In my last essay, I suggested, with perhaps something less than complete clarity that reading either Biblical verses or other documents without context can lead one astray. This week, another painfully current example. This is from the New International Version of the Bible:
3 Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?
4 Does a lion roar in the thicket
when he has no prey?
Does he growl in his den
when he has caught nothing?
5 Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground
where no snare has been set?
Does a trap spring up from the earth
when there is nothing to catch?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?
The first verse above, Amos 3:3 has been used as an excuse for an exclusionist view of the Christian faith that is really quite appalling. Read in isolation, it is used to suggest that we must all agree, about everything, or there can be no community, no fellowship of the faithful. Read in context, I don't think it works.
First, the precise wording and I think that most translations agree this one is OK, does not suggest the two have to agree on anything other than walking together. That is, they could be enemies surrounded by robbers. But, if they agree to walk together to safety they are not agreeing about other things.
Consider Amos's list. He is listing improbabilities to make a point, not offering a doctrine of required agreement. A little looking will find in the "Windsor Report" or as I prefer the "Windsor fantasy" the idea that this verse requires that we agree. A cursory scan of the web will find sermons by among others Archbishop Akinola saying exactly that.
It seems to me that what we have here is, then, 'have I got a verse for you theology.' Amos does not say, the Bible does not (I contend) say that we must agree on all points. Peter and Paul disagreed, and James seems to have disagreed with both of them. Yet, they managed to walk together, to the extent that Paul paid the other's bills with money collected from Greek converts. Contrast that with the Ugandan refusal to accept any assistance from Americans with whom it disagree. This even though no American asked them to change their views.
So here we are, where I think I was on the faith once delivered last week. There is more, and less here than many might proclaim.
My parish is entirerly aware that the sister congregation we have in Sudan is considerably more evangelical, more conservative and less open to our ideas than we might like. We don't care. We have agreed to walk together not because we agree on such things as lesbian unions, but because we agee on the faith, agree that we have work to do and that they have needs we can fill. That is for us, enough.
How does that seem to you?
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
8 comments:
Hi Jim,
I had thought seriously about commenting more deeply on this essay because relations between putatively Christian bodies who hold substantively divergent theologies is an important issue, and one that deserves civilized talking about.
However, the essay at hand is constructed in such a way that it can only be read in the context of the internacine squabbles of the Anglican communion (or excommunion, as the case may be), and thus leaves me (an outsider) very little room to comment.
But "very little room" is not quite "no room at all". So, I think I can say that I agree with you that the passage from Amos doesn't offer much support for what you call "an exclusionist view of the Christian faith".
But... The anecdotal evidence for your vision of "walking together" strikes me as just a trifle condescending and paternalistic. You suggest that your Sudanese sister congregation is "considerably more evangelical, more conservative and less open to our ideas than we might like", and "they have needs we can fill" without any hint of understanding that you are considerably more Anglo-catholic, more liberal, and more open to the whims of the day than they might like, and that you have needs that they can fill.
Two steps behind and one to the left may be "walking together", but it's not intercommunion... and it's no way to treat a sister.
For what it's worth,
dj
Hi dj,
Yes it is pretty specific to the Anglican disintegration. I suppose that the verse gets misused elsewhere, but I simply do not know about it. ;-)
I did not, certainly, intend to suggest that we are somehow the superiors in the relationship with our sister congregation. Let's face it, we are the rich sister. And it is clear they sought relationships like this precisely because of their needs. But to say that is the sole vector in the relationship would be wrong. We get so much from our fellowship, love the priests and bishops we have met from there and actually (I know this may shock some folks,) think about their viewpoint as we make decisions!)
As we pray for them, we are aware they are praying for us. And that is something we cherish.
So, while I don't quite see your reading, let me note that my last paragraph is in a context. Uganda and Nigeria in a fit of holiness have elected to reject aid and grants previously given to avoid taking 'tainted' money. Not once has anyone suggested they change their views to get money, or any other aid. It is entirely likely that at least some of Renk's clergy think we are useful idiots because we give them money, without strings, send our folks over there to work on their projects, without strings, assist in facilitating visits here for their clergy and youth, without strings, and never ask them to change their views. Not once. I do not care, and I shall if it comes to it continue to be a useful idiot.
I am hoping, that if my finances work out, I may be over there next Winter. Not to convert, to serve. Not to duck arguments, if asked, I answer, from my viewpoint.
Frankly, I think that is being rather sisterly. Feel free to show me my error.
:-)
FWIW
jimB
Hi Jim,
You say:
"Feel free to show me my error."
I'd like to suggest that you focus your attention on two statements that you made:
1) "Let's face it, we are the rich sister."
While I'm pretty sure that I understand what you are trying to convey, I'm equally sure that the vast majority of the Christian world simply and directly disagrees with your assertion. Monetary wealth, contrary to what the western churches (not just Episcopal) practice, and thus teach, is not a Christian virtue, but rather is a burden that must be born with humility if it is not to lead to death.
Add to this the fact that TEC has been duplicitous in the past...
I was at Trinity, Wall Street in the mid- to late '70s when boatloads of American greenbacks were sent to central Africa along with American missionaries. The Africans were not told ahead of time that female American clergy (and at least two accompanied each missionary team... one of whom was ALWAYS the leader) would be on those teams, and would, without permission of the local bishop, and in violation of local canon law, concelebrate liturgies with male members of the "team". People used to make jokes about it at coffee hour... though I didn't get the jokes at the time, being young, naive, and about as spiritually alert as a slightly dull banana slug.
The Africans, though, learned, "He who has the gold makes the rules". Is it a surprise that some, at least, have decided to reject the gold?
2)"Uganda and Nigeria in a fit of holiness have elected to reject aid and grants previously given to avoid taking 'tainted' money. Not once has anyone suggested they change their views to get money, or any other aid."
As noted above, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that your underlying assumption concerning ulterior motives is perhaps rather off-base, but there is another way to look at this.
As I recall, both Uganda and Nigeria, through their respective synods, broke communion with (P)ECUSA at the time of the consecration of Gene Robinson. You may disagree with that action... you may question the motives for that action... you may even consider their actions "null and void". Nonetheless, such synodal actions (both yours and theirs) DO have consequences. One of those consequences is that you cannot go to Nigeria (or Uganda) and expect to be welcome to receive communion at the local Anglican Church there. Neither would a good Nigerian or Ugandan Anglican be willing to approach the communion rail at your parish in Chicago. That's one of the consequences of breaking communion. Another consequence is that (P)ECUSA/TEC dollars are neither desired nor welcome within those two provinces of the Anglican Communion.
They have apparently come to the conclusion that the difference between what you (TEC) believe and what they believe is so substantial that "walking together" with TEC is not an option for them. You guys have changed the rules, and they are not willing to play by those rules.
Not only that, but they had even warned you that they wouldn't tolerate this particular change in the rules... that it would "tear the fabric of the communion". But you changed the rules anyway... It DID "tear the fabric of the communion"... and everyone in the Anglican world is having to live with the consequences.
The point is that when you talk about "walking together" there are at least two parties involved, each of which must consent to the "walking together". There must be some agreement on the destination, or at least the direction, before "walking together" makes much sense. If one wants to go right, and the other to continue straight ahead, then "walking together" isn't going to happen, as there is no agreement to really do so.
You (either you personally, or you TEC) might assert that the differences are not substantial enough to constitute "walking apart". But (and this is a very important bit) you don't get to make that decision all by yourselves. The other parties have a right to make that decision for themselves, too.
To put it simply and bluntly, the fact that you are the "rich sister" (by your standards, mind you) simply does not give you the right to dictate to them with whom they "should" or "must" choose to walk.
You guys made your choice, and now they are making theirs. Decisions DO have consequences. Your "error" (if such it be) is that you don't want to face the consequences for the decision that you guys made, and that, given that your decision fixed a new trajectory for TEC, others have a large say in what those consequences are.
Cheers,
dj
dj,
I think there is some hair splitting here. Of course there are things beside sheer economics that define 'wealth.' And of course, you knew what I meant. And, I went on to describe exactly some of the gifts beyond wealth that we see in our loving relationship.
Not every parish is Trinity, not every diocese New York. Neither we in Chicago nor our friends in Virginia attempt to use our (note careful language) economic position to dominate Renk. Neither of us is in the business of buying favoured status.
We know, and respect the disagreements we know we have with our sisters.
As to Uganda, and Nigeria. I note that the holy people who reject the gifts from TEC that were and remain freely offered are in the same position as Mr. Castro in Cuba is under embargo.
As I have observed previously, if there is one hen in Cuba, Mr. Castro has eggs for breakfast. It is all very well for the holy people to righteously refuse gifts that would keep some of their people from starving -- if they are starving too. Otherwise, the word is I believe hypocrisy.
I recall Mother Teresa who took 'tainted' contributions from Mafia types. She said food carried no taint to the starving.
Which leads back to the first question -- on what do the putative two men have to agree to walk together? Is it not possible that they have to seek things that allow them to do so? The world is a better place I think because communists and capitalists, despite their disagreements could agree to walk together towards the eradication of small pox. The rest could and did wait.
Hillel said: To love God and your neighbor is Torah, all else is commentary.
Jesus said: I come to fulfill Torah, not to abolish Torah.
Nothing there of agreeing on theology. Do Torah, all else is commentary,
FWIW
jimB
Hi Jim,
To answer your primary question: "...on what do the putative two men have to agree to walk together?"
The answer is that they must agree to walk together. There is no other requirement.
They have said, "We are walking the same direction that we've walked these last 200 years."
You have said, "But we are going a different direction. You MUST walk our way."
They are saying, "No thank you. Your direction does not take us where we want to go."
Your direction may (or may not) be a "better" direction. But in terms of "walking together", that doesn't matter. It is TEC that changed directions. It is TEC that has chosen to walk apart.
As to your "Castro" straw man... It *might* fly if Akinola, et al, had a real means to prevent NGO money from entering their countries. They don't. TEC could, if it chose, efficiently get money to the poor of Central Africa. But that's not its agenda, is it?
Further, you are ascribing motives to the "Global South" primates that you simply cannot know. "They disagree with me, and they are sticking to their guns. Since I'm right, they must be arrogant, evil men." Sorry, Jim, but as they say on the courtroom dramas, "Assumes facts not in evidence."
As to your Hillel quote. To "not do that which is loathsome to you" (which is the standard that Hillel actually set) is NOT, by any stretch of the Christian understanding, "love". Jesus was not Hillel... and He set a far, far different standard. Understand that, and you might begin to see why the Global South might see themselves as "doing Torah" towards TEC. (NOTE: I am not assuming that they ARE "doing Torah" to TEC, or even that they THINK they are... just that such an explanation is plausible.
Cheers,
dj
dj,
I think we have said, in TEC, come, we walk towards the same goal, let's agree to discuss, disagree, even argue along the road. What I think i read in your comments, and by the bye, I have never said any of your 'you have said' things, is the assumption that the one, right, conservative, did I mention 'right' set of readings for the selected 'plain meaning' (we will ignore the other stuff) texts is the goal, without which the two cannot walk together.
TEC has never told Nigeria it must order lesbians, gays, straight women. It has never told them they must accept the ordinaitons we do. Women clerics of our church have be as gracious as they can manage in the face of the ongoing rejection.
To say we demand they change their ways is simply to ignore what has happened. We do not deny we do what we do, but we do not demand they do it.
FWIW, the Roman church is right about divorce and remarriage you know. Unless of course, there is experience and revelation beyond the text. hmmm.....
FWIW
jimB
Hi Jim,
You said:
"What I think i read in your comments, and by the bye, I have never said any of your 'you have said' things, is the assumption that the one, right, conservative, did I mention 'right' set of readings for the selected 'plain meaning' (we will ignore the other stuff) texts is the goal, without which the two cannot walk together."
No, Jim!
What I said, and what I meant is that THEY said that if TEC changes the rules, TEC will be choosing to walk apart. TEC chose to change the rules and you now find yourselves walking apart. Instead of taking responsibility for your actions, you choose to blame them. You choose to ascribe evil motives to them. That is simply wrong.
If you go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of reading into what I wrote what you expect me to say, you would find that I have neither expressed agreement (nor disagreement) with their choice to break communion with you, nor expressed any opinion whatsoever on the moral theology issue.
There are a number of reasons that I haven't expressed an opinion:
1) You already know it and reject it. Arguing about it will just generate a lot of heat without any light.
2) Underlying the moral theology issue is a profound disagreement between us about anthropology. If we can't even speak the same language about what it means to be a human being, talking about how and why human beings should act in particular ways, and what "roles" they should (or even can) fill is going to be another nonstarter.
3) I don't CARE whether TEC (or the Anglican Communion) orders women, gays, lesbians, crocodiles, or pink elephants. On the list of things that separate East and West, that issue is not in the top 25 (and probably not in the top 50) in importance. If there were ever to come a time when this issue were important enough for me to care, it will already have been resolved.
No, my entire purpose in engaging in this discussion at all is relational.
Let us pretend for a moment that, last month, I told my wife that I was going to spend our life-savings on a 75' racing sloop. I've wanted that boat for years, but she kept telling me that saving for retirement was the better course... and up until last month, I agreed with her. This time she told me, in no uncertain terms, that looting our life-savings to buy the boat would "tear the fabric of the marriage"... that she would divorce me. Of course, I knew better, and went ahead and bought the boat. Sure enough, my wife tossed me out and filed for divorce. I now find myself "walking apart".
By your argument, she shouldn't have done that. we should still be, "walk[ing] towards the same goal, ... agree[ing] to discuss, disagree, even argue along the road."
The problem is that we weren't actually walking toward the same goal... and of course, until *I* make amends, there is little to discuss.
You guys broke faith with the rest of the Anglican communion. You shouldn't be, but somehow are, surprised that they want a divorce. You want to "walk together"? Sell the boat, put every last dime of your life-savings back in the bank, IN HER NAME, Then, get down on your knees in front of her and BEG her forgiveness... and really, actually mean it. Who knows... maybe she'll be willing to take you back...
The issue, Jim, is not the boat, but the paternalistic and profound lack of respect that you guys have shown and continue to show towards the rest of the Anglican Communion.
I'm more than a bit surprised that you can't see that.
Cheers,
dj
Hmmm.. Well, frankly I don't see it. We acted on the current item after decades of writing etc. that the other side of the aisle simply ignored. We acted entirerly within the polity, lest we forget there are no "anglican communion canons." When asked, we agreed to cede voice and vote at the ACC meeting. We apologized because we really did not intend, nor I think understand, the potential damage in Islamic countries.
Part of the problem is, I think, that you actually think there was an entity called the "anglican communion" that had / has rules of decent conduct. One of the reasons I and others decried the Windsor Report (or as I prefer the Windsor Fantasy) is that it makes the same error.
Its description of how the communion came to (partially another item it missed) order women is complete fiction. Singapore (not USA) in ordering a woman broke with a long line of traditon.
Frankly I think that is what the leadership thought would happen this time. Which proves their own political blindness. I do not suggest the 'left' has not erred.
There in the problem. In your marrige (flawed) analogy, there is a clear expectation (modern by the way) that the couples deploy assets by agreement. The Anglican world has no such agreement, has never had one, and wont get one out of the soon to be abandoned (I predict) covenant process.
We for real cannot tear what is shredded. Nigeria, and several others, including Fort Worth and Quincy, wont accept the orders of our women, and never have. To suggest there was an intact fabric before +Gene is simply wrong.
Yes, other items are involved certainly, but the same pattern holds. The American church never accepted the 39 Articles or the 1662 book as defining. The articles did not even appear in our first prayerbooks. But now, if we don't conform to someone else's reading of them, we are 'tearing the fabric.'
;;sigh;;
Nope, I do not see it. There was nothing descernable to tear. Frankly if the entire international thing comes apart, we may be able to build a legitiamate structure. And it likely wont include Nigeria, but it will probably include a fair number of conservative provinces.
Inside the US, where the battle rages, we will eventually, alas, win most of the litigation. The status of our canons and the US tax code on gifts makes that likely. I could almost wish it were not so. But we will.
A long time aqo, when I had hair, a Lutheran buddy said that as his church was busy shedding its left wing, and had some years before shed its right, "sometimes you just have to prune." We may well be there. Alas.
FWIW, this is rather far from my initial essay, but interesting none the less. I appreciate your time and thoughts.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment