The Physiology of Faith: A Theory of Theological Relativity (Harper, 1979) is by one of the people who presented me for ordination to the diaconate. John W. Dixon Jr. died a few years ago and I have mentioned him and his work before. He was, unusually, a tenured member of two faculties at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: art and religion. He introduced me to his thinking on a class in the religious imagination and then allowed me to read the manuscript for what became this book in an independent study course. I have (you may have noticed) been doing more reading that writing in recent weeks and this is one of the books I have read. I enjoyed discovering how very formative John Dixon was for my own thinking.
For starters, he taught me that the basis of all matter is ‘energy in relation’, and this energy in relation is structured and so given meaning in all kinds of languages and all kinds of ways. While I don’t fully understand how it is that Trinitarian modes of being overcome essential, necessary and potentially destructive dualism, I do get that this presents a critical mode of being that makes sense of Christianity. Some consequences of what his thinking on the meaning of being ‘born again’ found its way into my Easter sermon. His appropriation of relativity theory for theology has, I believe, kept me away from falling off the precipice of relativism on one hand or rejecting Christian faith altogether on the other hand as it is presented, implausibly, as ‘the only way’. I can say that this is the only way for me to have a chance of living with integrity without making my point of view, perspective and experience determinative of all truth, while allowing real commitment and conversion at the same time.
The book is out of print now, but I see that Amazon has access to some used copies. It is not an easy read, but is a great book.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Anglo-Catholicism
April 2, 2009
I have recently completed a history of and reflection on Anglo Catholicism in England. W. S. F. Pickering first published Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity in 1989 and it was re-released by James Clarke & Co. last year. The ambiguity of a continuing catholic expression of the faith within the Church of England seems to come from a fundamental problem with the nature of authority within Anglicanism. Pickering spends some time trying to distinguish Anglo Catholics from Tractarians and other sub-sects of the movement but basically does a decent job of summarizing the roots of the movement in the work of Newman, Pusey and Keble in the Nineteenth Century. There is so much that we take for granted today that was the subject of serious battles in days past: Eucharistic vestments, candles on altars, the reserved sacrament, seasonal colors and so on. These things served to deepen worship for many but they grew from a theological and ecclesial outlook that really liked the authority expressed in the Roman Church even if there were many who did not find converting to Rome to be attractive. It is that view of authority that seems to be at the root of Pickering’s ‘ambiguity’. It is difficult for an ordered church founded on intellectual assent to doctrinal propositions to exist within a communion that has, for the most part, judged relationship a prior to doctrine in many important ways. And so there is a ‘kicking against the goads’ feel to the Catholic movement within the C of E as described by Pickering. After reading his book, I believe that attempts to win over the Church to a catholic perspective is doomed to fail and that those so inclined would do well to join Tony Blair, Newt Gingrich and others who have converted to Rome. Along with Archbishop Akinola and those who earnestly believe as he does, I am convinced that they are seeking to define as ‘Anglican’ something that is inimical to the Spirit and History of the Communion.
I have recently completed a history of and reflection on Anglo Catholicism in England. W. S. F. Pickering first published Anglo-Catholicism: A Study in Religious Ambiguity in 1989 and it was re-released by James Clarke & Co. last year. The ambiguity of a continuing catholic expression of the faith within the Church of England seems to come from a fundamental problem with the nature of authority within Anglicanism. Pickering spends some time trying to distinguish Anglo Catholics from Tractarians and other sub-sects of the movement but basically does a decent job of summarizing the roots of the movement in the work of Newman, Pusey and Keble in the Nineteenth Century. There is so much that we take for granted today that was the subject of serious battles in days past: Eucharistic vestments, candles on altars, the reserved sacrament, seasonal colors and so on. These things served to deepen worship for many but they grew from a theological and ecclesial outlook that really liked the authority expressed in the Roman Church even if there were many who did not find converting to Rome to be attractive. It is that view of authority that seems to be at the root of Pickering’s ‘ambiguity’. It is difficult for an ordered church founded on intellectual assent to doctrinal propositions to exist within a communion that has, for the most part, judged relationship a prior to doctrine in many important ways. And so there is a ‘kicking against the goads’ feel to the Catholic movement within the C of E as described by Pickering. After reading his book, I believe that attempts to win over the Church to a catholic perspective is doomed to fail and that those so inclined would do well to join Tony Blair, Newt Gingrich and others who have converted to Rome. Along with Archbishop Akinola and those who earnestly believe as he does, I am convinced that they are seeking to define as ‘Anglican’ something that is inimical to the Spirit and History of the Communion.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Relationship with Rio
March 26, 2009
It is a joy to have Inamar de Souza, Dean of the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle with us and her husband Eduardo Grillo, rector of St. Luke’s both in the Anglican Diocese of Rio de Janeiro. Dean de Souza will be with us until Easter Monday. She has already preached for us, and offered a GIFT presentation. She will tell us about her ministry in a class this coming Sunday, will preach again in Good Friday and otherwise be with us in many ways while she is here.
Our relationship with the Cathedral grows out of a diocesan companionship established soon after Bishop Alexander took office. At this point it is unclear exactly what shape our relationship will take. Richard Hall and I went to Rio last autumn looking for projects that could be a connection with us that served the Millennium Development Goals. It seems odd to some that we should be trying to buiold on the MDGs in what we assume is a developed city, but it is only odd until we understand that more than a million people are living in conditions that make much of the developing world look enviable. The communities of working people (favellas) are really slums and are often overseen by drug lords and gangs. The Dean has taken a tiny congregation and a Cathedral that was often closed (In fact some in the diocese wanted to sell the building) and she has opened it up to the community of St. Theresa, a formerly desirable and now depressed area of the city surrounded by favellas. Richard and I saw the community garden she has been able to begin (with a vision for twenty more) and knew that we have found a ministry that could be mutually beneficial and exciting.
I imagine that over time we will begin to discover why anyone would want to be an Anglican in Brazil and that will, in turn, lead us to ask why we might be encouraging others to join us as Anglicans in Atlanta. I imagine that as Rio focuses on planting and growing congregations that we too will find ourselves strengthening a missionary spirit out of an understanding that the best servants of the poor and transformational ministries come from and through congregations. I fantasize that we might find that out of some future capital campaign here we might be able to buy a former embassy in Rio near the Cathedral and help the people there run a conference and retreat center that could also function as a small hotel to support and fund the ministry. I imagine that after some of us make a trip (perhaps in the fall) we might have many ideas that have grown up in conversation with new friends. I thin that once again we will discover that gifts flow from relationship and will find our own trust in God’s love being deepened along the way.
It is a joy to have Inamar de Souza, Dean of the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle with us and her husband Eduardo Grillo, rector of St. Luke’s both in the Anglican Diocese of Rio de Janeiro. Dean de Souza will be with us until Easter Monday. She has already preached for us, and offered a GIFT presentation. She will tell us about her ministry in a class this coming Sunday, will preach again in Good Friday and otherwise be with us in many ways while she is here.
Our relationship with the Cathedral grows out of a diocesan companionship established soon after Bishop Alexander took office. At this point it is unclear exactly what shape our relationship will take. Richard Hall and I went to Rio last autumn looking for projects that could be a connection with us that served the Millennium Development Goals. It seems odd to some that we should be trying to buiold on the MDGs in what we assume is a developed city, but it is only odd until we understand that more than a million people are living in conditions that make much of the developing world look enviable. The communities of working people (favellas) are really slums and are often overseen by drug lords and gangs. The Dean has taken a tiny congregation and a Cathedral that was often closed (In fact some in the diocese wanted to sell the building) and she has opened it up to the community of St. Theresa, a formerly desirable and now depressed area of the city surrounded by favellas. Richard and I saw the community garden she has been able to begin (with a vision for twenty more) and knew that we have found a ministry that could be mutually beneficial and exciting.
I imagine that over time we will begin to discover why anyone would want to be an Anglican in Brazil and that will, in turn, lead us to ask why we might be encouraging others to join us as Anglicans in Atlanta. I imagine that as Rio focuses on planting and growing congregations that we too will find ourselves strengthening a missionary spirit out of an understanding that the best servants of the poor and transformational ministries come from and through congregations. I fantasize that we might find that out of some future capital campaign here we might be able to buy a former embassy in Rio near the Cathedral and help the people there run a conference and retreat center that could also function as a small hotel to support and fund the ministry. I imagine that after some of us make a trip (perhaps in the fall) we might have many ideas that have grown up in conversation with new friends. I thin that once again we will discover that gifts flow from relationship and will find our own trust in God’s love being deepened along the way.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Populist Rage and the Election of a Vestry
March 25, 2009
Newsweek offers a guide to populist rage. We see people holding placards outside banks and (worse) holding them outside the homes of AIG executives. The House of Representatives passes what appears to be a vindictive and knee-jerk bill to recoup some of the money paid in bonuses to employees of companies who receive government money. Talk radio is full of ugliness as anger seeks a target and we are living in a world of free floating and negative feelings that seem to have nowhere to go. It seems to me that we are driving more aggressively and less generously, have less tolerance for anything that inconveniences us, are more demanding of people whose role is to serve us and so on and so on.
I’m grateful that we seem to be doing pretty well (at least collectively) as the people of God in being something of a leaven in the loaf, modulating our own anxieties, striving to be more the Church rather than less, offering more to the unemployed and needy in our midst and beyond our walls, serving where we can and practicing generosity.
To the degree that we are experiencing free floating stuff at All Saints’ is has been made manifest in an increase in ugly and anonymous mail. Anonymity is rarely appropriate in the community of faith especially as a cover for cowardice or a means of expressing feelings without accountability for their effect. Two of these communications, apparently unrelated to each other, have been aimed at our attempts to refine our system of electing a vestry. I am grateful that others who have questions and concerns about what our nominating committee has recommended and our vestry endorsed have done so in proper forums, for there are serious questions that can be and have been asked about how we raise up leadership in and for the Church, leaving ample room for the Holy Spirit to work.
There is clearly no perfect system. A full fledged ‘democracy’ in a parish large enough to render any expectation that everyone will know everyone else would lead to candidates campaigning, having platforms, exacerbating the problem of winners and losers in the community of faith and so on. I have remained (painfully and studiedly) neutral in recent discussions as I think it is generally known that I favor a ‘trusteeship model’ of leadership for a parish such as ours in which a ‘single slate’ of candidates touching wide swaths of our congregational life and where necessary bringing particular skills to the table would be presented for election by acclamation at the parish meeting. I also know from conversations over the past ten years that such thinking is a long ways from the desires and instincts of most of our leadership and I cannot promise that we will do better in the future with such a system than we have in the past. There is a desire among many that we actually get to cast a ballot and make a choice. Consequently we have, for a number of years and at some expense, conducted an ‘advisory mailed ballot’. The ‘advice’ of that ballot is then shared with those present at the congregational meeting after a motion to suspend the rules of order and elect by acclamation those with the most votes received on this ballot. The great strength of this system is that it has significantly increased the franchise. The downside in our experience of the past few years is that rather than raising up leadership that touches many parts of the life of our congregation we have elected those best known but from a relatively narrow segment of the parish. In an attempt to address this our vestry decided to give the nominating committee some discretion over one or two positions should that be deemed desirable by those who have given much thought and prayer to a slate of nominees reflective of the whole parish.
We may decide that this is not an improvement. Those who wish to speak to such a possibility can attend the parish meeting and enter into discussion of the motion to suspend the rules of order. This is a completely legitimate forum for such discussion in public, and has the possibility of our making a change immediately if the case is persuasive to those in attendance. Those with opinions or questions who wish to be more private have been invited in both a Monthly article and a rector’s forum to make themselves and their thoughts and ideas known to the committee. That invitation is still open.
The bigger question is what any of us do with free floating feelings that come upon us or arise within us from time to time in our lives, especially those feelings that seem to be about a sense that life has dealt us a bad hand or that something to which we believed ourselves entitled has been withheld from us. It seems to me that regular worship in the midst of the community of faith is a good reminder of what is really important and a place where some of those feelings can be transformed as sword are transformed into plowshares in the Kingdom of God.
Newsweek offers a guide to populist rage. We see people holding placards outside banks and (worse) holding them outside the homes of AIG executives. The House of Representatives passes what appears to be a vindictive and knee-jerk bill to recoup some of the money paid in bonuses to employees of companies who receive government money. Talk radio is full of ugliness as anger seeks a target and we are living in a world of free floating and negative feelings that seem to have nowhere to go. It seems to me that we are driving more aggressively and less generously, have less tolerance for anything that inconveniences us, are more demanding of people whose role is to serve us and so on and so on.
I’m grateful that we seem to be doing pretty well (at least collectively) as the people of God in being something of a leaven in the loaf, modulating our own anxieties, striving to be more the Church rather than less, offering more to the unemployed and needy in our midst and beyond our walls, serving where we can and practicing generosity.
To the degree that we are experiencing free floating stuff at All Saints’ is has been made manifest in an increase in ugly and anonymous mail. Anonymity is rarely appropriate in the community of faith especially as a cover for cowardice or a means of expressing feelings without accountability for their effect. Two of these communications, apparently unrelated to each other, have been aimed at our attempts to refine our system of electing a vestry. I am grateful that others who have questions and concerns about what our nominating committee has recommended and our vestry endorsed have done so in proper forums, for there are serious questions that can be and have been asked about how we raise up leadership in and for the Church, leaving ample room for the Holy Spirit to work.
There is clearly no perfect system. A full fledged ‘democracy’ in a parish large enough to render any expectation that everyone will know everyone else would lead to candidates campaigning, having platforms, exacerbating the problem of winners and losers in the community of faith and so on. I have remained (painfully and studiedly) neutral in recent discussions as I think it is generally known that I favor a ‘trusteeship model’ of leadership for a parish such as ours in which a ‘single slate’ of candidates touching wide swaths of our congregational life and where necessary bringing particular skills to the table would be presented for election by acclamation at the parish meeting. I also know from conversations over the past ten years that such thinking is a long ways from the desires and instincts of most of our leadership and I cannot promise that we will do better in the future with such a system than we have in the past. There is a desire among many that we actually get to cast a ballot and make a choice. Consequently we have, for a number of years and at some expense, conducted an ‘advisory mailed ballot’. The ‘advice’ of that ballot is then shared with those present at the congregational meeting after a motion to suspend the rules of order and elect by acclamation those with the most votes received on this ballot. The great strength of this system is that it has significantly increased the franchise. The downside in our experience of the past few years is that rather than raising up leadership that touches many parts of the life of our congregation we have elected those best known but from a relatively narrow segment of the parish. In an attempt to address this our vestry decided to give the nominating committee some discretion over one or two positions should that be deemed desirable by those who have given much thought and prayer to a slate of nominees reflective of the whole parish.
We may decide that this is not an improvement. Those who wish to speak to such a possibility can attend the parish meeting and enter into discussion of the motion to suspend the rules of order. This is a completely legitimate forum for such discussion in public, and has the possibility of our making a change immediately if the case is persuasive to those in attendance. Those with opinions or questions who wish to be more private have been invited in both a Monthly article and a rector’s forum to make themselves and their thoughts and ideas known to the committee. That invitation is still open.
The bigger question is what any of us do with free floating feelings that come upon us or arise within us from time to time in our lives, especially those feelings that seem to be about a sense that life has dealt us a bad hand or that something to which we believed ourselves entitled has been withheld from us. It seems to me that regular worship in the midst of the community of faith is a good reminder of what is really important and a place where some of those feelings can be transformed as sword are transformed into plowshares in the Kingdom of God.
The Recent Pastoral Letter from our Bishops and one from Archbishop Akinola.
March 25, 2009
Our House of Bishops met earlier this month at Kanuga and issued a pastoral letter that takes on the greed and consumerism that they believe has driven our financial crisis. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_106036_ENG_HTM.htm
In the midst of their reflection they say the following: “In this season of Lent, God calls us to repentance. We have too often been preoccupied as a Church with internal affairs and a narrow focus that has absorbed both our energy and interest and that of our Communion – to the exclusion of concern for the crisis of suffering both at home and abroad. We have often failed to speak a compelling word of commitment to economic justice. We have often failed to speak truth to power, to name the greed and consumerism that has pervaded our culture, and we have too often allowed the culture to define us instead of being formed by Gospel values.”
All this may be true provided that we do not assume that in addressing the proper place of GLBT people in the life of the church we are either dealing exclusively with ‘internal affairs’ or ‘allowing the culture to define us’.
Our experience at All Saints’ is that addressing this particular controversy head on is what frees us for the kind of proclamation the bishops are seeking.
In that regard I hope that The Episcopal Church will continue to move toward corporate clarity at our General Convention this summer. Those who are unable to be open to the possibility that affirming GLBT people as such could be a legitimate advancement of our understanding of what it means to be human and so inform our faithful reading of scripture will never be satisfied with anything that allows the possibility of affirming gay and lesbian relationships in any way. We have seen this in the way they have acted in recent years, especially in the Diocese of Virginia which could not have tried any harder to be an expression of church that included the fullness of Christian belief and expression (if not practice). The Archbishop of Canterbury for whom I have great respect as a person, poet and theologian continues to follow a path that he hopes will keep everyone together even as some Archbishops refuse to attend the Lord’s Table with others.
Archbishop Akinola of Nige3ria has signed the pastoral letter of his standing committee (http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=13&d=73&p_t=index.php) in which he affirms that he is in ‘full communion’ with the Common Cause Partnership otherwise recognizable as those who have chosen to leave the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church. I’m no longer sure what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion in such a world. They seem to believe that communion is dependent on right thinking about matters of doctrine and if that is the case there are plenty of churches which offer such a system,--Rome chief among them. If, on the other hand they desire to be in a communion attempting to be defined by relationship before doctrine rather than the other way around then it seems that they would approach communion with all Christians with the kind of humility that recognizes that we are all being transformed around the Table of the Lord and would happily remain in communion with those with whom they disagree.
I would certainly be willing to go to the Table with the Archbishop even as I would also go to the mat to resist someone who can write: “Same sex marriage… is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this county. It is also capable of existincting (sic) mankind and as such should never be allowed to take root in Nigeria.”
Our House of Bishops met earlier this month at Kanuga and issued a pastoral letter that takes on the greed and consumerism that they believe has driven our financial crisis. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_106036_ENG_HTM.htm
In the midst of their reflection they say the following: “In this season of Lent, God calls us to repentance. We have too often been preoccupied as a Church with internal affairs and a narrow focus that has absorbed both our energy and interest and that of our Communion – to the exclusion of concern for the crisis of suffering both at home and abroad. We have often failed to speak a compelling word of commitment to economic justice. We have often failed to speak truth to power, to name the greed and consumerism that has pervaded our culture, and we have too often allowed the culture to define us instead of being formed by Gospel values.”
All this may be true provided that we do not assume that in addressing the proper place of GLBT people in the life of the church we are either dealing exclusively with ‘internal affairs’ or ‘allowing the culture to define us’.
Our experience at All Saints’ is that addressing this particular controversy head on is what frees us for the kind of proclamation the bishops are seeking.
In that regard I hope that The Episcopal Church will continue to move toward corporate clarity at our General Convention this summer. Those who are unable to be open to the possibility that affirming GLBT people as such could be a legitimate advancement of our understanding of what it means to be human and so inform our faithful reading of scripture will never be satisfied with anything that allows the possibility of affirming gay and lesbian relationships in any way. We have seen this in the way they have acted in recent years, especially in the Diocese of Virginia which could not have tried any harder to be an expression of church that included the fullness of Christian belief and expression (if not practice). The Archbishop of Canterbury for whom I have great respect as a person, poet and theologian continues to follow a path that he hopes will keep everyone together even as some Archbishops refuse to attend the Lord’s Table with others.
Archbishop Akinola of Nige3ria has signed the pastoral letter of his standing committee (http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=13&d=73&p_t=index.php) in which he affirms that he is in ‘full communion’ with the Common Cause Partnership otherwise recognizable as those who have chosen to leave the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church. I’m no longer sure what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion in such a world. They seem to believe that communion is dependent on right thinking about matters of doctrine and if that is the case there are plenty of churches which offer such a system,--Rome chief among them. If, on the other hand they desire to be in a communion attempting to be defined by relationship before doctrine rather than the other way around then it seems that they would approach communion with all Christians with the kind of humility that recognizes that we are all being transformed around the Table of the Lord and would happily remain in communion with those with whom they disagree.
I would certainly be willing to go to the Table with the Archbishop even as I would also go to the mat to resist someone who can write: “Same sex marriage… is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this county. It is also capable of existincting (sic) mankind and as such should never be allowed to take root in Nigeria.”
The ‘L’ Word
March 25, 2009
In a recent entry I asked about our mission statement and had one response questioning use of the word ‘progressive’ to describe All Saints’. My correspondent’s concern (at least as I understood it) was not so much the idea that we are a progressive parish but the baggage that the word carries in our culture wars. I suggested that our history with regard to civil rights, the role of women in the church including support for the ordained ministry of women and more recently our clarity about the proper place of lesbian and gay people in our common life have been consistently mentioned as important to most of our people when they are asked. All of these commitments have arisen with some difficulty but as a result of the compelling consequence of the Gospel of Grace as we have received it. The word ‘innovative’ was suggested as an alternative.
Some would say that we should be able to identify ourselves as ‘Christian’ and leave it at that, but the reality is that if people in our world who are not Christian have any sense of what it means to be Christian, survey after survey shows that they assume that we are conservative socially and politically, that we are more about organized religion than love and the like (See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-09-unchurched-survey_N.htm for example). As Anglicans we are somewhat unusual among Christians and have a particular way of living out the faith that is distinctive and needs to be shared as such if our invitations to others are to be clear.
I used to like the word ‘liberal’ an still do to some extent. Alan Wolfe (described by The Economist) as a ‘left wing liberal’) is a professor of sociology and political science at Boston College and a contributing editor to The New Republic. He has recently published an essay called ‘Obama vs. Marx Hint: One of them’s not a socialist’ (The New Republic, April 1, 2009 p.21-3). The thrust of his argument is that liberalism stands opposed to both fascism and socialism (in spite of conservative fear mongering claims to the contrary). He defines liberalism as “a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action.” That is a pretty good description of where I find myself. He contrasts this with socialism which “seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty.” These, he says, are “differences of kind rather than degree.”
The problem with our describing ourselves as ‘liberal’ in this sense (potentially including as I understand it both conservatives and progressives) is that we also have to contend with the use of the tem ‘liberal’ in regard to theology. Liberal theology is less to do with any kind of political philosophy and agenda and more to do with the patterns of thought, notably rationalism, developed in the nineteenth century ‘Age of Enlightenment’. We would associate the likes of Schleiermacher and Henry Ward Beecher, or later, Tillich, or even later Marcus Borg with this kind of non doctrinal theological liberalism. It is the movement that gives rise to the whole range of theories that fall under the title ‘biblical criticism’. It is the movement that led to the formation of new seminaries in some mainstream denominations in this country to counter the liberal trend. (Trinity over against VTS in our denomination; Westminster over against Princeton for the Presbyterians and so on.)
While we art All Saints’ have most certainly been shaped by the liberal movement and have received great benefit from it, I would be hard pressed to use the word to define our stance as a parish We are much more likely to hear sermons influenced by the great Anglican biblical scholar N. T. Wright or the Stanford Cultural Critic and Roman Catholic Rene Girard, than by liberals of yesterday or today. At the same time we would not rule out or reject the insights of the Christian Socialists of the 19th Century such as Charles Kingsley and F. D. Maurice or the Jesus Seminar likes of Borg and John Dominic Crossan. (I will have the privilege of spending two days or so with Marcus Borg as part of a colleague group after Easter.) It is only that we would not want to use the ‘l’ word with any theological overtones as defining who we are. So what to say? I think progressive is pretty good as long as it is understood to include republicans and democrats and be something of a synonym for political liberalism. Better suggestions are welcomed and encouraged.
In a recent entry I asked about our mission statement and had one response questioning use of the word ‘progressive’ to describe All Saints’. My correspondent’s concern (at least as I understood it) was not so much the idea that we are a progressive parish but the baggage that the word carries in our culture wars. I suggested that our history with regard to civil rights, the role of women in the church including support for the ordained ministry of women and more recently our clarity about the proper place of lesbian and gay people in our common life have been consistently mentioned as important to most of our people when they are asked. All of these commitments have arisen with some difficulty but as a result of the compelling consequence of the Gospel of Grace as we have received it. The word ‘innovative’ was suggested as an alternative.
Some would say that we should be able to identify ourselves as ‘Christian’ and leave it at that, but the reality is that if people in our world who are not Christian have any sense of what it means to be Christian, survey after survey shows that they assume that we are conservative socially and politically, that we are more about organized religion than love and the like (See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-09-unchurched-survey_N.htm for example). As Anglicans we are somewhat unusual among Christians and have a particular way of living out the faith that is distinctive and needs to be shared as such if our invitations to others are to be clear.
I used to like the word ‘liberal’ an still do to some extent. Alan Wolfe (described by The Economist) as a ‘left wing liberal’) is a professor of sociology and political science at Boston College and a contributing editor to The New Republic. He has recently published an essay called ‘Obama vs. Marx Hint: One of them’s not a socialist’ (The New Republic, April 1, 2009 p.21-3). The thrust of his argument is that liberalism stands opposed to both fascism and socialism (in spite of conservative fear mongering claims to the contrary). He defines liberalism as “a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action.” That is a pretty good description of where I find myself. He contrasts this with socialism which “seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty.” These, he says, are “differences of kind rather than degree.”
The problem with our describing ourselves as ‘liberal’ in this sense (potentially including as I understand it both conservatives and progressives) is that we also have to contend with the use of the tem ‘liberal’ in regard to theology. Liberal theology is less to do with any kind of political philosophy and agenda and more to do with the patterns of thought, notably rationalism, developed in the nineteenth century ‘Age of Enlightenment’. We would associate the likes of Schleiermacher and Henry Ward Beecher, or later, Tillich, or even later Marcus Borg with this kind of non doctrinal theological liberalism. It is the movement that gives rise to the whole range of theories that fall under the title ‘biblical criticism’. It is the movement that led to the formation of new seminaries in some mainstream denominations in this country to counter the liberal trend. (Trinity over against VTS in our denomination; Westminster over against Princeton for the Presbyterians and so on.)
While we art All Saints’ have most certainly been shaped by the liberal movement and have received great benefit from it, I would be hard pressed to use the word to define our stance as a parish We are much more likely to hear sermons influenced by the great Anglican biblical scholar N. T. Wright or the Stanford Cultural Critic and Roman Catholic Rene Girard, than by liberals of yesterday or today. At the same time we would not rule out or reject the insights of the Christian Socialists of the 19th Century such as Charles Kingsley and F. D. Maurice or the Jesus Seminar likes of Borg and John Dominic Crossan. (I will have the privilege of spending two days or so with Marcus Borg as part of a colleague group after Easter.) It is only that we would not want to use the ‘l’ word with any theological overtones as defining who we are. So what to say? I think progressive is pretty good as long as it is understood to include republicans and democrats and be something of a synonym for political liberalism. Better suggestions are welcomed and encouraged.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Mission Statements
March 18, 2009
I recently heard a consultant describe a parish mission statement in a way that I found helpful. A Mission Statement is supposed to express the core identity of a congregation as an “articulation of a promise of a particular or unique experience you will have as a member of this congregation.” A mission statement, she said, will change rarely. A vision statement, by contrast is more future oriented and will represent audacity and something of a ‘stretch’ for the congregation. It is evolving and organic. While it became clear that this workshop leader favored short and pithy mission statements of the kind that I and we tend to mistrust or find unhelpful, her definition put me in mind of what we say about ourselves on our website and elsewhere.
Here it is:
All Saints' Atlanta is a progressive Christian congregation in the heart of midtown Atlanta, marked by:
• Lively worship with great music and timely preaching
• Concern with meaning and integrity in coherent Christian faith
• Passionate spirituality marked by a concern for justice for all people
• Relationship-based ministries with local, global and international reach
• Communities of mutual concern in which every person may know others and be known for who they are in Christ
• An eye to the future in our stewardship of all that has been entrusted to our care.
We profess that the way of abundant life is found in choosing to follow Jesus with all that we are and all that we have, in freedom using all the resources of this community in pursuit of our spiritual growth, giving generously of ourselves and our wealth, and inviting others to share in what we enjoy.
We seek to serve our immediate neighbors in residences, businesses and in our nearby universities as:
• An oasis and place of hospitality in the midst of a great city
• A university of faith for all who seek a deeper knowledge of God.
How does this stand up to the definition of a mission statement? What do you think? What would you add or subtract in order to see it as an articulation of a particular or unique experience you will have as a member of this congregation?
I recently heard a consultant describe a parish mission statement in a way that I found helpful. A Mission Statement is supposed to express the core identity of a congregation as an “articulation of a promise of a particular or unique experience you will have as a member of this congregation.” A mission statement, she said, will change rarely. A vision statement, by contrast is more future oriented and will represent audacity and something of a ‘stretch’ for the congregation. It is evolving and organic. While it became clear that this workshop leader favored short and pithy mission statements of the kind that I and we tend to mistrust or find unhelpful, her definition put me in mind of what we say about ourselves on our website and elsewhere.
Here it is:
All Saints' Atlanta is a progressive Christian congregation in the heart of midtown Atlanta, marked by:
• Lively worship with great music and timely preaching
• Concern with meaning and integrity in coherent Christian faith
• Passionate spirituality marked by a concern for justice for all people
• Relationship-based ministries with local, global and international reach
• Communities of mutual concern in which every person may know others and be known for who they are in Christ
• An eye to the future in our stewardship of all that has been entrusted to our care.
We profess that the way of abundant life is found in choosing to follow Jesus with all that we are and all that we have, in freedom using all the resources of this community in pursuit of our spiritual growth, giving generously of ourselves and our wealth, and inviting others to share in what we enjoy.
We seek to serve our immediate neighbors in residences, businesses and in our nearby universities as:
• An oasis and place of hospitality in the midst of a great city
• A university of faith for all who seek a deeper knowledge of God.
How does this stand up to the definition of a mission statement? What do you think? What would you add or subtract in order to see it as an articulation of a particular or unique experience you will have as a member of this congregation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)