Public Square

Regardless of your individual position on the HHS Contraception Mandate, the Catholic Church, and the controversy surrounding it, the following quote from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch should at least raise your eyebrows.

For this entry, in the words of the great orator, "Let me be clear", I do not want this to devolve into a debate on the HHS Mandate or the Catholic response.  "Let me be clear," I do not care it you are pro-HHS, pro-Catholic, anti-HHS, anti-Catholic, or "Hey, let's skip the anchovies tonight, pass the Xbox controller".  Got it?

Now the quote (emphasis added):

This editorial page has profound respect for the work of the Catholic Church and its individual members in health care, education and social justice. We do not take issue with church beliefs or internal operations, regardless of the church, as long as they do not enter the public square. The U.S. bishops, in their call for civil disobedience, have entered the square.

Anyone notice anything?  If you guessed that I have an issue with the keep your religion private and out of the public sound to it, then you win the prize.  According to the editors, it's OK if the Guys in Pointy Hats with Large Crooked Sticks have opinions, and beliefs, just keep them confined to those buildings with the + signs on the funny sticky up roofs. 

I am certain that the good editors will make the same remarks when Guys in Pointy Hats (Catholic) or Guys and Girls in Pointy Hats (Episcopalian) speak out for open borders, ending the "war on terror", helping the homeless, increased public aid, care for those who suffer for the sake of conscience, banking controls, and universal health care*.  Right?  They are consistent right?  (Now, lest you think I have a political axe to grind here, please refer to paragraph two and insert issue in the underlined space).

What I am saying, is that I would guess the editors would have no problem with religion being inserted into the public square as long as those who inserted religion agreed with the editors' positions.  If this be the case, it is necessarily consequential that only the right kind of Guys in Pointy Hats, or religious people are allowed to "enter the public square".  If I may ask a question of the editors, are only the right kind of Catholics allowed in this debate?  If that is indeed the subtle message, I find it chilling.  Is this limited to Catholics only, or are only the acceptable sort of (insert minority religion/people group here) welcome to bring their core values and ontological selves into the public square for debate and to influence political and cultural decisions? Oh, wait, that has happened before (need I name names?) and classic liberalism abhors it.

On the other hand, maybe the editors just mean that religion should have no place in the public square?  If that's the case, it's all the more chilling as a Christian cannot be a Christian at home and in worship only.   I introduce as evidence Hymn 293 in the Hymnal 1982:

They lived not only in ages past, there are hundreds of thousands still, the world is bright with the joyous saints who love to do Jesus' will. You can meet them in school, or in lanes, or at sea, in church, or in trains, or in shops, or at tea, for the saints of God are just folk like me, and I mean to be one too.

No matter your politics, the subtle push to separate faith from public action and discourse should cause concern.

*Actually, the USCCB has argued strongly for many of these positions, and should be applauded.  Now, that might be a political statement.

A Great Sermon

I have always admired the preaching in the African-American church.  This has become my new favorite.  As we would say in my former tradition, "Preach it, Brother".

Caution:  Language.

Renewal of Vows

Tuesday (4/3) was the Liturgy of Collegiality at the Cathedral in Springfield.  I always enjoy these events, despite the busy-ness of Holy Week, as we really do not see much of our fellow clerics throughout the year.  It is always a good time for serious conversation punctuated with moments of high hilarity.  Actually, it may be more the latter than the former.

Part of the liturgy is the renewal of our ordination vows.  Between renewals and actual ordination, I have made these vows at least 11 times, and I am continually aware that often I fall short of the vows that I made.  When that awareness rises to the surface, I give thanks for the grace of God to always begin again. 

So here, in the hopes of accountability is the order for the renewal of vows.

Bishop: Dear friends, the ministry we share is none other than the sacrificial ministry of Christ, who gave himself up to death on the cross for the salvation of the world. By his glorious resurrection he has opened for us the way of everlasting life. By the gift of the Holy Spirit he shares with us the riches of his grace.

We are called to proclaim his death and resurrection, to administer the Sacraments of the New Covenant which he sealed with his blood on the cross, and to care for his people in the power of the Spirit.

Do you here, in the presence of Christ and his Church, renew your commitment to your ministry, under the pastoral direction of your bishop?

Answer: I do.

Bishop: Do you reaffirm your promise to give yourself to prayer and study?

Answer: I do.

Bishop:  Do you reaffirm your promise so to minister the Word of God and the Sacraments of the New Covenant that the reconciling love of Christ may be known and received?

Answer: I do.

Bishop: Do you reaffirm your promise to be a faithful servant of all those committed to your care, patterning your life in accordance with the teachings of Christ, so that you may be a wholesome example to your people?

Answer: I do.

Bishop: And now, as your bishop, I, too, before God and you, re-dedicate myself and reaffirm the promises that I made when I was ordained. I ask your prayers.

Bishop and Clergy: May the Lord who has given us the will to do these things, give us also the grace and power to perform them.

What are your thoughts about the ordering of these vows, and will you help me to fulfill the vows I have made?

Location, Location, Location

I admit that I indulged a bit last week, and bought a ticket for the $540,000,000 lottery.  You may assume, since I am writing today from the office, that I did not win.  In many ways this was just a harmless indulgence, a $1 charge for a 10 minute fantasy.  I will not tell you what I had planned to do with the money, although there would have been enough for some real philanthropic work.

Today, as I scanned the radio dials, I came across a commentator who spoke of the lottery and the winner from Illinois.  He read the announcement that the winner was from Redbud, located south of Springfield, and made the comment that if you have to define a location by its relationship to Springfield, it must be remote.  It was a bit of a shot, kind of like what I heard from Cincy friends when I moved to Springfield Diocese (it was called the "hinterlands"), but it started me thinking.

By what relationship(s) are you defined?  What do you place at the center of your life?

In the Church this week we walk with Jesus through the events of Holy Week.  In the days ahead we will meditate on the Mandatum, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection.  We will discover again that for the Christian, Jesus, is to form the center of our life.  We are defined, by nothing else, but our proximity to Jesus, and vice versa!  And he, truly, is not remote!

The Most Rev. Thomas Cranmer

Today is the commemoration of The Most Rev’d Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.  Archbishop Cranmer was the architect of the first Book of Common Prayer (1549), and thus the primary influence on all Anglican liturgies that followed.  His prose is still, though edited, found in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (TEC), and the ordering of the daily offices, an effective combination of the Benedictine hours, remains the standard within the Communion.  Examples of Cranmerian prose may be found in the Prayer of Humble Access (BCP 337) and the Postcommunion Prayer (BCP 339 & 366).

This morning, in honor of Archbishop Cranmer, Amy and I prayed the daily office using the form in the Book of Common Prayer 1549 (it may be found online here).   

During the office, I was struck by the rubrics (printed instructions traditionally printed in red) that require the minister to say the Creed and Lord’s Prayer in a loud voice and in English.  In the era of its use, the liturgy was just being introduced in English, and many of the people had not been catechized in the basics of the faith.  It was good to read a reminder that a minister is to teach the faith (once delivered), and that liturgy is catechetical.

Now more on the Archbishop.

On this date in the year of Our Lord 1556, Mary I, daughter of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII, burned him at the stake.  According to the official publication of The Episcopal Church (Holy Women, Holy Men), the primary reason for his death was his subscription to Lady Jane Grey’s claim to the English throne over Mary’s.  His reforming work seems to take second seat, thus grudgingly giving him a martyr’s death.  Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, describes his death as a martyr’s death at the stake.  His Grace was known in a time of weakness after his arrest and imprisonment (which lasted three years) to have made two recantations of his reformed positions, however, he recanted those recantations and this led to his burning.  During his final hearing, he stated:

Forasmuch as I am come to the end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life to come, either to live with my Master Christ for ever in joy, or else to be in pain for ever with wicked devils in hell, and I see before mine eyes presently either heaven ready to receive me, or else hell ready to swallow me up: I shall therefore declare unto you my very faith, without any colour or dissimulation; for now is no time to dissemble, whatsoever I have said or written in the past.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, His apostles and prophets, in the New and Old Testament.

And now I come to the great thing, which so much troubleth my conscience, more than any thing that ever I did or said in my whole life, and that is the setting abroad of a writing contrary to the truth; which no here I renounce and refuse, as things written with my hand, contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; and that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation; wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished there-for; for, may I come to the fire it shall be burned first.

After he was taken to the stake:

And when the wood was kindled, and the fire began to burn near him, stretching out his arm, he put his right hand into the flame, which he held so steadfast and immovable (saving that once with the same hand he wiped his face), that all men might see his hand burned before his body was touched. His body did abide the burning with such steadfastness, that he seemed to move no more than the stake to which he was bound; his eyes were lifted up into heaven, and he repeated “his unworthy right hand,” so long as his voice would suffer him; and using often the words of Stephen, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” in the greatness of the flame, he gave up the ghost.

I have heard it argued that Archbishop Cranmer was a great political operative, schemer, opportunist, and survivor, and that while he was a leader of the Reformation in England, it was impossible to know where he really stood.  That may be true, but in the end, when it mattered most, His Grace , by the grace of God, found his courage, confessed the faith once delivered, and placed his trust solely in the Lord.  May we be given the same courage in the day of decision.

The Collect for Thomas Cranmer

Merciful God, through the work of Thomas Cranmer you renewed the worship of your Church by restoring the language of the people, and through his death you revealed your power in human weakness: Grant that by your grace we may always worship you in spirit and in truth; through Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.         
(Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2006)

A word from Fleming Rutledge

An excellent rumination on the meaning of "Justification" in the Pauline Corpus.  Hie thee hence!

BTW I have seen the houses she mentions in the article.  Some are beautiful, some are wierd, and the project, like the Gospel is quite controversial.  Or at least, so the residents of the lower ninth told me.

Yesterday's Message

I wanted to post this yesterday, but was OBE (overtaken by events).  This was the reading from 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 from the Daily Office yesterday:   

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

It brought to mind the scandal of Christians and churches who sue each other.  What is the witness to the wider world that we offer when we go to the secular courts to redress our “wrongs”.  I am not talking here of criminal cases, but civil ones.  That term in itself is interesting, as I have yet to meet parties to a civil case who were actually civil to each other, but I digress.

In The Episcopal Church we are suing congregations, and dioceses, that have decided to opt out of our denomination.  Some have been asking for an accounting of how much money we have spent on these legal proceedings, and while no official document has been released, the consensus is that it is in the millions of dollars. Frankly, I find this to be an embarrassment.  Suing for property, why not rather be wronged?  That would have been a better witness to the world.  Besides, in a time of budget crunches, and I believe the proposed triennial budget forecasts further cuts (including youth and young adult ministries, is this wise stewardship?  Doesn’t it take funds away from mission, including the vaunted Millennium Development Goals that the Presiding Bishop called us to focus on during this Lent?  Could we not negotiate?

Lest one think I am not even handed, I ask the same question of those who departed.  How many millions have been spent in counter suits and responding to the current lawsuits?  How many churches could have been replanted, how many youth sent on mission, how many projects started to help brothers and sisters in the 2/3s world?  Why not rather be defrauded?

My guess is that old human problem, one of the seven deadlies, and a temptation for all of us, even me as I write this post:  PRIDE.

On another note, I often hear that The Episcopal Church is democratic, and then I turn around and hear we are hierarchical.  Which one is it?  Is democracy only at the General Convention level? Is it only at the Diocesan level?  Is it only for church governing elections?  How are we both?  If we are democratic in our governance, tell me why 51% majority at General Convention for anything trumps a 51% majority in the local congregation for affiliation?  If we are hierarchical, why do we vote at all?  Seriously, these are not “gotcha” questions, I am asking for help to discern the balance.