Continuing Discussions Down Under

I've been engaged in a sometimes interesting, sometimes slightly frustrating, Internet conversation on Peter Carrell's blog. It's on the usual topic, same-sex marriage, and I became involved because one of the commenters there alleged as how he had refuted my "trenchant argument" in Reasonable and Holy concerning the necessity of procreation for marriage. His response involved an appeal to the subjunctive, noting that an infertile mixed-sex couple would be capable of procreation if they were capable of procreation, while a same-sex couple would be in a different class. As I noted in my response, this does not actually address the issue of whether procreation is essential to marriage, but only restates that there is a difference between same- and mixed-sex couples, a fact which, on the ground of the participants, no one I know of contests. "Virtual procreation" is essentially meaningless both on logical and moral grounds, and returning the discussion to the relative sex of the couple is circular argument. Even Dr Radner gets into the discussion at one point, and I welcome the opportunity for further conversation with him.

The conversation then quickly moved on to what I regard as some rather thin but fulsomely expressed arguments alleging some kind of likeness between a mixed-sex married couple and the Persons of the Trinity, but I found these suggestions to be confusing if not erroneous (as to Trinitarian doctrine.) Again, no one is arguing that there isn't a difference between a same- and a mixed-sex couple as far as the relative sexes of each couple is concerned. The point of debate is whether this difference constitutes a reason to restrict marriage to mixed-sex couples. It seems that "being able to be analogized to the Trinity" is not a requirement. It is really not ultimately a possibility as the Trinity is not fully analogous to anything in the created order.

As far as the "difference" in the Trinity goes, my argument is that any individual is "different" from (or as the English say, "to") any other; that the difference between the Father and the Son is relational, not substantial (to be technical, a difference in hypostasis, not ousia, in which each is personally distinct by relationship yet each is by nature "God") just as the difference between spouses — as spouses — is relational (a spouse is a spouse by virtue of relation to the other spouse, yet still complete in themselves as individual persons each of whom is by nature fully "human") and that this is the case regardless of the gender of the spouses.

There are a number of other side-streams and assertions in the conversation, including a brief foray into the thesis that the original human was an androgyne split in two (as in Plato's Symposium), but as I note that view does not hold up to a close reading of Genesis 1-3 or how the text was used in the NT references to it.

I commend the whole conversation to those with the patience to wade through it. I hope it provides more light than heat. I continue these conversations largely because they reassure me that I'm headed in the right direction. As I've said before, it isn't for me to convince the prosecution, but the jury.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Anglican State: On the Edge, or Wandering?

Thinking Anglicans reports on reactions to a sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Mexico. In it, he pictured the state of the Anglican Communion as,

...a narrow path we walk as Anglicans at present. On one side is the steep fall into an absence of any core beliefs, a chasm where we lose touch with God, and thus we rely only on ourselves and our own message. On the other side there is a vast fall into a ravine of intolerance and cruel exclusion. It is for those who claim all truth, and exclude any who question. When we fall into this place, we lose touch with human beings and create a small church, or rather many small churches – divided, ineffective in serving the poor, the hungry and the suffering, incapable of living with each other, and incomprehensible to those outside the church…

For what it’s worth, my concern is not that there is a narrow ridge with obvious precipices to either side, but that the Communion offers a fairly wide path that slopes to each side so gently that one can stray to the extreme without realizing it. That is where I sense the real danger, not in the catastrophic bang, but the subtle whimper; the danger we might just “drift apart” if we lose sight of Jesus; who will, I trust, as the true Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, still seek out those who have wandered afar, whichever way we stray.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Living With the Questions

Thanks to Savi Hensman for a measured response to Andrew Goddard’s essay on the process of the Church of England attempting to come to terms with reality. Pointing out that it is better to be uncertain rather than certain but wrong, she nails the "stopped clock is right twice a day" modality of Goddard.

It can also be noted that the case against same-sex marriage, in terms of Scriptural clarity, is sorely lacking in certainty, and only Scriptural certainty will suffice for Anglicans when it comes to prohibition or mandate. (Article XX) Tolerance or allowance is the generous world in which Anglicans pitch their tents when certainty eludes us, and a reasonable doubt can be raised concerning the prosecution's case.

I explored this aspect of Anglican tradition in a post on Reasonable and Holy Doubt, in response to a long but rather unhelpful review of some of my work on the subject, by Dr Radner. He is also continuing to press what he can make of his case, but still seems to me to be confecting certainty where reasonable doubt is manifest, and proof is wanting, in spite of his impassioned insistence. And the chief problem is that he doesn't appear to recognize that toleration does not need to rest on proof, while prohibition does. Thus, when it comes to Scripture, he can assert (imprecisely) that there are "prohibitions of homosexual acts" in both the Old and New Testament; but while acknowledging these texts are few, he fails to note just how little these texts — none of them definitely referring to female same-sex acts, by the way, and those referring to males very likely limited in scope to particular situations — actually relate to the question of faithful, monogamous same-sex marriage; any more than the numerous prohibitions on various forms of heterosexual activity constitute a restriction on mixed-sex marriage. (Jacob Milgrom has presented the thesis of one of his students  that the Leviticus 18 text — with its partner in 20 the only precise Scriptural prohibition of male same-sex acts — is meant solely to forbid male homosexual incest to the same extent as the heterosexual forms listed in the chapter!)

The arguments from Goddard and others on his side of the divide will do little to convince anyone still on the fence on this matter, though perhaps they may ironically tip a few folks to the affirmative. Fair-minded people don't like what appears to be intolerance. (The debate in the House of Lords revealed the way in which the anti arguments pushed in the opposite direction to their intent, as the sea of pink carnations by the end revealed.)

Meanwhile, Fulcrum might rename itself Bulwark, as the wagons circle in defense of an idea that cannot long stand against the real moral values of love and fidelity, against which there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

8.9.1945 11:02

 

The bombing of Hiroshima, falling as it does on the Feast of the Transfiguration, and having been the first wartime use of nuclear weapons, holds an ironic pride of place. But lest we forget, Nagasaki was bombed a few days later, with similar devastation. The event is dealt with in tender retrospect in Rhapsody in August, a late film in the oeuvre of the incomparable Akira Kurosawa. This is not, by far, his best film, nor is it my favorite. (That palm goes to Ikiru.) But it is a masterwork nonetheless, perhaps too talky and slow-paced for most audiences. 

One moment in the film, however, is worth seeing the whole thing. At 16'20" the three children, who have been wandering modern Nagasaki looking for signs of the past (as their grandfather perished in the bombing) come upon something in the playground of a school. Silently turning to behold it, the girl holds out her hand and points, and then Kurosawa's indomitable and unblinking camera-eye slowly moves in on the melted relic of a jungle-gym, marked with a simple plaque bearing the moment at which it took its present form, surrounded by a small garden. A solo alto voice sings a mournful melody, as the children approach and instinctively remove their caps. It is a powerful image, one of many delivered by the master's hand in this "small" film on a big topic.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Another image, and others from the film, can be seen at IMDB here.

Marriage Equality Still too Equal for Some...

... in England and Wales

With the Royal Assent coming very quickly on the heels of action in the Lords and Commons, marriage equality is a reality (on the statute books if not in the registrars’ offices; getting all the forms printed and revised will take some time, as no doubt the Sir Humphrey Applebys of the Civil Service are engaged in their usual careful and studious work. Sad to say that Nigel Hawthorne did not live to see this day.)

Thinking Anglicans reports that not all are pleased with the new law. Some anxious Christian groups are bemoaning what they see to be undue haste in the six months of debate and discussion that led to this Act. Perhaps they would feel more at home with our Congress, if not our Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Roman Bishops in the affected areas of Great Britain have said, “With this new legislation, marriage has now become an institution in which openness to children, and with it the responsibility on fathers and mothers to remain together to care for children born into their family unit, are no longer central.”

Perhaps I missed the relevant clause of the Act (as it now is) that diminishes "openness to children" for those for whom such "openness" is possible, or the statute that allows for irresponsibility for the care of children born to them. I am not sure what the bishops mean by “central,” but where possible, childbirth is still possible, and the responsibility for the consequences of childbirth appear to be completely unaltered.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Goliath Sometimes Wins

Further comment superfluous.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Pelvic Inquisition

The Church of England is putting into place a plan to ask probing questions of candidates for the episcopate. Gay or lesbian clergy in civil partnerships, and divorced candidates (to avoid the appearance of discrimination), will have to satisfy their inquisitors that they are not engaging in acts that church teaching defines as sinful. It isn't clear to me from the reports if mixed-sex married couples will come under such scrutiny. Only sex seems to be on the menu in this regard, so they will not face a quiz on their trips to the buffet of pride, envy, sloth, and so on. The concern of the Church of England tends to the pelvical rather than the ethical.

That being said, I wonder, once same-sex marriage becomes legal — which could happen within a few weeks, it seems — if someone will dig up reference to another teaching of the Church of England on the subject of marriage, as stated in the Articles of Religion (XXXII):

Of the Marriage of Priests
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Emphasis mine. Perhaps before the inquisition begins, the judgment of the individual concerning his or her own life should be placed above that of the inquisitors.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Welby Begins, Wilson Continues

There are hopeful signs from the General Synod of the Church of England. In particular, the opening address of Archbishop Welby, with a character of thoughtfulness and honesty, made some very good points, revealing something of his own process of coming better to understand “some issues of sexuality.” For example, he noted

Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same Sex Marriage Bill Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. Predictable attitudes were no longer there. The opposition to the Bill, which included me and many other bishops, was utterly overwhelmed, with amongst the largest attendance in the House and participation in the debate, and majority, since 1945. There was noticeable hostility to the view of the churches. I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt then and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the bill was uncomfortably close to the bone. Lord Alli said that 97% of gay teenagers in this country report homophobic bullying. In the USA suicide as a result of such bullying is the principle cause of death of gay adolescents. One cannot sit and listen to that sort of reality without being appalled. We may or may not like it, but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it.

Powerful testimony, including the closing affirmation that the evidence has not been heard. How revealing that it took the voices of the lay Lords, some of them not Anglicans or Christians, to make a somewhat less than fully convicting impression on the Archbishop. It is also poignant in that it had to be these voices from outside the clerical circle, or outside the church's circle altogether, rather than the voices of his own gay and lesbian clergy — whose souls lie in his cure — who have had to live with the sad effects of not being asked and not telling (or at least not overtly, for fear of the consequences engineered in the system).

Let's hope for more honesty, more openness, less fear, on all sides. Bishop Alan Wilson, God bless him, shows one way forward, modeled on, of all people, Paul of Tarsus. It is the way of charity, honesty, and dialogue — the only way through the times when irreconcilable differences could otherwise separate and divide. It doesn't mean pretending differences don't exist. It means not judging one another on the basis of those differences. Someone more significant than Paul of Tarsus limned out that pattern of behavior for us.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Tips of the biretta to Thinking Anglicans and Episcopal Café

Irrelevance

On the PBS News Hour last night there was a short discussion between Eric Schneiderman (pro marriage equality) and Vicky Hartzler, a republican member of congress (anti). The anti speaker kept bringing up the issue of "what's best for the children is a marriage with a mom and pop."

As I noted in my response to the USCCB statement, nothing about marriage equality will limit or affect married couples continuing to bear and raise their own biological children. There is, to put it in legal terms, no "standing" to this objection whatsoever. As a "principle" (debatable as it is on its own merits, since not all mixed-sex couples actually have children, or are all who do good parents, whether they "ought" to be or not!*) it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I can't put it any better than the old saying, "A man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle."

Is there a fear that same-sex couples will do more adopting than they already do? Surely this is only because of the strait couples who for one reason or another cannot or will not raise their own biological offspring.

Besides, as I've noted before, the principle of a child being raised by someone other than his biological parents has venerable biblical attestation, in the person of Jesus Christ himself. 

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

*The whole gap in conservative thinking between "is" and "ought to be" is at the root of much of the divide. Like it or not, same-sex marriage is a reality, and no amount of scare quotes is going to alter that.

UPDATE: It struck me that with their recent round of pronouncements, the Roman hierarchy and "pro-family" conservatives are sending a message of inferiority to all childless couples, and very likely winning them to the side of marriage equality; since by their consequentialist ethic these marriages are little better than mine...

The Sorrowful

Well, as the old saying goes, you can't please everybody. The Roman Conference of Bishops has issued a rather petty but also profoundly revealing whine concerning today's Supreme Court rulings. The truly sad thing about this statement is how theologically shallow it is; and one would think the shallows would be the easiest place not to miss the boat — yet they manage so to do.

This comes from the incessant hammering on a thesis as if it were "a truth" when it is nothing of the sort. It is an assertion, and one that fails the simplest tests of reason.

The thesis that "marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father" appears to take no cognizance of the reality that this is only a function of marriage, and not one which all marriages carry out. Marriages that do result in the birth and nurture of a child by its biological parents are in no way diminished by those marriages that do not, mixed-sex or same-sex.

More importantly, this short statement, for all its quoting of Jesus on marriage, misses the test of faith, and seems to take no recognition of what God may have intended to convey through the birth of that very Jesus, who did not, according to the doctrine, enjoy being raised by his biological father and mother. His mother narrowly missed being put away or put to death on good legal grounds. Perhaps, had they been around, these prelates would so have advised.

I am reminded of a passage from the Protoevangelium of James: Joseph beholds Mary (on the way to Bethlehem) alternately weeping and laughing, and asks why. She explains, "It is because I behold two peoples with mine eyes, the one weeping and lamenting and the other rejoicing and exulting..."

I think the Blessed Mother of God is shaking her head in dismay at this Conference of unwed prelates, whose views on marriage derive entirely from theory; who have by choice refused to participate in the very institution they say they hold in such high esteem. I think she would repeat the old saying I cited above, "Well, you can't please everybody."

Whatever else, this sad batch of waterless clouds will not rain on my parade.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

And Resolution

In my last post I mentioned the anticipation and angst as the Supreme Court seemed to be taking its own sweet time in announcing decisions on Prop8 and DOMA. Well, Windsor and Perry, meet Brown, Loving, and Lawrence. This is a historic day, and will be long remembered.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Dred Anticipation

The Supreme Court of the United States is due to issue its decisions in two important cases that will have major impact on the lives of gay and lesbian persons, whichever way the decisions go. The cases involve the Proposition 8 referendum in California that restored marriage inequality in that state, and the Defense of Marriage Act by which the Federal government chose not to recognize same-sex marriages for national purposes.

The constitutional issues involved in each case are different, linked by two common threads: who will suffer or benefit on the basis of the decisions — gay or lesbian couples who are married or wish so to be — and the constitutional concern for states’ rights. There has been considerable reading of tea leaves by legal scholars with far more experience than I possess, as an interested amateur. The Justices were hard to read during the presentations of the cases, and their comments and questions have been sifted for signs of which way the wind might blow.

Nonetheless, I will offer my assessment in advance of the release of the decisions — almost certain to appear next week, either on Monday or Thursday. I do not think the Justices will pick up the rights issue as a fundamental matter, or at least not in a majority decision. Whether one is an originalist or a strict constructionist or a revisionist, it is likely a step too far. However, when it comes to states’ rights, I think the Court has a logical and consistent hook on which to hang a pair of decisions that defer on Prop8 to the State of California (including its courts and legislature as well as its plebs) and strikes down DOMA as a rejection of the up-until-recently standard recognition that marriage law is settled by the states, and a marriage recognized in a state should also be recognized for Federal purposes. (I do not understand that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was part of this case, so this may not mean that all states will have to recognize marriages made in other states where they are made under that state’s law. I welcome correction if I have misunderstood.)

On the other hand, the Court could hold, likely by a small majority, that these cases have come too soon. How history will judge this Court remains to be seen. Will this be another Dred Scott, or a Brown or Loving? History is the only truly neutral judge, and there is no escape from its verdicts.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Why Same-Sex Marriage?

Columnist Andrew Brown notes that +Rowan Williams has opined “I am not wholly clear to what problem same-sex marriage is the answer.”

Well, I've written a book on the subject* that approaches “the problem” from that standpoint, and I personally gave a copy of it to +Rowan at his visit to the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.

My approach was to examine the “causes” for marriage laid out in the Book of Common Prayer — with due notice of the fact that the liturgy, since 1549, has directed the omission of the prayer for procreation when the woman is past child-bearing; which omission neither negates nor nullifies the marriage.

Since procreation (at least as far as child-bearing goes) is so clearly a provisional element of marriage, it remains to examine the other causes: as a remedy against promiscuity, and for the help, comfort and support engendered by mutual society.

I believe that same-sex marriage is fully capable of accomplishing these ends. Nor do I understand why that is so hard for some to understand.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

*for more on Reasonable and Holy, check the sidebar...

UPDATE: an additional thought as posted on Facebook:
I sometimes hope that Rowan makes statements like that in order to provoke discussion. I don't want to think he is clueless. But he seems to be fixed in a rhetorical strategy that isn't sufficiently engaged with the debate as it actually is taking place -- just as he was fixed in an ecclesiastical stasis while Archbishop because of a prevailing notion that "unity" was the most important aspect of his work, rather than discernment. Continuing to ask questions that already have answers, instead of engaging with those answers, is not productive.
And I would add, Socrates knew how to move the discussion along... 

Lords Help Us

Listening to the House of Lords debate on the Marriage Bill is not the way I'd hoped to spend my morning. It is instructive to see the extent to which some who have hit bottom keep digging. It is also a bit sad to note than many of the most senior Lords who oppose the Bill will likely not live long enough to be embarrassed by their comments, as society and culture continue to move towards equality. I'm reminded of reading the debates on racial equality from sixty years ago.

Strangest of all are those who, under the guise of an interest in equality, point out that the Bill still makes distinctions between same- and mixed-sex couples on the matters of adultery and annulment for the cause of no consummation.

However, neither of these represent inequalities in marriages, but differences in the means by which particular marriages may be terminated or annulled. This is no more "unequal" than the fact that any given marriage may be ended on the basis of adultery only if adultery has taken place. The fact that English law has not recognized same-sex sexual activity as "adultery" (and has no intention to do so) has no relevance to couples whose marriages remain faithful.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 06.17.12

How wonderful to be reminded once again at Morning Prayer today that her husband thought himself of more value to Hannah  “than ten sons.” Biblical evidence that marriage is not just about progeny.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Weeping Ang[e]l(ican)s

In the recent General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church questions were raised* concerning the Anglican Covenant and the Primatial Moratoria. Remember them? They were the [mostly] Gentlemen’s [not quite] Agreements by the Primates, meeting in Dar-es-Salaam back in January 2007. They didn’t quite agree but all signed off that they had discussed that (1) nobody would ordain an openly  partnered gay or lesbian bishop, (2) approve the blessing of same-sex unions, or (3) cross the borders of a jurisdiction and meddle in its internal affairs. On all three, and on all sides, the phrase “the breach than the observance” springs to mind. Hence I, and I suppose many others, had considered these moratoria moribund, if not dead and buried. They seem, however, to be a bit more like the protesting plague victim who moans, “I'm not dead yet” while being carried to the cart.

Or even worse, I fear that the Anglican Covenant and the moratoria from which it was birthed are a bit like the Weeping Angels in Dr Who — blink or take your eyes off of them for a moment, and they are upon you.

This is the first mention of the alleged moratoria I've heard in some time.... I thought they were dead, but apparently we blinked.

Hence, I suggest keeping the lights on — and brightly. And, as the Dr said, “Don’t blink!”

*You can read about what Primus David Chillingworth said here.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Mystic on the Water

O God, Origin, Sustainer, and End of all your creatures: Grant that your Church, taught by your servant Evelyn Underhill, guarded evermore by your power, and guided by your Spirit into the light of truth, may continually offer to you all glory and thanksgiving and attain with your saints to the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have promised by our Savior Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Evelyn Underhill's biography reveals an unlikely candidate for mysticism — at least as our prejudices would construct that vocation. We image the mystics (some of us do it with icons!) as desert ascetics, cloth-draped monastics, anchorites, hermits. Surely that is part of the tradition. But it is that very temptation to categorize that Evelyn sought to upset by her teaching along the lines of the children's hymn for All Saints’ Day. From her perspective, a deeply personal one, she knew you could meet them in shops or at tea — or in Florentine museums, or on her father’s yacht. So here is a mystic not in sackcloth, but with a string of pearls. God bless her witness that the grace of God inbreaks for all who seek that mystic sweet communion, wherever, whenever, as the Ground of All Being is always present and ready to embrace the Beloved.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Syrian Singer

Pour out on us, O Lord, that same Spirit by which your deacon Ephrem rejoiced to proclaim in sacred song the mysteries of faith; and so gladden our hearts that we, like him, may be devoted to you alone; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Ephrem was a deacon and a poet. It is said that he never smiled, but perhaps a smile would be too weak to capture the cosmic joy he celebrated. One of my favorite hymns in the Hymnal 1982 is based on the work of Ephrem. I always find myself choked up on the last verse, with its powerful avalanche of paradoxes.

From God Christ's deity came forth,
His manhood from humanity;
his priesthood from Melchizedek,
his royalty from David's tree:
praised be his Oneness.

He joined with guests at wedding feast,
Yet in the wilderness did fast;
he taught within the temple's gates;
his people saw him die at last:
praised be his teaching.

The dissolute he did not scorn,
Nor turn from those who were in sin;
he for the righteous did rejoice
but bade the fallen to come in:
praised be his mercy.

He did not disregard the sick;
To simple ones his word was given;
and he descended to the earth
and, his work done, went up to heaven:
praised be his coming.

Who then, my Lord, compares to you?
The Watcher slept, the Great was small,
the Pure baptized, the Life who died,
the King abased to honor all:
praised be your glory.

Hymn 443, translated by John Howard Rhys, Adapted and altered by F Bland Tucker

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Changed Perspective

The House of Lords, after a long and tedious debate, and a long call for Division in a spectacularly inefficient manner, has soundly defeated the Dear motion to scuttle the Marriage Bill, and then voted handily to move it along to committee.

As I listened to the debate, I imagined how an earlier one might have sounded.

My Lords, the geocentric model for the universe has served us well for centuries. Not only is it hallowed by Tradition and the evidence of Holy Writ, it has the unsurpassed virtue of being obvious to the feeblest of minds, as plain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. To introduce, without adequate review or any real evidence apart from the theorizing of a very few foreign natural philosophers, a whole new definition of the very structure of the universe is a step too far. Anyone can see that everything by nature falls down, towards the center of the earth, a firm foundation beneath our feet; this novel notion to the contrary introduces all sorts of instability and doubt about the nature of how things work. The geocentric model is the foundation of our whole civilization; it is what holds us together. If it is challenged or redefined we may find ourselves floating off in any number of unhelpful and dangerous directions. What other institutions will be redefined next? The monarchy? The foundations of our foundations are at risk. I earnestly entreat you not to support this misguided and ill-conceived effort to wrest our Mother Earth from her place of honor at the center of our cosmos, and indeed, our hearts.

Marriage, like the cosmos, is what it is. Our understanding of it may change — some who have been denied access to participation in it may be and have been admitted to its rights and responsibilities; its form and definition may be altered, as it has been altered time and again. We will not go floating off into space on that account. Changing our perspective does not change the underlying reality of the world, or of human life. New opportunities teach new duties. And all will be well.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Not What They Expected

When the Conclave elected Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli to the Chair of Peter in 1958, many thought the elderly cardinal would be a benign placeholder for a few years, allowing the Roman Church to catch its breath after the long pontificate of Pius XII, the end of the hot war and the tensions of the cold.

Such was not to be the case, and John XXIII, practically off the bat, called for the first major Council in years, which led to a startling number of reforms whose impact is felt to this day, fifty years after his death.

Let us pray. Lord of all truth and peace, you raised up your bishop John to be servant of the servants of God and gave him wisdom to call for the work of renewing your Church: Grant that, following his example, we may reach out to other Christians to clasp them with the love of your Son, and labor throughout the nations of the world to kindle a desire for justice and peace; through Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The icon in watercolor pencil is an attempt to capture his generosity of spirit, with the suggestion he is about to break into a smile and give a little wave of benediction. We need more church leaders like "Good Pope John."

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Cantuar Opines, World Moves On

The Archbishop of Canterbury has addressed his fellow Lords in opposition to the Marriage Bill now before them. He critiques the Bill for creating inequalities in marriage between same- and mixed-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, inequalities. Of course, the faults in the legislation along this line — and faults they are — result from the unwillingness on the part of some to take the time to visit the questions of what "consummation" and "adultery" mean for same-sex couples. This is where the "inequalities" arise; and they could have been dealt with, in the same way laws have addressed many other "definitions" by ambiguous phrasing, or leaving matters to one side — leaving it to the courts to come up with the precise implications post facto. As it remains, we are dealing with differences without distinction, unless one holds to the radical and tautological position that same-sex couples cannot engage in "sex" — hence no consummation or adultery — because "sex" requires a mixed-sex couple.

Still, that is no reason to oppose this Bill — it isn't even "reason" at all — at least on the grounds that it is "redefining" anything.

I am not surprised, but disappointed that the Archbishop felt it necessary to speak on an issue on which the Church need have no position, as the civil marriages will not have any effect within the Church of England. There is a long history of discord between Canon and Civil Law in England in the marriage arena — from 1857 to 2002 divorced persons with living ex-spouses could be married under civil law but not in church; for the larger part of that time any church members who availed themselves of the civil provision (even the "innocent spouse") might find themselves excommunicated, and even now the clergy can refuse to marry couples in this situation. So there is absolutely nothing new in the legal provision for marriages — not just weddings! — of which the Church of England might disapprove, or choose not to recognize.

The truly sad thing is that in staking out a rear-guard position on a failing and irrational notion, the Archbishop does neither himself nor the church any good at all, and may in fact be causing further harm to the Church of England, the nation, and its people.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Young Frenchwoman

Holy God, whose power is made perfect in weakness: we honor you for the calling of Jeanne d’Arc, who, though young, rose up in valor to bear your standard for her country, and endured with grace and fortitude both victory and defeat; and we pray that we, like Jeanne, may bear witness to the truth that is in us to friends and enemies alike, and, encouraged by the companionship of your saints, give ourselves bravely to the struggle for justice in our time; through Christ our Savior, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Joan of Arc is a discomforting figure. Inspired or mad? Inspired and mad? Just inspired and politically astute but not enough to work around canon lawyers? However one assesses the mystical side of Joan, we are left with a very human, young, but powerful figure whose actions helped to shape an age.

Of the many portrayals that reflect her short life and tragic end, from Shaw to Anouilh, from Bergman to Falconetti, it is the latter who sticks in my mind and who inspired this icon. The powerful film by Carl Theodor Dreyer has been reissued in a restored version based on what appears to be the last surviving print of the film as the director intended it, discovered in a Norwegian mental institution. (I find it hard to imagine showing the film in this setting as it is powerfully disturbing even to a settled mind. Perhaps one of the doctors was interested in studying Joan?) The Criterion version boasts an optional soundtrack composed by Richard Einhorn and sung by Anonymous 4 ("Voices of Light.")

The icon is an effort to capture Joan's vision of a peaceful and idyllic countryside through the flames that consumed her. I am reminded of a line from late in Shaw's play, "Her heart would not burn..."

God give us faithful, mad folk to shake us from the complacency of satisfaction with less than you desire!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Old Englishman

On the feast of the Venerable Bede, I'm reminded of my undergraduate course in Anglo-Saxon, which my inimitable (and favorite) professor Dr. Sheets proudly noted was the only undergraduate level course on the subject offered in the Eastern US. One of our study documents, of course, was Bede's Ecclesiastical History translated into the vernacular Old English in the days of Alfred the King. I can still recite Cædmon's Hymn, the story of which Bede recounted, and which the class had to memorize.

When it came to writing an icon of Bede, I found a dearth of available models, particularly given my interest in trying to write icons that look like "real people." Then I remembered Dom Bede Griffiths, the great Benedictine namesake of his progenitor, and the image clicked.

Bede, through you we honor all historians who labor to preserve the traces of our past.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Go West!

Lord God, in your providence Jackson Kemper was chosen first missionary bishop in this land, and by his arduous labor and travel congregations were established in scattered settlements of the West: Grant that the Church may always be faithful to its mission, and have the vision, courage, and perseverance to make known to all people the Good News of Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Star-gazers

As the heavens declare your glory, O God, and the firmament shows your handiwork, we bless your Name for the gifts of knowledge and insight you bestowed upon Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler; and we pray that you would continue to advance our understanding of your cosmos, for our good and for your glory; through Jesus Christ, the firstborn of all creation, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

I have long observed that the church serves itself and the world poorly when it fails to take adequate account of what is in its effort to demand what it thinks must or should be. As I observed in a comment on an earlier post, this is one peril when a magisterium rests on its authoritative laurels, lacks a built-in corrective mechanism, and chooses to ignore correction from without. The result is punctuated equilibrium, with damage, rather than slow and steady development.

The image that popped into my head is that of Ulysses chained to the mast, while his crew has its ears stuffed with wax. He hears the siren song but is unable to move, the crew does not hear it, but nor does it hear his commands to obey him, to set him free.

How much better when the church's leaders listen to the findings of those who are not necessarily a part of it, in the humility to accept that Wisdom sometimes builds her house in strange neighborhoods, and that the heavens tell of God's glory even when the church stops listening or mishears.

Thank you, Nicolaus and Johannes for gazing up, and sharing what you saw and conceived.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
sketch icon, 2013.

Apostle to the Sioux

Wakantanka, Holy God, you called your servant William Hobart Hare to bear witness to you throughout the vast reaches of the Niobrara Territory, bearing the means of grace and the hope of glory to the peoples of the Plains: We give you thanks for the devotion of those who received the Good News gladly, and for the faithfulness of the generations who have succeeded them. Strengthen us with your Holy Spirit that we may walk in their footsteps and lead many to faith in Jesus Christ, in whom the living and the dead are one; and who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Hare followed in the Spirit of Saint Gregory's outreach to the native peoples of England, in respecting and incorporating aspects of their culture in harmony with the Gospel. Would that all missionaries, and all Christians, were so gracious, and grace-filled, in respecting the lives and experience of those with whom they seek better to understand our limitless and generous God.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Central or Usual?

The leaders of the Roman Church in England have issued another alert to legislators about the possible dangers of marriage equality. They worry that "Marriage will become an institution in which openness to children, and with it the responsibility on fathers and mothers to remain together to care for children born into their family, is no longer central to society’s understanding of marriage..."

Of course, this notion has never been true universally. "Openness to children" (whatever that means to an infertile couple, whose marriage is allowed even in the Roman Church, I can not grasp) and upbringing by their biological parents has been, in many cultures, one aspect or a possible outcome, or even expectation, of marriage. But it is not universal, nor has it always even been "central."

In particular, the Church of England has recognized that this "use" or "purpose" of marriage is only one among a number, explicitly since 1549, by directing that the prayer for procreation “shall be omitted” when the woman is beyond the age of childbearing.

It is a basic principle of logic that things that must be omitted in some circumstances cannot be central, and that things which are not present in all instances of an entity cannot be essential to that entity. The procreation and rearing of children are phenomena which can and do take place apart from marriage, and marriage can take place absent either. Do they need someone to draw a Venn diagram? Or is it merely the Roman tendency to try to force a desired form onto a reality that is far more spacious than they want to allow? I would argue that it is not even "best" in the abstract that children should be raised by their own parents. It all depends on the particular case, and in the case of bad parents foster care is to be preferred.

I will let pass here any extended reference to how poorly this Roman position reflects on the sacred history, with its rich imagery of adoption and foster-parenthood. But the absence of such references seem to me to indicate a particular blind spot, or a phenomenon in which marriage as they understand it has become like the apple in Maigritte's portrait of the man who can see nothing else, nor even understand it to be an apple, but as a green wall obstructing all knowledge of anything else.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Confusion in California

A California court has rendered a decision in the remaining property dispute concerning congregations (or parts thereof) who had chosen to depart the Episcopal Church. At issue in this case, rather different from most others, is a letter from the bishop of the diocese written in 1991 telling the congregation they could buy some property that would not fall under the prevailing canonical “trust” of the diocese or the general church. The judge has found that the bishop did not have the authority to waive the canons, which state that all real property is held in trust; and moreover that the bylaws of the congregation also declared that all property they hold is held in trust. This renders the letter and the “gentlemen’s agreement” a nullity. This only came to a head, of course, when the congregation chose to depart the church.

Some have wrongly seen this decision as creating a whole new requirement for the sale of church property, even alleging that all church property transactions might have to come under national approval of some sort. This is a mistaken view for several reasons:

First, the decision of the court involving the supposed waiver of a trust, is distinct from the attempted alienation of property (dealt with as a consequence, since it was the alleged waiver that the congregation thought permitted the alienation.) As the trust requirement is canonical, it cannot be waived by any authority other than the national church through an amendment of the canon itself, or perhaps by legislation clarifying the meaning of the canon (as the General Convention is the authorized interpreter of the canons, through its actions.)

Second, the canons do provide for the alienation of property, which does not require national approval. All that is required for a parish to alienate property is the approval of the bishop and standing committee. This is true for parishes that remain within the Episcopal Church and any which choose to depart — in a few cases amicable settlements have been reached by which congregations leaving TEC have been able to retain their property upon reaching an agreed settlement with the diocese. Parishes cannot simply walk away in possession of property they held in trust.

Third, and this is the most important principle: parishes may well hold title to their property but they do not own it free and clear — and this was true long before the enactment of the so-called "Dennis Canon" — as attested by the other long-standing canonical regulations that restrict the sale of church property, and require diocesan approval (of bishop and standing committee) for such sale. Church property is not allodial, but feudal — its disposition is not entirely in the hands of those who hold title because of other legal restrictions. This is actually true of most property even outside of the church, where zoning laws and eminent domain and other state and local regulations restrict what one can do with one's property.

So those who were claiming that this court decision opens a can of worms for all church property ownership have wildly missed the point.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Postscript and update:

I am flattered that the venerable Anglican Curmudgeon has taken note of my musings. I fear he has mistook me in small part (which I attribute to my hasty comments at Thinking Anglicans more than to my effort here). Suffice it to say he and I have continued some discussion at his well-worth-visiting blog. I posted a couple of comments there the gist of which I will share here, as I think it helps to offer some additional clarity to my view of the situation, edited slightly for this different context.

As I see it, the main issue involves the distinction between the trust itself and the alienation of property.

I have to agree with the finding of the court that the bishop exceeded his authority in attempting to waive the trust. There is no suggestion that a bishop acting alone, or even in concert with the Standing Committee, could waive the trust established in the canon (acknowledging that some feel the canon itself is irregular and overreaching, it is nonetheless “on the books” and the courts appear in general to defer to it as consistent with what Jones v. Wolf mused might be one appropriate way to flag the existence of such a trust in explicit language.)

Let me add that I do not think any duplicity was involved in the action of the bishop or his canon to the ordinary, and it is a matter of some concern that succeeding bishops, and others, have chosen not to honor that commitment, even if it was inappropriately made. It seems to me that both sides in that agreement were poorly advised as to the state of the law at the time, both ecclesiastical and civil. It would more likely have been advisable for the parish leaders to undertake the establishment of a separate not-for-profit corporation to obtain the property and then to have leased the property to the parish for its use, none of which would have required the consent of the bishop, though an episcopal nod would have been seemly. This would have improved on the gentleman's agreement and provided legal protection.

The issue of the alienation or sale of property is distinct from the existence of the trust. I believe that the current court decision, even if upheld on appeal, should not concern any parish so long as it remains part of the Episcopal Church. That seems to me to be the plain reading of Canon I.7.4. (The "Dennis Canon.") I read "otherwise" in this canon not in reference to the trust (for the Church and Diocese thereof) but in reference to the normal property rights enjoyed by the parish restricted only by the immediately preceding section of the Canon (I.7.3) which describes the procedure and the requirements for encumbrance or alienation.

So my point is that the bishop and standing committee cannot waive the trust, but they can permit the sale or long-term lease of property so long as the parish is part of the Episcopal Church. (Which is the case for the vast majority of congregations.) 

Furthermore, I do not see how this decision would apply to property transactions for parishes that remain part of the Episcopal Church -- or, indeed, who would have standing to challenge such a legitimately permitted and canonically correct sale if the Bishop and standing committee, and the vestry of the parish, have approved it – or even who would care to do so.

Matters are different for parishes that choose to leave the Episcopal Church. I am aware that national leadership have attempted to forbid amicable and fair-value settlements to departing congregations in a few cases; and very likely look askance at sales for a mere token; but I imagine that the urge to challenge even the latter in court will depend on the willingness to meet the legal costs, and I for one would hope that urging reasonable settlements would prevail.

TSH

Post-postcript

Further conversation with A Curmudgeon was very helpful and directs me to what I think is the difficulty I have with his position. This devolves to two points.

The attempted waiver on the acquisition of the property was really an attempt to waive responsibilities de futuro (pardon my mixing marriage law with real estate... just that my head is rather involved in work on the former at present), in other words, proactively to hold property free from the trust in the case of some future alienation. The court found that the trust relationship cannot be so dissolved, either in the future or the present. As I suggest, there were other possible ways to structure this, but a bishop cannot essentially authorize a sale of property (a parish doesn't yet own) in the future, or apply the dead hand to require a successor so to do -- and the St Com approval is also needed in any case. In the present, however, a Bp and SC can authorize an encumbrance (sale or lease) -- not "waive the trust." Which brings me to my second point.

Mr. Haley is interpreting the encumbrance of property in I.7.3 as a waiver of the trust in I.7.4. But it is not a waiver of the trust, since the value of the property remains for the use of the church. It is a transaction within the trust, not an escape from or waiver of it. It was the attempted waiver de futuro -- essentially to allow a parish allodial title to their property -- that the court found to be a nullity. Parishes do not hold their property free and clear.

I.7.3 was on the books long before I.7.4 was a glint in Walter's (or Blackmun's) eye. The trust element was, as various courts have stated it, implicit, in part because of the long-standing limitations on the encumbrance of property to the extent that a higher authority (Bp and SC) had to approve sales or long-term leases.

I do not see this as a case of special pleading, but an across the board requirement. Parishes are not able "to deal freely with their properties" even within TEC. They must have Bp and SC approval for any encumbrance. In NY this is written into the Not-or-Profit Religious Corporations statute as well (predating Dennis), so we need approval of the Supreme Court as well!

TSH

Come, Labor On!

Loving God, we bless your Name for Frances Perkins, who lived out her belief that the special vocation of the laity is to conduct the secular affairs of society that all may be maintained in health and decency. Help us, following her example, to contend tirelessly for justice and for the protection of all in need, that we may be faithful followers of Jesus Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Frances Perkins was the first woman cabinet secretary (Secretary of Labor 1933-1945), an Episcopalian, a tireless worker for workers and a major participant in FDR’s “New Deal” — and isn’t it nice to recall that NRA once stood for something else!

God bless her witness and her fortitude.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
sketch icon of Perkins with workers of the Civilian Conservation Corps

Singing God

God of life made new in Christ, you call your Church to keep on rising from the dead: We remember before you the bold witness of your servant Nicolaus von Zinzendorf, through whom your Spirit moved to draw many in Europe and the American colonies to faith and conversion of life; and we pray that we, like him, may rejoice to sing your praise, live your love and rest secure in the safekeeping of the Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. — Holy Women, Holy Men

Give thanks for the witness and ministry of this protector and bishop of the Moravian church tradition, hymnodist and ecumenist.

Members on our Head depending,
lights reflecting him, our Sun,
brethren—his commands attending,
we in him, our Lord, are one.

(Moravian Book of Worship 1995: 673)

icon sketch on black laid stock, May 2013

Mother Harriet, CSM

Harriet Starr Cannon is the founder of the Community of Saint Mary, a religious community of The Episcopal Church that among other things notably bore witness during the Yellow Fever epidemic in Memphis. Mother Harriet was an indomitable presence, and I hope I captured some of that in this quick sketch icon. I have to admit that perhaps this shows the influence of having been a fervent follower and fan of Call the Midwife, but the connections are not misplaced, since the ministries of Nonnatus House would not have been unrecognizable to Mother Harriet, and Sister Evangelina (Pam Ferris) shares the strong quality of (and a slight resemblance to, at least as I see it) Mother Harriet.
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Plain Speaking About Genesis

The first few chapters of Genesis do not indicate God’s restrictive plan for the sexual conduct of humanity. They have nothing to say about marriage other than to offer an explanation as to why it is that at least some men and women are attracted to each other, and to describe their union as indissoluble. The former is explicit in the text itself, and we have the latter on the very highest authority.

The first few chapters of Genesis consist of contradictory and inconsistent creation accounts cast in the language and culture of their times. They do not describe either history or nature with any degree of accuracy whatsoever. Does this mean I deny their divine inspiration as the opening chapters of the written word of God? By no means! However, the chief divine inspiration — it is pure genius — is in providing two facially contradictory accounts of the same events side-by-side precisely in order to prevent us from taking them literally — even if we did not already know that they were not literally true on the basis of other evidence, historical and scientific. Even absent history and science no one should ever have made that error, for the witnesses do not just not agree, they contradict. (This is not the place to critique the peculiar credence that Scripture can contain no contradictions. Suffice it to say that belief derives from some source hungry for certainty and unable to deal with complex reality and ambiguity.)

To press these accounts into literal applications, as some have done to place limits upon later developments and better understandings, is as false and pointless as taking the visions of Ezekiel or the parables of Jesus as if they were historical accounts rather than exemplary and inspired teaching. That the primeval human was split to form the sexes is a fabulous construct meant to explain attraction between the sexes. It will not stand as “fact” though it has its own “truth.” But it did not happen that way, and the one who told the tale knew that very well, leaving unanswered the obvious problems such as where Cain’s wife came from. He simply wasn’t bothered, as the goal was primarily geared to answer a single question — why do men and women leave their homes to start their own families. Aristophanes did the same thing in Plato’s Symposium, though more broadly acknowledging the range of human emotional and sexual connection as his culture understood it; but there is no reason to think he intended it as natural history any more than the author of Genesis did his mythological tale.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

How You Know Things Are Changing

The surest sign that things have changed is when people insist they haven't or they can't.

Whenever I hear someone claim that the "definition" is what is important, I quickly remind myself that on the contrary it is what is defined that is important -- and that words change their meanings as the world they describe changes. Few things have changed as much as "marriage."

Thus it is interesting to note that some in the Roman Catholic Church are aware that a new wind is blowing, and things are changing. The fact that some in the RCC now seem to be able to tolerate "civil unions" but hold firm at the word "marriage" indicate that this is the final phase of the logomachia, and the wind of the Spirit, which sometimes must — perhaps always does — start with the world instead of the church, is blowing the change that will turn a settled and intolerant world upside down.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Sarah, Advocate for Women's Education

Gracious God, we bless your Name for the vision and witness of Sarah Hale, whose advocacy for the ministry of women helped to support the deaconess movement. Make us grateful for your many blessings, that we may come closer to Christ in our own families; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.  

Sarah Josepha Buell Hale (f.d. April 30) accomplished many things in her long life, though her short children's poem, "Mary's Lamb," is likely better known than her many other ventures, including long editorship of Godey's Ladies' Book, her advocacy for women's education and role in founding Vassar, and her lobbying for the creation of a national holiday for Thanksgiving. She was a tough New Hampshire woman with an indomitable spirit.

The image is a quick icon in watercolor pencil, a technique I am much enjoying exploring of late.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

More Flawed Reasoning from Expert

A Roman Catholic priest and professor has launched another assault on marriage equality. Fr Rhonheimer claims that marriage equality actually imposes a burden upon, or discriminates against mixed-sex marriages.

Conferring legal equality to same-sex unions signifies to publicly establish, in the law system, the principle of dissociation of sexuality and procreation... Besides containing an erroneous moral message, it actually means to objectively discriminate against married people, who intentionally have engaged in a union ordered towards the task of the transmission of human life, accepting all the burdens and responsibilities of this task.

As is so often the case with arguments from the procreationist side of the reality divide, this fails to recognize that the "burdens and responsibilities" of procreation do not fall upon all mixed sex couples, however "ordered" their union might be. Moreover, all citizens bear some of the burden of supporting other people's children. So even the unmarried, dare I mention even the celibate, or those married but without children, share in the burdens and responsibilities placed upon them by those who do bear children — some of whom actually become wards of the state because of the inadequacies or misfortunes of their biological parents. So if anything, those who procreate discriminate against those who don't.

If anything is "erroneous" it is Father Rhonheimer.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Childlike Maturity

April 20 2013 • St John’s Tuckahoe
for the Rev. Kristin Kopren’s Institution
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine... +

We are gathered here today to celebrate and recognize a ministry that is already under way. My classmate and colleague Kristin has been ministering here at Saint John’s for a while now, so today’s celebration has to seen as a continuation rather than an inauguration. And this is good, as it reminds us that ministry is not a one-shot deal, but a work for the long term.

It is also a reminder that the inauguration of a ministry, like ordination itself, does not instantly equip a priest with all of the skills and talents that will be called upon for ministry — would that it did! Those skills and talents have to be developed over the years, and that process begins even before entering into the concentrated work in seminary, and continues in ministry afterwards. I am happy to have shared three years with Kristin in the hothouse seed-bed of the General Theological Seminary, as well as numerous breakfasts at the local diner with other classmates as we debriefed from our class in systematic theology. I know that all of us learned a great deal while in seminary, though less about plumbing and boilers and masonry work than we would be called upon to employ! I have long thought that the General Ordination Examination ought to include at least one question such as: “A Vestry meeting has just adjourned, when the Senior Warden informs you that the cistern on the commode in the women’s lavatory won’t stop running, even though she has jiggled the lever three times. In an essay of at least 500 words, discuss this incident in relation to the canonical duties of clergy and lay leaders respectively, in relation to the portrayal of the priestly office in the Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly as to calling the plumber.”

Graduation and ordination do not suddenly equip a minister with all that will be needed to carry out that ministry. One learns a great deal in relatively short order — not only the harsh realities of building maintenance, but the challenges of pastoral care. It is not only a plentiful harvest into which the Lord sends these laborers, but one that will require some very hard and intensive work, the proper tools, and above all cooperation and support from many co-workers, including the bishop, the other clergy, and most importantly the leaders and members of the parish — who are far from harassed and helpless, nor to be regarded as sheep, but as members of the body that builds itself up in cooperative and loving work. And it is through this process of loving one another and working together that all will hope to grow into the full stature of Christ, to full maturity, no longer children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine.

+ + +

I cannot help but note, however, that there is some tension between Saint Paul’s urging the Ephesians to get with the program and grow up, and that powerful story of the young Samuel in our first reading. For in that account it is not the mature, indeed the decrepit, Eli who hears and understands the voice of God. It is the child, the child who hears and responds to the Lord each time he is called, and by his persistence finally gets old Eli to understand, as a former president once said, “that the torch has been passed to a new generation.”

This moving passage should remind us, the Epistle to the Ephesians notwithstanding, that the Scripture often testifies to the consistent favor God shows to, and the responsibility God places upon, the younger as opposed to the elder: from Cain and Abel, through Esau and Jacob, to David the youngest of Jesse’s passel of sons, to John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus— he who put the message in no uncertain terms when he reminded us that any who wish to come to the kingdom of heaven must do so as a child, and as John’s Gospel has it, as one born again, from above.

I will echo Nicodemus and ask, How does one grow to maturity while maintaining the childlike attitude of those born anew? I need perhaps not note the difference between being childish and being childlike. The important thing seems to be maintaining the child’s openness to possibilities even as one grows to maturity. We can take old Eli as a sad example of what happens when one forsakes childlike delight in what is always new, for false and self-satisfied maturity, the complacency of having arrived. While tolerating the wickedness of his sons who cheat the people of their sacrifices, Eli has grown physically blind and fat, and spiritually hard of hearing. The word of God was rare in those days — not for want of God speaking, but for want of ears to hear. How many times has the Lord’s voice spoken in the stillness of the night and Eli has ignored it, dismissing it, as others would later do when God spoke in distant thunder: Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me?

No, we who minister — and that includes all of us, not just the clergy, deacon, priest or bishop, not even just the members of the vestry — but each and every member of the body of the church in this place, and every place, called and empowered to be knit together into a fabric that will endure the blusters of the age of anxiety, and the hard winds of tragedy, loss, and pain — the stresses which all of us must from time to time endure, but which we endure because we are united — knit together — rather than scattered and alone.

And what is more, my friends, I say to you that we will endure those hard times best if we approach them with the trust and open-mindedness of a child. With open minds and hearts and ears we will be able to hear the voice of God because we have abandoned any preconceptions or prejudices about who is an appropriate bearer of God’s message, have set aside any expectations that the message must conform to our own devices and desires rather than to the challenges with which God wishes to help us to grow into the likeness of Christ.

For growing into maturity is in fact the work of childhood; it is what childhood is for. It is growth that, by the grace of God, continues, rather than ending with some ratification, some arrival at a destination, some graduation, even some institution. Eli no longer heard the voice of God precisely because he stopped, thinking that as high priest he had arrived. Samuel knew better, even in his innocence, and was ready to respond each of the three times God called, with the same eagerness, present and accounted for, and ready to serve, to get up and go where God would send him, and to do as God asked. And so may it be for us. We are all pilgrims, my friends — and child pilgrims at that.

And so my prayer for Kristin, and for all of you here, and for all of God’s people in every place where we gather, is that all of us may preserve and foster the intensity, earnestness, innocence, and openness of children. This will help us always to be truthful and fair with each other. No one detects falsehood in others or unfairness in a situation as effectively as a child — and who can face the eyes of a child full of that judgment, “You have let me down” or the sentence that rings as solemnly as that of a high court justice: “But that’s not fair.”

This will also help us to listen to one another, with the open ears of a young Samuel — to listen for the strains of God’s truth even in the midst of sometimes confusing or even contradictory dialogue, or amidst the crackle and rumble of the world’s blowhards trying to sell us their bill of goods.

And this will help us to focus our work — for who are as intense and focused as children when doing something they really care about. Where else do you see the tips of tiny tongues emerging from the sides of the mouths, but where the crayon glides across the page, and the image takes form under the intense attention and the skillful hand of the master-craft-child, ready proudly to be exhibited upon the wall or the refrigerator?

With all of this God is well pleased, the God who, as we forget to our peril, came among us as a child, and called the children to him — not only those who are children by the count of an actuary, but the children who are young in heart and newborn from above, and in the spirit, with open ears and busy hands to hear God’s word and then to do the work of God. This place, this, God’s factory, where the fabric of God’s kingdom is knit and woven together, this is the only place in which child labor is not only allowed but mandatory. No one can do the work of God in the kingdom of God but as a child, and with the maturity of children, the maturity that grows because it knows it has not arrived.

May all of us be blessed with the childlikeness that shows the true maturity of Christ, celebrating the gifts and building up the body of the church, for the good and the salvation of the world for which Christ came among us as a child, grew to maturity and faced his death and burial, but rose triumphant over all the limitations of the grave — the place were all things stop — but where death itself was defeated and cast down. Christ did that work, and he is working still, through you who love and serve in his name and in his strength. Alleluia, Christ is risen; the Lord is risen indeed, Alleluia.

---

Question Raised by Marriage Document (1999)

Thinking Anglicans has posted a link to the 1999 official marriage document that precedes the more recent summary. Its opening paragraph raises an interesting question. If, as it states, "The love of God the Father for his Son is the ground of all human love..." then precisely what implications does this homoousial love have for the doctrine of marriage?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Status Quo Vadis?

The Church of England Faith and Order Commission has issued a study document on marriage, which from its title to its conclusion appears to be a solidification of the status quo. I hope to return to a closer examination and commentary in the near future, but for the time being, I will simply note its concluding paragraph seems to me to reach an unsupported conclusion. It ends:

50. ...The reality of marriage between one man and one woman will not disappear as the result of any legislative change, for God has given this gift, and it will remain part of our created human endowment. But the disciplines of living in it may become more difficult to acquire, and the path to fulfilment, in marriage and in other relationships, more difficult to find.

Why marriage equality should make the "disciplines of living" within traditional "marriage" more difficult to acquire does not seem to be immediately apparent. I have long argued that marriage equality may help all marriages to become better and more secure, by offering a model not based on the "traditional" and inherently asymmetrical mode in which the man relates to the woman as Lord — which is, after all, only an analogy introduced by Paul in an effort to understand the nature of the church — but upon the more deeply Christian understanding of a union of hearts and minds between equals.

I will note that the "complementarity" argument that has arisen in recent years has been a somewhat revisionist movement to try to accommodate a more "equalist" notion with the inherently unequal Pauline articulation. This argument fails on numerous grounds, which I've addressed in detail elsewhere. Suffice it here to say that any two people can be in relationship with each other, regardless of their sex. Like it or not, marriage equality is a fact, and its influence can be rejected as unhelpful, or used for what it can teach even mixed-sex couples of the true virtues of Christian life.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 04.09.13

Conscience is the voice telling you that you are wrong. Ego is the voice telling you everyone else is.

—Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Icon of Humanity

She knelt beside the neatly planted rows
of cummin, dill, and mint. The clear March sky
was bright; a flock of birds flew high.
She pinched a leaf;
                    then, suddenly, she froze —
a voice had spoken. There was no one there.
It spoke a second time; she looked around.
“How can this be?” she asked the vacant air.
Once more it spoke, yet there was not a sound.
She paused again; her answer in her mind.

In thirty years and three, her words would find
an echo: “Not my will, but thine be done,”
said in another garden by her son,
while three friends slept.
                           So here none heard her words —
except an angel, a high flight of birds,
and three neat rows of cummin, mint, and dill:
“Be it to me according to thy will.”

April 7, 1989
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

This poem first appeared in print on the cover of The Living Church in 1993, and on this blog in 2006. The image is a watercolor and pencil sketch after Rafaello, executed in Lent this year, which I've called "Blue Madonna."

The Green Blade Riseth

It is hardly considered unusual for a Christian to believe in miracles, and what I experienced this past week has no elements of the supernatural about it. But it had the effect of a miracle, which is to say, it increased my faith, and lifted my heart.

Last year after our Eastertide celebrations, the Altar Guild and I moved all the many potted hyacinths and tulips and lilies off of the high and side altars where they had been arranged into the old unused upper parish hall — a large room that over the years had become mostly a storage space as it was in no condition to be used for much else — the heat having been cut off a few years ago. My goal was to let the plants dry out over the summer and then remove the bulbs in the fall and plant them outdoors. Well, things tending to gang agley, and other matters arising, I never got around to harvesting and planting.

Last month, however, a decision was made to start a Montessori school for young children in the old hall, which requires significant renovation before it can be used. The first thing that had to happen was spring cleaning-out of all of the various things that had accumulated there — including a lovely bishop’s chair which is now repaired and sitting in our sanctuary where it belongs.

I went into the old hall prepared to pack up all of the dead dry plastic-potted plants when what to my wondering eyes should appear but a number of fresh green sprouts, and in a few cases some actual blooming pink and purple hyacinths! There must have been enough residual moisture, and the unheated space cool enough, and enough light coming in through the large stained-glass window for the bulbs to survive the winter and begin to come to life.

I’m happy to report that about two thirds of the bulbs emerged, and they are now freshly watered and arranged on the side altars. Blessed Eastertide!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Note to Dolan

Marriage need not be defended against those who wish to marry. Marriage needs to be defended against those who prevent others marrying.

—Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG