after the match.

Consider, Archbishop Rowan, that one of the most positive images of the Anglican parish priest in the English media is the now evergreen Vicar of Dibley. There's what the Great English Public think of their women clergy: a bit daft, fond of a box of chocolates or two, but, underneath it all, a source of love and common sense for a community that always has the potential to behave badly. When you think of some of the other stereotypes of priests around at the moment in these islands or beyond, just thank your lucky stars for the folksy silliness of the vicar of Dibley.

My third reason is the election of a bishop in a diocese of the American Episcopal Church in California who happens to be a lesbian. There's maturity for you. Faithful, seriously worshipping Christian folk have made a free decision in an open election that the best candidate for the job is a woman, who has shown by her decisions in life that fidelity, love and honesty are demanded by her practice of the Christian gospel.

These Californian Anglicans are grown-up enough to believe that it is entirely irrelevant that such fidelity, love and honesty are expressed in a same-sex relationship rather than a heterosexual one. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that it would be a strange sort of supreme being who cared that much for a particular configuration of genitalia in her servants.

The Episcopal Church of the United States of America has been subjected to continuous abuse and carping from fellow Anglicans, attempted poaching of its churches by dissidents and demands that it curb its understanding of love and sexuality to fit in with the sexual mores of an entirely different society. So American Anglicans have decided that enough is enough: that they should just get on with being Anglicans and elect the best person for the job.

It would be nice if the election of bishops in the Church of England were that democratic and so effectively took into consideration the wishes of all the diocesan faithful. That's a job to be tackled in Lambeth Palace once the mince pies have gone down and the archiepiscopal sherry decanter put back in the sideboard.

Meanwhile, I hope that you may rejoice at Christmas in this multiform church over which you so graciously and thoughtfully preside – give a welcome to the continuing unobtrusive and untrumpeted trickle of converts, not least from your sister church of Rome, join in the worship at one of your cathedrals, so packed to the gills, so well cared for and cherished as never before in their history, and enjoy the heritage of beautiful music that is one of the treasures of Anglicanism.
The Christmas story may be expressed in biblical forms that are not very good history and which some of your congregations may find difficult to take literally, but Christmas music can sweep past the puzzles of words to celebrate a new human life, weak, vulnerable and humble, which is glorified precisely for that. You will know the saying of Thomas Aquinas, which a wise old Dominican friar once quoted to me over a great deal of Irish whiskey, that God is not the answer, he is the question. As long as your church, and all other churches, go on asking the question, they will never die.

Diarmaid

Diarmaid MacCulloch is professor of the history of the church at Oxford University. His latest book is A History of Christianity: the First Three Thousand years (Allen Lane).

Good Church Order

Often times congregations are unaware of something called ‘Good Church Order.’ It is a manner of operating a congregation or a synod or diocese in a manner that is workable for all. Bishops, priests and pastors and deacons are all responsible for good church order. Some of Church Order is published as rules of order, by-laws or canons but others are merely understood as custom or recognized as ‘polite’ behavior. Some of these customs bridge denominational lines. One of these is: “a pastor does not return to his/her former congregation without the express invitation of the current pastor.”

The social dynamics of churches are often volatile things. Given the political climate of our times, it is not surprising that the emotional climate of most congregations in the US is precarious at best. There are many things that upset folks in our churches these days and the management of good church order is often more like riding a bucking bronco than anything else. The surprise entrance of a former pastor into a current congregation is difficult and often becomes an unsettling element in the parish’s life. When a former pastor attended a church event and asked the present chair of council if he could preach that Sunday, I was stunned. Not only had he ignored the good order of the church, he had crossed the boundaries of the development of affection that were trying to be built by me in my current parish. He wasn’t being mean or malevolent. He was just trying to touch that missing sense of love he had known while pastor.

One of the sacrifices that clergy must make in their lives as priests and pastors is the friendship with those they have served. It is the MOST difficult sacrifice I have had to make in order to be a priest. I work hard at the friendships in the pastor/parishioner relationships in my congregations. I try to give my all to these people in Christ’s name. I spend myself for them. That is not only my job; it is my calling. Most of the time, that service, love, affection and respect in loving them is reciprocated. I get loved back and that feels wonderful. It is in that reciprocal love Christ is most often identified and glorified. It is fulfilling, healing to others and myself. It is the most Christ-like way to lead the community of the faithful.

However, when I leave that position as pastor or rector, that particular dynamic of love and reciprocity is ended for good church order. I cannot expect to give or get the kind of love that I did when I was leading the congregation. It is one of the down sides of my vocation. Even if I have spent my whole life in one congregation, I cannot expect to depend upon those friendships when I leave because those friendships must be reoriented to the new pastor or rector. It is my duty to those I have loved and served not to return. It is my duty to cause no undue tension in the congregation or focus the attention on my needs for love and friendship. It sometimes means that I am lonely after I have left a church. I want to say “My friends can change their relationship from pastor to friend.” But quite frankly most can’t.

When I leave a church there are voids in my life that hurt unmercifully. But that is a sacrifice I must make for good church order. It is the final act of loving for a parish I can do. And even if my successor is a numbskull, a pitiful preacher, or a unloving SOB or not even there yet, I cannot step in to that parish, or even have friends in that parish, until that present pastor has his/her feet on the ground and has developed the reciprocal love that is necessary for his/her leadership in that congregation.

Diocesan Convention

I have tried to start this post several times. Being a true extrovert, I have to discuss my thoughts before they have any meaning. This is tedious for my friends who are introverts and whose thoughts come fully-formed from the head of Zeus. But I have tried to get a handle on Central NY’s convention and it has eluded me.

First of all, there was far and away more energy at diocesan convention this year than I have noticed since 2002. Most of that energy emanated from ++Katharine Jefferts-Shori’s presence with us. But for the clergy, there was another level of energy that began with the funeral for Jim Jensen+ the night before convention began. The funeral was majestic and beautiful and healed some of the pain of the loss of Jim+. There was a sense that at least we could come together for the sake of his parish and his family and there was something immensely right about that. But ++Katharine had a gentleness about her that exuded calmness yet with a significant resolve about her to address the IMPORTANT issues facing the Church today. In some way she focused us on the mission of the Church in our presence and in our area. She shared with us the hope of Christ that she sees throughout the Church. It was refreshing and reinvigorating.

But once again the substance of convention consisted of word-smithing some changes in the canons. There were no statements of conscience about the war in Afghanistan. There was no discussion of the draconian measures sponsored by the Church of Uganda towards LGBT persons. There was no comment about unemployment in the upstate area. There was no engagement whatsoever in the lives of the people of upstate at all. That there was no discussion about the budget is not surprising because there seems to be so little life in the diocese that we cannot even float programs that do not require funding. It doesn’t cost money to love one another or share our love of Christ Jesus. But for some reason, there is no program.

The Eucharistic liturgy, however, was wonderful. I am still not pleased with the canceling of services in our parishes in order to have a big service that could not accommodate all who desired to come. But the actual service was quite well-done. The service followed the BCP. The music was accessible by all who attended. And the sound of the voices raised in praise of God filled the heart and soul. And the choir was stupendous. We all knew we had been to Church.

Having worked with the Lutherans for the past few years I have come to understand how important a musical tradition is to a large body of people is. Episcopalians and Lutheran both SING. We have rich but different musical traditions that provide the glue that holds our liturgy together. The combined choir was an important piece of that worship. The choir directors of the Cathedral, St. David’s, Dewitt and Grace, Utica provided us with a sense of the musical tradition of TEC that many of us in smaller congregations do not get. I do hope that this kind of attention to the liturgy was not just because of the presence of the PB. I hope that we have learned that we can field a good choir and that such collaboration is the kind of ministry that the Church can do with little cost but with great reward. I would hope that we could also sing hymns at the various offices that are celebrated during convention. But most of all, Kudos to all those who planned and participated in the liturgy!

But we have a long way to go to heal the fear and distrust that has permeated this diocese. Much of that distrust came about during a phenomenon that has gripped our whole communion. While we struggled with the issues of biblical interpretation, human sexuality, ideology, theology many were wounded on both sides of the issues. Time does not heal those wounds. They need to be discussed in open forums—we do not need to recapitulate the issues; we need to touch the wounds with the incarnational presence of Christ.

The big kafuffle on HOB/D the last few days has been on the draconian measures that have been proposed by the Anglican Church of Uganda against LGBT folk. There has been a hue and cry raised demanding that the Presiding Bishop or the Executive Council make a statement condemning this attempt to criminalize or even execute LGBT people in that country. The PB was asked about this at the CNY diocesan convention just this weekend. She explained that the situation is much more volatile in Uganda than we understand in the US. She also recognizes that the legislation which is being presented there is being underwritten by ultra-conservative elements in the US. I have been impressed with the ability of members of HOB/D who have combed online places where the wider communion issues are being monitored. It is amazing that this issue has become such a hot topic all over the world, and how we see the underhandedness of it all.

All too often I separate church from state these days. Part of this comes from having taught in public school. We were well-trained to make hard lines between ‘politics’ and ‘church.’ I have even done so in the pulpit—being clear that my opinion would not endanger the 503c status of my parish. I like to think that the people in the pews have the sense to vote the way that they want to no matter what I say. I try to name Christian principles from the pulpit and let the people decide for themselves.

But I have seen over the past 10 years the kind of meddling in politics by folks in the name of ‘church’ that have made my skin crawl. This legislation in Uganda is being sponsored not just by the Church of Uganda, but with big money of super right-wing elements that are not Anglican or Episcopalian. It is being underwritten by groups with a Screwtape mentality who would disband American democracy for right-wing theocracy. It is the continued work of IRD and those who were the object of the Chapman Report that shows that this is one of the most diabolical efforts to undermine not only the love of Christ in the Church but also the basic governmental structures of our nation and other democratic nations of the world. These efforts are not by upstanding groups. They are fear-mongering groups that heighten anxiety and make the emotional strain so difficult that God-loving people give up rather than stand against this kind of perverse thinking.

I used to read the books of Robert Ludlum thinking that they were fiction. But the more that I see the effects of the scheming of these small groups of very wealthy people trying to manipulate my Church and my nation, I more I wonder if there is not some kind of cabal trying to take over our minds. I do not believe that this is just the mere paranoid feelings of someone in her sixties. Whatever it is, I am not one who is about to give in to them. +Jack Spong said that he remained an Episcopalian in the face of the neo-conservatives simply because he was unwilling to allow them to take over the Church. I’m with +Jack on this one. We need to expose these devious attempts of this cabal for what they are. I am really not willing to call them ‘conservative’. They are not just a matter of being on the right of a continuum on which I stand at the left. These groups are here to destroy, not just discuss another opinion. They are here to control, not merely offer a different way to skin the cat.

It is interesting that it has been LGBT issues that have flushed these “Controllers” out. That these groups come to the fore at the beginning of the fall of patriarchy doesn’t surprise me. Their anxiety began to be seen as women began to step into previously male-dominated positions in medicine/science, academia, politics and the Church. But the real clincher was when LGBT people began to take their rightful places in business, Church and politics. This is clearly not a liberal/conservative issue. It is a matter of POWER and not power that can be accessed by the democratic process. In many cases it is family power—large, extremely wealthy families that “know best” for the world’s society. They have taken on the veil of Christianity or Islam, or “Family Values” to legitimize their grasp for world power. And I think that such groups are not just factions who have different opinions. They are clearly those whose dogma is contrary to both Christianity and the rule of the people. I guess I am not going to retire after all.

(It is interesting that even the word "Cabal" has been taken over by the rightwingers -- just google image the word)