Monthly Archives: March 2009

Long-Winded Response on Celibacy at Cafe

My latest piece is up on the Cafe today and a follow-up piece will appear tomorrow. It’s in response to Fr. George Clifford’s response to my earlier comments on celibacy.

I engage his points on celibacy, but I’d like to flesh out my initial issue a bit more. That is, he contends—bringing in Elaine Pagels—that since there was a diverse group of religious beliefs all invoking Jesus that there was no “normative” or “real Christianity” to which we can look back and, as a consequence, we all have to find our own spiritual way.

I’ve heard this line or things like it far too often in the Episcopal Church (and other mainline Protestant denominations) to let it go.

You’ll note that the piece over there is long, especially by Cafe standards. Well, what follows is the section that I cut to get it slimmed down enough to be that long…

—————————————–

Fr. Clifford begins with curious section focused on Elaine Pagels. I have not read the book to which he refers (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent) but the logic which he cites is quite familiar to me concerning the multiplicity of early Christianities.

Stepping back, whenever readers note points of conflict or discontinuity within a literary corpus (like the scope of early Christian literature), they have some options about how they will read these materials. Do we 1) read them in such a way to highlight an underlying continuity among them or 2) read them in such a way to highlight the discontinuities? Let it be known that points of conflict and discontinuity appear in the writings of the New Testament and in early Christian literature; this point is not under dispute. So how shall we read them?

Historically, the reading communities that make up the Church have chosen to read the writings of the canon in continuity with one another. We acknowledge differences between, say, Paul and the letter of James, but choose to read them as complimentary trusting that together they reveal the inseparable nature of authentic Christian faith and its flowering in works of Christian love. Strands of academic scholarship upon early Christian literature—sometimes in conscious opposition to the Church’s strategy—have chosen to highlight the discontinuity between the theologies and writings, most famously in the important work of F. C. Baur (d. 1860), founder of the Tübingen school and one of the fathers of modern biblical criticism. A focus on discontinuity has been a central characteristic of biblical scholarship since Baur and, as the discipline was interested in the reconstruction of the history of early Christianity, often went so far as to posit different communities embodying the various discontinuities found in the text. Thus, they posited distinct and different groups of Jewish Christians, Johannine Christians, Pauline Christians, Petrine Christians, Gnostics of various stripes, etc., all existing in discontinuity with one another. In certain academic circles, this positing of communities has grown into a mania where imaginary communities are constructed at the drop of a hat based on hypothetical documents—Burton Mack’s The Lost Gospel being a representative example.

One difficulty with these multiple reconstructions is their basis in history. Aside from parsing discontinuities in texts, our only sources of data on actual historical communities are the writings of the “early Church Fathers”, preeminently Irenaeus and Eusebius. I put “early Church Fathers” in scare quotes because those who argue for a multiplicity of nascent Christianities will argue that the terms “Christian” and “Fathers” are loaded categories: they assume a coherent body called “the Church” and they assume that certain authors are “Fathers”—privileged authorities. And indeed, responsible readers must note that these early writers were writing for the explicit purpose of defining who was “in” and who was “out”, who taught a “legitimate” version of the faith and who did not. Yes, these very writers are witness to the fact that many different groups considered themselves to stand in relation to the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the New Testament.

Now—here’s the key point. Irenaeus writing around the year 180 or so about the various movements and their relation to the beliefs of his community passed along three basic marks that distinguished what his community and those aligned with them believed: a canon of Scripture, a creed or “rule of faith” that insisted upon particular interpretive principles when reading the canon, and apostolic succession—that the teachers of the community had been taught by teachers who had been taught, ultimately, by the disciples themselves. (In his own case, Irenaeus had been taught by Polycarp who was taught by the Apostle John.)

By this time, then—AD 180—there was a common teaching subscribe to by communities across the Mediterranean who distinguished themselves over and against other religious communities by the canon, creed, and apostolic succession. And now the kicker…turn to page 876-879 of your Book of Common Prayer and you’ll find the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and a resolution from the Lambeth Conference of 1888 stating that the marks of the church are the canon, the creeds, and the apostolic succession (Historic Episcopate) with the explicit addition of the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist.

Yes, there were a variety of early religious communities who claimed a connection to Christ and his teachings. But as 21st century Anglicans we affirm that we stand in historic relation with one of them—the one with whom we share a canon, creeds, and teachers

Islands through the Net

I’ve been pondering recently the technological aspects of culture change and how they relate to Christian community and life.

I’m, frankly, confused by the notion of “emergent” or “emerging.” I get that it’s a new way of doing things and ordering of common life, a way of presenting the riches of our spiritual tradition without the “baggage” of our institutions. I do wonder, however, how much of this “baggage” is connected into truths of incarnation that may in fact be necessary evils that warn us against an idea, any plan, any approach to spirituality that attempts an end-around that avoids the messiness and sin that accompanies embodied reality.

Is there really more to the “emergent” thing than creating a more informal environment and being more loosely tied to denominational structures?

Furthermore—on a related but different note—to what degree are internet connections capable of being “communities of formation”?

As I consider the pull that keeps moving me toward a more monastic way of living I wonder and weigh the benefits of various options. I was impressed by the offering at the Daily Episcopalian today and note that they are by the co-founder of the Community of Solitude, a group I’ve never heard of before. On one hand, they seem like something I’m looking for as I have an interest and a love for the spirituality and practices that guide them. And yet…

I’ve never quite been able to wrap my mind around St. Oswald, sometime bishop of Worcester and the third of the reforming bishops of the Benedictine Revival. If I recall correctly he did spend some time in a monastic community on the Continent but when he was in England at points I recall reading that he was a monk by himself.

How can that be?

I know what a hermit is, what an anchorite is, but this notion of being a monk by yourself seems different somehow…

Can a scattered community be, through harnessing of the internet, cohesive enough to provide a community of formation? I’m not sure.  Part of it may require an unpacking of this phrase I’ve created… for in my mind the heart of a community of formation is observing the examples of the practices of others. Cassian—and St Antony as presented by Cassian—put quite a bit of emphasis on the observation and imitation of others. Can this part of the formation process occur without incarnate, communal, intentional living? I don’t know…

Or is the oblate path the stronger method—associates in the world tied to a smaller group of professed religious who provide incarnate examples by whom the oblates can be refershed on a regular basis? Certainly this is the more classical model, and the one embraced by many Benedictines, the Julians, and the Order of the Holy Cross.

What do you think—what are the requirements for communities of formation in our brave new digital world?

Leo: Sermon 40.5

5. And still further it should lead to personal amendment and domestic harmony

But, beloved, in this opportunity for the virtues’ exercise there are also other notable crowns, to be won by no dispersing abroad of granaries, by no disbursement of money, if wantonness is repelled, if drunkenness is abandoned, and the lusts of the flesh tamed by the laws of chastity: if hatreds pass into affection, if enmities be turned into peace, if meekness extinguishes wrath, if gentleness forgives wrongs, if in fine the conduct of master and of slaves is so well ordered that the rule of the one is milder, and the discipline of the other is more complete. It is by such observances then, dearly-beloved, that God’s mercy will be gained, the charge of sin wiped out, and the adorable Easter festival devoutly kept. And this the pious Emperors of the Roman world have long guarded with holy observance; for in honour of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection they bend their lofty power, and relaxing the severity of their decrees set free many of their prisoners: so that on the days when the world is saved by the Divine mercy, their clemency, which is modelled on the Heavenly goodness, may be zealously followed by us. Let Christian peoples then imitate their princes, and be incited to forbearance in their homes by these royal examples. For it is not right that private laws should be severer than public. Let faults be forgiven, let bonds be loosed, offences wiped out, designs of vengeance fall through, that the holy festival through the Divine and human grace may find all happy, all innocent: through our Lord Jesus Christ Who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns God for endless ages of ages. Amen.

Leo concludes the sermon with a call to forgiveness and forebearance. Among the other good deeds and good habits that we strive to bring to flower during Lent, let us not forget that it is the merciful who will receive mercy and in forgiving others that we are forgiven.

Leo: Sermon 40.4

4. The Fast should not end with abstinence from food, but lead to good deeds

Therefore, dearly-beloved, seeing that, as we are taught by our Redeemer’s precept, man lives not in bread alone, but in every word of God , and it is right that Christian people, whatever the amount of their abstinence, should rather desire to satisfy themselves with the Word of God than with bodily food, let us with ready devotion and eager faith enter upon the celebration of the solemn fast, not with barren abstinence from food, which is often imposed on us by weakliness of body, or the disease of avarice, but in bountiful benevolence: that in truth we may be of those of whom the very Truth speaks, blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled Matthew 5:6 . Let works of piety, therefore, be our delight, and let us be filled with those kinds of food which feed us for eternity. Let us rejoice in the replenishment of the poor, whom our bounty has satisfied. Let us delight in the clothing of those whose nakedness we have covered with needful raiment. Let our humaneness be felt by the sick in their illnesses, by the weakly in their infirmities, by the exiles in their hardships, by the orphans in their destitution, and by solitary widows in their sadness: in the helping of whom there is no one that cannot carry out some amount of benevolence. For no one’s income is small, whose heart is big: and the measure of one’s mercy and goodness does not depend on the size of one’s means. Wealth of goodwill is never rightly lacking, even in a slender purse. Doubtless the expenditure of the rich is greater, and that of the poor smaller, but there is no difference in the fruit of their works, where the purpose of the workers is the same.

I’m afraid Leo’s had to get in line behind some earnest dissertation work and an emergency set of writings now sent off. Right then…

Leo’s very clear here; it’s a straight-forward section to which I can add very little. Responding still to Jesus’ response to Satan in the Temptation, Leo takes the Word of God here as the enticement to good works. He connects in Matt 5:6 but the real guide for this passage lies in Matt 25:31-46. I’ll note too concerning his comments on money. Writing a check is not enough. Actual acts of kindness are called for.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

G (the 5 and a half year old) and I just had the following conversation:

G: Oh good, we get to go to the later service today…

Me: Why’s that good?

G: Because it’s later—we get to sleep in more!

Me: So, what are the differences between the early and late services?

G: Well, the later service starts later.

Me: Is that the only difference?

G (thinking): Well—the early service is shorter and the later one is longer.

Me: Is there any difference in, oh say, the language between the two?

G: …No.

The earlier service is our Rite I without music; the later service is the Rite II with music. I find this fascinating. My pre-school/early school-aged children see no distinction between Rites I & II, or at least can’t come up with it at the Sunday morning breakfast table.

Hmmm…

Necessary Additions to EFM

Michelle at Selah has a rant on the missing medieval period in the Episcopal Church’s Education for Ministry materials which apparently gives seriously short shrift to the medieval period generally and especially the English situation. Not only does she point out the problem but she touches briefly on the solution as well, giving a list of topics and people who really ought to be covered.

If you’re doing/have done EFM, you need to check it out…

Substantive posting here should resume in a little bit.

General Convention Legislation on the BCP

I find myself taking a random walk through the digital archives of the Episcopal Church; I’ll note here a few items I find interesting…

Resolution Number: 1979-A058

Title: Authorize Continued Work on the Prayer Book

Legislative Action Taken: Concurred As Amended

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the Standing Liturgical Commission be requested, and is hereby authorized to continue this work, namely:

3. To make its expert knowledge of the contents of the Book of Common Prayer available to all inquirers;

8. To encourage and, when requested, to assist by advice and editorial comment the publication of scholarly studies bearing on materials contained in the Book of Common Prayer;

Hmmm. I note that this resolution was made in the 1970’s, the days when people used typewriters and stood in buildings connected to cords when they used the telephone but times have changed…

This stuff needs to be available on a web site or ftp archive—or both.

Resolution Number: 1991-A061

Title: Promote Worship, Music and Spirituality in Congregational Life

Action Taken: Concurred As Submitted

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 70th General Convention call upon dioceses and congregations to give serious attention during this Decade of Evangelism to the enrichment of the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the congregational life of the Church; in order to glorify God by developing healthy, alive, attracting Christian communities, the following actions are recommended:

  1. the clear, bold, prayerful presentation of the Gospel message, with a high priority given to the preparation of sermons and excellence in liturgy;
  2. the development of individual and corporate spirituality utilizing the richness of approaches and resources available throughout the Church;
  3. the recognition of music as a vital part of our worship life, with special attention to the needs of small congregations and ethnic communities for enhancing music ministry;
  4. the development of small groups in every congregation designed to facilitate evangelism, incorporation into the faith community, and formation and support in the Christian life and mission.

I’d love to see this emphasis on a clear Gospel message through excellent preaching and liturgy actually enacted. I also haven’t seen much in the way of the development of individual and corporate spirituality that’s rooted in the riches of our Anglican spiritual heritage. As for small groups in every congregation have a group on formation and support… I suppose it could be argued that this is your parish Adult/Children’s Education/Formation committee—so what resources to make the above happen is the Standing Committee promoting to develop our spirituality?

Resolution Number: 1997-A076
Title: Request Diocesan Liturgical Commissions to Urge Use of Alternative Liturgies
Legislative Action Taken: Concurred as Substituted

Resolved, That diocesan liturgical commissions urge all congregations, with the permission of their Ordinary, to make use of materials approved by the 72nd General Convention as contained in Enriching Our Worship ; and be it further

Resolved, That diocesan liturgical commissions also urge all congregations to make use of the provision to develop local materials in the context of An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist (“Rite III”), and to share their experiences with both their diocesan liturgical commissions and the Standing Liturgical Commission.

Can I just express my joy that this one’s never really been enforced…? On the other hand, I have heard of the Rite III option as a back-door to the Missal… If we intend to be a Prayer Book People, then let’s focus on being formed by the Prayer Book—not shakin’ things up.

Leo: Sermon 40.3

3. The twofold nature of Christ shown at the Temptation

For whom would he not dare to try, who did not keep from his treacherous attempts even on our Lord Jesus Christ? For, as the story of the Gospel has disclosed , when our Saviour, Who was true God, that He might show Himself true Man also, and banish all wicked and erroneous opinions, after the fast of 40 days and nights, had experienced the hunger of human weakness, the devil, rejoicing at having found in Him a sign of possible and mortal nature, in order to test the power which he feared, said, If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread Matthew 4:3 . Doubtless the Almighty could do this, and it was easy that at the Creator’s command a creature of any kind should change into the form that it was commanded: just as when He willed it, in the marriage feast, He changed the water into wine: but here it better agreed with His purposes of salvation that His haughty foe’s cunning should be vanquished by the Lord, not in the power of His Godhead, but by the mystery of His humiliation. At length, when the devil had been put to flight and the tempter baffled in all his arts, angels came to the Lord and ministered to Him, that He being true Man and true God, His Manhood might be unsullied by those crafty questions, and His Godhead displayed by those holy ministrations. And so let the sons and disciples of the devil be confounded, who, being filled with the poison of vipers, deceive the simple, denying in Christ the presence of both true natures, while they rob either His Godhead of Manhood, or His Manhood of Godhead, although both falsehoods are destroyed by a twofold and simultaneous proof: for by His bodily hunger His perfect Manhood was shown, and by the attendant angels His perfect Godhead.

There’s a lot of stuff crammed in here, not all of it obvious on a first run through. First, we get onto one of Leo’s big hobby-horses—the issue of the two natures of Christ. At this point in our history, the Christological controversies had not been fully “solved”—or at least not entirely adopted by the people. (You’ll note, of course, that this is a perennial problem that keeps popping up in each generation…) Leo’s major contribution to this debate is one of his letters which was sent to the Council of Chalcedon called “the Tome” where he sets forth in clear (and very Western) terms, the doctrine of the two natures. As often as he can in his sermons, Leo makes appeals to details of the text that, in his view, display both natures acting in Christ and the temptation is no different: hunger shows the humanity of Jesus while the ministry of angels shows his divinity.

A second item in play here is Leo’s reading of the Devil and his motives. The tack that Leo takes here is integral to the ‘Christus Victor’ reading where Jesus conceals his divinity, allowing Satan to believe him to be just a man. This is a strong and standard thread in the early readings and in monastic readings in particular. To truly understand this way of reading the temptation, it’s essential to go back to the sources that Leo is drawing upon, preeminently Irenaeus and John Cassian. Ireaneus discuss the temptation in terms of recapitulation; for him the temptation episode itself is a salvific event because it is here, at the beginning of his ministry, that Jesus breaks Satan’s great threefold temptation tool. Jesus’ obedience corrects Adam’s disobedience. The most pertinent section in Iraenaes is Adv. Haer. 5.21. John Cassian takes the same concepts and taps into it from the direction of ascetical theology. Here’s his take on it in Conf. 5.6 (you’ll have to scroll down to Chapter 6…).

So, both christology and ascetical theology are in play here. Probably the main detail that both of these turn upon is the fact that Jesus defeats Satan through purely non-miraculous means. From the Christological perspective, this emphasizes his humanity; from the ascetical theology perspective it emphasizes his role as our chief exemplar. After all, if he defeats the devil on purely human terms, we too (with divine assistance) are capable of accomplishing the same things.

Leo: Sermon 40.2

2. Satan seeks to supply his numerous losses by fresh gains

Hence the reading of the Apostle’s proclamation has sounded opportunely in our ears, saying, Behold now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation . For what is more accepted than this time, what more suitable to salvation than these days, in which war is proclaimed against vices and progress is made in all virtues? You had indeed always to keep watch, O Christian soul, against the enemy of your salvation, lest any spot should be exposed to the tempter’s snares: but now greater wariness and keener prudence must be employed by you when that same foe of yours rages with fiercer hatred. For now in all the world the power of his ancient sway is taken from him, and the countless vessels of captivity are rescued from his grasp. The people of all nations and of all tongues are breaking away from their cruel plunderer, and now no race of men is found that does not struggle against the tyrant’s laws, while through all the borders of the earth many thousands of thousands are being prepared to be reborn in Christ : and as the birth of a new creature draws near, spiritual wickedness is being driven out by those who were possessed by it. The blasphemous fury of the despoiled foe frets, therefore, and seeks new gains because it has lost its ancient right. Unwearied and ever wakeful, he snatches at any sheep he finds straying carelessly from the sacred folds, intent on leading them over the steeps of treasure and down the slopes of luxury into the abodes of death. And so he inflames their wrath, feeds their hatreds, whets their desires, mocks at their continence, arouses their gluttony.

Now Leo’s engaging the appointed Epistle. Indeed, this portion was seized upon by many as there are some great responsories for the Leten Night Office that utilize this bit of 2 Corinthians. We’re also back to the military images and the shadow of Rev 12:12b seems all over this section.