NT Wright on TEC General Convention

The following is part of a statement by the Anglican Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church's decision this week paving the way for more actively-practicing gay bishops and priests and deacons, over the explicit objections of the Anglican Communion and against the urging of the Archbishop of Canterbury who himself addressed the convention before the vote was taken asking them to show restraint. They did not:

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.
Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

Of course, the question is what will happen next. The campus ministry I serve, for example, is a shared ministry with the diocese of Western Louisiana, a relatively moderate-to-conservative diocese whose bishop was at GAFCON. Will groups like this try to sign onto the Windsor Covenant even if their denomination does not? Will they join ACNA? Will they seek some sort of 'alternative oversight' while staying in the Episcopal Church? I don't know, but they are in my prayers.

Bishop Whitaker: Let us pray - with the Church

Here is an excellent post from Bishop Whitaker urging United Methodist pastors to use the Church's prayer of Great Thanksgiving when celebrating the sacrament of Holy Communion. The sacrament is a focal point of our worship, especially in the Wesleyan tradition as the bishop points out (sadly many of our churches seem ignorant of this, judging by their practice), and how we celebrate this sacrament is highly important:

In some congregations, it has become the custom of the pastor to offer his or her own prayer as a substitute for the Church's prayer. Sometimes the pastor includes the words of institution, and sometimes the pastor does not include these words. While it is essential to include the words of our Lord which were spoken at the Last Supper when he instituted the Lord's Supper, even this is not adequate.

The prayer of the Church should be used when celebrating the Eucharist because it is the prayer of the whole Church and not that of just the congregation or the pastor. It contains the whole drama of God's salvation from creation to the new creation. It is ordered around the Rule of Faith, namely the worship of one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

He goes on to address other reasons for using the church's official liturgy and encouraging pastors to do so.

Some of the comments are illuminating as well. One comment notes the fact that some clergy who do indeed use the official liturgy do so in a hurried and thoughtless way that detracts from the sacramental moment rather than undergirding it. I have long maintained that a scripted prayer can be (and must be) read with real sincerity and conviction - but this is by no means automatic. The clergy must prepare themselves spiritually and indeed be mindful of exactly what it is they are doing in the moment of prayer itself. However, one advantage of using the church's liturgy over a sponteneous prayer is that it will be as theologically sound and as deeply true whether or not the pastor is spiritually prepared or actively mindful of the holy moment.

For those who are interested in going further, here is a relatively short article about the evolution of the liturgy in the United Methodist Church, from the Ancient Church, through the Medival and Anglican/Reformation periods, down to the present.

Happy America Day!

Maybe today would be a nice time to re-read (some of) our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, and consider seriously its implications:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government...

"It may seem something less than a compliment to compare the American Constitution to the Spanish Inquisition. But oddly enough, it does involve a truth; and still more oddly perhaps, it does involve a compliment. The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just. It certainly does condemn anarchism, and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived. Nobody expects a modern political system to proceed logically in the application of such dogmas, and in the matter of God and Government it is naturally God whose claim is taken more lightly. The point is that there is a creed, if not about divine, at least about human things."

-G.K.Chesterton,"What I Saw in America"

It seems to me undeniable to the rational observer that G. K. Chesterton is quite correct. The system of government that we have is built upon certain philosophical or ideological (even 'religious') presuppositions. Those suppositions are clearly and plainly articulated by Mr. Jefferson and endorsed by all the signing Founding Fathers. That they are denied today as a matter of course in much of the intellectual and cultural elite may say something about the philosophical incoherence of our contemporary cultural and political situation.

There can, according to the Declaration of July 4 1776, be no 'human rights' without the Creator God to serve as their source. It is for this reason that I believe rational coherency demands that our public institutions remain nominally theistic/deistic in character (that is not necessarily to say "Christian" in character). But then, rational coherency is not so highly valued in a society that is perhaps more swayed by slogans oft-repeated than by clear reason.

Good and Evil

I found this quote over at the Eastern Orthodox blog, Glory to God for all Things, (whose author was formerly a contributor of 'Pontifications'). I don't know the source, though it sounds very Lewis-esque to me...

Good and Evil
I think evil is always small, and that good is infinite. Evil closes itself to God and thus becomes even smaller; Good opens itself to God and thus becomes infinite. Evil cannot become so large as to fill even the universe. God became so small that He could fill Hell and then burst it asunder because it could not contain Him. Every good deed will have eternal remembrance, but even the largest deeds of the evil will be forgotten.

Culture clash in France?

The other day I saw this interesting news story: French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in an exceedingly rare presidential address to parliament, said that the Muslim 'burqa' - a full body gown would not be welcome anywhere in France as it is, he said, a sign of "debasement of women."

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

This story is very interesting to me because it illustrates, I believe, the very real cultural clash that exists between modern Western liberalism and more traditional cultures in several ways.
First note that Sarkozy has declared that the garment, though exclusively associated with Islam, is not a religious sign; I wonder though, if conservative Muslims would agree? Certainly it has associations with their traditional gender mores, if not a vital part of Islam itself. In any case, how is it that president Sarkozy has made this determination?

Secondly this is interesting to me because it is the very same ideology that claims to embrace "pluralism" and "inclusivism" that is now (ironically) selectively banning certain traditional clothing choices in the name of liberty and equality. Surely there is something self-contradictory here (perhaps even something self-destructive) in the way that our liberal Western ideology plays out?

Now I don't doubt that at least some traditional Arab - and indeed Islamic - gender mores do indeed involve the abasement of women. But is it the place of Western cultures that praise multiculturalism to dictate the cultural expressions of those of other cultures who live within our boarders?

I certainly would not be in favor of allowing immoral practices to go on in my state or country just because they express the culture of a sub-group in our midst (and indeed it is because of my own religious convictions and social upbringing that I would not). And yet the dilemma is there: what of all that "inclusivism"? Is it just so much talk? Perhaps so - and if so, maybe we should just be a bit more honest with immigrants - in our Western countries it really is our way or the highway.

I personally believe, that in an increasingly complex world, governmental leadership must be wise, and seek after balance and compromise. I also believe that this can be done with greater fairness and sensitivity if these sorts of issues are decided on the local level for the local context.

What do you guys think?
(note: the picture above was taken a while back in England - the sign reads "Stop France from outlawing Islam")

New Wheaton Program on Patristics

Interest in the Early Church Fathers and the practices of the ancient undivided church has been steadily growing for years among Evangelicals and other Protestants thanks to the work of such figures as Rob Webber, Thomas Oden, and others.

Now, thanks to generous donors, Wheaton College, one of the best respected and most intellectually substantial Evangelical colleges in the US, has launched a Center for Early Christian Studies, dedicated to encouraging interaction between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox regarding the common heritage of all Christians in the fathers of the undivided Church of the first millenium. This is exciting stuff to me - hopefully it is a step in the direction of greater acknowledgment of our common ancient and ecumenical faith AND a move toward a deeper and more permanent appreciation of the Fathers among Protestants.

Archbishop's Reflections on Easter

Rowan Williams, with that wizard-like presence that makes you want to believe him, presents a very simple message of Easter. Through the videos we get snippets of the worship and liturgical life of Christians in the Anglican tradition, a tradition to which we United Methodists are also heirs (though sometimes we forget it).

We also see shots, just across the river from the Archbishop's Lambeth Palace, of the halls of power at Westminster, and we are left with the tension and the hope that comes in setting the Easter story, with all its promise of New Creation, next to the hard, and often depressing, political realities of our time.

Unrelated stories of interest

1) First, here is a fascinating New York Times piece that tracks the "paradox" of declining female happiness.

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and
sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.
But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness.

Looking at the state of sexuality and gender in our society, I am inclined to believe that we have missed something here. No doubt that much has happened in our culture around gender and family in the last century, both positive and negative developments. It may be that in the name of egalitarianism we have forgotten to celebrate womanhood and manhood, motherhood and fatherhood as such. It may be that we have let a commitment to individualism erode our commitments to family and community. I don't know, but I hope they do more research here.

2) Second: Australia's last World War 1 vet dies at 110. I am surprised to hear that there are in fact a handful of such veterans of 'the Great War' still alive. I must admit a fascination with World War 1 as it was one of the stupidest, darkest and most avoidable tragedies in human history, one that helped accelerate the demise of traditional Western Society and led directly the many horrors of the 20th century.

3) Third: A new study says television makes our infants dumber. I always knew it!

The United Methodist Map

This map is a little bit old (through 2007) now, but still very cool. This is where the United Methodists are. In most of the other countries - especially in the Western Hemisphere, in Europe, Austrailia & Indonesia and India & its neighbors - there are autonomous Methodist Churches that are in full communion with the United Methodist Church, yet not a part of our structure (yet).

Consumerist Economy or Kingdom of Life?

A couple weeks ago, I was sent this outstanding article about Mr. Obama's recent speech at Georgetown University addressing issues of the economy. Below are several quotations that convey much of the meat of the argument. I believe that this author (a professor at Georgetown) has "hit the nail on the head" in his analysis of our collective problems in the US.

Yesterday our President spoke at length about the economy at the school at which I teach, Georgetown University. A nominally Catholic University, it might rightly have been the place where a new vision for a humane economy might have been advanced. It might have been a stage on which the great teachings of the Catholic tradition about an economy that is subordinate to concerns about commonweal based upon a true understanding of human nature and natural limits might have been advanced - rather than a stage on which the symbols of Jesus Christ were obscured so not to disturb the viewing audience from any inconvenient symbol of the actual Messiah.

Widely touted as an opportunity for the President to lay out a new vision for the economic future of the nation, instead it was a commitment to do more of the same, albeit with more centralized control and command, with an aim to “restoring” an economy whose sole purpose is to generate a wasteland of consumerism, debt-driven distraction, endless hedonic opportunities and the destruction of human communities everywhere in the name of efficiency, meritocracy and opportunity...

...We have replaced an actual economy with this “bubble” economy because of a deep, pervasive, and wholly unjustified expectation that we deserved to live as well or better than that “greatest generation” who happened to live in a time of extraordinary and exceptional (and temporary) national wealth. In that decade or two after World War II, America attained a remarkable position in the world, with its industrial machinery wholly intact and ready to roll, a national and worldwide market poised to buy American goods, and a resource base that appeared to be limitless...

...And so, we are told, our current economic crisis is due to a few bad loans made by a few bad eggs who work on Wall Street. What is neglected in this explanation is a broader and deeper perspective: our current crisis is due to the fact that we have, as a civilization, refused to live within our means - and the means afforded us by the natural world - over roughly the past 50 years. Mistaking a temporary glut of post-war wealth and resource plenty as a permanent condition, we are told by our leaders - indeed, we demand of them that they tell us - that we can continue to have it all, costless plenitude. Yet these past thirty-odd years of our “economy” have been one in which we have maintained our wealth simultaneously by transferring the accumulated national wealth abroad, importing oil and debt, while refusing to face the mounting costs of this exercise...

Might there be an alternative to continuing the cycle of greed, self-indulgence and dissatisfaction? Pray God that they Church may cry aloud: "Yes! the very symbols of the Cross and IHS (that were concealed while the President spoke), they point us toward a more excellent way!"

It wasn't just corporate greed that got us here. It was just plain greed. One of the seven deadly sins according to the Christian tradition...but then traditional religion is just some pre-modern backward way of thinking with no relevance to the real world...or so we thought.
Yes, our collective greed has led to this crisis. We, 'the People', are responsible: we have been living above our means for years, and we have been listening to one commercial after another that tells us that it is somehow our 'right' to do so. Maybe we should critically re-examine the meaning and use of that word.

So given that our debts are totally out of control already, I wonder if "getting the banks lending again" is just what we really need? I mean is taking on even more debt going to help us get out of this crisis?

Maybe we should try something else: Joy

I believe we Christians are called in these circumstances to a renewed commitment to simple living, and to finding and sharing deep joy and freedom - not from stuff - but in prayer and communion with the living God and his people.

Angels and Demons: Review

Last night I saw the new Dan Brown movie, Angels and Demons, and I wanted to share just a couple thoughts with anyone who might be thinking of seeing it.

First off, I must say that this movie is about 6000 times better than The DaVinci Code movie. Now perhaps if I had read the book first (as I foolishly did for DaVinci) I might think differently, but this time I just enjoyed the movie. It is a good deal different than that other book/movie. First of all, the plot is not premised upon ideas that are an offense to the orthodox Christian faith (i.e. we must worship a goddess along with God, Jesus was married and his bloodline is still around, the Bible and orthodoxy were invented by the Emperor Constantine, etc.). Secondly, the movie is actually exciting.

The basic premise: someone - apparently an anti-Vatican secret society called the Illuminati, has stolen an anti-matter device and threatens to blow up the Vatican (think James Bond) only days after the pope suddenly and mysteriously died. Even as the Cardinals gather for conclave, several of the frontrunners for the papal job are kidnapped and will be put to death each hour by the mysterious Illuminati at hidden locations in Rome.

Fortunately, the famous symbolologist Professor Langdon is in town and he thinks he can find the hidden "churches" of the Illuminati in Rome. So he starts digging through the archives of the Vatican to find clues in manuscripts, art, and architecture that lead him from one secret Illuminati church to the next (think: National Treasure) in hopes of arriving in time to save the missing Cardinals from horrible deaths and the Vatican itself from being vaporised by the explosion of the anti-matter device!
There are some cool plot-twists (and some annoying plot holes) in this thriller in which you never really know whom you can trust (besides Tom Hanks, of course) - and just when you think you know who the good and the bad and the ugly are, the plot twists everything around.

How is it's portrayal of Christianity? Basically neutral, though there is a lot that could be construed as a negative assessment of Roman Catholicism in particular (political maneuvering among church prelates, embarrasing historical incidents are presented in simplistic form - i.e. Galileo). And the bad guy turns out to be a Catholic religious fanatic (go figure) - perhaps contributing to a general inarticulate distrust of "religion" in our culture. On the other hand, there are some positive clerical characters and some profoundly true and wise statements uttered from the mouths of clergymen (although some of them are called into question when we learn who the 'heavy' is).

The movie takes an admirable stab at presenting the message "faith and science do not have to be enemies, they can work together," but sadly does little more than make the assertion a couple times, rather than exploring what that might mean even a little bit (though that might be too much to expect from a movie). At any rate, it is an enjoyable movie that could function as a conversation starter on some of these issues.

Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy

Here is a fabulous article by Randy Maddox tracing the similarities between much of Wesley's theology and that of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It goes through a brief sketch of a Wesleyan systematic theology - highlighting similiarities and differences on such issues as Trinity, Human Nature/the Fall, Grace and Cooperation, Christology, the nature of Salvation, and the role of the Spirit and the Sacraments.

As you will see below, the article argues that Wesley is simply a very earnest Anglican theologian in his approach, and it is precisely this typically Anglican approach that has led him to be more influenced by the Early Greek Fathers than is common in much of the Western Tradition (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology), even among Anglicans he stands out in this respect.

One part of the essay that was especially intriguing was the suggestion that Wesley's views on grace and freewill may have as much - or more - to do with Greek theologians than they have to do with Jacob Arminius. I long ago ceased calling myself an "Arminian" on this question because it seemed to me that the views I held were much more ancient than that.

It has been said that, at its best, Methodist theology represents a 'centrist' or 'bridge' position within Christian thought, and this gathering together of various elements of the whole Church tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Charismatic and Evangelical) has always been a big part of my attraction to Anglicanism in general and Wesleyanism in particular.

There is always the temptation to pick one element to emphasize at the expense of the others, and so, it is helpful to read essays like this one to remind us of the wonderful gift Wesleyans have to offer to the church (especially to ecumenical conversations) and the world. Below is included the introductory section of Maddox's essay:


Asbury Theological Journal 45.2 (1990): 29–53

JOHN WESLEY AND EASTERN ORTHODOXY:
Influences, Convergences, and Differences
For: Albert C. Outler

Randy L. Maddox

John Wesley’s overall theological orientation has proven to be surprisingly hard to classify. The debate about his “place” in the Christian tradition began during his lifetime and has continued through the whole of Wesley scholarship.

Given his Western Christian location, this debate has generally focused on whether Wesley is more “Protestant” or more “Catholic.” Early studies generally assumed that he was Protestant,but differed over which branch of Protestantism he more nearly resembled or depended upon. Some argued strongly that he was best construed in terms of the Lutheran tradition. Others advocated a more Reformed Wesley. Most assumed that such general designations must be further refined. Thus, there were readings of Wesley in terms of Lutheran Pietism or Moravianism, English (Reformed) Puritanism, and the Arminian revision of the Reformed tradition.

Dominantly Protestant readings of Wesley proved to be inadequate. There were clearly typical “catholic” themes in his thought and practice as well. Indeed, there have been several appreciative readings of Wesley from the Roman Catholic tradition. These counter-readings of Wesley have increasingly led Wesley scholars to speak of a Protestant/Catholic synthesis in Wesley’s theology.

Such a Protestant/Catholic synthesis should have been expected, given Wesley’s Anglican affiliation and training—and Anglicanism’s self-professed goal of being a Via Media. Indeed, some recent Wesley interpreters argue that he was simply an “Anglican theologian in ernest.” This reading of Wesley would seem to be the most adequate so far.

At the same time, the unique nature of Anglicanism has suggested a related reading of Wesley that deserves more consideration. Early Anglican theologians did not mediate directly between contemporary Protestantism and Catholicism. Rather, they called for a recovery of thefaith and practice of the first four centuries of the Christian church. Since this early tradition antedated the later divisions, they believed its recovery would provide a more authentic mediating position. In the process of this project they reintroduced an awareness of many early theologians—particularly Greek writers—who had been lost from Western Christian consciousness.

Even a cursory reading of Wesley shows that these recovered early Greek theological voices were important to him. This influence is particularly evident in some of those convictions that have been at the heart of the debate over his distinctive “place”. Since these early Greek theologians remain normative for the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the possibility that Wesley should be read in terms of this tradition, or as a bridge between Eastern and Western Christianityhas begun to receive scattered attention. The goal of this essay is to collect and summarize the suggestions of those contributing to this investigation; thereby, increasing general awareness of this perspective on Wesley’s theology...

Click here for the whole essay.

New Anglican Province (ACNA) update

The emerging body, The Anglican Church in North America, has recently announced that 28 dioceses and dioceses-in-formation will comprise the new church when it meets to ratify its canons and constitution next month (June 22-25) in Bedford, TX.

Numerous ecumenical guests will be on hand including prominent evangelical pastor Rick Warren, and Metropolitan Jonah, the Archbishop of Washington and New York and the Metropolitan of All America and Canada for the Orthodox Church in America who will both address the conference. CLICK here for more

Also, the newly formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has recently been recognized by the Anglican Province of Nigeria, which has declared itself to be in full communion with ACNA, as the latter is deemed to be a legitimate Anglican Province. Go here for more. Nigeria represents about a quarter of the world's Anglicans, so this move is pretty significant.

Study: Unchurched prefer traditional church buildings

Here is something to keep in mind next time your church wants to build a new facility: according to a study conducted by Lifeway Research, unchurched people prefer traditional-looking church architecture to the more modern "mall" look that has been adopted by many evangelical or "seeker sensitive" churches.

Unchurched/non-Christian subjects of the study were asked to rate the appeal of several churches. They preferred the most traditional, a gothic, "cathedral-style", church to several other designs, some quite 'contemporary,' by an almost 2-1 margin. Among younger non-churched people (age 25-34) the percentage who percieved the gothic church favorably was even higher.

The findings surprised the researchers at Lifeway, but come as no particular surprise to me as someone in that young/postmodern generation. A friend of mine (also in his mid-20s) once commented (while pointing out the new building of the First Baptist Church in New Orleans) that he wished more congregations would build church buildings instead of "factories." I heartily agreed, and it seems we are typical of our generation. One respondent in the study said that the highly contemporary church architecture "seemed cold."

The popularity of the traditional/gothic building among younger unchurched people was related to a broader cultural trend I have been trying to point out on this blog: many younger people (including younger evangelicals) are looking for more of a sense of historical connectedness and transcendance in their religious experience (see here, or here, here, or here). I suspect the fact that postmoderns/millenials are very symbol and icon savvy is connected with this shift as well.

Of course, (as many congregations can testify) it takes much more than pretty buildings to reach people for Christ, yet I do believe that this desire for "mystery and history" - often expressed in symbol or art - is one of the reasons that, while Evangelical Churches have largely plateaued and "Mainline" Protestant Churches continue to decline in the US, Eastern Orthodoxy has continued to gain converts (in addition to immigration-based growth) and grow.

So I end this with an appeal to my United Methodist brethren: please do not follow the non-denominational model of making our churches feel as much like coffee shops and malls (those great temples to consumerism) as possible.
May your churches to look and feel like sacred spaces - churches set apart for common prayer and worship.
May you use the liturgy of the Church (as This Holy Mystery urges us to do as we also move to weekly Sunday eucharist) and let us draw people into the Mystery of communion with God even as we celebrate the many historical elements we already possess: the venerable liturgy, the ancient creeds, the classical vestments and other visual arts, the holy sacraments, and all of our continuity with ancient, catholic, ecumenical Christianity. How we present and celebrate our faith is as much a part of our message as the words we say.

Here is a similar rambling of mine...

Economy and Humanities

In the last days of April, the leadership of The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, the university at which I serve as a campus minister, decided to discontinue our Philosophy major in an attempt to save money in response to state-wide budget cuts in higher education. Current majors will be allowed to finish their degrees, but no new majors will be accepted into the program and so the number of classes will be reduced each semester.

C. John Sommervile, in his remarkable book, The Decline of the Secular University, laments that Universities, having lost their original purposes precisely owing to their secularization, are becoming little more than "credential factories" - no longer dedicated to seeking knowledge and truth for the good of the human person and community, but rather selling training and credentials for the career advancement of aspiring professionals (here is my more extended discussion of Sommerville's book).

The ULL decision seems to bear this out since Philosophy is seen as a more expendable field than say Business or Accounting: both of which can teach us how to best make and keep money, but not what we ought to use money for in the first place. They do not address the relationship between "the economy" and "The Good." They will not ask the probing questions about what is truly good for human individuals and communities, nor explore how blind allegiance to "the economy" can create a spiritual wasteland of empty consumerism and perpetually dissatisfied people looking for "the next thing". It strikes me as a bitter irony that the modern university, which grew out of the Ancient schools of Philosophy and the Medieval schools of Theology, cuts off its very root in the quest for economic survival. These are precisely the times when good philosophy and theology is so critical to our culture.

But the Humanities have managed to stick around this long and there is good reason to have hope for the future. After all, students will, even in the face of endless distraction by the electronic trivialities of postmodern life, continue to ask the "big questions" about Truth, Beauty, Meaning, and the Good. The impulse to ask is too deeply etched in our souls; as the Book of Ecclesiastes says: "God has put eternity on the hearts of men." In that spirit of hope, enjoy this fictional and satirical report examining the survival of Humanities education from 2009-2020, following the economic downturn.

Young people and Liturgy

Here is an interesting commentary from a worship leader that I hope will get some people thinking in new ways.

Some years ago he noticed that many young people in his contemporary mega-church seemed less engaged with the worship than their Baby Boomer parents. They were more interested in ancient practices and liturgy. Hopefully the desire to reconnect with the ancient practices of the Church and her liturgy among today's youth is beginning to be heard and understood by Church leaders (by and large this does not seem to be the case in my own Annual Conference, but we'll see).

At the same time, he discovered youth who were raised all their lives in liturgical churches often welcome new contemporary songs and music styles. The challenge is to integrate both the ancient and the contemporary.

Christos Anesti!

The Lord is Risen Indeed! Alleluia!

Almighty God,
through Jesus Christ you overcame death
and opened to us the gate of everlasting life.
Grant that we, who celebrate the day of our Lord's Resurrection,
may, by the renewing of your Spirit
arise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

United Methodist Hymnal #320

Good Friday

Almighty God,

graciously behold this your family,

for whom our Lord Jesus Christ was willing

to be betrayed into the hands of sinners,

and to suffer death upon the cross;

who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

One God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

United Methodist Hymnal #284; from The Book of Common Prayer (1979) page 221

Holy (Maundy) Thursday

Gracious God,

your Annointed One, on the night before he suffered,

instituted the sacrament of his body and blood.

Mercifully grant that we may recieve it thankfully

in remembrance of Jesus Christ our Lord,

who in these holy mysteries

gives us a pledge of eternal life.

Amen.

United Methodist Hymnal #283; from The Book of Common Prayer 221

De-baptism?

I ran across this about three weeks ago, but obviously haven't had much time for blogging. A number of atheist and secularist Britons are asking the Church of England to "cancel" their baptisms. Like many of their generation they were, as a matter of course, brought to the Church as infants and baptized, but many fell away or rejected the Christian faith as youth or adults and now they want their baptisms to be "revoked" as it were.

The Church of England has refused to make any such accomodations. Baptism is a matter of historical record, they argue, and that it did in fact take place cannot be changed.

The National Secular Society of England, in response to the Church's refusal, has begun issuing its own Certificates of De-baptism (click here for the story and here for the video).

All of this is very interesting to me and raises a number of questions. One mentioned in the article is: If atheists don't believe in any of this "superstitious" Christian stuff, why do they care one way or the other whether they were baptized as infants or not? That is a very interesting question that might connect to the deep spiritual substance of the baptismal event - maybe it is harder to "shake off" than we might suppose? Of course that brings up all sorts of issues about what is it that goes on in infant baptism (and what does not).

Concerning Baptism from a Methodist perspective, John Wesley (himself and Anglican priest of course) is a little hazy on this - in some places suggesting that new birth occurs in infant baptism and in other places he is clearly stating that new birth was a (potentially) seperate event tied rather to faith in the individual. If we (as Methodist theology does) see the sacrament as a covenant oath - an exchange of vows between God and the person baptized (always in connection with the covenant community) - then infant baptism is God speaking his side of the covenant oath and the community speaking its part, while the individual's own covenant commitment must wait until they are old enough to accept (or reject) Christ's salvation. That is to say - they have been claimed by God in baptism, now the question becomes will they actively accept and live into that divine claim on their lives, or will they not. One must be born again by water AND by Spirit, says St. John (John 3:3-5), and they Holy Spirit, while he blows where he wills, is generally held (especially in Galatians 3) to come upon those who believe. Thus, I cannot see how new birth - though perhaps begun in infant baptism - can possibly be said to have already (and completely) occurred until the individual has made a personal commitment of faith to Christ (that is, affirmed the baptismal vows for himself; see The United Methodist Hymnal, page 34).

I suspect some of my Methodist brethren may object to that (admittedly brief) desription of a baptismal theology, and this is I think why we must further clarify our teachings on this. By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist understanding of Baptism seemed to me to fail to clarify some of the key issues (especially as it relates to New Birth).

Getting back to the issue of de-baptism, another question is about the popularity of the de-baptismal certificates - over 60,000 have been downloaded - by what authority can the National Secular Society revoke a sacramental action performed by the Church and the Holy Spirit? The Church spokesmen quoted in the article says that if someone wants to renounce his baptism, that is an issue between him and God. Maybe the NSS is simply trying to give individuals a way to do so (rather then claiming any authority).

A final observation is that the quotations in the article suggest that the atheists/secularists make certain assumptions about the Church of England that I suspect may be (at least partly) incorrect (but it would require further research for me to be sure). Is the doctrine of Original Sin the justification given for infant baptism in today's CofE (as they de-baptism certificate suggests)? Does the CofE count baptized infants as members as the de-baptism certificate suggests? The article clearly says that it does not. So there seems to be some ignorance among the secularists about the beliefs and practices of the Church that they are rejecting.

A second look: legal status of "marriage"

A few months ago I wrote this blog post exploring a new suggestion from some quarters that we, in America, should divorce (no pun intended) the language of "marriage" from our law code altogether and create some sort of generic civil union contract that would apply to any persons (regardless of their gender) who would like to enter into such an agreement. "Marriage" as a concept would be left totally to faith communities to define.

Since I have not explored this issue deeply, I did not commit myself to a position in my above-mentioned post, but I linked to an argument in favor of the proposed change.

Since this blog is dedicating to helping people (principly me) think through issues of faith and community/society, I am now linking to a post arguing against removing marriage from our legal codes. Marriage, says this article at Anglican Mainstream, is not intresically religious, it is natural - it precedes both church and state as a foundation of all human society and "disestablishing" it would be a step away from the Common Good.

He argues that this has also been the position of the Church Catholic.

Of course, the current position of The United Methodist Church is: "We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman" (Book of Discipline, 2008 - para. 161.B, page 102) but also "We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where [self-described homosexual] people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law" (Discipline - para. 162.J, page 111-112). This latter quote could, it seems to me, be read to include some kind of civil partnerships or unions, among other types of legal or business relationships, though I doubt that was the original intent that lay behind this section when it was written. In any case, the first (and more clear) statement makes it evident that the UMC's "official guidance" on the matter would support the continued legal status of "marriage" as such.

Divorce is bad...for the environment!

Studies in recent years have shed much light and the many ways that divorce is detrimental to the children of divorced families.
Their message is clear: in terms of success in school and relationships, in terms of substance abuse, legal trouble, and pre-marital sex - divorce is bad for children. It also tends to damage the economic security of women and children more than men.

Well, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times a while back, divorce is bad for the environment as well. This makes sense if we think about it. For the same number of family members there are, after a divorce, twice as many microwaves. A light uses the same amount of power whether there are 4 people or two in the room. In fact, divorced households spend 46% more per person on electricity than married households, and 56% more on water. The production of the extra electricity causes increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

I suspect that as long as the purpose of marriage is seen as providing romantic happiness, then divorce rates will remain high. We in the church should teach more clearly that God has given the gift of marriage for a whole host of reasons (stewardship of creation, procreation, an arena for learning charity, proper sexual expression, companionship, mutual physical provision, embodying Trinitarian love, etc.), many of which are actually more important than romantic happiness. If what I have seen in Romantic Comedies is indicative of our cultural attitudes, this would be a hugely counter-cultural move.

Obama overturns Bush-era stem-cell policy

As you have no doubt heard, President Barack Obama plans to reverse a ban on federal funding on stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos today (the Bush-era policy only banned funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, there are lots of other kinds).

Administration officials said this move was part of a pledge to "use sound, scientific practice and evidence, instead of dogma" in making decisions on scientific issues. But what does that mean?

The Vatican recently called research that destroys human embryos "deeply immoral" - because it destroys human life. Obama's policy will see the government (and us tax-payers by extension) support this very practice. But the question remains: are the human embryos human beings? Do they have unalienable rights? Is it intrensically immoral to destroy them? It seems to me that this question MUST be answered convincingly before funding this type of research can go forward (only if the answer is the negative of course).

So, let me put the question back to the administration: who then is being "dogmatic"? The administration is deciding - on behalf of us all - not to have a discussion about who is a human being (famously "above Mr. Obama's pay-grade," as he said at the Saddleback debate) and is just going to go ahead and begin destroying embryos as if they are not human after all. But the discussion has not occured. Who is being dogmatic?

The appeal to "scientific evidence" is no help here either. I have discussed the relationship between science and the definition of "human being" (the anthropological question) at length and hope you will consider that post carefully because (as I argue there) Scientific method, by its very nature (dealing with empirical evidence), is unable to provide a satisfactory answer to that question, "what is a human being," (which is spiritual or metaphysical by nature). And while it may sound nice, and make the campaign donors happy, for the White House to say "we are going to let sound scientific evidence guide our policies" in this case that is a non-answer. And, I suggest, an extremely dangerous leg upon which to stand (or upon which to base policy decisions) - because it assumes that scientists can answer metaphysical or moral questions that clearly fall outside the purview of empirical methodology.

Finally, it has arrived

There are two Bibles I've been eagerly awaiting that have recently been published. One is The Wesley Study Bible recenty pubished by Abingdon Press. I have been using it at work and have been thoroughly pleased with it.

The other I picked up Sunday at Books-A-Million. I was totally surprised to see it there because I had heard that the project was delayed. I guess not.

That's right, Oxford University Press has recently released the English Standard Version with the Apocrypha! Till now, those of us in ecumenical Bible study settings that include Roman Catholics (as is the case at the campus ministry I serve) had few options if we wanted a Bible that included the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books in a seperate section from the Old Testament. Since the ESV is among my favorite translations, I am glad to see that it is now one of my options.

No doubt, this new edition will also become a standard text at moderate Evangelical and Reformed seminaries as well. (Click picture for details)

Should we ban 'hate'?

For some years I've had half a mind to attempt a move to the UK or some Commonwealth country. But if I ever did, I might quickly find that I'd rather be back in the good ole' USA. Probably my main impediment, besides the weather, from moving to the UK or Canada is my discomfort with those countries' policies towards free speech.

I have been reminded about this issue because of a story I caught wind of on several news outlets about a week ago: The UK sent a Dutch poltician home to the Netherlands, who had come to the UK to screen a film he made criticizing Islam.

Britain's government sent Geert Wilders' home for his anti-Islamic views. He was, of course, dis-allowed from showing film, in fact he was presented with a letter from Britain's Home office as soon as he got off his plane, explaning that his views "threaten community security" and that he would not be allowed to express them.

In defending their action, officials of the UK government claim that while it allows freedom of speech, hate speech is not protected - just as, to use the classic example, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech in most free societies.

That sounds good. After all, hatred is a horrible corrosive thing that shouldn't be spread. And it is certainly true that when a community adopts attitudes of hate toward certain minorities, it often follows that their civil rights are curtailed - usually through informal means rather than actual laws. And we must guard against this in a free society.

But there are other things we must guard against as well.

This whole situation does not sit well with me for several reasons and I worry that some US lawmakers, most likely on our political left (now in power here in the US), will succeed in enshrining 'hate speech' bans in our own legal world.

My first problematic question: just what is "hate speech"? How can one define what is "hateful"? More to the point, who gets to define it? In our case that would probably be un-elected federal judges. Do we really want to give THAT power to them?

For that matter, what is "hate"? Is hate just a subjective emotion? How can one regulate that?

Or maybe "hate speech" is just a label that people use, when they could use some other label to describe the exact same speech. You know, "one man's hate speech is another man's criticism." How can we differentiate between hate speech and legitimate (if passionately delivered) criticism? When one is on the recieving end, it may be very hard to tell the difference, since criticism is very seldomly delivered without passion or conviction.

And isn't banning criticism one of the defining characteristics of a totalitarian state?

I submit there are two possibilities. Either we must practice censorship (that is what we are talking about) in very VERY careful ways the necessity of which can be seen by folks on all parts of the political spectrum. Or we should not regulate speech at all.

Of course this brings up the prickly question of what is speech. In our society pornorgraphy and "porno-horror" films (the sort where we watch people being tortured and slowly dismembered in graphic detail) are considered "free expression" and deemed to be protected speech. I think that their obviously corrosive influence on the human soul should cause us to at least reconsider that. So I guess I'm not an abolute Libertarian on this issue. I'm not so sure where I stand on flag burning as a form of protest either.

But what of the most basic meaning of "speech", that is, verbal sentences coming out of someone's mouth (or written sentences coming out of their fingers)?

I believe with regard to this basic sense of speech - verbal and written speech - all free societies should allow a free exchange of ideas and debate rather than picking which ones to ban (obviously this would exclude explicit calls to violence and sedition and such, as it always has). Yes, this means that odious people will say and write odious things. But it also means that thoughtful people can respond with thoughtful things. It lets ideas compete on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas. The truth is that on the internet it is going to happen anyway.

This seems to me to be better than the government coming in and closing down the open debate process by choosing some ideas to validate and others to ban. That potentiality is extremely discomforting to me, since the government may not get it right.

Consider Geert Wilders. The man probably does harbor "hate" for Muslims and Islam. But that does not mean he may not also have some good points to contribute to an open debate. He has criticized Islam as inherently violent. That is offensive to many, but considering the number of death threats he has recieved, it is at least a potentially valid point that deserves a full out debate that considers the definition and content of "Islam" and all of the historical evidence. If such a debate were to happen we might discover things are not so simple as saying "Islam is _____." We might have to say more nuanced things like "most Muslims believe ______, but many believe ______." We might all learn something.

Perhaps most disturbing in all this is why that particular debate is not being allowed to occur. The British government has said that Mr. Wilders' views "threaten community security." I wonder if that is not a back-handed way of saying that "angry British Muslims threaten community security" since, presumably, they would be the source of a violent protest reaction?

Now it may simply be the case that the Government has an overly negative view of some of its citizens and doubts their ability to recieve criticism in a mature way. This might reinforce my contention that the Government is not wise enough to regulate speech in a just manner anyway. On the other hand, the Government's may be a well-founded fear. If it is well-founded that would, ironically, at least appear to lend some measure credence to Mr. Wilders' banned views, wouldn't it?

If the Government believes it has an angry and potentially violent minority in its society, maybe banning certain forms of free speech is not the best way to address the problem? Maybe asking "why are they angry?" "why are they potentially violent?" and then seeking ways to address whatever social problems contribute to that would be better. Otherwise the Government will be walking on eggshells forever, banning more and more speeches and movies and controversial public figures that might trigger a reaction. And of course even as free speech diminishes, they will eventually miss one, some totally unexpected event will trigger the violence that is simmering under the surface - if there is any such tension to begin with - and it will all have been for naught.

All the more reason to communicate honestly, and criticize openly, whatever social issues and problems we see in our societies. We may turn out to be wrong in our criticisms, and those who know better than us will show us why.

Of course, society's committment to free speech is in the best interest of the Church. For one thing, we are already accused of being 'hateful' from several quarters. For example even reading parts of the Bible, or indeed church law, that condemn certain lifestyle choices (homosexual practice, divorce, fornication, etc.) might be considered "hate speech" and banned or restricted. During the hoopla surrounding the theatrical release of The Passion of the Christ I heard a Rabbi on the radio saying that the four Canonical Gospels were simply inherently Anti-Semitic, no matter how they were presented (this brings me back to my question about who gets to define what is and isn't "hate speech"). And of course the Church believes it has a "prophetic role" in announcing God's condemnation of certain social evils. No doubt such criticism could be construed as "anti-American" (read: hate??) speech by somebody.

I believe if ideas are allowed to compete honestly and openly, the Truth will be found out; because he is Lord of the Universe and wants to be known by men. He is working in and through our clumsy, even ugly, debates to call all people to himself. So I don't think that the expression (written or spoken expression) of ideas should be banned (as I said above, this does not mean that I am currently in favor of ALL forms of expression being protected...I'll have to think more on that one).

So that's where my thinking is at the moment on this issue of free speech and hate speech censorship. But I have reconsidered this very important issue several times - and leaned in different directions - and it is a very difficult one for me. What do you guys think about it?