+Z’ev

Commemoration of John Henry Hobart

Today’s assigned readings:

1 Kings 17:1-24, Philippians 2:1-11, Matthew 2:1-12

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.
Philippians 2:3-4

Susan Russell, an Episcopal Priest from Pasadena, CA, wrote this in her sermon last week:

“Selective literalism” is arguably the most destructive force at work in the “church universal” today. Taking snippets of scripture out of context and honing them into weapons of mass discrimination, selective literalists portray themselves as preserving “the faith received through the ages” while perverting the core Christian values of God’s inclusive love and abundant grace.

She was talking about “conservatives”, of course, or the “bad guys”. In my comments over there I tried to point out that “we” do it to: liberals or inclusivists or “revisionists” or whatever you want to call the “good guys” in Susan’s view.

But we all do it. Within the current Anglican crisis, low church folks often ignore the literal meaning of some of the more spooky words (”This Bread Is My Body” or “You Must Eat of My Flesh”) while High church folks deny they are interpolating. Some seem to go light on the love your neighbours thing while others seem to forget that, yes indeedy, the scriptures deny the morality of sex outside of heterosexual marriage. And all sides seem to have a serious problem with the idea of “judge not lest ye be judged.” And all sides seem hell bent on being right to the exclusion of the other.

And Paul offers us this passage today, “in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

I’m going to be selectively literal and say that this - and other such - passages seem to me the heart of the Gospel and the actual source of the real inclusivity of Jesus’ path. It’s not that one side is right and the other wrong - but that there is room at Jesus table for all who would come seeking Jesus-in-the-other-person rather than seeking to serve themselves.

And I really believe this although I don’t know how it works because I’ve never seen it happen. Rather I see people fighting for “rights” or “right”. They are the same word, the same thing. Both are meaningless.

The Justice that Jesus offers us, the Peace he brings the Love he commands of us is never in the first person and always in the second or third person. My rights mean nothing but your rights are all. My peace is meaningless but yours is all. I don’t need to be loved, but I do need to love. That’s the martyrdom of Jesus, that’s the martyrdom, the only path of anyone who would claim to be followers of God in Jesus’ path.

I’ve cited one of my favourite CS Lewis quotes before. But I think it goes here again:

The real fun is working up hatred between those who say “mass” and those who say “holy communion” when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker’s doctrine and Thomas Aquinas’, in any form which would hold water for five minutes. And all the purely indifferent things—candles and clothes and what not—are an admirable ground for our activities. We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility.
The Screwtape Letters, Letter 16.

While it would not do to import our modern issues of sex into Lewis’ text, the fact of the matter remains: to those for whom the issue of “Mass” vrs “Holy Communion” is important, it is as much a matter of salvation as sex. The two positions are:
1) Popery is idolatry, a violation of the 2nd commandment.
2) The Traditions of the Church are not to be overthrown lest we leave the faith “once delivered to the saints”.

While both parties “back in the day” might have agreed on issues of sexual morality, both parties would also agree that the other party was pretty close to perdition. Further back in our Anglican history these were matters of life and death and treason to the Crown! Such matters were settled, on paper at least, by Queen Elizabeth. In life they continue to us today for, with minor exceptions, it is the descendants of the low churchers, via their missionary work in Africa, South America and Asia, that trouble us today. They still carry the more-protestant attitudes towards scriptural authority and church polity.

Today we are in need of another Elizabethan Settlement.

Paul offers us a way forward - have in you the mind of Christ - But what do you do when you want to sit at table with someone who refuses to sit with you?

As I told Susan over at her blog, I think we need to be honest. The question is not who is right. I have no doubt at all that these men and women are devout and faithful Christians. I know they feel otherwise about me. But I feel the same about the other side - Susan Russell’s side: I’ve no doubt that they are good and faithful Christians: but they don’t feel the same about their enemies.

And so, there we are.

The process of squeezing one’s enemies out of communion with one is very tiresome to all involved. No matter who the squeezers are.

Paul offers us a way forward - which will mean sacrifice on everyone’s part. Sacrifice is never over as long as one is alive.

Dare we take the offered route?

Much love,

Huw