|
« 2006 May | Main | 2006 February »
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Just Had to Share This is perhaps not terribly relevant one way or
the other, but the three youngest just went marching out to the playhouse
outside. Catherine has added some walls to the bottom level of the play
structure I built almost 4 years ago, and they now have clothes hanging out
there, and are moving some other odds and ends out. With all of the battles we
seem to have with the kids about TV viewing, its always fun to see them so
engaged in some serious play fun (doesn't this sound like a huge oxymoron?).
They have already been at this for quite some time, and at the end it will
represent hours of pretend. What it represents in terms of their development is
probably incalculable, especially relative to TV. However, make sure you don't
tell them that - they're just interested in having some fun.
Its Not About Me, its About Us, or Actually Me and Us This will be a more rambling entry than most, for
which I apologize, but a great many thoughts are sort of colliding at the same
time. I've had several conversations over the last couple of weeks with
different people on some different subjects, so I'll relate some of them here
and make a weak attempt at synthesizing all of
this.
Last week I had the opportunity to discuss fasting with a Muslim colleague of mine. He is a very observant Muslim from Nigeria, so I figure his view on things probably reflect Islam in a more general sense. I know and have known many Muslims over time, but most of them, quite frankly, were the equivalent of C & E (Christmas and Easter) Christians, so its sort of hard to take them seriously. At any rate, I mentioned that in Orthodoxy, you had to be careful with fasting because if you are invited to someone's house during one of the fasts, and they offer you non-fasting food, you should accept so as not to offend and cause them to stumble. This can be overdone at times, as people will use this as an excuse not to fast, but it is a good principle. At any rate, in Islam, you are required to fast because God is more important than the other person. Offending them is apparently not an issue. I think, in a way, it points out a major flaw within Islam. They think fasting and other disciplines are done for God's benefit. The man in Kabul facing execution is doing so because apparently he has insulted Allah, and Allah must need some sort of protection. Christianity, on the other hand, understands that God needs nothing. If he truly was hungry, he wouldn't ask us for food. So when we fast, go to confession, pray, etc. it is so that we grow closer to God. It is the process of theosis . We are careful not to cause others to stumble, as it may impair their walk, and certainly doesn't help us. There are limits to this, as the case where if we help someone who has been sinning to not sin, then this is a good thing. However, not fasting is only a sin insofar as we are guilty of a lack of obedience. It can also be construed as sinful to the extent that it inhibits our growing closer to God because we have become too prideful. So, while salvation is, to a degree, about us, it is also about our relationship to our brother. At a meeting today, several people were discussing their view of the situation in the ECUSA with regard to them. Almost everyone phrased things in terms of the fact that they just ignore what is going on in the larger Church, and seek to maintain their own personal faith. One even stated that she goes to meetings and sort of pretends to go along with what is happening, but only for the weekend. Then she can return and have her personal faith again. Time after time, people spoke of their personal faith as if that was all that mattered. They had forgotten their brethren, they had forgotten the Church. It is certainly true that to be a member of the Church you need to also have to have a personal relationship. That has been a problem since the days of the King David and before. However, the relationship with the Church is also important. It is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth , not the individual. It is the Church that is the assembly of God (by definition), not the individual. You are not saved in a vacuum. You cannot be Catholic in a vacuum. So, again, you cannot escape the other people in this mix. So, finally, I was talking to a priest in the ECUSA earlier today, and he said a big barrier to his leaving is that he has been charged with being a pastor of souls. He cannot leave them behind. So, you see, he has it right. He has to take responsibility for others. Just as I must take responsibility for the souls in my charge (namely my family), he must take responsibility for the souls in his charge. This puts him in a distinctly more complicated situation, but there you have it. So Islam is confused in that they seem to think God needs things, and will harm others to give God what he needs. Evangelicals are mistaken in that they think that it is only their personal relationship with God that matters. Modernists are mistaken in that they think their own gratification is more important than anything else. A true Orthodox Christian is concerned that the entire Church, that means themselves and their brethren, are growing closer to God. Now, if only everyone could get this straight. Friday, March 24, 2006 Why Did We Invade Again? Woodrow Wilson firmly believed in the power of democracy, and in the
appropriateness of American involvement with the spread of democracy.
Generally, at least based on actions, he wasn't in favor of randomly invading
countries in order to establish democracy, but if there was gross instability
(such as in the Dominican Republic of his day, as is referenced in the above
article) that might threaten American interests, military involvement with the
purpose of democratizing a country, is warranted. We'll ignore Wilson's racist
tendencies, and pro-eugenics stance for the purposes of this
entry, as this would require an entire blog just to discuss. However, I will
note that any reasonable person could propose that part of Wilson's desire to
interfere with the Dominican Republic may have been partially caused by a belief
that the race of the island's inhabitants caused them to be unfit to manage
themselves. This attitude of racial superiority cannot be separated from a
discussion of Wilson's foreign policy, in my opinion, but I will
try.
At the very least, Wilson's approach to foreign policy was based on a sense of the superiority of the American way of doing things, or at least on the a sense of the superiority of democracy in general. I would tend to agree with him, as would many of our leaders over the past century. I'm not completely sure that I would accept the premise that democracies are inherently more peaceful than other forms of government, but I do think that democracies tend to have fewer military type conflicts with other democracies, and so if every country had a democratic form of government, we might actually be in a more peaceful place. In addition, the lives of citizens in democracies tend to be better, as most democracies enshrine a reasonable set of rights into their constitution. It was a combination of a Wilsonian world view (absent the racism!) and a desire for the security that the end of Al-Qaeda would bring, that led me to support the invasion of Afghanistan, and frankly, the invasion of Iraq. I'll confess to a belief that WMD were in Iraq as well, as I couldn't otherwise explain Saddam's constant attempts at hiding things. At any rate, recent events in Afghanistan have caused me to rethink this support. I recall all of the stories about how human rights were being restored in Afghanistan. Girls were allowed to return to school. Women didn't have to wear those ridiculous burqas any more, etc. But now, we have a situation where a man is going to either be put to death or committed to the insane asylum for having converted to Christianity. This is an improvement in the human rights situation? Frankly, I think the only appropriate response is either take over again, and eliminate Sharia law (a school of law so absurd that its apologists have to work overtime to try to convince every one that it isn't what it is), or pull out entirely. The latter seems to invite future problems, so I think the former is the best route. Otherwise, we are reduced to a variation on the old Cold War theme of supporting barbarous governments as long as they promise to be our friends. That really didn't work all that well for us back then, and is such an ethical problem, I don't think we should pursue it now. Saturday, March 18, 2006 Women and the Priesthood So I was asked why I had an issue with women and
the priesthood. Here is my
response:
The first principle, always, is the one of Tradition. I have a significant problem about not adhering to that which was passed down without first seeking to understand why it was passed down. Paul tells us to hold fast to the Traditions. Jude refers to the faith once held by all. The Church Fathers are also unanimous in this. In fact, one of the great defenses against the various heretical sects - in particular the gnostic ones, who claimed to hold some secret knowledge that they had from the Apostles, was to point them to all of the Churches founded by the Apostles and point out that all of these Churches were teaching the same thing - and not this "secret" knowledge. In other words, they were adhering to the Traditions passed down to them. I should point out at this point that the only "Christian" groups who had women priests at this point were the gnostic ones. This wasn't the basis of why they were declared heretical - that basis was the various doctrines they held which were at odds with the Church, and their failure to be obedient to the Church itself. However, its interesting to note that an outcome of this failure to adhere to the doctrines of the Church leads to women in the priesthood. The assumption has become that the no women in the priesthood was merely the outcome of a misogynist culture amongst both the Jews, Greeks, etc. etc. Not to deny that there were, even amongst the Fathers at times, a view of women as weak and frail and generally not capable. However, I sometimes question what some of these Fathers were after (most notably St. Chrysostom), because at the same time, if you get him started on the qualities of some of the various martyrs, virgins, etc. in the Church he portrays them in a different light. So we start with the case that Jesus doesn't appoint any women as apostles. A review of the Gospels tells you immediately that there were women who were clearly more devout than any of the apostles. So somebody decided that Jesus didn't want to appoint women as apostles because of concerns with the prevailing views of Jewish society. To be blunt, this view comes at a time in Christianity where Jesus' status as God is frankly not fully believed any more. This warrants an entire discussion. It also flies in the face of Jesus' constant violation of social norms. So we should be left wondering why he didn't appoint any one of a number of his female followers as Apostles. We move on to Paul and see the pattern continue, and then some. Keep in mind that, like Christ, the most devout and knowledgeable people that Paul worked with were women. He was apparently in the habit of sending converts off to certain women for training. However, he never appoints any of them priests or bishops. That he reserves for men. The accusations that get made against Paul are laughable. He gets accused of having an abiding dislike of women, of creating a new theology (N.T. Wright handily addresses this), etc. He interestingly allows women to teach converts (Acts 18:26 ), and to have leadership roles amongst the laity, but he does not allow them to teach in Church (1 Tim. 2:12 )(most understand his restriction on them teaching as referring to a formal Church role - aka priesthood, not a general restriction. This, of course is not true for certain protestant denominations, who, lacking the Tradition of the Church, figure it out on their own). We certainly can't accuse Paul of trying to conform to society. He was beaten, imprisoned, and stoned too many times for doing the contrary. So again, we are left wondering why no women in the priesthood. There is a distinct theology in Scripture surrounding gender, and gender roles. John Paul II probably explored this the best in a series of audiences that were ultimately published as a book called the Theology of the Body . Basically, though, skipping the starting point that John Paul II starts with - namely the Sermon on the Mount and the Creation account it points to, we can jump to Paul's explanation that the Church is the bride (female) to Christ (male). We see in the male/female marriage relationship an icon of this relationship. Due to the relationship, the male literally transforms the flesh of the female to bring about new life. That is how things work (in a general sense) in the marriage relationship, which reflect the way things work in the Church - the groom(Christ) transforms the flesh of the bride (the Church - and more particularly its members). And this all was prefigured itself in the very incarnation, where Christ transforms humanity itself. So these male/female relationships are important. This leads, itself, to an entire discussion on the other major point of contention in the ECUSA, homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Its interesting to note that when women were first admitted to the priesthood, there were those who said that this was going to lead to an acceptance of homosexuality. No surprise that this is where we are at now. At any rate, the priesthood is not simply a job as the leader of a group of Christians. This is not accepted by many in the ECUSA, as Anglicanism in general, has drifted farther and farther away (beginning with the Reformation to be sure) from the historic faith. However, if you stick with Christianity as it has always been (for which you need to look toward Orthodoxy or perhaps Rome - although they have done their own drifting ever since the great schism), then you understand that the priest has a more significant job (that there is something significant about the Christian priesthood is hinted at in the NT, but not fully explored, as for instance in Jude 1:11 ). That job is to share in Christ's priesthood. The priest stands as the very icon of Christ in our worship. To be an icon is to share in the reality of what you symbolize at some level. Since the maleness of Christ is significant, the maleness of the priest must be significant as well. I think, at times, that one of the problems that has led to the great priesthood debate has been Rome's insistance on a celibate priesthood. In the Eastern Church, there are Presbyters (Priests) and Presbytera's (Priest's wives). In the Russian Church, the term is Matushka, but the same job. And it really is a job. A priest's wife is a significant part of any parish. In the West, with the adoption of a celibate priesthood, you tended to remove a significant role for women within the Church. At the same time, I have to admit that many of the women priests whom I met seem to have more of a call to the monastic life - a life of prayerful service. Since monasticism is all but dead in Anglicanism, these women are left with little in this area but to seek out the priesthood. Well, this was awfully longwinded, and probably didn't really scratch the surface in some regards. The fundamental problem is that protestantism in general, and Anglicanism in particular, has drifted away from the Historic Faith. They do not adhere to Tradition, so they are left to try to figure it out on their own. Once that door was opened, which it was several hundred years ago, ultimately anything can go. It all depends on your interpretation of Scripture. A brief survey of protestantism shows you that this interpretation can be all over the map. Tuesday, March 07, 2006 Why We Are Doing This It's at times challenging to discuss our reasons
for leaving the ECUSA. Yes, we haven't left yet, but its the likely outcome.
People ask me what led us to the decision, and I have an answer - usually
several. However, I always feel that I come off a bit
acrimonious.
The most common reaction people have is that I must be leaving in response to the departure of both St. Anne's in Oceanside from the Episcopal Church , and Christ the King in Alpine . There is a certain amount of truth to that, especially St. Anne's, but for reasons other than you might guess. For a long time it has been obvious that the Episcopal Church, by and large, believes things not only other than what I believe, but often in direct contradiction. This is in reference to all of the usual suspects, a disbelief in the Bible, dismissal of traditional Christian views on morality, etc. This has been going on for a while, and I was willing to stay and fight the fight. Keep on teaching an Orthodox/Catholic style of Anglicanism. However, the Lord placed along the way, people who were willing to raise some critical questions about what I was willing to do to fight the fight. I found myself a member of the American Anglican Council for quite a while, buying off on the notion that at least we agree on some things. But then I began to think that no, I can't support women's ordination, I can't really support evangelicalism. I can only agree to the statement of faith that the AAC requires you to agree to if I sort of close my eyes and plug my nose. So, I left that organization, and decided to support Forward in Faith again. This supposed AngloCatholic group I left several years ago over frustration that they seemed to be a two issue group. The issue was not women's ordination, nor morality, but in fact the Catholic Faith. If you adhere to that, including all that comes with it, peripheral issues like who can be a priest are effectively decided already. So I went to return only to discover that they now only really needed you to support two sacraments (per the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral). Agreeing to the statement, however means that you are tacitly approving of people who think there are only two sacraments. Holy Orders, Marriage, Unction, Confession, and Confirmation are no longer considered important. That's not AngloCatholic. That's ecumenical hogwash. But I joined anyways - intent on remaining blind to where I was at. So what St. Anne's did for me is that they made me realize something important. At first, when they left, after Christ the King, I realized that the whole thing is coming apart at the seams. However, as I reflected on St. Anne's departure, the thing that struck me was that I simply didn't care. Can you imagine? A "biblically orthodox" parish leaves the Episcopal Church and I don't care. The problem is that I don't believe much of what they do, any more than I believe much of what the rest of the Episcopal Church does. I don't believe in the Bible alone. I don't believe in Faith alone. I believe in Baptismal regeneration. I believe in the real presence. I believe that we are saved through the Church. St. Anne's wouldn't agree with me on any of these I'm willing to bet. These are all serious, fundamental issues. I realized that I lacked intellectual integrity when I pretended that I was mostly like these people. As I reflected, I realized that I don't agree with most of the Angican Communion on these key issues, and many more. I then looked around at my own "AngloCatholic" parish which for two years had done Lenten programs based on popular non-denominational works. I got to listen to Rick Warren proclaim that it doesn't matter how you worship. I listened to John Ortberg proclaim sleep as a spiritual discipline. Then I knew that this year we would be doing the Alpha program. I would be in another room somewhere on the campus teaching about Confession, or fasting, about the need to be alive in Christ (therefore in his Church) and grow or that we would end up not being one of the wheat when things are sorted out at the end. And I know that in that other room the group would be taught that they just needed to say the sinner's prayer, and they would be saved for all eternity. Not only is that belief wrong, it is outrageously dangerous. I reflected on issues we've faced as a parish over the last several years and realized that there was a large contingent of folks who don't seem to believe much, just that they want things to be the way they were when they were growing up. So now we have a Church made up of "conservatives" and evangelicals, and I began to wonder where the AngloCatholics had gone. Surely there are some left, but many have gone to other places. Rome. Constantinople, mostly. So then I had to ask, am I really Anglican anymore. Maybe there was a time 1,000 years ago, when I would have been a good Anglican. Back when Anglicanism was Orthodox. When the faithful worshiped God in Church because it was important to do so. When nobody questioned whether or not Jesus was truly present in the unbloody sacrifice of the altar. When everyone knew that baptism saved you. But realistically, not in the Church that arose from the rubble of the reformation. No, I'm not really that at all. So finally I realized that maybe if it was just me, I would fight. I would stay and fight and maybe the day would come that Anglicanism would return to its roots. Not the roots of Peter Toon, but the real roots of the Church. However, I realized that the day would likely come, and relatively soon, that my children would ask why it is we don't believe the same things as the bishops we're called to obey. Why we don't believe the same things most everyone else at Church believes. I would have to answer, "because Dad is right and they're wrong." And we all know that every teenager in existence will agree with that, don't we. So I've left some stuff out, because I do know this is a blog, and so it could be read by anyone. The theological chasm which divides Orthodoxy from the ECUSA is vast, so there is more I can say, but won't. If anyone has questions, they can e-mail, and I would be glad to discuss things further. Information and Knowledge It's been long known in the information world
that there is information, and then there is knowledge. Information is mostly
about data. Companies for years have developed wonderful information systems
and now possess unbelievable volumes of information. Knowledge, on the other
hand, speaks of organizing said information in such a way that you gain insights
into the state of things, and can develop plans for moving forward. In a way,
knowledge is taking information and making it real. Most companies struggle
with accomplishing the latter.
I've developed a keener awareness of this dichotomy as we've begun the move toward Orthodoxy. I probably know more about the Orthodox theology than many Orthodox, to be honest. I've taught it to our Catechumenate classes for years. We've participated in Orthodox fasting, have Icons in our house, you name it, I've even attended various services (3 Divine liturgies in 2 jurisdictions, plus Vespers and the Sunday of Orthodoxy one year). But this week I finally made contact with the priest at our local Greek Orthodox Church and realized how much I really need to discuss with him. Its not the theology. I know that and have agreed with it for over a decade. Its the practical stuff. How do we deal with the fast, and helping our children along through that. How do we deal with Christmas being on a different date, on Thanksgiving in the midst of the Nativity fast? What sort of a prayer rule should I follow. In other words, I have all of the information you could possibly want about Orthodoxy, but precious little knowledge. I need to make the information real, I need to live Orthodoxy. That is the fundamental weakness, especially in the modern era, with those who style themselves philosophers, apologists, or theologian. They have lots of information, but do they have the knowledge? Are they living the information that they have? Often they are not, and to their detriment and the detriment of others, IMO. |