Showing posts with label obedience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obedience. Show all posts

May 26, 2017

Of the Paradox of Anglican Tradition

It is a paradox of the Anglican Way that one of its traditional tenets is that tradition is unreliable as an independent source of authority. This paradox is evident in the works of the judicious Hooker (who never mentioned a three-legged stool) and the more authoritative Articles of Religion. Anecdotally, I have seen this paradox play out a number of times in religious community and the ecclesiastical life of the church. Time and again, people who come to religious life, or to positions of leadership in the church, expressing a desire to be under authority come to reject that authority when it proves either less than authoritative or authoritatively asserts something contrary to what they independently want to believe. It is as if they are saying, “I want to be told what to think,” but when they are told to think for themselves, or are told something they do not find congenial, dig in their heels or shake the dust from them. It has been my experience that the most schismatic and disobedient are the ones who profess to hate schism and claim obedience “to a higher authority” — code for “one that agrees with me.” They head off to seek a church or community which either tells them what to do, or places them at the apex of leadership.

Anglicanism, as it is expressed in The Episcopal Church, lives in this tension, and seeks to help people to find a mature faith growing from within rather than impressed from without. Instead of formation — molding the person to fit a necessary pattern — it is education — the drawing forth of insight, relying (it is true) on a framework, but trusting to the power of the indwelling Spirit to guide and nurture.


Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

January 24, 2016

Church Management

The leadership of the Church of England, and by extension (since the majority are relatively recent products of English missionary efforts) many of the Primates of the Anglican Communion seem to have taken a managerial approach to the development of doctrine and polity within Anglicanism. One might observe this is better than the almost impossibilist approach of the Eastern Church or the heavily top-down of the Roman, but in recent years these leaders seem to have taken their cue more from those directions than from the more traditionally Anglican model of provincial autonomy to innovate and the process of reception over time.

This is not meant to give unqualified endorsement to the Gamaliel principle ("If it lasts, it is of God") if for no other reason than that things of God don't always last, and many things that are downright ungodly seem to endure very well! The danger in the "wait and see" approach lies in the fact that deferring action on what is later judged to have been unjust or immoral puts one in a bad light under that later judgment. C. S. Lewis long ago, in a children's book of all places, denounced the danger of taking a wait and see attitude in which, "The dwarves are for the dwarves." They end up unable to see, having refused to act.

Nor am I endorsing a free-for-all adoption of anything new because it is new. Both antiquarianism and novelty are poor guides to rightness. What I am suggesting is that rather than attempting to manage the process, the Primates and the members of the various Anglican churches allow the process of reception -- or rejection -- to take place over time. We are dealing, after all, not with a core doctrine of the faith, but a matter of marriage discipline -- and one far less troublesome than that of remarriage after divorce which the churches managed to gulp (with some discomfort) while gasping at the "bulk" of the recent gnat.

In the long run, the call to submit to such managerial policies runs counter to the history of how the church has worked over time. Almost exactly a decade ago (June 2006), I assembled the following "chain of events" that explores what might have happened had various parties given in to the putative authorities urging their submission. I don't think anything need be added:

  • The General Convention should have listened to the clear directions of the Primates and repented and repudiated all that had been done to offend.
  • The Episcopal Church should have ignored the tradition of national church polity and remained as a missionary arm of the Church of England even after the Revolution.
  • The Church of England should have listened to the pope and never separated from Rome.
  • The Eastern Orthodox should have done the same and submitted to Rome so as not to sever communion.
  • The martyrs should have followed Saint Paul’s advice to obey those in civil authority.
  • Saint Paul, in the interest of not tearing the fabric of the early church, should have acceded to the circumcision party instead of trusting to his own private interpretation of Scripture.
  • The Jerusalem Council should have ignored the anecdotal evidence of Paul and Barnabas — which could only serve to make Law-abiding Jewish converts uneasy.
  • Saul should have ignored his personal “experience” on the road to Damascus and followed his orders from the Sanhedrin.
  • The other apostles should have ignored Peter’s “dream” and stuck to the letter of the Law.
  • Jesus should have heeded Peter’s advice and turned back from Jerusalem.
  • He might also have considered more seriously the various options presented to him in the Wilderness Report.
  • Joseph should have ignored the “personal revelation” he received — again in a dream, no less — and acted in accordance with the Law, and when he found Mary to be with child by someone other than himself, had her stoned to death, and her unborn child with her.
  • Then we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the Anglican Communion.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

January 5, 2012

Thought for 1.5.12

Love is the bridle to authority and the spur to obedience.

— Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

April 26, 2011

Thought for 04.26.11

Authority is fictive. Obedience is real.

Authority is always conferred upon the one exercising it by those who choose to obey it. A monarch with only rebellious subjects, or with no subjects at all, possesses no real authority, but only a title. Reality, after all, is composed of relationships, not substances. A conductor without an orchestra may still fancy himself a conductor, but will make no music. What, after all, is music when it is not being played? Authority is granted reality by those who obey it.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

September 19, 2008

The Uplifting Low-Down

A sermon preached by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG on the Feast of the Holy Cross, at the Church of Saint John the Evangelist, San Francisco

He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend.+

Not too long ago, I heard a voice speaking through a window in time. It wasn’t a supernatural experience like that of St John the Divine. It was on National Public Radio. It was part of a broadcast of historic recordings — not recordings of famous people, but of ordinary folks like you and me. The recording was made over sixty years ago, and the man who made it was 102 years old at the time he recorded it — so his voice spoke through a window into the middle of the century before last — the time of the Civil War.

Joseph Johnson, the man who recorded his memories, was an African-American man, and he had been a slave, already in his early teens when slavery ended. He, and his family before him for three generations, had been slaves — his grandfather, he said with a mixture of pride and resentment, had belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

What most struck me about this recording wasn’t the reminiscing of this elderly former slave, but the attitude of the man who interviewed him: his grandson. In spite of his family connection, in spite of the number of times he must have heard these stories at his grandpa’s knee — in spite of all this, you could tell that while he was hearing the words, he wasn’t listening to the meaning behind them.

His old grandfather kept trying to give him the low-down on what it meant to be a slave, but the young man just couldn’t get it. When the old man said, “We all belonged to Mr. Smith,” the young man asked, “What kind of work did you do for him?” With some irritation, the old man replied, “We didn’t work for him — he owned us! Like he owned his horse or his mule.” The young man couldn’t grasp what it meant to be a slave. He heard the words, but their weight escaped him. He couldn’t feel the soreness of bent and aching backs, weary, bone-tired arms, the crack of the whip, the cutting curses and insults, and the deep, deep pain of shame and humiliation summed up in the single word: slave.

He asked further, “Once you were free, did you ever want to go back to being a slave?” With astonishment audible in every syllable, the old man replied, “Well, some folks might to have wanted to, but not me; to be a slave is to be a dog. You can’t be a man when you’re a slave.” And maybe that young man finally understood what his grandfather was trying to tell him.

+ + +

Most of us are like that young man. Even if our grandparents or more remote ancestors were slaves at some point in the far off or maybe not-too-distant past, we don’t quite get the full implication — the ultimate low-down — of what it means to be a slave. And so, when we hear the Scriptures today, especially Paul’s words to the Philippians, the word slave tends to slide over our ears instead of sinking in, like butter on cold toast. Paul said that Jesus, the Son of God, took upon himself the form of a slave — but we don’t grasp the full significance of these words any better than the people who couldn’t grasp what Jesus meant when he said the Son of Man would be lifted up from the earth.

So let’s refresh our memories, based on Mr. Johnson’s testimony. To be a slave means to have no control over your own life: to be owned by someone else — not just to have to work hard, not just to have to follow orders — lot’s of people have to do that — but to have your very being rest in someone else’s hands, to have no power of self-determination.

To be a slave is to be the lowest of the low — to be at the very bottom of human society. It is to be even beneath human society: to be one step over the edge at which human likeness disappears even in one’s own eyes: as Mr. Johnson said, “when you’re a slave, you are a dog.”

To apply these expressions to Jesus Christ sounds scandalous. And it is. This is the scandal and the mystery of the Incarnation — that the Son of God took that step down to the very bottom. It is not simply that the word was made flesh, that God became a human being, but that the Son of God became— among humans — not the highest, not a king or an emperor, but the lowest and the humblest, one not even considered human by many: a slave, treated as you or I might treat one of our appliances, something bought and paid for, and valued while serviceable but dumped out on the sidewalk for collection by Sanitation once it has served its purpose. A slave is one with no control over his or her own life, one who placed himself at our mercy — placed himself into the hands of fallen humanity — our hands. And we would work our will upon him, doing him to death.

This is a great mystery: that the one before whom every knee must bow should become a human being, who would kneel to wash the feet of fishermen and tax collectors — and of the one he knew would betray him.

Yet all the while Jesus knew what this humble act would cost. He knew perfectly well what he was doing, and who he was doing it for. Jesus’ simple act of foot-washing is set side-by-side with his knowledge of who his betrayer was, and what he was about to do. Jesus knew that his hour had come, that he was about to be betrayed into human hands by human hands, the very hands that would dip in the bowl with his. Believe me, one thing you don’t want to do is fall into human hands. And yet he stripped himself of his robe, and knelt to wash his disciples’ feet — all of them.

+ + +

This was the last straw for Judas — Judas who expected the Messiah to reveal himself as King of Israel at last, and lead a rebellion against Rome. And Judas wasn’t the only one of the disciples who expected thrones instead thorns, crowns instead of crosses. But Judas was the one who would do — and do quickly — “what had to be done,” and Jesus knew it. Judas was a man of action, of the worldly mind; Judas the man of control and operations, Judas the money-manager — so Jesus’ act of humility, washing his disciples’ feet to show that his kingship was not a kingship of this earth, this simple act was the final gesture of humble generosity flung in the face of one who couldn’t bear to see anything given away, Judas the Thief.

Jesus, knowing even this, washed the feet that would soon be running over paving stones on the dark streets of Jerusalem, running to betray him for a handful of silver coins — coins stamped with the image and likeness of an earthly king.

It is in his act of humility, washing the disciples’ feet, that Jesus irrevocably sets the course that will take him down the last step in his descent — that one more step down the ladder of being that Paul describes in Philippians. The ladder of humility led from God’s majesty, to humanity (just below the angels), to slavery — that so distorts human beings that they are no longer seen as human, even by themselves — and then to that one last step, that final step of death, where being altogether ceases. Jesus voluntarily takes these steps, even the final step into the abyss of non-being, the step into death, even death on the cross — for us.

+ + +

And this is the glory of the holy cross we celebrate today: that the cross which marks the lowest point to which the Son would descend — should be the very means by which the Son would be lifted up, and draw the whole world to himself. This is the glory of the cross: that the abyss of death into which he was willing to descend should be forever patched and sealed by two beams of wood laid crosswise.

This is a day of paradox: that He who Is should cease to be; that the death of one should bring life to all; that the slavery of one should bring freedom to all; that the highest should become the lowest. Only from that lowest point could Christ in rising again bring all of humanity back up with him from the grave. Only by getting completely under the burden of fallen human nature could Christ lift and carry it. Only by descending to the grave, the place of non-being, only from that lowest point, could he place the lever of the cross against the fulcrum of his death, and raise up a fallen world. Only from the grave could Jesus raise us from death, the death that comes to all of us.

Jesus did not, after all, put an end to death. People went right on dying after Jesus died — and after he rose again, and people are dying still. I will die some day, and so will you. Jesus did not put an end to death — but he saw to it that death is not the end. He emptied himself, descended into the pit of death, but left his cross like a ladder lowered down, to be a way of salvation for all of the fallen who would climb from the grave and even at its edge sing out their Alleluia.

And all the while the means of Christ’s great miracle, the means of our salvation, the cross, stands before us, there above the altar, delineated by thin lines of gold against the dark wood. This is the ladder on which the Son of God climbed down from heaven so he could be lifted up on earth, and bring the whole world to himself. This is the instrument by which the slave was revealed as the king in disguise, the one deemed no longer human, revealed to be humanity in perfection. This is the tool by which Christ, who took a slave’s form in order to bring freedom, died so that we might live again after our own deaths.

We are called to lift high that cross, our standard and our rallying point, the sign of victory in the midst of seeming defeat, the crossbeams that seal the portals of death, the lever the lifts a fallen world, the ladder of salvation. As we go forth from this place, to a world enslaved by riches that cannot make one free; to a world that cheapens human nature through sexism and racism and homophobia, that enslaves the children of God and binds them in chains of hate and abuse; to a world that refuses to recognize and honor love unless it fits its narrow understanding; to a world that is hungry for the good news of Christ but doesn’t know bread from heaven when it sees it; to a world that is dying of thirst while fountains of grace pour from the wounded side of the Lord of glory — as we go forth in the power of the Spirit let us lift high the holy cross upon which he was lifted up, to draw the whole world to himself. +


February 12, 2008

$.02 on San Joaquin

While I would not use, as some have, the word stink, the DSJ situation is a mess. It represents a situation unconceived-of in the canons and constitution. I am of the opinion that the Standing Committee did not cease to exist on the illegal actions taken by the Convention, or as a result of their failure to interpose an action in the Convention’s or the Bishop’s path; in the absence of certain knowledge, I assume at least some members of the Standing Committee were elected at previous sessions of the Convention, not all of them at the “Robbers’ Synod” (a reference for all you church history buffs out there).

In any case, the duly elected Standing Committee has a canonical responsibility and is not merely a creature of the Convention, even though elected by it — any more than the Bishop is a creature of Convention because elected by it.

Moreover, I disagree with those who see this as being a “systems” thing. There are only, in this case, individuals, since a Diocese cannot, in fact, leave the Episcopal Church — there is no canonical way to do that apart from action of General Convention, and even then it is possible only in the case of Dioceses that are not part of the territorial United States. If you want the canons, that’s what the canons say. The “Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin of the Southern Cone of the Americas” is an “illegal fiction” with no standing whatever. There is only the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, with a number of disobedient or disorderly members and clergy (who meeting in convention took an action they were not by law empowered to take) and one bishop (now awaiting deposition), together with a number of loyal and obedient clergy and members.

The question comes down to, and has been posed as: does casting an improper vote or failing to exercise due diligence in preventing improper actions by others cause one automatically to abdicate an elected office? I would say not, for there are canonical procedures in place to address these failings; there is no mere ipso facto deposition absent an action by those with the authority to impose such a sentence. Even if the charge is abandonment of the communion of this Church (which is well appropriate if one voted to leave it and join Cono Sur) this should properly be addressed by the use of the canon next after the one already applied to the errant Bishop.

The situation is complicated by the fact that it is the Standing Committee itself that normally brings charges in such a case. As the old Latin tag has it, Qui custodet ipsos custodes — who will guard the guardians?

My view, then, is that if the members of the former/existing Standing Committee can unambiguously reaffirm their allegiance to The Episcopal Church (the real one), they should be able to continue to function as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese, and serve out terms until the next elections by the diocesan convention. (I disagree, by the way, with the language suggesting that there is a need to “reconstitute” the diocese; some organization and reordering is needed, but the diocese still exists, and the illegal efforts to amend its constitution are void.) This may, in fact, be what is happening in the interplay of letters and conversations, and the continued hard work on the ground by a number of folks, not least of them the Presiding Bishop.

We can only hope for some greater clarity as time goes on. But to blame the present problem on Katherine Jefferts Schori is not helpful: she is attempting to deal with a novel situation created by Bishop John David Schofield’s hubristic folly, “L’eglise, c’est moi.”

Tobias Haller BSG


August 24, 2007

Ghost in the Machine

It came as no surprise to me to see that, according to a report in The Church Times, Archbishop Akinola’s recent agonized public letter was apparently ghosted, or at least very heavily edited, by someone other than the Archbishop. That it seems to have been Martyn Minns also comes as no surprise. (He is, after all, the Archbishop’s North American Representative.)

The reason I was not surprised lies in the text itself. Anyone who has heard the Archbishop speak or read transcripts of interviews with him, or any of his doubtlessly authentic writings, could see the difference in style between those texts and the agonized letter immediately. One could easily say the same concerning Archbishop Orombi, whose ghost writer is probably much closer to him than Abuja is to Fairfax. It does not take computer analysis to recognize such differences or similarities in style.

However, it would be quite wrong to suggest that these archbishops are no more than sock puppets for an American conservative point of view. It may be that the holy ghost writers, far from putting words into the mouths of those for whom they perform this not-so-unusual editorial function, are helping to restrain some of the more exuberant language in which the archbishops have been known to indulge, and to help frame their ideas in a form more palatable to a broader audience. So there is no need to raise the specter of colonial imperialism to join the ghost of authorship. Doubtless Akinola and Orombi both agree with the sentiments and ideas expressed above their names, whether the words are their own or not. Theories of verbal inspiration aside, it is ultimately the meaning that counts.

And it is the meaning that is wrong. As I said in my previous post, The Episcopal Church is not going to hell in a handbasket. Erroneous or heretical views may be expressed by individuals from time to time — and this happens among self-styled reasserters at least as often as it does among reappraisers, and in churches other than The Episcopal Church. But in spite of the publicity — and book sales — attendant on these fringe episodes, they remain precisely that — the reflections of a “heretic fringe.” There is no doubt some overlap between those who favor a revised understanding of the moral status of same-sexuality with those who embrace the odd heretical view; but there is also significant overlap between those who are opposed to such a revision and those who embrace heretical views.

For example, some years ago in the early stages of discussion on sexuality, the House of Bishops Theology Committee issued a document that stated that the divine image in humanity is incomplete without both male and female. (Karl Barth and John Paul II both made similar statements in their arguments against same-sexuality.) This erroneous idea contradicts the doctrine of the Incarnation, which asserts that the divine image in humanity is complete in Jesus Christ, and present in every human being. (The Angelic Doctor addressed this error at I.Q93.6.) It should serve as a warning to all concerned to see how far from orthodoxy some can wander — apparently without noticing it — in their efforts to “reassert” the church’s tradition on sexuality.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me where bad ideas come from — or good ones for that matter. Whether the words come from Abuja or Alexandria, from the Vatican or Cape Town — or even from the Bronx! — their meaning and significance must be weighed for their concordance with the heart of the gospel as revealed in Jesus Christ, and in accordance with his teaching. He is the standard of Truth against which all our theories must be tested.

Tobias Haller BSG


August 3, 2007

The Ideal and the Real

Over at Betwixt and Between, *Christopher has been continuing to make wise observations about our present crisis, and I am continuing to think more on this as well. (Danger, Will Robinson, danger!)

In looking over some of my past thoughts on the subject, I came across the following, written in 1988, and it seems to be well relevant to the present situation.

In the Oath of Conformity the ordinand promises to engage to conform to the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church" -- not some idealized holy, catholic, and apostolic church, but the real, tangible, institutional Episcopal Church. In much the same way the parties who join in marriage promise to remain faithful not to some ideal married state, but to each other, in the real, tangible, though sometimes flawed union of "for better, for worse." Obedience to discipline only when you agree with it is rather like a marriage of convenience.

As I say, I will continue to reflect on what I am seeing as more and more a clash between idealists (who, ironically, in their ideal efforts bypass the real discipline at a local level in favor of a yet-to-be-constituted authority at some "superior" level) and realists, in the divergent ways of pre/proscription and description.

Tobias Haller BSG

December 6, 2006

Bishop-Elect Mark Lawrence has issued a wholesale response to the many questions raised concerning his confirmation as Bishop of South Carolina. His answers have not apparently satisfied most of those who had concerns in the first place, based on his comments during his candidacy and after his election. Those, such as myself, who were troubled, are now decided. (In my case I don't have a vote, not being a member of a standing committee, and the election having taken place after rather than immediately before the General Convention meeting, in which case I would have had a vote.)

Let me see if I can "get it for you retail." What has bothered me most in what I have seen from Mark Lawrence, not only in the immediate context of his candidacy and election, is inconsistency. He took a strong stand against the confirmation both of Bishop Robinson and Bishop Beisner, not just voting against them but leading the opposition and framing the minority reports. Both of these men were put under intense scrutiny during the General Convention sessions in which their confirmations were acted upon. They were forthcoming. (Perhaps it was easier to "forthcome" when one could stand before a microphone in an overheated committee room while a panel of seated judges peppered one with accusations and calls for further explanation.) Their answers were fulsome and complete, and touched on deeply personal matters.

Mark Lawrence's wholesale responses, on the other hand, appear evasive, vague, fudgy and, to say the worst, duplicitous. (There is only one proper response to the "hypothetical" question, "If your diocesan convention votes to leave the Episcopal Church what would you do?" and that is (for starters) "I will do all in my power to prevent the diocese from making such an unconstitutional attempt, including charging clerical members of the Convention with violation of their Ordination Vows.")

So, on this matter, Mark appears to demand a level of accountability he is unwilling to give.

The second inconsistency is his alleged allegiance to "the Anglican Communion" as if it were a "church" rather than a communion of churches. As the recent Panel of Reference recommendation concerning New Westminster made clear, one is a member of the Anglican Communion through membership in a church that is a member of the Anglican Communion, and in this case that means The Episcopal Church. This is where Lawrence's misuse of the TEC Preamble comes in: the Episcopal Church is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion: a founding member, an element without which the Anglican Communion will cease to be what it claims to be; and if on the remote chance two-thirds of the Primates were to vote to expel The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, they would in fact and in principle be approving the dissolution of the Communion by removing one of its constituent parts. That's what "constituent" means.

Then there is his strange use of the marriage analogy. To use marriage analogically (in the right way), nothing in the marriage vow suggests one party has the power over the faithfulness of the other, only over one's own faithfulness to that partner. This is part of the meaning of "for better, for worse." Lawrence seems here to want to make a conditional promise: I will remain faithful until either my own judgment, or some other judgment extrinsic to the Episcopal Church (the Primates, or some of them?) allows me to sever the relationship. That is not a Vow, it is a Pre-Nuptial Agreement.

And this brings me to my gravest concern, which is not for the church (which has worn out many an anvil) but for Mark. As a spiritual director, I can only note with horror the idea of someone making a vow with such a conditional attitude: that he will conform to the discipline of the church so long as it remains consistent with what he thinks it ought to be (and he suggests it even now isn't!). It is the actual Episcopal Church of the here and now to whose discipline Mark is being asked to conform — not some hypothetical church of the future more to his liking. Not being willing to commit unconditionally is an impediment, pure and simple. It isn't about Lawrence's positions on gay clergy, the authority of Scripture, or the ordination of women. It is in his inability to make a simple statement that he will conform to the discipline of the Episcopal Church even if he disagrees with it, come what may regarding the Anglican Communion.

Some have raised the issue of "What will happen?" if consents are not received. That, I would say, is a hypothetical question.

—Tobias Haller BSG