Open Letter to the Diocese of South Carolina

    After several people from around the church objected to proposed actions about to be taken at the Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina, Kendall Harmon, the Canon Theologian for that diocese asked this of me and others: "Why don't you all read the bishops address and see what he really said?" This is where you will find that address:
http://www.dioceseofsc.org/lawrence_mark_convention_address_10_24_09.pdf

My response to Canon Harmon and the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina:
    I have read Bishop Lawrence's address to your convention and find it repeatedly marked by untruths (whether intentional or not), misunderstandings, misstatements and ignorance of the issues he references. On the whole I believe it represents a betrayal of trust towards the people entrusted to him by General Convention.
           Let me be specific. First, when he talks about my and others' "false understanding of the Christian faith" which is "founded upon human speculation rather than divine revelation" he does not know what he is talking about. There is no revelation separate from human experience and discernment. Neither Bishop Lawrence nor his Canon Theologian has an inside track on some Gnostic sort of revelation unknown to the rest of us. It would be interesting to hear about Bishop Lawrence's theory of direct revelation unaffected by human experience, intellect or judgment – such a theory would be an innovation of the first order.
           Second, what he attacks as "the Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity" actually predates his ordination. That Gospel goes back to Jesus' Parable of the Marriage Feast in which Jesus points us beyond our notions of the chosen to two different levels of the excluded. That teaching runs through several of Jesus' parables (available on request). It is also reflected in his actions and in his other teaching. The Gospel he attacks has also been dominant through history, beginning with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Book of Acts and later with such indiscriminate inclusions of Blacks, women and now gay and lesbian people. What is disturbing – and foreign to the teaching of our Lord -- is his Gospel of Discriminate Exclusivity (which, conveniently or not, matches his own proclivities).
           Third, he seems to claim that traditional teaching about Grace, Unconditional Love and God's preferential love for the poor and marginalized have somehow challenged "the doctrine of The Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the Authority of Scripture, our understanding of Baptism and. .our Constitution and Canons." Where have Lawrence, Harmon and their advisors been when our PB has painstakingly clarified and corrected the incessant and almost instantaneous distortions of her sermons and speeches by the right? Where did they learn there is one and only one understanding of the authority of Scripture? One which, ironically, is closer to that of the Southern Baptists than traditional Anglicanism. As I noted in my "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church" (found on this blog), the real threat to our traditional understandings of the Trinity, the Universality of Christ, the Authority of Scripture and our Sacramental Theology comes from the self-styled "orthodox," themselves.
           I am one of the least of many, many pastors, lay people and theologians who have shown why tradition, Scripture and reason do not support the bishop's claims.  Does he not read anyone outside his own perspective?  
           His charge that "TEC was moving inexorably in what seemed an increasingly unbiblical direction" is the precise charge made by the pro-slavery people in the church against the abolitionists. I do not believe or infer that Mark Lawrence is a racist, but the similarity of arguments and claims should bother him.

I believe the last piece of his address is so wrong it is beyond laughable – and I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone.  To quote, "When some were taking radical actions, disregarding the creeds and the canons, the defenders of orthodoxy were gentleman (sic) still fighting according to Marques of Queensbury rules. Those pushing the agenda were more like street-fighters."  What is there to compare to the libelous and scurrilous attacks of the DVD "Choose This Day" which was produced to undermine the trust of faithful Episcopalians in their church? Do you remember the language of that production, funded and produced by the people you and your bishop hold up as heroes of civility and fairness? Do "counterfeit religion," "enemies of Christ," "the church has been hijacked," "a foreign and alien and pagan religion," "a non-Christian religion" ring any bells? How about our "ignoring the cross?"  While some of the rhetoric on both sides has been harsh, nothing can compare to that still unrepudiated Trash Document "Choose This Day," followed by the on-going echoes of its irresponsible rhetoric by Bob Duncan and others.

While Bishop Lawrence's allies and others have accused those with whom they disagree as heretics and worse, I believe those so charged have consistently either defended themselves against the charges – or responded saying traditional Anglican comprehensiveness has made room for both our views. No one is pushing Kendall Harmon or Bishop Lawrence out of the Episcopal Church – there is room for both. What is asked of them is that they will cease battering others who, on the basis of our traditional understandings of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, hold a more traditional view of Christian theology and ethics.

Finally, when Bishop Lawrence charges that General Convention "has replaced a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism" he simply is terribly, terribly wrong. This claim of his is, strictly speaking, libelous as he is publicly and maliciously attacking the spiritual integrity and faithfulness of the vast majority of bishops, priests, deacons and lay people in this Church. An apology is required.
    I do not question Bishop Lawrence's devotion to our Lord, Jesus Christ or the sincerity of his beliefs. I know him to be a kind and pastoral person. I fault him on repeating slights, misunderstandings and untruths and for directing his diocese on the basis of those errors. My prayer is that he will read things like Tobias Haller's new book as well as the discussions on the more responsible blogs and websites, including Mark Harris's Preludium and others.

Response to Anonymous re: Hermeneutics, etc.

Dear Anonymous,

    First, thank you for your thoughtful response – I will try to be faithful in responding to you. I tried to post this in response to your comment, but this was too long. Others should reference your comment to the previous posting on the Seven Bishops.

    I take responsibility for not be as clear as I should have been re: Bronze Membership. I was trying to make two points. First, the assertion by some conservatives that there is only one interpretation of a key part of the Bible is outside traditional Anglicanism. To take a few instances: Luke's account of the Virgin Birth is taken by Roman Catholics as literal and thus as core doctrine – many Episcopalians agree with that interpretation and many do not, preferring either to reference the meaning of Isaiah's prophesy in which the word Luke takes as "virgin" has a preferential meaning of "young maiden" or to treat this part of the birth narratives as metaphorical (retaining the sense of the passage as asserting God's initiative in the Incarnation while leaving open one or more literal meanings of the passage). I would also cite John 14.6, which most conservatives claim is the church's assertion that there is only one way to the Father and that is through belief in Jesus Christ. There are many reputable scholars who dispute that claim on a number of reasons (including Paul's argument in Romans 8-11). A third instance has to do with the Words of Institution of the sacrament of Holy Communion. The Roman Catholics insist on a literal meaning of the words couched in Aristotelian terms, while Episcopalians have settled on the Doctrine of the Real Presence, while allowing our people to believe the literal.

Why should orthodoxy be dependent upon one of several faithful interpretations of a key element of Scripture? As I understand it, through most of the history of our church we have allowed a certain level of ambiguity in our interpretation of Scripture, while ruling some things out of bounds. To put this another way, almost all religious language is metaphorical and even while dealing with metaphorical and other language we are dealing with different texts, both of the Hebrew and Greek versions of Jewish and Christian Scripture – and within the same ancient text we are dealing with historical and cultural influences in trying to derive an accurate translation. However, the point in all this is to honor Scripture as best we can (even in its complexity and ambiguity) and to remember that the end is faith in Jesus Christ.

My second point has to do with Tradition – especially with those parts of our tradition which have defined who is in and who is out. Our tradition, until recently, has included the treatment of women as property, the Jewish religion as dispensable, the support of human slavery and the exclusion of various minorities. Most of these have been overturned by a deeper reliance on the overall meaning of Scripture and by reason and experience -- but through all this the same arguments for keeping those parts of our tradition and for discarding them have been offered again and again. It is those arguments that dominate our discussions on the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the full ministry of the Church. I believe the liberals are using the same basis for their wanting to clarify or overturn this part of the tradition as was used in dealing with slavery, the full personhood of women and the status of Judaism. It seems to me that the conservatives want to beat the dead horse over and over again.

Regarding hermeneutics: we have not begun to engage one another on this issue. I believe the various sides are working in good faith. There are problems with the authority of the Law and of the Holiness and Purity codes. There are places in Scripture where Jesus refers to their on-going authority – and other places, primarily for me in the parables, where he clearly undercuts their authority. We are still struggling with the intent and authority of various parts of John's Gospel. As I have often argued, when conservatives and liberal are struggling over our Scriptural mandates, the former refer almost exclusively to John, the latter to the Synoptics. I hold that we cannot exclude one another on the basis of a preference for one Gospel tradition over another. Those who claim orthodoxy as their sole province make a different claim.

I hope this clarifies things – even if we continue to disagree. To be clear – are you saying there is only one reliable strain in these matters or only one interpretation that is faithful?

Tom Woodward

Episcopal Institute to Meet with Seven Moderately Progressive Bishops

    The Episcopal Institute has announced its plan to meet with seven moderately progressive bishops of the Episcopal Church to respond to the current meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury and seven American bishops who have publicly expressed their dissatisfaction with the democratic process in the Episcopal Church. Each bishop will be accompanied by four priests and seventeen lay people from the representative dioceses in order to reflect the full ministry and wisdom of the Episcopal Church.

    The two sites under active consideration for the upcoming meeting are the recently dedicated Athanasius Room at the recently reclaimed Diocesan House in Fort Worth and the Starbucks located across the street from the Trinity School for Ministry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    The agenda for the consultation is consideration of several alternatives to the rumored Canterbury proposal of a "two-tiered" Anglican community. A spokesperson for the Episcopal Institute noted that "The problem here is three-fold. First, the notion of 'two tiers' is more appropriate to a football stadium than an international worshiping community. Second, if the concept of tiers is really accepted, it will not be long before we have between thirty-five and forty-seven different tiers given the nuances of a multiplicity of issues (such as human sexuality, social justice, the authority of the laity and differing styles of ecclesiastical vesture). Third, the notion of a multi-tiered Christian group has been tried before – with women, racial minorities and others – and has always proven inadequate to maintaining status quos."

    A different and more subdued spokesperson for TEI revealed that at least two different orderings of the Anglican Communion will be proposed at the upcoming meetings. The first is to divide the Anglican Communion into three different groups: PLATINUM, GOLD and BRONZE. PLATINUM membership would be those who agree with The Episcopal Institute's goals, including the full inclusion of all Baptized members in all ministries of the church. GOLD members would include those who embrace most of TEI's goals while respecting their differences with TEI as part of Anglican Comprehensiveness. BRONZE membership will be reserved for those who insist on a single interpretation (their own) of key parts of the Bible and who regard all Tradition as absolutely binding, except the parts they don't like. There will also be an additional SILVER membership category for the lay people of the Communion who wonder what the problem is because the core doctrine of the historic creeds is not at issue. SILVER members will possess all the rights, responsibilities and regard as Gold or Platinum members.

    The second proposed ordering of the Anglican Communion, favored by older members of the Institute, is the radical notion of Comprehensiveness, with differing provinces respecting the differing experience of other provinces while considering the unity of the Communion as a common belief in Jesus Christ and the decision to share with one another in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

    The Episcopal Institute has requested that attending bishops be accompanied by several clergy and lay people from their dioceses in recognition of the importance of the full ministry of the Episcopal Church.

FORGIVENESS – A Matter of Life and Death

This is a cutting from my one act play "A Matter of Life and Death." Susan, a troubled young woman, has come to a tobacco store, figuring they knew about death, to talk about her plans to commit suicide. She is talking to the clerk, Harry, who later on is easily confused with God.

Later the play takes a shocking turn as Harry, "wondering what it would be like to be God," struggles with his own guilt in the ways the world has become so evil. The inspiration for "A Matter of Life and Death" came from Jack Miles' provocative book, "Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God." Susan has just confided to Harry what she has done that, in her mind, leads her to commit suicide:

HARRY
You're right. That's bad. In fact, that's really bad; but look, I'll forgive you for $100.

SUSAN
You will forgive me for $100? Are you making fun of me?

HARRY
Am I making fun of you? No, I'm not making fun of you. I said I would forgive you for $100 and I will. And if that is making fun of you, OK. I'll forgive you for $500.

SUSAN
You'll forgive me for $500?

HARRY
Do you want to hear me say it again?

SUSAN
O God, No. I just don't understand.

HARRY
It's simple: I've got what you need - and you've got . . .

SUSAN
$500.

HARRY
The amount is not so important.

SUSAN
But you just. . . .

HARRY
I said, "The amount is not important."

SUSAN Then what is important?

HARRY That you know it doesn't come easy - that it's worth something.

SUSAN (taking some money out of her purse) Here's the $500..but what difference does it make if you forgive me?

HARRY Well, who else is there?

SUSAN The people I hurt.

HARRY
Sorry. If they forgive you - that's for them. . . not you. If they forgive you, that allows them to go one with their lives. It really has nothing to do with you.

SUSAN
Can you say that again?

HARRY Honey, I'm not sure I said anything that smart the first time.

SUSAN
Are you saying that if they forgive me - that lets them go on with their lives? But it doesn't do anything for me?

HARRY Right.

SUSAN
But that doesn't seem fair.

HARRY That doesn't seem fair?

SUSAN
No. It's not fair.

HARRY
What's not fair about it?

SUSAN
Well, for one thing, they are forgiving ME . . .but I don't get anything out of it! I'm not part of it!

HARRY Exactly!

SUSAN
I don't get it.

HARRY
Exactly! You don't get it. They can't give it to you.

Episcopal Church 1 – Prelates 0

The Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16420) is wrong and President Obama is right about the "worn attitudes" of those seeking to isolate and castigate gay and lesbian people.

 

The misinformation and pandering to fear by the right has been longstanding. GLBT people are fully human and are just as loving, caring and compassionate as those who attack them – most certainly considerably more so. I mean, give me a break -- the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not been in the forefront in talking about the mystery of human sexuality. Rather than more pronouncements they would do well to listen to people like Bishop Gene Robinson rather than villifying him and others.

 

I am grateful for the leadership of the Episcopal Church in these matters and for their willingness to look at the sacramental dimension of human sexuality rather than the Roman Catholic preoccupation with body parts.

 

When you get right down to it, the RC position is very similar to Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy -- both focus on body parts instead of relationships and both seem unconcerned about the depth and quality of relationships in judging moral and ethical questions. Let's have sexually healthy people talk about the morality of human sexuality. Is that too scary for the Prelates? Episcopal Church 1 – Prelates 0.

An Open Letter to Stand Firm in Faith

I note that my posting privileges at Stand Firm in Faith have been withdrawn. You would have saved me a significant amount of time had you had the courtesy to inform me of your decision. Courtesy, though, is not something which characterizes your site.

More and more you have become the ecclesiastical equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, inciting and nurturing hate towards any and all who differ from you, without, yourselves, contributing anything positive.

I notice that your recent targets are, again, Louie Crew and Mark Harris, two men of complete integrity who have served the church both in the United States and abroad. As you have done with Ernest Cockrell, Ann Fontaine, Lisa Fox, me and so many others, you have taken their words out of context and then invited in your host of fear and hate mongers for further vilification of good people. As Rush Limbaugh discovered some time ago, spreading hatred sells – what Rush has not learned yet is that spreading hatred in ways he and you do rots your souls.

Your latest attack on Louie Crew must have taken you a good bit of time, searching through Louie's enormous website to find the picture you posted of Louie and Ernest. That must have brought your gang a lot of snickers and laughs. The real laugh, though, is on you. Louie is perhaps the most generous, most compassionate and self-giving and kind lay person in the Episcopal Church – and has been for decades.

Your Christianity is not something one can recognize in Holy Scriptures. You represent a small, angry, fundamentalist segment of the Christian faith. The Christian church is far broader than your singularly narrow point of view – we are Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Quaker, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Church of God, and on and on. Your belief that you stand above all other expressions of the Christian faith is ludicrous – compounded by your ignorance or disregard of the Beatitudes and the constant commands of Jesus Christ to love those with whom you differ.

Snickers and character assassinations do not a Kingdom make. They are only the outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual bankruptcy. It is well past the time to put away your childish fear and hate mongering and to apologize and to make amends for the enormous hurt and distrust you have sown. Put very simply, it is time to grow up.

Thomas B. Woodward

Life is Sacramental

As the Episcopal Church wrestles with questions of blessing, we need to remember that the world is sacramental. Where there are signs of God's blessing God is present, sacramentally. Not to recognize or affirm that is a sign of spiritual blindness. While we may debate categories and theological niceties, the underlying reality is that God is present and active in full sacramental power in relationships previous generations declared unholy. Let us praise God for enabling us to see clearly what we missed so terribly over the centuries. The following is an old sermon – but I hope it speaks to the underpinnings of our lives now.

What is the most special thing for you about the Episcopal Church?

For me, I think, it is our understanding that life is Sacramental.

We don't live in a world that is WYSIWYG.

We don't live in a world of sticks and stones. .chromosomes and bones

where everything is just what it is. . . and nothing more.

When a young child goes out and picks up some special stones

and brings them to you . . . and gives them to you. . .

("I chose these for you, Mom, Grandma, Granddad, Uncle. . .")

What is the meaning of those stones?

We believe that we live in a world which is alive: alive with meaning and alive with love.

And the way those things become real. . . is sacramentally.

That's how we express ourselves

and that is how God expresses . . himself/herself. . . .sacramentally.

Do you remember the Catechism definition of Sacrament?

"An outward and visible sign of an inward & spiritual grace.."

An outward and visible sign. . . .several small stones. . .

conveying an inward & spiritual grace. . . the child's love. . .

and God's love with it.

A lot of things are sacramental.

A kiss is sacramental.

A kiss is never just four lips in closest proximity.

With a kiss, we can manipulate, we can lie. . . .

or with a kiss, we can communicate love.

A kiss is an outward and visible sign. . .

of inward and. powerful spiritual things.

In the same way, a pat on the back, a hug or embrace,

a family meal, a bouquet of flowers - those are all sacraments.

And they are all . . more than just what we communicate:

they are also ways through which God. . touches our lives.

One of the basics of the Episcopalian faith

is that God uses the physical world to touch us.

There are several "official" ways God does this:

Remember the Seven Sacraments:

Baptism: through the water,

God cleanses us, renews us, marks us for his own forever.

Holy Communion: God uses the bread and wine

to feed us/transform us. . from the inside out.

God uses the holy oil and the Laying on of Hands

to give us strength & courage. . and to heal us.

And the same is true in Confirmation:

with the laying on of hands we are strengthened, commissioned.

I had a Seminary Professor who said:

"It is natural for the supernatural to act naturally."

The real miracles happen through the touch of a friend,

through the ministrations of a doctor or nurse,

through the devotion and thoughtfulness of a teacher or relative,

over coffee or cokes, bagels or cheeseburgers.

That is how God works.

If we believe that God is love

and that all love comes from God. . . through us.

Then that is how God works.

One of the things I always try to tell people

who are getting married is this:

You are each God's gift to the other.

It is through one another that you will experience God.

It is through one another that you will --

probably in the most profound way in your life --

experience the love, the forgiveness and the healing power of God.

That is because it is through one another

that God loves us, heals us, frees us, gives us peace.

We are God's gifts to one another:

in our families,

in our significant relationships,

through our acts of kindness and thoughtfulness.

Is teaching a sacrament? Yes.

Is nursing a sacrament? Yes.

Is changing diapers, raising children a sacrament? Yes.

Is running a business sacramental? You bet.

As are planning for the future, making love,

doing what is necessary for our home to be a welcoming and safe haven.

Is the presence of God dependent on the level of our skill

or the purity of our motives?

No.

Sometimes, as Paul wrote,

God's strength is made perfect in our weakness.

And, yes, our intentions and our dedication and our self-offering

are important.

The important thing is to remember and to trust,

First that this is God's world.

The universe is alive with the presence of God.

And second, that God is love.

God is the source of all real love . . .

and God gives that love freely. . . through us.

Whenever, however we experience real love --

as giving or as receiving. . .

we are experiencing God's love -- as well as what is in the here and now.

When we reject God as the source of all real love

by rejecting those whose lives are abundant with that love

but in violation of ancient prohibition,

we reject God.

And third, those people who are significant people in our lives

are gifts to us from God.

May we learn to treat them like that.

Life is sacramental:

God is present through the good times. . .God is present in the bad times --

sometimes as judgment, . . . sometimes as forgiveness,

sometimes as comfort and solace,

and sometimes simply as fellow-sufferer.

Let us praise God who is present in our lives

in more ways than we could ever measure.