Schizophrenic Christian

I don’t understand the crucifixion. Most of the time, I don’t think about it, but Lent and Holy Week and Good Friday, especially, are just so in your face about it that I feel I must have some sort of response.

Over the years, I’ve had different responses. During my evangelical years, it was so great that Christ died for our sins and gives us hope for salvation. That’s easy enough, you tow the party line and everyone is happy.

Later, it was, well, I’m not sure that really makes sense to me, but how about I chalk it up to ‘mystery of faith.’ That satisfied for a few years.

And then the darkness fell and I really struggled with the idea of the crucifixion being the ultimate passive-aggressive act. “You are bad and I have to suffer this horrible death for you. But it’s okay because, though you don’t deserve it and can never earn salvation, I’m doing this for you because I love you.” Looked at in that light, it’s really twisted. So I had to dispense with that view – not sure how I did it, but I know I wrote a blog post on it.

Then there is the metaphorical/psychological view. Christ shows us the importance of dying to our ego/our self, so that we can reach transcendence. Nice, sort of an East meets West view. That could work but for a long time I was hung up on why such a nasty story was written if it didn’t actually/literally happen. Maybe reading Joseph Campbell on the Power of Myth would help with that, but then why do I choose this particular myth? Maybe because it’s the one I’m most familiar with and it takes a lifetime of meditation on it. That is my closest understanding right now but I don’t seem to have the time or energy or interest to read Campbell or Marcus Borg. Lamb, actually, was pretty satisfying with Jesus cast as a bodhisattva to his people and the crucifixion being his reaction to the practice of sacrifice. Yes, I think truth can be found anywhere and much of my religious understanding springs from fiction (I love Susan Howatch’s Starbridge series).

I’ve said that pondering the crucifixion makes me sad and angry and confused. Sad, because it’s so much suffering – the violence is almost pornographic. Angry because, well, maybe that’s the natural response to violence and sorrow. Angry also because I don’t know why I’m so bad that some poor man/God hundreds of years ago had to endure what he did. Confused because why must there be substitutionary atonement or why there must such a useless atonement as killing? Confused because maybe I’m not a Christian and then what? Where would I go? My religion is only partly about my beliefs, a large part is my heritage and my family and, at bottom, I feel that Truth runs through everything – all religions, all ethics, everything. Which is probably something else that makes me not Christian.

But I’m active in church and that embarrasses me because I’m not sure I believe what I’m supposed to and I feel like a faker. I also am embarrassed because I know to some, church involvement is interpreted as an assertion that I think I’m holy or want to be holy or have any clue what holiness might entail. So I make jokes.

Why do I go to church? Is it because I was raised in the church or have a longing for a religious community or I thirst for God? Well, I might have all of those, but that’s not why I go. I go because I had a Baptist boyfriend in college who mentioned once that when you move to a new town, you join a church, it’s the best way to get connected and involved in the community. Strange, huh?

I don’t feel the need to church shop or religion shop because I do have faith that anywhere I go I will find myself lacking, sad, angry and confused. And maybe that is the point of faith, to lead you there so you can let go and relax a little. I really don’t know.

Ultimately, much of my belief rests on what an on-line friend, a Quaker, said to me. He said that he thinks God tells us all something and that maybe what God wants is for us to talk to our neighbors and find out what God told them. I really like that and maybe that explains why I’m posting this note.

Well, I feel better now, thanks.

Finding Truth over at Kwakersaur

My good friend David over at kwakersaur has the following quote at the bottom of his blog main page screen:

Perfection is a crime against nature and an affront to God. The call of God is a call to reaching out to one another. The demand for perfection is the call of the Enemy.

He says it far more simply and clearly than I ever have. I believe a corollary to this is that competition is antithetical to seeking God. Sure there is plenty of competition in the natural world, but competing over grades, money, possessions, and status is not part of the natural world. It seems so many people become focused on competition that they don't even enjoy the fruits of their labor or the challenge of bettering themselves. Along the way, they've alienated themselves from others, and I believe, from God and themselves.

My view is utilitarian -- if you feel like you're better than me because you've 'achieved' more than me, perhaps I am doing God's work by helping you feel better about yourself. It doesn't do me any harm.

Buddhist Humor...

...from a Quaker listserv

A Zen Buddhist opened up a hot-dog stand and his first customer paid with a 20 dollar bill.

After waiting, the customer demanded, "Where's my change?"

"Sir," replied the Buddhist, "change must come from within."

Christ Crucified is Not Passive-Aggressive

Its been bothering me awhile that, as a devout Christian, I've not been able to find a whole lot of meaning in the crucifixion. In fact, I've seen it as a passive-aggressive. It seems to say, "I love you so much that I let this happen to me, to forgive your sins, you unworthy, despicable creatures. Now you better do what I tell you." Pathetic, huh? But what can you do when this is your honest view of the hallmark of your religion? I was not lead to go to another religion; I wanted to solve the riddle. Seriously, I love Jesus and I'm not giving him up just because I have a pea-brain.

I've read about how the crucifixion might be viewed as the importance of dying to the self, to leaving behind egoism so that one might grow to become a more Christ-like person, thinking of and loving others in a way that is impossible when one focuses on themselves. This is a helpful view, but it doesn't get me past my block.

Anyway, I am feeling incredibly thankful for an understanding I recently received. I've been talking to a dear friend about an issue that is the source of suffering. As usual, I approach it in my own extremely self-centered desire to be helpful. Its finally occurring to me that perhaps I should wish for help for others, not that I can be of help to others.

How does one get past the pain they have suffered? I don't have an answer, but I now see the crucifixion as hope that it can be done. Jesus suffered terrible humiliation, pain and death at the hands of those who mocked him. Jesus leaned on his relationship with God to be able to endure it, so I guess thats a clue for us. Purportedly, the crucifixion happened so our sins can be forgiven. But also in his crucifixion, I can see that its about accepting the pain and suffering and forgiving it. Once that is done, then the resurrection can occur, the new life that is not hampered by the memories and anger of the past.

How is this done in real life? I don't know, but at least I'm not longer attributing personality disorders to my Savior.

Lenten Silence

Earlier this week, I read our weekly church bulletin and realized that this is the last Sunday before Lent begins this Wednesday. My first reaction was excitement, we call it Jazz Sunday and our church does a bang-up job with the music. Trumpets and drums and great hymns -- A Closer Walk With Thee and When the Saints Go Marching In. Its a great service.

I went to church today to pick up the lessons for tomorrow's service when I'll read them out loud at one of the services and then assist with the chalice at communion. This is the last time I'm serving as I've asked to be left off of the next cycle for lay reading. I may or may not ask to be included the cycle after that -- I'll see what happens and where I'm led.

The Old Testament lesson is from the book of Exodus, when Moses goes up onto Mt. Sinai to receive the ten commandments. He is up there for 40 days and 40 nights. This brought the idea of Lent to the forefront of my mind and I thought that perhaps I should give up something for Lent. I've never really done this before, my churches have never really pushed it and I'm not one for grand gestures or denial. Almost immediately I thought, I should give up blogging for Lent. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I really didn't want to and the more I realized that I must. You may wonder what the big deal is, I don't write all that much on my blog, but in giving up blogging, I also plan to give up reading and commenting on blogs. This is the part that hurts.

My mind is pelted with various thoughts on the matter, the passage on Lent in Girl Meets God, a comment from my friend Meredith on another blog, the nagging knowledge that I'm ignoring my kids a bit too much.

I write this to signal my break from blogging -- I will not post on my blog, nor will I read or comment on others -- beginning on Wednesday. Of course, you may still contact me via e-mail (I'm not giving up the computer).

I talk too much and most of the time I have nothing to say. This is no surprise to anyone who reads this blog. I hope after Lent, that I will have learned something from this silence.

All that said, I have to note a potential carve-out. I am a member of a scripture study blog and am considering keeping up with that blog, both as a reader and poster/commentor. I don't think this would break the spirit of my fast, but I'd certainly consider any comments you have.

Lent begins Ash Wednesday, February 9 and ends, well thats another topic for discussion...Easter is March 27.

My Soul, as Revealed by On-Line Quiz

Many thanks to PoeticMermaid for posting this on her blog.

You Are a Seeker Soul

You are on a quest for knowledge and life challenges. You love to be curious and ask a ton of questions. Since you know so much, you make for an interesting conversationalist. Mentally alert, you can outwit almost anyone (and have fun doing it!). Very introspective, you can be silently critical of others. And your quiet nature makes it difficult for people to get to know you. You see yourself as a philosopher, and you take everything philosophically. Your main talent is expressing and communicating ideas. Souls you are most compatible with: Hunter Soul and Visionary Soul

What Kind of Soul Are You?

Well, I'm not sure I have a 'quiet nature,' but I'd like to think everything else is true!

Finishing Genesis

I started reading the book of Genesis three years ago when I took a Bible study on the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. I missed the first meeting and the lesson about how the Israelites came to be in Egypt. I decided to get the whole story and started with the beginning of Genesis (redundancy is funny). Recently, I picked up where I left off so long ago, with the death of Rachel, and I finished the book in a few weeks.

Funny aside -- I had a friend at work who is Jewish and I recall him telling me about the play Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. Being a Biblically illiterate Christian, I kept wondering why he was interested in the story of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. Ohhh...different Joseph.

As you may know, Joseph was one of the sons of Jacob (Israel) and was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers for he was his father's favorite. What did I learn from Joseph's story?

• If God chooses to prosper you, you will prosper regardless of where you are -- even in jail.
• Bad things can happen to those God chooses to prosper, e.g. they can be thrown into jail for no wrongdoing on their part (e.g. the false accusations of the boss's lustful wife).
• People are fickle (pharoah restores the cupbearer but executes the baker).
• You must be patient (Joseph waited two more years in prison because the cupbearer forgot him despite his promise).
• Strange things happen and we don't know why but the Lord God is sovereign.
• Be glad in your prosperity and in your ability to help others and always realize it is because what God has done for you and not what you have done for yourself.

The story of Joseph is in Genesis Chapters 39 - 50.

What a Weekend -- Sunday

Something that really does make worship more fun is gospel music.

On Sunday, I attended church with my husband and Larry and his family for the baptism of Larry's grandson. The service was at an Catholic African-American church and featured gospel music. I'd never been to an African-American service of any kind before and it was such a treat. Besides being enjoyable and entertaining, I found it exciting and spiritually meaningful as well. I've attended many Catholic Masses and maybe only one Catholic baptism and this service followed in the same manner with the addition of gospel music and a vitality that I'd never before experienced in any church.

I was probably most affected by the liturgy of the Word. The Catholic service is nearly identical to the Episcopal service in this regard. I'm a lay reader at my church, so I get to read the lessons at my church sometimes. I love the Bible, so the liturgy of the Word is one of my favorite parts of the service. While I love reading the Bible, sometimes, the reading of the Psalm sounds much like a funeral dirge, even when the refrain is something along the lines of 'rejoice in the Lord who saves us.' Always seems so funny to me to hear such an idea sort of mumbled. Not in this church -- the psalm was song by a man with such a strong, deep voice and a woman, joined by the congregation, sang the refrain. Powerful. Can't say I took much notice of the Epistle. But, the Gospel reading. Wow -- the prelude was singing 'alleluia' to gospel music. Just that one word, alleluia, over and over, louder and stronger with this sense of anticipation as the deacon held up the Gospel book and climbed up into the pulpit. It was amazing to me, I could only think, wow, we are going to hear the Gospel lesson now, the Word of the Lord, announced the way it should be, with excitement and thanksgiving and awe. I was already well familiar with the Gospel reading because the Catholic and Episcopal lectionaries choose the same passage and I had been preparing to lead a Bible study at my church before I was invited to the baptism [Many thanks to Rob the llamabutcher for leading in my absence].

The baptism was beautiful, as all baptisms are. This was amazing again, because the baptismal font is in the back of the church, attached to a baptismal pool which I imagine is used for immersion adult baptisms (at least it looks as if it could be). As the baptismal candidates, their parents, godparents, the priest and deacon headed to the font in the back of the church, the choir and congregation sang 'take me to the river to be baptised.' It was wonderful.

I think the final part of note was the Lord's Prayer -- whoops, sorry, Catholic church, the 'Our Father.' The congregation joined hands across the center aisle of the church. Larry was beside me, chose not to join hands, but assisted me in joining hands with the woman to his right, someone we did not know. The congregation prayed the Our Father, which ends with 'deliver us from evil.' Luckily I'd been to enough Catholic services to know that the priest says something and then the congregation finishes off the prayer (or at least I'd call it finishing it off since we Protestants use a longer version). The priest said his part and the congregation, still joined by hand, raised their hands in the air to pray 'for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever' [I don't think they include 'and ever']. At that point, with my hand joined to the woman's hand, Larry put his hand over both our hands.

After the baptism, my husband and I joined Larry and his family back at his son's house. We had met the other set of grandparents on the way to the church. At the house we met many more friends and relatives and neighbors and ate lots and lots of wonderful food. I am not mentioning Larry's son's name nor his wife's only out of respect for their privacy [not everyone wants to be on someone's blog], but they were absolutely wonderful hosts. Open and welcoming and kind and interesting. Many thanks to them for inviting us to share their special day -- remember, I was just some wacko Larry met in cyberspace and had never met any of them in person, not even Larry (there was a small link with Larry's son -- he and I went to the same school for one year a decade ago, though I'm not sure we ever met).

I mentioned in my last post that I'm not impressed with anyone, we are all equally deserving of love and respect. I guess I'd amend that to say I'm very impressed with people like Larry's son and daughter-in-law who are so gracious in their hospitality. I've met many other gracious hosts and I am impressed with their ability to open their homes and welcome people. I know hospitality is valued and encouraged in many religions and cultures. To me it is the essence of Christianity, it says, 'come, I have more than enough, let us enjoy God's grace together.'

What a weekend.

What a Weekend

Wow, we had a busy weekend. We are not busy people, so compared to most, our weeked was probably pretty tame.

Saturday night, we went to a very nice dinner party for one of husband's supervisors. Many of my husband's co-workers were at this party. My husband is currently on a detail with higher management and it was intriguing to hear his co-workers from his prior office commenting on the buzz surrounding his career. Especially interesting for an unclimber. Word has it he's on the way 'up.' Rumor is he's 'being groomed' for management. Interesting. I've never been impressed with my husband, I'm not impressed with anyone and I don't expect them to be impressed with me. We are all humans in our own right, deserving of love and respect. There is no hierarchy -- no one is better than anyone else, especially by dint of title, rank, or money. Yes, I know I sound communist, but I think Jesus was sort of thinking along these lines as well.

Anyway, not impressed with my husband. He is one of the most wonderful human beings I've ever met, handsome, smart, kind, fun. Thats why I married him. And you know what I learned? He's also an excellent husband and a devoted father who does more than his fair share of work. In love? Yes. Impressed? No. Appreciative? Always, even though I don't show it. Admiring? Most definitely. Does that mean I'm impressed? Maybe, but I always think of the word meaning something not really deserved, something superficial. Expensive car? Impressive. Big house? Impressive. Designer clothes? You get my point or you don't.

How to be a supportive wife without becoming tainted by worldly ambitions? I don't know -- so far my brand of support is mostly to bring him back to earth -- not that he was ever leaving it. Maybe thats not the role I'm to play. How to be a supportive wife without ruining his career? I think the key to that may be my silence, not an easy task for me.

Whats my point? Why am I feeling so ruffled by all this? Because, at bottom, it doesn't seem right. My husband has noted that there are some people who are paying attention to him now that weren't before and its not just that he wasn't visible to them previously. I guess its just smacking of a lectionary reading from a few weeks back, how we are not to prefer anyone over another.

I didn't see too many people thanking the servers who were placing food in front of them and taking away dirty dishes. Whenever I'm feeling righteously indignant I get this feeling that I am probably wallowing in hypocrisy.

Perhaps I'm still disturbed from our viewing of Dogville.

Enough for now, my next post will be about our outing on Sunday, about which I have a completely different attitude.

The Book of Ruth

Despite my earlier rant about house-hunting, I was feeling rather peaceful this morning.

I was feeling peaceful this morning and I credit it to reading the Book of Ruth. I read chapter 1 a few days ago and read chapters 2 through 4 this morning. Its a beautiful story about how caring for others and doing what is right brings forth the Kingdom of God. Naomi's husband and sons, one of whom was Ruth's husband, die. Naomi urges her two daughters-in-law to go home and return to their families of origin. One does, Ruth does not. Her answer to Naomi is a well-known verse (...whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people and thy God my God...1:16, KJV). I read that aloud in church as part of the lectionary a few weeks ago. It is sweet and beautiful and I think its sometimes used in wedding ceremonies.

I knew the story of Ruth from reading Girl Meets God by Lauren Winner more than a year ago. Lauren grew up a Reformed Jew, converted to Orthodox Judaism in college and a few years later, felt called to Christianity and became an Episcopalian. Because of her heritage and love of Judaism, Lauren spends a chapter of her book discussing the Book of Ruth. Ruth eventually remarries and bears a son. The Book of Ruth says that this is Naomi's son and ends with a genealogy which includes Ruth and her new husband, Boaz, the father of the child who later becomes the father of Jesse, who becomes the father of David. Jesus is born from the line of David, through Joseph. Its no surprise that this aspect of the book is of interest to Lauren as she finds it significant in laying the groundwork for how Jesus can be descended. Its beyond me to explain it here unless I was to lift several paragraphs from her book and then it probably still would't be clear. Read her book, its the spiritual journey of a young woman and its especially fascinating because of her love of Judaism and Christianity. Its also a bit racy in parts, the girl is not free from sin (who is?)

Back to my take on Ruth. From the studies I've done on the Old Testament, I'm aware that there were many regulations for the Israelites regarding all aspects of life, including the redemption of property for families and the provisions for the care of widows. I won't get into details because I'd probably get it wrong, but suffice it to say that family members are to make sure that a widow who has not borne a child finds another man in the family to fulfill the duty. Like all regulations, some are followed and some are ignored. In this case, as far as I can tell, everyone did what they were supposed to do and acted nobly. Ruth could have returned to her family of origin and looked for a new husband. She was a Moabite, so she did not share the God of the Israelites. When she chose to go with Naomi, she still could have chased for a husband, but she did as Naomi told her. Boaz also did what was expected of him in marrying Ruth, because he was kin of Naomi's deceased husband.

The end result was the birth of a child who took his place in the lineage of Jesus. Because they did what was right and within the commands of God, Jesus was born. When you do what is right and honorable and in accord with God's will (as evidenced in the laws), we will see the Kingdom of God on earth.

I realize that this is an oversimplification and perhaps I've made factual errors and misinterpretations. The interruptions I've endured while writing this are as numerous as the stars in the sky. My point is that in reading the Bible, I sometimes am able to find those little kernels that give me peace and move me forward.

The Spiritual Aspect of House-hunting

We're looking for a new house, a bigger house. Our house is great, but its an odd split-level. The entrance is into our living room, upstairs is the bedroom level, but downstairs takes you through a rather large dining room. We have a nice kitchen and about a quarter of a finished off basement. We have plenty of room, but its getting tight and I'm sick of having an over-sized, pass through dining room that doubles as a playroom. I'm ranting about my house-hunt on my other blog and realize I may be a bit dis-integrated, but I want to talk about the spiritual implications of the house-hunt on this blog.

Contentedness. A big part of enjoying the life God intended you to live seems to be being contended with what you have. Our materialistic society fights the notion of contentedness -- advertising is all about finding or creating discontent and then pitching a product that will purportedly alleviate this discontent. Advertising is the main reason I don't watch TV anymore, there are plenty of good shows that I wouldn't mind watching, but I don't feel like trying to follow them while they are constantly interrupted by loud, obnoxious, frequently sexualized adverstisments.

Where am I with being content with my house while searching for another? Deep down, I can't help but feel I'm being materialistic and unappreciative. I have a nice house -- a bedroom for each of us (well, I have to share one with my husband) and one to use as an office. We have all we need. We have more than many people have. But I want more. Most of the time I don't want much more -- a roomier kitchen for homeschooling reasons (it doubles as the science lab), a finished basement for some of the toys. A few rooms that aren't cluttered with kid stuff. Is it too much to ask? Probably not, but why do I have this gnawing feeling?

I'll go with the pat answer for now, that its okay to want a little more so long as I appreciate what I have and I keep it in perspective. Despite what a realtor might tell you, a house will not make you happy, not even the 'right' house. Its just a thing. I am happy and that should be enough. So why do I want a bigger house?

Spiritual Retreat On-Line

I just wanted to call attention to Crystal's Blog, she's doing an on-line spiritual retreat and blogging on it. I look forward to following it.

Praying

The topic of last Sunday's adult education lecture at my church was the Daily Prayers in the Book of Common Prayer. The Catechism states that prayer is responding to God, by thought and by deeds, with or without words. I've been thinking about prayer a lot recently, probably because I haven't been praying all that much. Funny enough, earlier on the same day as the aforementioned lecture, I led the prayers for the Morning Prayer Service at my church. I accidently left out the Lord's Prayer -- several parishioners mentioned this, I hadn't even noticed.
To read more, click on the Xs
Prayer is an interesting thing. When I was taking my Bible study, I prayed, well, religiously -- we're talking on my knees, using the Lord's Prayer and then a free form prayer with penitence followed by thanksgiving and oblation and intercession and petition. I was pretty happy with that. I felt like it was a good discipline and usually felt peaceful afterwards. These days, I really haven't felt like praying that way and I haven't. I pray all the time, sort of an internal monologue in my head -- while driving, especially, its a semi-quiet time when my kids aren't interrupting me.

Prayer forms -- good or bad? I tend to avoid them because they seem coldly formal to me. They are something someone else has written. However, my own personal prayers tend to become formulaic pretty quickly, so I'm not so certain they are the better choice than a prepared prayer.

I'm currently reading (at an incredibly slow pace) Agnes Sanford's Behold Your God. From an early chapter on prayer, she proposes a method very new to me. First of all, it doesn't involve kneeling but relaxing the body so the mind and spirit can focus. I've always wondered if we're supposed to kneel -- I think C.S. Lewis once indicated that kneeling was an important reminder of our animal form (am I way off on this?) as a reverance to God. So, do I kneel or not? I don't like kneeling, it hurts my knees, I don't even kneel in church, I sit on the edge of the pew and lean forward onto the rail (am I going to hell for this? Just kidding, I really don't seen it as a damning offense).

Agnes also directs that in prayer we are seek to contact God, so we are to keep a clear mind, at least at first (she says to hold off on the intercessions until we've made contact). I probably haven't read enough of the book to understand what she's saying, but its a departure from the way I've looked at prayer. The idea of being silent (meditating, really) rather than babbling at God the way I do, is intriguing. Speaking of babbling, thats what I'm doing at this point, so I'll stop.

Episcopalians Anonymous

Hello, my name is Sparky and I'm an Episcopalian.

Hi, Sparky!

The Episcopal Church is dealing with the fall-out of having consecrated a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire. I don't know that there is any Episcopal church that has been unaffected by this, though some have more difficulty with it than others. Some parishs are considering breaking away, some parishioners are leaving for other churches, and some churches are considering affliliating with some sort of Anglican organization, a more conservative branch that opposes the consecration of gays -- I don't know much about this organization (not even its name) because my parish is not among those considering membership.
To read more, click on the Xs

I think all Episcopalians (and probably many others) have asked themselves how they feel about the consecration of a gay bishop. Can you accept that? Under what reasoning?

This is a difficult issue for me but not for the most obvious reason. Its difficult for me because in discussing my view, I have offended people and disrupted a small discussion group at my church. I'm really very ashamed about the whole situation, though I think I'm making more of it than there really was. I'm very reluctant to create any more pain about this issue but I still have wounds that are unhealed, so this is my attempt to find a bit healing and perhaps make a bit more sense of my feelings on the issue.

I don't have a problem with consecrating a gay bishop if the person is not promiscuous -- i.e. the person is either in a committed relationship or celibate. I would expect the same from any unmarried priest. First issue resolved.

The reasoning behind my view is where things get tricky. One line of reasoning might be termed "sin is everywhere." In this view, I say that I realize the Bible makes several statements against homosexuality. The Bible also makes several statements against divorce and remarriage but the Episcopal church has been able to overcome this nasty little problem -- I believe there are both priests and bishops who have been divorced and remarried. This leads me to wonder on what basis gay priests can be denied the opportunity to become bishops. This is where the explosion went off in my small group -- regardless of the obvious fact that none of us were priests and therefore ineligible to seek a bishopric, one person became extremely offended, thinking that I was condemning her. At that point, I realized that I had created more strife when what I was seeking to do was explain my reasoning. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Okay, lets move beyond my issues. If sin is the barrier to consecrating a gay bishop, we must realize that we are weighing sins here. It would follow that we are determining homosexuality to be a greater sin than adultery (which is what the Bible has called divorce and remarriage). I'm not picking on anyone who has been remarried, here -- I'm not judging them. Mistakes happen, people hurt each other -- praise God that they can move on. Doesn't the Bible emphasize the quest for redemption? We're talking about who can be a bishop here. I can't and it doesn't bother me a bit.

Back to sin -- one sin that gets harped on quite a bit in the Bible is the sin of pride. I have a problem with pride. I have met many priests who have a problem with pride. Shall we deem the sin of pride to be less than the sin of homosexuality? Some apparently feel that we should. I think the Catholics even put pride, the love of self instead the love of God, as tops in the Seven Deadly sins. (I may be way off on that, but it makes the list).

Leaving the topic of sin, what other rationales might we find for allowing the consecration of a gay bishop? The Bishop of my diocese reasoned in a New York Times Magazine article last winter that the churches of New Hampshire had elected to consecrate the gay priest, that there had been many votes and this was who the people wanted as their Bishop. The General Convention vote was merely the last vote in a long line of elections. Shouldn't the people have the Bishop they want?

Later, I read an article, or perhaps it was in the same article, where my Diocesan Bishop discussed his Biblical reasoning for voting for the consecration of a gay bishop. He felt that the liberal tenor of the New Testament allowed for the acceptance of homosexuality in the future and that the consecration would not be contrary to that. I'm sure I'm mangling this a bit, but my point was that my Bishop did look at the Bible and consider its message as part of his reasoning.

All of this leads me to what will have to be a future post -- what is the point of a bishop anyway? Right now, all I can think of is that they move diagonally. Chess humor.

Makes Worship Fun

A phrase often used in advertising educational toys for children is "makes learning fun!" This makes my blood boil. Learning is inherently fun, its only when learning is forced unwanted on people that it becomes a drudgery. Having to put the fun back in learning tells me that something went very wrong somewhere.

I was at an adult education lecture at my church a few weeks ago and the topic was the communion services in the Book of Common Prayer. Oh, oh, bad joke in my head. Why doesn't the Catholic Church use the Book of Common Prayer? Because the initials are the same as birth control pills. I said it was a bad joke. Anyway, the Book of Common Prayer contains the services used by the Episcopal church, along with prayers and other documents.

I took some notes on the history and theology of the services -- frankly, I found the lecture a little dull (hence the title of this post). At some point, my thoughts took over from the notes I was taking on the lecture. I have the question "does Orthodoxy work?" I'm willing to bet this was not what the lecturer was saying. I was wondering if the church is accomplishing what the Bible set forth as its purpose. With him I am well pleased. Does this apply to the Church today?

The lecturer discussed the theology imbedded in the BCP. She said that the authors were motivated to set forth some uniformity because of the profusion of movements during the Reformation; there was a florid view of what was permissive in the Christian church and the Reformers were trying to stop it. The problem was one with the doctrine, not the practice. The corruption was in the teaching and the uniform prayer had a specific form to fix this.

If this sounds stilted and unclear, its because it is -- I should have typed up my notes and thoughts soon after I heard the lecture. I didn't and I post this stuff just to see if it sparks a discussion. Call me Sparky.

Transcendentalism for Children

D.B. Johnson has written and illustrated several picture books based on the life and writings of Henry David Thoreau. My 4 year-old enjoys the stories about Henry, who is a bear in the books, and his various adventures. I'm not sure how much sense the books make, but many children's picture books are silly stories and these books are fun for me to read. There is a page of notes in the back of each book that tells the background of the story, including where it appears in Thoreau's works, and an inspiring quote. From the notes to Henry Builds a Cabin, an excerpt from Walden:

"Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think they must have such a one as their neighbors have."

How Do You Explain Suffering?

I was telling Larry that my view of tragedy is that God has a plan and he wants the best for us, so that, I hope, present suffering has a purpose, even if I don't know what that is, and there are better things to come. Perhaps this whole life is like the bad dream that we awaken from after we die. Its one way to deal with the fact that we're all going to die. I realize this philosophy is naive and derived from the viewpoint I picked up from my Reformed Bible study (or as Larry put it, its quite Calvinist). I don't think of my view as predestination (thats for Presbyterians and I'm not) but as some sort of complicated view of the intersection of the temporal with the eternal which we can't understand. But thats probably what predestination is. Its where I am now, I don't necessarily think its right, but its how I cope.

The Susan Howatch novels, which I adore, seem to be espousing the idea that creation is on-going and that we are all part of trying to make things 'come right,' which I suppose they eventually will, its just we get to decide whether we try to actively contribute to it or whether we work against it and against ourselves. I don't know what this doctrine is called.

The other night, my DH and I watched 21 Grams, which I'd been wanting to see for awhile. It sort of sounds like its a movie about drugs, its not, 21 grams is supposedly the weight of the soul and the movie is about loving and death and religion and hell and redemption. I highly recommend it, though its work to watch because the chronology jumps around (along the lines of Memento, but not as strange or as clear-cut). The basic story is that an evangelistic, fundamentalist Christian accidently kills a man and his two young daughters in a hit and run accident. The movie is what happens to the wife/mother of the victims, the driver, and the recipient of the husband's heart. Its pretty intense. It also has a lot of religious imagery -- I think I caught the most overt of it, though there is probably plenty more -- my favorites, the last names of the characters, Jordan, Rivers and Peck. By the way, the fundamentalist is (predictably) portrayed as a holy-roller and a bit of a nut.

Anyway, a wonderful scene, which I'd like to watch again, is when the driver is visited in prison by his pastor. They argue about what is going on -- why did this happen? The driver insists it happened because Jesus wanted it to happen (at least he's consistent, earlier in the film, he said he won his truck in a lottery because Jesus wanted him to have it). The pastor insists that it was just an accident. They argue, the pastor says that part of the problem is the driver's arrogance and he must pray for forgiveness, to which the driver asks, why do I have to ask for forgiveness if it was an accident? They yell, they both quote scripture at each other. The pastor screams at the driver that he needs to renounce his pride or he's going to hell. The driver points at his head and says "this is hell." I thought it was very moving. I'm sure I've mangled the scene in my memory, but I thought it was a very powerful scene, showing the problem with fundamentalism -- neither answer really makes sense. How could God or Jesus want such a tragedy to occur? How could he allow such a terrible accident? Is the accident a way of punishing us for our sins?

Maybe we can't know the cause of some tragedies, maybe we're not meant to know. Maybe our job is to figure out how to move along, staying on our path or finding it again.

The Prophetic Function of Clergy

A recent editorial in the Washington Post argues that the Presbyterian church should not have issued a resolution condemning the war in Iraq becuase he "feared it would have a polarizing effect. It was a divider, not a uniter."

I don't know if I would have been interested in this topic if it wasn't for a recent post on Larry's blog.

The editorial is interesting, I think, but I don't agree with it. Perhaps I'm more black and white than shades of gray, but I get frustrated with the idea that you can't say anything unless most people agree with it (though I can see why majority rule for a denominational resolution might be a good idea; if the denomination makes a resolution, shouldn't most of the denomination agree with it?). If the invasion of Iraq was "unwise, immoral and illegal" whatever the majority says does not matter.

In some ways, I have little sympathy for the Presbyterian church, in large part because of all the troubles the Episcopal church is having over the issue of consecrating a gay bishop. Then again, that was a majority decision -- but was it right? I don't know, but the pain it has caused is very real and it is continuing. I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, though.

What is the function of clergy anyway? To speak the truth? To facilitate discussion? To save our souls? To guide us to mental health? To manage a church?

Love is the Key to Happiness

cue music "Love makes the world go round..."

But seriously, a post and its subsequent comments on Larry's blog has me thinking about the importance of love. Larry mentions it as an antidote to mood swings; my friend, Barely Attentive Mother queries this. While I entirely agree with Larry, I was trying to figure out why -- that is what I hope to do in this post.

The Barely Attentive Mother and I are friends in real life and when she was over once for a playdate for our daughters, I showed her a children's picture book, The Three Questions by Jon J. Muth. The book is based on a story by Leo Tolstoy and in it, a little boy poses three questions to his friends: when is the best time to do things, who is the most important one, and what is the right thing to do? I wanted to share this book with Barely because of her interest in Buddhism and the note in the book that the story follows Zen principles (she's not particularly interested in Zen Buddhism, but what difference does that make to a narrow-minded Protestant who doesn't really understand any of it? he he) Well, the answers to the questions are (don't read this if it will ruin the book for you): now, the person you're with, and to do good for the one you're with. To me, doing good for the one you're with is showing love for them.

I recently grabbed a book at the library, Stone Soup. Its a familiar tale of clever visitors who induce reluctant townspeople to share by piqueing their curiosity about how stones can make a delicious soup; I thought it would be a nice story for my 4 year-old. Interestingly, this version of the story was written by Jon J. Muth and is set in China and the visitors are Zen monks. In the story, the townspeople are alienated from each other as a result of the hard times they have endured. The book follows the traditional story, one by one, the villagers add items to the pot, making the soup by sharing with one another. Muth ends the book with the villagers thanking the monks, "with the gifts you have given, we will always have plenty. You have shown us that sharing makes us all richer." "And to think," said the monks, "to be happy is as simple as making stone soup."

Does this prove my point? Maybe, maybe not. It does lead me to note that Muth states in an Author's Note that he uses a trick from the Buddha story tradition, where tricksters spread enlightenment rather than seeking gain for themselves. I find myself asking, how is this tradition any different from the parables told by Jesus. (Larry has noted -- on two blogs -- that Jesus and the Buddha are brothers).

I can't help adding that my conclusion is that the meaning of life is the search for God (its a lifelong search). To seek happiness is a basic human drive, love is the key to happiness and God is love (as shown to us through Jesus). QED. Okay, maybe its not a solid proof, but perhaps I'm persuasive...or not.

Amazing Grace

I attended an adult education lecture at my church last Sunday and we had a wonderful speaker. I just wanted to share some of the notes I took on this lecture.

The speaker said that grace is God's love in action and quoted from the passage about Jesus' baptism in the Gospel of John. As Jesus is being baptized in the river Jordan, a dove descends upon him and a voice says "This is my beloved." The speaker spoke of Jesus being the recipient of God's grace, which enabled him to withstand the trials he would face in his ministry and, ultimately, his crucifixion.

The speaker noted that we are also God's beloved and recipients of his grace. He said that its hard for us to accept this because it runs contrary to the way we think; we want to earn our way, not be passive acceptors of an undeserved gift. Its interesting to think about, I know it can be hard to accept a gift -- I want to have one to give in return and if I don't, I feel uncomfortable. Sometimes I don't want the gift I'm given. I know that I've given gifts that were unwanted.

The speaker said that we are often threatened by grace. It doesn't play by the rules of society. The bad are recipients of this grace just as much as the good, who 'deserve' it.

Finally, the speaker said that we need to internalize this grace. I wanted to ask him how.