Gift of God?

James 1:17

Note: The following also appears in today's "Daily Episcopalian" over at Episcopal Cafe.

 “The communion is a gift from God. It is a treasure. We cannot divide it. We should treasure it even though we may have our differences.”

So said the Rt. Rev. Daniel Sarfo, bishop of the diocese of Kumasi in Ghana, after the third Consultation of Anglican Bishops in Dialogue, recently hosted by the Anglican Church of Canada at a Jesuit retreat center near Toronto.

Bishop Daniel Sarfo, Kumasi, Ghana

I'm seeing this phrase "gift of / from God" more and more frequently applied to the Anglican Communion.

Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, I treasure the Anglican Communion. It is a very precious gift. I love the depth and breath of our diversity. Although not well practiced of late, I love the "Big Tent" of the Anglican ideals of Tolerance and Accommodation.

And yes, I can sing "all good gifts around us are sent from heaven above" (James 1:17) with the rest of the congregation and not have to cross my fingers, but ...well.....here's what is disconcerting about it for me.

I would imagine that many Roman Catholics feel that their denomination is a gift from God. So, too, the Orthodox. I've heard Jews speak this way of Torah, and Muslims speak of Koran as a divine gift. Certainly, Christians  - including Episcopalians - speak of the divinely inspired gift of scripture, but I've not heard any other denomination speak of their religion as a "gift of God". Not that this is a bad thing, necessarily, as long as we admit that ours is not the only gift. God is certainly a God of abundance, entirely capable of bestowing many gifts to many groups of people.

I must say that I cringe when I hear some refer to America as a "Christian nation" . While our country may have been founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the assertion that we are a Christian nation is not only untrue, it smacks of Christian triumphalism, which is disquieting to my soul precisely because triumphalism is so antithetical to true Christianity.

I also admit to growing more and more uncomfortable with the theistic idea of a God who is in control of everything. I remember seeing pictures of the aftereffects of a fire in California. There was one house standing amidst the rubble of other houses that had burned to the ground. The home owner had put a sign outside the house which read, "Thank you, God." I thought to myself, "I wonder how the other home owners feel about that sign. Was this really an "act of God" or just the random pattern of the wind? Was it a manifestation of Divine intervention or a cruel trick of nature?"

What does it mean when bad things happen to good people, or good things happen to bad people? Is God always involved or does stuff happen sometimes that defies human knowledge and comprehension and logic?

Rev'd Ed Bacon.

I remember a January 2009 Oprah program when guest, Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints, Pasadena, said, "Being gay is a gift from God."

The audience exploded in gasps followed by a smattering of enthusiastic applause which grew louder and more sustained. Oprah was clearly startled and laughed as she said, "I ain't never heard no reverend say THAT before."

If we say that "human sexuality is a divine gift", then does it not follow that all expressions of sexual orientation are God's gift - even if some might think it a curse?

Does the fact that some do not value a particular sexual orientation diminish the value - or the divine origination - of that gift?

What are we saying - what does it mean, exactly- when we say that the Anglican Communion is a "gift of God"? Especially when Bishop Sarfo adds, "We cannot divide it. We should treasure it even though we may have our differences.”

I note that the Anglican Province of West Africa, of which the Diocese of Kumasi, Ghana, is a part, has not yet weighed in on the Anglican Covenant. However, the Primate of West Africa - at least until September - is Bishop Justice Akrofi, a decidedly "orthodox" Anglican who is a member of GAFCON primate's council and was appointed alternate representative from Africa to the Primates Standing Committee before resigning in protest last year.

Which leads me to raise a left eyebrow in suspicion about Bishop Sarfo's comment - especially appearing, as it does, in the Anglican Journal. Does he mean that the Anglican Covenant would be an "instrument of unity"? Is he signaling his support of the Anglican Covenant? Is it a political sign, designed to send a message about what kind of Primate he would be, if elected?

Archbishop Justice Akrofi

I agree with the bishop that the Anglican Communion should be treasured and not divided, but I happen to see the Anglican Covenant running contrary to that goal - perhaps in the same way that those who support the Anglican Covenant do not necessarily consider that "being gay is a gift from God".

I expect that, as we move closer to the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury, we shall see this language about the Anglican Communion being a "gift of God" resurface again and again.

I also expect to see it as an overture or a prelude to an attempt to try and re-kindle support for the Anglican Covenant.

I happen to think the Anglican Communion is a gift - divinely inspired. I pray we will always use it - and all good gifts around us - as God intended. We cannot divide it. We should treasure it, even though we may have our differences - like good Christians who are Anglican.

Both Sides Now

I first met Michael on FaceBook.

Just five years ago, I would have laughed out loud at that statement. That's just crazy! How can you "meet" anyone in cyberspace?

I know better, now.

I met Michael face to face for the first time in my little third floor apartment in Cambridge, MA, while I was Proctor Scholar at the Episcopal Divinity School.

I just had "updated my status" on FaceBook by growling about the trouble I was having in setting up the "wireless" component of the new printer I had just bought. For the life of me, I just couldn't figure it out.

Not that I needed it, really. I mean, it was a small apartment. I had to walk less than ten steps from my desk to the printer. It's just that the service was there, and I couldn't figure out how to make it work.

Michael sent me a private message. Could he stop by and see if he could get it to work?

I immediately checked his personal information: Born in Wisconsin. Married. Seemed to have a good relationship with his wife. Lawyer. Lutheran pastor. Lived on a boat in Charlestown, MA., with his second wife. This is what he said about himself on his FaceBook page:

Just another white, middle-aged, left-wing Episcopalian wondering what to do when he grows up, and trying to figure out how to live in a country in which groups like the Tea Party can be taken seriously.

I've been a printer's devil, a psychiatric aide, a clergy person, and a lawyer. Oh, yeah, and a student. I don't quite know what to try next.

Okay, I thought. Sounds like every other healthy neurotic clergy person I've ever known, including the one I see in the mirror every morning. It's 6 PM. I'm alone in this apartment but there are four other people living in the two apartments two floors below me. What could possibly go wrong?

Against everything my mother taught me, but intrigued and just a tad desperate to get this fancy-schmancy wireless printer working, I wrote him back and said, "Sure."

I liked him the minute he walked through the door. He had a kind, gentle face, lined with hints and rumors of some difficult road traveled in the past. He was quiet and unassuming and set immediately about the task of getting the 'wireless' function of my printer to work.

There were awkward moments, to be sure, moments when I thought he was, perhaps, just a bit too quiet. Moments when he felt uncomfortable with the awkward silence, as well.

I think we both began to let the situation sink in: We were both strangers. I had invited him into my apartment without knowing anything more than what he had written about himself on his FaceBook page. He had invited himself into my apartment not knowing anything more about me than what I'd written on my FaceBook page.

It was pretty crazy, when you think about it. Might even be dangerous.

When the awkwardness got too awkward, I did what I normally do. I started to laugh. Out loud. He looked up from the "owner's manual" that came with the printer and started laughing as well.

"This is pretty crazy, isn't it?" he said.

"Absolutely," I said.

We laughed and then he said that he had been reading my blog for a while and felt as if he knew me. He told me a bit of his own story and that he had struggled with depression most of his life. That explained the unmistakable gloomy cloud that hung over his head. He talked about his experiences as a lawyer and as a Lutheran pastor and we talked at length about a book I had reviewed on my blog, Dennis Maynard's "When Sheep Attack." He could relate.

He also told me that he had seen me at church - St. John's, Bowdoin Street - where he attended with his wife, but since I had been busy catching up with old friends, he was reluctant to intrude and introduce himself. We made a point to make certain to have coffee together that next Sunday.

We talked the whole time he puttered around with wires and the modum and the printer and then, suddenly, the printer was working. It all took a little more than an hour. He collected his stuff and said he would catch the bus from Harvard Square back to his boat in Charlestown. It was a cold evening and I offered to give him a lift to the Square which he gratefully accepted.

And then, he left. As quietly and unassumingly as he had entered.

We had a few more conversations at church and online. I loved his sense of humor which ranged from wry to wacky to wicked. Just my cup of hilarity.

I met his wife and thought her a great person and a wonderful wife and mother. We shared a deeply meaningful Holy Week and glorious Easter Day together at St. John's.

At the end of June, I left Cambridge and came back to DE. We talked about he and his wife coming to visit us at Llangollen.

A week ago last Sunday, he and his wife had an argument and he left the boat where they lived. On Tuesday, he went missing. Concerned, his wife reported him as a missing person. A few days later, the police were able to track his cell phone to Lynn, MA, where his abandoned car was also found.

He was found in his car, behind an old abandoned building, facing the water.

I'm still in shock. I'm stunned. I'm deeply, deeply sad.

The world is diminished by the loss of this kind, gentle, very bright but unassuming man whose life was overshadowed by the cloud of gloom he couldn't seem to shake from his presence.

I keep remembering a line from a poem I read long, long ago, written by a former Jesuit priest named James Kavanaugh.  "There are men too gentle to live among wolves."

There are men too gentle to live among wolves
Who prey upon them with IBM eyes
And sell their hearts and guts for martinis at noon.
There are men too gentle for a savage world
Who dream instead of snow and children and Halloween
And wonder if the leaves will change their color soon.

 That seemed an apt description for Michael.

I know a little of what was in that cloud and the vapors that had created it, and while that dark cloud was formidable, I never thought he wasn't strong enough to keep walking with it.

Odd, isn't it? That clouds can be that strong. I mean, they are just vapor and mist, after all. A strong wind can blow them all over the sky, chasing them away like hooligans who bully and threaten but have nothing but 'hot air' to bluster in their defense.  

I should know better. I've certainly known enough people over the years whose lives were overtaken and swallowed up by dark clouds. I suppose I always feared that for Michael, but I suppose I thought this time....this one.....this man....his intelligence.....his humor.....his wit.....his faith......his wife....his love.....his family's love.....his church....his community.....his patience......his relentless struggle......

The bright hope of optimism is never a fair adversary of the dark clouds of depression.  And yet, with all the research and treatment modalities which the disciple of psychiatric medicine has brought us, I think, ultimately, it was the optimism of his faith that allowed Michael to live as long as he did. Indeed, I think a lesser man would have been dead years ago.

About a year ago, I read "Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So: A Memoir" by Mark Vonnegut. Mark is Kurt's (Slaughterhouse-Five) son, who also happens to be a husband and a father and a successful pediatrician in Boston who struggles with bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia. He wrote:

"There are no people anywhere who don't have some mental illness. It all depends on where you set the bar and how hard you look. What is a myth is that we are mostly well most of the time."

 "What so-called normal people are doing when they define diseases like manic-depressive or schizophrenia is reassuring themselves that they don't have a thought disorder or affective disorder, that their thoughts and feelings make perfect sense."

 "Of course I'm trying to save the world. What else would a bipolar manic depressive hippie with a BA in religion practicing primary-care pediatrics be up to?"

I think it's that part of my own mental illness that grieves most deeply - and is most frightened - by Michael's death. We're all, each in our own way, trying to shoo away the dark clouds that come to stay from time to time.

We're all trying to convince ourselves that we're "normal" and people like Michael aren't. Michael just lost the battle while the rest of us struggle on to appear "normal".

It all depends on where you set the bar and how hard you look.

I am struck by the fact that Michael's body was found in the water. Michael loved the water. He lived on the water. If you free yourself from illusions of what is "normal" then it seems absolutely right that Michael went "home" to the water.

I am strangely comforted by that small fact of his death.

My faith teaches me that Michael has now found the peace which was so elusive to him in this life. I wish that weren't so. I wish he could have found that here. With us. And, his family that he loved and who loved him.

But, that's just 'the crazy' part of me talking now. Selfish, too. I think crazy and selfish are perfectly normal grief reactions.

If you don't, then I suggest you consider that you just may be selfish and crazy.

There's a dark cloud that's been chasing me all morning. It's a dark cloud of sadness and grief, but not despair.

You see, I'm crazy enough to believe that you can meet people and actually make friends in cyberspace. Of course, an actual face-to-face relationship furthers the relationship, but what I once thought impossible is now happening every day. I know. It happens to me all the time.

Pretty crazy, right? Life is like that.

I keep hearing Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now".

Oh but now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost but something's gained
In living every day

I've looked at life from both sides now
From WIN and LOSE and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all.

I'm also crazy enough to believe that I will meet Michael again, one day, in that great by-and-by.

But this time, instead of dark clouds following us around, we'll be standing on them.

Be at peace, dear Michael. Deep, lasting, eternal peace.

Given where I believe you are now, I know it's crazy to say this, but I just still wish you were here.

The H.A.R.D. Philosophy of the G.O.P.

Note: Today's blog is a guest post by a woman named Marthe who wrote to me offline about my recent post about Paul Ryan. 

I was born into the Democratic Party. She was born into the Republican Party. We know stuff. 

Marthe offers important insights into the current Republican philosophy - she calls it a "mutant strain of the GOP" - which has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party either of us remembers from our youth. It's certainly not the Republican Party this country needs in order for a healthy two-party system to lead this country into the future.

                         ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The easy to remember formula: the current version of the GOP believes in being HARD ...

H -- Help only your own, by whatever definition you freely choose to identify that "own", emphasis on the property.

    These are the descendants of Manifest Destiny who absolutely believe that possession is 9/10ths of the law, and that "majority" is what rules. Those who also identify as "Christian" (quotes to indicate that their definition rarely matches that of anyone whose self-description ends in an -ist) see giving alms as a duty from which they are entitled to accrue bonus points in their version of heaven - the "good" you see, is not the help offered to the needy, but the feeling good about themselves and the compliance with commandments that will guarantee their version of safety.

A -- Accumulate, more of everything than is actually needed by any means necessary, because it is good to be thrifty, never to need any other human for anything, and if the "means" are ever questionable, well, that's what forgiveness is for and if you aren't cheating, you aren't really trying.

R --Repress any emotion you can't label righteous anger lest you appear weak ... of course, the adrenaline rush of competition or war is acceptable and not at all like those girly hormones that make women unreliable (yes, yes, I know, brain chemistry is science and unavoidable, but facts are not relevant here - the spin of the facts is all that matters).

This part of the myth and theology of the far right venerates the "rugged individualist" and casts anyone not fitting that very narrow description as faulty, unworthy of consideration, chaff to be ignored and discarded, or some form of lazy slacker out to steal their stuff.

D-- Demand, deny and demean ... three d's, but hey, it's a free country, pick the one you like best: demand that others agree or get out of the way (and when discussing issues, be sure to raise your voice if instant compliance seems unlikely); deny any pesky facts that undermine your stated opinion; demean anyone not worshiping at the same altar of patriarchal command and control that works so well for the white/male/ever so manly few (but if you're a SEAL or special ops guy of a darker shade, you're in by virtue of your capability with weapons).

The whole thing relies on a myth that "hard men making hard choices" have earned all the freedoms and value of the American system and therefor are entitled to "call the shots" for everyone forever and ever, amen. 

Hard work, after all, everyone agrees, pays, must be rewarded, must be venerated, is the way, the truth and the life of the most exceptional nation on earth. 

It's a form of meritocracy, but the definition of merit is exceedingly narrow, and that merit while rhetorically available to all in the land of the free, is really just an opportunity to exclude anyone not conforming to their ideas and behaviors.

Never mind, that most of the practitioners of HARD haven't earned much of anything, have not served in the much vaunted temple of manly hierarchy/meritocracy known as the military, or overcome much of anything in their "struggle to maintain our sacred freedoms" ... they are a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do crowd, and they relish the push-comes-to-shove moments of life as an opportunity to validate their fragile egos ... but only by proxy ... after all, they don't stoop to getting their hands dirty with actual war or street fights or cleaning up the messes they've made - that would deny the young, the poor, the striving their chance to achieve and earn their own place in society ... the help must have their opportunity, after all.

Any activity that doesn't include some version of hardness simply doesn't count to these folks, particularly in the "rule" that once one has made up their mind on a subject, that position must be kept, defended, stubbornly enforced on the misguided, wishy washy others at all cost ... a favorite phrase: "man up,  stick to your guns" ... any deviation from this rule is weakness, a forfeiture of one's place among the chosen few of the GOP.

So, sadly, talking individually to GOP voters is unlikely to convince them, at least they'll never admit to agreeing with your points ... but despair not! What these masters of hypocrisy do in private varies widely. If they privately see the Romney/Ryan ticket as scary, they will vote against their party, because avoiding fear is the point of all that hardiness.

So, if any of that is of use to your readers, please share.

A mostly reconstructed Republican, (we can overcome our genes, really)

Marthe

Where have all the young people gone?

It's a perennial question that haunts church leaders across religious and denominational lines.

Roman Catholics are concerned about the vocations of young men to the priesthood and young women to religious life. Protestants are worried about the absences of Gen X and Gen Y people in their mostly aging congregations. The pews in Orthodox churches are primarily inhabited by diminishing congregations of aging people, where the unspoken, sad joke is "last one out, turn off the lights."

I've read lots of "how to" articles and essays which coach church leaders to attract young people to churches with "separate and different" church services with "modern" music with catchy tunes and contemporary language and a watered-down, simplified  theology.

Some of us have tied ourselves into ecclesiastical pretzels, trying this or that latest trend, establishing a special "brand" that we can "market" and "attract" a certain demographic. We have poured over and studied compilations of statistics which are used by national store and restaurant chains when determining whether or not to "locate" in a certain geographical area. All to no appreciable difference in the numbers or age group that occupy our pews.

I remember sitting with one group of concerned parish leaders who were at their wits end. They were motivated to meet together and desperate to try any change - programmatic and/or liturgical - that would insure an increase in their membership base.

The reason for the desperation was not due to a sense of a desire to be evangelists or to "preach the Gospel to all the world". Rather, their motivation sprang from a sense of real fear.

The bishop had warned them that, according to the statistics and projections provided to him by his Congregational Development Officer, if something didn't change, in five years they would no longer be able to afford a full time priest. They knew and understood that this would place them on the slippery slope to becoming yet another statistic of "failing congregations" that were doomed to close its doors.

As one of my clergy colleagues says, they saw new people come through the door and, instead of seeing the sign of the cross, they saw a dollar sign.

In some ways, they were set up for that, weren't they? Bishops often frame evangelism in terms of economic gain. I've heard several bishops do this with mission, using the axiom, "Money follows mission."

There may or may not be truth to that, but I find positioning financial gain as a motivation for mission and/or evangelism to be so far from the gospel that it makes my hair stand on end and curls my toes. 

I remember saying to that group of good, anxious Christian folk, "Suppose this is it? Suppose this is as good as it gets? What if this group of people were the answer to your prayers? What if these are the people God has sent you to do the work of mission? Suppose, just suppose, that God wants you - YOU, not "new people" - to do the work of mission?"

"I'm asking you," I continued, "just as Jesus asked the disciples who were worried that they didn't have enough food to feed the thousands who had gathered that long-ago day on an ancient hill to listen to what He had to say, 'What do you have? Go and see?' I'm asking you: What will you do with what you've got to further the mission of the Gospel? Go and see!"

Well, they didn't want to hear that! They wanted a 'silver bullet' or a 'magic pill' that would solve all their problems. They wanted to hear - as so many of us do from our medical doctors - "Just swallow this program and follow these 10 Rules and call me in the morning."

When the 'self-help' program fails - and, they mostly all do - it's always the fault of the priest. No one ever holds accountable the bishop and/or his congregational development officer - usually an affable man with great intentions  who has never, himself, been a successful rector, or if he has, it has been so many years since he's been a rector, he wouldn't know whether to scratch his nose or wind his watch if he were back in the saddle.

I believe that all the fancy three-hole binders with pages and pages of graphs and demographics that have been promoted as sort of an ecclesiastical "self-help" program promising to be the 'magic pill' have failed miserably because there is no magic to mission and evangelism.

Mission and evangelism, like life, happen when you're busy doing something else. In terms of mission and evangelism, they happen when you're busy doing the work of the Gospel.

Yes, it does help to know your demographic and your audience. St. Paul knew that, which is why he says one thing to the church in Rome, another to the church in Corinth, and yet another to the church in Phillipi. You have to understand the cultural context in which you are working and preaching and teaching.

Which is why I have found Sr. Joan Chittister to be so helpful.

In yesterday's NCR column, Sr. Joan was discussing the sharp criticism from the Vatican concerning the lack of young early adult vocations in religious orders of women.

What she had to say also addresses the concerns of mainline Protestant denominations about the lack of young people in our pews.

She wrote: "While the Vatican pronounces women's religious life dead because there are no 18-year-olds around anymore, we may all be missing the obvious: There are no 18-year-olds around anywhere anymore."

Sr. Joan Chittister

In answering the question, "Where have all the young people gone?" she wrote:

"A continuing demand for more and more certification, education and experience has delayed adolescence in the West. People get married later now, too -- in their mid-20s to early 30s at least, and many even older.

They go from first grade to master's degrees in one fell swoop, or they go to school between jobs, or they do both a job and education together -- and slowly. Then they take a few starter jobs while they decide what they want to be when they grow up. And then they face the mound of college debts it will take most of them years to repay.

In a world that is living longer, learning longer, working longer, participating for years longer in a culture full of healthy elders, people are living life at a far more thoughtful, more productive pace than generations before us ever dreamed of, let alone planned for. There is time, always time, they're sure, for everything.

So what are we to think about it all? The church calls it secularism and materialism. Maybe. But there are other explanations, as well. Like longevity. Or maturation. Or even a better sense of the fullness of life."

Isn't honesty refreshing? Isn't it wonderful not to feel the anxiety that comes from 'shame and blame' and experience an intelligent, truthful articulation of what we see all around us?

Not that it lets us off the hook. Indeed, I think it places us back on the hook in an entirely different way. Instead of pouring new wine into old wine skins (Not my metaphor. Jesus gets credit for that one), we need new wine skins.

In other words, we need to stop putting window dressing - snappy music, contemporary services - on "this old house" and begin the hard work of considering how to change the paradigm of what it means to be church in the Third Millennium.

It always boggles my mind that the church uses "marketing" techniques and then balks at the "materialism" and "consumerism" of our church goers.

We wonder where all the young people are when we give them a "warm welcome" to our houses of worship and, forgetting that many of these same young people are either struggling to pay tuition or pay off student loans, a few months later, we hit them up for a "pledge". 

Has the church demonstrated any real concern for their situations? Has the church taken a stand on the problems associated with student loans? Do we "walk the walk" in real, tangible ways about the social concerns that face that generation? Or, are we expecting Jesus to do all the heavy lifting?

Here's another hint from Sr. Joan:

Hindus, most of all, perhaps, take into account the "ages" of development. Hinduism, in fact, has long taught that there are four stages of life.

The first stage, the Hindus teach, is the age of childhood, however long it takes to acquire the maturity necessary to begin to function beyond the control of the family.

The second stage is the age of the student. During this preparatory period, students concentrate for years on learning the skill or profession that will enable them to function independently in society in order to give back to the larger world -- for the sake of its own development -- what they have been trained to do.

The third stage of life, the Hindus tell us, is the age of the householder, the keeper of a family, whose concentration on others develops the next generation to carry on the values and ideals of this one.

Finally, Hinduism teaches, a person reaches the age of the sanyasi, the truth-seekers, who give themselves over in this last stage of life to the pursuit of spiritual development. These people -- educated, experienced, responsible -- take these final years to bring perspective to their own lives and wisdom to others. It's the period of reflection. For some, it is the period of monastic reflection. The period when, relieved of the burden of social responsibility, they become the standard-bearers of the soul.

What if we looked at these four stages and began to think of mission and evangelism the way Jesus did: meeting people where they are?

What if, instead of expecting people to come to our churches, we went to them? Where they are? In schools and homes and shops and at their places of employment?

How are we helping to equip them with the skills they need to function independently in society? How are we assisting the "keepers of the family" to "develop the next generation to carry on the values and ideals of this one"?

How are we helping the "sanyasi", the "truth-seekers" in their spiritual development to become the "standard-bearers of the soul"?

And, how can we do all of these things, expecting nothing in return? Instead, our only expectation is to be "surprised by joy"?

What would the church look like then?

I expect we would be hard-pressed to find anything that looks like what we know of the church today. I imagine there would be fewer magnificent buildings, but there would be stronger communities of faith. I imagine our clergy would spend less time in church offices and more time being with people where they are. I imagine bishops would not be found so much in diocesan offices or in airports, on planes heading to meetings but rather, setting up satellite offices in various locations in the diocese, being with clergy and people as their "chief pastor" and evangelist, claiming his/her ancient role as being chiefly responsible for mission.

Some of that is already happening. Some people are calling it "the emergent church". It is said that it is more a "movement" than an organization.

I don't think people in the so-called "emergent church movement" call themselves that. I think they call themselves "church" or "faith community".  

That gives me great hope.  I have come to believe that Jesus never intended to establish an institution. I believe Jesus came to establish a movement. He never had a Temple, much less had office hours.

He met people where they are. Began to teach them where they were - out of their own cultural context. Healed them where they were without judgment or counting the cost.

What if the Body of Christ began to reclaim our ancient heritage and legacy?

Well, anyway, these are my "back to the future" hopes and dreams for the church, inspired by the pastoral wisdom and long, hard look at reality from Sr. Joan, who writes:

Maybe we ourselves are finally getting there, too. Maybe the age of religious life is turning upside-down in a culture where other responsibilities come earlier and stay longer. No, women are not coming to religious life now to be trained in adulthood. They are coming to religious life as adults to be trained in wisdom and faith, in spiritual development and public ministry.

No, young people are not coming to the church to be trained in adulthood. They are coming to the church as adults to be trained in wisdom and faith, in spiritual development and public ministry.

What are we going to do about that?

Paul Ryan: One Feminist's Perspective

It simply boggles my mind.

I mean, last time I checked, the year was 2012, right? So, how is it that there are two Neanderthal men on the Republican ticket for the top two offices in the most powerful, affluent, "advanced" country in the Western Hemisphere?

Forget Neanderthal. They are pre-Neaderthal. If you check their wrist watches, I'm quite certain you'll find scratch marks from where their wrists drag along the floor when they walk.

I've long ago written off Mitt Romney as a pathetic man who is desperately trying to redeem his father's performance in the election process (his father, George, was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls.) 

Mitt Romney was, by all accounts, a fairly successful governor of Massachusetts (his father served as Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969). While Mitt Romney's gubernatorial record as a 'job creator' leaves a lot to be desired, he at least created a health care plan in Massachusetts that continues to enjoy enormous success.

And yet, he's not running on that record. Indeed, he's distanced himself from "RomneyCare" because "ObamaCare" is pattered after it and his voter base HATES "ObamaCare" . They want him - and he has promised - to get rid of it within the first ten seconds he's in office.

Rather, he's running on the fact that he is a successful businessman. Except, the "success" seems to be about how much personal wealth he has accumulated, not how many jobs he's created and how many successful businesses he's initiated. He's obviously hiding his tax returns because, as his wife says, there's lots of "ammunition" there. I have absolutely no doubt.

I was concerned about his choice of VP because I feared, with the right choice, it could swing the votes in the groups that helped elect Mr. Obama: People of Color - especially Hispanics - Women, Young People and Independents.

And then came Paul Ryan.

He's a Roman Catholic who claims that his fiscal policies are based in his faith tradition, as well as having been influenced by the philosophy of author Ayn Rand - who happens to have been an atheist. Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, which promote objectivism, the belief that individualism and self-interest is the key to success and happiness.

I know. Go figure. Wait a minute. Never mind. Don't even try to make sense of that combination. You could hurt yourself if you try. It's positively schizophrenic.

Perhaps that's why his proposed budget has been described as "immoral" by Sister Simone Campbell who helped to organize and lead 14 other nuns in a cross country tour known as "Nuns On A Bus". The purpose of the tour was to work with legislators to help them understand the implications of Ryan's proposed budget because "it harms people who are already suffering" - a demographic that, for all the other problems with the Roman Catholic church, has always been the passionate apostolate of RC women religious. 

I can't speak for any other demographic, but let me tell you why this feminist is horrified by the thought of a man like Paul Ryan in the White House.

When Ryan's selection was announced this past weekend, NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted that the VP pick is a bad one for women. She wasn't just whistling Dixie. Here's what I've learned.

He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  You don't have to be a feminist to see that equal pay for equal work should be a principle that is beyond gender distinctions. It's a no-brainer for those who understand the foundational principle of this country of "liberty and justice for all". Apparently, Ryan missed that piece in his 6th-grade Civics course.

He is firmly opposed to reproductive justice. Ryan would overturn Roe v. Wade, banning abortion in cases of rape and incest and when the mother’s life is at risk. He also was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity for Human Life Act, a 'personhood' amendment which would ban abortion as well as certain kinds of fertility treatment and birth control. He’s voted at least four times to defund Planned Parenthood (and all of the preventative health care that comes with it for millions of people).

He is, of course, opposed to the Affordable Care Act.  He’s also vehemently against the law’s birth control coverage, saying it “violates our founding principles” to not allow people to deny women basic health care needs. Apparently, he missed a lot of Civic classes in the 6th grade.

Paul Ryan/Eddie Munster: separated at birth

He believes that if you weren't born here, you don't belong here. Ryan has voted against the DREAM Act and for extreme legislation in 2005 that would have made immigration violations felonies in Wisconsin, resulting in many undocumented immigrants being subject to indefinite detention. This summer, Ryan joined  House Republicans in criticizing President Obama’s “deferred enforcement” plan, which would allow children of undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation.

He's Robin Hood in reverse.  Women are the majority of the recipients of both Medicare and (a sizable 69% of ) Medicaid, and the majority of the Medicaid population are people of color. Not to mention the programs provide critical care to people with disabilities, older people and children. Ryan’s budget (which Romney has has endorsed) would cut food stamps, child care, and lots of other often lifesaving assistance for marginalized communities, while cutting taxes for billionaires like Romney to .83%. I am not making this up. 

 He’s emphatically, consistently homophobic. Ryan has voted against gay couples adopting children or being foster care parents, he's solidly against marriage equality, and voted no to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I know. You're shocked.

As one wonk recently quipped, "Paul Ryan is Dick Cheney with better hair". 

Make no mistake: This election process is not so much political as it is ideological. The lines could not be more clearly drawn. The choices could not be more clear.

Women have a great deal to lose, as do people of color, children, the elderly and infirm and people who live in poverty.

As feminists, male or female, we absolutely must mobilize to get out the information about the Romney-Ryan ticket. I am convinced that an educated and informed electorate will never stand for the ideological agenda that these two men represent.

And, if you also happen to be a Christian - you know, one who actually tries to follow the teachings of Jesus who had a lot to say about women and poor people - then listen to and heed these words:

Jesus said, "You will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to earth's remotest end." (Acts 1:8)

If not you, then who?

If not now, then when? 

Make up, Make believe and Hard Questions

 

I've forgotten the challenges of life with a six year old. 

One minute, it's 'crazy gymnastics' - tumbling and twirling and running over a home made obstacle course designed with couch pillows and magazines and proclaiming, "I'm Gabby Douglas". 

The next minute, it's make believe. "You be the sick baby and I'll be your mommy who is a nurse. No, no, no....a DOCtor. Now, you have to cry and I'll say, "What's wrong?" and you just cry and I'll get a wet paper towel and.....Can we get the paper towel now?  I'll put the water on it....Can I, Nana? Mommy lets me do that.....And then, umm.....(wiggle, wiggle, wiggle) Okay, we'll start over again. First, you start to cry because you're the baby and I'm the Mommy, and a DOCtor and then......."

Unless, of course, if SpongeBob SquarePants is on television or anything from the Nickelodeon or Disney Chanel, then she's as quiet as a church mouse, all snuggled up on the couch with a blankie wrapped all round her while she sucks her thumb. 

She's just so stinkin' cute I can't stand it.

Last night, we were out walking the dogs - well, two of them, which is all I could manage with a six year old, Lenny and Theo. Then, we came back and switched off Lenny for CoCo and made the walk all over again. Theo thought it was a great deal.

In our travels, we came across a dead bird. Abbi stopped dead in her tracks and stared at it. "What's wrong with that bird?" she asked. 

"I'm pretty sure it's dead, Abbi."

She moved closer to it to get a better look. "Yup, it's dead, Nana," she said.

And then, she looked at me, her eyes brimming with tears and said, "He's really, really dead, Nana."

"Oh, my darling, I'm sorry," I said, adding, "He's not in any pain. He doesn't hurt anymore. His body is here, but he's not here anymore to feel anything."

"Where did he go?" she asked, wiping the tears from her eyes. I was amazed at her empathic abilities, which seemed pretty emotionally precocious to me. Then again, she's my granddaughter. Of course I think she's precocious. 

But, seriously - a six year old, weeping over a dead bird? How often do you see that? Her mother says that sometimes she'll start weeping over a song about friendship that reminds her of her favorite friend. I think that's pretty remarkable, actually.

"Well," I said, "When we die, we go back to God, who created every living thing. Well, our spirit goes back to God. Our bodies stay here, but our spirit goes back to God."

She thought about this for a long while. She had asked the same question a few nights before during dinner. I had said our 'souls' go to God, but her mother used the word 'spirit' which made sense to me, especially when talking about a bird.

It's a pretty typical question for kids that age. I had forgotten that.  So, I wasn't exactly prepared.

"Nana? Know what I think?"

"No, what?"

"I think, when we die, all of the colors that are in us come out and fill up the whole world. And then, I think the world gets so full of beautiful colors that some of it goes out and some new colors come in. Some colors go out and some colors come in. See?"

If I hadn't been prepared for the question, I was most certainly not ready for that answer.

"I think I do, sweetheart," I said after a few long minutes.

"Okay. Good. Now, let's keep walking. We have to go all the way to the lamp post and back."

"Right. Good call, Abbi."

We finished our walk and then she wanted to put make up on in my special magnifying lighted make up mirror and put on my jewelry and pretend to be a fairy princess, walking all around her realm in my scarfs and heels.

There's only so much reality and theology you should fit into one day. Otherwise, you could hurt yourself or you might do harm to others. See?

You should also laugh and giggle and wiggle. A lot. And, drink stuff from silly dinosaur sippy cups, sing your own songs with tunes and words you create yourself, and dress up and pretend to be somebody else because you still have lots of time to figure out who you really are, and take a rest now and again, zoning out on silly cartoon characters who live under the water but out of the water (I'm still trying to figure out how SpongeBob, Patrick Star, Sandy Cheeks, and Squidword Tentacles go sailing under water) and dance like you don't care if anyone is watching, and, even if they do, don't bother yourself with what anyone will think about your dance. 

Just dance. Do-dah-do. Gonna be okay. Just dance.

I learn so much from my grandchildren.

We are family

One of our daughters and her two children arrived Saturday.

It's been a whirlwind of movement and giggles and questions and not-so-profound-but-important statements ever since.

My favorite so far: 

Abbi (as I'm preparing the white sauce for the Mac 'n Cheese, keeping an eye on the macaroni boiling in the pot): "Nana, know what?"

Me: "What?"

Abbi: "Ummm... Sometimes, dogs is brown."

Me: "Right you are, kiddo."

Abbi: "Ummmmm.... but you know what? Nana? Nana! You need to look at me for a minute!"

Me: "Yes, my darling. Just let me check one thing.....Okay..... I'm looking at you."

Abbi: "Ummmm....Theo is black and white and so is Lenny and, and,and CoCo is, well....(giggle, squirm) coco, and,and,and Jethro is creamy with reddish spots and Koda is black with kinda brown in his fur but.....Nana, Nana,Nana....you aren't looking at me...."

Me: (looking at her while stirring the white sauce): "Okay, lamb chop, now I am. Go ahead."

Abbi: "Sheesh! Ummm....okay....what was I saying? Oh, yeah, sometimes, dogs are brown - ALL brown - but not one of our dogs is brown (giggle, giggle,giggle)."

Me: "Isn't that something? What do you suppose it means?"

Abbi: "Naaana! It just means that we don't have an all-brown dog!"

All that, and I did not scortch the white sauce which would have turned brown and I would have ended up in the dog-house.

I still got it! I am woman, hear me roar!

I love these family times with children and grandchildren. I love the seeming nonsensical conversations which are really about the ways in which we pay attention to and try to make sense of the way the world works; the seeming randomness of life that form patterns of order; the way life intrudes when you're busy doing other things.

We've been feasting on seafood and there's enough left over for me to make a vat of my Grandmother's Seafood Chowder. This one will include lobster, shrimp, crab, clams and mussels. Because, well, because that's what we've got in the fridge and if I don't use it it will be wasteful and you never, ever want to let seafood go to waste.

I think there may be a special place in hell for people who waste seafood.

See also: the seeming randomness of life that form patterns of order.

You know. The way families come together and are formed.

The kiddos are at the beach right now. I've got a few things to pick up at the market before I start putting the chowder together.  With any luck, the Apple Store will call and tell me that my lap top is fixed and I'll be able to pick it up and start blogging from it rather than my iPad.

Oh, and we have a rubber boat to inflate after dinner, no doubt amidst a flurry of questions and important pronouncements that remind us how precious is our life.

More precious, still, is family time together.

Go, Sisters!

I've been waiting all day to hear a statement from the Leadership Conference Women Religious (LCWR), an organization that represents 80% of the estimated 57,000 Roman Catholic women in religious orders (AKA "Nuns") in the United States. 

It was supposed to have been released around 3 PM. Nothing yet. I've been praying for them all day.

You may or not be aware that these women have been under official Vatican rebuke, which came in the form of a mandate on April 18, 2012, which ordered the group to revise and place itself under the control of three U.S. bishops. official  Vatican’s rebuke, which came in April 18 mandate ordering the group to revise and place itself under the control of three U.S. bishops.

The backlash of outrage and anger from American Roman Catholics has been amazing to see. It's not just about "the nuns". The Vatican's attack on the LCWR is emblematic of a growing concern that strikes at the heart of American Roman Catholics. 

That concern? No, not pedophile priests. No, not the ordination of women. No, not the ability of clergy to marry. No, not even whether or not "non-Roman Catholics" can receive communion.

I'll give you a hint: It was the real spark that ignited the Reformation. No, not the divorce of King Henry the VIII. That was just the last straw.

The issue is authority. 

A growing number of people in the American Roman Catholic Church - which is to say, the laity, are wrestling with the same questions Anglicans struggled with - and, in many ways, continues to be central to our church. Just how much authority does a 'foreign' (that is, not "local") body have on a community of faith and still be able to call itself "catholic" (small 'c', meaning 'universal')?

This morning, Franciscan Sr. Pat Farrell gave a rousing message to her sisters. A key question facing LCWR, she said, is “What would a prophetic response to the doctrinal assessment look like?”

“I think it would be humble, but not submissive,” she continued. “Rooted in a solid sense of ourselves, but not self-righteous; truthful, but gentle and absolutely fearless.

It would ask probing questions. Are we being invited to some appropriate pruning and are we open to it? Is this doctrinal process an expression of concern or an attempt to control?

“Concern is based in love and invites unity. Control through fear and intimidation would be an abuse of power.

“Does the institutional legitimacy of canonical recognition empower us to live prophetically? Does it allow us the freedom to question with informed consciences? Does it really welcome feedback in a church that claims to honor the sensus fildeum?”

Farrell also said that it would be a “mistake” to make “too much” of the mandate.

“We cannot allow it to consume us,” she said. “It is not the first time that a form of religious life has collided with the church, nor will it be the last.”

“The doctrinal assessment suggests that we are not currently living in an ideal ecclesial world,” Farrell continued.

Yet, she said, the sisters also “cannot make too little” of the Vatican’s move. It’s “historical impact,” she said, is “apparent to all of us.”

Isn't that simply remarkable?

Oh, that we had asked the same questions of the Anglican Covenant! Wait, wait. wait. Hang on just a minute. In fact, I think we have.

In fact, I think we did concern ourselves with issues of "control through fear and intimidation". And, I think we did ask the question: "Does the institutional legitimacy of canonical recognition empower us to live prophetically? Does it allow us the freedom to question with informed consciences? "

Just because the Anglican Covenant appears to be dead in the water, it is too soon to dismiss it as a dead issue. As I said in a post earlier this week, depending on who is elected the next Archbishop of Canterbury, we could be witnesses to the resurrection of that dread document. Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church's "umm..., maybe, but not yet" response in B005 will only kindle the spark of power and control that continues to smolder in the councils and corridors of the institutional church.

It was ever thus, my dears. It's the Anglican Covenant for our generation. It was the 39 Articles in a previous generation. Don't even get me started about the political nature of the Nicene Creed.

Meanwhile, these religious woman - these, "nuns" - continue to be dismissed as being "old, dying women". If I hear, one more time, that the average age of nuns in the US is 70, I'm going to scream. As if that has anything to do with the liberation of the Gospel, promised to us all.

God delights in surprising the human race S/he created. Ever since The Garden, God has surprised us with the unexpected. God surprised Sarah in her old age with the gift of a child. God surprised us by choosing Mary, a young un-married woman, to be the Theotokis, the God-bearer.

I suspect God is surprising us all with the prophetic witness of these "sisters" of ours, who are, I believed, being called to give birth to a new understanding of the power and authority of the institutional church. 

One that is humble, but not submissive. Rooted in a solid sense of ourselves, but not self-righteous. Truthful, but gentle and absolutely fearless.

What a vision of the church! What a profound understanding of obedience and power and authority. 

I just checked. No word yet from The Sisters. No smoke coming from St. Louis, so no one has tried to run them out of the building. At least, nothing has hit the newsstands in cyberspace.

I'll keep you posted as soon as I get word. 

Meanwhile, I ask you to join me in prayer for them. It's a short little, "arrow prayer" like the kind the nuns of my youth taught me. (It is also known as an "ejaculatory prayer" - like saying, 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph' or writing JMJ on the top of your exam paper).  It's just eleven words of prayer:

Go, Sisters!  Be gentle but fearless with the truth you know. 

Amen. 

UPDATE HERE:

At the end of its annual assembly Friday in St. Louis, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious said it will proceed with discussion with the Vatican "for as long as possible" but will reconsider if the sisters are "forced to compromise the integrity of [their] mission."

I love it. They said, "make us". 

Gentle but fearless, baby. Gentle but fearless.

Go, Sisters!