Idealist and Realist

It has been said that there are two groups of people in the world: those who divide people into two groups and those who don’t. I’ve been reflecting for a time on some of the issues facing The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and it seems to me that it is possible to group the responses to these issues under convenient — if inaccurate — headings.

Many who favor the development of a covenant for the Anglican Communion appear to me to be taking an idealist approach: they are describing a church structure that does not yet exist but which they feel sure should exist for the good of the Church. Many, who are concerned about the development of such a covenant, if not entirely opposed to it, seem to be taking a more realist approach: describing present church structures in an effort to determine where the difficulties have arisen. As my friend *Christopher describes it, it is a difference between prescription and description.

It occurred to me that while it is hard to define these categories in definitive ways, it might be possible to cast a broader net to communicate the kinds of differences in approach I am trying to describe.

[Added note: My effort here is not to create categories into which individuals might fit, but rather look at how idealism and realism are expressed in many and various ways in different contexts. An individual person might be very idealistic about her politics, but intensely pragmatic about childrearing. More importantly, I do not mean the following categories to reflect directly the categories "liberal" and "conservative." People on both sides of the ecclesiastical divide can be equally idealistic or realistic in various ways.]

Let me begin with a specific example and then provide an attempt at a “cloud of witnesses” in which I might hope to surround the area in which I think the categories might become clearer.

Measures Taken

Bertolt Brecht’s play, The Measures Taken, charts the course of a Communist cell working in prerevolutionary China. I composed music for a production of this play when I was in college, and what fascinated me about the play was its objectivity: both ardent socialists and fervent Republicans could point to it and say: yes, that’s what communism is all about. [In keeping with my comment above, note that the play is about Communism, and the tension between idealism and realism in that context. An idealist Christian is very different from an idealist Communist!]

The play describes the problems that arise when one of the cell members, the Young Comrade, can’t seem to grasp the point of the cell’s purpose: to promote the revolution. The Young Comrade instead spends his time trying to help individual people in their misery. For example, in one scene set on the banks of the canal, the cell is sent in to agitate the barge-pullers into forming a union to demand better wages and, more importantly, shoes that will help them keep their footing better in the muddy banks. The Young Comrade, taking pity on the workers, instead of agitating them, gathers up rocks from the hillside and runs about putting them under the feet of the barge-pullers to keep them from slipping and falling. This completely undercuts the cell’s efforts and they are forced to move on to their next effort.

It is interesting to reflect on this in light of the issues before us. In the following chart I’ve attempted to list some “off the top of my head” reactions. Others may think I have listed things exactly opposite to the way they should be. Some may find this a frivolous exercise; but I hope it might hold a mirror up both for myself and others in the present discussions to assist in seeing why it may be that we can come to such different conclusions when faced with the same situation. And so, in no particular order, here are some various distinctions between idealism and realism in a number of different areas of human endeavor.

topic	idealist	realist
scripture	inerrant	sufficient
ecclesiastical structure	hierarchical, oligarchic	communitarian, conciliar
epistemology	certain	incomplete
eschatology	realized	expectant
hermeneutic	literal revelation	contextual reception
origins	creation	evolution
socialism	maoist	fabian
mood	subjunctive	indicative
historical method	retrojection of present onto past	explanation of present from past
physicist	newton	einstein
ethics	deontological	situational or utilitarian
worldview	fixed	fluid
social model	conformity	cooperation
goal	uniformity	unity
reason	inductive	deductive
prevailing fault	ignoring evidence	misinterpreting evidence
opt/pessimism test	“Glass is half empty”	“This is a glass containing half of its capacity.”
chief virtues	fortitude, hope	prudence, charity
notable vice	pride	sloth
heretical tendency	donatism	pelagianism
pedagogy	pre/proscriptive	descriptive
mode of operation	rules-based	needs-based
mathematics	euclid	gödel
k-harmonian category	reasserter	reappraiser
gospel	john	mark
ecclesia	semper	reformanda
metaphorical stance	allegory	simile
theological school	thomism	augustinianism
the church	“founded on a rock”	“a pilgrim people”
worldview	big picture	details
murals	fresco	mosaic
creation story	genesis 1	genesis 2
christ event	resurrrection	incarnation
new testament book	revelation	acts
spanish painter	el greco	goya
engineering	designer	mechanic

With a very large FWIW...

Tobias Haller BSG

The Bridge Spider

Crossing the pond’s bridge in the breezy morning
I saw a glint of sunlight suspended in
the air — a single strand of spider’s silk
tethered at my end to the bridge’s base
but pointing off towards the trees across
the windblown pond, as straight as any sunbeam.

I could not see the other end on which
the spider drifted on the shifting wind,
though moving on the bridge I tried to catch
the sun’s reflection on that silken beam.

The wind was fresh and as it shifted course
it blew the unseen spider side to side
above the pond — the only sign of this
the shifting angle of the shining silk
tethered at my end to the bridge’s base.

The spider did not know where it was going —
only the opportunity of the wind,
the tether of its silk, the chance of landfall
on the farther shore — or of watery
failure. But it trusted in the wind.

Envoi
Help me, Lord, to trust your Spirit, which
has borne me up thus far, to thank you for
the gift of skill to spin my course. I know
not where you send me, but I trust the wind.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

2006

---

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

Geographical Reality

In response to my previous post, Rick Allen has left a thoughtful comment which I think deserves a more prominent response. He asks

Why [is] discipline...appropriate at the diocesan and provincial levels, but not at the level of the communion. What is it about the unit of the "Nation" that should make it independent of the norms of the whole, and be immune from types of uniformity which the provinces are competent to legislate for their dioceses?

This question conveniently refocuses us on the whole issue of the distinction between "what is" and "what [some think] ought to be." The present fact is that in the Anglican Communion the highest judicatory or basic unit is the province (or to use the old and somewhat inaccurate language, "national or particular church." This is inaccurate to the extent that some churches, such as TEC still have some international jurisdiction as the result of missionary or colonial history.)

This principle is actually quite traditional, and well noted in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Of course, just because it is a tradition doesn't mean it is correct. It might at first glance seem to be a relic of an earlier time in which people didn't travel, and there were no means of communication faster than a letter carried by horseback.

But ask yourself, to what extent are the current problems in the Anglican Communion a result of a clash of cultures -- a clash made possible by those new means of travel and communication, between cultures quite different in different nations in terms of their attitudes? To what extent, particularly with regard to sexuality, are we seeing the differences between cultures that have embraced engagement with the findings of social and biological science (as well as previously ignored portions of the tradition), as opposed to those which are refusing to acknowledge that the church may be as mistaken about sexuality as it was about cosmology (see Case of Galileo, et al.)? And to what extent are these differences geographically delineated? Surely it is no accident that the term "Global South" has been adopted -- nor that conservatism in the US is also to a large extent geographically distributed.

So the idea of a coalition of national churches may be arbitrary, but it is what we are. It is out of what is that what will be must come.

Tobias Haller BSG

Plus ça change

There is an old saying about going away for a week and returning to find a changed world. Having been away for a week I find, upon my return, not so much a change as a continuation. Still, a few incidents have spiked above the background and I’d like to comment on them here.

The Church as Social Network

The Anglican Communion Network held a meeting at which it adopted a number of statements, most of them in the “continuation” mode as opposed to that of “change.” Part of that continuation is the gradual dis-entanglement of the Network from what its Moderator seems to be coming to regard as rather a lost cause. And that is what until now has been known as the Anglican Communion — the one with the Archbishop of Canterbury as first among equals. Protestations notwithstanding, the Network seems to be heading, along with the “Global South” towards the creation of a new and alternative Communion, no longer centered on Canterbury.

This has led one long time member of the Network, Dr. Ephraim Radner, to sever his relationship with it. I am not at all surprised, other than by how long it took Dr. Radner to see which way this particular convoy was heading. Dr. Radner, with whom I disagree on much but with whom I have had a number of helpful conversations over the years, represents what the hard-liners in the Network call the “Communion conservative” point of view. I suppose that I should call myself a “Communion progressive.” That is to say, both he and I see the Anglican Communion — in its historical form centered on Canterbury — as a gift to the church that is well worth preserving, imperfect and errant though it be. The Network seems instead to have adopted the Pure Society model for the church, in which unity is preserved only through allegiance to an agreed-upon and determinable truth.

A number of things strike me about this distinction. Classical Anglicanism, in the Elizabethan Settlement, represented comprehension rather than compromise: a capacity for sometimes strongly divergent views to be accommodated within a single household. Sometimes, as in the case of Eucharistic doctrine, this was managed by including opposing theories in equal measure. Sometimes, as with the doctrine of the Atonement, it was achieved by not singling out any one explanation for special recognition. Ultimately, as in the Lambeth Quadrilateral, a sense of commonality was achieved through a summary rather than a point by point exhaustive confessional list. (We have our Lord’s own example for the wisdom of this course, in the Summary of the Law as opposed to its detailed enumeration.) Rather like the clouds of quantum physics, the truth we proclaim is not yet collapsed into particular form, but is held to exist somewhere within the bounds the church has marked out as most probable. Our knowledge is incomplete, but sufficient.

The crucible of pluralism

It also strikes me that we are seeing, in the development of the Network, the final collapse of a geographical rootedness to the church. We are entering the world of the virtual church, the Church of the Five Faves, the church not of geographical and terrestrial space, but of affinity: Ecclesiastical MySpace.

It should not come as a surprise that this is happening in America. Although the Netherlands should be recognized as the antecedent for Christian pluralism, it was in America that disestablishment and separation of church and state were not only held to be foundational in principle, but gave to the adherents of the various sects all of the elbow room that Manifest Destiny could provide. As the preface to the first American Book of Common Prayer noted:

But when in the course of Divine Providence, these American States became independent with respect to civil Government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included; and the different religious denominations of Christians in these States were left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respective Churches, and forms of worship, and discipline, in such a manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity...

Many of us, in the midst of this swirl of possibilities, have chosen to seek to hold to that earlier vision of Anglican comprehensiveness as opposed to sectarian divisiveness. We have seen the Anglican Communion as a way to remain united in essentials while allowing a tolerable variety on matters about which a complete consensus has either ceased to exist or has not yet emerged.

I believe that this Anglican Communion — the fellowship of autonomous churches in communion with the See of Canterbury — will continue to exist.

It will continue, but it will be changed.

Some who have been part of this Anglican Communion until now have already made it clear they see a different future for themselves. As they are not forsaking Christ, but only this fellowship, I can wish them Godspeed. They are not lost; merely detached. Time will tell if these branches will be grafted onto other stocks, gathered into a bundle, or planted separately, where they may thrive — or not. They may eventually be grafted back to the stock that gave them life. Whatever the future, let us not cease to be open to the possibility of restoration, and a vision of unity in variety that is truly Anglican.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

See the follow-up post for further discussion in addtion to the comments below.

Prayers and answers

God always answers prayer. When we knock, the door will be opened. But it may be opened in rather than opened out. The answer to our prayer may be the call to convert our desire into a paschal mystery of giving rather than receiving. We may think we approach God's door as trick-or-treaters on the Eve of All Saints, ready to receive a sweet bounty; only to find ourselves commissioned and sent out to seek and serve others instead. Blessed is the gift, and blessed those who receive the gift to give. Thus are loaves and fishes multiplied, and prayers answered.

Tobias Haller BSG
back from Convocation and facing a pile of work with which to catch up!

Time away

Dear Friends, it is the time of year when Gregorians gather, and I will be at Mount Alvernia with minimal internet access. Some will say that is all to the good. But it will mean some delays in comment moderation and so forth. Also, time for prayer and not for blogging, as much as blogging is a form of prayer. Or so it is said.

Philosophical Action Figures

Courtesy of The Postulant an assortment of Philosophical Action Figures with many and amazing powers. Be sure to check them all out in their plastic containers (In Mint Condition) to see the details of their special skills. "Bashin'" Bishop Berkeley's trademarked Eye Closing Power ("Close his eyes and his enemies disappear!") seems to be much employed in the Church of England these days.

But perhaps it only seems that way... In any case, for anyone interested in faith seeking an understanding of a way to bash your enemies, these are the action figures to go to.

A gracious summary

Over at "Betwixt and Between" *Christopher has published a beautiful summary of what it means to be an Anglican. I commend it not least because it begins with one of my favorite quotations from one of my favorite Anglican theologians, William Reed Huntington.

Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest...

Tobias

Disordered Thinking

One way to tell if a proposition is correct or not is to see if the reasons advanced in its favor contradict other propositions already accepted.

It seems clear that one of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church gave up on trying to find reasons for its opposition to the ordination of women — now simply forbidding further discussion of the matter — must be the realization at some level that the reasons advanced against it were leading into erroneous waters.

It took them a while to reach the stonewall position. By 1976, in the official commentary on Inter Insigniores (1976), the leadership had come to realize the shakiness of Fortress Reason: “It is well known that in solemn teaching infallibility affects the doctrinal affirmation, not the arguments intended to explain it. Thus the doctrinal chapters of the Council of Trent contain certain processes of reasoning that today no longer seem to hold.” An interesting confession; yet still they were reluctant to stop trying to defend the position, and soldier on with arguments in support of the faltering cause: “But this risk has never stopped the magisterium from endeavoring at all times to clarify doctrine... Faith seeks understanding, and tries to distinguish the grounds for and the coherence of what is taught.”

Unfortunately, Inter Insigniores itself contains arguments, most of which apart from the unassailable “we’ve always done it that way” have now been dropped in favor of the total stonewall. Let me give an example from this document of the kind of disorder into which rational minds can descend in the interests of maintaining the status quo.

The priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible, and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted upon the human psychology: “Sacramental signs,” says Saint Thomas, “represent what they signify by natural resemblance.” The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ was and remains a man.

Leaving aside the fact that women are as “perceptible” as men, this leads to a kind of sacramental receptionism (in which the believer’s perceptions are what render the sacrament valid). This reduces the sacrament from an objective reality into a subjective experience. It also puts an undue focus upon one aspect of the priestly person: his (or her!) sex. Why, after all, should sex be any more determinative of perceiving Christ — if perception were the sine qua non for the validity of the sacrament — than any other quality. And isn’t a woman more “perceptible” as Christ than a loaf of bread is as his flesh? Personally, I don’t find the figure of a paunchy octogenarian cardinal to be as “natural” or immediate a reminder of Christ as a younger and more ascetical woman.

Which is, of course, my fault. For I should be able to see Christ in every member of Christ’s body, for Christ is in them. It is not Christ’s maleness that is of significance, in the Eucharist or in anything else, but his humanity, which obviously includes his maleness, but just as obviously is not limited to or by it.

Which brings us to the serious doctrine this position contradicts. For it is taught that what is not assumed (by Christ in the Incarnation) is not redeemed. And Christ assumed the whole of human nature. Otherwise how could women be saved? Christ assumed the totality of human nature when he became incarnate, and as the Chalcedonian Definition affirms, he received that totality of human nature solely from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. And she was, obviously, a woman.

I first noted this contradiction with the Chalcedonian Definition, and the implications for the ordination of women, over twenty years ago. I am very pleased to say that some of the theologians in Eastern Orthodoxy — who hold the doctrine of the Incarnation very seriously and also highly honor the Theotokos — are beginning to see the implications as well. The summer 2002 issue of Anglican Theological Review included a number of essays from an Orthodox/Old Catholic conference that raised this question.

Facing the contradiction

Let’s look at the issue more closely, by asking what relationship sex has to human nature. The nature of any class must be something possessed by every member of that class. As Hooker says, “Now if men had not naturally this desire to be happy, how were it possible that all men should have it? All men have. Therefore this desire in man is natural. It is not in our power not to do the same...” (Laws, 1.11.4) The desire to happiness is thus a part of human nature. But what about sex? “Having a sex” is natural to all human beings. But the actual quality of being male only applies to men; being female only to women. So it is part of the manly nature to be male, the womanly nature to be female. But when human nature is considered as a whole, including both men and women, the specific sex is left to one side as a quality of the individual or of the class of men or women, and only the generic quality of “having a sex” applies to human beings. Maleness or femaleness applies only to individuals, and not to human nature as a whole. So, the “natural resemblance” argument already having been defeated both on objective grounds and on the grounds of a proper understanding of the nature of the sacrament, we are left with an assertion that there is something about maleness, as a human quality, that is required for ordination.

And this is where the conflict with Chalcedon arises: for the Council affirmed that whatever it is in human nature that is of saving importance (since that is the object of the Incarnation) came through a woman — the Blessed Mother of God — and she could not confer what she did not possess. Ergo, the male character is not essential, but accidental. Even if Christ’s maleness was necessary for the fulfilment of prophecy, there is no natural reason to think this carries over to the ministers of the church. To do so is to attach a greater significance to maleness than is warranted.

Some twenty years ago, I wrote the following brief comment in the style of Richard Hooker, addressing these questions. I think it still holds up, and so I offer it here, for the first time in the blogosphere:

They say that women may not receive the benefit of the sacrament of order. But how is this; seeing that they may receive the benefit of both of the sacraments ordained by Christ, and may be, as they will admit, the ministers of baptism, which is the prime sacrament of the church’s very being; and seeing that they may alike receive the benefits of the other sacramental rites of the church, in confirmation, penance, matrimony, and unction; wherefore then are they incapable of receiving benefit of this one only sacrament of orders? Is it that they are incapable of receiving this grace, as if they were a material unfit to receive the impress of a seal? What is the grace? and what that receives it? Is there somewhat in male humanity that exists not in the female? Is it not rather that male and female are qualities of the individual person, and not of collective human nature? For humanity as a whole is neither male nor female, but each individual is either one or the other. To say otherwise were an error, since we know that all that is of human nature in woman comes from man, as Eve was taken wholly out of Adam; and further, all that is in human nature resides in woman, for Christ’s humanity came to him wholly by way of his blessed mother, and she could not bestow that which she did not possess: and finally both man and woman come from God as made in God’s image. (1Cor 11.12) So if they say that either humanity or divinity is the form or image that a woman cannot possess, they are mistaken, for she has it both by nature of birth; and further by the grace of baptism whatever of the divine image is marred or obscured in man or woman is restored to its original likeness. Finally, we hold that the grace of the sacraments comes not from the ministers who perform the rites associated thereunto, but from God; and that the lawful performance of a sacramental rite assures us of its validity and of the grace imparted thereby.

Tobias Haller BSG
on the feast of Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner and Harriet: bearers of Christ’s likeness all, and ministers of his Truth!

---

Mixed Blessing

TRIBUNAL DECISION IS MIXED BLESSING FOR CHURCH

The Employment Tribunal in which the Board of Finance of the Diocese of Hereford, was accused of Sexual Discrimination has issued its judgement. The Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiff, accepting that the Diocese did discriminate against Mr. John Reaney in not appointing him to the post of Youth Officer within the Diocese.

Well, if the Church of England is only going to give mixed blessings, then that is all it is likely to receive.

Blog Roll Update 7/17/07

I've spent a bit of time adding a few more names to the blogroll. Some of these additions are much belated, and I'm glad I had the chance to rectify the belatedness.

Canonical Camouflage

In the form-letter issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office, in response to concerns about the lack of invitation to the duly-elected bishop of New Hampshire to the next Lambeth Conference, the following reminder is made (emphasis mine):

From the time of the election of Bishop Gene Robinson to See of New Hampshire, both the representatives of many Anglican Provinces and the Instruments of Communion made it clear that full recognition by the Communion could not be given to a bishop whose chosen lifestyle would, in most Provinces of the Communion, give rise to canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop. The Archbishop has to be loyal to that widespread concern as well as bearing in mind the position of Bishop Robinson within The Episcopal Church. The Archbishop is therefore exploring inviting Bishop Robinson to the conference in another status.

Thus it appears that the reason for Robinson’s status is some clear-cut canonical principle. However, any woman bishop would also find herself in a similar canonical situation in “most Provinces of the Communion” since most of the provinces do not as yet allow women to exercise the episcopate, and their canons are really rather clear to that end. Yet none of the women diocesans in the Anglican Communion have been told they might be invited to Lambeth “in another status.” As far as I know, all of the women diocesans have been “fully recognized” at Lambeth even though they could not be “fully recognized” canonically.

So the “canonical impediment” cannot be the real root issue here. And I suspect raising it was an effort to divert the discussion — and perhaps to deflect our collective attention with a bit of camouflage — from the real problem for most of those who find it problematical throughout the communion: the chosen lifestyle — which would be “a concern” to them even if it were not mentioned in the canons — as I dare say it is not mentioned in most of them. The canons really have very little to do with it, and it is a bit coy for the Archbishop’s office to try to make it appear that way. I understand they are in a difficult position — but it would be better to stand in it than stoop to such excuses.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

House of Special Purpose

The Martyrdom and Apotheosis of the Victims of Ekaterinburg, for chamber instruments. Tobias Haller, 2006.

MP3 File

What Has This To Do With Us?

A number of folks have asked me directly, or posed the question in other forums: Why should we as Anglicans be at all interested in what the Roman Catholic Church has said about us recently. There is, as I have noted, absolutely nothing new in what they have said. They are simply reaffirming a position that has its roots in the middle ages, reasserted at the Counter-Reformation, restated with abundant clarity at Vatican I, and reaffirmed before and after by Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII, and only very lightly nuanced by Vatican II and the pontiffs since.

So, it is true that there is nothing new here. Which makes it all the more important to ask, Then why did they issue this statement? I gave a partial answer to that question in a previous post. This statement addresses some Roman Catholic ecumenists, to say, as Larry David might, “Curb your enthusiasm.” It is a reminder to them that the old rules are still in place, and the CDF is acting in the role of a chaperone who has found her charge cozying up a bit too close with her date.

But again, what does this have to do with us other than recognizing that some of our Roman Catholic ecumenical friends may find themselves having to be a bit more stand-offish than they may have been over the last few years?

While I do not think this document was specifically aimed at the Anglican Communion, I would not want to underestimate Pope Benedict’s ability to hit more than one bird with a stone. He is certainly well aware of the current tensions in Anglicanism, and has gone so far as to comment upon them. He has also observed, if I recall correctly, that these tensions make it difficult to know who to talk to in ecumenical dialogue: if one Anglican “Church” (let’s remember the invisibles scare-quotes) can say this, and another can say that — whose authority are We to accept? Who is in charge? How can you really be in communion with each other and still disagree? Some kind of central authority would surely be helpful to settle these differences, not just so We will have someone to talk to, but for your own good order, don’t you think? You can’t really be even a “church” in scare quotes without some central government or headship.

I hope you can see where I am heading with this, and I am not, I think, misreading what the document may be saying to us; not so much as a shot across the bow, but as a reminder of how Roman Catholics understand the structures of the Church.

And that is by always combining communion with governance. Thus, as Vatican II said, the One Church of Christ, “constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.” The only thing new in this statement from Vatican II was the word subsists. The linkage of governance with communion goes well back into the roots of Roman Catholic self-understanding, from the medieval period through the Renaissance and up through Vatican I. It received probably its most eloquent theological exposition in the thought of Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis — which even in its title expresses the concept of body joined with spirit, and which focuses explicitly upon the episcopate of the Catholic Church as the means by which the faithful are united in subordination to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Towards the end of this document the Holy Father turns a bit stern:

We, therefore, deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who conjure up from their fancies an imaginary Church, a kind of Society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which they somewhat contemptuously oppose another which they call juridical. To draw such a distinction is utterly futile. For they fail to understand that the divine Redeemer had one single purpose in view when He wanted the community of men of which He was the founder to be established as a society perfect in its own order and possessing all juridical and social elements — the purpose, namely, of perpetuating the salutary work of the redemption here on earth.

In short, no body of charity without a body of law. Vatican II nuanced this language, as I have noted. But it did not contradict it: the linkage of communion and governance is still the defining self understanding of the Catholic Church, focused upon the person of the Bishop of Rome. Let me close here with a quotation from the post-conciliar period, lest one think Vatican II undid all that went before. Pope Paul VI, in his 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, writes:

Let us, however, be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the sum or, if one can say so, the more or less heterogenous federation of essentially different particular Churches.... Each particular Church that would voluntarily cut itself off from the universal Church would lose its relationship to God’s plan and would be impoverished in its ecclesial dimension... But at the same time a Church which is spread all over the world would become an abstraction if she did not take body and life precisely through the particular Churches. Only continuous attention to these two poles of the church will enable us to perceive the richness of this relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches. (emphasis mine.)

Now, does that sound familiar? Isn’t this in part the very discussion that is taking place in the Anglican Communion in the movement towards an Anglican Covenant — a form of government to go along with the spirit of communion? “More than a mere federation,” and not simply all the churches spread around, but juridically bound, particular to particular, in a single government?

Implications and Possibilities

Obviously the church must have some form of government. You will get no argument from me on that. But, contrary to the Roman assertion, that government need not follow an imperial model of particular churches ultimately answerable to a single individual governor.

It seems that churches, like other human entities — and yes, I will dare say that the church as institution is at least as much the work of human hands as it is of God, just like the Eucharistic bread — churches often get stuck with the models of government available to them at the time of their foundation. Rome has inherited the imperial model. Anglicanism, which came to birth under an absolute monarch (with imperial ambitions, to be sure), came to maturity out of the fires of a civil war, influenced by the concept of a parliamentarianism. And the Episcopal Church, as is evident, was surely influenced in its form of government by the simultaneous national developments.

I would suggest that contrary to Paul VI’s vision, and the hopes of some Anglican Covenanters, that the Anglican Communion can do quite well as “a federation of essentially similar particular churches.” We have survived this far without any central government to bind us together; and ultimately those who wish to stay together will do so without constraint. That is, in large part, what communion means.

But how will conflicts be settled? some might ask. Let me ask in return, Who says that conflicts have to be settled? Who is in charge? some ask. Let me ask, Why does anyone have to be in charge? Didn’t Jesus tell the disciples, when they asked who would join him in running the world to come, “The kings of the gentiles exercise authority... but with you it shall not be so.” He rose from his seat to wash their feet, by way of example. Yet, he is the head of the church, not any one of us, nor even the whole collegial bunch of us.

So, while the current Roman Catholic document has no immediate bearing upon us, it does offer food for thought. The church of Christ can be governed quite well in and by a communion of churches, in service and charity to one another, under the only law required: Serve one another as I have served you; Love one another as I have loved you. And I have no opposition to a Covenant, so long as it is a Covenant of love and service.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Liturgical Peevishness

Sr Joan Chittister has just had a reflection published concerning recent developments in the Roman Catholic Church's liturgical life. I agree with much that she says in her article, but she has also lit upon two of my pet liturgical peeves.

The "many" and "all" issue: the Scriptural record of the Last Supper uses 'many' -- though Joachim Jeremias made an argument back in the era of the Liturgical Movement that in this context "many" means "all." However, contrary to his assertion, there is a clear distinction in Hebrew and Greek between the words for "many" and "all" -- just as in English. (This argument was invoked when we changed "many" to "all" in Enriching Our Worship, so there is some relevance to TEC here.)

Most importantly, this is not about salvation, as Sr Joan suggests, but about those who drink from the cup -- and manifestly "all" do not in fact do so. To my mind it distorts the message and implies that those who do not drink from the cup have no salvation -- exactly the opposite of the intent of the revisers. We've always taught the reception of communion (in both kinds) is not required for salvation; and putting "all" here confuses the issue -- as well as not being what Jesus actually (is reported to have) said.

The Eastward Position: As those who have read my longer reflection on this will know, I do not find the Eastward position to be "all about the priest." On the contrary, I find the celebration "versus populum" to lead to more of an "all about the priest" mentality. Nor do I note that the introduction of this practice made the RCC (or TEC) more outgoing or missionary in its attitudes or more in touch with human need. Some may say it fostered a greater sense of community, but I don't think I've seen any hard evidence of that. On the contrary, I think the great days of outreach from Vincent de Paul through the Catholic Worker movement (or the ministry of the Anglo-Catholic slum priests) give the lie to the idea that the posture of the priest in relation to the congregation impedes a sense of community or mission.

Sorry, but these are two of my pet peeves, and Sr Joan just got on the wrong side of them...

Tobias Haller BSG

Corrective Lenses

In light of some continued comments on the previous post, and some conversation on the House of Bishops/Deputies “list” I’d like to offer some additional observations on the recent pronouncement of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I will put this in the form of a brief catechism, as that may be the easiest way to deal with the issues that have been raised by some of my friends and colleagues.

Why was this document composed and to whom is it primarily addressed?

This document was produced as an attempt to clarify the position of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to other Christian bodies. In the wake of Vatican II a number of theologians have expressed opinions with which the Congregation takes issue. As the introduction to the document states, “Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt.” So, in place of the rose-tinted spectacles that many ecumenists are wont to wear, the Congregation is presenting them with this short current document as a set of corrective lenses, designed to sharpen the focus and correct any misapprehensions they might have. Thus, to a substantial degree, it is an “in house” reminder; it sets out nothing new, but is intended to rein in the exuberant.

Do the Conciliar documents present a different view from the present document?

The present document was issued to clarify the Church’s position as expressed in the Council, which was itself seen as a “development and deepening” of the standing doctrine, not a novelty. The intent is that the former documents will be read through this clarifying lens, not the other way around. This is a long-standing principle in Roman Catholic legal thinking: The most recent statement is the governing statement in the light of which all that goes before must be interpreted; all the more so when the document in question describes itself in precisely those terms.

What then is the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church?

There is only one Church established by Christ, and it subsists in the visible Roman Catholic Church, “governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.” Because of the divisions among those who profess Christianity, this “one Church” is not at present realized in its fullness, and so “subsists” in the Roman Catholic Church, towards which all reunion ought of right to be directed. It is possible to say that the Church is in some partial sense present in other ecclesial communities that are not at present so governed, because there are “elements of sanctification and truth” in them. But those very elements are designed to “impel” those other bodies towards visible unity with the one Church.

How has this been misunderstood?

Non-Roman Catholics, and some Roman Catholic ecumenists, have forgotten the underlying definition of the “one Church subsisting” and that whenever the Conciliar documents use the phrase “the Church” — as the present document reminds us — they are not talking, as we, for example, do, simply of the body of all the baptized, but of those among the baptized who are corporately united with the Roman Catholic Church. Thus all Conciliar language about “division among Christians” is not about division “in” the Church, but division “from” the Church. When “the Church finds it difficult” to express her full catholicity, it is the Roman Catholic Church which is impeded in this expression precisely because of the departure of her children, and the divisions between her and them — not because of any intrinsic lack in herself. She is where the one Church subsists, not anywhere else. Subsistence is not full realization, but it is all there is, at present.

Speaking of “lack,” what does the document mean about the “absence” of ministerial priesthood in the protestant traditions?

It is tempting to translate “defectum” as “defect” rather than absence; for the English word can have a rather different connotation (“something not quite working correctly”) than the Latin, which refers to a “lack” or “something missing.” For example, Roman Catholic ecumenist Susan Wood wrote, “Ecumenical discussions today raise the question whether in the light of a more developed understanding of the ministry, sacramental life, and ecclesiology, ‘defectus’ should continue to be translated as ‘lack’ rather than as ‘deficiency’ or ‘defect.’” (“Ecclesia De Eucharistia: A Roman Catholic Response,” in Pro Ecclesia, 12/4 [2003], 398)

The present document gives her an answer, “No.” By “defectum” the Roman Catholic Church means, as it always has, and as the present translation states, a lack or absence or “something missing.” If there were any doubt, the context of the present document is clear: There is no sacramental priesthood in the churches of the Reformation, and hence, they (including us) “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery...” This is contrasted with the Eastern Orthodox churches, who “have” a valid ministry, and hence sacraments, and are thus recognized as “churches” though they still “lack something” by not being united with the “one Church.”

What impact will this document have?

This document will no doubt have some chilling effect on the more exuberant among Roman Catholic ecumenists, as it was expressly designed to do. It will also dampen the hopes of those who had looked towards a more collegial model of church unity — one not based on papal primacy, but rather on a communion of communions. The present document is a reminder that even for the Eastern Orthodox, complete participation in that “one Church” will involve a recognition of Petrine centrality, and, more importantly, authority. The phrase “governed by the successor of Peter” is not used lightly. It represents a “constitutive principle” of a particular church, by means of which it is in relationship with the “one Church.”

How does this view differ from that of other Christian bodies?

The World Council of Churches deputy general secretary has released a statement in response to the Roman Catholic document, reaffirming a 2006 position adopted by the WCC at Porto Alegre: “Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches.” The WCC represents most Christian bodies in the world apart from the Roman Catholic Church.

The Anglican position can be well summed up by a few words from Richard Hooker, not unlike the Porto Alegre definition: “As the main body of the sea being one, yet within divers precincts hath divers names; so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself.” (Laws III.1.14)

These positions are obviously not congruent with the Roman Catholic position, and none of these positions is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Update

Be sure to check out a follow up article on What This Has To Do With Us (Anglicans.) There is more to this than meets the eye. — Tobias

Petrification

The Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has now made it abundantly clear that the Church means what it says when it says the Holy Catholic Church of Rome is the place in which the Church on earth "subsists."

The document includes a delicate nuance on what is is, and more importantly, is not, at least in distinction from "subsists."

Third Question: Why was the expression 'subsists in' adopted instead of the simple word 'is'?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' which are found outside her structure, but which 'as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.'

Protestant bodies (including Anglicans and all "Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century") are not proper "Churches," and aren't to be called such under this understanding. There is One Church, and it subsists in the entity with the successor of Peter at its head, and the Bishops in union with him. The rest of us must be content with the scattered "elements of sanctification and truth" we might have stowed in our baggage before we ran away from home. Whatever of value we have is derivative, and we bring nothing to the table that we didn't take from it. And of course, according to the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the things we left behind was the Apostolic Succession. Lacking the valid priesthood, there is really very little we could bring to the eucharistic table.

This document makes it abundantly clear that the old model of ecumenism is still dominant: come home, prodigal children; Mother will forgive you. It is the same model of sedentary unity (unity around the Chair of Peter) that I contrasted with the more collegial model favored by William Reed Huntington some years ago. Anyone interested in the comparison can read the paper here. I submit it still holds. This document will be a blow to ecumenism, but it really is nothing new -- just a reminder of the costs and expectations in the wounded body of Christ.

Tobias Haller BSG

Leave Rage Alone

A friend of mine recently got into a battle of words that has led to no small amount of intemperate language in the blogosphere. Some hornets’ nests require very little stirring up, and there are many who are waiting for any sign of weakness, any act at which they can take offense. I can’t help but observe from my occasional visits to certain blogs that the primary authors of the content and the commentary actually appear to relish the opportunity to be offended. In all honesty I note that this is not confined entirely to blogs from the right of the ecclesio-political spectrum. There is something deeper here, some character flaw that afflicts us all, and of which we had all best be aware. All of us need a good long look in the mirror now and again, and I include myself in this.

Anger, offense, luxuriating in one’s own victimization, in being insulted and injured, can be powerful sources of emotional energy. They are stimulant drugs, the energy drinks of the soul; and though they“give you wings” I fear they are the kind with scales instead of feathers. They may help you build up a head of steam, but their addictive quality will lead you to seek for more and more offense, rather than seeking peace, understanding and reconciliation. Revenge, whether served hot or cold, may be tasty but it is not nutritious. The junk food of the soul will leave you empty and exhausted.

Still, when offense is given can offense be taken? I suggest it is the manner of response that is at issue. Righteous indignation may be righteous, but it is undignified by definition. So I call upon us all — and I preach to myself in this as well — to aim for righteous dignation instead. Disagree, as it appears we must disagree, but hold back from empty attacks and dismissals that assault the person rather than the premise. Make your case as calmly and clearly as you can, in a spirit of humility as far as in you lies. Speak the truth in love, with as much emphasis on the love as on the truth. As the psalm says, “Refrain from anger, leave rage alone; do not fret yourself; it leads only to evil.”

It is, after all, so easy to be witty and clever when saying something nasty. We all enjoy a good “snap” line from time to time, though no one enjoys being on the receiving end of one. That alone should tell us something. And how much more difficult it is to be witty and clever when saying something nice! It is, after all, so easy to tear down — it takes no more talent than a bulldozer; and a house of cards can be dismantled with a breath — but it is far harder to build up; that takes real skill, real talent. Yet isn’t that what God has called us to do, equipped us to do, expects us to do?

Peace be with us all.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

What God Is

Yesterday I attended the long-delayed funeral for Brother Justus Van Houten SSF. Justus was a friar, a deacon, a tireless minister and advocate for those on the edge. The funeral was a powerfully moving liturgy in the best Franciscan sense -- simple and respectful. The burial of his ashes in the friary burial place was eloquent, as each of us there added a shovelful of soil to the small place where his ashes were poured moments before.

Brother Derek Ford SSF preached a moving homily about how some people, such as Brother Justus, will continue speaking long after they are dead. He touched so many lives. This vision of the unstoppable utterance of praise reminded me of a musical meditation I wrote years ago, and which I share with you here. The choir sings over and over a simple phrase, which recurs on different notes each time it is sung, but which is a constant message that is my poor effort musically to envision heaven: "What God is I know not but that God is Love I know."

Brother Justus, this one's for you.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG





MP3 File

Want Latin? Got Latin...

It is a singular delight to find that the Motu Proprio on the restoration of the Tridentine Latin mass (in its 1962 version) has at this point in the day (nearly 6 pm Daylight Savings Time) only appeared on the Vatican Website in Latin! Thus only those with facility in the tongue will have the joy of seeing if and to what extent all of the various hedged-about predictions have been accurate, and others unfamiliar with the Mother Tongue of Mother Church will be left to await the translation. I don't know about you, but I find this a delicious touch, and I can't but imagine a somewhat wry smile on the face of Pope Benedict XVI.

I don't know if this is the norm for papal documents, but as this particular one has been awaited with so much interest in so many circles, I would love to think this Latin-only publication (I'm sure soon to be followed by the vernacular) has a self-referential quality.

Tobias Haller BSG

Now Thank We All Our God

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices, who wondrous things hath done, in whom his world rejoices; who from our mother's arms, hath blessed us on our way with countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.
All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given, the Son and him who reigns with them in highest heaven; eternal Triune God, whom earth and heav'n adore; for thus it was, is now, and shall be, evermore. Amen.

Text and melody by Martin Rinckart, translated by Catherine Winkworth and arranged by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

MP3 File

A Sea of Bishops

Anglican Mainstream now reports a near-dozen bishops or bishops-in-waiting ready to serve the self-styled orthodox among the apostate Episcopalians.

I realize we are a small-e episcopal church, and bishops have an important role to play. But what kind of episcopal oversight is actually needed or wanted by these various parishes and parts of parishes scattered across the United States and consisting of nationally identified congregations (owing some form of allegiance to their homeland) and reasserter Americans? Most parishes I've known (and I've known a good number over the years) are quite happy to see their bishop once a year for confirmations, or at cathedral events in the rare case of an ordination, so the clamoring for prelates seems a bit disproportional.

I'm similarly confused by the calls for alternative primatial oversight. As most of our conservative dioceses have been able to manage having as little as possible to do with our past two primates, their sudden need for an alternative stand-in also rings a bit hollow... or convenient.

In the daily office cycle just now we are reading about the clamor of the Israelites for a king to rule over them, which God takes as a personal slight. He gives them what they ask for, but, as with the meat of the desert wanderings, they would soon grow sick of that leadership.

Tobias Haller BSG

Quo vadis?

Friday humor... from Tobias Haller

Property 1570 1610 1789 1806 2007

I received an e-mail in response to my article on the property dispute challenging it on two points. The writer suggested that in the colonial era, when churches were all under the authority of the Bishop of London — much to the satisfaction of those who like to “bless and keep the bishop... far away from us!” — it was hardly likely that there was any idea that church property was anything other than freely disposable. He also suggested that if the Bishop of London had an interest in the property, its transfer into American hands must have been irregular.

Actually, the rules on implied trust and alienation of church property go back to an English statute of 1570. We are dealing with an established church, and the state had an interest in the proper use of church property for the state church. I imagine that colonial churchmen observed all such statutes on alienation of church property scrupulously.

After the Revolution, the Episcopal Church became “necessarily” independent of English jurisdiction, “civil” and “ecclesiastical.” (Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, 1789, and enacting clause of the first Constitution of the Episcopal Church). However, as the Episcopal Church was considered to be a self-governing extension of the Church of England, the authority to limit alienation passed to the appropriate bodies, in accord with custom, until the formal enactment of a canon to that effect, apparently in 1806. (I’m unable to verify this detail as I don’t have a copy of the Constitution and Canons from that period handy. White and Dykman refer to “the old Canon 59” on parish vestries.)

Interestingly enough, such limitations remain (to this day) a matter of civil law in many places where the English statute of 1570 had been adapted (New York is an example). From the foundation on, no church could alienate property without permission of the legislature (or later the chancellor, and now the Supreme Court of the State of New York). In New York, even a 6-year lease requires such approval, to say nothing of permanent alienation through sale. The state’s interest is not proprietary, but directed towards the good order of a society that, like itself, is intended to survive a particular generation’s whims.

All of this prevented what we now see happening: a disaffected membership of a congregation gaining ascendancy and seeking to remove real property from the use of the “general” church.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

The Way

on the feast of S Irenaeus of Lyons
preached at the Finger Lakes Conference • June 28 1999
Tobias Haller BSG

Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies... — 2 Timothy 2:23

The Apostle Paul warned his young protege Timothy, “Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” Like most advice, this bit of avuncular Pauline wisdom has largely been ignored. An agnostic viewer of the church’s history — or an honest Christian — might be tempted to say that the church’s history consists of little else besides stupid and senseless controversies.

Christ went to the cross to save the world, but the proximate cause of his predicament was violent controversy about the sabbath, the Temple, and various fine points of Jewish dietary law, and the precarious balance of power between Rome and the tetrarchs. Peter and Paul faced the problems of what we’d now call a pluralistic society, and the question of whether, and how far, Gentiles should be let in on the Christian thing — and whether, in the case of men at least, such an entry required parting with a nonvital portion of their anatomy. Later Irenaeus wrote a big, fat book about heresies, most of them now long forgotten. The Holy Fathers who hammered out the Nicene creed argued on and on about the difference between “same as” and “similar to” — and their successors in the Reformation argued about double predestination and allowing the chalice to the laity. The list goes on and on…

And please don’t mistake me: I do not say these matters were of no importance. Although the burning issues of one age are the cold ashes of the next, while they burn, they do give some light, and as the Gospel appointed for the feast of Saint Irenaeus has it, giving light is a large part of what we are to be about. (Luke 11:33-36) It is out of these conflicts — some of them now seeming so trivial and pointless — that the church took shape, defining itself in these tensions. As Saint Paul himself once observed, with a flash of Hegelian insight, it is through controversies and factions that the genuine truth is eventually discerned. (1 Cor. 11:19)

The downside of all of this is the hurt and harm that happens in the process. As parties form around various positions, mutual anathemas are issued, and where the power of the sword falls into its hand, orthodoxy can be a terrible thing indeed, mowing down those it considers heretics — which is just a fancy Greek word applied to members of the opposite party.

But if we look closely at our church, the church that survived the controversies, that was formed out of these tensions, the strange thing is that our surviving church quite often represents the forces of change and development, not the orthodox defenders of what they think of as the faith once given. Yesterday’s heresies become today’s orthodoxies, and presto chango: who is the heretic? If nothing else, none of us Gentiles would be here if the Circumcision Party had had their way. Even though they had scripture and tradition on their side, the church moved on.

As it has a way of doing. Because the church is not so much about taking up a position as in being a way. The Spirit moves where it wills, leading a pilgrim people. And to follow the Spirit, and to follow Christ, means pulling that cross from the ground and carrying it every day of your life, not knowing where it will be planted next. If the church is to be true to its own best self, it must always be on the move, and follow the One who is the Way.

+ + +

The other thing about heretics — the orthodox kind, the kind who get left behind when the church moves on, the kind who think they have God in their pocket next to their zipper-flap bibles — the thing about heretics is that they are always so sure of the truth. Their truth, that is. Now, as Professor Indiana Jones told his class in archeology, “I’m here to teach you about facts. If you want to talk about truth you’d better check the philosophy department.” But the orthodox heretics have forgotten that: they treat the truth like facts. They think it’s all clear and self-evident, printed in black and white, with words of Christ in red. In doing so, they neglect the living Truth who is not a fact but a Person; who is a Word that is always being spoken in our hearts, not set in stone or printed on india paper in red ink. Christ, the living Word is also the living Truth, the Truth that reveals itself not in static (and therefore dead) absolutes but in the relatedness that binds all things in one. The real Truth is about relationships, for it is out of relationships that reality itself is constituted, from the Holy Trinity on down.

+ + +

We are, like it or not, in the midst of another Reformation. The parties are formed up, taking their positions, marshaling their data. Out of this turmoil new life will arise, but many will suffer in the process. Is there a better way? Is there a nobler truth? You know there is. And you know who he is. Only Christ, whose mother hen wings stretch out and over the universe of human fallibility can gently rustle us together so none of us gets lost. Only Christ whose naked Truth was a scandal to Jews and a folly to Greeks can embarrass us into setting down our dog-eared Bibles with a blush of shame, as we realize who it is we have been arguing with, demeaning and demonizing. He is the Way, he is the Truth, and he is Life. And before him all our controversies, no matter how deeply convinced we are of their importance, become senseless and stupid. He is the Way, and the Truth, and Life. May we always walk in that Way, rejoice in that Truth, live in that Life.+

---

The Mercy of Property

... is strained.

On Monday afternoon I posted the following to the House of Bishops/Deputies list:

Parishioners have the right to use church property for the work of the church. They have a custodial relationship over church property, but they do not own it. They have a form of usufruct, but have no power of alienation, as the canons made clear long before the Dennis Canon was a gleam in Walter Dennis’ eye.

Attempts to claim control of church property, conveying it to uses other than for the benefit of this Church, represent a form of alienation. It is not use but abuse, in the technical sense.

I received a couple of humorous notes about the use of the word usufruct — the right to make use of a property but not to dispose of it by sale or other conveyance. The technical meaning of the word abuse, by the way, is alienation, the opposite of use.

Then, late yesterday the California Court of Appeals issued a decision concerning a number of parishes that had sought to come under the governance of an overseas bishop and remain in control of their property. The decision rightly overturned the anomalous ruling that had held sway in California for about 30 years — a ruling out of step not only with most of the other states of the union but with the Supreme Court decision that led to the adoption of the Dennis Canon in the first place.

So I would like to make the further observation, in response to a press release from one of the dissident parishes arguing that the Court of Appeals decision is a departure from 30 years of precedents. Even a casual reading of the court’s decision shows that the earlier decision was a major departure — and an erroneous one — from many times more decades of precedents; moreover, precedents recognized throughout the US, based on a decision of the Supreme Court concerning implied and explicit trusts. The earlier California decision was an anomalous departure from the principal of stare decisis, as the Court of Appeals makes clear, and it led to an uneven and confusing application of law.

Moreover, much as folks like to demean the Dennis Canon, it is the law of the church; moreover, it was created in response to the request of the Supreme Court to render implied trusts (on the basis of which such cases had been decided up until then as sufficient) explicit. In short, there was no change in practice with the introduction of the Dennis Canon, merely a spelling out of what was already implied by both uniform practice and the already long-existing canons on alienation, to which I referred above. (Parishes cannot alienate, that is abuse, church property without the permission of the bishop and standing committee — clear evidence of the hierarchical nature of such decision-making processes concerning property.)

More than that, a moral issue is involved. Some have suggested that it is not fair that members of a dissenting parish should have to leave their property. This begs the question that it is “their” property. It isn’t, on several grounds. (I will not apply the various epithets of theft, poaching, &c., as I think the dissidents are honestly though mistakenly convinced of their proper ownership.)

Giving: When people give to the church, they give up control over what they have given. (A designated gift can, of course, allow for limited degree of control as to purpose.) However, most gifts are for the general operation of the church and its mission. Many people claim a tax deduction for such gifts; and if they were to attempt to recover them would incur a tax liability. It is an affront to the concept of stewardship to try to regain control over something you have given for the work of a larger entity. It would be very odd indeed if people could remove, say, a stained glass window, because they didn't like the new rector's preaching. We should not only not let our right hand know what our left hand is doing when we give open-handedly, but if we do know, forget it as soon as possible.

Custodianship: custodians have the care of property but they do not own it. They maintain it for the benefit of others. (Remember what Archbishop Temple said about the nature of the church: the only institution dedicated to serve those not yet its members.) The present members of a parish do not own the parish; it isn’t about “them.” They are not free to do with it as they please. Even in the days of pew rent, people only “rented” their pews.

Franchise: Parishes function as a part of and under the name of The Episcopal Church. While some may now see this to be a liability, for most of the life of these congregations it was an asset in that newcomers to the community could identify the parish as part of a larger entity, with its own identity. It is only through that larger entity that these parishes participate in the real-life Anglican Communion, as the Panel of Reference recently affirmed.

Tenancy: a church is the people, not the building; but not always the same people — as members pass into the ranks of the church expectant new members are added to the church militant. All of us, in the long run, are only temporary members of any congregation; tenants, not owners.

Usufruct: in a sense all congregations are like the Louisiana widow who has the right to continue to live in her intestate husband’s home, but doesn’t have the authority to sell it out from under the children, who inherit by right. (As I understand it, under Louisiana law a spouse is not an inheritor by right. That might seem odd, but it is similar to the situation in not-for-profit corporations which, when they dissolve, don’t divvy up the assets among the surviving members of the board, but turn the property over to another not-for-profit entity.) Moreover, the Louisiana widow loses usufruct over the property when she remarries, and the children come into their own inheritance. This seems a good analogy for the congregations who have hooked up with Uganda. There are still loyal Episcopalians who have the right to that property, and there will be more to come. The church is not only about the past but the future.

Stare decisis, returning to where we came in: In a hierarchical church such as The Episcopal Church, all real parish property is, and always has been, held in trust for the work of that church. Some have suggested that this case may be overturned if it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States. I would suggest that should it reach that Court, it will most likely rule in favor of TEC, since the Dennis Canon was enacted at it’s recommendation, to render explicit what was already implicit (and universal practice until that point, and was also covered in the canons on alienation, which go back to the 19th century).

Tobias Haller BSG

---

At day's end: Praise God

Lauda Sion: Eucharistic Meditation #3 for recorder and positif organ, by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

MP3 File

Understanding Canada - Part 2

So, what hath Canada wrought? In summary, on the Vexed Question the General Synod

1) affirmed that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada, in the sense that it isn’t a creedal matter;

2) declined to affirm the authority of individual diocesan synods to authorize such blessings; but didn’t at the same time deny that authority, and informally (through the new Primate) allowed for a status quo in the Diocese of New Westminster;

3) adopted a statement that calls for pastoral response to the situation, which an accompanying document describes as possibly including liturgical functions short of a nuptial blessing; and

4) [appears to have*] committed to its Council the task of looking into amending the canons and offering a theological rationale for allowing marriage for anyone legally qualified to be married.

Point 1 will not please many who think that the sexuality issues are at the heart of the faith, and worth breaking communion over. Point 2 is a bit mysterious and seems to be a compromise designed to rock the boat as little as possible. Point 3 may be seen as even more of a mystery, since the church has never taught that the nuptial blessing is required for a marriage (in the BCP rubrics it is noted that wherever a deacon is allowed to perform a marriage, the nuptial blessing is omitted!). Point 4 is only a referral, but it does present one of those church/state tension-points so dear to Anglican hearts. Any canonical change concerning doctrine, discipline or worship (which this concerns) will require a two-thirds majority in each order in two consecutive session of the Synod. Note that this is about marriage not simply blessings. The Synod may well authorize blessings at its next session, which as it need not alter the marriage canon, can be adopted by a simple majority.

All in all, I am heartened by these actions. It is a source of no small frustration for many that by two votes in the order of bishops (as opposed to clear majorities in the other orders) a status quo is maintained rather than an advance. But having high respect for matters of polity, and seeing which way the wind is heading, I can rejoice that this is not a step backward, even if it means a delay.

---

* I say appears to have because this hasn't yet appeared on the official tally sheet as adopted; Anglican Essentials (a reasserter Canadian website) reports it was adopted early in the Monday morning session.

Tobias Haller BSG

---

Understanding Canada - Part 1

Oxymoron

Thought for today (June 23, 2007):

Anglican Communion is fast becoming a contradiction in terms.

... and yes, I know that oxymoron is only loosely used for a "contradiction in terms."

Tobias Haller BSG

As I was saying...

Well, just a few days ago I wrote about the increasing number of Import Bishops being provided by some of the various provinces of the "Global" "South", and now there is to be one more, this time under the sponsorship of Uganda. I am not at all surprised.

Will this be the last? Uganda, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, Nigeria and Kenya are already on the map, or will be by early September -- all in advance of the Dar es Salaam "deadline." Who else has shown a willingness to reach over boundaries into other territories? Can you say, "Southern Cone?" I'm suddenly reminded of one of the "adult" jokes that were peppered through the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. Bullwinkle approaches a large pit in the ground neatly labled, "Snake Pit" and leans over, hand to mouth, calling out "Olivia? Olivia?" In this case I'm inclined to say, "Bolivia? Bolivia?"

The Patchwork Province of the Americas is taking shape: a thing of shreds and patches. Will Archbishop Rowan now realize that his hopes for unity run contrary to the Global South's hopes for uniformity?

Tobias Haller BSG

O Gracious Light

from Mountain Vespers, words and music by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Of Doubts and Discipline

Many of you will no doubt have heard of the Episcopal priest who is attempting a personal reconciliation between Islam and Christianity, balancing the evidentially contradictory creedal claims (that Jesus is -- or isn't -- the Son of God) in a precarious syncretism.

When I saw this story I gave a sigh of sympathetic frustration. I can understand how people have doubts, and go through periods of further exploration in their religious development. None of us is, I dare say, full-formed in faith until we reach the point at which we know as we are known. But the church rightly expects conformity to its doctrine on the part of those ordained to ministry; one signs a statement to that effect at ordination -- but this oath need not mean a perfect acceptance or understanding of all of which that doctrine consists, but at least a willingness not to teach anything to the contrary. I take that to be the meaning that lies behind conformity.

Still, crises of faith are bound to arise. Our church might do well to have a process similar to that of religious orders for folks who are going through such crises of faith and/or vocation -- a kind of temporary withdrawal without the punitive note of "suspension" but with the same effect -- at the end of which they could either re-commit to or renounce (or be deposed from) their orders. I'm not sure what this kind of intentionally temporary renunciation would be called. What do the canonists out there think? Or do we need this kind of pastoral measure?

Tobias Haller BSG

Good Housekeeping

from a sermon for Proper 6c • Tobias Haller BSG
Keep, O Lord, your household the Church in your steadfast faith and love, that through your grace we may proclaim your truth with boldness, and minister your justice with compassion.

. . . . . . .

We see an even more eloquent example of this in the Gospel reading. The stage is set for a drama of contrasts: Simon the Pharisee, no doubt intrigued by what he has heard of Jesus, invites him into his home to dine with him. And a woman from the city, a sinner — and I don’t think I have to tell you what kind of a sinner she is — comes in and makes an incredible display of herself at Jesus’s feet. You may remember I’ve explained before that the reason she can stand behind him at his feet and wash his feet with her hair is due to Jesus lying on a couch at the meal, in the Roman style of that time. Had they been sitting at a dining table she would have to have been a contortionist!

Now, contortion or not, it takes no imagination to picture the look of indignation on Simon the Pharisee’s face. Pharisees, remember, are the people who are very fussy about observing the law — about not touching anything unclean, about washing your hands before eating, and making sure all the vessels are ritually pure. They are the Hyacinth Buckets — it’s Bouquet — of first-century Judaism. These are people who are trying to do the very thing Saint Paul told Saint Peter no one could do: follow the law in all its details down to the last jot and tittle, including how to fold your napkin after you’ve wiped your hands.

But Jesus, the ever-compassionate Jesus, doesn’t turn on the Pharisee and read him the riot act — which, as we know from other confrontations with Pharisees, he was perfectly capable of doing! Rather in this case he takes Nathan’s approach, and by telling a story that seems to be completely unrelated to the present situation, he gets Simon the Pharisee to convict himself. As a good teacher, he doesn’t spell out the answer to this moral dilemma; but provides the learner with the tools needed to understand it himself. He constructs a play within a play (or a story within the story) to catch the conscience of the Pharisee.

+ + +

We continue to pray that God will keep our household the church in his steadfast faith and love, so that we can proclaim God’s truth with boldness, and minister God’s justice with compassion. We pray this, but we often seem to lose the will to follow through on the harder work of helping people to help themselves in the moral dilemmas in which they find themselves — like Nathan and Jesus in our readings today. Too often in the church we hear voices raised that sound more like Paul or Simon than like Nathan or Jesus: quick to judge and condemn what they see as faithlessness, zealous and bold for the truth, and eager to see God’s justice carried out — but lacking in the love and compassion that would make their mission not only more effective, but more Christlike.

In doing this, as Saint Paul had the wisdom to realize about himself, they become noisy gongs or clanging cymbals: perhaps effective warning alarms to alert people to the very real moral danger in which they may find themselves; but ultimately less effective in actually saving people from themselves. Without love, without compassion, faith and justice lose half of their effectiveness.

Without love and compassion, the justice of the Pharisee would send that woman back out into the streets, to a life of sin and despair. Christ, in his love and compassion, allows this fallen woman not only to be with him where he is, but to minister to him, saved by her faith in response to his love and compassion.

Shall the church play the role of Paul at his most intolerant, or Simon the Pharisee at his most judgmental? Or shall we take the course of Nathan and of Christ and proclaim the truth in ways that those wounded by sin and despair can hear and be healed? Shall the church require its ministers to imagine themselves pure and free from sin by their own virtuous manner of life, by following the works of the law? Or shall it celebrate the ministry of those who do not sit in judgment but who, knowing their own weakness, lovingly and generously serve the body of Christ?

The woman of the city was no longer worried about her sins, which indeed were many, for she had turned to Christ. Nor does the gospel mention repentance — unusual for Luke who mentions it so often! Rather her tears reveal faith, hope, and love, flowing from the knowledge of forgiveness. We see in this incident the essence of the virtues incarnate in a woman thought by the Pharisee to be incapable of goodness, a woman who plays out the sacrament of baptism: with her voiceless confession of faith, the washing of her tears, anointing her Lord with fragrant ointment, sealed with the kiss of peace — and is then sent out in that peace to love and serve her Lord in the world.

Our Gospel today presents us two models for our encounter with Christ, and for Christian ministry. Here are two models for service to the body of Christ which is the church — the household of God. All who serve the Lord are sinners, yet all who serve the Lord are forgiven. Some will prefer to spend their time worrying about other people’s sins and whether the church can tolerate them. They will seek to obstruct their service, thinking all the while that they protect God’s body from the touch of unclean hands, and are simply being good housekeepers — like Hyacinth Bucket making people take off their shoes before entering her spotless house — if she lets them enter at all. Others will get on with the hopeful works of faith and love, of justice and compassion — the kind of good housekeeping that accepts the fact that there will be some cleaning up to do from time to time, because so many people have been made welcome in the house. Is there any question at all which of these Christ would rather have us do? +

Read it all.

---

On Universal Salvation

I see the concept of universal salvation as engaging the theological virtue of hope rather than the virtue of faith. It also draws upon the greatest virtue, love. So while I may not believe that all will be saved as a matter of certain faith, or as a teaching of the church; I can still hope that all will be saved; and recall that through God's love, judgment is tempered by mercy, rather than the other way around.

Of course, there are all those texts of judgment and damnation, of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and closed, locked doors. But what if these were to be seen as threats rather than promises?

Isn't the purpose of prophecy to convert and save? Isn't that what Jonah learned when he pronounced that Nineveh would be thrown down? But the people repented, and it wasn't. And Jonah was peeved, until God rendered him speechless at his own narrowmindedness.

So I will still hope in the love that seeks all who are lost, that warns and threatens dire consequences when our Father gets home --- but does not rest until all -- all -- are safely tucked in bed.

Happy Fathers Day.

Tobias Haller BSG