11/30/06

Patriarchs meet and pray together

Pope Benedict XVI met today with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's 250 or 300 million Orthodox Christians. They prayed together at the Church of St. George at the Patriarch's headquarters in Istanbul ("Constantinople" before it was conquered and renamed by invading Muslim armies - one of the centers of Christianity in the ancient and medieval world). The Pope as Patriarch of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople represent two of the 5 Ancient Patriarchs who were the most influencial leaders in the Ancient Conciliar Church.

The Orthodox Patriarch has direct jurisdiction over a few dioceses, but his leadership of Orthodox Christians is analogous to the Archbishop of Canterbury's leadership of the Anglican Communion: he is the first among equals of the major bishops, is a sign of unity among the Orthodox, and is looked to for spiritual and moral leadership rather than institutional control.
Christian unity, especially full unity with the Orthodox is a major goal of Benedict's Papacy. The pope called Christian dividedness a "scandal." For more click here; or here.

Since the Bible teaches that only in her unity will the Church truly reflect the love of the persons of the Trinity (in John 17:20-23) and only in unity will the church grow into the full stature of Christ (Eph. 4:1-16), and since common sense teaches that our dis-unity is a major reason that people doubt our message or that people use it as an excuse not to commit to discipleship within any church ("Which one is the right one?"), and since disunity is entirely inimical to the fundamental Christian virtues (self-giving/self-sacrificial love and faith/trust) thus making a sham out of our faith and our claim to be filled with the Spirit of Love, and for many other reasons besides, I think Christian unity is an EXTREMELY important goal for us to pursue. When I say unity I mean full organic unity of some kind. I would expect some kind of "Full Communion of Communions" similiar to a larger version of Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

It seems pretty clear that the Pope's role in a reunited Church will have to be more like that of the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Archbishop of Canterbury, though he would no doubt maintain direct jurisdiction over the churches that are already under his jurisdiction. I think many of us Protestants can accept that sort of role for the pope since, let's face it, he is ALREADY the most influencial Christian leader and bishop and pastor in the world anyhow, and people who are not under his jurisdiction (including many Protestants) already look to him as a sort of Christian spokesman in the face of militant secularism and militant Islam. The Papal Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" has already suggested that the Vatican might be willing to discuss new understandings of papal authority for unity's sake.

Labels: , , ,

11/27/06

Clerical Celibacy?

A few weeks ago, I was in the "Religion" section at Barnes and Noble. This is not an unusual occurance, but something unique did happen this time. I overheard a conversation between two college-aged women standing near me about the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I was eventually invited into the conversation, and after explaining my own views one of the young ladies, looking somewhat perplexed, asked me why I am not Roman Catholic and suggested that I sounded like I might be on my way to becoming one. I responded that in fact, I AM already catholic - just not Roman Catholic. Like any good evangelical Catholic (whom I always count it a pleasure to bump into) she was undetered and asked why then I am not Roman Catholic. Clarifying this question for myself and others is the whole reason for my blogs that will be tagged at the bottom with the "reformed Catholicity" category tags. As a United Methodist, I am a catholic Christian, but not a Roman Catholic.

That day in the bookstore two reasons for not submitting to Rome immediately came to mind: 1) manditory clerical celibacy and 2) the betrayal of the Eastern Patriarchs and Eastern Churches in general by the Latin West that took the form of the pope's adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed without a full Ecumenical Council, and the gradual assertion of papal jurisdiction over the WHOLE of the Church, when clearly he was originally only the Patriarch of the Western parts of the Roman Empire, having no administrative jursidiction in the East, only moral and theological influence (as at the Council of Chalcedon). These issues that helped to differentiate and seperate East and West would pop up again in slightly different ways during the Reformation that fragmented the Western Church itself.

Asbury professor and Methodist Bible scholar Ben Witheringtom III has presented very recently a detailed exposition of 1 Corinthians 7 - a passage sometimes used to support the Roman Church's position on celibacy - and his critique has got me thinking about this issue again. He says manditory clerical celibacy is simply unbiblical - and he does so without even appealing to the more explicit passages 1 Tim. 3 (which discusses how many times a bishop or deacon can marry and how he must manage his children) or Titus 1:5-9 (which discusses the same thing in relation to bishops and elders/priests). Rather, Witherington stays close to 1 Corinthians 7 and argues convincingly that celibacy is better than marriage for those who have a spiritual gift of celibacy, not better for everyone or for all ordained clergy in the Church. This interpretation also seems consistent with the Earliest Church Fathers. Considering that marriage is a sacrament in the Roman Church, one would think that this would be obvious to them. Why would ALL of the ordained ministers be forbidden by God to access this vital means of grace - especially since most of the people they will have to minister to WILL be dealing with issues related to marriage?

What is really baffling to me is that the Roman Catholic Church's position isn't even consistent with the earliest Christian Tradition on this issue. It is quite clear that, while they hold celibacy in high regard and many of their clergy are celibate, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not share the Roman Church's "mandatory" policy. The Eastern Orthodox Churches allow married clergy because the Scripture does and also the Early Church Fathers, though some of them thought celibacy even better, allowed married clergy (see for examples Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, and even as late as the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions). In fact, even the "Eastern Rite" parts of the Roman Catholic Church (Eastern Churches that have come back into full communion with the pope and are submitted to his authority - thus "part" of Roman Catholicism) do not require clerical celibacy in the same absolute sense that the Latin-Rite bulk of Roman Catholicism requires it. Furthermore, even within the Latin/Western tradition that contains the vast majority of Roman Catholics, there are married clergy. There are Anglican-usage Churches for example, Anglican/Episcopalian Churches that have jumped denominations into Roman Catholicism, whose married priests were allowed to continue their ministry in the Roman Church.

So in light of the clear meaning of the Bible, and even of the Tradition itself, it is clear that clergy may marry. The Roman Church does allow this in principle for its Eastern-Rite and Anglican-Usage Churches but for the great majority of its priests (those of the Latin-Rite) it acts as if on principle it did NOT allow married clergy but rather, "forbids them marry." This is institutional incoherency (ironically, the very thing that an infallible pope and magisterium is supposed to preclude), and as such it has become controversial among some Catholics as well. So in the face of clergy sex scandals and the declining number of seminarians the stubborn obstinancy on this issue is only hurting the Roman Catholic Church.

Having said all of this to critique the Roman Catholic Church's position (this is one of a handful of issues on which I am most critical of the Roman Church), I must admit that I am GLAD that there are plenty of (presumably) celibate Catholic priests around. We live in a society that is sick and confused when it comes to sex. And, as in so many other ways, we American Christians (including we Evangelicals) have been formed more by the values of our society than by our Bibles. I cringe every time I hear some comment from a "Bible-believing" Evangelical to the effect of "if he isn't married [by that age], then something must be wrong with him" (usually it is a "he," though not always). We have lost the eagerness or even the willingness to affirm with Paul and with all the Early Fathers that celibacy is a gift from God. It is wonderful and beautiful and glorious spiritual gift - because all God's gifts are good and beautiful.

We Americans who live in what Lewis called a "sexually gluttonous culture" tend to think (like our sick society) that someone is not truly "fulfilled" as a human being unless they are "getting it on." I will not venture into the interesting question of what this teaching would imply about Jesus's ability to be our mediator with God. We Protestants need to take a lesson from the Catholics - celibacy is good and beautiful and stands as an ever present witness against the sexual sickness of our culture (which may be why it makes many of us so uncomfortable). How differently would we even approach the discussions about sex (quite controversial in our confused Mainline Churches) if we really had the attitude of Paul and of so many of the Early Church Fathers that celibacy was a beautiful gift to be celebrated and that celibate people should recieve special encouragement and praise (especially if they live in a society like ours) for the maintaining of that committment? What if Protestants began encouraging members to discover if they had the gift of celibacy and to take vows of celibacy if they do?

But the Roman (Latin-Rite) Catholics, on the other hand, should take a lesson from the Orthodox Churches, the Protestant Churches, and even some of their own Eastern-Rite and Anglican-usage Catholic Churches and allow that not ALL who are called to ordained ministry are also called to celibacy.

There is a meeting point between the two unBiblical extremes (Catholic "manditory celibacy" and American "celibacy is weird"): ministers may remain celibate or they may marry. Both of these should be real and live options for them and should be affirmed by the Church. In the Methodist and Anglican tradition this is clearly (and "dogmatically") established by our Articles of Religion (Methodist Article 21 in the Book of Discipline, taken almost verbatim from Anglican Article 32) which teach that ministers may marry or may remain celibate - each as they think will best facilitate their ministry and growth in holiness. It may be that very many clergy will have this gift of celibacy - I expect they will have in in higher proportion than the population in general, but it is clear that not all do. This is best in keeping with Scriptural teachings of the Apostles, the teachings of many Early Fathers, and the varied Traditions of the Universal and Ecumenical Church through all ages; this, then, is 'Catholic.'

Labels: , , ,

11/15/06

"Al-Jazeera English": coming to TV near you?

The well-know Arabic-language news programs of Al-Jazeera will now be available in English. The new English-speaking Al-Jazeera channel "hopes to steal viewers from CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. by giving the world's 1 billion English speakers news from a non-Western perspective."

Al-Jazeera has at several times been banned in 18 Western countries and its reporters are still banned in 4 Arab nations. It has been accused by the Bush administration of inciting terrorism. Al-Jazeera has been frequently accused of contributing to anit-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic attitudes in the Arab-speaking world.

My own concerns are well captured (and exaggerated) in this (politically incorrect) Mad TV skit.

Of course, the whole story does raise the issues of the amount of power weilded by mass media. Where is the line between news "from_______ perspective" and propaganda? Is there one?

It was easy to ask this question while listening to NPR in the runnup to the elections when the story every day seemed to be "we are all so excited that the Democrats are going to take back the congress!!" In not so many words. One wonders if the American people would have been as "upset about Iraq" if the news coverage had been more favorable or if the majority of reporters had been supporters of the war from the beginning. I am not saying that they should have been supportive, mind you, I am just asking you to imagine the way coverage would have been handled if they had been, and then if things like National Elections might have therefore turned out differently. Regardless of your party (or lack thereof) if the answer to that question seems to you to be "yes" then that ought to be scary. It scares me.

I also can't help but wonder what happens to the soul of a society in which all of the people are constantly exposed to 24-hour "news" networks? Could this be a major contributor to the polarization and the breakdown of bi-partisan dialogue in our country? When everything happens at the speed of a soundbite? When complex issues are dumbed down to a 30 second spot? Could real and serious dialogue possibly survive in such an environment?

Labels: ,

11/13/06

The Eucharistic Theology of Jeremy Taylor and of the Methodists

Here is an insightful examination of the eucharistic theology of Jeremy Taylor, the well-known student of Archbishop William Laud, English theologian and bishop whose writings much influenced John Wesley and many others, even beyond the Anglican Tradition. He says that at the Table "Christ comes to meet us, clothed in a mystery." During the course of the article differences between East and West and then between Luther and the rest of the West are touched upon. I was surprised to learn that Luther allowed the adoration of the consecrated host during the mass - though it is not often "reserved" for just this purpose among Lutherans as it is among Roman Catholics.

Article 18 of the Methodist "Articles of Religion" in The Book of Discipline (para. 103) affirms with the larger Anglican tradition belief in "real presence" (referencing 1 Cor. 10:16-17) when the sacrament is recieved by faith, while at the same time rejecting transubstantiation:
"...to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ..."
(this is taken verbatim from Anglican Article 28, see The Book of Common Prayer p. 873).

If transubstantiation teaches that (regardless of appearances) the elements are NO longer bread and wine, then our Tradition rejects this position (rightly, I think) since it would seem to imply some sort of ontological deception. It seems clear to me that the bread and wine remain really that, but not only that -they also take on or become bearers of or are somehow joined with something that wasn't there before: "the body and blood of Christ". I find myself regularly moving between some kind of consubstantiation (similar to Luther - which seems to me to have much affinity with the Chalcedonian Creed regarding the "hypostatic union" of the divine and human natures of Christ from the Fourfth Ecumenical Council in 451) on the one hand and, on days when I am more suspicious of the use of "substantial" language to describe the "mystery," more of a modified virtualism or receptionalism on the other hand (similar to Calvin or Wesley - I have heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church perfers language of "mystery" to that of "subtantial change" as well).

I celebrate the "real presence" of both Christ himself and the benefits of his passion in/with/through the physical elements (somehow this is connected to the created-matter-affirming incarnational workings of the God of the Bible), and I like to speak of it in terms "mystery" (with the Methodist and Eastern Orthodox liturgies). Certainly it is a blessing or even a miracle at least on par with what we find in Luke 24:13-34 - the passage that gives us the shape of our Service of Word and Table.

Our tradition's "high" eucharistic theology can be seen in the words of the epiclesis in the Great Thanksgiving in The United Methodist Hymnal (p. 10): "Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood..." This prayer seems to focus both on the elements themselves (as in trans/consubstantiation and objective real presence) as well as on the experience of the recipients (as in virtualism and receptionism) who will come in faith to recieve the sacrament. So that the words of our liturgy allow some diversity of interpretation as to just how this mystery of real presence is recieved. And, if I may make one exhortation for my fellow Methodists: following the example of the Apostolic Church, the Ancient Conciliar Church, the Protestant Reformers, and the Wesleys, it ought to be recieved every week at the least.

Labels: , ,

These are the Signs: Removing the Chapels from our Chapels

Sigh. I guess these are signs of the times, so to speak. Officials at the College of William and Mary have recently removed the cross from the ancient (by American standards) Wren chapel at the once Anglican, now "non-denominatonal" college. They cited the various "non-religious" ceremonies held in the chapel, as well as the need for being "inclusive" of other faiths.

Of course, the shape of the building, the position of the pulpit, choir stalls, and altar all have specifically Christian theological and historical significance, as does a cross. So if they really wanted the chapel to be totally "free" of all Christian symbolism (for the sake of welcoming all faiths) then they would have to remove the chapel from the chapel (and stop calling it by that name with a specifically Christian connection), and build something uglier (and no doubt much more "relevent") in its place. But then this would defeat the purpose of even having a chapel to begin with, wouldn't it? Perhaps the College will be lucky and no one will ask why they even have a chapel to begin with since this will raise the thorny question of historical and corporate identity: Who are we? What are we about? And such questions are troublesome in our glorious new age.

I have long argued that "inclusivity" as a principle has no content (the moment any distinctive content were embraced, then the opposite would naturally be excluded) and therefore if inclusivity is made the highest principle it necessarily destroys the distinctive identity (which must have some content) of the institution or people that has adopted the "inclusive" principle. Only an empty void is absolutely inclusive.

I am in favor of being welcoming or including people, but doing so on the terms of my own identity. For example, if I wanted to welcome outsiders into my house I would not therefore remove everything about my house that was distinctive to my family in order to minimize the reality that the outsider is just that - an outsider. To do so would have defeated my object since it would no longer by MY house into which he had been welcomed, but something else. This is why I cringe every time I hear mindless and uncritical espoussal of all the glories of "inclusivity" in the abstract. (This is also related to my strong dis-like of The United Methodist Church's "motto" of "Open hearts, minds, and doors" about which I will comment later).

I hope nobody thinks that I am only annoyed by the William and Mary officials (their decision may simply reflect the sad reality of our situation). After all, I suspect that if that chapel were still filled with young people singing the Te Deum Laudemus at the top of their lungs every day at morning prayer (that is, if the church had been doing its job), the secularization of William and Mary never would have come this far.

But this is event is almost a parable illustrating the cultural crisis that Western Civilization has descended into. We are tearing down our cultural heritage, giving all those things that give distinction to our civilization in exchange for...nothing. And "everything." Because of course to embrace simply everything is the same thing as to embrace nothing at all. This is what happens when we adopt "inclusivity" as a (necessarily) totally unrestricted and all-important ideal.

We (the West) bought into post-Enlightenment secularism. When it failed to deliver we opted for some kind of semi-Post-modern pluralism that tries to gloss over contradictions with sentiment and avoids taking hard-and-fast positions on prinicple. But in practice this cannot work, neither in the Church nor in the civil community. Someone once wisely said that the exaltation of the "virtue" of complete tolerance represents a loss of faith in our ability to come to real and substantive agreement on basic prinicples. But "if we be not agreed, how then shall we walk together?" We are walking in different directions. I think the foundation of our life together, our political order, our very civilization must be located somewhere, as opposed to "everywhere." The question becomes "where?" and "why there?"

"We Praise you O God. We acclaim you as Lord..." - Te Deum Laudemus
(see United Methodist Hymnal #80; The Book of Common Prayer p. 96)



11/16/06 Update: I have just recieved an email from a student/alumni group at William and Mary interested in reversing this decision. I do not know much at all about this group, but you can learn more at: http://savethewrencross.org/. Also I discovered a hilarious cartoon-commentary on this whole issue.

Labels: , ,

11/9/06

The Lord's Prayer

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come: thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

You probably know this prayer. You likely have it memorized. You may have even said it today. The Lord's Prayer is, even more than the Apostle's Creed, a liturgical act that is virtually unanimously shared among Christians of all stripes throughout all ages and cultures. We pray this prayer, many of us daily. We learn to pray from this prayer.

There is a saying (of debated antiquity) among Christians: Lex orandi, Lex credendi. Literally, "the Law of Prayer is the Law of Faith" - that is - how I pray forms what I believe. This expression is sometimes used to describe how the Anglican Common Prayer Book tradition (much of which has been absorbed by Methodism) understands the Common Prayer (the liturgy) as a teacher and guardian of the faith, even as we pray it. How much more so when applied to what really is the common prayer of Christians: the Lord's Prayer.

It is important to note that Jesus concieved of his own mission in terms of the Kingdom of God/Heaven: "I must proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose." (Lk. 4:37, NRSV). We Evangelicals often miss this kingdom focus in our teaching. Jesus did not teach his followers "The Sinners Prayer" - focused on personal forgiveness and justification - but rather this prayer of Kingdom living (which includes but goes beyond forgiveness). This prayer better captures what Jesus was about and what he wants his disciples to be about. The United Methodist Book of Discipline says it well: "The mission of God is best expressed in the prayer that Jesus taught his first disciples: Thy Kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as in heaven." (p. 90-91; para. 131). Thus to really pray (and therefore to live into) this prayer is to re-orient ourselves into Christ's Kingdom and Kingdom mission (which includes but is not limited to our justification).

As we approach "Christ the King Sunday" - the last Sunday of the Christian year (Nov. 26th), and a day on which we focus upon the present yet still coming Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ - the Church I am serving will be having a 3-part sermon series on the Lord's Prayer. This is especially appropriate because of the Kingdom focus of this prayer from beginning to end. A wonderful resource to really understand the Lord's Prayer with its Kingdom focus, both for first century Jewish disciples and then for us today, is N.T. Wright's book The Lord and His Prayer. This book changed the way and the frequency with which I prayed this prayer. Bishop Wright also covers much of the same ground in this shorter and free-er online resource.

Also free online is John Wesley's Sermon covering the Lord's Prayer in Matthew chapter 6.

Many thanks to John Meche III for spending Saturday morning helping me with my blog.

Labels: , , ,

11/6/06

Politics and Justice

Well it is election day. As I eagerly await the election returns, I am passing the time by reading Deus Caritas Est, the first Papal encyclical by the new Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI. I ran across this passage on politics that I thought was kinda cool:

"Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is m ore than a mere mechanism for defining the rules for public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God - an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself."

When I was a Political Science student at LSU I distinctly remember when one of my professors announced that classical (Greek and Christian) poltical theory was "the search for right order" but that modern political theory (following especially Machiavelli) was simply the search for order. Now that I think of it, I think my professor must have been mistaken. Justice or "rightness" was in fact one of the driving forces behind Marxism and its popularity decades ago among liberal theologians. Even the utilitarian is a utilitarian because he thinks it somehow "best" to be so. So I think the pope is right about this basic observation about Justice being fundamental.

The question of "justice" (an intrensically "religious" question, I might add) that Plato and Socrates addressed so long ago in Republic has never gone away. I doubt that it ever could. I wonder if what my professor meant was that the politicians themselves no longer take this question as seriously as their forebears, giving only lip-service, while really seeing the world in terms of power and utility? I don't know. But I am certain the average voter does indeed care about justice and rightness in politics, as campaign adds and smear campaigns ironically remind us.

Labels: , ,