The Sweet and the Bitter

I am very pleased at the results of the Presidential election, in particular its decisiveness. I was also moved both by McCain's and Obama's speeches last night, and believe that there is a way forward as a nation.

However, I am deeply saddened to hear today of the passage of discriminatory propositions and constitutional amendments that will, for a time, close or keep closed the access all adult, unrelated, consenting couples by rights ought to have to contract marriage.

I commend my California friend Richard's comments at his blog. I do not live in one of the states where minds continue to remain firmly closed against this issue, and hope that in New York, with recent changes in the legislature and the Governor's mansion, we may soon see the East Coast continue to lead in realizing the value of recognizing committed same-sex partnerships as beneficial to society. Some day, perhaps only twenty or thirty years from now, people will look back on yesterday's defeats with a shameful blush. For, as Richard says, they are well worth being ashamed of.

Tobias Haller BSG

Being Jesus' Kin

My sermon on the feast of St James of Jerusalem is posted below with the icon recently dedicated at Saint James Church Parkton, Md. Here is an excerpt:

Clearly something happened to James between the time he thought his brother was crazy and the time we see him as a leader of the church, and hear of him as a martyr to the faith.

Historians differ as to when the change in James came about, but we know that it did come. Was it during Jesus’ preaching ministry? Was he perhaps converted by hearing some golden teaching from his brother’s lips, to be as astounded as the crowds from his hometown were at first, suddenly struck with the challenging question, “Where did he get this wisdom?” and recognizing that it could only come from above?

Was it from hearing of Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem, of how he endured the way of the cross, and bore its weight, and perished on that green hill far away? Or was it from hearing the word brought by the women to the others — the word that death had not conquered after all, and that Jesus was risen from the dead?

Or was it in that more personal experience, that first-hand experience, the one Paul wrote of, when Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection, and, like Thomas and the others, James came to believe because he had seen the risen Lord, not simply his brother now, but his Lord and his God?

Whatever the time and place and circumstance, James entered into a new relationship with Jesus at that point. Although a relative by flesh and blood, he became a brother of Christ in Spirit, when he became a Christian.

In doing this he became part of that larger family that includes us too — for all of us here are brothers and sisters of Jesus, by adoption, through the waters of baptism. I can tell you from personal experience as a pastor that many people come to Christ kicking and screaming, and I’ve wrestled with a few! Some of you may be such cradle Christians; others may have come to faith in youth or adolescence, or even in adulthood.

But all of us who did not walk with Christ, like Paul himself, are untimely born; and though untimely born, still we are born indeed — born again through water and the Spirit, into our new family of faith.

Read it all.

Tobias Haller BSG

More on Sydney

A number of important comments on the Sydney lay / diaconal presidency have been made below in response to my last post, and I'd like to elevate some of the discussion to this level.

Brian commented:

The role of a presbyter is in his or her eldership. It does not consist in his or her authority to 'celebrate' the Eucharist. The scripture does not require any presidency at or celebration of the Eucharist but, rather, that it be done decently and in order, with understanding and faith.

To allow other believers (deacon or otherwise) to break the Eucharistic bread does not deny to presbyters their role as elders, teachers and shepherds of God's people.

and I responded,

What you say presents an interesting theory, but it runs counter to the Ordinal, which is rather specific about the role of the Presbyter in presiding at the ministration of the sacraments. You are quite right about the Scripture, however, being silent on the subject. It would be more helpful in your cause if you could point to any biblical text which showed any lay person or deacon presiding at the breaking of the bread. I am not aware of any such passage in Scripture, which usually portrays this action being led by Jesus or Paul. And Paul's description of the irregularities at the Corinthian love-feasts would appear to argue against the possible disorder caused by letting just anyone take charge.

I have, by the way, no objection, as it is allowed in the Ordinal, to see deacons and lay persons assist in the celebration -- but assisting is not presiding, and the Synod's reading of its own regulations does not meet the standard of interpreting the language as written.

Finally, another aspect of the problem is the attempt to divide leadership in the worshiping assembly from leadership in the role as teacher and pastor. This hardly seems wise, even if possible, and I think leads to the very kinds of disruptions that undermine decency and good order.

Obadiah Slope posted this comment:

In your last comment to Canberra-Brian (I think), you raise the issue of dividing leadership in the worshiping assembly from leadership in the role as teacher and pastor.

This is the heart of the argument FOR lay administration by its supporters in Sydney. They want each of the clergy in the congregation to be able to lead in communion, and preaching.

One solution would be to priest each of them, as you would in TEC.

In Sydney, the model will be one priest and several deacons (in a large parish), all preaching and leading in communion.

The difference is largely about nomenclature IMHO.

I'm grateful for Obadiah's comment, but I'm afraid I still don't understand the rationale. I've also been forced to reexamine the Scriptural side of the discussion, and want to add a bit more there.

The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is the failure to accept the biblical basis for leadership in terms of both office and order -- bishops and elders are called to a ministry of leadership, pastorship, teaching and in the ministration of the sacraments. There is no indication of diaconal or lay presidency at the eucharist in Scripture, as far as I can see; and as I noted earlier, the disorders of Corinth seem to argue for greater regulation, not less.

Deacons are called to another ministry entirely, as the Ordinal makes clear. But this goes not just for the Ordinal but the Scripture; even in the pastoral epistles there is a clear distinction between those who are called to lead and those called to other ministries. Or if I'm missing something, where is it?

Sydney's action seems to be based on a quibblesome reading of a canon, concerning deacons assisting in ministration of the sacraments, and the provision for deacons to administer baptism.

Equating baptism and eucharist is a strange thing to do; though both are sacraments, baptism is essentially personal (though it involves the congregation) while the eucharist is by definition communal (though it involves the individual). The ministrations themselves differ profoundly. As I've noted, in our tradition lay persons can administer emergency baptism. The Roman Catholics go further and allow emergency baptism by a non-Christian, but they don't allow a non-Roman Christian even to receive communion (with rare exceptions), much less celebrate it. So the Sydney position seems to have elevated a Red Herring to the level of doctrine.

Further, and equally problematic, is the historical dimension: having a single presbyter surrounded by deacons would be all well and good -- so long as the deacons didn't preside at worship. The biblical analogy for this model was to Priests and Levites -- and remember what happened when some uppity Levites got the idea to usurp the priesthood! Moreover, being quite biblical on this, even preaching is not properly a diaconal ministry -- note the explicit commission of the deacons in Acts 6:2. The actual model Obadiah describes is more like the Metropolitan church in which the bishop is surrounded by a college of presbyters -- but that's just the point, they are presbyters, not deacons.

So yes, in one way it is a problem of nomenclature -- but as such, why not then simply take the logical step and make anyone who presides at the liturgy a presbyter? Sydney seems to have some desire to separate the historic (and biblical) connection between office and order, and seems to be caught in a device of their own invention if the necessity is to comply with an idea that only the incumbent can be a priest.

Tobias Haller BSG

The Election Gospel Challenge

OK, so we know there are going to be long lines at the polls tomorrow. I mentioned to my parishioners yesterday to remember to bring something to read while waiting in line. In one of those mot d'escalier moments it just occurred to me what they ought to be reading. So here is

The Election Gospel Challenge

Bring a Bible or New Testament with you when you go to the polls tomorrow. When you get in line, start reading at Matthew 1:1 and don't stop until you're at the point where you actually have to stop to sign in or do whatever is needed at your polling place. (If by any chance you get through Revelation, then start again at Genesis!) Note the verse at which you stop. Then let me know. The person who gets furthest along in the text will receive only the intangible reward of having your name listed in a blog post here, together with the verse -- which we hope will not be "Judas went and hanged himself" -- and a custom designed badge to place on your blog or web-site.

Tobias Haller BSG

Bleeding Heart Liberals

One of the many issues we face for the future of the church will be its viability, which is to some extent related to the size of its membership. However, I do not think it wise to fall into a consequentialist ethic based primarily on the numbers of our members, their increase or decline. Like the abundance of possessions, this is really not the point.

For doing the right thing may cause a loss in membership, and doing the wrong thing can lead to growth. No small number of observers appear to me to be making an explicit judgment that the loss of members in the Episcopal Church, which one frequent poster to the HoB/D list refers to as a “hemorrhage,” is being caused by the trends promoted by TEC leadership over the last decade or so; that these are both bad things; and that to reverse the former we should change the latter.

I have no doubt that some people have left TEC on account of its “liberal” trend. But that in itself is not a proof that the trend is wrong. I have pointed out a number of times that there are very conservative church bodies that have also lost significant numbers of their membership over the last decades — so connecting liberal trends with inevitable decline is, in itself, questionable. I take no joy in seeing any church decline; but parishes and dioceses also decline under conservative leadership. And churches also decline due to conflict within them.

There is more at work when we look at the larger picture. Many reports have been written charting some of the complex reasons for decline in many if not most religious bodies over the last decades. These do not appear, for the most part, to be based on the teachings of any particular church, liberal or conservative, but fundamentally on a crisis of faith in the wider population, dismay at hypocrisy and wrongdoing within the churches, and the increasing secularization of society through decline in the protections churches once enjoyed — such as the blue laws that favored a quiet Sunday. I know that my parish loses more due to the soccer field and the Sunday workplace than to antagonism towards Gene Robinson.

So I very much doubt, all things considered, that a shift in teaching on the part of TEC in a more conservative direction will stop the “hemorrhage” any more than continuing to hold fast to working for the full implementation of the Gospel (which is what I think we’ve been doing in this so-called liberal trend) will speed many more losses.

Some will continue to depart, no doubt, because they can no longer abide in a church in which same-sex couples are given the same honor and celebration that they enjoy for their own relationships. If I believed they were departing from the Church with a capital C, and risking their salvation, I might be worried for them. But I think in the long run those who cannot abide because of their convictions are better off leaving; and so are those who remain because of their convictions. And I am more concerned with those who are not churched being drawn into a welcoming church, than I am for those who are merely shifting their denominational allegiance. That, to me, is real evangelism.

It may be, that like the woman who suffered long with her affliction, TEC will only be healed of its hemorrhage when it has the courage to reach out to grasp the hem of Christ’s garment with full confidence and faith, choosing to follow him regardless of how many may take offense at him, and flee.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Comprehensive Hooker

Herewith a link to a sermon on the Feast of Richard Hooker, from a few years ago.

Tobias Haller BSG

Proposition 8: Unfair and Wrong

If you've not seen this powerful reminder of how far we've come and how far we need to go -- and how far some would like to take us backwards to a society based on injustice, inequality, and bigotry, please click on the appropriate arrow.

Bigots have always thought themselves to be fair, enlightened, and right -- even when they are unfair, ignorant, and wrong. Those who support Prop 8 are no better than any other bigots. That religious sects are among those attempting to "proposition" society should not surprise us: religion is often a comfort to bigotry and a haven for hypocrisy. Kyrie eleison.

Tobias Haller BSG

On the Dole Fiasco

Why is it that people who claim the high moral ground so often stoop to wallow in mendacity?

Tobias Haller BSG

A Short Rumination on All Saints' Day

Have you ever observed the extent to which people appear not to notice that so much of what the church is recorded to have gone through in Acts and the Epistles (I'm thinking of the debate on whether Gentiles should be part of the Church, and the discussion on eating meat offered to idols, or other unclean food) would not have been necessary if Jesus had actually said some of the things the Gospels record? We know the Gospels post-date the Epistles in terms of time of composition, so were these passages in Jesus' teaching retrofitted? Or were they recollected? Were the apostles not listening attentively when Jesus told them to baptize all nations, and not to worry about whether food was clean or unclean?

Perhaps that's it after all. There is ample evidence before us even now that the Church is slow to put the teachings of Jesus to work.

Tobias Haller BSG

It’s the Stupid Economy

So the market shot up yesterday after a week or so of jagged decline. Why? The key word seems to be “confidence” — a very subjective thing upon which to pin ones hopes and dreams and pension fund. This only reaffirms my belief that The Economy is not a controllable machine like a well-designed steam engine, but a wild animal that can be poked and prodded with sticks or occasionally tempted by a carrot, but which most of the time does what it pleases. What rough beast slouches towards Wall Street? I think the 50s sci-fi Blob is probably as accurate a picture of The Economy as any.

For The Economy is far from a single unified entity, but a chaotic system built up, sad to say, from the very worst in human nature: primarily greed and fear. These primitive emotions are not limited to Wall Street, but are well established on Main Street too; they find a place in every home and heart.

Which brings me to John McCain’s beef with Barack Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” proposal, correctly (to a small extent) but disingenuously identified as “socialism.” Needless to say — or maybe not, since McCain has been surprisingly successful in his wool-over-the-eyes manoeuver — our economic system has been based on a redistribution of wealth model since the days we first introduced progressive income taxation, in which those with more give more proportionately. From an ethical position, Obama recognizes that generosity is a good thing, but that it can’t be counted on in a pinch. Those who have will for the most part, if left to themselves, try to keep what they have. It doesn’t trickle down, either; it stays in the deep pockets of those with custom-designed trousers, or it goes overseas, funneled off to places where workers are eager for whatever scraps fall from our abundantly provisioned tables, and are willing to work for less in places where that less is worth more than it would be here. Obama is calling on those with more to sacrifice a bit more, and includes himself in that category. This seems to be an ethical thing to do.

McCain, on the other hand, is not going to redistribute wealth, he claims he is going to create wealth. The problem is, I doubt universal wealth can be created, even if that is McCain’s real intention. If Obama is peddling socialism, McCain is peddling the snake-oil of a shadow version of communism, in which everyone will be happy and wealthy (but is really just more of the “let the rich keep their money to create jobs so everyone will benefit.”) It won’t work in part for the non-trickling reason cited above. But there is something more serious at work, which brings me back to my initial point.

Haller’s Theory of Universal Slight Dissatisfaction (one of my two Economic Theories) is that a state of pure equilibrium in which everyone is wealthy is impossible. It is even impossible to have a non-trivial society where everyone is satisfied. This is because of human nature, and the role that fear and greed and self-interest play in it. (Some might note the connection with Original Sin.) People for the most part want more than they have — and are only content when they have more than they need. Yet the wealth that exists, the Gross Value of Everything, is finite, though it can grow (it usually inflates more than actually growing). The end result is that the best you can do (if your value system would consider it “best”) is to have a society in which everyone had slightly less than they wanted. People might agree to this out of commitment to a cause: the East Germans prided themselves on their commitment to the solidarity of suffering, as did the early church (communism being a common notion for them both) but it is hard to see it catching on universally. Even these experiments by ideologically committed folks proved unsustainable. Entropy rules, though islands of order (in this context, read wealth) can arise in certain circumstances. But no-how, no-way, is it possible to have a sufficiently large society in which everyone is “wealthy” — for the very definition of wealth itself will slip away beyond your grasp even as you reach after it.

So McCain’s proposal is the same old tired promise of Rumpelstiltskin: give me your child and I’ll spin straw into gold. His proposal is, in every sense of the word, mean.

I pray this nation will have the good sense to reject McCain’s fairy tale magic, and empty promise. The next generation will indeed pay dearly if we fall prey to the seductive promise that wealth can be universal, and cost no one anything. Rather let us ask more of those who have more, and redistribute the wealth that actually exists. That, we know, can work. And it does have the imprimatur of the Gospel in its favor.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Knowledge and Love

One of the things that Mary Clara and I spoke about over lunch this weekend was the use of mystical systems of various sorts to give structure to a world. The coming of the Scientific Age offered a false promise, or at least a misunderstanding: that if we could only detail our knowledge of how the world works we would then come to know why the world works. But Science can never really tell us the why — and is even limited in the extent to which it can uncover the how.

This is where, in part, the difference between knowledge and wisdom comes in, or, as Roddenberry would have it, Data and Lore. One of the reasons Data was unable to become “human” was the same flaw that undercuts many efforts at AI: there is more to ones life than the abundance of information, and one can have catalogued all of the facts of the world without developing anything resembling a true “self.”

The Scientific Age, and its disciples, have added to our catalogue of facts, but the facts themselves have done little to nourish our souls, which require food that facts alone can not provide. This is not to say that facts do not have their place, and an important place it is. But they will not answer the plaintive question, Why? The atheist may say there is no answer; the agnostic acknowledge an answer may exist, but we do not know it.

I take the Christian answer to be true, as Julian of Norwich put it: “‘Love’ was his answer.” Or as Pascal, a scientist who was also a Christian, said, “L’amour a des raisons que la raison ignore” — Love has reasons of which reason is ignorant. Even a major contributor to the Scientific Age could see that much, I wager.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Thought for 10.28.08

Lay Presidency and the Cultural Revolution:
— compare and contrast.

Tobias Haller BSG

Scooped by Gumbo Grannie!

Well, I'd hoped to report on my visit to Baltimore, complete with photos sent to me by fellow blogger Mary Clara, who lives in that metropolis and found her way to Saint James Parkton this last Sunday, but the indomitable Grandmère Mimi has beat me to the punch, or the punch-bowl, and spilled the proverbial beans -- whether zaydeco vert or the red ones that go with rice, I know not.

So hie thee hence to the nest of The Wounded Bird who has been getting a good bit of press herself lately, courtesy of the Huffington people.

Meanwhile, just let me add that the Baltimore and Parkton experience was delightful, and it was a joy to spend some time with the congregation and its leadership, and to put a face to a virtual friend from the Internet.

Tobias Haller BSG

Futureworld in Sydneyland

The Sydney Synod has approved in principle the ideas of diaconal and lay presidency at the Holy Communion, suggesting a delay in implementation for laity but a sooner licensing for deacons, including women deacons. This has created, as perhaps an unintentional consequence, some concern among the more catholic conservative allies with Sydney against the liberal-trending spectrum of the Anglican Communion.

I have no difficulty understanding the extreme protestant position on this score — it has been well spelled out in terms of the priesthood of all believers, the lack of scriptural clarity on the subject, the fact that deacons can baptize so why can’t they celebrate, and so on and so forth. I also have no difficulty understanding the practical implications, and the needs of isolated or small communities. On neither of these do I find the arguments persuasive, but I do find them comprehensible.

What I find hard to understand is how any who so pride themselves in the 1662 BCP and Ordinal and Articles of Religion can adopt a position so at odds with the limpid clarity of their requirements, and what they present as a model for what it means to “minister in the Church.” The Articles demand that no one minister without being called; and the calling of a deacon is well spelled out to be (at most) an assistant in the ministrations limited to priests — also clearly listed in the order for making them. To read, as the current move has it, assists in as presides at seems to be an example of eisegesis at its most wishful and contrary. And this doesn’t even get into the murkiness of what it means for a lay person to “minister” (in the fulsome sense in which the classical documents use the term) — since as Richard Norris once said, a lay person authorized by a bishop to preside at the eucharist is properly called “a priest.”

So the issue for me — quite apart from my opposition to the move on other grounds — is the logical inconsistency of taking steps so at odds with sources of authority that are brandished in other controversies as touchstones of stability for the emerging Anglican Communion 2.0.

Perhaps this is just the beta.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Update: See further at More on Sydney

Saint James of Jerusalem

I painted this icon of Saint James of Jerusalem this past year, for Saint James Church, Parkton Maryland, which is observing this patronal feast on Sunday. The icon will be blessed at that liturgy, and I will have the honor to preach.
James is an interesting character -- called "the Brother of the Lord" in the tradition, and I followed that cue in giving him features that suggest a family resemblance, though not to the blond, blue-eyed variety of Jesus. This is a Jewish James, but also the first Christian bishop of Jerusalem -- a Jew who became a follower of his brother in more ways than one. It was his audacious conclusion to the Jerusalem Council that made it possible for us Gentiles to join in that ever-expanding family, as Jesus' kin, too.
James also followed his brother in death in Jerusalem, being thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple when he was brought there to call out to the crowds to forsake the new Way. The Temple is dimly visible in the background of the icon.
James of Jerusalem was and is an unlikely hero of the faith. He was among the relatives who came with Mary to restrain Jesus from his crazy ministry; yet he ended his life in testimony to what he later came to understand Jesus to be. May we all, whatever our wrong turns, early or late, find in Jesus our brother and our Lord.
Tobias Haller BSG

---

UPDATE: Here is the text of the sermonBeing Jesus’ Kin

St James Parkton • St James of Jerusalem • Tobias Haller BSG

Acts 15:12-22a; Psalm 1; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Matthew 13:54-58

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?+

First of all let me say what a pleasure it is to be here at Saint James Church Parkton, and to bring the icon of your patron saint to be dedicated as a reminder and — I hope — inspiration to all of you, an inspiration and a reminder to stand fast in witness to the Gospel come what may.
I will get to the import of that Gospel in a moment, but first want to reflect with you about something a bit more prosaic. I’m not going to try to settle the historic question about exactly what people meant or understood by calling James, “the brother of the Lord.” Whether that meant he was Jesus’ full younger brother (as a later child of Mary and Joseph); or older half-brother (as a child of Joseph by a former marriage); or, as some think, a cousin or other more distant relation — in the long run it doesn’t matter what the exact relationship was. Because whatever it was, the people of his hometown compared Jesus to his relatives, standing him up against his relations, calling out some of them, including James, by name.
+ + +
What they were doing was saying, “Well, the rest of his family is no great shakes, so where does Jesus get it?” Think what it would have been like if people had known Billy Carter before they ever heard of Jimmy — two men who, though brothers, could hardly be more different from each other in terms of temperament or talent. But that was the crowd’s experience in Jesus’ home town — they saw him through the lens of the kin they knew, and that made it impossible for them to see how extraordinary Jesus was. Familiarity didn’t just breed contempt, but made it impossible for him to work many deeds of power there, as disbelief based on familiarity undermined the foundation of faith.
There is, of course, another side to the comparison: the side of Jesus’ relatives. I don’t know if any of you have ever experienced it, but I’m sure you can imagine what it’s like to have a famous relative. It can be a strain, as people come to expect, once they find out your sister or brother is a famous author or athlete or performer, that you must have a similar gift — and they put you on the spot with their unreasonable expectations. I think of the presidential campaigns towards the end of which we now (at last!) find ourselves, and try to imagine how all of the candidates’ relatives must feel about being put into the spotlight of public perusal, placed under the microscope — or in front of the microphone — as if they and not their spouse or brother or sister was the one running for office.
So you can imagine what it must have felt like for James, and Mary and all the others. They were small-town folks who most of the time minded their business and kept out of the doings of their brother and son, making a name for himself throughout the countryside. You may recall that the one time they tried to intervene in Jesus’ ministry, came about because people were beginning to say he was crazy, and they mounted a half-hearted intervention.
And it was at that point that Jesus suddenly expanded his family, turning from the merely biological to the spiritual. For he asked the crowds, “Who is my mother and my brother?” And he told the crowds, “Whoever does the will of God is my mother and brother and sister.” And that, my friends, includes us, even us, in the here and now. We are Jesus’ kin.
+ + +
But back to James, who whether brother, half-brother, or cousin, was kin of some sort in the then and there of Jesus’ own lifetime. As we know, he joined his family who thought Jesus had a screw loose, and tried to help his mother and the rest of the family get him under control. And yet, after Jesus’ death, he shows up as an important leader in the church, clearly, as the reading from Acts shows us, the spokesperson for the assembly, the one who reaches the conclusion — a real “decider” — and on the strength of whose summing-up the Apostles accept the decision that the Gentiles are not to be bound by the Law of Moses.
We hear that rather matter-of-factly, with the retrospect of the rest of Acts and two thousand years of church history — but at the time it was an audacious move — and not everyone in the early church was happy with it. Some continued the pressure to require circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses for all Gentile Christian converts. As Paul’s letters attest, this was a major bone of contention for decades to come.
Still, at that gathering, James took that bold step, and acted as the principle authority, as the first bishop of Jerusalem, a guardian of the unity of the church which was about to be compromised by the new tension placed upon it: the tension created by admitting Gentiles to its fellowship.
James was also among the earliest martyrs for the Christian faith — according to early church historians, thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple (which you can see in the background of the icon) and beaten to death in the court below, when he would not dissuade the people from accepting Jesus as the Messiah.
What a difference! Clearly something happened to James between the time he thought his brother was crazy and the time we see him as a leader of the church, and hear of him as a martyr to the faith.
Historians differ as to when the change in James came about, but we know that it did come. Was it during Jesus’ preaching ministry? Was he perhaps converted by hearing some golden teaching from his brother’s lips, to be as astounded as the crowds from his hometown were at first, suddenly struck with the challenging question, “Where did he get this wisdom?” and recognizing that it could only come from above?
Was it from hearing of Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem, of how he endured the way of the cross, and bore its weight, and perished on that green hill far away? Or was it from hearing the word brought by the women to the others — the word that death had not conquered after all, and that Jesus was risen from the dead?
Or was it in that more personal experience, that first-hand experience, the one Paul wrote of, when Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection, and, like Thomas and the others, James came to believe because he had seen the risen Lord, not simply his brother now, but his Lord and his God?
+ + +
Whatever the time and place and circumstance, James entered into a new relationship with Jesus at that point. Although a relative by flesh and blood, he became a brother of Christ in Spirit, when he became a Christian.
In doing this he became part of that larger family that includes us too — for all of us here are brothers and sisters of Jesus, by adoption, through the waters of baptism. I can tell you from personal experience as a pastor that many people come to Christ kicking and screaming, and I’ve wrestled with a few! Some of you may be such cradle Christians; others may have come to faith in youth or adolescence, or even in adulthood.
But all of us who did not walk with Christ, like Paul himself, are untimely born; and though untimely born, still we are born indeed — born again through water and the Spirit, into our new family of faith. And yes, it is a matter of flesh and blood as well — for in the Eucharist we partake of our dear Lord Jesus’ Body and Blood, as a reminder and a realization that he is in us, and we in him. We are no longer orphans, no longer strangers and foreigners — but through the work of the Holy Spirit that led James and the other Apostles to see that salvation was open to us Gentiles — we have been adopted into kinship with Jesus. We have made Parkton his hometown as well as Nazareth, by inviting him into our hearts even as he invites us to this table. We have listened to his teaching in the Scripture, and unlike the folks of that far off time and place, we do not challenge or disbelieve him on the basis of our knowledge of ourselves and each other as less than perfect people — as if to say, God wouldn’t be caught dead among that sort.
Rather we give thanks that through grace and grace alone we have been saved, and brought into that great family that spans the globe and fills all time —— and what a grand family reunion we will one day share!
Let no one dismiss or challenge us, seek to put us down or demean us by comparison, for however humble our birth, however far we may have fallen through our own wanderings and mischance, Christ our Lord has raised us up, and will raise us higher still. For Jesus is our kin, our brother and our savior, our Lord and our God. O come, let us adore him.+

---

That Pesky Commandment

When I arrived at church this morning there was some mail from yesterday, including a packet from a group calling themselves "The Judeo-Christian View" which consisted of an all-out video (two DVDs were enclosed) and paper attack on Senator Obama. Not only is the claim to represent the Judeo-Christian view overly ambitious, but these folks also scandalously misrepresent Obama's views on the two things they say are of "paramount importance" in the upcoming election: same-sex marriage (which they put in scare-quotes) and "child sacrifice" -- which is how they see abortion -- apparently all abortion, but with special emphasis on partial birth abortion, which they claim Obama "supports."

Perhaps these folks are just so hot under the collar that they can't distinguish between "supports it" and "does not support criminalizing it." Maybe they are so ignorant of the Christian tradition that they don't know that the idea that all abortion -- from conception on -- is to be considered the equivalent of murder is a relatively recent Christian development, and is not part of the Jewish legal tradition. After all Numbers 5 describes a procedure to induce an abortion in a woman suspected of adultery. And Mishnah Oholot 7.6 describes something not unlike partial birth abortion:

If a woman is in difficult labor, the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out limb by limb, since the life of the mother has priority; but if the greater part has emerged, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.

So there is no real "Judeo-Christian" view on the subject of abortion -- in fact there is a very wide range of positions in these traditions, and to suggest that Obama is "pro-abortion" because he is "pro-choice" is little short of mendacity and false witness. In the debate last week, Obama articulated a very pastoral and comprehensible view of the tragedy of abortion, taking a position identical to that of the Episcopal Church. John McCain literally sneered at the concept of concern for the "health" of the mother because it is so elastic a term.

There can be no elasticity for the absolute position of no abortion at any time for any reason whatsoever, even in the case of rape or incest. Obviously if you think a zygote is fully human and should have all the rights of a human being, you will see abortion as the equivalent of murder. That's a position anyone is free to adopt -- but to call it the Judeo-Christian position is a misrepresentation, since not all Jews and Christians -- as attested in Scripture and the tradition -- support this position. And to claim that Obama favors abortion is a deliberate lie.

The colorful document from the self-styled JDV also goes on to say that if the US supports same-sex marriage (which Obama doesn't, though he supports civil unions) the US will just be giving more ammunition to those crazy Muslim terrorists to attack us as infidels. There are also images of idols (with a "cute" suggestion that Obama is the latest) and further intemperate analyses. The second DVD was about the threat Islam poses to civilization as we know it, and I confess I did not pop it into the DVD player.

This packet apparently went out to parishes far and wide -- I can't imagine I am the only priest to have received a copy. But my copy, including the DVDs, when straight to where I deposit all rubbish. I am all for an intelligent discussion of the difficult issues of abortion and same-sex marriage -- or even the engagement of Islam with the rest of the world -- but this document does not represent that kind of intelligence, but rather fear, slander, and falsehood. Those who violate the commandment not to bear false witness have no place wrapping themselves in the mantle of "Judeo-Christian" values. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they just don't understand Obama (or the real Judeo-Christian tradition, or rather, range of traditions; or Islam for that matter) they are dangerously misleading others. Please join me in rejecting this slander and falsehood, which adds nothing to a legitimate debate on difficult issues.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

No on Prop 8

O.K., so the Mac/PC Genre is getting a little thin about now, and this is far from the cleverest use of it; but the issue is so important I encourage others to link to this simple message from friends in California.

An Elevator Named Desire

Note: It seems this is the month for memoirs. Inspired, and encouraged, by Grandmère Mimi, whom I teased somewhat by hinting at this story, I here record a tale from my early actor’s life, a tale I’ve told many times but commit to writing now for the first.

It was the late 1970s and I was living in what we affectionately called the Young Actors’ Home — Manhattan Plaza, a subsidized housing facility for creative artists, a portion of whom were so successful that they paid full market rent. Among those who did so was playwright Tennessee Williams, who lived on one of the upper floors. I say all this by way of setting the scene.

One late afternoon I was at home doing I can’t remember what, when the phone rang. It was the front desk, who handed the receiver to my good friend, Dennis O’Keefe, who was down in the lobby. Dennis and I had been in college together studying theater — although Dennis by this time had primarily become interested in a career as a playwright. I knew that that day, Dennis, who had been experiencing some strange neurological symptoms over the previous weeks, had gone in for an exam and a spinal tap. When I heard his voice on the phone I scarcely recognized it; he was moaning with pain. “Tobe — can you come down please and help me get up to my apartment. I can hardly walk. My head is going to explode.” So, I quickly went downstairs to the lobby; and there was Dennis, doubled over and moaning quietly as he leaned against the wall outside the elevators. I hustled him on board the next elevator — just the two of us — and pressed the button for the top floor, which is where Dennis lived. As the elevator boosted itself and then again when it slowed to a stop at the second floor, Dennis moaned in agony from the movement. At the second floor, where the health club and swimming pool were located, the door slid open. There stood a dapper little gentleman with a thin mustache, wearing a bathrobe, bathing cap, and flip-flops. It was Tennessee Williams. I was speechless, and Dennis was still moaning from the recent stop of the elevator. In spite of living in the same large building neither of us had crossed paths with the famous playwright prior to this.

Now, you have to picture what struck the eyes of the man considered by many to be one of our greatest (at that time) living playwrights. As the door slid open he beheld this short blonde juvenile (a technical term for an actor well into his 20s still playing teenagers) standing beside a very thin and very tall young man with a mop of long brown hair, bent over double and moaning miserably. Before Tennessee stepped onto the elevator I noticed a very slight hesitation and raising of the eyebrows.

He pressed the button for his floor — one floor below Dennis’s. This meant we were in for a long ride. As the doors closed and the elevator took off again, Dennis moaned deeply. But this was New York, and Tennessee was a Southern Gentleman, so neither he nor I said anything. The elevator was not a fast elevator. Moments passed as Tennessee and I studiously examined different portions of the wall and ceiling, and Dennis’s moans subsided somewhat.

When I could bear the tension no more, I turned to Mr. Williams, and with what I now realize was an almost perfect Jack Benny delivery, shrugged, and said, “Spinal tap.” As if this was the most normal sort of thing to happen in midtown.

Tennessee raised his eyebrows and gave a knowing “a ha” look, though I detected a certain amount of suspicion and doubt in and around his eyes. I just kept nodding and smiling, perhaps a bit more now like Woody Allen than Jack Benny. And the seconds ticked by. Finally the elevator reached his floor and the doors slid open. Mr. Williams stepped through, turned, and said, with some very real kindness — you know, the kind reserved for strangers — and a knowing nod — though what he knew I know not — “I hope your friend feels better soon.”

The doors slid closed. And with a swift succession of lurches and moans we reached Dennis’s floor. As we got off the elevator and approached his apartment, Dennis the aspiring playwright asked, “Was that Tennessee Williams?” I could not tell a lie. And Dennis moaned the deepest moan he had moaned that day.

Dennis and Tennessee are both gone now; but I hope they have found a comfortable spot in a café off the Elysian Fields in the heavenly New Orleans, enjoying the recollection of the time their paths crossed in an elevator in Manhattan.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Low Point

Am I the only one who heard what sounded like a gasp from the generally well-behaved crowd at Hofstra, for the third debate, when John McCain said,

I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications...

This, in response to a question about litmus tests. If this isn't a backhanded way of imposing a litmus test, I don't know my acids from my bases. Then too, his dismissive and sarcastic reference to the "health of the mother" stands in stark opposition to Obama's well articulated position, which just happens to coincide almost verbatim with that of The Episcopal Church. And McCain's the Episcopalian.

Tobias Haller BSG

Signs of the Times

Seen in Half Moon Bay, California.

Greater precision would inspire more confidence...

Tobias