Sermon for Good Friday 2013

As many times I have travelled to the foot of the cross, I have never been able to make complete sense of it.  I am continually held speechless by the Passion – stunned and disturbed by what it reveals about humanity – our propensity toward violence, spite, anger, and hatred.  I am left wondering, from numerous perspectives, how things could have gotten so out of control – so beyond our better natures – that we could have crucified Jesus.  I find many questions, but few answers.  And still I come, year after year, along with the rest of the church, to the foot of the cross – to that Friday that we have called “Good.”

As often as we travel to the foot of the cross, I think there is always a temptation to focus on ourselves this day.  To recall our own sinfulness, our own brokenness, our own acts of violence.  There is a temptation to plumb the depths of our souls, asking how the world could ever possibly spin so out of control that humanity could crucify the Son of God.

But then we are reminded: the Passion is not the story about the excesses of humanity on that day two thousand years ago. It is the story of Jesus, completely in control. It is the story where the cross is not an instrument of torture and death but rather the means of Jesus’ ultimate glorification. “See, my servant shall prosper,” Isaiah says, “he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Just as there were many who were astonished at him – so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of mortals – so he shall startle many nations.”

The cross does startle us. It startles us because what should seem to be an example of our depraved humanity is redeemed and transformed into the ultimate example of God’s supreme goodness.  John’s account of the Passion portrays Jesus as fully in control in his last hours – he orders Simon Peter to put away his sword to let him go with the soldiers. Jesus stands in silence before Pilate, knowing that death lay before him. In an act of love, Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of the beloved disciple. And at the end, Jesus is in control of even his final moments.

In John’s gospel, Jesus’ life does not end with a loud cry. It does not end with him asking why God has forsaken him.  It ends with three quiet words: “It is finished.”

It is finished. Jesus has truly met the fullness of our humanity – even death itself.  In his final moments, Jesus’ arms, stretched upon the cross, stand in nothing less than a full embrace of our humanity.  Jesus has plumbed every depth of human experience – our fears, our joys, our sorrows and our hopes – and today, Jesus meets that last defining element of humanity – our mortality.

Because we know the rest of this story, we know that Jesus reigns from the cross instead of being defeated by it.  We know that what was meant to be an instrument of shameful death has become for us the means of life; and that the scars on Jesus’ body become what Frederick Buechner called signs of the “magnificent defeat” – that Jesus’ wounds the proud insignia of the defeat which is victory, the magnificent defeat of the human soul at the hands of God.”  We see Jesus lifted up, reigning, drawing all people to himself.  It is finished – our salvation is accomplished – within Jesus’ embrace.

We look at the cross, and even as we see death, we see life itself. We look at the cross, and even as we see hatred and evil, we see love in its fullest measure. We look at the cross, and we see God incarnate, God fully with us, God fully for us.

And so we come and adore. On this day, we don’t celebrate the Eucharist and make our Great Thanksgiving – because in the shadow of the cross, we can offer nothing but adoration.  And so we glory in the Cross, by which joy has come into the world.  We sit, we adore, in wonder and in awe of the embrace of Jesus’ arms of love, stretched out for our lives, and for the life of the world.

Sermon for Maundy Thursday 2013

“You call me Teacher and Lord—and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” John 13:13-15

In the name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Before I went to seminary, during one of the many steps of the process leading towards ordination, I spent a day with a psychologist and vocational counselor reviewing the results of several personality tests I had been asked to take. One aspect of my personality that came out clearly in the test results was that I like structure in the world around me. I like to be able to take everything about the world around me, and place it into an orderly framework – to break down a situation into its core components, categorize them, label them, tag them, and file them. This is what made me an able Chemist – I was able, using underlying scientific principles, to see the predictable order in the world of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions.

But this desire for order wasn’t – and still isn’t – limited to the realm of academic knowledge. Socially, I like to know where I fit – precisely where I fit – into a given system – which is why in so many ways the catholic order of our Episcopal Church just works for me – for example, I know that I’m bound by a vow of obedience to my Bishop; I know that I oversee the spiritual and sacramental life of this parish; that I share in the governance of the temporal administration of the parish with the vestry. There’s a framework, an order, a structure in which life in the church is lived – and when I know where I fit, I’m comfortable. When responsibilities and requirements are unclear, I become profoundly uncomfortable.

I suspect that the Apostle Peter might have shared this personality trait with me. In John’s gospel, Simon Peter – at least to the point he appears in our gospel lesson tonight – is a relatively uncomplicated character; he travels with Jesus throughout his ministry, and is a dutiful disciple. In fact, he is only mentioned twice in the fourth gospel before John’s account of the last supper. The first time Simon Peter is named is after his brother Andrew says of Jesus: “we have found the Messiah, the Christ.” It his here that Jesus says that he will be called Cephas – later translated Peter – the rock. The second time we see Simon Peter, it is when many of the crowds that had followed after Jesus have begun to turn away because of the difficulty of what they hear from Jesus. When Jesus asks the disciples if they, also, wish to go away, it is Peter who answers: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Simon Peter has been brought to Jesus by his brother, who has told him that Jesus is the Messiah. He has seen Jesus work miracles – changing water into wine, healing the sick, feeding the five thousand, and walking on water – and he has named Jesus as Lord.

Simon Peter has placed Jesus into a orderly framework, into an understandable “structure” by the time he sits down with the other disciples at their last meal with Jesus. When he has called Jesus “Lord,” “kyrios,” he acknowledges that Jesus is invested with power and authority. A slave would call his master “kyrios,” “Lord,” – rulers and officials of authority would be called “Lord” by their subjects. Peter has rightly recognized that he is not an equal to Jesus – he has called Jesus “Lord,” and made himself Jesus’ subject. But Peter’s framework breaks down at the last Supper, when Jesus, “took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself, poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel.” Even a slave would not have to wash his master’s feet – and yet Jesus, the Lord, the master – abases himself, degrades himself, lowers himself – to wash the feet of his disciples.

It is no wonder Peter revolts. His conceptual framework has broken down – it makes no sense – “you will never wash my feet,” he says to Jesus. “Jesus, you cannot debase yourself for me. You cannot degrade yourself for me. You cannot lower yourself to be like me.” But Jesus insists, that “unless I wash your feet, Peter, you have no share with me.” Peter tries to temper Jesus’ act of service – insisting that he should wash his hands and his head. At least take part an act that slave would do – Peter seems to beg – Jesus, don’t lower yourself to less than a slave. But Jesus does. Jesus washes his disciples’ feet – and their feet alone. Jesus – kyrios, the master, the Lord – engages in an act of lowly service that no slave would ever contemplate giving to their master. “Do you know what I have done to you?” Jesus asks them. “You call me Teacher and Lord–and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.”

Jesus’ final message to his disciples – to his servants – is that true power is found not in station in society, not in wealth, not in strength – but in humble, self-sacrificing, self-abasing, loving service. If Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Master, Kyrios, the Lord – if God himself has washed the feet of his disciples – then every boundary we can place between one another has long been destroyed. When the Lord, when God made human in Jesus, deigns to wash the feet of his disciples, then all barriers are broken, for all time, for all Jesus’ disciples, through all ages. Christ, in his acts of service, shows us love’s true measure, and gives us new unity with one another in his service. The disciples did not know what Jesus was doing – but now we understand: that true service is perfect freedom. And it is in this newfound freedom that Jesus reminds us: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

On this night, we remember Jesus’ final meal with his disciples; we remember that in the shadow of the cross itself, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. And we make our Eucharist – our thanksgiving – as Christ again makes himself present to us, and, in his lasting act of humble service, gives us his own self for our heavenly food. But above all else, we remember Jesus, the Lord who serves us his servants; who feeds us his children: God, who emptied himself as and became as a servant and slave for the sake of the world, and the love of creation.

Overdue for Posting

I’m realizing how long it’s been since I’ve been writing, and I’m working on changing that. I’ve got at a set of thoughts on Lent and Chapter 49 of Benedict’s Rule in the works, along with any number of other things I’ve been holding back on.

More on that soon.

In the meantime, may I suggest you check out Lent Madness? 40 days, 32 saints, single-elimnation, head-to-head. It’s a lot of fun, and a great Lenten discipline to live among the saints – who are – above all else – our friends and companions on our journey as Christians. (I’m also a contributor, so there’s that.)

Best wishes to all for a Holy Lent. More soon.

Sermon for All Saints (transferred) – November 3, 2012

Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10,13-14 Psalm 149 Revelation 7:2-4,9-17 Matthew 5:1-12 

Fra Angelico, The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs, c. 1423-4
(Photo Credit: The National Gallery, London)

Who are these like stars appearing,
these, before God’s throne who stand?
Each a golden crown is wearing;
who are all this glorious band?
“Alleluia!” “hark,” they sing,
praising loud their heavenly King.

When I say the word “saint,” where does your mind turn?  Of whom do you think ?

Is it the twelve apostles – surrounding Jesus at the last supper, like in the icon that hangs in the sanctuary?

Is it Saint John – our patron – who gazes down at us from the icon on the choir loft – pen in hand as the author of scriptural texts? Or from the scenes of the triptych, drinking the cup of poison, as pious legend holds it, to prove the power of the Gospel?

Is it Saint Peter – so fickle and fiery in the course of the gospels – who deny Jesus three times before the crucifixion to save his own skin – only ultimately to die on another cross, on another hill outside of Rome, hanging upside down, because he proclaimed himself unworthy to die in the same manner as his  Lord?

Is it Paul, blinded on the road to Damascus? Stephen, stoned to death outside a city wall?

Is it the holy poverty of Saint Francis and Mother Teresa? The reforming zeal of Martin Luther or the seeds of contemplation of Thomas Merton?

Who are these of dazzling brightness,
these in God’s own truth arrayed,
clad in robes of purest whiteness,
robes whose luster ne’er shall fade,
ne’er be touched by time’s rude hand?
Whence comes all this glorious band?

Our observance of All Saints’ Day tends to lead us to think rather grandly about the saints. This is nothing new – the cover of our bulletin has vision of the saints given to us by the 15th century artist Fra Angelico.  He paints a grand vision of the saints – his painting contains no less than two popes, five bishops, three deacons, kings, abbesses, monks. “Let us now praise famous men,” the author of Ecclesiasticus writes, “The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning. There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, those who gave counsel because they were intelligent; those who spoke in prophetic oracles; those who led the people by their counsels, those who composed musical tunes, or put verses in writing; rich men endowed with resources, living peacefully in their homes– all these were honored in their generations, and were the pride of their times.”

Yes, this is a grand, glorious list that is worthy of praise. We wouldn’t have the psalms without King David, we would not have a church without Peter and Paul; we would not have known how to express our yearning for God were it not for the words of Augustine; We wouldn’t have the comfort found in Julian of Norwich’s meditations, or even a (semi)settled date for Easter without Hilda of Whitby. Indeed we have much to thank them for, much to commemorate. But it does seem so remote, doesn’t it? A bit far beyond our grasp?

These are they whose hearts were riven,
sore with woe and anguish tried,
who in prayer full oft have striven
with the God they glorified;
now, their painful conflict o’er,
God has bid them weep no more.

During seminary, as part of my course work, I spent a summer doing chaplaincy work at New York University Hospital on the east side of Manhattan. The place was, in my kindly estimation, a dump. There were three elevators to serve the twenty floors of Tisch Hospital, which lead to unending lines. Patient rooms always seemed crowded, and there was little privacy, even by hospital standards. The hospital was one that tended not to recommend palliative care or hospice care at the end of life. It was a place that felt cold, didn’t give much comfort in the course of treatment, or seem to me a place where people could die with dignity.

But in spite of all of this, the staff was superb. They looked to their patients with fierceness and intensity that I seldom see people able match in their own work and vocation. And they did so even when the patients rejected their care, or didn’t want their help.  So it came as no surprise to me that, on Monday night, as Sandy bore down on our region, and the hospital building right by the East River became flooded and unusable, to see the news reports of those doctors and nurses carrying patients down the stairs, through the rain, and into the ambulances that would usher their patients to higher ground. And then they did so again, and again, and again.

I can assure you from my time there, that as they cradled infants in their arms down fifteen flights of stairs, their minds were fixed on a task in front of them that needed to be done. While I can’t be certain, I’d imagine that those doctors and nurses and aides didn’t decide to carry people down those flights of stairs because of their immense faith. In fact, I’d imagine that their minds would have been filled with what we’d imagine to be “un-saintly” questions: How could God allow something like this to happen? Who is responsible for this? Why must these people suffer, here, now?   How could this be?” In the midst of all of this fear, uncertainty, and doubt – they did the work that they had to do. They did it only because it was there, because there was a need that required a response. And in doing so, they became visions of God working in our midst.  Without any intention or thought, they, too, bore the imprint of God’s saints. They became visible saints without any intention of doing so.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” Jesus says in our Gospel, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessed are you, who are called to be saints. Blessed are you, who give witness to the world as God intended it to be. Blessed are you in your trials and tribulations. Blessed are you in the midst of the storm. Blessed are you in the midst of the wind and rain. Blessed are you in your doubts, and fears, and questions.

Blessed are you, because God is at work in you. Whether you know it or not. Whether you see it or not.

These, like priests, have watched and waited,
offering up to Christ their will,
soul and body consecrated,
day and night they serve him still.
Now in God’s most holy place,
blest they stand before his face.

Sainthood is ultimately not about our own deeds or achievements. It’s not about the words we speak, the sermons we preach, and dare I say to some extent, it’s not ultimately about the lives we live – because we all fall short. We all miss the mark at times. Sainthood, instead, is about vision – but not our own vision. The saints are the vision given to us of God working, both in ages past, and right here in our midst, right now. Sainthood is about God at work through his people. The saints show us that God’s work is never done, and God’s work is always ongoing. Indeed, as long as there are people in this world who are so bold as to wish for peace, who strive to be kind, who are open and vulnerable enough to love – there will be saints.  And, by God, that’s a vision – that’s a calling – that I can buy into.

So, as the old song goes, maybe I can’t preach like Peter, and maybe I can’t pray like Paul. I will never be an exemplar of heroic virtue, and dare I say it, I’m not sure I want to be. But, by God’s grace, I can ”tell the love of Jesus, and say he died for all” – right here, right now, as I am.  I may never be what I picture a saint to be  – in fact, I probably won’t. But I can try. I can do the work that is set before me, living out the questions and doubts. Because the saints of God are just folk like me – and I mean to be one, too. Amen.

Thoughts Driving into a Dark Manhattan

A Dark Lower Manhattan after Sandy.
(Photo Credit: Chang W. Lee/The New York Times)

In a bit of confusion – partly fueled by the terrible cellular service in New York since Sandy made her way through – I drove over to Manhattan this evening, thinking I might be shuttling some friends back to Brooklyn for hot showers, electricity, internet access and the like. It didn’t happen, and that’s fine.

By 6:30 pm, darkness had fallen over the city. Normally, my drive into Manhattan from Brooklyn is a rather uneventful affair. Traffic on the Belt Parkway or the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Congestion as people decide whether to drive in via the Battery Tunnel or instead go over one of the bridges. People are looking either to get home, or to make their way to their evening’s plans in the city.

But tonight, the darkness in the city was near complete. There’s next to no electricity below 34th Street, so the view from my car stood in stark contrast to the usual. Instead of the normal wall of lights from buildings, or the sight of bright orange ferries moving between Whitehall and New Brighton, or cars making their way along FDR Drive, there was only the silhouette of empty, unlit buildings standing on the edge of the usually busy island; the occasional peeks of light from buildings uptown broke into the scene, reminding me of what the place normally looks like.

Even the bridges are half-dark. As I crossed the Manhattan Bridge from Brooklyn, the half way point – normally nothing more than a blink of the eye along the way – had its own line of demarcation. In Brooklyn, where I alighted, there were lights along the edges of the bridge, and on its suspension cables. But then, halfway over the river, suddenly there was darkness, and only the outline of the great steel suspension bridge against the even darker city.

By some happenstance, my phone was playing my music library track by track, in alphabetical order. I left Bay Ridge with Vampire Weekend’s “A-Punk” playing; and travelled the length of the Gowanus Expressway with “The Abduction of Margaret” by The Decemberists. Then, as I crossed the bridge into Manhattan, a familiar and favorite tune began playing.

Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide.
When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

I certainly didn’t plan for that track to play. But it sure as hell caught my attention. Scottish Anglican poet Henry Francis Lytle, it is said, wrote the hymn’s text as he lay dying of consumption. He finished his work, and died two weeks later. I’ve heard more than my fair share of his text in my first year of ministry – officiating at twelve funerals inevitably points to a few favorite hymns, and this is one of them. But in a city that’s been brought to its knees by wind and water, it certainly struck a chord. The evening was at hand, and the day was past; indeed, the darkness was deepening.

Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;
Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see;
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.

I spent most of my weekend trying to get the church buildings ready for the storm. The church was built around 1890, the rectory was added around 1910, and the parish hall was re-built after being leveled by fire in the 1930s. In many ways, they don’t appear to have been improved since: the fascia and soffits have noticeable breaks on the parish hall; slates are missing from the sanctuary; the rectory has a leak in its roof that causes water to fall with a noticeable drip-drop into the shower during any heavy rain.

The echoes of history are in every stone of this place. It’s the third oldest Episcopal Church in Brooklyn, opened in 1834 to serve the soldiers of Fort Hamilton, the army base that guarded the entrance to the inner portion of New York Harbour. At that time, it sat outside the bounds of Brooklyn, a long coach ride from Park Slope, where the nearest church sat. While he was stationed at the fort, Robert E. Lee, later the famed Confederate General, sat on the parish’s vestry. Thomas Jackson, who later gained his nickname as “Stonewall” for his stoic stand for the Confederacy at First Bull Run, was baptized in the font that sits just inside the door of the sanctuary. The parish seems to have chased off its first rector not long after its founding on suspicion that he might have sympathies for the Oxford Movement, although the history isn’t certain. St. John’s gained a reputation during a much later conflict – Vietnam – for the tombstones the then-rector placed in front of the rectory in which I now live, and for having meetings of Students for a Democratic Society in the Parish Hall. Instead of being accusing him of being a Puseyite, they called him a Communist.

Perhaps it is that sense of history, and the responsibility I feel as priest here, that led me to stress so much about the building. I was up on a ladder as late as 4:30 pm on Sunday, pulling down a loose gutter that had the potential to fly through our stained glass. The wind was already picking up by the time I retreated inside for the storm, where I would remain until the all clear sounded around midday today.

But today, as I descended into the blackness of the familiar world of Lower Manhattan – now devoid of its familiar hum of activity, its lights, its traffic signals – I couldn’t help imagine that the same burden of history – that same fear for a beloved place – must have been felt by any number of folks in this area. St. Paul’s Chapel, for instance, opened in 1766, and has been in use ever since. It survived the 9/11 attacks, and served as a place of rest for numerous first responders who worked for weeks in the wake of the towers’ collapse. Just hours before, the Hudson River was pouring into the new World Trade Center site with such force, the Governor later said, that they worried about the structure of the new pit itself.  And there the historic old church sat – George Washington’s pew, 9/11 museum, all of it – just across Church Street from the raging river. The same kind nervousness could probably be felt by many thousands of people thousands of times over for any number of places now sitting in the midst of that darkness – for New York is a city of stories – stories forgotten, stories being written, stories being told – and so every park, every bridge, every street corner, every restaurant table has a monumental quantity about. And now, all these monuments are covered in darkness – forced into the darkness by the storm that exceeded what any of us could have imagined.

Not a brief glance I beg, a passing word,
But as Thou dwell’st with Thy disciples, Lord,
Familiar, condescending, patient, free.
Come not to sojourn, but abide with me.

The great scandal of the Christianity has always been incarnation. That God – who dwells beyond time, space, and comprehension – saw fit to dwell in this same world in which we live. After all, the world is much too messy for God. It is too transient – too much in flux. We want to dwell in God’s eternal changelessness. If the eternal changelessness of God saw fit to plop himself down in a stable that smelled of smoke, blood, sweat, and donkey shit two-thousand years ago – well, count us out.

Anglicans pride ourselves on being profoundly incarnational, which is fortunate, because changelessness, majesty, and splendor doesn’t seem to be our gig, while scandal does. One only need to look at the two thousand years of flying donkey poop that is the church’s history to realize that we don’t have much choice but to take that bent. As much as we might like to dwell on the fact that we’re the people whose Book of Common Prayer changed the scope of the English language and who stage royal weddings that everyone wants to see, we’re also the church that was founded by a King who wanted a divorce; a people who are far more apt to dwell on the taste of the communion wine than the life-changing reality that is its substance.

The dark buildings and the still city disturb us, haunt us, strike us as eerie, because they remind us of what we truly are in the large scheme of things. Bits of molecules that are pieced together into something larger for a time, only to fall back to the dust in the end. What we believe to be truly monumental is, in the scheme of things, more of a molehill than a mountain.

Elie Wiesel was once asked what his favorite phrase was in language. “And yet…” he answered. “…and yet.”

Come not in terrors, as the King of kings,
But kind and good, with healing in Thy wings;
Tears for all woes, a heart for every plea.
Come, Friend of sinners, thus abide with me.

And yet. We make mountains out of our molehills, and yet God sits with us as we are, nonetheless. In the still city, and in the darkness. We are always making our journey to return to the dust, and yet, Jesus tells us, and yet that dust is the very stuff of the new creation. That very dust is the the stuff of life.

We thrive because we are put into the donkey shit world of the incarnation. God comes not to bless our edifices, but to sit with us in our frailty. God’s heart yearns for us in the power outages, in the dark city, in the momentarily silenced stories.  In the hiccups and in the bumps. And when we meet God in those strange places, things change for us.

“Life is short,” Henri-Frédéric Amiel famously said, “and we have never too much time for gladdening the hearts of those who are traveling the dark journey with us. Oh, be swift to love, make haste to be kind!”

When we meet God in the darkness, in the craziness, we are changed. Charged, even. And so we leave to go out into that city, and room by room, floor by floor, turn on the lights once again until it shines more brilliantly than any of our fondest memories can recall.

Grant us, O Lord, not to mind earthly things, but to love
things heavenly; and even now, while we are placed among
things that are passing away, to cleave to those that shall
abide; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and
reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever
and ever. Amen.


 

(Nota bene: While the Hymnal 1982 only lists four stanzas to “Abide with Me,” Lytle wrote eight. You can read them all here: http://www.risa.co.uk/sla/song.php?songid=26985)

Point of Personal Privilege: Of the “+” and the Names of the Clergy

A good rant never hurts anyone once in a while, especially if it’s a good, educational, public rant. Surprisingly, for someone as opinionated as me, I haven’t had any on this iteration of my blogging life. Being long overdue, I’ve finally found what may be an actual, productive rant to make: on the cross “+” used with the names of the clergy. So here goes.

In the church in general, and in the Episcopal Church in particular, the clergy tend to overuse these symbols. Having been ordained a little over a year, I’ve already received emails that looks something like this:

Dear David+,

Just wanted to recap the meeting with +John and +Jane the other day you attended with Mary+, Jim+, Jean+, Jack+, /Susan, and /Sam. For the 1500th anniversary Eucharist of the Diocese of Dioceseseland, we’ve decided to ask ++Katharine to come and preside. She is, after all, the Presiding Bishop. It seems unlikely that +++Rowan would come. +Jane will preach, and +John will give words of welcome at the peace. /Susan will be the deacon for the Presiding Bishop, /Sam will be the deacon for +John, and we’ll talk to /Elizabeth about serving as +Jane’s deacon. /Jim has agreed to be the Deacon for the Liturgy.

Pass this email along to Bill+, Bob+, Tom+, Jane+, Susan+, and Barbara+ as soon as you can. Can’t wait to start planning this liturgy in committee! Talk to you soon about all of this.

Peace and Blessings,

Bob+

Ok, admittedly there is some exaggeration here. But I have received emails where Deacons are denoted by a slash ( / ) – (like their stoles! Cute, huh?), Every priest is referred to with a cross ( + ) after their name, every Bishop is referred to with a cross ( + ) in front of their name, and anyone of higher esteem (whether of higher rank or not) gets some multiplicative number of crosses in front of their name (++Katherine, +++Rowan, or even +Rowan+)

Here’s the thing. Of all those crosses in the letter, only ONE is correctly used. And that’s the one at the end:

Peace and blessings,

Bob+

Because the origin of the cross before or after a name comes from that era when we still wrote letters. And when those letters might take (gasp!) days to deliver. That cross then and now convey one thing, and one thing only – that the letter was sent with a blessing, by the person signing the letter.

This is why only priests and bishops actually put the cross before or after their name; as our sacramental theology and ecclesiology believes that only priests and bishops have the ontological capability to “bless and declare pardon in the name of God.”  Otherwise, the “+” with names makes no sense – because the use of the cross as an honorific would, or should, be a baptismal birthright – not one conveyed by ordination. (Unless you want to claim the ordained are more holy. If you do, I urge you to get to attend a Clergy Conference for some one-on-one research.)

The + is not, at its root, meant to convey to which order one belongs. That’s because we’ve long had titles and honorifics to do this: “Bishop Smith, Father Sibley, Deacon Jones” (Among others.) The + sign conveys that the priest or bishop sending a letter, across distance, time, and space, sends a blessing with the letter itself.

The idea that the “+” conveys the order to which one belongs is the misconception that led to some folks using the ” / “ to denote persons who are deacons. (I swear I’m not making it up, I’ve seen this.) And, as suchit is also never appropriate for a Deacon to sign a letter as “Bob+,” since, according to the ecclesiology of our church, they cannot bless.

Think of it another way. Ever write a letter to your significant other? I know its an old fashioned concept, but bear with me. Perhaps you signed it with a little heart at the end, before or after your name. That heart doesn’t denote a state of belovedness or attachment to anyone – but an emotion, and thought, and conveyance of love, sent with the letter.

So I’ll sum it up with a nice rule of thumb – if you’re a priest or a bishop, looking to conclude your letter with a blessing, use the +. If you’re trying to convey to what order a person belongs with due respect, or for differentiation, call them what they are – Bishop, Mother, Father, Pastor, Deacon, etc.

If you’re angry and looking to retain the sins of many, then don’t use anything but your name.

One exception I find appropriate: The Twitters. When you’ve got a limited number of characters, using a “+” to denote a priest or bishop works really well. I’ve done it myself. But only on the Twitters.

And if you’re a deacon, don’t use that slash. Unless you’re sending a deacon’s stole in the mail. Then it might be appropriate.

You’ll save yourself some typing time, and me another rant.

Peace and blessings,

David+

UPDATE 1: I have been informed that the “+” after the name is a particularly American usage, and not seen with priests in the CofE. I’ll buy that – we Americans have always had a somewhat heightened sense of self importance.

UPDATE 2: I have further been informed that the “+” with the name may have originally been reserved to the Episcopate only, and come downward and after the name when a bunch of priests obtained some heightened sense of self importance. I can believe that, too, knowing my fair share of the clergy, but am not ready to make that argument quite yet.  In the mean time, use the “+” properly – which is to say, of course, to my personal taste and preference! (Also, why isn’t there a sarcasm font?)

 

Structure Omnibus Resolution – Committee Draft

I was in the Structure Committee tonight when they began discussing their “big” restructuring resolution. It was a public hearing, of course (I was there – case and point!), and so I copied from the projector the resolution they’re working with in committee. It is a draft – not the final one to be presented to the House of Deputies – and still subject to work. But this issue is significant enough that I’ve copied it below for the wider church.

The next committee conference is tomorrow at 12:30 pm.

Again – this is their DRAFT, not the final resolution to be sent to the houses.

Resolved, The House of ______ concurring, that this General Convention believes the Holy Spirit is urging The Episcopal Church to reimagine itself grounded in our rich heritage and open to our creative future so that we may more faithfully:

proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
teach, baptise and nurture new believers
respond to human need by loving service
seek to transform unjust structures of society
strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth

and be it further

Resolved, that this General Convention establish a task force, operating independently from direction by existing church governing authorities; and be it further

Resolved, that the task force shall have as many as 30 members, appointed jointly by the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies by September 30, 2012. They shall appoint members representative of the church in its diversity,
and ensure that the membership includes those not currently involved in the governance of the church; and be it further

Resolved, that the task force shall present the 78th General Convention a plan for the reform of the church’s governance, structures, administration and program, and be it further

Resolved, that in order to in our the wisdom, expertise, and commitment of all voices in the church, the task force shall gather information and ideas from congregations, dioceses and provinces, and other interested individuals and organizations not often heard in the governing bodies of the church, and be it further

Resolved that the Task force shall convene a special gathering to help discern how our structures can best empower our mission. This gathering shall pay particular attention to the voices not often heard in the governing bodies of the church; shall include from each diocese a bishop, a lay deputy, a clergy deputy, and a person under 40; and shall include other members of the church, such as ministry networks, provinces and seminaries and be it further

Resolved, that the Task Force shall report on its work frequently, and shall make its final report and recommendations to the church by November 2014 along with resolutions necessary to implement them, including proposed amendments to the Constitution and Canons of the Church; and be it further

Resolved, that the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance consider adding $400,000 funds to the 2013-2015 triennial budget, to enable this resolution to be implemented energetically and successfully.

New Things at Saint John’s

Not the most exciting of blog reports, but I’m thrilled that Saint John’s, (the parish where I serve as Priest-in-Charge) has taken two definite steps into the modern world:

  • We now accepting Donations via PayPal. Right there on the front page. No takers yet, but it certainly makes donating from afar easier. Plus, folks who choose to give can earn reward points or frequent flier miles if they so choose.
  • We publish our weekly bulletins on Scribd. It’s easier to host than trying to remember to upload and then edit the webpage, and it means folks a ways away can keep in touch. I wish we could do full bulletins, but we just don’t have the paper resources.

I know these don’t seem like much, but when I arrived at Saint John’s, we didn’t even have an internet connection, or church-based e-mail, or an electronic calendar – nothing. So these developments – however small – make me quite happy.

A priest-friend and mentor once told me that it’s important to have some small project to work on in the course of parish ministry, in part so you can see progress building on something on a regular basis. This is especially important, he said, because so many of the seeds planted in parish ministry may not bear fruit for years.

This is certainly the case here. The other bits of work of parish ministry – gaining new members, securing our financial footing, improving the physical plant, creating a program for Christian Formation, and trying to instill healthy stewardship habits – these take time to come to fruition. Lots of time. So it’s nice every once and a while to have small, but definite improvements – little milestones – along the way.

Towards A New Zeitgeist for General Convention

zeitgeist |ˈtsītˌgīst, ˈzīt-|noun [ in sing.]:
the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time: 
the story captured the zeitgeist of the late 1960s.

So far in my presence on this blog, I’ve refrained from commenting on the political debates consuming the larger church – largely because they’ve been addressed very well elsewhere with conclusions that largely concur with my own, by such dignified people as Scott Gunn at Seven Whole Days, the Crusty Old Dean, and Susan Brown Snook at A Good and Joyful Thing. These debates have been formulated, rehashed, and are pretty well-trodden.

At this point, almost everyone in the Episcopal blogosphere agrees that something about our governance has to change, and sooner, rather than later. But this post isn’t about the budget, or restructuring, or changes in governance. Rather, it’s about the zeitgeist of the Episcopal Church’s gathering in General Convention. And when I speak of the spirit of the gathering, I’m not talking about the Convention’s “theme,” or its hot-button issues, but rather, how we act as the gathered church.

First, a bit of background from which this post comes.  I’ve sat and observed from the sidelines at the last two conventions – in Columbus in 2006, and in Anaheim in 2009. I am not averse to the idea of Convention at all – in fact, I’ve always been a political junkie – even when it comes to church politics. In fact, as scary as it may seem, I finally realized I was called to ordained ministry while sitting in the galleries of General Convention in Columbus. I love walking around in the Exhibit Hall, meeting new people, and seeing old friends. But as much as I can “nerd out” at Convention, and as much as yes, I generally like it – I’m not looking forward to this one, most especially because of all the infighting. Perhaps the reason why is more evident when I look at the spirit in which the two houses of General Convention – and in reality, many of us in the church – currently live with one another.

Consider two examples:

  • YouTube Gate (January 2012) - The Presiding Bishop makes a video, released to the whole church, and specifically sent to Bishops and Deputies, on the issues at the upcoming convention. The President of the House of Deputies describes it as an unprecedented intrusion on the affairs of the House of Deputies. Back and forth ensues.
  • Budgetgate (Ongoing) – A proposed budget is released to the general consternation of the church as a whole in early 2012. Infighting and fingerpointing ensues. Annotated drafts are released. The Presiding Bishop releases an alternative proposal, which in turn provokes spirited responses from all corners.

Clearly, the way we live together as a church is not doing us any favors in our efforts to spread the gospel, or engage in the work of mission and ministry. My sense is that we are not living as the people Jesus wants us to be – especially with the present volume of dirt and mud that flies through the air at supersonic velocities.

So I want to propose something new. Not a new governance structure (although I do support a new structure.) Not even new leadership in the church (although I desperately believe its needed.) We need a new way of living with one another, because regardless of how all of these emerging changes play out at Convention, we still have to live together until the process is over. And that process that will likely span not only this General Convention, but practically speaking, the next two after that as well.

At 27, I don’t particularly relish the idea of doing ministry in a church that has the current zeitgeist for the next 10, 20, or 30 years of my career.

So let’s not just change structures. Let’s change the spirit of convention. In condensed form, here are my bullet-points for change.

  1. Evalute presented ideas on the merits of the idea, not the proposer.

    As our current governance structure stands, no idea is going to pass without the concurrence of both the House of Bishops & the House of Deputies. No one house can force its will on the other, provided each house is diligent with exercising its own conscience. So let’s tone down the rhetoric that seems to presuppose that, if a Bishop presents an idea for the church, its passage will magically turn the church into a Roman Catholic-style bishop-heavy magisterium. Or the rhetoric that the passage of an idea from the Deputies or Executive Council will magically transform us into a congregational church. Both ideas are ludicrous on their surface, and both will never happen – so let’s all relax.

    Instead, let’s discuss ideas as ideas, and use them to build on one another. For instance, instead of arguing about how the budget evolved and who drove the process, let’s look at both the EC-approved and the PB’s alternate proposals as just that – proposals. What works in each? What doesn’t? What do our budgets say as our church’s “statement of mission”? How does it meet our goals from past conventions? And how does it station us for the future?

    If the PB’s idea for a budget is the best, vote to pass it, even if the PB wrote it. If it isn’t, don’t. But don’t deny a proposal a fair hearing based on its source.

  2. Let the battles of the past be the battles of the past – and let each morning start new.

    B033 was a terrible choice, but it was also six years ago – and everyone knows something like that couldn’t pass now.

    The Budget presented by the PB may have had different starting numbers from the Executive Council budget – for whatever reason – but that’s where they are now.

    Rehashing the battles of the past will leave everyone licking their wounds. People make mistakes, bad ones. But we believe in forgiveness – so let’s move towards it. Working beyond past offenses will produce results – dwelling in them will leave more people hurt, again. In part, this actually leads to the next point…

  3. Let’s be adaptive with information, ideas, and proposals. 

    When discussing, for instance, the proposal for a unicameral legislature (full disclose: I work for the Bishop of Long Island and will be at convention, in part, to lobby for its passage), instead of seeking to shoot it down because it doesn’t have the capacity for vote by orders, or may produce a less diverse convention, or that it’s different from the past – why not seek to alter the proposal – either through another submitted resolution or in legislative process – to do that?

    If you outright don’t like the idea of a unicameral legislature – that’s ok! But instead of shooting down the proposal outright from the beginning, use your input to make this idea – this proposal – the best possible one you could live with – save for that one, issue at the core of the proposal. Then vote against final passage after you’ve made it as good as an idea you oppose can possibly be.

    A personal example – I really don’t like Holy Women, Holy Men, and were I deputy, I really couldn’t vote for it as it stands for a variety of reasons. But if I have to use it, I’d love to see some of the collects rewritten in useable, speakable, chantable, you/who/do/through form. So were I a deputy, I’d work for that, and then vote against re-authorization. At least if I “lose,” I have something better to work with, that I helped to influence toward the better.

    If you have new information, build on it, rather than reacting to it. For instance, with the changes of information concerning the budget proposal, build a better budget of your own and present it!

    Being adaptive to change produces results. Denying that change happens doesn’t. Let’s be adaptive, not reactionary and responsive.

  4. Let’s live what we say about being representative in our governance. 

    We claim to have a fantastically democratic and representative system of governance; we also claim to want to incorporate, for instance, the under 40 demographic in the governance of the church. Yet out of 852 deputies, 529 (62%) are over 50. Only 56 (6.6%) are under 40. Only 21 (2.5%) are under 30. Let’s actually commit ourselves to letting new people come to the discussion, to the table, and to the governance process – so it becomes as democratic as we claim. So, multi-term deputies – especially if you’re on a legislative committee, consider letting your alternates sit on the floor for more than the customary single day – so that their voices can be heard, too. With the same voices, we’ll get the same results.

  5. Let’s all worship and pray together. No, seriously.

    Everyone should attend worship together at General Convention every day, no exceptions – even if its not to your liturgical taste. I was dismayed by the declining attendance at worship over the course of the last convention – based on personal preferences, the given preacher or celebrant, or political planning sessions.Hey, I strongly dislike Enriching our Worship, and liturgical dance drives me up a wall. But I’ll be at worship every day – even though I suspect both of these will appear. Let’s celebrate the beauty of Common Prayer by living it together. Because we need to be the church gathered not only in legislation in debate, but in adoration.

  6. Let’s gather together. No, seriously.

    Dinner or drinks together can go a long way to changing our opinions of one another.  At the very least, it changes us from nameless blogosphere faces into human beings. We all love this church dearly, and want the best for it – and sitting together socially will prove it.

There you have it. Six ideas to change the spirit of convention. Who’s in? Any others?