Last Post

This will be my last post. I’m closing up shop, in part because my work is needed elsewhere in the church. The last 5 years in my parish have been simple: love the people and keep things going. But now we are entering a time of redevelopment, opportunity and growth that require much more deliberate attention. I am starting a new church blog at my parish site (its not quite up yet), and I'm toying with new uses of the medium.

But before I go, I’m going to meander a bit about where I think the church is going, the current crisis, and leave with a couple problems I’m thinking about. 

One of the central philosophical divides between myself and culturally traditionalist Anglicans is how we describe our relationship between religion and culture. A traditionalist Anglican, in my view, sees Christianity as fundamentally distinct from culture, but asserts the primacy of a peculiar 21^st century American understanding of 1^st century Palestine. I am agnostic about whether our culture is better than 1^st century Palestine. But I live here, now. That is where Christ and Christianity are located for me. I think that the 1^st century view of homosexuality is confused, unreliable and incomplete. As the link between property, sexuality and death has become loose, we are forced to struggle with competing traditions – those that have idolized an essentialist, utilitarian understanding of gender; and those that affirm the power of grace to reveal a sort of relationship that has generally been kept secret.

We get into some philosophical confusions when talking about culture because any civilization will have multiple “cultures.” And this is also true with Christianity – Christianity is not really of one sort. We can only talk with precision about the institutions of Christianity and what the institutions assert. What we can do is make connections and make distinctions, acknowledging that they are often moving. Faith is, by its nature, very slippery and almost impossible to define (which is why we use religious language).

I am skeptical about the new alliances between splinter Anglican groups. It will be perceived, by nature of its origins, as being organized not around the "Faith Once Delivered," but around an antagonism towards gay people.  These organizations reject the modern bourgeois sensibilities toward homosexual behavior, which has accommodated the biases of modern psychology, combining it with classical marital virtues.   But the battle has been won (not really by us, but because of capitalism): most young people are growing more tolerant, and gay people are finding the spaces they inhabit slowly becoming safer and more public. In short, let us continue in the direction we have chosen toward full inclusion without looking back. We’re on the right path. 

But not really.  The real stumbling block that conservatives continually overlook, and we progressives have accomodated is our system of economic arrangements.  I have asked conservative voices to discuss more about the market, but they have generally been silent on the issue, or parroted the opinion page of the WSJ.   

I do think that some practical compromises can be reached with conservative churches. Perhaps if a conservative church wants different Episcopal leadership, the diocese may instead charge a “rental” fee for the church building that would go into a broader property support fund. This “assessment” would not go to support the salary of the Episcopate, but for non-religious elements of shared management. The clergy would still be able to pay into the pension, and invited to Episcopal events, but would fall under the canons as a Presbyterian cleric would. The financial benefits of being part of a larger body would still be magnanimously granted to dissenting clergy without harming their conscience. They would, of course, not be part of that diocese’s college anymore, except as having a special license.

The church, however, would have to permit that a “loyalist” body of Episcopalians also be allowed to use the space. No visitations, however, would be required, nor would permission be demanded, but courtesy encouraged. 

But TEC still has institutional problems. It will need to restructure. Dioceses will become centers of best practices, employing consultants (the “canons”) who also work part-time in local churches. They will have to become stronger stewards of their resources. As practice, dioceses should ask themselves what would we do if we were not tax-exempt? 

Churches will become less able to afford full-time clergy. For this reason, Priests will become bi-vocational, requiring a concomitant change in clerical education. Perhaps churches will become offices for Nurse Practitioner - priests or family lawyer - priests. 

The techne of clergy will have to be clarified. In this day, clergy should be competent especially at 1) communication 2) collaboration 3) social entrepreneurship and 4) "coaching." They should bet excellent writers and storytellers; be able to work with other priests and lay people, discarding the lone-ranger mentality that plagues mainline clergy; think creatively about the community’s needs; and encourage people in their work and daily life. Gone is the psychotherapeutic model of the priesthood. Let it die the death it deserves. 

Churches should also be more experimental with their internal architecture; have services in the afternoons and week-days; and open up their musical traditions. It is probably harder to make these changes in mainline churches than in conservative ones

Over the last 3 years I’ve become quite distressed at the uses and misuses of the word “liberal.” My own perspective is that to be an “evangelical” is to be liberal. It is the evangelicals who were able to critique the oppressive hold that the Catholic Church had upon the minds of millions of believers. It was this critique that opened up The Word releasing it from the hold of the Magisterium. And this liberality has been good both for the Catholic Church, given incentive to improve its internal moral architecture.

Liberal Protestantism is one great meme in our American identity – and I say this as someone who has deep connections to another culture. Liberals have more closely affirmed God’s role in individual conscience; reminded the church that it too requires humility; and a deep sensitivity towards cruelty. Liberals affirm two essential things: that individual agency (and choice) is worth respecting; that individuals can and may change their minds without outside coercion. These are both contestable. One can affirm that the church takes primacy over the individual; and that coercion is justifiable in changing a mind. It is liberal Protestantism that has affirmed the democratic nature of our institutions – at great cost, I submit, to its own existence.   It is this history that the Archbishop doesn't accurately comprehend.

Over the next couple months I’m going to be spending much time reading and thinking about two concepts: what will the consequences be of our culture moving towards a predominantly visual medium? What will this do to our comprehension of scripture? If, there was a 14 hour drama about the bible, after which, by an act of God, all bibles suddenly disappeared? What would people remember about scripture? To what extent would the 14 hour drama become the “canonical” text? The pre-modernists often refer to a set of ideas they call “the faith once delivered” which, from my vantage point, is a general body of memes, cultural proclivities, and central texts with a particular hermeneutic that are fundamentally static.  My intuition is to interrogate this sort of reduction of faith, to examine what is hidden within the foundations people have.   My goal is merely to describe lives accurately, for it is in human lives that God works - and sometimes our "foundations" merely hide needs that have been kept secret (security, rootedness, etc).   

My interest is not IF such a tradition exists – it clearly exists for some – but is the FOD a written tradition only? Is its sudden appearance as an idea (yes, I know the biblican citation, but it seems a bit new in our currenct context) just an indication of its corruption or transformation? But why written over the visual?   How do we see the FOD in action?  Is an emphasis on the written an elevation of the intellectual over the physical? 

My second question has to do with geography. The notion of “flying” bishops is merely a symptom of our cultural context. Flying bishops would have been unheard of 70 years ago. It is remarkable that many southern churches, for example, are suddenly willing to submit to African episcopates (although one wonders what would happen if they were actually living nearby) over the issue of homosexuality. How is the internet making these connections plausible? To what extent is cyberspace transforming how we think of our physical locations? What are the consequences of a church in NY that becomes connected to the church in Rwanda? What happens when they start sending their assessment there instead of the diocese of NY? I’d like to know how we can talk about this new terrain we’ve been thrust into - the virtual vs. the concrete.  I'm not sure what the boundary between the two is.

Granted, I have some biases toward a written text (which is why I submit to teaching and preaching holy scripture) and toward physical rootedness (which is why I’m against flying bishops).  But how do our electronic tools destabilize our use of the written word or physical intimacy with other persons? 

Ironically, it is the churches with a “pre-modern” cosmology who are using the electronic tools of modern life most successfully. Liberal, mainline, traditional churches are burdened with 1950s style of worship, buildings that are old and burdensome, and a fairly obscure, uninspiring theology that is accurate, but distant from the lives of persons. 

But that's enough for now. 

I would like to thank my regular readers of my blog. Everything written here has been for one purpose: to praise Jesus Christ as Savior, and to make the risen God known to all. 

I unceasingly trust in His mercy, seeking to know his Love in His Word.

I have hoped that this blog would bless Him as He lives in my life and in the life of the church, be it Pentecostal, Catholic or in the small corner of hope we call the Episcopal Church, my struggling but faithful and joyous home. He is present in it, and here I praise His Eternal Name, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.   Lord, there is no one like You.  (Jer 10:6)

And blessings to you also. May your hands be His hands, your courage be His Courage, and your power be His Power, your Love be His Love.  Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has long ago approved what you do (ecclesiastes 9:7).

In the name of the blessed Trinity.

AMEN

GFD +

Comments

[J. C. Fisher]

Vaya con Dios, Salty!

[And keep us appraised of your projects, as above... :-)]

[Willo Boe]

Your "salt" is going to be missed. Thank you for writing these past years. As one of your regular readers, I can say that you did, indeed, achieve your set goal. Wishing you God's abundant blessing.

[D. C.]

Rats. Your work will be missed. I hope you'll keep commenting on T19, though.

[Elliot]

Nuts. You mean you're going to raise all those interesting questions and then not blog about your answers?

Thanks for all the intriguing and provocative ideas, and the humour. You've definitely had an impact on the way I think! I hope you have lots of joy in your new projects.

[Samuel]

I know this is extremely selfish, but it sucks that you are stopping this.

Will miss you.

Here's something I blogged about quite a while back.

" I do not recollect how I read relicious first , but it sure was a miracle that I clicked on his blogroll and discovered a blog titled Salt. More on what that meant to me and the new blogs later."

Your blog has had an immense impact on the way I think, and my faith too. Thanks for everything

[Dave C.]

Fr. Salty,

I, too, will miss your postings. You are one of the few Episcopalians who advocates for acceptance of those in same sex relationships into the Episcopate who I actually consider liberal and who actually seems to listen and at least somewhat understand a more conservative view. A lack of listening and considering other view points is I think perhaps the greatest failing of the push for acceptance of homosexuality. I see in many of the bishops and priests a disconnect with many parishoners born of a failure to listen and consider alternative views, or at a minimum a failure to communicate and lay the ground work for what was viewed by many parishoners as a sudden and unfathomable break with scripture and tradition.

Your characterization of fod as static, is, I think a mischaracterization. I see it more as universal. And I have seen no scientific breakthroughs that would alter the basic Christian view of the proper use of sex. There has been much posturing and claims and pseudo-historical analyses that purport that our current cultural understanding of human sexuality somehow negates the biblical understanding, but nothing that I find at all convincing. It is not that I find a first century culture as being the final and definitive word on the way things should be but rather that the precepts and lessons conveyed from that time by Christ and his apostles are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago because they are not bound to a particular place, time, and people. If the Christian message is bound to culture in the way you seem to suggest, I don't see any way other than a babel of christianities, changing not just with time but with every cultural difference there may be: perhaps we could have one Christianity on the East Coast of the US, another in the Midwest, another for African Americans, Latinos, old people, young people, not to mention in different parts of the world. And if such is the case, where does anyone get off trying to impose their own culturally bound Christianity on anyone else? Shouldn't the North American and European Anglicans stop pushing for a changed view of homosexuality in Africa and elsewhere? Afterall, by and large their culture rejects what TEC and others are advocating.

[Max]

19My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet...
...
23I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down...
[Jeremiah 4:19, 23-26]

Thank you so much, for so much. Go in peace.

yours in the struggle,
Max

p.s. Quitter.

[David Huff]

Awww man... we'll miss you :) I think you have my email, so drop me a line sometime if you have a new site, or answers to those interesting questions above.

Dave C., "And if such is the case, where does anyone get off trying to impose their own culturally bound Christianity on anyone else?"

Heh. Yeah. So please, to all the ACN/AAC/LEAC crowd out there, knock it off - OK ? ;) (and in case it isn't clear, I certainly do think the ACN/AAC/LEAC vision of (somber tone)"The Faith Once Delivered" (somber tone OFF) is as "culturally bound" as any other ;)

[Dave C.]

So David, whose culture is to "blame" for say the ACN/AAC (I don't know who or what LEAC is) crowd's view that homosexual activity is sinful, since it is a view shared by virtually all Christians at all times and all places with the exception of a segment of late 20th century/ early 21st century Americans and Europeans?

[John D]

I've never commented, but I have read and enjoyed your work. I have no idea what the resolution of our current unpleasentness will bring to my beloved Episcopal Church, but I know that I am so proud that great portions of the Church have declared solidarity with our gay brothers and sisters. In our post-Christian age, I am certain that we are headed to the New Jerusalem.
Many thanks for your thoughtful thoughts, and G-d bless the work you plan to do.

[Jake]

Peace to you, John. You'll be missed. Stay in touch!

[Bill Carroll]

Peace to you, G, and blessings for whatever is next.

My new e-mail is linked here.

Bill

[Rick Jones]

Been a regular (as in weekly or more) reader for over 3 years and I find it depressing that you're closing up shop. First Karen Haluza at Raw Faith, then Karen at Kenesis, now you. The more thoughtful voices all seem to think it's not worth the effort anymore.
Yet T19 and David Virtue are still going strong.
What will become of the church of my childhood?

[Pisco Sours]

I will miss you greatly, Salty! I hope you'll at least keep this site up for the indefnite future!

[Tim Tripp]

Thanks for thoughtful, compassinate discussions. As a UU, I've really enjoyed reading your view of things spiritual, religious, and political. Your comments and thoughts have helped me live out my own faith and spiritual practices more richly.

[J. C. Fisher]

Oh, Dave C, Dave C, Dave C: it seems a crime (or at least an unforgivable breach of etiquette) to respond to you on what is McSalt's "Last Post".

Oh, how I wish you could see:

"scripture and tradition" = [Dave C's opinion of]

"basic Christian view of the proper use of sex" = [Dave C's opinion of]

"the biblical understanding" = [Dave C's opinion of]

"the precepts and lessons conveyed from that time by Christ and his apostles" = [Dave C's opinion of]

"the Christian message" = [Dave C's opinion of]

and

"a view shared by virtually all Christians at all times and all places with the exception of a segment of late 20th century/ early 21st century Americans and Europeans" = [Dave C's opinion of]

Not, mind you, that it isn't fit and proper for Dave C to express his opinions...

...but that's ALL they are: opinions.

And as those hold contrary opinions are at least AS formed by "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" as are Dave C's, the "imprimaturs" by which Dave C frames his opinions, just GET IN THE WAY, of what is at the root of them.

So, Dave C, what IS at the root of your opinions, anyway? The Ick Factor? Second-Generation Ick Factor? (i.e., "What if my kids turn out...?!") Fear of (loss of) Salvation? ("If I'm wrong about this, what else in S,T&R am I wrong about? Am I not saved?") A General World-Weary Ennui? ("The world's going to H*ll in a handbasket, and you can tell by those prancing along, swinging the handbaskets!") What???

[greymatters]

Godspeed.

I've enjoyed reading your blog.

[Account Deleted]

Excellent post.I came across your blog & reading along.Thanks a lot..