felix hominum

First Temple wall found in City of David

A wall from the First Temple was recently uncovered in Jerusalem's City of David, strengthening the claim that it is the site of the palace of King David, an Israeli archeologist said Thursday.

The new find, made by Dr. Eilat Mazar, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center's Institute for the Archeology of the Jewish People, comes less than two years after she said she had discovered the palace's location at the site just outside the walls of the Old City.

The monumental 10th century BCE building found by Mazar in 2005 following a six month dig has ignited debate among archaeologists about whether it is indeed the palace built for the victorious David by King Hiram of Tyre as recounted in Samuel II:5.

A 20-meter-long section of the 7-meter-thick wall has now been uncovered. It indicates that the City of David once served as a major government center, Mazar said

Jerusalem Post

Primates' Theological Commish responds to Council of General Synod

It's all rather confusing.

The story appears in Episcopal Life online (which is a'murkan), but for some reason I could not find it on our own Anglican Church of Canada site.  Or maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

ht: Steve London

Update:  here's the story

The Council of General Synod, meeting in Mississauga, Ontario March 7-11, 2007, decided to forward to General Synod in June a number of resolutions relating to the blessing of same sex unions. These resolutions have been publicly identified with the St. Michael Report. The Commission would like to clarify that with the exception of the first resolution ('That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate's Theological Commission's St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal.'), these resolutions are not directly related to the St. Michael Report. In the interest of clarity, we respectfully request that in the future only resolution #1 quoted above be named as relating to the St. Michael Report.

The St. Michael Report highlights two crucial matters for the Anglican Church of Canada. The Commissioners continue to judge that these matters are of sufficient importance to bear re-emphasis. The first is cited in the last sentence of the Report and succinctly states the doctrinal issue before the Anglican Church of Canada:

• "It is now for the Church to decide whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine."

In its report the Commission has drawn attention to a range of theological and biblical matters relating to how the Church determines whether such a matter is "a faithful Spirit led development of Christian doctrine."
The second is a pair of questions from paragraph 16 of the Report. These questions are of similar theological significance to the life of the Anglican Church of Canada as the doctrinal issue itself:

• "Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible for one member church of the Communion to approve a course of action which it has reason to believe may be destructive of the unity of the Communion?

• Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible to accept unity as the value which transcends all others, and therefore for a member church of the Communion to refrain from making a decision when it believes it has an urgent gospel mandate to proceed?"

The commissioners believe that these questions should be considered by the church, and most certainly by delegates to General Synod prior to General Synod's discernment and determination on these matters.

Augustine sees Scripture anew

Well, there you have it.  By the end of Book V Augustine has mostly despaired of finding the big T truth from the Manichaeans.  He has run across some sceptics who would argue that we can't really know these sorts of things for sure.  Yet he wants a kind of certainty about these questions.

In Book VI of the Confessions, Augustine tells us that he little by little is becoming acquainted with Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.  It is about this time that Augustine again takes up some reading of the Scriptures.  While the whole book speaks of Scripture, there is a little line in VI.v which has again caught my attention:

I ever believed, both that thou wert God, and hadst a care for us, though I was utterly ignorant, either what was to be thought of thy substance, or what way led or brought back again towards thee.  Seeing therefore mankind would prove too weak to find out the truth by the way of evident reason...for this cause was there need of the authority of Holy Writ.
(VI.v)

Let's take this one step at a time. 

• Augustine believes that there is a "God", but is still thinking somewhat in materialist categories ('what was to be thought of thy substance').  His old sect was materialist:  God is, or has, a 'body', sort of the way we have pictures of a kindly grandpa sitting on a large white throne;
• He believes that this God is not detached ('hadst a care for us').  This God, whomever he may be, must have a relationship to the created world and to humanity.  This God must be different from the absent gods.
• He is unsure of how to be "led or brought back" to this God.  He is at wit's end (the limits of reason) as to how he can know the divine.
• There are limits to natural reason.  This can take two forms:  either one might say that reason is clouded by the Fall, or one might say that unaided human reason is insufficient to grasp the Divine.

Humanity cannot ascend to God solely via reason and intellect. As Donne puts it in the Holy Sonnet, reason proves to be either weak or untrue.  And so we come to the question of "the authority of Holy Writ".  There must be speech from the other side.  As Augustine hears Ambrose expound and preach, he slowly realizes that his own view of God has limited his ability to understand the 'sense' of the Scriptures.  And it is a mutual relationship:  as he grows in understanding the Scriptures, he will come to have a better, truer view of God.

aside #1:  while Plotinus & others would claim to have reached up to the Divine via the Platonic ascent (pure or modified), they always "fall out" of the vision of God.  The relationship cannot be sustained by unaided reason.

aside #2:  many in Anglican circles speak about the relationship between scripture, reason & tradition.  While the three work together, I submit that there is a linear relationship.  It is not a ruling triumvirate.  It is interesting to note that while Augustine addresses scripture and reason in this section, he also draws in what we might see as tradition:  the living teaching of the bishop (Ambrose) faithfully carrying out his calling in the community of the faithful - the Church.  Thus we can see a relationship between all three at work in bk V.

aside #3:  the problem of "authority" is a problem of pride.  Throughout the Confessions the question of Scripture is related to the question of human pride.  I suspect little has changed.

Augustine - the Lenten blog project series

turning palms into crosses: sermon notes for Palm Sunday

    How is it that we turn palms into crosses?  Every year we try our best to take these long strips of palm branch and by some feat of engineering, we turn them into crosses.  We sometimes don’t fully understand what exactly we are doing.  We take these things which are supposed to be instruments of joyfulness and praise for Jesus, and we turn them into crosses, forgetting that this represents the very thing on which Jesus was crucified.  We usually never consider that strange custom that has evolved in the church over the years.  The very same things that are supposed to praise God, are turned against Jesus.  How does this palm branch turn into a cross?

 

It is easy to forget, as we wave a little cross, that it is an instrument of death.  We see that palm branch, we turn it into an empty cross, and we conveniently pass over the suffering and death in between.  The cross was not always empty.

    This is the beginning of Holy Week. Today we started with shouts of Hosanna.  Next Sunday is Easter - the day of resurrection and shouts of Alleluia.  But we are not there yet.  Between the shouts of Hosanna and the shouts of Alleluia there is another shout:  “Crucify him, Crucify him.”  "’Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him.’ But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed.”   

    We have had two sets of readings this morning, each set painting a picture before us.  We started off the morning with a parade and shouts of joy.  The first picture is the “Palm Sunday” picture.  It is all about the crowds welcoming Jesus into Jerusalem with shouts of Hosanna.  The second picture we have today is the “Good Friday” picture.  It is about the same crowds shouting “Crucify Him” and about how Jesus endures the suffering of the Cross.

    What do we learn when we see these two pictures side by side?  We learn about love.  In the first picture we learn about how the crowds, and we, love Jesus.  Let’s call that “Palm Sunday” love.  In the second picture we learn about how Jesus loves the crowds – and us.  Let’s call that “Good Friday” love.  These two kinds of love – Palm Sunday love and Good Friday love, show us the difference between how we love, and how God loves.

(Palm Sunday Love)

    First there is the love which the crowds show to Jesus on Palm Sunday.  It is exciting, it is loud and it is a big show.  They welcome Him into Jerusalem with palm branches and songs and shouts of joy:  “Hosanna to the Son of David”.  They are welcoming Jesus as their King into the throne of David.  But within a few days that same crowd turns on Jesus.  When Pilate asks them what they want to do with this Jesus, this King of the Jews, they reply – “Crucify Him”.  What is wrong with this picture?   

    It is not lack of enthusiasm.  They were enthusiastic when they shouted “Hosanna to the son of David”.  Yet they were just as enthusiastic when they shouted “Crucify Him”.  If we think love is about putting on a big show, or just being enthusiastic, we need to think again.   The crowd was pretty enthusiastic when things were going well for Jesus.  Palm Sunday love is like that.  It loves when there is a good time to be had, and it stops loving when there are bad times to be had.  This way of loving changes with the weather, or with the circumstances. Status, appearance, health, reputation – all these things matter to Palm Sunday love.  Loving a person – any person, including Jesus, means you love them regardless of their circumstances.   You can love the person, or you can love the things around the person.   The crowds didn’t love the person of Jesus.  They loved the show, the power, the miracles, the idea that this man would be their king.

        It is a test of our love for any person – including God – whether we love them just for who they are, or we love them because of the stuff around them.  Not many people were left loving Jesus when he was being crucified, when everything glamorous and exciting was gone from him.  Jesus died alone.

    Is love about being “happy”, whatever we think that word means?  The Palm Sunday crowd is very happy to have Jesus around.  But they are also just as happy to have Him crucified.  This is the more difficult part of the problem.  Love is not about the crowds being happy.  And love is not about me being happy.  Too often we think that it is.  We think that love is supposed to be there for my sole benefit – that love is there to make me happy.  Palm Sunday love is self-serving.  It says “I don’t care what happens to you, as long as I am happy – that is what matters.”  It says “I will love you as long as I get something out of it.”  My happiness is the supreme goal of life.  And this kind of love says – “I will love you for as long as it is convenient for me, for as long as I am getting something out of it, as long as you make me happy – I will love you.”

    It is a test of our love for God and for each other.  Do we still love when we are not “getting something out of it?”  Do I love only when it makes me happy?  Am I more concerned about my own happiness than the happiness of the person I am supposed to be loving?  Love is not self-centered or self-serving.__

(Good Friday Love)

    Now let us think about the Good Friday picture.  What do we think we are seeing when we get a picture of the crucifixion of Jesus?  Do we think we are seeing a man suffering?  Yes, but more than that.  Do we think we are seeing the fulfillment of prophecy?  Yes, and more than that?  We are seeing a picture of love.  On Palm Sunday we see a picture of our love for God, on Good Friday we see a picture of God’s love for us.

How is Jesus’ love for us, different from our love for Him?

(Commitment)

    Six centuries before Jesus was born, the prophet Isaiah wrote some words describing the Messiah that God was going to send.  Here are the words Isaiah wrote about the Messiah who would come, and what that Messiah would be like:   

I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.  The Lord GOD helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint.

“I have set my face like flint”.   

    What does that tell us about Jesus’ character? About his love?  It tells us about his determination.  He has a strength of willpower that says – I will do what I need to do.  Jesus shows us that the foundation of love is commitment.  He set his face like flint – against everything that will come his way.  _We get enthusiastic – but Jesus gets determined.  Good Friday love means commitment.  It means commitment regardless of the  circumstances.  Jesus is committed to us when the circumstances change.  He loves us when we are shouting “Hosanna” and he loves us when we are shouting “Away with this man.”  Jesus loves us when that love is not returned.  He loves us regardless of how we treat him.  He simply loves us.  He is not merely enthusiastic about loving us when things are great; he is committed to loving us when things are darkest, for us and for him.  He loves us when we shout “Crucify Him, Crucify Him.”   That is not only the darkest moment for Jesus.  It is also the darkest moment for us – when we cry out in rebellion against God.   

How does Jesus react to our treatment of him?  How did he react then?  “I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.”   How does God react to our treatment of Him?  He puts up with it; he endures it – remember Jesus prayed while he was being led away for crucifixion – “Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing”.  What happens when love faces a challenge?  That is when love is tested.  That is when we see what love is really made of  - is it Palm Sunday love, or is it Good Friday love?   That is when Jesus is tested.  Jesus prays forgiveness.

(Self sacrifice, rather than self service)

    Whose happiness is Jesus concerned about as he is being crucified?  His own, or someone else’s?  Jesus is willing to endure suffering, and insults, and even death, for the sake of someone else’s happiness – yours and mine.  He did not turn back from suffering because he loved us.  Good Friday love is willing to endure the wrongs of others, to put its own happiness second place, for the sake of someone else.  We have nothing that we can give to God.  God is not in this for what “He can get out of it”.  He is “in it” because He loves us.    

Jesus’ attitude and his actions are not changed by other people’s reactions to him.  Our love is often changed by other people’s attitudes and reactions.  It is part of the “what do I get out of it” syndrome.  Jesus’ love for us does not depend on how well we treat him.  Look at what happens to him.  And look how he reacts.

    How do we get this new kind of love?  At best, most of us are caught between the two kinds of love – we perhaps admire the Good Friday love, but more often than not we practice the Palm Sunday love.  Good Friday love is great to see – in other people.   How do we grow in our love and move from one to the other?   Not by struggling to be better, or by making new resolutions to be a better person, or through he myriads of self help books that line the shelves of secular and sacred book shops.  It is a gift, as everything from God is.  It is the highest and best gift of all the gifts of the Spirit – and it is the only gift which will last. For that gift, let us pray.

gratuitous baby pictures

It has become somewhat of a tradition in the felix household.  When you turn one, you get to feed yourself.  For your birthday meal.  And we always have a bit of a special treat:  chocolate pudding.  Justin was in fine form, and his three older siblings cheered him on...

sizing up the project...followed by victory

perennial passover: who let the jews out?

Yes, it's one of my all time favorites: 

Passover Greeting:  Who Let the Jews Out?

Animation by Dan Meth.  Turn your volume up.  Takes just a few seconds to load.  It's a riot.

where to write my sermons...

One of the things I most enjoy about pastoral ministry is the people I get to meet when I'm writing sermons.  I know for some the idea of "sermon" is a bit old school, but we'll leave that for another post.

I love to work on my sermons in public places:  cafe's, hangouts, places where people naturally gather.  I find that this has at least two advantages, no, make that three.  First, I get to have the sort of beverage I like.  Second, I like to write sermons in a place where I am reminded of, well, people.  It is helpful to me to consider the variety of creatures who pass in front of my table, or corner of the cafe:  some on their way to work, others to school, joining up with some retired friends, cellphone on ear making deals, some looking cool, others looking lost. 

I find that working on a sermon in a public place helps me, well, remember who this message is for.  Yes, it is for a specific congregation, but it is also for everyone.  It simply reminds me of the glorious things created in the image of God all around me.  He loves them as they brush by.

I also quite enjoy the 'accidental' relationships which begin in such places:  the person who asks what I am reading or working on;  the opportunity to sit down and begin a conversation, or a friendship.

I'm wondering if the clergy office should be banned in favour of something more missional...

Confessions V: three sorts of journey

In Book V of the Confessions, a remarkable number of events transpire which move Augustine both geographically and spiritually.  In V.i he gives us a hint of what is to come in philosophical terms:  “the whole creation is never slack in thy praises”, which leads the human soul to contemplate nature, and so to raise itself up toward contemplation of God.  The soul leans “itself on those things which Thou hast created” and so also passes over to “Thyself, who hast made them”. (V.i)  This is the basic form of the Platonic ascent, as outlined in the Republic:  we move from shadows to caused things to the cause.  Augustine will find that as he learns more about nature, he will become disentangled from the Manichaeans and so will “rise” up toward God, the source and creator.  There are of course echoes of natural theology and Romans 1 in here.  In V.iii Augustine compares piety with the ‘natural philosophy’ of the day, liberally sprinkling his text with quotes and references from Romans 1.  The philosophers examine nature, and they “discourse truly concerning the creature, but the truth, the Architect of the creature, do they not religiously seek after.”  This is a theme he will repeat later in VII – the “Platonists” understand the Word as Creator, but stumble when they dismiss the Word made flesh. (VII.xx,xxi)

In V.ii Augustine begins to write of what we might call providence.  The God who created has a concern for his creation, and even if the creature is morally or spiritually estranged from Him, He has not “given over” the creature.  Throughout book V he repeatedly writes of incidents which cause him to slowly but surely fall off from the Manichaean heresy.  [I’ll say more about these later.]  In hindsight he attributes these to the principle of Providence.  “Thou dealtest with me therefore, that I should be persuaded to go to Rome.” (V.viii)  The geographic move to Rome was indeed providential:  Augustine left behind the Manichean Bishop, Faustus, he left behind Carthage (to Carthage I came, burning, burning), and he also leaves behind his confidence in the sect to which he belonged.  In his new geographical setting he meets another Bishop – Ambrose, and begins a new stage in his journey.  “To him was I led by thee, unknowing, that by him I might be brought to the, knowing it.” (V.xiii)  Here again Augustine writes as though it was God who was directing these “movements” in his life:  from Carthage to Rome and Milan;  from a bishop of the Manichees to a Bishop of the Church;  from confidence in his sect to skepticism.

He begins a further questioning of things related to Scripture (V.xi) and discovers certain weaknesses in the approach to Scripture which the Manichaeans hold.  He began to listen to the “speech of one Elpidius”, who argued for the Catholic interpretation and position.

And the Manichees’ answer seemed but very weak to me:  they would not give their answer in public for an open hearing, but only in private, among their own followers.  Namely, they said, that the Scriptures of the New Testament had been corrupted by some unknown persons…but they themselves (the Manichees) failed to produce any uncorrupted version.
V.xi

[note to self:  I wonder what Augustine would have made of the Jesus Seminar?]

He has moved in place;  he has moved philosophically, and now he begins to move spiritually.  In all 3 of these the older Augustine, writing this text, sees the hand of God.  It is a reason for hope.

Augustine - the Lenten blog project series

on looking stupid: Mary anoints Jesus

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, ‘Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?’ (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’  Jn 12: 1-8

One small, small, tangent:  how often does one fail to do something for Jesus out of a fear of looking stupid in public?  Yes, there is a sense in which Mary's actions are foolish.  She displays a kind of courage which I believe is fueled by her love for Jesus.  Simply doing something for love of Jesus, knowing that you are going to look stupid in some people's eyes.  And they are going to say so.

It has to do with love, and with identity.  I once saw a book with the title "Approval Addiction".  I think we suffer from that disease far too often.  But I think Mary shows us how to be cured.  Risk doing something for Jesus, even if it means you look stupid.

Update on Parson Preston's Pub list

Preston has started to give us his list of pubs to frequent during General Synod.

That is, when the Synod is not in session.  So let's make sure we don't skip anything...

I hereby appoint Preston as the Public Parson of Pubs (in Plenary).

Update:  the list is coming together. 
I still think there should be an official drinking song for GS 2007.

This was a bit of an unfinished project, but, based on Stan Rogers' classic Canadian folk song

Oh the year was 1778
(how I wish was in Sherbrooke now)
when a Letter of Marque came from the King
To scummiest vessel I'd ever seen

(chorus)
God- *amn them all, I was told
We'd cruise the seas for Lutheran souls
We fired no guns, shed no tears,
Now I'm a broken man on a Winnipeg pier
The Last of Cranmer's Privateers...

verse:
Well 'General' Synod cried the town,
(how I wish was in Sherbrooke now)
For twenty brave men, all Liturgists who
Would make for him the Anglican crew...

National Down Syndrome Conference

We welcome all who are interested in participating in this important event.


If you'd like to be involved, please contact the
Ups & Downs office at
(403) 289-4394
or email
conferencevolunteers2007[at]shaw.ca

From the beginning it was not so: a response to Bradley J. Willis

Church must do what is right for homosexuals:  Bradley J Willis

Mr. Willis:  greetings in Christ’s name.  I trust that your ministry at St Luke’s parish is going well. It is obvious to the readers of the Edmonton Journal how passionate you are about his particular topic.  As you have placed your thoughts out there in the public sphere, allow me the opportunity to dialogue with you.  There are a number of assertions in your opinion piece which I think need to be addressed in the spirit of genuine dialogue.  I, too, like very much the text which you quoted:  John 16:12-13: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."  Let me address just a few things for starters, and the rest when I have another moment or two.

“Christ left no recorded comments about homosexuality, but the analogy of his openness to the despised and ritually impure has been convincingly pressed in support of our real tradition. Opponents are reduced to relying on two irrelevant passages from Leviticus, and three equivocal extracts from the letters of Paul.”

Surely this is the Wizard of Oz:  the Straw Man / Scarecrow par excellence.  What you are attempting to argue is that you have the teachings of Christ to support your opinions, while those who are “opponents” get the scraps that fall from the Master’s table:  a few dry bones from Leviticus and Paul.  Why no mention of Jesus' appeal to the creation story of Genesis, thus tying together in His own teaching both the witness of God’s intention in creation and the reassertion of what God intended “from the beginning”?  What Jesus has done is set out a standard for human relationships by appealing to the original intention of God in creation.   It is Jesus himself who reminds us of this continued theme, unbroken in the witness of the two testaments.  Jesus has enumerated what is good; he does not need to list all else that is a falling short of that good.

You also seem to be operating from the position of a “canon within a canon”:  the ace of Christ trumps the full house 3 Pauls and a pair of Leviticus.  This of course has already been answered in my preceding statements, but it also raises the question of just how “we Anglicans” read Scripture.  And what do we mean by tradition?

"Almost all discussions I have read or heard concerning "What To Do" start by assuming that in the Anglican tradition, persons actively homosexual are in need of repentance and reform, and are definitely excluded from priestly office.

Wrong. All this time the real Anglican tradition has been that homosexuality -- and I mean sexually active homosexuality -- has been not only tolerated but also tacitly accepted."

Well, I suppose I would have to begin where many of us Anglicans begin every Sunday:

Almighty God,
unto whom all hearts be open,
all desires known,
and from whom no secrets are hid:
cleanse the thoughts of our hearts
by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit,
that we may perfectly love thee,
and worthily magnify thy holy name;
through Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Our liturgy continues to remind us precisely of the dangers of what is tacit. 

Your understanding of “Anglican tradition” is quite interesting, as is the rhetorical twist of meaning, while keeping to same vocabulary.  It somewhat reminds me of Churchill’s comments regarding the great traditions of His Majesty’s Navy:  the traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, buggery and the lash.  While I enjoy the rhetoric, the reductionist shift of taking the word “tradition” from it’s usual theological meaning to become a sort of “what everybody knows, wink, wink” doesn’t really move the dialogue forward.  The question is not "what happens behind the sacristy door", but "what does our God ask of us in the area of sexuality?"  That is the real matter under consideration.  I suggest a thinking again of the what the word tradition (things handed on) means for "us Anglicans" in the oft repeated phraseology about Scripture and reason.

There is another jump in language made when you state:  "we are left with a long tradition of acceptance of homosexual priests and bishops".  Indeed we are, and if further statements in your article are correct, that category is just as irrelevant as saying we have a long tradition of heterosexual priests and bishops.  The question is whether we have a common understanding, based on revelation, the faith handed on (tradition) and the use of our faculties of discernment as to what constitutes the way of living to which Jesus calls us.

There is probably much more to say on the "risk of schism" which you mention in the first paragraph.  I suppose few folks in ministry get to experience the full breadth of the Anglican Communion.  I can only share my experience of ministering with International Students at the University of Alberta:  it was a delight to share Christian fellowship with Anglican students form around the world.  To many folks in thew pews, "those Africans" are reduced to one or two persons "over there". 

I appreciate your forthrightness in sharing concerns which are obviously important to you, and I wish you God's grace in the fulfilling of the duties and responsibilities to which he has called you.  I do hope that you, and many others, can make it out to one of the Diocesan consultations prior to General Synod 2007.  The information is available (scroll down a bit) on the diocesan website.

ps:  If you'd like to get together for lunch, I'll buy.

"Other Voices" on the Anglican Church website

A friend and I had a bit of a 'laugh' over the latest "headline" on the national Anglican Church of Canada website: 

Other Voices of Our Church

In the interests of sharing the variety of voices across the Anglican Church of Canada this page offers information relating to discussions of the blessing of same-sex unions, homosexuality and the church from as [sic] variety of sources.

Of course, the question is, other than what? 

Other than what has been presented on the website and in Church press so far?  Other in the sense of alternative, cutting edge even, outside the mainstream of Christian faith as expressed in the Anglican way of following Jesus?  Other than what is normative for us to teach, uphold and believe?  Other than the voices of the website editors?  I'm sorry, it just does strike me as a bit of an odd headline...

I get an image of disembodied spirits, hovering around a sacristy or old set of vestments or something.
[insert wooooooo sound here, and jingle some chains or something]

"Other Voices":  Dr. Brett Cane, St. Aidan's Anglican Church, Winnipeg, gives us a pdf.  As well, we have other voices from The Zacchaeus Fellowship, which they spelled wrong on one line and then had the correct spelling on the next.  But that's okay, I don't always spell check stuff.  In fact, I don't think I ever do.

And say, does anyone read the Edmonton Journal these days?

sol cafe sunday: return of the prodigal son

We took a look at the story of the return of the prodigal son tonight.  Lots of good conversation, a few meandering observations, though there were many more than what is here:

The younger son rehearses his speech on the way home:  "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands."  When the father and the son meet up, the son says “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”   Why doesn't the son finish off his apology speech?  Did he forget?  Didn't have enough rehearsal time to get his line right?  Or does the father cut him off before he gets to that part? 

My sense is that the father cuts him off before he can utter the line: "treat me like one of your hired hands." I think the returning son makes the same mistake many of us do when we are confronted with repentance:  we think that the father will cease treating us as sons or daughters, and will begin treating us as "hired hands."  After all, we've abused the position of sonship;  it only makes sense that we will be taken back "on certain conditions" - like hired hands.

The father will have none of it.  He accepts the confession, but not the attached conditions.  The father's joy will not be contained by the son's initial plea to make him like one of the hired hands.  Confession and forgiveness bring joy, not servitude.

Preston Parsons: Winnipeg blogger

who blogs here, will hopefully blog a list of good pubs in Winnipeg for those attending GS 2007.

power, love & glory: Augustine, Confessions IV

All sin is a false imitation of God.  As Augustine wrote in book III, our various faults seek to imitate the goodness of God in some respect.  In book IV of the Confession, Augustine highlights some details of his life after he took up with the Manichaeans:

• he began to teach rhetoric, and was taken up with its power to "overcome others" (IV.ii)
• he kept a mistress, "not joined to me in lawful marriage", but nevertheless he "truly kept the promise of the bed" (IV.ii)
• he recalls the incident of "seeking the prize" in a theatrical poetry competition (IV.ii)

So what is happening?  Augustine is seeking after power, love and glory:  it is a trinitarian way of looking at sin.  As all sin is an imitation of God, so we can also come to understand sin in terms of a false imitation of God the Trinity.  Power, love and glory are for Augustine, ways in which we begin to understand the Father, Son and Spirit.  And so we also come to falsely imitate God in these ways. 

Augustine came to see in rhetoric that one could have power over others:  an imitation of the power of the Father, from whom are all things, and from whom is all power ("you would have no power over me, were it not granted you from above").  He continues to seek after love, seeking in his "faithful" yet non-married relationship a kind of love and mutuality which is a pale imitation of the incarnate love shown by Jesus.  And Augustine begins to seek for that public attention, that self-centered affirmation, that glory which is an imitation of the Spirit.  But of course, the Spirit bears witness to Christ, and does not draw our gaze toward himself.

Seeking for these things (power, love and glory) is in one sense an expected occurrence.  We are made in the image of a God who is Trinity, and both the virtues we have and the faults we have will reflect something of the nature of God the Trinity.  On the negative side, it is easy to see how the temptations to a wrong use of power, love and glory work in our own lives and the lives of those around us.  Yet we desire those things because we are meant to experience them in the context of our relationship with God.  It is perhaps more difficult for us to see how power and glory can be "good", because the major examples we see come from the world of politics or celebrity lifestyle.  Yet Jesus gives his followers authority (power) over the presence and effects of evil (cast them out in my name), and we look forward to being changed from glory into glory.

As we contemplate power, love and glory in God, and as He grants grace for us to imitate Him, we come to experience the fullness of what it is to be made in the image of God:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Augustine - the Lenten blog project series

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: The Right Reverend Joseph the Smoked of Fishbourne Sneething Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

Thanks to Steve.

Winner of Anglican Hymn Competition Announced

[Toronto, Church House]

In a remarkable move, an early winner has been declared in the Anglican-Lutheran Hymn Text Competition for the upcoming General Synod 2007, to be held in Winnipeg this June.  The Communications Officer for the Anglican Church of Canada has formally awarded the prize to the the Central Planning and Peasants' Collective of the ACC.

"What the Collective has done," said the Rev. Eustace Smithley-Jones in a prepared statement, "is to blend into one organic musical whole the vision of the Church, the work of the Primate's Theological Commission, and the official theme of General Synod ('Draw the Circle Wide, Draw it Wider Still!').  The award winning text is entitled:  Canon Fodder , and the lyrics recount the journey of the idea of SSB into the circle of creedal doctrine."

"In a way, the journey of this idea parallels our own spiritual walk - from the adiophora of life of being a thing indifferent to God, to ourselves being core to the very being of the divine, if you know what I mean.  It is a grand project both in scope and depth, at once bold and innovative, and yet at the same time following traditional church practice of skipping over verses 3-4 as unnecessary, and completely changing the key at the end.  I look forward to the harmony that will ensue."

"never give your heart to an institution,

because it is incapable of returning the favour."

It was something spoken to me almost 2 decades ago.  The priest/professor/confessor who spoke that to me was wise enough to recognize some of the more subtle temptations of the Christian life, especially for those who are "clergy".

The Anglican Church - "throw a tent over it and call it a circus".

Over at the sol cafe site, steve the z left a bit of a comment:

We may even be just that rest stop for the odd Christian traveller. The point in their trip where they find that they're feet hurt from walking around and just want to sit and enjoy a slower moment. Maybe confused by programs and movements in the mainstream Christian world, or just tired, as it is hard work being a Christian in many churches.

Maybe they want to laugh and enjoy the company of believers that will let them be, just be. We let people choose if they come to sol, and choose why they may or may not come again, as best we can without pressure or guilt. We pray, read scripture and do our best to worship, but we do all that as a unique community exposed to the world.

This week the sol will gather at 5ish at Cafe Dabar, and we'll be (somewhat) guided by the readings for the week:

March 18 - Fourth Sunday in Lent
Joshua 5:9-12
Psalm 32
2 Corinthians 5:16-21
Luke 15:1-3; Luke 15:11-32

The gospel reading is the story of the return of the prodigal son, or the story of  the love of the father, or the story of the impatience of the elder brother.  It is also the story of the imagined taste of the scraps in the foreign land, the bitter taste in one's own mouth of the words of confession, the real taste of forgiveness at the Father's table.

It is a call to come home.

where your treasure is, there will your heart be also

In Plenary - the Canadian Church blog

has made a couple of changes since it went online.

It seems that they have removed the section where you type in your URL so that other online commenters can go to your blog or website...

Pity, that.  I wonder why they did that?

I would go the meeting, but...

I will be otherwise occupied.

On April 23rd at 7:00pm, co-sponsored by the Edmonton Branch the Prayer Book Society of Canada and the parish of St. John the Evangelist, will be a round table discussion of the issues facing us at General Synod 2007 and the consequences of the decision we will make on the same-sex blessing resolution.   A panel of clergy and lay people from the diocese, representing a wide range of perspectives, and with Bishop Victoria acting as moderator, will examine questions such as:

What is the nature of the Church?  What does it mean to belong to a church?  Is it reasonable to expect members of a church family to conform to common standards of belief or behaviour? What are the likely consequences of how we deal with the local option    resolution?  What if we table it?  What if it is passed?  How will our decision impact on the unity of the Canadian Church?  How will it affect the unity of the Anglican Communion?  How will it affect our status within the Anglican Communion at large and Christ's holy Catholic Church?  What does authority mean in the Church?  Does the Anglican stool or Wesleyan Quadrilateral help or hurt us?

Don't know what the Anglican stool or Wesleyan Quadrilateral is all about?  Just another good reason to come join us for an evening of lively discussion at St. John the Evangelist Parish, 11111 - 57 Avenue.

I'm tempted to descend into frat house humour here.  Alice the Camel's list of top 20 blog weapons comes immediately to mind.  The Camel's list comes via Cardboard Monacle, who put together the top 20 comic book character weapons of all time.  Combining comic books and bloggers, Alice has determined which blogger gets which weapon.  I'm flattered that felix hominum came in at # 2, being granted the Green Lantern’s Ring,  "Created by the Guardians of the Universe, the rings were then granted to worthy candidates."  I submit to my less sensitive readers that they have a look through the weapons list, and figure out which comic book weapon is most appropriate for the Anglican church.

BTW, although I would love to be a part of the local conversation and dialogue, I intend to be on the banks of the Nile, smoking the sheesha while sipping coffee that is darker than a mineshaft.  We'll be on pilgrimage in the Holy Land towards the end of April.  Have it all sorted out by the time I get back, won't you?

Augustine & Monica: dreams & prayers

How can one be “certain” of anything in this changeable, mutable world?  How can an immutable God convey something “true” to mutable, changeable creatures like ourselves?  It is these questions which come to my mind as I read the last two chapters of Confessions III.

Augustine has fallen in with the Manicheaens.  His mother Monica has been praying for him, and Augustine writes:  exaudisti eam – “You heard her.” (III.xi)  That in itself is remarkable; God is removed and yet not removed from this temporal world.  He hears and answers prayer.  There is the famous scene in which Monica relates to Augustine a dream.  In the dream she sees

“…in her sleep, herself standing upon a wooden rule, and a very beautiful young man coming toward her, with a cheerful countenance and smiling upon her, herslef being grieved and far gone with sorrowfulness.  Which young man when he had demanded of her the causes of her sadness and daily weepings, (that he might teach, as they use to do, rather than learn), and she had answered that it was my perdition that she bewailed;  he bade her rest contented, and wished her to observe diligently and behold, that where herself was, there was I also.  Who when she looked aside, she saw me standing by her upon the same rule.  How should this chance now, but that thine ears were bent towards the requests of her heart, O thou Good Omnipotent, who has such special care of every one of us, as if thou hadst care but of one alone;  and so regardest all, as if but single persons.” (III.xi)

Monica takes this dream to be a sure sign from God that her son will eventually be on the same “rule of faith” (VIII.xxx) that she is.  That is, the dream is an answer to her prayer – her son will become a Christian even as she already is.  Augustine, quite logically, points out to hsi mother that she might be mistaken in her interpretation.  Monica’s answer rather startles Augustine:  she is absolutely sure of the interpretation.  Then in III.xii, Monica tells a bishop of her deep and heartfelt concern for her son, of her constant and fervent prayer on his behalf.  The bishop replies:  “it is not possible that the son of these tears should be lost”.  Again, Monica takes this reply “as if an oracle had resounded from Heaven”.

How can she certain that "God speaks" in these things, in these ways? 

How can I?

Augustine - the Lenten blog project series

updating the blog roll

A few new additions to the blogroll, the first three of whom are Canadian Anglican bloggers, and so are filed under the 'assorted anglicans' heading.

Peregrinations of a Pop Culture Princess

Expanding the Circle:
A space of fellowship and dialogue

Our Hearts Are Restless
To The Greater Glory of God - An Anglican Blog of Faith and Life

Tangerines in a Red Net Bag
aka pinkmoose, whom we've featured before

ed note:  I was contemplating moving sameo 416 down to the assorted anglicans section, but he insists online that he is actually some sort of espionage figure associated with shady intelligence organizations, so we'll leave him where he is.

the fever spreads

I don't ask questions.

via

shakes with the pinkmoose, worship with Stat Guy

As the pinkmoose pointed out, we had an excursion to the Route 99 Diner.  A great place where the milkshakes are so thick "they could stop a bullet."  It's on 99 street and they have a cheesy jukebox.  What more do you want?

Have a look through his blog.  While I can now claim to have had at least a few bloggers make their way through the doors of St Tim's, we might have to wait for Tenebrae to get the pinkmoose over.

The latest was Stat Guy (aka Scott Galbraith), who came to worship with us this morning with his lovely Stat Daughter.  We were delighted to have them with us.

package deals are cheaper: abortion & bundled doctrine

The first time I purchased a mac, way back in the late 80's, I discovered the concept of the "bundle deal":  put everything together in one package, and sell it all together.  You can explore what's in the box later, after you've begun to open it up.  I want to offer up a few reflections on some recent statements by two of our Bishops.  There is more in the box yet.

"Any final thoughts?"

"Planned Parenthood is an organization that I have always admired and respected. It does such extraordinarily fine work, and I'm very happy to be associated with it."

Rt Rev Gene Robinson, interviewed here.

"...we must challenge the condemnation by the Church throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality."

Rt Rev Michael Ingham, article here.

One of the points I have tried to make in various conversations with colleagues and friends is that the issue of same sex blessings is part of a package deal.  What I say here is only one part of that package deal, but I find it no accident that both Bishops Robinson and Ingham draw public attention to their support of abortion - explicit on the part of Bishop Robinson, and implicit (at the very least) on the part of Bishop Ingham.

To those who have been telling me that this is only about "one issue", I can only say:  No, it isn't.  And to those who think that this issue is isolated and can be treated as a matter of pastoral practice, I would have to say:  this is a package deal, because the principles by which these leaders are arguing for SSB, are the same principles by which they are announcing their support for other issues.

Must one who supports same sex unions also be pro-abortion?  On the surface, the answer is obviously no.  Or rather, "not yet."  The thoughts of these two Bishops begin to draw the logical conclusions of their worldview.  What has happened?  The great virtues of "faithfulness and commitment" have been removed from the sphere of procreation (that is, making human beings who are in the image of God) and parenthood.  Where are these virtues now located, exclusively?

This suggests, then, that the primary criterion for a Christian sexual theology is not procreation but rather faithfulness and commitment. This is the supreme message of the life of Jesus and ought to be the principal standard for Christian sexual ethics – not sexual orientation, not propagation, nor even marriage. Fidelity to one another, to one’s partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity – these are the elements of a more positive approach to sexuality that the Church needs to pursue.

Bishop Ingham (ibid)

I find it ironic that the Bishop mentions "a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity", yet fails to affirm explicitly the creativity of heterosexual marriage in the making of people.   [Of course, those who are married with small children know that you need to be a lot more creative than when it was just the two of you.]  How can one argue for creativity, and yet say that the Church must challenge moral basis for abortion?

Let me take just one specific example, for it is in specifics that our lives are lived.  To challenge the Church's traditional teaching on abortion, to argue that Planned Parenthood is a fine organization, is at the same time to deny the humanity of at least a certain group of people.  Let us narrow this down to genetic screening.  Let us agree that a wholesale approval of abortion includes as a subset abortion based on genetic screening.

("faithfulness and commitment")

Is it within the "Jesus' teaching" to say:  "I will have this child if I think she will turn out like this, but I will have an abortion if I think she will turn out like that"?  Does not such a choice, in the context of "challenging the Church's traditional teaching on... abortion" fly in face of this thing proclaimed as "unconditional love"?  How are we to learn this love?

("Over and over again, in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, we learn of God’s faithfulness, and God’s unconditional love")

I am not convinced by the language of faithfulness and commitment and unconditional love which I have seen and read.  I might venture into the sphere of language myself, and coin a new term:

trisomophobia - an irrational fear and hatred of persons with Down Syndrome.  Trisomophobia is often expressed as support for abortion, including the 88-92% abortion rate in the case of detecting the presence of Trisomy 21 via genetic testing.  See, inter alia

Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review". Prenatal Diagnosis 19 (9): 808-812.  PMID 10521836 ; David W. Britt, Samantha T. Risinger, Virginia Miller, Mary K. Mans, Eric L. Krivchenia, Mark I. Evans (1999). "Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: Bringing in context". American Journal of Medical Genetics 93 (5): 410 - 416

I must go for few moments, and tidy this post up later.  Someone made in the image of God requires my faithfulness, commitment, and unconditional love.  One who has a hard time speaking is requiring someone with a voice to speak for her.

Words are
power;
speechlessness,
an endless abyss;
garbled speech,
a target for dishonor;
persistent rotten storytelling,
a huge annoyance;
boring tapes that demean my image.

You whose language flows
coherently,
whose ideas sparkle like wine
on the tongue,
remember your gift
and use it well,
for me.

Craig Romkema,  poet
writing through autism
from his collection: "Embracing the Sky:  Poems Beyond Disability" .

 

local response to the anglican church

A member of a local congregation voices his concerns over the ongoing difficulties within the Anglican Church...

Of particular concern was the downplaying of gender differences as a fundamental aspect of the structure of creation.  "A bottle is not an acceptable substitute", the parishioner was quoted as saying.  He has applied for membership on the Primate's Theological Commission, stating his concern over what he describes as the rise of "lactophobia" in the church.

Film at 11, diaper change to follow.

UPDATE:  As this story unfolds, we will continue to bring you top notch reporting on it's impact around the globe:

a]  in related news;  "Presiding Bishop Schori Talks About Tiny But Noisy Exceptions"

Clergy fired for supporting same sex blessings

Edmonton Journal
(subscr. reqd)

SASKATOON - An Anglican priest has been told he will be dumped from his job in Saskatoon by the end of the month for supporting same-sex marriage.Shawn Sanford Beck says he made a stand on the issue – and won’t back down from his views that gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry.

Beck has been told he will also lose his job working with a Lutheran inner-city project.  Even though he has being turfed by the Anglican Church, he says he won’t renounce his faith.

He calls his views on the issue an act of “civil disobedience” within the church and calls himself a “priest in exile”.

via sameo416, who has some thoughts on the events

Shawn had outlined his thoughts in an Open Letter, dated Conversion of St Paul 2007:

...As a priest in the midst of this struggle, it has become clear to me after much prayer and soul-searching, that my spiritual conscience can no longer abide by the laws which I am required to uphold in regard to the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages. It is my conviction that our current ban on such practices is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust. Upholding such a position (even unwillingly) forces me to bend severely (if not break) my priestly vows, my baptismal covenant, and the Word of God inscribed within my heart. I therefore publicly declare that I will, when requested, officiate at same-sex marriages and offer blessing upon committed same sex unions. I will no longer discriminate against homosexual people when it comes to the exercise of my priestly duties.

I am aware, of course, that the stance I am taking will likely lead to serious consequences, and I am prepared to face these consequences openly and publicly. It may be helpful to consider my action a form of ecclesiastical civil disobedience.

open letter via Oz

Michael Ingham's address to the Whole Message Conference

can be found here.

Sex and Christianity: Re-thinking the Relationship


I made my first visit to India over 30 years ago. I have been back several times since then, but my first visit was unforgettable.

I was in my early 20s, and studying Theology at the University of Edinburgh. During a summer break I went to live in India for about three months. One weekend I went with a group of other students to the ancient caves of Ajanta and Elora near Bombay. This is one of Hinduism’s sacred sites. It’s a series of caves hollowed out of the face of a cliff, forming a natural temple in the side of a vast rock face. If you’ve seen the movie “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” you get the idea. The walls are ornately carved and sculpted. You walk through gallery after gallery of carvings dating back many centuries, and a deep sense of the holy pervades the place from the prayers of millions of pilgrims stretching back through time.

In one room I looked closely at the sculptures, and saw figures of men and women engaged in various acts of sexual intercourse. There were dozens of different poses, some of them quite imaginative. Many seemed physically impossible, though quite acrobatically interesting. Looking at them as a Christian, as someone standing outside the Hindu tradition, I experienced what the first Christian missionaries must have felt when they travelled to India to preach the Gospel. I was embarrassed, and then shocked, to see such an open display of sexuality in a sacred place of worship. I immediately pronounced judgment on it to myself as paganism.

Today, looking back from the vantage point of thirty years of experience, I think quite differently about it. Now I give thanks for an ancient people and an ancient tradition that saw the intimate connection between sexuality and spirituality, and understood both of them to be dimensions of human wholeness. I can appreciate now, more than I did then, the importance of a healthy honesty about matters sexual, and how significant it is that they were unafraid to depict this powerful connection in their sacred iconography.

Why did Augustine fall for the Manichaeans?

Or, how six inches of muddy water can pretend to be as deep as the ocean.

Out of all the religious options on the buffet of beliefs, cults and practices available in the Roman Empire, why did Augustine fall in with the Manicheans?  They were dualists, seeing the basic principle of things as the opposition of good and evil.  But this kind of opposition of good and evil has a particular form, which we will look at later.

For now, in Confessions III.vi Augustine writes that he fell in with these "proud" men, who were carnales nimis et loquaces.  They were "carnal", that is, they were materialists.  The principles of good and evil appeared to him as material principles, and the Manicheaens' explanation of the world was essentially a materialist explanation.  Previously, Augustine noted that he was consumed with his attraction to the physical body - looking at a human being as physical only, without the spiritual.

This type of religion is, I think, at least partly the logical extension of his lust.  It is the religious form of lust.  It is craving a material, physical explanation for good and evil,  thinking that the physical world will provide everything that can satisfy a human being.  Augustine writes in III.vi:  "...sed secundum sensum carnis quaererum" - he was seeking after God only in a physical, material sense, only using the faculties of the body, not the mind.

[note to self: in a sense, this allows one to posit that moral choices are equal to physical conditions, that moral choice has only a material cause, and that what we are is reduced to our physical, material reality]

The Manicheans were also loquaces - they were eloquent, they could speak well.  Augustine already had compared the simple style of Scripture with the eloquence of Cicero, and Cicero won that battle.  Here again, it the the outward beauty of the words, not their content, which appeals to him.  The Manichean's also had this:  they had a "mixture of the syllables of thy holy Name, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter". (III.vi)  That is, they combined the names of the familiar Christian faith with teaching contrary to the Christian faith.  They made the 'Trinity' (or rather a pale generic god dressing up in Jesus' name) a bit more palatable to Augustine.  And palatable is the correct word.  Something can taste good (appealing to the physical senses) without providing any nourishment for the soul.

Augustine - the Lenten blog project series