NBC news has run several pieces on the changing face of faith in the United States. The reports state what most us already know. People seem to be migrating away from so- called, organized religion toward more individualistic expressions of spirituality.
Those interviewed make predictable assertions. They invoke the wars and atrocities perpetrated in the name of God. It is true that much evil has occurred with religiosity as the justification.
One wonders, however, if religion is to blame, or more likely, are the adherents the culprits? This is a subtle distinction, but it seems to me that anytime people amass in a group, of any kind, both good and evil are possible. An essential good can be defended and enforced through twisted means. As groups claim to be the only correct band, it becomes easier to justify the ill treatment of those not in the group. This is not merely an extension of religion. It seems to happen when people choose camps to inhabit.
So, this is, of course, not unique to religion. How many suffer through accepted and enforced economic systems, forms of government and nationalism. We defend economics, governmental systems and nations by saying, they provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Our rationalizations might be true, but they have a real cost
Perhaps the Achilles heel of all systems is that people are involved. People tend to be self-centered and self-obsessed. We tend to look out for number one. We will manipulate and pervert the most righteous of systems to get what we want.
Religion has certainly not proved immune to corruption. Yet, religion and communities constructed by religion are indispensable. Solitary spirituality, disconnected from a community is prey to a greater risk of self-centeredness and self-delusion. A community can create a culture of self-transcendence. The solitary quest is, all too often, bound up in the pursuit of the individual, and not others. How is this any different than the self-seeking culture of which we are a part? In fact the solitary quest may be the perfect reflection of our rabid individualistic culture.
The good of the proper exercise of religion is in bringing people together in mutual care and support. The religious community reminds individuals that it is not all about us. Without individuals bound together through a common ideology, I don’t know how you avoid devolving into the mere seeking of individual comfort.
Religious adherents have great responsibility for one another. We are charged to cling to the core principles of our religion. We need not get caught up in defending or protecting God. God can take care of God’s self. We must be vigilant for our own efforts to twist our religion into what makes us comfortable and right, to the dehumanizing detriment of others. When we do, we have compromised the tenets of faith that brought us together in the first place.
Final point: The list of good things done in the name of religion is virtually endless and it is added to exponentially, every day.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
From Bishop Alexander of Atlanta
Bishop Alexander was my bishop and seminary professor. He is an individual of profound faith and insight. I share his hope for our common future.
Chris+
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Having just returned from a week in New Orleans for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, I would like to offer a few brief reflections. You will find links to the post-meeting comuniqué and to another statement from the House of Bishops that responds to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. I urge you to read both of them.
At our meeting we were blessed to have with us the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion, together with members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Commitee is composed of laypersons, priests, bishops and primates from around the world. They came both to listen and to speak. The mutuality that implies was honored by all. The speaking and listening was not always easy, but it was a gift to be able to communicate directly with one another and not through the media, the Internet, or by way of intermediaries. The Archbishop was quite clear that there is no ultimatum on the table. The members of the Joint Standing Committee seemed hopeful that there is a way forward for the whole of the Anglican Communion joined together in mission and ministry in the name of Jesus for the sake of the world.
I believe the two statements from the House of Bishops speak for themselves and do not require extensive commentary. The statement in response to the Primates of the Anglican Communion was crafted after several days of prayer, conversation, honest speaking and careful listening. The bishops were nearly unanimous in their support of this statement. I do not believe that any bishop of this church is happy with every detail, but we found a place where the vast majority of us can live together. From my perspective, the statement honors the immediate concerns of the Primates of the Anglican Communion while being faithful to the fullness of the life of our church. I wondered before the meeting began if we could find such a place without losing our soul as a good and faithful church centered in the Gospel of Jesus. I believe that, with the prayerful support of our people and the aid of the Holy Spirit, we found just such a place.
A new consensus has emerged in the House of Bishops for the sake of the church’s mission. It is not a consensus built upon agreeing on all matters (that’s never been an Anglican charism!), but a willingness to give and take for the sake of the church’s larger mission. I believe that every bishop present gave up something – and not without considerable pain and agony at points – but we were able to arrive at a place where most of us can live together faithfully if not altogether comfortably. The depth of the conversations, arising as they did out of much prayer and contemplation, will sustain and enrich my own ministry for some time to come.
In the days to come, there will continue to be dire predictions from some corners about the state of The Episcopal Church and our life as a part of The Anglican Communion. Most of that will come from folks who have predetermined the outcome they desire. My counsel is that we delight in the ministries we share in the name of Jesus, be about the work of the church’s mission to a world in need, and rejoice in all that God has given to us in Jesus Christ our Lord!
Faithfully, in Christ,
The Right Reverend J. Neil Alexander
Chris+
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Having just returned from a week in New Orleans for the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, I would like to offer a few brief reflections. You will find links to the post-meeting comuniqué and to another statement from the House of Bishops that responds to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. I urge you to read both of them.
At our meeting we were blessed to have with us the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion, together with members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Commitee is composed of laypersons, priests, bishops and primates from around the world. They came both to listen and to speak. The mutuality that implies was honored by all. The speaking and listening was not always easy, but it was a gift to be able to communicate directly with one another and not through the media, the Internet, or by way of intermediaries. The Archbishop was quite clear that there is no ultimatum on the table. The members of the Joint Standing Committee seemed hopeful that there is a way forward for the whole of the Anglican Communion joined together in mission and ministry in the name of Jesus for the sake of the world.
I believe the two statements from the House of Bishops speak for themselves and do not require extensive commentary. The statement in response to the Primates of the Anglican Communion was crafted after several days of prayer, conversation, honest speaking and careful listening. The bishops were nearly unanimous in their support of this statement. I do not believe that any bishop of this church is happy with every detail, but we found a place where the vast majority of us can live together. From my perspective, the statement honors the immediate concerns of the Primates of the Anglican Communion while being faithful to the fullness of the life of our church. I wondered before the meeting began if we could find such a place without losing our soul as a good and faithful church centered in the Gospel of Jesus. I believe that, with the prayerful support of our people and the aid of the Holy Spirit, we found just such a place.
A new consensus has emerged in the House of Bishops for the sake of the church’s mission. It is not a consensus built upon agreeing on all matters (that’s never been an Anglican charism!), but a willingness to give and take for the sake of the church’s larger mission. I believe that every bishop present gave up something – and not without considerable pain and agony at points – but we were able to arrive at a place where most of us can live together faithfully if not altogether comfortably. The depth of the conversations, arising as they did out of much prayer and contemplation, will sustain and enrich my own ministry for some time to come.
In the days to come, there will continue to be dire predictions from some corners about the state of The Episcopal Church and our life as a part of The Anglican Communion. Most of that will come from folks who have predetermined the outcome they desire. My counsel is that we delight in the ministries we share in the name of Jesus, be about the work of the church’s mission to a world in need, and rejoice in all that God has given to us in Jesus Christ our Lord!
Faithfully, in Christ,
The Right Reverend J. Neil Alexander
Bishop Howe
Bishop John Howe is no lefty. I would argue that his relative satisfaction with the House of Bishops statement carries a lot of freight. I applaud his commitment to the conversation. He is a real Anglican.
Chris+
Dear Diocesan Family,
I said last month that I did not think there would be any surprises in the meeting of the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was wrong. The House leaned much farther toward what the Archbishop and the Primates of the Anglican Communion asked of us than I believe anyone expected.
In the end we produced two statements (see links at left). One of them is a “contextual” narrative about the whole of our experience in New Orleans, touching upon a wide variety of specific topics. The other is our response to the requests made of us by the Primates in their Communiqué from Dar es Salaam last February.
In their Communiqué the Primates asked us to:
· Make an unequivocal covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their Dioceses or through the General Convention, and
· Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention (in 2006) means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex relationship will not receive the necessary consents (from other Bishops) until or unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Anglican Communion as a whole.
In my opinion, we did not fully comply with either of these requests, but we came much closer than I ever thought we would.
The Bishops have made a careful distinction between “public Rites” and “private blessings.” In many Dioceses permission to use officially authorized public Rites has been withdrawn, and the House as a whole has, indeed, confirmed that until or unless there is a “new consensus” there will be no such authorization. There is an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part of the “pastoral response” the Primates themselves said might be called for.
In reaffirming B033 from last year’s General Convention, the Bishops stated that “exercising restraint” means withholding consent, and that specifically pertains to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.
Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops’ Statement as “non-compliance.” I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in very substantial compliance with what the Primates asked of us, and I believe there was a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. On behalf of all the Bishops, I thank you for your prayers.
With love to all of you in our Lord,
+ John
Chris+
Dear Diocesan Family,
I said last month that I did not think there would be any surprises in the meeting of the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was wrong. The House leaned much farther toward what the Archbishop and the Primates of the Anglican Communion asked of us than I believe anyone expected.
In the end we produced two statements (see links at left). One of them is a “contextual” narrative about the whole of our experience in New Orleans, touching upon a wide variety of specific topics. The other is our response to the requests made of us by the Primates in their Communiqué from Dar es Salaam last February.
In their Communiqué the Primates asked us to:
· Make an unequivocal covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their Dioceses or through the General Convention, and
· Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention (in 2006) means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex relationship will not receive the necessary consents (from other Bishops) until or unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Anglican Communion as a whole.
In my opinion, we did not fully comply with either of these requests, but we came much closer than I ever thought we would.
The Bishops have made a careful distinction between “public Rites” and “private blessings.” In many Dioceses permission to use officially authorized public Rites has been withdrawn, and the House as a whole has, indeed, confirmed that until or unless there is a “new consensus” there will be no such authorization. There is an implicit acknowledgement that in some places private blessings are still being offered as part of the “pastoral response” the Primates themselves said might be called for.
In reaffirming B033 from last year’s General Convention, the Bishops stated that “exercising restraint” means withholding consent, and that specifically pertains to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons.
Many voices have already been raised, denouncing the Bishops’ Statement as “non-compliance.” I disagree. I would characterize the decisions of the House of Bishops as being in very substantial compliance with what the Primates asked of us, and I believe there was a far higher level of concern for the unity of the Communion evident throughout our meeting than I have ever witnessed previously. On behalf of all the Bishops, I thank you for your prayers.
With love to all of you in our Lord,
+ John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
