Another Malady?

Following upon the Rev. Tobias Haller's set of Anglican maladies (see below) I did a bit of field research. I think I have stumbled upon a new form of an older condition generally called Dermatological Fadism. It is fairly pernicious and quite difficult to treat. I give you my own contribution to the diagnosis of Ecclesial medicine: Presbyopic Emergantism.

Presbyopic Emergantism: Related to Dermatological Fadism and Spastic Demographitus and may have come about through horizontal gene transfer due to constant contact of the two conditions in the hot house environment of Conventions and Conferences. This is born out by all sufferers of this condition suffer from one or the other of these. Occasionally referred to as a Relevancy Tickle, it manifests as a fixation on one set of phenomena to the exclusion of others. Seriousness of disorder may cause a reaction to contrary or different data ranging from dismissal to outright anger. Other symptoms include denim clergy shirts, guitars and an unusual ability to talk about mystics and religious one has never read. Treatments include enforced BCP and H82 use, as well as deeper reading lists and field trips.

In a Godward direction: Anglican Maladies

Here is a brilliant, and funny, set of diagnostic tools for the participants in the Anglican Drama.

In particular, I would commend that we research treatments for Pantheismia, Pluralsy, and (for my own sake ) Tranverse blogitis.

In a Godward direction: Anglican Maladies

As inspired by Elizabeth Keaton over on her blog.

I can hear Della Reese sing this in my mind - it may have been on an episode of that angel show she did in the 90's. In my mind it sums up the central theme in most mystical theology, and could well serve us in ecclesiology.

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs
And works his sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purpose will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
the bud may have bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

From the LA Times: Faith forms a bond for a lesbian priest and a Mormon father of three

A documentary film about same-sex marriage and theology leads to friendship, admiration and new understanding.

By Duke Helfand

February 7, 2009

Who could have foreseen what would happen between the Mormon filmmaker and the lesbian priest?

Not Douglas Hunter, even after he took a leap of faith and trained his camera on the Rev. Susan Russell.

And maybe not even Russell, who had undergone a remarkable transformation from onetime suburban soccer mom to priest and outspoken champion of gay rights.

But the friendship that took root when Hunter asked Russell to play the central role in his documentary about same-sex marriage and theology would lead two people from different worlds to a new understanding of themselves and their faiths.

"We're all telling the same stories about God's work in our lives," said Hunter, 40, a father of three from Pasadena who discovered Russell on the Internet.

Technology may have provided the bridge, but it was an ancient religious calling that drew Hunter to Russell, a senior associate priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

Hunter felt a religious obligation to cross the same boundary Jesus is said to have traversed 2,000 years ago when he spoke of embracing the outsider.

No group was further outside Mormon circles, Hunter thought, than gays and lesbians. Mormonism, he knew, viewed homosexual acts as sins, and Mormons would become among the most generous supporters of California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that was approved by voters last fall.

It was in early 2007, after the death of a close family friend, that Hunter decided it was time to put his religious ideals to the test.

Filmmaking provided the vehicle.

A freelance post-production supervisor for television shows, he had already made two films: a documentary about rock climbing and another short movie about a couple overcoming a marital infidelity.

His new film, he reasoned, would allow him to explore a subject considered taboo by many other Mormons but which he could no longer ignore.

"The engagement of the 'other' was so important in the teaching of Jesus that it had to have a place of centrality in my own faith," he said. "What's your reward if you only love people who already love you?"

Hunter didn't know where to start, so he turned to his computer. He typed in random search terms -- "Christian gay," "gay theology." The search led to a clip of Russell on YouTube and then to her personal blog, called An Inch at a Time.

"I was like, 'Wow, she's fabulous. She's here in Pasadena. She's practically a neighbor,' " he said.

Hunter sent an e-mail to Russell in June 2007, explaining that he wanted to make a short documentary about the personal and spiritual challenges of same-sex marriage. The finished product, he said, would be submitted to an international documentary project that would broadly address the meaning of citizenship.

Russell, 54, was accustomed to interview requests in her role as president of Integrity USA, an advocacy group for gay and transgender Episcopalians. She had few qualms about sharing the details of her personal story to further her cause.

With a command of Christian theology and a fearless streak, she had become a national emblem in the struggle for gay equality in the Episcopal Church, a spiky-haired priest in a clerical collar who turned up on CNN and such news programs as ABC's "Good Morning America."

A few weeks after Hunter's e-mail arrived, Russell agreed to meet him in her office at All Saints.

"That first meeting was about getting my foot in the door and letting her know I was for real," Hunter recalled.

By August 2007, Russell was sitting through several hours of interviews and camera shots at the church. That material -- indeed, the priest herself -- would become the heart of Hunter's 19-minute film, "The Constant Process," which also features family pictures, including a snapshot of a smiling Russell and her ex-husband on their wedding day, cutting their cake.

In the film, Russell tells how, after college, she settled into a privileged life in Ventura with her banker husband and two young sons. There was tennis and sailing and a golden retriever at home.

But Russell felt strangely agitated.

"I had this sense that I had everything I ever wanted, you know, this really blessed life, and then I had this imploding thought in my head. . . . Is that enough?" she says in the film. "I look back on that moment as the beginning of my spiritual U-turn."

Russell felt a call to the ministry. As she grew more spiritual, however, her marriage deteriorated.

The turning point came during a religious conference on the East Coast, where Russell met a woman who also was struggling with a troubled relationship, in her case with a female partner.

Russell and her new friend talked at length about their lives. When the woman asked if Russell might be gay, Russell answered, "I'm quite sure I'm not gay."

But the question weighed on her. Why hadn't she ever entertained the possibility? Was there something inherently wrong with being gay?

The next day, during a service at the National Cathedral in Washington, Russell heard a voice in her head.

"This is how I made you," it said. "Now I need you to go back and be the priest I made you to be."

The words seemed so loud that Russell looked around to see if anyone else heard them.

"I walked out of that service . . . changed," she says in the film. "It was just really clear to me that my life didn't look like what I thought it did.

"So for me, the coming-out experience really had nothing to do with a sexual act or even a relationship or a person," she adds. "It was about really, finally understanding my fullest, deepest self and getting all the pieces in place."

As Russell told her story to Hunter, he realized that he wasn't just filming, he was learning from her. He was especially moved by the priest's concept of romantic love, with its emphasis on spiritual and emotional intimacy as a precursor to physical expression.

"That resonated with me and gave me a renewed appreciation of my relationship with my wife," he said.

Hunter also felt his empathy growing for gays and lesbians, especially friends who felt compelled to hide their sexual orientation. Perhaps that was because he, too, held a secret: Hunter had been sexually abused as a child by two neighbors in his native Philadelphia.

He knew what it was like to hide a part of himself and pretend his life was in order. "I kept that locked away," he said.

Something else was occurring: Hunter and Russell were becoming friends. As election day neared last November, Hunter began showing up at "No on 8" rallies alongside his documentary subject.

Russell's initial curiosity about Hunter gave way to admiration, particularly over his decision to vote against the same-sex marriage ban and to speak out against it. She realized that she was sharing in his transformation. And that filled her with a sense of wonder.

"It isn't a risk for a priest from All Saints to go to a Prop. 8 demonstration, but it is for a devout, straight Mormon father of three," Russell said. "It just speaks volumes about how deeply Douglas walks the talk in terms of really putting his faith into action."

Hunter had to balance his new friendship against his obligation to his church, whose members, at the urging of church leaders, were contributing millions of dollars to help pass the ban.

Knowing he was walking the finest of lines, he told only a few close Mormon friends about his opposition to Proposition 8 and about his documentary, even as it debuted last fall at a gay and lesbian film festival in Chicago. The project also will be shown at afilm festival in Pomona in April.

"As a Mormon, I have a responsibility and commitment to listen to my church leaders," he said. "At the same time, listening to my church leaders does not absolve me of the ethical responsibility to listen to the voice of the other."

Hunter said he hoped the film would spark a thoughtful conversation about acceptance. "There are some things that Mormons are going to find challenging in the film, such as a lesbian priest saying that God is working through her," he said. "I think that is a good point of discussion."

And so he stayed his course, but not without turmoil, as tensions grew over Mormon support for the same-sex marriage ban.

Just days before the Nov. 4 election, Hunter joined Russell for an interfaith service in the ornate sanctuary of St. John's Episcopal Cathedral near USC. One by one, speakers took the stage to reflect on the proposed ban.

Finally, Hunter stepped forward. He spoke about compassion and about the universality of love.

"If as a straight man I find the tools for strengthening my marriage in the relationships of same-sex couples and of a dear friend, can I deny them a fundamental right that I benefit from and cherish?" he asked. "The answer is no."

duke.helfand@latimes.com

Fist found on Susan Russell's blog An Inch At A Time (linked over on the right).

Little Portion Needs Help

Little Portion Hermitage in Need of Emergency DonationsFebruary 1, 2009Dear Sibyl,Little Portion Hermitage has been hit by the largest natural disaster to hit northern Arkansas in recent history. We have been told that it could be up to three weeks before power is restored to our area.
Our need for emergency donations in this ice storm natural disaster has come sooner than we expected!
At 12:30 AM last night the main generator at Little Portion Hermitage died. We believe that it is irreparable. It is a 40+ year old generator from an old nuclear missile silo, with most of its parts very old and irreplaceable. So this is not terribly surprising.
We are planning to replace it with four or five smaller new generators that are better suited to our emergency needs. This will be an overall investment of around $25,000, and hopefully less. In a way, this mechanical failure has brought to light our need to be better prepared for such emergencies at the monastery.
The community is in very good spirits, but a week without power gets very old. They are saying that we may be days or weeks before power is restored. No one will say anything for sure. At this point we simply do not know.
We know that the economy is bad, but we are asking for your generous donation to help us with this necessary expense. Will you help?

Please make your online donation through our Online Store. http://www.troubadourforthelord.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=415

Thank you.In Jesus,
John Michael TalbotFounder, and Spiritual FatherThe Brothers and Sisters of Charity at Little Portion Hermitage

Denile is Not Just a River in Egypt

Somebody explain to me why the radical Anglo-Catholics think Rome is going to welcome them with open arms?I mean I now understand that they have adopted a magical realism view of Apostolicae curae and can even side step Ad Tuendam Fidem and wear blinders when it comes to the recent statement from the Vatican about them being the only "true" Church. What gets me is the desperation when you bring it all up and present it as a seamless garment, as it were. The anger and wild eyed denials is beyond me.



All of this has been brought to (yet another) head by the return to the fold of the SSPX and the reported Personal Prelature to be announced after Easter by the Pope for the Traditional Anglican Communion. Many of the comments in the Holy Smoke blog linked to above pont out that there is no reason for hope of being called legit.

There is a certain pathos attached to the Anglican Papalist, a desperation that is almost palpable. The "Daddy please love me!" that calls out would be heart breaking if not for the fact that they could solve their issues by swimming the Tiber. Then they would be reunited with Big Daddy Benedict. But they would also be laity, and even if reordained, those who wear purple now would likely never be allowed to be Bishops, not that they were to start with according to the rules they now play by. Gone would by the lace, the pretty little churches they have so lovingly maintained and gone would be any sense of validity to their lives before. Unwilling to do that, they instead whine and hope. They act disgracefully and with manifest disloyalty to the church of their baptism, that nurtured them and gave them shape as Christians. Rather than act with grace and openness to those who are in solidarity with them, they spit upon the sacraments offered them and cling to the thine and ragged theological threads from Rome that not only protects their shrinking privilege, but in actuality deny the humanity of many of their sisters and brothers. It is easier than thinking to be disloyal and condescendingly snotty while wandering around their castles on clouds.

Of late there has been a good deal spinning around the blogosphere about the actions of Benedict XVI and the Society of Pope Pious X (SSPX). In particular, that revolves around the utterly stupid ideas about the Holocaust one of their Bishops has been spouting. A great deal of the strom and drang has been caused by not completely understanding what excommunication is, and is not.

Simply put excommunication is an act of refusing to administer the sacraments to a person by an Ecclesial body. This may be due to differences in doctrine, or an action which puts you outside that body's fellowship. The Anabaptists call this shunning. A similar process and status was imposed upon Spinoza by the Jewish congregation in Amsterdam. Now, the Roman Church has a set of distinct categories of being "in" and "out' of communion. The most serious of these is the one that involves the Vatican formally forbidding you from participation in the life of the Church.

These four bishops were excommunicated because of the fact that they were consecrated as bishops against direct orders of the Vatican. Their group is one which basically denies the Second Vatican Council as being valid, with their main concern being in the way in which the Mass is celebrated (previously in Latin according to the Tridentine Rite, now in both Latin and the vernacular and with some changes in form according to the Novus Ordo Rite). Their consecration more or less constituted an act of schism. In the decades since then, the Church has more and more recognized that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated by Vatican 2, something made officially clear by Pope Benedict, when he issued what is called a Motu Proprio, an official Vatican statement, which declared that the Tridentine Mass can be celebrated at any priest at any time without permission of the bishop. This was seen in part as being a reaching out towards SSPX.

So now we have the, rather dramatic, lifting of the excommunication by the Pope as the crowning moment of this years Octave of Christian Unity. It must be understood that the lifting is strictly referring to the reasons for which they were excommunicated in the first place. In other words, it is an act of reconciliation in the hopes of eventually bringing them back into full relations with Rome and reconciling the differences that SSPX has officially with Rome. It doesn’t pass comment upon any other weirdness of the people involved, since being a Holocost Denier is seen as more of a form of mental illness by the Vatican rather than a doctrinal position. It does not yet normalize those relations. While the excommunications have been lifted (meaning that they can now receive the Sacraments in the Church again, in particular they are no longer denied the Eucharist) the Pope has made it clear that issues still need to be worked out before relations are any where near normal once again. One can imagine that among these issues is the problem of Bishop Williamson himself.

As has been pointed out on another blog:

Q: Is the SSPX now legitimate?

Not in a juridical sense, no. The SSPX still does not have the approval of the Pope or of a diocesan bishop. It is still a separated group, though these days many prefer not to speak of "schism".

Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?

No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended a divinis. They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They have no authority to establish parishes, etc.

Q: Are the chapels of the SSPX okay now?

Not in a juridical, legal sense, no. Many good things can happen in one of those communities, but the SSPX chapels are not, because of the lifting of the excommunications, suddenly made legitimate. They are not reconciled by this move.

Q: Are the priests of the SSPX in good standing now?

Not yet they aren’t. The priests of the SSPX are still suspended a divinis. They say Mass validly, but without the permission of the Church, either from a faculty of the Holy See or the local bishop. They do not have the necessary faculties to hear confessions and give sacramental absolution except in danger of death.

Q: Is it okay to go to chapels of the SSPX for Mass?

Yes and no. It is still not "okay" to go to chapels of the SSPX if you are doing so out of contempt for the Holy See or Holy Father, etc. If you are deeply attached to the older form of Mass, and it is very hard on you to go without it, yes, you can attend these Masses out of devotion. You can fulfill your Sunday obligation still, because the 1983 Code of Canon Laws says you do.

But the fact remains that these are still chapels separated from unity with the local bishop.

In my opinion, it is not a good idea to go to these chapels exclusively except perhaps in very rare circumstances wherein there really is no acceptable alternative.

Q: Is it okay to receive Communion at an SSPX Mass?

Yes and no. Yes… if you would otherwise have to go without the Eucharist for a long time because you are morally or physically impeded from receiving in a licit way. No… if you are doing so because of contempt for the Pope, bishop, Holy See, etc.



Where I am having difficulty is in seeing this as anything other than an "ecumenical gesture" with the middle finger towards the rest of Christendom. The only good thing I can see come out of this is the potential for schadenfreude when the Forward in faith types get another red leather heal smashed into their teeth, metaphorically speaking, since their all kinds of bouncy and eager like puppies that Rome will take them seriously.

Who?

You’re St. Melito of Sardis!

You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins.

Take the quiz here.

New Favorite Christmas Poem

Christmas 

by John Betjeman

The bells of waiting Advent ring,
The Tortoise stove is lit again
And lamp-oil light across the night
Has caught the streaks of winter rain
In many a stained-glass window sheen
From Crimson Lake to Hookers Green.

The holly in the windy hedge
And round the Manor House the yew
Will soon be stripped to deck the ledge,
The altar, font and arch and pew,
So that the villagers can say
'The church looks nice' on Christmas Day.

Provincial Public Houses blaze,
Corporation tramcars clang,
On lighted tenements I gaze,
Where paper decorations hang,
And bunting in the red Town Hall
Says 'Merry Christmas to you all'.

And London shops on Christmas Eve
Are strung with silver bells and flowers
As hurrying clerks the City leave
To pigeon-haunted classic towers,
And marbled clouds go scudding by
The many-steepled London sky.

And girls in slacks remember Dad,
And oafish louts remember Mum,
And sleepless children's hearts are glad.
And Christmas-morning bells say 'Come!'
Even to shining ones who dwell
Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,
A Baby in an ox's stall ?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me ?

And is it true ? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine.

New Statesman Interview with ABC

Over the course of a turbulent year the Archbishop of Canterbury had a series of meetings with James Macintyre during which he spoke about sharia law, capitalism, the disestablishment of the Church, and his love of The West Wing.

On a bleak afternoon in November, a delegation of senior religious leaders from Britain filed out of an exhibit room at Ausch witz in Poland. One man stopped, and stayed staring intently through the glass. Before him was a mass of human hair from those killed in the gas chambers. This man was Dr Rowan Williams and he was praying, silently.
Asked to write an inscription at the memorial, he chose words from Psalm 130: "Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice!" Dr Williams walked around the former Nazi extermination camp, a remote figure, keeping a ring of space around him. After the first round of exhibits, one of the party tried to speak to him. He merely shrugged and shook his head; there was nothing adequate to say.
Williams was on a trip to the site, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, with nine other faith leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, Jona than Sacks, with whom he talked intensely on the plane on the journey out from London while almost every other passenger slept. The two men have become good friends, and the Chief Rabbi compares their relationship to that of their predecessors, William Temple and Joseph H Hertz, who co-founded the Council of Christians and Jews in 1942. "I have the greatest respect for the Chief Rabbi - a public intellectual," the Archbishop said. "And because he has sometimes found his own community hard work . . . we do occasionally compare notes, dot dot dot."
That "dot dot dot" is something of a characteristic understatement. Several weeks later, we are in a private room at Lambeth Palace reflecting on what has been not just the most testing year in his term at Canterbury, but arguably one of the most difficult for Anglicanism since the Reformation.

Read the rest here.

+++Rowans Christmas Message

Human beings, left to themselves, have imagined God in all sorts of shapes; but – although there were one or two instances, in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, of gods being pictured as boys – it took Christianity to introduce the world to the idea of God in the form of a baby: in the form of complete dependence and fragility, without power or control. If you stop to think about it, it is still shocking. And it is also deeply challenging.

God chose to show himself to us in a complete human life, telling us that every stage in human existence, from conception to maturity and even death, was in principle capable of telling us something about God. Although what we learn from Jesus Christ and what his life makes possible is unique, that life still means that we look differently at every other life. There is something in us that is capable of communicating what God has to say – the image of God in each of us, which is expressed in its perfection only in Jesus.

Hence the reverence which as Christians we ought to show to human beings in every condition, at every stage of existence. This is why we cannot regard unborn children as less than members of the human family, why those with disabilities or deprivations have no less claim upon us than anyone else, why we try to makes loving sense of human life even when it is near its end and we can hardly see any signs left of freedom or thought.

And hence the concern we need to have about the welfare of children. As we look around the world, there is plenty to prompt us to far more anger and protest about what happens to children than we often seem to feel or express. In the UK this year there have been several public debates about childhood, as research has underlined the lack of emotional security felt by many children here, the high cost of divorce and family breakdown, the disproportionate effect of poverty and debt on children, and many other problems. We look forward to the publication here in the New Year of a nationwide survey about what people think is a ‘good childhood’ – sponsored by the Children’s Society, with its long association with the Anglican Church.

Elsewhere we see far more horrendous sights – child soldiers still deployed in parts of Africa and in Sri Lanka, the burden laid on children in places where HIV and AIDS have wiped out a whole generation, leaving only the old and the young, the fate of children in areas of conflict like Congo and the Middle East and the insensitive treatment that is so often given to child refugees and asylum seekers in more prosperous countries.

‘Though an infant now we view him, He shall fill his Father’s throne’ says the Christmas hymn. If it is true that the child of Bethlehem is the same one who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, how shall we stand before him if we have allowed his image in the children of the world to be abused and defaced? In the week I write this, the British public is trying to cope with the revelation of the shocking killing of a very small child. Recently I accompanied a number of students and British faith leaders on a pilgrimage to the extermination camps at Auschwitz, where some of the most unforgettably horrifying images have to do with the wholesale slaughter of Jewish children – their toys and clothes still on display, looted by their killers from their dead bodies.

Christmas is a good time to think again about our attitudes to children and about what happens to children in our societies. Christians who recognise the infinite and all-powerful God in the vulnerability of a newborn baby have every reason to ask hard questions about the ways in which children come to be despised, exploited, even feared in our world. We all suspect that in a time of economic crisis worldwide, it will be the most vulnerable who are left to carry most of the human cost. The Holy Child of Bethlehem demands of us that we resist this with all our strength, for the sake of the one who, though he was rich, for our sake became poor, became helpless with the helpless so that he might exalt us all through his mercy and abundant grace.

With every blessing and best wish for Christmas and the New Year.

+Rowan Cantuar

Once Again: The Great O's are upon us.

O Sapientia,
quae ex ore Altissimi prodiisti,
attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter, 
suaviterque disponens omnia: 
veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae.

Annunciation

The following is a sermon I preached at a friend of mines parish about three years ago. Since the Annunciation story is this Sunday's Gospel reading according to the RCL, I thought I would dust this off again and share it.  A not quite so clear version of the painting I refer to is here. 

When Tim asked me if I would like to preach this afternoon I agreed readily. I then, with out really thinking, asked what the texts are. When I got home and looked them up in the Prayer Book I was under whelmed. These are texts that have been handled so much that they have become slippery from their use. They’ve become so familiar that they’re like an ice cube: squeeze to hard and they shoot right out of our hand. Unable to get any in on the Gospel, I turned to look at art depicting the event. For the most part I was left cold. In general, the pictures were of a sheepish Angel Gabriel, often holding flowers standing at a distance from Mary who is sitting at a window reading an improbably illuminated Librium, often in Latin. I even saw one that depicts Our Lady holding a Rosary. Eastern Icons are often of the same idea: Gabriel paying homage to a pure Madonna. The emphasis is on the holy and transcendent. Then I stumbled upon the work of a Venetian artist named Jacopo Robusti, called Tintoretto. His depiction is very, very different.

 

First the setting is different. Far from a little room or a walled garden, we are presented with a room that can only be described as messy. The plaster has cracked, with the bricks behind showing through. There is a motley collection of broken furniture and there are signs of half completed carpentry. Instead of a window out of which Mary has been looking, or a prayer book Mary has been spinning. Out of the portal we see a man busily at work with a saw, presumably Joseph. You see “betrothed,” meant at this time that they may have been living together in a, presumably chaste, arrangement to see if she was acceptable to him.  They are both hard at work in a decaying house as the sun slides down into night. We see a couple laboring until they are unable to see any more. They are like Adam and Eve after the fall, laboring in a world of decay and death. Then something altogether unexpected happens. An angel of the Lord comes in.

 

Rather than a sheepishly coy angel, we have a Gabriel who swoops in, with an entourage of Cherubs. He’s looking a little apologetic. Mary is far from a passive presence. Her body is twisted to face the onrushing Angels and her face is a mixture of fear and marvel. The Holy Spirit is depicted in the traditional form of a Dove, but it’s far from some innocuous pidgin with a halo. The Holy Spirit manifests as a being of pure light. It illumines the air above the Virgin and the light casts the world in which she has lived in stark relief and rivals the dying light of the Sun. This very human Mary is confronted with God in the most direct way imaginable.

 

I emphasize that this is a human Mary because it is Tintoretto’s very Realist depiction of Mary and her condition that drew me to it. She is no plaster saint in this painting. She is an ordinary woman, a girl by today’s standards, confronted by the disconcerting God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And it is her humanity that is key in our celebration today. As the poet says:

 

            “Of Her Flesh, he took flesh.”

 

It is from Mary that Jesus gains his humanity. It is through Mary that he enters the world. Our humanity is what we have in common with Mary. It is in our common human condition, shared by both, that we come to have Mary as our sister and Jesus as our brother. To put it differently, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us it is from Mary that the Logos receives flesh, and the Incarnate Word first dwells in her. It is a long while until the child is born, and we are confronted with the idea of being with Mary as we contemplate the child growing with in her. There is no room here for a porcelain figure or alabaster statue. All through out the rest of her life she must live with and meditate upon the words of the Angel, even when they make no since. Life would not be easy for the Mother of God. She must live with a son given to terrific acts of power and who dies the death of a thief or bandit. She is one of the models of contemplation, not because we know that she is given to it, but because she is caught up in the Mysteries in a way that no one else is. She is an active participant in them. When she looks down at the child in the feeding trough she comes into the realization that “This is my body, this is my blood.” We do her, and ourselves, a disservice when we make her into a semi-divine Queen at the expense of her history and reality as a human being.

 

My Carmelite bias may be showing. For us Mary is our sister. After all she appeared to St. Simon Stock in Aylesford wearing our Habit. It is her Humanity in which we first find our devotion to her. If our King reigns from a manger and cross, his Mother is just that, a mother. As the legend under the image of Our Lady of Mt Carmel at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception says, “Mary is more Mother than Queen.” In may ways several of the later Marian devotions and doctrines run counter to the Carmelite Spirit of her as our Mother and Sister. I would go so far as to say that dogmatic proclamations aimed at cleaning up our discomfort at Mary being a normal person with a body like ours, and the implications that holds for Jesus plays runs counter not only to the Spirit of Carmel, but of Anglicanism. She is our friend, and she prays for us. She is our Mother, and loves us. She is our Sister and supports us.

What I would leave us with today is a call to join with Mary in her pondering and meditation. As she felt the child grow within her womb, let us feel the risen Christ in our selves. Let us contemplate with her the words of the Angel and what they mean for us. Let us enter into the mysteries with her as a signpost and guide. Finally, let us commend ourselves to her in prayer, so that at the last she may show us the blessed fruit of her womb, Jesus.

 

Pray for us, Oh Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Terrorists?

Okay, so now we know exactly how desperate for ideas the loony Right are for arguments. Those of us who are opposed to Prop 8 in Califonria are, to quote Pat Boon of all people, "terrorists". Another example of this can be found at the Rev. Susan Russles blog.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen (and the rest of my readers), we in the West are now locked into a struggle with that well known axis of international evil that is the HRC and Al Qaeda. The evidence for this is a few incidents of violence or, more often, vandalism against a frew Churches in California. The threats and actual violence perpetrated against opponents during the campaign and after just slide right on by. Vandalism against MCC and other GLBT friendly churches is just to be expected.
Lat's face the facts here. The Right was unprepared for GLBT people and our friends to fight back. They were unprepared to deal with actual anger. The acts of violence and vandalism are deplorable, stupid and shortsighted. What they are not, however, is a systematic attempt at persecution. They are a backlash, but there is no organization doing it. Opposition is not oppression. That is particularly the case when you are the empowered, privileged and protected majority. It is not oppression to have to pay for crimes, even though you think the victim "deserves it." There is a legitimate Constitutional argument being made in California right now. The Right is terrified that it will be defeated. this specious argument has been developed to be a part of the spin and lies they will tell one another to help build up tot he next election. It is sort of like the rhetoric of the closing days of the presidential election: it was tossed out less to win and more to start the lies to be repeated. The task is for us to respond now and not let them in inch in the door with their mendacities.

Solemn rite or happy meal?

How we treat Holy Communion reflects our theology of Christ
By Douglas LeBlanc, December 09, 2008


News Item, October 21: The Diocese of Sydney's General Synod has voted again to allow laity to preside at celebrations of Holy Communion and to allow deacons (both men and women) to preside as well.

My reaction, once news of the synod's decision began circulating in U.S.--based weblogs: Wake me when the argument is over.

I have exaggerated my lack of outrage, but not outrageously. My longtime friend and colleague Terry Mattingly grew up Southern Baptist, spent more than 10 years as an Episcopalian and then became Eastern Orthodox.

He enjoys telling the story of attending Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where robed choir members processed with reverence down the center aisle and some bowed before sitting in their pews.

Terry asked about the significance of the bowing, and the answer he heard was remarkable: That's what you're supposed to do. Despite its stained-glass windows and the liturgical calendar it observed, this church had no concept of a Communion host being the body of Christ, in some form, and therefore worthy of brief reverence by choir members.

From that experience, Terry concluded that if a Southern Baptist congregation had a higher-than-average interest in liturgical symbols, its members likely had little understanding of the doctrine behind the symbols.

I wonder if, for many Episcopalians, this could be an accurate summary of what we understand about Holy Communion.

Consider how many priests now announce, week after week, that because the Holy Table belongs to God and not to anyone else, all people -- regardless of whether they are baptized -- are welcome to partake. I note only in passing the chutzpah of presuming that God's will for the Holy Table was thwarted, rather than honored, as far back as the Didache.
Read the rest here


Lay presidency is a non-starter for me. I think it shows a lack of understanding of what the Church is and what ministry is as well, but I don’t think it’s anything but an aberration born less of theology and more of a deeply born anti-intellectualism and resentment towards clergy.

Communicating the unbaptized, on the other hand, drives me nuts. I think that the writer is spot on that it is a misunderstanding of what the Eucharist is, and isn’t. It is the feast of the Church, and membership in the Church is achieved in Baptism. The normative text here is, I think, the story of Peter when he unilaterally baptized gentiles. He didn’t say “Well now the Spirit has come on you, so you’re now Christians.” Rather he baptized them (Acts 10:48). That would indicate to me a normative practice. We also place such an emphasis upon the Rite of Baptism in the Prayer Book, to then say that it isn’t all that important because you can be a member of the Eucharistic assembly with out it is a tad backwards.

And no, I don’t see the typical Evangelical slippery slope argument in here. What I do see is a legitimate criticism of two things that the author sees as connected. We have no real theology of the Church left to us if we now toss out Baptism in favor of some vague “come one come all” argument. There is a difference between saying “this is a bad idea and has implications of though and practice which are unacceptable” and the full on fallacy form of reductio ad absurdum that is the “slippery slope.” If he had gone onto say that this could lead to everybody might as well stay home on Sunday and become atheists I’d be rolling my eyes and trying to separate the issues he presents from one another. I’d say he’s being quite on target as it where for his points, with out going to far afield.

Tip of the hat to the Rev. Mthr. Kaeton.

THE DUMBEST GENERATION

The Kids Are Alright. But Their Parents ...By Neil HoweSunday, December 7, 2008; Page B01
It is the prerogative of every generation of graybeards to look down the age ladder and accuse today's young of sloth, greed, selfishness -- and stupidity. We hear daily jeremiads from baby boomers who wonder how kids who'd rather listen to Linkin Park and play "Grand Theft Auto III" than solve equations or read books can possibly grow up to become leaders of the world's superpower. The recent publication of "The Dumbest Generation" by Mark Bauerlein of Emory University epitomizes the genre. His subtitle -- "How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future" -- says it all.
Generational putdowns, Bauerlein's included, are typically long on attitude and short on facts. But the underlying question is worth pursuing: If the data are objectively assessed, which age-slice of today's working-age adults really does deserve to be called the dumbest generation?
The answer may surprise you. No, it's not today's college-age kids, nor even today's family-starting 30-somethings. And no, it's not the 60-year-olds who once grooved at Woodstock. Instead, it's Americans in their 40s, especially their late 40s -- those born from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. They straddle the boundary line between last-wave boomers and first-wave Generation Xers. The political consultant Jonathan Pontell labels them "Generation Jones.
Read the rest here.

I note that the writer, who is I think a Boomer, places these guys as "early Xers" so as to distance his own generation from his and cast a shadow on mine.

Typical

No Bethlehem wine for Christmas

Churches in the Holy Land and in Europe are facing a Christmas without their preferred Cremisan altar wine because Israeli soldiers are refusing to allow trucks transporting the wine from Bethlehem to enter Israel.
Middle East Online reports the wine is made by the Salesians of Don Bosco, at the Cremisan winery in Beit Jala, a suburb of Bethlehem.
The Salesians have been producing the wine for the past 125 years as a direct means of support for their pastoral and educational work among the poor of Bethlehem and to provide a livelihood for many local Palestinian families.
Now, for the first time in more than 100 years, the churches and religious establishments in Jerusalem, Nazareth and other parts of Israel are being deprived of Cremisan wine, Middle East Online says.
Christian hotels and pilgrim houses in Israel are now being forced to buy Israeli wine. Because wines for export are shipped through the Israeli port of Haifa, no export to the UK and Europe has been possible for several months. Read the rest here.

Hat tip to The Mad One.

Thank you all for your emails and comments here and on other blogs.

Today went well, a lot of people came from all over the area and beyond in horrid weather to pay their respects to my Grandfather. College roommates of my Mother, friends of her and my Uncle traveled several hours to be there. People came from all over the community to tell us how special he was to them.

He never met a stranger, welcomed all at his door and loved freely. He was a spare father and extra grandfather to many people, as well as confidant and friend to many more. One man said that he always knew that he had a home at the Leasure's. My Grandmother quipped that he could have the floor in her room at the nursing home if he ever got that desperate.

He was a man of deep and quiet faith. He loved How Great Thou Art, and Rock of Ages since they reflected his personal theology the best. He was raised a Methodist, he was quick to point out that he was never an EUB. He became a Presbyterian for my Grandmother and served as an Elder for decades. I was told today he was involved in the ordination of over one thousand people of at least 4 denominations. When controversy rocked the local Presbyterians, he drank out of a common cup with an African American woman who he later helped ordain to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. He had but one quibble with the RSV. His favorite passage was altered from "Many Mansions" to "Many Rooms." He had been in rooms alot. He wanted a Mansion in Heaven. I'm sure arrangments have been made.

She later told me that she figures that she and my Grandfather had been together for 68 years, 63 of those as man and wife.

Thank you for your prayers.

Some of my down right sharpness of late is due to the illness of my Grandfather.
He passed into larger life on Monday evening and I would ask, in your charity, that you pray for the repose of his soul. My Family also stands in the need of prayer as we begin that strange ritual called "visitation" tomorrow.
His funeral is on Monday, and we could use with prayers then as well.

And Another Thing

Those of you who think that all is well for the neo-Donatist Arminian schismatics this little post from Katie Sherrod's blog should cause some pause.

It seems that those who wish to stay loyal to TEC are the only parishes who show real growth.