Culture of Belief

I have no difficulty with people who ardently believe — or who ardently deny, for that matter — propositions that are incapable of proof or for which evidence is either scant or absent; to wit, that God is (though perhaps in some manner rather different from how things are). But what makes me wonder sometimes about the human race is the capacity to cling to beliefs or denials about which there is more than enough actual evidence, and in some cases incontrovertible proof, to the contrary.

This seems to be a malady that is aggravated by the closing chapters of the current political season. One can easily witness people, who by all accounts appear to be rational, fervently espousing propositions that are little more than nonsense, plainly false, proven to be false, and yet clutched to the breast like a life-preserver in a flood. Whether it is birth certificates or climate change, the abiding power of money to trickle down as of its own accord, the omnicompetence of states to solve all human ills by the mere redistribution of said money, or the marvelous capacity of women’s bodies to fend off microscopic cells even if unable to fend off the body of their larger host — ideologies corrupt the ability to perceive evidence and reach rational conclusions.

My principal fear as we slouch toward the November elections is that the common sense of the vast number of the people will be eroded by the vast stupidity of a few of the people. And I begin to fear that there is more stupidity than I suspected. Or more who are simply lying. That's always a possibility, though I'd like to believe otherwise, as little comfort as I take from thinking more people are stupid than are liars.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The More Things Change

As England continues to debate the question of marriage equality, the Church of England, or at least a "spokesman" for it (according to press reports, summarized at Thinking Anglicans) continue to complain that such a change in the marriage law will necessitate changing the definition of marriage for everyone.

This is far from true. Marriage is an estate or manner of life, not a definition. What is changing is a matter of eligibility and capacity to marry, permitting couples who formerly were not able to marry to do so. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is a change, but not a change that will have significant effect upon anyone married at present, or on any future mixed-sex couples. The only conceivable change that might have any impact on a very small minority of people would be in changing the current English definitions of consummation and the grounds for adultery — which will only concern those seeking to nullify or terminate their marriages; in short, those trying to get out of the estate, not those who choose to remain in it. (And isn't it about time to recognize that same-sex sex is sex, and that a man married to a woman who has an erotic affair with another man is guilty of adultery rather than "unreasonable conduct?" Jesus, after all, noted that the eye and the mind could be instruments of adultery, so the more "dishonorable parts" ought to be capable of just as much, and perhaps more obvious, infidelity, regardless of how specifically employed.)

Think of two analogies in legal change: expanding the voting franchise to include women did not take the vote away from men. But lowering the speed limit affects all who drive. Marriage equality is clearly more like the former than the latter. It is a change, but not a change that need concern those who will be unaffected by it.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 08.21.12

God has written something of the Truth on every human heart, but none can read the text upon their own. So God has given us each other, so that we may read the truth upon each others’ hearts, and come to know God's Truth beyond ourselves.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
a word that came to me in a dream last night

Seen and Heard

Finally got around to watching Margarethe von Trotta’s film on the life of Hildegard of Bingen, which has been languishing in the hermitage of my Netflix queue for several liturgial seasons. I’m not sure what took me so long; perhaps I thought it would be a pious and tedious tract. On the contrary it is a rather entertaining portrait of an extraordinary woman — extraordinary in her own day, and likely any day up until the present, and perhaps even now.

The atmosphere captures the era well, though things do seem a bit tidier than they likely were. The several books that make their appearances look just a bit too much like modern books, but that is a minor point. Friedrich Barbarossa wearing what appears to be a dalmatic or tunicle in his rec room seemed a bit more odd. But such items were transient distractions. There is much wonderful music in the film, as would be expected. But one would have appreciated, in a film with this title, a bit more focus on the illuminations of the famed visions.

But the main attraction is the interaction of the characters — and anyone who thinks that politics is new to the church ought to check out the interplay of abbots, bishops, archbishops, popes, Margravines, and even the odd would-be-emperor, with whom good Hildegard has to deal as she stakes out a patch to live out her vision. She is not portrayed as a plaster saint — far from it — but as a brilliant, charismatic visionary, subject to the same human perils of particular friendship, and the attendant presence of the Green Eyed Monster who looms periodically and occasionally steps into the foreground. The human drama is set against a spiritual and ecclesiastical tug-og-war, and while low-key for the most part, it is quite compelling.

Performances are good without exception. Barbara Sukowa captures Hildegard’s ambiguities and ambitions well;  Heino Ferch is sympathetic as the priest / counselor to the sisters; Hannah Herzsprung serves well as the cause of much envy, and Lena Stolz as its victim and exponenet.

My score: 8 out of 10. Well worth seeing.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

A Fallacy That Will Not Die

Once again — how many times has this come up? — it is being asserted widely that the reason only mixed-sex couples can marry is that only they are “inherently” capable of procreation. This is not only false, but a fallacy.

First, though, let it be acknowledged that the state, and for what it is worth, many religions, do hold that procreation ought to take place within the context of marriage, thereby implicitly recognizing the sadly obvious fact that marriage is not essential to procreation. However, as soon as this is said, it also has to be recognized that the converse is equally true and obvious: that neither the state, nor most religions, require procreation of married couples. Some religious groups insist that couples at least attempt procreation, but the bearing of children is, for most states and most faiths, a positive outcome and not a requirement. Making the institution of marriage depend on what is essentially a contingency robs it of relation to what in fact constitutes the marriage, which is the mutual consent to life together.

In short, it is not the bearing of children that “makes” the marriage a marriage. As long ago as the 17th century, the eminent Scottish jurist James Dalrymple, the Viscount Stair, wrote in his Institutions of the Law of Scotland,

It is not the consent of Marriage as it relateth to the procreation of Children that is requisite; for it may consist, though the Woman be far beyond that date; but it is the consent, whereby ariseth that Conjugal Society, which may have the conjunction of Bodies as well as of Minds, as the general end of the Institution of Marriage, is the solace and satisfaction of Man. For the Lord saw that it was not fit for him to be alone, and therefore made a help meet for him: Yet though this capacity should never be actuat, as if persons, both capable, should after Marriage live together, and it should be known and acknowledged that they did abstain, yet were the Marriage valid, as to the Conjugal Rights on either part. (I.iv.6)

However, we then come to the fallacious belief that any given mixed-sex couple are somehow “inherently” capable of procreation, while same-sex couples never are. First of all, the obvious truth is that it takes two to dance the procreative tango — and both must be, individually as well as jointly, capable of procreation, in order for procreation to happen. The marriage of a couple consisting of one member of each sex does not have any "inherent" capacity to procreation, solely on the basis of their sex. Such a couple either has "actual" capacity for procreation or it doesn't.

So let me sketch this out in simpler terms. The “traditionalists” appear to be arguing thus:

a. Male and female are required for procreation
b. Marriage requires procreation, therefore
c. Marriage requires male and female.

I hope you can see the syllogism follows, but only if (b) is accepted as true. However, in fact its contrary is true. As it stands (b) is not acceptable to most states or faiths — any more than same-sex marriage is acceptable to most states and faiths. So those who frame the argument in this way are employing a premise they do not in fact accept to reach a conclusion they desire.

Let’s look at it another way:

a. A couple including a person of each sex, each of whom is capable of procreation has an inherent capacity to procreate as a couple.
a(1). This means that the inability of either or both members of the couple to procreate prevents the couple from procreation.
b. The inability to procreate is not grounds for forbidding marriage, or dissolving marriage.
b(1). This means that those who wish to prohibit same-sex marriage on the grounds of incapacity to procreate need to come up with a better argument.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Indaba: Do!

Here is a news story about the Continuing Indaba and Mutual Listening Process, with which I've been involved as a member of the Reference Group. Watch the videos, too.

This is a hopeful future for the Anglican Communion, a way that rests on building consequential relationships rather than invoking "relational consequences."

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Nothing from Nothing

A miracle on the North Side of Pittsburgh -- a sermon for Proper 12b

Proper 12b • SJF • Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what is that among so many?” Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.”

In the opening scene of Shakespeare’s King Lear the old king is trying to urge compliments from his daughters in return for their getting a share of the kingdom from which he is choosing to retire — very unwisely as it turns out. Two of the daughters are lavish in their flattery — the ones who, as it will turn out, really despise their father and hold the old man in contempt, and eventually conspire to dispossess him completely. But the youngest, Cordelia, who truly loves the old king, is also determined to be honest with him and not hand him a platter full of false flattery. She knows that her love is richer than her tongue. When Lear coaxes her as her turn comes up, “What can you say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters?” The honest daughter responds simply, “Nothing, my Lord.” Lear then warns her that “Nothing will come of nothing.” And so the tragedy begins, as the foolish king imagines that his loving daughter does not love him.

We’ve seen in recent weeks, how it is that old King Lear might have had experience on his side. It is true that nothing comes from nothing. If you want to grow a tree, you need a cutting or a seed. If you want to build a building, you need stone and mortar.

+ + +

The pairing of the reading from the Second Book of the Kings with today’s Gospel from John is new to our cycle of Scripture readings. No doubt the editors of this lectionary wanted to highlight the fact that Jesus was acting after the manner of one of the prophets of old when he fed the multitude. What is more important to me about both of these passages concerning miraculous feedings is that they start with some food — twenty loaves of bread in one case, and fiveloaves of barley bread and two fish in the other — and it is from these scant resources that the multitude is fed. Nothing, in this case, comes of nothing, but something from something: both Elisha and Jesus take a small amount of food and they feed many with it.

So this is not a miracle like that of the manna in the wilderness, where bread miraculously simply raided from heaven. Jesus — as I hope you’ve noticed — prefers not to work that kind of miracle. As you may recall, he rejected the devil’s temptation to turn stones into bread. No, he takes five loaves and two fish — which the apostle Andrew recognizes is not enough to feed five thousand people, as anyone would realize — and somehow that food stretches, not only to feed and satisfy that crowd of thousands, but to leave twelve baskets full of leftovers. Nothing comes of nothing, but a great deal can come from something, with the power of God at work.

+ + +

A priest friend of mine, Gene White — who I’m sad to say died young almost twenty years ago from a rare form of cancer — once told me about an experience he had while in seminary in Pittsburgh. This was some years ago, as you’ll soon be able to tell. Every seminarian studying for ministry had to learn what it was like to be homeless for at least one night. They were each given a dime to make a phone call in case they got truly desperate — a dime, so now you know how long ago this was! Not only could you make a call for a dime, but there were actually phones on the street where you could make a call.

Gene came from a respectable middle class background, and was at a significant loss as to what to do with himself. With only a dime there was no place to go to, no food he could afford, even in those days when a dime went a lot further than it does today. He was hungry and thirsty, lonely and miserable. Finally he gravitated to the public park and took a seat on a park bench. No doubt he’d seen many homeless or impoverished persons do just that, so I suppose he thought that was how you do it, this is what you do when you are homeless: you go to a park and you sit on a bench. He was naturally reluctant to approach anyone to ask for help — he had never had to ask for help in his whole life — and so he just sat, praying, hard, that something might happen to get him out of this terrible situation.

Well, his prayer was answered, but in a way he never imagined. A middle-aged day laborer in dusty work-clothes happened to come by, and noticed him, and no doubt saw how miserable this young man was, sitting there on a park bench by himself, with his head bowed. He approached Gene and asked if he needed help. Gene could see that the man was not likely to have any money to give him, but simply said that he was hungry, and didn’t have any place to stay. It took a lot for him to swallow his pride and his upbringing to say those words. The man nodded and said that if Gene liked he could come home with him to have supper with his family.

Gene brightened up at the prospect, hungry as he was, and went along willingly. They walked a good while into the poorer part of town on the North Side — and if you know Pittsburgh you know it’s got some pretty poor parts. The man turned in at the gate of a run-
down house, its front yard littered with odds and ends, spare parts of cars and washing machines. Three or four young children were playing in the dust around these relics of appliances, but they jumped up when they saw their father arrive, and they ran to him and they hung off his dusty work-clothes until the man carried them all inside, and beckoned to Gene to follow.

The man called out to his wife in the kitchen, saying that there’d be one more for supper. She called back, “That’s fine; the Lord will provide.” She came to the door of the kitchen, wiping her hands on her apron — remember aprons? — and waved hello to the guest. The man invited him to sit on the ratty sofa and wait for supper. They chatted for a while, and then after a little bit the family gathered around the Formica-topped kitchen table. There were places set for all and an extra one for Gene. The china didn’t match; neither did the knives and forks; but that was O.K. The father bowed his head and the family did the same. “For what we are about to receive, Lord Jesus, give us grateful hearts. Amen.”

It was only when the meal was served that Gene realized just how costly this grace was. For what the mother set before the family and the guest was half a loaf of Wonder Bread fried in Mazola Oil. Gene never forgot the sparkling eyes of those little children looking up at him and grinning as they relished this feast of bread fried in oil. And he never forgot the generosity of that family, willing to share that half-a-loaf of Wonder Bread and that bit of oil. They did not feed a multitude that night — except the countless throngs of angels that gathered round that house and savored the rich taste of pure grace and charity.

+ + +

Nothing comes of nothing. If we are not willing to offer what we have — however modest it may be, however small and unlikely to satisfy, however little it may seem among so many — then nothing will come of it. But if each of us offers that little, that little of what we have, then we will find that there is more than we expected. Nothing comes of nothing, but great things can come from small things, when those small things are dedicated to God and to God’s glory, blessed and sanctified with prayer for God’s purposes. So let us then give of ourselves, dedicating our small gifts to God’s service, with grateful hearts. Who knows how many they will feed, both in body and in spirit, when we give them with open hands, and in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

---

Of Church, Decline, and Culture

There has been a lot of statistic-tossing back and forth about the decline of the Mainline Churches in the US, in particular in comparison with such entities as the Southern Baptist Convention. That there has been decline is evident; but the efforts at showing causality seem to me to be hampered by a failure to recognized the differences in culture geographically. When you average things across the whole United States, you tend to miss some important factors.

This might reflect something of the phenomenon of entropy: there is a gradual winding down of things and increasing disorder, yet even while that happens there are “islands” of increasing ordered complexity. So too there may well be islands of growth amidst an over-all trend towards diminishment.

For example, churchgoing is a cultural reality that has been maintained in the South better than in the North. Since the South is a stronghold of the Southern Baptists (duh!) It might make more sense to compare them, and their growth (or decline, as I understand it) with that of dioceses, presbyteries and synods of the mainline churches in those same regions. I know when I was in Memphis two years back I saw a level of churchgoing in all sorts of churches that many in the North would envy. Averaging what is essentially a cultural/regional phenomenon over the whole country is not going to give an accurate picture.

As John Chilton noted in a conversation at the Episcopal Café, you could say the same thing about bowling. It might be helpful to take a look at all sorts of cultural realities and compare their decline and geographic distribution since the 1950s. Is it only the churches that have changed? What about bowling? How has that institution and social phenomenon thrived or declined, and is it tenpins, duckpins or candlepins? What is the most successful “sect” in the realm of Bowlingdom?

The rise and fall of the Drive-In Movie might also make for a good analysis, or even the Cinema itself. Does the rise of the Multiplex reflect the rise of the Megachurch, and for similar reasons? And what relevance does the death of the art house or the neighborhood movie theater have for the plight of small and dwindling churches? In a more mobile culture, perhaps the message to the church is to consolidate the many small neighborhood or village churches into larger and more well-supported few churches — with ample parking!

Context and culture and geography are not lightly to be neglected when seeking to understand social phenomena — of which churchgoing is but one. And distinguishing causality from coincidence is also helpful.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

What Marriage Is For

I've been working off and on on an essay on the question of "companionate marriage" which some (mostly those who oppose same-sex marriage) assert is a modern invention; i.e., that marriage was always about property and inheritance until the 19th century sometime, or even later. I hope to post the whole thing at some point, but want to flag the topic here because it came up in the comment strand of the previous post.

This false impression that marriage was all about property and money arises in part from recourse to legal history. Naturally legal history focuses on such things as property and inheritance --- but people are people, and have been for millennia; and there is ample evidence that people felt the same sorts of emotional bonds in earlier times, and married for those reasons, apart from whatever legal forms were at issue. The focus of history on the dynastic woes of people such as Henry VIII notwithstanding, even the dynasts had their affections and preferences, even if they were not the most successful in maintaining faithful marriages. I guess we can at least credit Henry with the "one-man six-women" model, in addition to the liaisons that gave rise to a number of Fitzroys.

However, to get back to love as a basis for marriage, in addition to the contrast that Genesis 1 presents with Genesis 2 (the first chapter about progeny, the second about a suitable companion for the whole of life) another touching example of this is the story of Elkanah, who declares that he loves his wife Hannah in spite of her apparent infertility. (1 Samuel 1) It is true he takes a second wife in order to have children (thus compliant with the law’s demand to be fruitful and multiply) — but his love is testimony to that human quality that no law can completely govern or define: the mystery of human love, one for another, not for what can come out of the relationship — whether property, children, or security — but for what goes into it. A good marriage is not a means to extrinsic ends, but a union of two persons who have come to see their end in each other.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Scots for Marriage Equality

News is out that Scotland may become the first portion of the United Kingdom to adopt marriage equality, the BBC reports. When I heard the news I did a quick Google on "Scotland marriage" and was introduced to a website with an appeal for a petition against allowing for same-sex marriage. This site (which I won't reference, but which you can find as easily as I did) provides the same tired old lies as its rationale for opposing this development.

• Marriage is for one man and one woman  — well, that is one form of marriage, but it is clearly not the only one; to wit:
• This will lead to polygamy — polygamy was the other most popular form of marriage; the point being, of course, that it was and is predominantly heterosexual. It only took a few generations and less than a handful of chapters to get from Adam to Lamech (Gen 4:19) If anything led to polygamy it was heterosexual marriage!
• People will be silenced if they disagree — as long as discourse is civil, people will be free to speak. That there is protection from hateful or inflammatory speech is part of the cost of living in a civil society. All proposed laws give ample protection to religious institutions that do not wish to perform marriages of which their religion disapproves. (Is anyone forced to marry legally divorced people in church if their church does not believe in divorce?)
• This should be a matter of popular referendum — it is a basic principle of social rule that rights are not to be legislated simply on the basis of popular opinion, but on the basis of demonstrable harm or benefit.

The good news is that the longer people keep making phoney arguments, the sooner things will change.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Taking a Constitutional

Prior to the recently ended session of the General Convention, a few fringe voices had been raised contesting the constitutionality of provisions of Title IV of the Canons. Since the Convention, similar, if not identical, voices have been raised questioning the constitutionality of the liturgy for the blessing of a same-sex covenanted relationship.

Let me address the latter first. The bulk of Article X refers to alterations of and additions to the Book of Common Prayer, and for authorization of trial use to that end. The explicit proviso at the end of the Article allows the Bishops to take order for other forms in accordance with the rubrics -- the principal of which is the rubric on page 13, which deals with the question of additional rites directly.

In addition to [the Daily Office and Holy Eucharist] and the other rites contained in this Book, other forms set forth by authority within this Church may be used.

This includes the Book of Occasional Services, Lesser Feasts and Fasts, and more recent supplementary liturgical material such as those in the Enriching our Worship series. It also includes the liturgy approved at this past Convention by an overwhelming majority in both Houses, for the blessing of a life-long covenant. This liturgy is not in conflict with the BCP, any more than a liturgy for the blessing of a battleship would be. The fact that the BCP does not refer to such blessings is not in itself a limiting factor, nor does this blessing liturgy in any way conflict with or alter the forms in the BCP. It is a supplemental rite making provision for something the BCP does not address -- which is the nature of a supplement. By Constitutional definition, the limit upon authorized rites is respected, and with the proviso of local episcopal approval, these rites may be used as of authority in this church, equally as much as the rites I have enumerated above. Some bishops will decline or refuse to permit the use of this new rite -- this is what renders it provisional, and they will be within their competence to act in this way.

Questions of constitutionality have been referred to the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons. In the past they have been reluctant to rule on Constitutionality as beyond the ambit of their role, but in accordance with Canon I.1.2.n.3.v they have by resolution C116 been charged to take up the question. The opinions of canon lawyers (and others) on both sides will no doubt be considered in their deliberations.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Stations of a Different Cross

V. Her tears run down her cheeks.
R. And she has none to comfort her.
— from the 13th Station

I visited the 9/11 Memorial in lower Manhattan today, set on the footprint of the fallen towers. I'd not been there since the time I spent as a volunteer chaplain at St Paul's Chapel. The memorial is profoundly moving, in an appropriately secular way. But I could not help but think that this monument will serve as a kind of civic Way of the Cross to memorialize a great tragedy that befell this city, and the fields of Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. Grief washes down into those dark shadowed pits, as the old Anglo-Saxon lament put it, "under night-helm." This morning's Hebrew Scripture reading at Morning Prayer told of the reaction of the people to the punishment of Dathan, Abiram and Korah, when they and their families went alive down into Sheol. Anger is not the best response to wrong, even great wrong. Anger continues to wound. Grief can heal.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Sex and Civilization

In spite of the efforts of some to insist that heterosexual marriage is the cornerstone of civilization, people of the same sex, committed to each other for life, and very often with the blessing of the church, have also made significant contributions to civilization. I’m referring, in case you haven’t guessed, to the religious orders. Renouncing procreation, these monosexual bands of committed persons saw the West through the rough times of the dark ages, preserved the wisdom of the past in their libraries and scriptoria, and in their industriousness — and I’m thinking in particular of the Cistercians here — moved into unsettled frontier territory and established outposts that would form the core of new cities.

I was reminded of this by a radio interview this morning with the monastic casket makers in Louisiana who are fighting the funeral lobby to be allowed to manufacture simple wooden caskets. I wish them well in their efforts to persevere.

Now, some might say, well this is a silly issue. No one would suggest that monastic life was morally questionable simply because it is monosexual. To even bring it up in the same breath as same-sex marriage is unthinkable.

Well, think again, or for the first time. For no one less than the venerable Karl Barth, in his tirade against same-sexuality and idolization of heterosexuality, did precisely that. Clearly he was operating out of his own homophobia, and not a small amount of Reformed Protestant anti-Romanism, but here is what he said:

Everything which points in the direction of male or female seclusion, or of religious or secular orders or communities... is obviously disobedience. All due respect to the comradeship of a company of soldiers! But neither men nor women can seriously wish to be alone, as in clubs and ladies’ circles. Who commands or permits them to run away from each other? That such an attitude is all wrong is shown symptomatically in the fact that every artificially induced and maintained isolation of the sexes tends as such — usually very quickly and certainly morosely and blindly — to become philistinish in the case of men and precious in that of women, and in both cases more or less inhuman. It is well to pay heed even to the first steps in this direction. (Church Dogmatics III/4)

Here is the ripe fullness of complacent and self-satisfied bigotry, ad hominem assertions, largely baseless, including the tendency specifically to “dehumanize.” It is good to know that late in life Barth eventually rethought some of this — too late to pen a full retraction, but only to express regret both for what he said and the lack of time to correct it.

Moral: Better to avoid offense than to need express regret.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Storms and Structure

First, an observation on yesterday’s Gospel: the disciples rock the boat as much as the storm and they forget that Jesus’ presence with them, even sleeping, should be a blessed assurance through the storm and the night.

Second, application: it seems to me that a kind of manic panic has set in at the governing level of our church. From an Executive Council that doesn’t have the time to discuss important issues and frame a coherent budget, to battling proposals that seem more intent on the deck chair arrangement than on the reported mishap down below -- or is it on the bridge? -- and focus only on what is happening at 815 or GC sessions instead of the life of the church in its growing edges and root-tips; we seem to forget that though the church is not immune to the realities of politics and polity, that is not its primary goal or mode of living and working.

So my appeal, brothers and sisters, is that of Jesus, “Peace, be still.” Most importantly, can we focus on actual proposals and legislation free from any attributions of motive or power-play, and judge them on their merits? Could we take a breath , count to ten, and refocus our attention from the ad hominem to the substance of the tasks actually at hand, with less of a sense of urgency and panic and apocalyptic? Think for a moment about just how much the decisions on the budget, and the resolutions of General Convention will touch your parish, or your ministry, for good or ill. Stop trying to solve all the problems and save the world. Jesus did that already. He is asleep in the stern. We can do our part to assist in that ministry and mission, but our efficiency at that task is seriously encumbered by panic and busyness that accomplishes little work. Can we begin by trusting each other rather than assuming the worst? Can we approach our work as colleagues rather than as adversaries?

On the other hand...

I think we are right not to trust “the institution.” It is in the institution that the powers and principalities lurk — as the late, great Walter Wink reminded us. Whatever ill lies in human hearts — even the ill that persuades us its intentions are good — is amplified by the institution.

My suggestion is that we trust each other, or at the very least start from a position of assuming good intentions. And even at that, I think the wise words, “Trust, but verify,” ring true. I by no means intend that we should curtail the debate — just that we should be debating the actual issues, not the personalities or alleged agendas of those who advance one position or another.

That being said, there are the practical problems of our system, and this is where some restructuring is in order. I’ve been around long enough to remember when Executive Council was blind-sided and manipulated in the financial area much to our corporate detriment.

So I think another wise saying is apposite: Measure twice, cut once. We seem instead to have a proliferation of budget cuts being proposed, but some very dicey measurements on which to base them, particularly on the income side. I would not want to live in a house constructed on such a regimen.

One of my concerns is that the Executive Council has too many committees that seem to me to duplicate the work of a number of the standing committees and commissions of the church. This takes them away from their principal work, which I regard as being the Board of Directors of the corporation arm of The Episcopal Church. As a practical matter, as I look at restructuring, this is an area ripe for change. This goes against the proposal to do away with the other committees and commissions or trim them back and let Executive Council do more. I think that is a mistake. I’d be very happy to see the Executive Council focus on administration and let the other busy bodies concentrate more on Mission and Ministry issues. It seems to me that’s what a wise Board of Directors would do.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

On the Eve of John the Baptist in Pride Month

There is a poignancy in celebrating the feast of John the Baptist in "Pride Month." John is clearly an example of the proper kind of pride — the kind that stands up for the right, not based on his own being who he is but because of whose he is.

Our theosis is the reason for Christ's kenosis, the response to his versicle, our filling up and raising up by his emptying out and condescension. We are baptized with him in a death like his, which makes us "worthy to stand" in God's presence and live a life like his, living, in fact, with his life — for there is, in the end, no other life. This is the "pride" of deep engagement with who you are in the world as it is, our little share of the great I AM, shared with us adopted orphans, fostered into the Father's care by our Brother's gift of himself. The thought is ironically humbling, but I think that's the point. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and even more fearfully and wonderfully redeemed.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Impeded Marriages

For those who have difficulty grasping the difference between civil and church marriage in the U.K. Government's presentation on same-sex marriage, it is helpful perhaps to frame the divorce question in the terms in which it is applied to marriage.

"Being unmarried" (whether by virtue of never having been married, or through widowhood, an annulment or legal divorce, is a  "necessary condition" for each party entering into a legal marriage. Up until this point in the U.K., so has the mixed gender of the couple — though this interestingly enough is a quality not of each member of the couple but of the couple as couple.

That being said, the Church makes distinctions concerning which divorces it recognizes -- if, as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it recognizes them at all. There is no legal difference between marriages officiated by the state or the church; but there are some marriages the church will not recognize that the state will, on the grounds of other living spouses.

That is the difference the Government is attempting to point to, and it seems obvious that the church's legitimate choice to refuse to recognize some marriages does in fact create or reify this difference.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

UPDATE; It seems part of the English confusion lies in the fact that marriage can mean both a rite and an estate.

The issue for the church is in solemnizing marriages of which it might not approve; and the church is at present free to refuse to solemnize some marriages that can be solemnized under the civil law, as in the case of divorced person, where the church has discretion to refuse to solemnize the marriage.

As far as I know the legal status of “being married” does not confer any ecclesiastical rights or entail any responsibilities. The church therefore has no interest in distinguishing between a married or an unmarried couple; or married or unmarried individuals; I think we are long past the days when a person who was divorced and had a civil marriage might risk excommunication as scandalous to the community. It is only the rite of marriage that is at issue.

So the confusion here seems to be the use of marriage both for the estate and the rite. It is the rite that is at issue for the church. The civil law proposed is affirming that the church will not have to make the rite available to couples it deems incapable of marriage — just as it does now with [some] divorced persons.

Civil and church marriage will still have the same legal statue, as an estate, but the church can and will be able to reject some couples as unmarriageble under its rites. There is no separate "species" or estates of marriage, but there are civil marriage ceremonies and church marriage ceremonies, and some people eligible for the former are, and will be (likely for some time)  ineligible for the latter, on objective and legally cognizable grounds.

TSH

Further on the Rejected Marriage Proposal

I commented below on the Church of England's response to the Government's proposal for marriage equality. I neglected to note that among the many flaws in the C of E document (sorry Church Times, you too are wrong on this, in your otherwise eloquent debunking of the church statement) is the assertion that there is no difference between church and secular marriage. I can point to any number of books on my shelf of books on marriage and matrimonial institutions that show the teaching of the Christian church at least until recent times as declaring that the marriage of non-Christians is not "marriage" at all — or at least not Christian marriage. How could it be?! Scripture also shows, in Paul's permission to married non-Christians to divorce, that he regarded pagan or secular marriage as distinctly different from the marriage of Christiana. All this aside from those churches that teach that the nuptial blessing, or the church's role, is an essential part of what makes a marriage a marriage in the fullest sense.

Any effort to create a single all-encompassing definition of marriage cannot be successful without significant qualification and many words, e.g., "one man and one woman, unrelated by blood or affinity, of the age of consent, with consent freely given, with no other living (or in some traditions, dead) spouse, etc., etc." Marriage is, in short, far more complex than a simple formula can compass. That's why I have a half-shelf of books on the subject!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
with another tip of the biretta to Thinking Anglicans

Church of England Disses Marriage Proposals

The Church of England has issued a statement in response to the British Government proposal to recognize same-sex marriage. The document is a particularly disappointing rehash of the same defective anthropology and circular reasoning to which we have become accustomed on this issue. For example, the paper asserts:

Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.

The authors hammer away on the alleged "complementarity" of the sexes as a necessary component of marriage without apparently recognizing either the circular nature of that argument or the dangerous tendency towards Christological heresy inherent in its anthropology. The circular nature of the argument is: “Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman are of different sexes.” This is, of course, merely restating the premise. The more dangerous, and heretical, trend of this argument lies in the suggestion that the sex difference implies a different order of being for men and women. This is known as sexism, and it undercuts the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. One would think the church might be more sensitive to that issue, though one wonders how many English bishops actually believe the doctrine.

The other problem, of course, lies in the mistaken assertion(s) of intrinsic universality -- if, even, universality of something means it is either necessary or good. However, in this short paragraph alone there are several imputations of universality that do not bear up. Polygamous, polyandrous, and group marriages have existed in various cultures down through history, so the assertion of an intrinsic natural monogamy will not stand. The utilitarian approach — asserting some social benefit on the basis of the complementarity of the sexes — also will not stand. Even if there were a real complementarity to the sexes, it is not evident how that in itself benefits society. To take the more obvious reality of procreation, surely that is a mixed benefit to society, as an excess of it can have negative consequences on a society. Nor is procreation intrinsically connected with marriage, but rather with biology. Procreation outside of marriage, and marriage without progeny both exist as relatively common realities. There is no intrinsic connection. The paper is trying to argue that their “should” derives from an “is” — and the “is” is not true in this case. The real assertion here is that it is best that procreation take place within marriage. That is, at least, an arguable point, but it has no bearing on the question of same-sex marriage, any more than it has on an infertile marriage. But procreation in itself is not a virtue, even if procreation within marriage is. Mutuality and fidelity, as virtues, are at least recognizable as such, but are also shared by all good marriages, same- and mixed-sex. Arguing from universals that are not universal makes little sense: look instead for virtue where it actually exists.

The paper also includes this statement:

We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.

Well, my position is that imposing for essentially ideological reasons an old meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.

There is an old saying that one who marries the spirit of the age will soon be a widower. The fact that the Church of England was wed to the spirit of a past age, and is now a widower to it, is becoming apparent. Age is no certification of rightness or goodness. Theses must be tested by their consistency with reality, not on the basis of an ideology that can find no better argument than the continued hammering on the same self-ratifying premise.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
h/t Thinking Anglican

Thought for 06.11.12

The argument that the physical embodiment of the sexes is morally determinative for marriage is identical in form and substance to the argument that the physical embodiment of the races is morally determinative for slavery.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Prospero’s Island: Fantasy for Orchestra

Images from the 1976 National Parks Service production of The Tempest, outdoors on tour of the parks in the DC area, including battlefields and the Ellipse opposite the White House. The accompanying music is a composition I wrote in the late 70s, realized here by our friends at Garritan. The cast of the play included Tony Tanner (Prospero), who also directed, myself as Ariel (complete with peach jumpsuit), Sara Rice as Miranda, Richard Niles as her love interest, Richard Lupino as the tipsy mariner, and Jon Polito as Caliban. It was an interesting summer of '76!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG