the holy apostles: ss. peter & paul

lately i have been pondering the friendship between peter and john.  they are the two disciples who are most often portrayed together both in the gospels and in acts.  john's affection for peter seems to have exceeded even that for his own brother, james.  and it seems that peter returned the affection.  that would explain, for instance, his concern for the fate of john in the last chapter of the fourth gospel.  but peter and john have no feast day in common  (although there is a gospel for such a feast, shared with mary magdalene, which we read on easter morning:  the resurrection story in the twentieth chapter of john, and an epistle for the feast we might introduce, in the third or fourth chapter of acts;).

but to the feasts of peter, paul gets to come, a sort of new kid on the block.  in january, after the ancient feast of s. peter's chair (called by some the confession of s. peter) there is an octave, the baptism of s. paul (called by some the conversion of s. paul, the some being protestants who are uncomfortable with  apostolic succession or baptismal regeneration.)  and at the height of summer, amidst the celebrations of john the baptist and james the brother of john mary magdalene and before the transfiguration of our lord and the dormition of his holy mother, peter shares a feast with paul.  an odd couple, it seems. that paul is an addition is obvious from the readings for matins.  they are all about peter (with a bit of john, from the third chapter of acts).  paul has his own commemoration on the 30th of july.

but an importantly odd couple for a church that would come to be catholic, not in the sense of ruled by one man who lived in the capital of the empire and sits in peter's chair, but in the sense of embracing all the peoples of the world. this feast  recognizes that it is not just the home boys, the twelve who wandered around galilee with jesus for years, who are called to be apostles, but that such folk, to borrow from a children's hymn, as doctors and queens and sherdesses on the green are also and equally called to be saints of god, are called into the apostolic fellowship.

this feast has another importance of, i think, which is recognized in the traditional icon, a portrait of two very different men embracing.  they are instantly recognizable by the traditions of  iconography:  peter has his trademark blond hair, paul is bald.  we call them saint peter and saint paul, but their friends knew them as rocky and shorty, which is what their names meant.  peter, as is remarked in the fourth chapter of acts, was unlearned, but a passionate follower of his lord.  (and is so often true of passionate followers, given to periods of infidelity.)  paul as he proudly mentions from time to time in his letters, was educated in the best schools of judaism.  but there they are in the icon, embracing, an embrace we celebrate  on 29th july each year.

the insight to the importance of that embrace, i suggest, is provided by john's understanding of the importance of peter.  for much of the church, peter's 'primacy,' as it is called, depends on his 'confession' celebrated on the 18th of january, when we remember jesus' saying, 'thou art peter, and on this rock i will build my church,' a statement which has been used as much for division as building.  but for john, who probably in his gospel says more about peter than does even matthew, the importance of peter is built on that last breakfast scene on the seashore, when jesus asks peter, three times, 'dost thou love me?'  it is peter's love for jesus that qualifies him to feed jesus' sheep.

peter and paul both have spotted histories.  peter right after his 'confession' tries to talk jesus out of the crucifixion, cueing jesus' remarkable statement 'get thee behind me, satan.' peter denied jesus three times during the trial before the crucifixion.  paul  was first famous as saul, who held the coats of stephen's stoners, and who was a sort of prime grand inquisitor.  that makes their embrace even more significant, and it reminds us what sort of love is expected of us.  anyone can love the seemingly perfect, the obvious saints.  but to forgive and to love those who have famously failed is not only more difficult, it is redemptive.  it is the sort of love which lets the unlearned and unfaithful and the torturers become transformed into holy apostles.

98 days and counting later: trinity sunday and after

how do we know "god"?  what do we mean or begin to mean by that three-letter word, these days as often as not profaned by a three-letter abbreviation that is popular with young girls when they see particularly unusual shoes, or receive a surprising tweet?

for the christian church, the answer is the holy one who has self-revealed as three persons, the son whom we have known in the man jesus, the father of the son, and the spirit who proceeds from the father, whose arrival amidst the church we celebrated last week at the festival of pentecost.  and we can know him because he has revealed himself and in the ways that he has revealed himself.

this is dogma,  which we so often forget is not something which and only which must be believed to be "go to heaven," but as even wikepedia notices, is rooted, in a greek word that means the best we can imagine.  so we do the best we can, and use the  the words of the athanasian creed.  if we would be whole, holy,( the concept behind the latin word salvus which transliterates into our english "saved")  what we "need before all things" is the catholic faith.  for us, this is good news:  the holy one, the almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen, shows himself to us as a communion of love.

you know how we have belittled such understanding in our modern, self-centered way of looking at things.  (indeed, has it ever been otherwise?)  the door bell rings, and there's the (undeniably brave and probably sincere) man in the cheap suit and unfashionable tie holding a hand-full of tracts containing the 12-step program to salvation and the niv translation of the gospel according to john.  "are you saved?"   i try to invite such folks in for a nice cup of tea and a discussion of why one would want to be saved.  because i always answer, "yes, but do you know what for?"  the quote from the gospel according to john that makes is so convenient for the man with the tracts is of course "3:16."  i see those numbers on bumper stickers or window decals of sub's and giant pick-up trucks and the usually rather large t-shirts of harley-davidson riders.  it has become a short-hand for our misunderstanding of the good news, a reduction of the whole of the wonders of the creation and sanctification  of the whole of creation, to one of st. anselm's sentenced--although i suspect that few of the people with the bumper sticker/t-shirt theologies would know about the castratti's sentences

eternal life.  that's what jesus tells nicodemus people who believe in the son of god will have.  that's what it says in the final verse, the 15th verse, of the gospel reading for trinity sunday, and of course it is repeated like the theme in a song in the 16th verse.  and the theme returns in the seventh chapter of the gospel, with the third verse:  "and this is life eternal, that they might know god, and jesus christ whom thou  whom thou hast sent."  now jesus said these words in a prayer as he began 'the one oblation of himself once-offered' because he recognized that they would soon experience the same contempt from the world as he did, that their witness to them would cost them their lives.  a martyr is literally, a witness.  so this eternal life would be a mystery from the beginning.  we certainly seem to die.  they words he spoke before this prayer were, 'in the world ye shall have tribulation:  but be of good cheer, i have overcome the world.'

tribulation, indeed.  the photograph at the head of this post is of holy trinity monastery at meteora, in thessaly.  many western christians forget about thessaly after paul's letters.  the church at thessalonika was having tribulation when paul wrote to her, and the tribulation continued.  the monasteries on the tops of the rocks were built to escape, among other tribulations of the world,  pirates.

but be of good cheer.  despite the horrors of the world, and anyone can come up with a list as well as i, the holy one, who is love,  reveals himself to us, not as one who engages in the conflicts which lead to piracy and envy and hatred, but as love:  a community of love.  and so on the sunday after trinity we continue to hear from s. john, the beloved disciple, who listened to the heartbeat of god, these words:  'beloved, let us love one another:  for love is of god; and every one that loveth is born of god, and knoweth god.'  we know god, the holy trinity, a communion of love, by loving.  more than that is not required.

pentecost: the first fruits (of the spirit)

at soup night thursday, which was a fruit salad night in a pun on some of the meanings of the feast of pentecost, a fruit salad served on a bed of newly-harvested grain, we discussed some of the layers of meaning of the feast.  as "scholars" these days are so happy to point out, it started as an agricultural festival, to which they say were "added" religious meanings.  as if harvest is not religious, as if the holy one does not bring from the earth grain to strengthen our heart, as if really religious people do not hold the parts of their lives together--that, to bind back together, being the basic meaning of religion.

the second layer of meaning is the giving of the law on sinai's height, graven on tablets of stone by, as the advent hymn reminds us, by the lord of might.  but ezekiel prophesies that the laws will eventually be graven on our hearts, our living hearts, by the lord of love.  we read, many of us, that prophesie about fifty days ago at the paschal vigil.

and on the feast of pentecost, when it is, as s. luke writes, 'fully come,' suggesting that the events in the upper room in jerusalem is the climax, ezekiel's and joel's prophesies are fulfilled. 

but of course what is true for the church in the first century must be true for us today, and for each of us.  as s. gregory the great reminds us, it is when we ascend to the upper room of our own hearts, in the communion of all the saints gathered about the theotokos, we too wait for the gift of the spirit, and we will not be disappointed.

but there is a smaller part of pentecost that struck me this year, although in many ways it is the most important.  it is the conclusion of the epistle for the feast in the western lectionary:  'we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of god.'

if as s. john reminds us so often in his many writings that we have heard over the fifty days, the most important, indeed the decisive, the definitive, gift of the spirit is love, then it is love which let the church speak in the tongues of all the assembly in jerusalem, and which will allow the church to speak to the world today.   love involves patience, as s. peter's epistles remind us, and waiting, as s. luke reminds us.  when the church speaks in the love of god, she will witness to the resurrection of christ and people will hear the good news of 'the wonderful works of god.'  when she speaks in any other voice, whether it be condemnation or revenge or simply impatience, she stifles the spirit.  how are we doing today?

rogation days: taking the prayers of the earth to heaven

the 'meaning' of the days before the ascension, the rogation days, pretty much depends upon how we understand the ascension.  the more thoroughly we ponder and understand the wonder of our lord's taking the human body he received from the blessed virgin, taking our very nature as the human one, into heaven, the richer the rogation days become.

one tradition expressed on rogation days is prayer for crops, for agriculture, for 'the garden.'  in many places there are processions around the fields, and prayers for rain in due season, and general fecundity.

but they are also days to ponder prayer in general.  so on these rogation days, as i weed my garden, overgrown with strange things that appeared while i was out of town, and plant new seeds to replace those washed away in the recent deluge, i am also considering prayer, using fr. lev gillet's wonderful little book, in thy presence (crestwood, new york:  st. vladimir's seminary press, 1977).  i would love to put the whole thing in this post, but i will be content to one short chapter:
'first thing in the morning, lord . . . .
'lord love, may my first word this morning go out to thee, blessing thy name!
'as this day begins, i believe, i feel, that thy immense goodness is falling on all that exists.  the spring of love continues to pour forth even when we seem to see nothing but evil and suffering around us.  whether it be visibly, whether it be secretly, thou art never weary of helping and of loving.  today, again, thou wilt b fighting for us.
'we await from thee the graces needed for this day.  with our earthly bread, give us thy heavenly good, the pure wheat of thy limitless love, the true sustance of our life.  with trust, we place in thy hands our practical difficulties, our sorrows, our fears born of little faith.
'we have no other succour, we have no other hope than thy love.  may it guide our steps today, a column of light going forward into the heart of apparent darkness!
'lord,  a sense of life that is given, of sacrifice, inspires everything which, each day, comes to us from thee.  redeeming love wished to suffer for us, to die for us.  make me share this desire to give the live i have received.
'lord, may the purifying action of redeeming love wash from my soul the multitude of my sins.  unite around thy love, in thy love, those who know thee, those who seek thee without kowing thee, and those for whom thou seekest.  we want to be thine.  take us.'  (p. 31)

the holy ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the body: st. venantius

venantius is one of my favourite kinds of saints.  his legend starts, "venantius is said to have been a martyr at camerino during the third century, but nothing whatsoever is know for certain about him."  yet he remains on the calendar, being called to mind every year, with a proper hymn for both matins and vespers, even if neither has yet made it to youtube, and this collect:

"o god, who has consecrated this day with the triumph of thy blessed martyr venantius:  mercifully hear the prayers of thy people; and grant that we who venerate his righteousness, may imitate the constance of his faith in thee."

now, you might wonder--i hope you wonder--why such as venantius would be one of my favourites.  first, i don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the benefits of his life.  he is one of the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before without whom i might not be at all.  in that sense, he resembles, for instance, my welsh ancestors who sometime left wales and went to michigan--i imagine much like one of the sons let off from the mines in how green was my valley, or one of the englishmen in my mother's family who, probably to pay off debts, left for georgia.  the opportunities i have today are the result of the consance of the faith of venantius and of them.

but also he is one of my favourites because of s. john's image of the prayers of the saints around the throne, rising like golden bowls of incense, longing for their number to be complete.  venantius is one of their number.  and, he prays for me.  by that i don' mean so much that he intercedes for me but that he with the others who have finished the race pray as it were in my place all of those times when i am lax or sleepy or forgetful or just lazy.

but perhaps most importantly, venantius and the others in his great cloud--do we get the idea of saints in clouds from the book of hebrews--are truly witnesses.  if the son is the witness to the father, and the holy ghost is the witness to the son, it is the church in her fullness who is the witness to the holy ghost.  the sequence of the creed, which i borrowed as a title for this little essay, is i think very important. the resurrection of the body is only possible because of the forgivenessof sins (love does indeed win), and the forgiveness of sins only happens within the communion of saints, which is the product of the holy catholic church, which is filled with the holy ghost.

i don't need to know much about venantius to rejoice in his triumph, but i can rest in the assurance that his triumph ultimately benefits us all.  thanks be to god.

islam and harvard and princeton and boston

i am deep in the heart of texas for a few weeks, visiting friends and enjoying the hospitality of the booher library at the epscopal theological seminary of the southwest.  sunday after "making my communion" as episcopalians sometimes say at all saints church, rite one in an historic building,  i went with friends to st. michael's, which is properly on a hill appropriate to it's patronage, and where there were lots of bells and whistles and howard galley's "star trek prayer," as it's fondly called, which i thought had found a happy rest.

there was also a guest preacher, the rev. jeffrey samuel, of the diocese of peshawar, in pakistan, who has been working on a diploma in theological studies at the seminary.  although english is not fr. jeffrey's first language, he was very eloquent.  one of the things he discussed was "the islamic concept about jesus."  there are, he said, two concepts.  the first concept held by many muslim people is that "they don't believe that he died on a cross.  why--because prophets were innocent people. this insulting death is against their prestige."  the second concept, "accepted by the ahmadi sect of the muslims [is that] . . . jesus [was]brought to the point of death on the cross, but he did not die on the cross.  jesus was just unconscious on the cross due to his suffering and persection.  people thought that jesus was dead, but he was not.  so they took jesus from the cross and after a few days jesus was healed and jesus went to kashmit.  and he lived 120 years in kashmit and then he died a natural death."

this, i thought, sounds familiar. over the past several months i have read several books claiming to be "christology," written by professors at universities as harvard and princeton and boston, which have suggested the same or very similar ideas.  these books were published by respectable publishing houses, and someof them are used as text books in respectable seminaries.  indeed the lesson from acts was described in the service leaflet as "written by the (unknown) author of luke-acts sometime between 90 and 110 ad.  . . . it is 'late second generation' and begins to reflecton the history of the jesus movement and how far it has come since the days when the church was founded . . . "  l. michael white.  from jesus to christianity (harpersanfrancisco:  2004), p. 252.

fr. jeffrey concluded:  "we all are called to be witnesses about jesus.  we, you and me, have to proclaim the good news not only to the christians, but also among the non-christians and save their souls for christ.  we are working very hard in pakistan to keep our faith and give testimony to non-christians.  we need your prayers and support.  thank you."

it does not seem that we are working very hard in this counry.  we need prayers and support, too.

friday in bright week: the life-giving spring

one of the many wonderful things about living in eureka springs is, of course, the springs.  so i am particularly pleased that on friday in bright week the icon of the theotokos as the "life-giving spring" is celebrated.
my more or less "official" icon of the mother of god, as a monk, more or less, in the british tradition, more or less, is our lady of glastonbury, surrounded by celtic saints:

that icon has its own little shrine, where i also commemorate the seasons and feasts.

but the icon of the life-giving spring is in my beautiful corner.  here is the story of this icon, as described by st. isaac of syria skete.
"it shows how god is merciful and compassionate towards all men.  once a soldier named leo assisted a blind man who had lost his way.  while looking for water for him, he heard a voice from an unseen person say, 'emperor leo, take water and give it to the thirsty man; then dake some of the slime by it and put it in his eyes.'  to the soldier leo's surprise, a nearby spring gushed out before him.  when he did as the voice commanded him, the blind man received his sight.  this soldier later became the christian east roman or byzantine emperor leo i (457-473).

"when leo became the emperor, he erected a church in honor of the mother of god as this life-giving spring near the 'golden gates' in constantinople, where the spring had come up.  later the church was destroyed by the turks, but in 1835 a new church was built at the same site and consecratd by the ecumenical patriarch constantine.  this spring still flows for the salvation and healing of all who come there to visit mary's son."

the troparion for the feast (third tone):  "as a life-giving fount, thou didst conceive the dew that is transcendent in essence, o virgin maid.  and thou didst pour forth for us the immortal nectar.  and as  ever-flowing streams from thy fountain, thou broughtest forth the water that springeth up unto life everlasting; wherein, taking delight, we all cry out:  rejoice, o life-bearing fount."

and the kontkion (eighth tone):  "from thine un failing fount, o maiden full of grace, thou dost reward me by pouring forth of the unending streams of thy grace that passeth human understanding.  and sinc thou didst bear the word incomprehensibly, i entreat thee to refresh me with thy grace divine, that i may cry to thee:  rejoice, o water of salvation."

and here is a link to a greek hymn for the feast.

thursday in bright week: s. mary magdalene and easter eggs

thursday in bright week is the day the church takes special notice of s. mary magdalene.  in the gregorian lectionary of the west, today's gospel is from john (20:11-18).  although the orthodox gospel for today is from the third chapter of john, it is nevertheless the traditional day for easter eggs, which are first attributed to mary magdalene's missionary trip to rome, much before peter and paul. 

i have long been fascinated by mary magdalene;  in fact i made a small contribution to the writing of the icon above, by robert lentz, which is not in grace cathedral (episcopal), san francisco.  i had some knowledge of the importance of the role of mary magdalene, at least in the eastern church, when that icon was installed, around 1990, but i did not begin to understand how widespread her importance was.  so i was excited when a friend who worked for bear publishing gave me a preview copy of starbird's the woman with the alabaster jar  .  i was however, horrified when i read the book and found her history so hokey.  more horrified was i when i found so many people accepting her mis-history as it was presented in the da vinci code.    there is so much more that is available about mary magdalene than seems to be known by the princeton pharisees (by whom i mean the self-appointed "scholars," not all of whom are at princeton, who claim to know far more about scripture than the church.  hereafter i shall refer to them simply as pp"s.)

consider, for instance, the contrast so often drawn between s. gregory's description of s. mary m. as a reformed prostitute and the supposed supreme role of mary in what is called "the gospel of mary magdalene."  again and again i have heard or read the pp's telling  us that the connection between the woman from who was a known sinner--the woman with the alabaster jar who starbird claims to be not only mary madgalene but mrs. jesus of nazareth--is not assumed because the first naming of mary magdalene comes in the eighth chapter of luke right after the woman with the jar is described by simon, the host, as "a sinner."  but then the pp's never seem to tell us that indeed the document they call "the gospel according to mary magdalene" is not really a gospel at all, nor is the mary of the document identified as mary magdalene.

it is therefore, i think, interesting to look at some of the things s. gregory wrote about s. mary magdalene which are included in the readings for this day in the benedictine lectionary:

"mary magdalene, (if we may be permitted to identify her as) the woman of the city who was a sinner, through love of the truth, washed away by her tears the befoulment of her sin; and thereby the word of the truth was fulfilled which he spake:  her sins, which are many, are forgiven:  for she loved much.  . . .
"in connection with this matter, we ought to ponder on this, namely, the great store of love which was in that woman's heart.  for she, when even his disciples were gone away, could not tear  herself from the grave of the lord.  she south him whom she had not found there, and as she sought, she wept.  and the fire of love in her heart yearned after him, who (as she believed) had been taken away.  and so it came to pass that she, who had lingered to seek him, was the only one who then saw him.  for . . . the voice of the truth himself hath said:  he that endureth to the end shall be saved."  (as found in the anglican breviary (mount sinai, long island, new york:  the frank gavin liturgical foundation, inc., a. d. mcmlv), pp. c333-34)

now, i want to cut the pp's some slack.  they are victims, not of the catholic church, or of orthodoxy, but of the sort of confusion that inhabits so much of this post-human era. i was struck by this on easter sunday night, watching "jesus christ superstar" on turner classic movies.  it seemed to me to capture the essence of both the popularity and frustration of  the "historical jesus project."   mary magdalene is the first one in the movie to sing  "i don't know how to love him", but it is really judas iscariot who captures the real problem, who sings " i don't know how to love him,"  and then < "only want to know."  we fail to understand what real love is, or what real knowledge is.  it struck me that really all of the questions raised by the "historical jesus project" are pretty well contained in the movie.  in a time when love means sex and sex means, mostly, rape, then it is easy to understand how we cannot understand how mary can be said to love jesus without having sex with him.  we only want to know.  we're gnostics of the most materialistic sort.  (and i want to add a disclaimer here about one of the princeton scholars, elaine pagels, whose work has consistently exhibited an intellectual and emotional honesty despite her ignorance of the real traditions of the church.)

so i was very happpy to find that this link" to "love is come again" is illustrated by mary speaking to peter.  but i am also reminded that in the gospel according to john the most important question jesus will ask peter is not "do you know me?" or "do you think i am who they say i am? but "do you love me?"

we are all hard-hearted egyptians

i have been reading the second book of moses, the book of exodus as the days approach pascha.  this morning was chilling.  i read chapter seven, which tells of the first sign, the turning of the waters of the nile into blood.  i of course am reminded of the first sign of our lord, who turned the water of cana into wine.  i know where this is headed, and am amazed every time by the parallels of the exodus with john's gospel.  next friday, as the firstborn of the king of egypt is killed, we will read in the gospel according to john of the killing of the firstborn of god by the sons of aaron.  chilling stuff.  then on sunday i will read the fifteenth chapter, the song of miriam, and it will be part of the mass as well.

the psalms of the morning were 79, 80, and 81.  psalm 81 pretty much tells the story of all of us, the egyptians, the first israel, and the second israel, the church, as well:

Psalm 81. Exultate Deo.


SING we merrily unto God our strength; * make a cheerful noise unto the God of Jacob.

Take the psalm, bring hither the tabret, * the merry harp with the lute.

Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, * even in the time appointed, and upon our solemn feast-day.

For this was made a statute for Israel, * and a law of the God of Jacob.

This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, * when he came out of the land of Egypt, and had heard a strange language.

I eased his shoulder from the burden, * and his hands were delivered from making the pots.

Thou calledst upon me in troubles, and I delivered thee; * and heard thee what time as the storm fell upon thee.

I proved thee also * at the waters of strife.

Hear, O my people; and I will assure thee, O Israel, * if thou wilt hearken unto me,

There shall no strange god be in thee, * neither shalt thou worship any other god.

I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt: * open thy mouth wide, and I shall fill it.

But my people would not hear my voice; * and Israel would not obey me;

So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lusts, * and let them follow their own imaginations.

O that my people would have hearkened unto me! * for if Israel had walked in my ways,

I should soon have put down their enemies, * and turned my hand against their adversaries.

The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him; * but their time should have endured for ever.

I would have fed them also with the finest wheatflour; * and with honey out of the stony rock would I have satisfied thee.

i only wish i did not have such a large selection of children we are killing now, putting their blood in our gas tanks, selling their "governments" and them weapons, glutting our bellies and our cars with grain while they starve.  this nigerian child came on the first row of pictures of such children on google:
 

 
 
lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep thy law.

crones, wise old men, and calvin klein padded bikinis for infants

as many of you know, i am intrigued by the character of merlin.  in one of his many insightful essays, r. j. stewart, who seems merlin as a prefigurement of christ in many ways, reminds us that to think of merlin only as a wise old man is to miss the real importance of what his story has to tell us.  before merlink became the wise elder, he was a bright youth and a mad prophet.  (there are limits of course to merlin-christ parallels.  before moses was, jesus says, i am; but he was crucified as the beginning of his career as a mad prophet.)

but in most times and most places, it is expected that life will be a sort of on-going initiation, with each phase of our lives contributing it's own gift.  (for women, the phases are often described as maiden, mother, and crone.)  we often say of some one that he or see is "just going through a phase," but we seldom recognize the importance, indeed, the necessity of those phases.  and because sexuality is such a power in our lives, the phases are often described sexually.  often i am reminded of their necessity when some friend or another "comes out" as a lesbian or a homosexual.  my half-uncle frank told me wisely many years ago that when this happens, one must first relive one's teen-aged years.  painful, and foolish looking, but true.  also, it is important to remember that the wisest of us can be caught up in yearnings to skip the earlier phases, or to return to them.  the story of merlin and nenue is perhaps part of that temptation.

we seem to live in a time when the sexual part of the phases is the only one we really value.  if you doubt this, go to the grocery store and read the magazines in the check-out lane.  watch cable news as the story of something important to the lives of thousands of people, such as the earthquake in japan recently, has a footer about some movie star who has a new boy friend.

another part of our time's discontinuance with history is that we seem to value not only the sexual part of the phases of life, but only the mature first phase, the time when one is still a maiden or a bright youth, but has reached puberty and is in the full grasp of sexual desire.  as many writers have noted over the years, although because it is lent and it is the book i am reading right now, st. john climacus' book of the ladder, i tend to think about he has to say about the ability of appetite for good to open sexual appetite which opens us to other appetites.  advertisers well understand this, and make a lot of money from keeping us thinking we are still 19.  and, they put those sexually seductive magazines in grocery stores.

this leads us to all sorts of traps.  as moore and gillette noted in the king within, we tend to elect boy kings as presidents.  and it seems that we have far more boy bishops now than we ever had in the middle ages.   and we think that sexuality has benefits, that being proud of our desires is like having an american express gold card.

so we hear of people claiming that homosexuals have the right to be preists, or bishops.  one of the arguments is that they have always been  ordained "gay" people, so we should continue the practice.  but there is an important difference between our attitudes and the way we live and that of say, sixteenth century britain, and how they lived.  william laud was a bishop, and a man who had a fondness for men.  indeed it is reported that he had a particular fondness for the duke of buckingham, james (vith and ist)' "favourite."  but no one claimed that laud had a right to be bishop because of his sexual appetites.  it was not then the defining part of one's life.  sometimes i wish it might have been more important:  charles was sexually about as pure as any english monarch known, but it didn't save him his head.

now, laud was not a perfect bishop.  i and many others find his goals for the british church to be correct and congruent with truth.  but laud never became a wise old man.  he remained a mad prophet, and that would cost him his effectiveness, and perhaps also his head, although of course the puritans were taking heads like wild men of borneo are accused of doing.

it therefore seems to me, given the general flavour, shall we say, of contemporary society--or "the economy"--that we should not be the least bit surprised when the lords advertisorial not only want grandma to have her wrinkles removed but baby girls to have fake breasts. 

of course, there is an easy solution, although not a popular one.  don't buy it.  what is "it?"  well, most nearly everything.  it's very rare for me to buy anything i really need.  perhaps you're a better"consumer."  and recognize that desires do not necessarily need to be immediately or even eventually satisfied.  of course there is not a lot of support for such an attitude.  am i foolish to think that the church might consider it?

the visitation, f. d. maurice, and dammed justice

can anything good come out of gallilee?  well, mary, the mother of our lord, did, even though the church from early centuries found pious legends to put her in jerusalem.  last year i was wondering whether there were any cradle anglicans in anglican seminaries.  i am reminded by j. f. d. maurice that it is often the converts who make the most important contributions to the big church.

maurice was born into a unitarian family, although not a confident one, it seems:  he was baptised by his unitarian father in the name of the trinity; two of his sisters became baptists.  but he eventually was himself ordained in the anglican church, and although he is probably most widely remembered for his role in christian socialism, his teaching covering many areas have become influential in the decades since his death.  while marx would claim religion to be the "opiate of the people," maurice suggested that "we have been dosing our people with religion when what they want is not this but the living god." 

the controversies which caught up maurice seem to recur:  he was dismissed from his post at king's college for positions similar to what is today getting rob bell in trouble.  but the beginning of maurice's thought was always the creation of mankind in the image of god, and our restoration to the same in what the collect for his feast calls "the perfect obedience of our saviour jesus christ."  it is the recognition of the image of god in all people which requires our reponse to all people with "a passion for justice and truth."

in the celtic orthodox calendar, the visitation of the blessed virgin also occurs on 1 april.  it seems good to remember the fierce call to justice that mary sings as she visits elizabeth:

"my soul doth magnify the lord, *
    and my spirit hath rejoiced in god my savior.
for he hath regarded *
    the lowliness of his handmaiden.
for behold from henceforth *
    all generations shall call me blessed.
for he that is mighty hath magnified me, *
    and holy is his name.
and his mercy is on them that fear him *
    throughout all generations.
he hath showed strength with his arm; *
    he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
he hath put down the mighty from their seat, *
    and hath exalted the humble and meek.
he hath filled the hungry with good things, *
    and the rich he hath sent empty away.
he remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant israel, *
    as he promised to our forefathers,
    abraham and his seed for ever."  (the holy gospel according to st. luke, 1: 46-55)

these are fearsome words, even though we often make them into   conforting-sounding songs .   but then the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.  i am convinced that there is much more to christianity than  social justice.  but we must start there.  otherwise when we seek the kingdom of heaven, we are like the arkansas traveler, who when he asked for directions from the old geezer on the porch, was told, "you just can't get there from here."

here is the collect for frederick denison maurice from the american book of lesser feasts and fasts:

almighty god, you restored our human nature to heavenly glory through the perfect obedience of our saviour jesus christ:  keep alive in your church, we pray, a passion for justice and truth; that, like your servant frederick denison maurice, we may work and pray for the triumph of the kingdom of your christ, who lives and reigns with  you and the holy spirit, one god, now and for ever.  amen.

amen!

joseph and st. patrick

in my wandering through the book of genesis, i have come to the story of joseph.  he is seventeen, and sold into slavery.  since it is the feast of st. patrick, i started to put off joseph until tomorrow and pay more attention to the propers for the feast.  but then i realized that their stories had enough in common that they might illuminate each other.

so, joseph is seventeen when he is sold into slavery, just a year older than patrick.  both came from well-to-do families more accustomed to having slaves than being one.  both are outstanding dreamers.  both, in their youth, are less that perfect sorts of folks.  joseph is famously arrogant; the exact nature of patrick's big sin of an hour remains unknown to us.  patrick at least recognizes that he deserves his fate, that he had been sinful.  joseph's repentance of his attitude towards his brothers is not spoken, but made very explicit by their tearful reunion. 

in both of their lives, their period of slavery allows them to bring great benefits to many people.  unfortunately, in joseph's case, and perhaps this is part of his non-consciousness of his own attitudes towards his brothers, he ends up leading many others into slavery.  but, even for them, the children of israel in the larger sense, their period in bondage gives them a basis for compassion for other people.

the proper gospel for the day in the 1963 episcopal lesser fasts and feasts is from the sermon on the mount:

 ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  but i say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  for if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? and if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?  be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.

a bit more challenging response to st. patrick's day than drinking too much green beer--although i confess i do look forward to sharing a guiness with some friends tonight--but one with a much better after effect.

hanging out with abraham on his feast day.

 

i've been reading the book of genesis since epiphany, and i've reached the stories of abraham.  i may never get through them, they are so rich.  and since today is his feast, i thought it would be a good time to try to clarity some of my findings from his stories, and posting a blog usually helps me clarify my thought.

there are many books of varying value about abraham and the other genesis stories.  particularly i enjoyed reading bruce feiler's abraham:  a journey to the heart of three faiths.   feiler mentions that one of the things about abraham that is much noticed by jews today is that he argued with the holy one.  but it struck me that the reason abraham had the standing to argue, as he famously does when the holy one told him of his plans to destroy the cities of the plain, is that abraham had been faithful in following the holy one's command.  indeed again and again the biblical text says that abraham immediately did whatever he had been asked to do.  only when he is asked to send ishmael and hagar into the wilderness did he even wait until the next day.

this makes me wonder whether the first thing we, or at least i, might learn from abraham is that in order to become a friend of the holy one, whose voice he might recognize when i say "here am i," is to recognize his voice, and say "yes" to his requests.

angels, peace, and yoko ono

four days ago, as friday night turned into saturday morning, more people were gathered in churches around the world than any other time, except, perhaps, pascha.  and most of us heard the reading from the gospel according to luke, about shepherds "abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  and, lo, the angel of the lord came upon them, and the glory of the lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid.  and the angel said unto them, fear not, for i bring you tidings of good news which shall be to all people.   and suddenly there was with the angels a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising god and singing, glory to god in the highest, and peace on earth to  . . ."

and then we heard a sermon which probably pitched us the hope of peace, or the need to work for peace, or some such thing that is several notches below peace.  and now it's the following monday, and we go back to watching our sheep.

and we do not have peace.  more often than not, we are sore afraid.  we do not really believe the tidings of good news brought by the angel.  we rather look at peace as a promise, as a hope, something that perhaps will be helped along by a new arms treaty with russia, or killing pakistanis with bombs from drones rather than bullets from soldiers.

we do not take seriously the message of the angels:  "fear not . . . peace on earth . . . ."   bernard of clairveaux said as much in one of his sermons:  "notice that peace is not promised  but sent to us; it is no longer deferred, it is given; peace is not prophesied but achieved."  bernard goes on to say "it is as if god the father sent upon the earth a purse of his mercy . . . .  it was quite a small purse, but ti was very full.  as the scripture tells us, 'a little child has been given to us, but in him dwells all the fulness of [the holy one].'"

but we are sore afraid.  we do not open the purse.  rather than grow the fullness of the holy one in each of us, we teach one another the things of which we should be afraid.  when people ask us to join their war, we are more afraid of being called a coward than we are to follow the angels to the manger.

do you remember a famous photograph from a few decades ago now, with john lennon and yoko ono holding a sign that says, "war is over?"

it is easy to make fun of it, but it is the same message the angels brought.  we who would not want to listen to music that is "over," or watch a television show that is "over," or wear a coat that is "over," nevertheless continue to live in war rather than in peace.

how does one do that? one may ask.  the answer was the first thing the angels said, a thing that is said 366 times in the christian bible:  fear not.

old dudes: zachary and elizabeth

if one looks at modern "culture," it seems the only people who have anything to teach are teen-agers wearing their underwear and not much else, and going into or coming out of drug rehab, on the way to the premier of their new movie.

the bible has different role models for our consideration, old dudes, often, beginning with abraham and sarah, if we wish to jump over the long-lived folks before noah.  again and again very important events happen because of the constancy of the aged.  the church makes much  of peter's declaration that jesus is the messiah, but s. luke records that thirty years before peter, simeon and anna recognize that the infant brought to the temple, the son of mary, is the messiah, without seeing any miracles or hearing any parables.

today the church remembers zachary (zacharias) and elizabeth, the parents of john the forerunner.  their story reminds us that mary, the maid of galillee, and jesus, her son, are like david, unusual in their youth.  as someone who is entering the evening of life , i find this remembrance very encouraging.  i am not ready to be thrown away, even if the songs of zachary and simeon take on more poignant meanings for me every day (especially for me personally the nunc dimittis, the song of simeon).  in my old age i might yet do something useful.  but it is also wonderful to hear zachary, each morning, saying that, "though, child, shall be called the prophet of the highest."

together these songs remind me of the wisdom of the blessing s. paul sent to the church at ephesus:

Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely
more than we can ask or imagine: Glory to him from
generation to generation in the Church, and in Christ Jesus
for ever and ever.     Amen.     Ephesians 3:20,21

s. frumentius

the church in ethiopia is very ancient, and has remained true to the faith as she understands she has received it for at least 1600 years--longer if the ethiopian eunuch who was baptized by philipp is counted.  but the official religion of the country has been christianity since s. frumentius was tutor to the king aeizanas and baptized him.  it has been a difficult position for the ethiopian church, caught as shirley hughson describes it, between islam and paganism.

one of the really unfortunate results of western colonialism is that the church is probably under more pressure now than it has ever been, largely as a result of european (and now chinese) efforts to control the oil and other resources of the region.   this is a good day to consider how our actions, which are seldom so gentle as the fluttering of a butterfly's wings, have effects all around the world.

authority in the church

many years ago now, i started my formal theological education with education for ministry, a program of the dubose center of the university of the south.  it consisted of three parts:  (1) a liturgical component, which combined praying together with study of the liturgy as part of (2) an academic component, which began with studying the old testament and continued through contemporary church history; and most importantly, theological reflection.  theological reflection, as taught by efm, was a method of looking at the thoughts, acts, or beliefs that we use in ministry within a quadralateral of "authorities:"  hooker's "three-legged stool of scripture, reason (by which he meant a concept more closely related to nature than to what we might consider scientific reason), and tradition, to which was added wesley's experience.

a few years ago, i recommended efm to a friend, and was surprised and disappointed (why does disappointment with what is happening within the church continue to surprise me?) to find that these four sources of authority had been replaced by some things much more loosey-goosey, which i don't quite remember, but which translated fairly closely to the winds of current pop culture.  the notion of revelation being any sort of authority seemed to have dropped out entirely.  of course within the orthodox tradition, revelation is the beginning, and it takes three primary forms:  creation (similar to hooker's reason), scripture, and the incarnation (about which the church's most important tradition is concerned).  and of course all of these we experience in various ways.

i find i fascinating that for the most part the authorities which seem to operate in the "american church" today are none of the above, but two:  vatican ii, and the academic establishment i tend to call princeton.

almost every part of the american church is following in some way or another the pronouncements of the second vatican council.  some of these ways are obvious:  the liturgican revisions of the episcopal, united methodist, presbyterian, lutheran, united church of christ, american baptists even, are fundamentally in accord with the revisions of vatican ii.  i am not suggesting that this is always a "bad thing."  it seems, in my opinion,  perhaps an improvement for presbyterians, but an impovershment for episcopalians.  but it is the acceptance of vatican ii as an "ecumenical council" which i find so fascinating.  i visited last summer several friends of mine who are pastors in evangelican fringes of the church that would never consider themselves "catholic," and always on their book shelves were the volumes of decrees of the second vatican council.

now, almost none of these groups have considered the findings of the first vatican council attractive.  the actual authority of both of these councils is, however, the same.

the second source of authority seems to be the academic establishment exemplified by princeton:  the pharisees of the day.  i pick princeton because it is not only home to some of the most influential folks in the new non-orthodoxy, such as elaine pagels, but also because it is the same school from which came, a century ago, the fundamentals.  again, the authority of the princeton that gave us fundamentalism and the princeton which is giving us the da vinci code is the same.

i am forced to conclude, therefore, that it is the winds of current popularity which seems to be driving the church.  i will only mention the influence george barna has had.  but i will conclude this post with two questions:  would jesus have conducted a poll to see if he should go up to jerusalem?  or am i significantly wrong in my conclusion.

emerging church part three: the emerging jesus; the great shepherd of the sheep and bishops

on my trip this summer i visited many cathedrals and met many bishops.  i was struck by the variety of  splendour and pomposity, or lack thereof, that attended these various pastors and their thrones.

(actually, the first "bishop" i met was just a cardboard cutout of the real thing, at a party for a new seminarian; the actual bishop was off doing something more important, i suppose.  i was fascinated by the bemused hostility which it seemed to me the flock showed to the office, if not the person, iconized there.  perhaps i inferred more than was implied.)

i should first confess that it has taken me a long time to wrap my mind around the existance of  more than one bishop in any one locale.  in seattle, for instance, there are at least five cathedrals with their bishops of which i know.  as my understanding of the nature of the episcopacy has, i hope, matured, that has come not to bother me.  but it is the prominence of the idea of the imperial bishop, illustrated in seattle by st. james' roman catholic cathedral, or by st. mark's episcopal cathedral, which has muddied my understanding for a long time.  despite pious denials to the contrary, the episcopacy in the roman church has long ceased to be a servant role, and if one thinks the pope is nowadays the servant of the servants of god, one should look at how the pope dines.  the imperial episcopacy is reflected in the imperial cathedrals.

st. mark's episcopal cathedral in seattle is a fascinating study in the history of that idea, and how it must sometimes be modified.  the present building, which i admire very much, is just a fragment of the original proposal.  the stock market crash of 1929 meant not only that a smaller edifice would be necessary, it even resulted in a foreclosure; for many years the building did not belong to the diocese.

on the poorer side of capital hill, st. nicholas russian orthodox cathedral is no larger than the houses around it.  the bishop of that cathedral seems to be quite beloved by the congregation, for whom he is very clearly a pastor.

at an even smaller "level of episcopacy" were the bishops with whom i met at the end of the summer in gig harbor.  we met at a tiny chapel.

none of the bishops there had any expectations of building a great cathedral.  rather they were wondering how in this insane time in which we live the sacramental, pastoral ministries of the church, for which bishops are responsible, could be made not only available but known to a nation of people for whom macdonald's seems a restaurant and a mortage home ownership.

now, i am not suggesting that say, the episcopal bishop of olympia is not concerned with the same thing.  but i am suggesting that one of the hopeful things i saw this summer wandering through the emerging church is a growing understanding that the edification of the church is not about monumental edifices.  in victoria, for instance, i met the russian orthodox bishop of all canada in a little chapel in a storage unit in the most unfashionable part of downtown, an area inhabited mostly by homeless people.  from victoria to gig harbor to santa fe, i met church men and women who were seeking to find what we need to be that is acceptable to the holy one, to find the things that make for peace, to be the body of christ broken in this broken world.  i am assuming that you, dear reader of this rather scattered blog, are one of those men and women, and so for you i repeat the prayer that concludes the epistle to the hebrews:

i pray that the god of peace, who brought our lord jesus back from the dead to become the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood that sealed an eternal covenant, may make you ready to do his will in any kind of good action; and turn us all into whatever is acceptable to himself through jesus christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, amen.

emerging church part two: seminaries

during the past three months, i visited several seminaries and talked to many seminarians or would-be seminarians.  one of the major things the seminaries and asperants had in common was that by far the majority of them were "converts" to the big church from some protestant group.

this makes me wonder:  does no one who has grown up in the catholic, orthodox, church want to become a priest?  (or almost no one:  i did meet a few seminarians who had grown up orthodox.)  there are, oddly enough, many roman catholic women seminarians, who will not become priests.  this situation i will have to ponder more before i can convince myself i understand it.

i also am struck by what the converts find at seminaries.  again and again i heard discussions of what they bring to the schools, and from a casual and unscientific review of the church history/doctrine courses at most seminaries these days, there doesn't seem to be very much emphasis on what they will receive from the church that is older than the latest edition of the paperback textbooks.  as one who thinks that the way to do theology is prayer, i'm not too concerned about the current texts when they are read in the context of a solid spiritual practice, and that does often seem to be supported in the seminaries.

but i also wonder how all  these emerging students will change the understanding of the church.  it seems that nearly all of today's seminaries, except for the few that remain very traditional, have become emergant seminaries.  there was a time when those coming to mother church for baptism were asked the question, "what dost thou ask of the church of god?"  the answer was expected to be, "faith."  it seems that the same question might be asked of in-coming seminary students.  i hope the church still has enough faith to share it.

emerging church part one: a patron saint

it has been a summer of post-modernism and emerging church for me.  duh.  it's in the water.  no one will actually claim to know what either of those phrases means, but everyone uses them anyway. 

i'm going to ignore defining "post-modernism" for the moment, but i will suggest a take on the emerging church.  it seems that the emerging church most importantly is protestants realizing that protestantism was a mistake.  again and again i have heard stories from people who have grown up in some splinter of protesantism who have come to reject "christianity" as it had been presented to them, but who have come back to the "big church" whether they had thought out the theological nuances of that move or not.  (sometimes who have come back are lapsed roman catholics, but perhaps the orthodox understanding of roman catholicism as profoundly similar to protestantism is correct.)

if that's true, then  i would like to suggest that the patron saint (a patron saint) of the emerging church might well be john henry newman.  it is interesting to me that of the oxford movement tractarians, it was usually the ones who had started in some dissenting sect, as had newman, who "went over" to rome.  those who had been baptized in the anglican church tended to remain in the anglican church.  to make newman the patron saint of the emerging church muddies what i said above about roman catholics, and makes my own broad acceptance of the "big church" as encompassing eastern churches "orthodox" or "nestorian," western churches "roman" or "merely" catholic.  but then consistency is still something i haven't received.

but newman's journey remains as that of a bright-shining (that's what brilliant means, isn't it?) pioneer on a path towards recovery of the great tradition paul speaks of ("what i have received from the lord jesus christ, i pass on to you") that many seem to be taking.