Abide in My Love - Dialogue

Christ the King

Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:37:00 +0000

On the Feast of Christ the King, I was reflecting on exactly how is Jesus our King. To use contemporary jargon, what is his "leadership style"? That is superficially very easy to answer. He loves us, knows what is best for us, and desires our hearts not merely our compliance. "Do it because I say so" is part of the practice of religion only for the very immature who obey God because they fear him. To those who love God, we obey God both because of that love, but also because we believe God knows what is best for us. Knowing what is God's will for us is a wholly separate, if equally important, question.

I have struggled for many years with how one discerns God's will. It has always seemed to me that the extreme of God micromanaging the universe is as wrongheaded as thinking God never intervenes. Recently, as I have considered my life and the things that have happened in my life, I have considered occurrences that resulted because of actions I have taken and then those that have happened despite what I have wanted. It is too easy to simply think, well, everything that ended up happening must have been God's will for me. God, allowed it to happen.

But God allows lots of things to happen that are not God's will. Allowing something to happen is not the same thing as willing it, wanting it. For instance, I may allow my adult child to go bankrupt or go to prison when I have the means to prevent this. I am certainly not willing that my child experience this. I would much rather that my child had avoided the actions that have led to what is now going to happen, but I am allowing something to happen that I could prevent because my intervention will be less healthy for my child in the long run.

Regarding God allowing really bad things to happen without intervention, unless God is going to micromanage the universe God has to allow evil to exist. God controlling everything would mean there is no human freedom. Without the freedom to hate, the freedom to love does not exist. We are, as B.F. Skinner suggested, nothing more than the result of our genetic makeup, the environment in which we have existed, and the positive and negative reinforcements of our predetermined behavior. My point here is that if God allows all sorts of things to happen that God does not directly will, then my life is not necessarily completely the result of God's will, but a combination of God's will and the circumstances that have been in opposition to that.

Where I am going with this is that I have come to realize that it was God's will for me to be a monk and a Carthusian. I won't get into all the specifics and I will also tell you that God's will changes to adapt to new circumstances and God knows about this in advance. So, I am not a monk or even a practicing priest, but I believe I have done some good things with my life that, I hope, have been in conformity with God's will as it has adapted to changed circumstances.

Where I go from here is what really matters. I can't rewrite the past, and living with regrets is beneficial to no one. What is so very interesting is that as I enter the final chapter of my life I see an opportunity to recapture God's original intention for me. A conventional monastic existence is no longer possible, but an unconventional one certainly is and is, actually, falling into place. I have recently decided to retire from my full time job. When that happens, I will be able to establish a monastic routine and live a quasi-eremitical existence. The most unconventional part will be living with my husband, but I have already built a chapel in our basement for the celebration of the Liturgy, have a fully outfitted workshop (also in the basement), and I have plans to renovate a second floor room as a place of reflection and study. These are the essential elements of the monastic/eremitical life: liturgy, study and manual work. Structure, both in schedule and physical arrangements, are also critically important. I began work on defining documents to spell out this life some time ago. While being outside any particular observance has the advantage of "customization," I also know that I must follow rules. The alternative is to wallow in self indulgence.

May God be praised at all times and in all things!

What’s Really Happening in the Worldwide Anglican Communion?

Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:51:00 +0000

After a “panel discussion,” following the celebration of the Eucharist at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in New Britain, CT, someone else who used to attend Saint Maurice Catholic Church in the same city asked me how our experience had been there as a gay couple. Was that the reason we were now attending Saint Mark’s? Actually, I was able to say, we were completely accepted at Saint Maurice Church. The only difference is that at Saint Mark’s, and in the Episcopal Church, it is completely open. At Saint Maurice our status as a committed homosexual couple was never discussed or adverted to. I have come to discover there are advantages to denial.

The “panel discussion” held in the Library was deeply disturbing to me. In the first place, a “panel discussion” implies “discussion.” With a “lecture” or a “presentation” there will not necessarily even be an opportunity for questions. You are there to hear what the presenter or lecturer has to say and if there will be an opportunity for questions it is very frequently explicitly mentioned. Not so with a panel discussion. If you need convincing, consider how you would feel if you came to church and instead of the Eucharist, a movie was shown, or if you went to the movies and the Eucharist was celebrated. Expectations matter. Words matter.

In this instance expectations are even more important because they are involved with ecclesiology, with how we understand ourselves as a Church. Curiously, I had just the previous week enjoyed a conversation with our seminarian, Carolyn Sharp, and others helping her critique her sermons. We talked about whether the traditional “sermon” had perhaps outlived its usefulness, that congregational dialogues might be more appropriate considering the level of literacy, education, and experience of so many Christian congregations. Whatever the future of the sermon in the liturgy, a series of four sermons masquerading as a panel discussion was actually offensive to me. Why? Because it was dismissive of the feelings, thoughts, concerns, perspectives, knowledge, and experience of the People of God gathered in the Library for a discussion. We all know that if there had been more time others in the room would have had the opportunity to speak. That is the core ecclesiological issue. Why were the insights and perspectives of the non-clergy such a low priority?

For me this is very personal. My husband, Mark, and I were the only openly homosexual persons in the room. It was very akin to having a panel of white people talk about racial prejudice with black people in the room who are only allowed to listen. Perhaps even more poignantly it was like what probably did happen in the Episcopal Church as all male panels of clergy pontificated in the presence of women about the appropriate role of women in the Church.

After the clergy had their say, I was required to reduce my list of questions and concerns to one. I chose carefully what I thought was the most poignant issue. It was fascinating to me how no one in the room seemed to grasp what I was talking about. That tells me something, which is the reason for the title of this missive.

Especially after Mother Eakins stunning revelation of the bigamist African bishops, it is perfectly clear to me what is really going on in the Anglican Communion and elsewhere. A powerful anti-homosexual orientation is driving people’s sexual theology. That this is not recognized is to be expected, but this lack of recognition of this anti-homosexual bias is precisely what prevents it from being addressed. Why everyone loves homosexuals, don’t they? They are God’s children, aren’t they?

It is fascinating to me that the worldwide Anglican Communion can tolerate bigamist bishops but not bishops, priests, or even congregants in same-sex relationships that are fully in accord with traditional Church teaching about permanence, exclusivity, and faithfulness. I repeat, it is perfectly clear that anti-homosexuality is driving theology including and especially the interpretation of sacred scripture.

It is also perfectly clear that heterosexual persons cannot be expected to come to this realization on their own. They need to speak to and come to know homosexual persons. The value of a panel of straight clergy sharing their insights on the way the Church is dealing with homosexual persons was vitiated by what, or I should say who, was left out.

Celibacy in the Service of the Gospel

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:20:00 +0000

A sure sign of a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ is the pronounced desire that everything the person does even in some small way promote the Gospel. For those who have the charism to live this way fruitfully, celibacy has been, since Jesus himself, an especially effective way for Christians to live a life dedicated to Christ, proclaiming the Gospel and bearing visible witness to this dedication. But it has never been acceptable within Catholic orthodoxy to suggest that everyone should be celibate. It has not even been acceptable within Catholic orthodoxy to suggest that all priests should be celibate. The practice of the Churches of the East to ordain married men for priestly ministry has, unlike so many other things (the date of Easter, type of bread for the Eucharist, filioque), never in the history of theology ever been a point of theological dispute.

Given the theological and historical facts about celibacy, it is clear that mandatory celibacy for secular priests is a custom or practice, no matter how old and venerable, or simply practical. As such, it is subject to the exact same criteria that any faithful follower of Jesus tries to apply to everything he or she does: does this practice help promote the Gospel? In the current crisis within the Catholic Church whereby millions of Catholics are every day left without access to the sacraments of the Church it is difficult to justify this. Mandatory celibacy for priestly ministry is blocking the promotion of the Gospel.

Since everyone is in agreement that mandatory celibacy for ministry is a custom rather than a theological or moral imperative, it is akin to other customs. It should be governed by the same standards and principles as govern other customs. Let’s use an extremely poignant example from Sacred Scripture: mandatory circumcision. Elucidation of the points and principles is unnecessary. Circumcision was a cultural custom that had risen within Judaism to the status of the law. Early Christianity, very reluctantly, abolished it as a requirement when it became apparent that it would stand in the way of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is not a stretch to suggest that it was only because of the courage of the early Church to abandon the requirement of circumcision that the Church was able to spread so quickly throughout the Mediterranean basin. It is long past time to do the same with mandatory celibacy for the secular clergy in the West. It is, actually, a moral imperative. The reluctance of the leaders of the Church to make this change is confusing. The laity have never understood it and it has certainly never been popular among rank and file clergy.

Jesus: Power & Control

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:13:00 +0000

After many years of studying and praying with Sacred Scripture, and no matter how frequently this happens—even several times during a single session--I am, nevertheless, always startled by significant insights when they occur. Like when reflecting on the exchange between Jesus and the royal official in John (4:46-54). Jesus gave the official what he wanted, but not what he requested. What he wanted was his child to live. What he requested was that Jesus come to his house. The usual interpretation of this passage is that Jesus showed his power, that it was not necessary for him to “come down” to affect the cure. That is a correct interpretation. However, I deal with lots of male authority figures, and what I especially noted was an encounter between two very strong men with different agendas.

Jesus’ agenda was to teach the lessons of the Kingdom. The official’s agenda was to save his son. Jesus uses the official’s request as an opportunity to question the need for signs. The official ignores Jesus’ questioning and issues a command: “Sir, come down before my child dies.” The official, understandably, cares not a whit about signs. He just wants a living child. There is, again, understandably, impatience in the official’s command to Jesus. Jesus, however, is not put off by the impertinence of the official and neither does he respond defensively (Oh, I’m sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were one of those who are looking for signs). He also does not weakly give in to the man and simply do what was asked. Jesus responds to the official in a way that respected him and his request, but he does not relinquish control of the situation. He issues a command of his own: “Go, your son will live.” In other words, in this encounter, Jesus respected the official and his request while not allowing him to control him and his power. In psychological jargon we would say he handled the ego issues. As a final manifestation of Jesus’ power, foresight and benevolence, the official who was not interested in a “sign,” but only in the life of his child, interpreted the recovery of his child as a sign, and he and all his household became believers. Jesus knew the official was not interested in a sign. That was precisely why he made sure the official understood clearly that the recovery of his son would, indeed, be one.

Multiple Magdalenes

Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:26:00 +0000

On the feast of St. Mary Magdalene [July 22], I began morning prayer as I often do reading a little about the day's celebration. I found myself embroiled in controversy! Just who was Mary Magdalene? The West conflates the three Marys—penitent woman, sister of Martha and Lazarus and the woman at the cross and at the tomb. In the East these are seen as three separate people. My knee-jerk was to suspect the Eastern tradition was probably more historical and it was in this frame of mind I began my morning meditation. Then Mary started weeping at the tomb.

My mind went to that other woman weeping at the feet of her Christ. Then I considered the sister of Martha, so absorbed in Jesus she was oblivious to the womanly tasks that were her shared responsibility. What these women all had/have in common is intense love of Jesus. So, the Western tradition has a certain attractive sensibility. We are enamored by those who passionately love our Savior, who fawn and blubber over him. The intense love of the Marys is inspiration for us all. One can argue whether keeping all this love together in one person is more or less helpful than having it manifested in three separate individuals. The important thing is the love, and that is not lost no matter how you slice it—or don’t. The love is certainly historical, and because so many of us continue to feel this way about our Savior, not merely historical, but very contemporary.