Tuesday (Epiphany 3 Year 2)

Posted by Huw on Jan 29th, 2008
2008
Jan 29

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 15:1-11,17-21, Hebrews 9:1-14, John 5:1-18




Dear Friends,
Christ is Risen!

For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our F60 conscience from dead works to worship the living God!
Hebrews 9:13-14

This idea that God had to sacrifice his own son to himself is only one way to understand the work of Jesus that has been used in the Church. It is not the primary understanding currently used in the Orthodox Church nor in other places. An exaggeration of this view, with a lot of blood imagery, is very common in conservative Protestant and Roman theology, however. But to focus on only one aspect - as opposed to all others - is to risk a distortion. It makes all of Christianity to look as spooky as today’s reading from Genesis.

I highly recommend these lectures from Kallistos Ware, an Orthodox Bishop from the UK. The are on the website for Holy Cross Parish, located in Baltimore, MD.

On March 24 2005, His Grace Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokletia gave three lectures at the Annunciation Cathedral in Baltimore, MD, as part of their Lenten Retreat and Centennial celebration. His topic was on the Cross of Christ, and characteristically his lectures were both pastoral and academic. Included in the mp3 downloads below is Q&A following each lecture.

Lecture I: The Cross as a Redeeming Sacrifice
Lecture II: The Cross as Suffering Love
Lecture III: The Meaning of Forgiveness

Many recent converts to Orthodoxy (myself included for a time) tend to imagine that another aspect (called “Christus Victor“) is The Only Way To Go, I think it needs to be seen as part of a spectrum of understanding - as Bp Kallistos seems to indicate.

Much love,

Huw

Monday (Epiphany 3 Year 2)

Posted by Huw on Jan 28th, 2008
2008
Jan 28

Commemoration of Thomas Aquinas

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 14:1-24, Hebrews 8:1-13, John 4:43-54

And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
Genesis 14:18-20a

One possible translation of “Melchizedek” is “My Righteous King”. Another is that “Sedek is my King”. And, finally, the entire phrase, “King Melchizedek of Salem” could be rendered as “The King, the Righteous King of Salem” or even “My King, the Just King of Salem.”

But the curious phrase is “God Most High” a translation of “El Elyon” which has nothing to do with Abram’s God - understood by later readers to be “YHVH”. The King of Salem is bringing out the blessings of a pagan deity.

And Abram is accepting them: and making an offering to him!

Ah… we like politics. Could this be a Pro-Jerusalem retelling of some kind of kingly foundation myth?

For your meditation, here are the Wiki Articles on:
El Elyon
Melchizedek

Much love,

Huw

Thursday (Ephiphany 2 Year 2)

Posted by Huw on Jan 24th, 2008
2008
Jan 24

Commemoration of the Ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 11:1-9, Hebrews 6:13-20, John 4:1-15




Dear Friends,
Christ is Risen!

And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”
Genesis 11:6-7

Liturgically, this is usually paired with the image of the tongues of fire at Pentecost. On the one the “curse” of languages resulted in the division of everyone. In the other the gift of tongues resulted in the ability to spread the Gospel in a unified manner.

Anyone familiar with the current Anglican Wars would question the whole gift of tongues as unity. It seems that the North and South are split, largely, over the issues of Race and Sex (as between gay and straight, African/Hispanics and White folks). The unifying gift of Language and the Book of Common Prayer holds none of this together. Someone has noticed (and I just tried to find a set of blog posts from last week - and failed) that, in fact, on the internet, the Anglicans get along much better than they seem to do “in real life”. Conservatives and liberals, traditionalists and progressives can, usually, socialise well together.

And today is the anniversary of the Ordination of Li Tim-Oi to the priesthood: but not everyone will be commemorating it.

I was living in Hoboken, NJ, when I first got connected to the internet. This was about 1990 or, perhaps, the winter of early 1991. I had a computer and I asked Mom and Dad for a new-fangled thing called a Modem. Back in those days the easy way to get one was to buy a Prodigy sign-up package. The computer was in the back room of my second-floor apartment: which was actually an add-on, sort of an expanded closet that had been built on the room of the first floor. It was under-insulated and tended to creak if the wind blew too hard. I remember sitting in that room in the chill of a North East winter, during one day when the weather had closed work: and I chatted with my first online-contact. And later, on Prodigy, I discovered other Episcopalians. Since I worked at the Episcopal Church Center, attended a parish in Greenwich Village and socialised all with a lot of folks from the Diocese of New York, these folks online were quite a shock!

They spent most of their time complaining about the people I hung out with.

A few of them were asking questions to which I knew the answers. But some of them were asking questions that needed to be referred to the people at work. So I printed out a bunch of the questions and handed them around the Episcopal Church Center.

And promptly caused a crisis: because one party, named Odessa, knew the people about whom she was complaining. When they got her name off the emails, she reported “There’s a spy from the Church Center on Prodigy!!!!!”

C’est moi.

Later, on the Episcopal Church’s Quest network - a part of Ecunet - we found that conservatives and liberals could debate loudly and longly. Then there was the infamous Northern Ireland Incident.

Back in the Day, when I was a political activist (and my name was Bill Bailey) my favorite issue was the British Government in the north of Ireland. As might be expected I was involved in several American organizations that could be seen as offering support for the Irish Cause - but I was never a member of the one group in the US known to offer financial support (and suspected of other sorts of support) to the IRA.

I also hosted a news list, at the suggestion of a member of the Hierarchy of my church (Desmond Tutu’s press secretary), that distributed about 70 stories a day clipped from the various newspapers in Ireland (north and south) and the UK. This list was run on the Ecunet service. This was distributed to about 7 (or maybe 8) members of the Anglican Communion, Two Heirarchs, myself, and four others. Despite the small grouping - and the high-ranking support - the list became the subject of an international row as Robin Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of Ireland accused me - through his press secretary, Elizabeth Harries - of supporting the IRA and using church resources to do so. Somehow, Jim Rosenthal, Press Officer in the Anglican Communion office, got involved in the whole thing.

For a couple of days in June and July of 1994, I was dealing with phone calls from Ireland and England and wherever else, faxes from press offices and official denials. And, evidently, Liz Harries even contacted the British Security forces because, seemingly, I knew too much about a certain incident - widely reported in the American Press, but hushed up in Northern Ireland.

In the end, the Archbishop of Armagh was informed, by Ecunet, of the good old American Freedom of the Press and politely put in his place by the owners of that service. But not without a lot of help from the British and Irish Press who took the opportunity to whollop the Archbishop in the belly with his own croizer. I spent a couple of days in all the papers in Belfast and a staff member from the NYC Comptroller’s Office told me that I could have had all the free drinks I wanted on either side of the peace wall in Belfast.

Now, 15 years later, everyone knows that what you say online is, nearly instantly, known everywhere. (When I became Orthodox, someone contacted Odessa and told her. I understand her reply was “We used to call him Bill Bailey.”) When an Anglican in Texas tries to denounce the liberals, all he has to do it send an email. When the Anglicans in New Hampshire try to fully include queers in the life of the Church, servers light up all over the world. When Anglicans in Africa try to set up their own Global Communion, they depend on the net to say just about everything they want to say in public.

If God had wanted to destroy human communication in Babel, he would have done better to have given them the Internet: It seems we have a problem when we get too close.

I discovered the same thing in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the technologically backward areas of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, where the OC was strongest, the Church had developed a set of local customs based around a common tradition. One did certain things in Africa that one did not do in Russia. And vice versa. But no one seemed to care - we were all Orthodox together.

But then came the Internet. Suddenly it became possible for an Arab Orthodox Priest in Jerusalem to look at what an Arab parish in San Francisco was doing on Sunday. And it became just as easy for them to denounce each other. The internet revealed that Orthodox claims about “always the same everywhere” were simply not true. And Orthodoxy is fragmented now - like Anglicans and Romans - into “Continuing” churches and “World Orthodoxy”.

And today is the commemoration of the Ordination of Li Tim-Oi.

Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained a priest by Bp. Ronald Hall of Hong Kong in 1944, primarily because of difficulties occasioned by the Japanese occupation of China. A storm of protest after the war forced her to refrain from exercising her role as a priest. Towards the end of her life, she emigrated to Canada where she was able to resume her priestly duties.

When a priest could no longer travel from Japanese-occupied territory to preside for her at the eucharist, for three years Tim-Oi was licensed to do so as a deacon. Bishop R O Hall of Hong Kong then asked her to meet him in Free China, where on 25 January 1944 he ordained her “a priest in the Church of God”. He knew that this was as momentous a step as when the Apostle Peter baptised the Gentile Cornelius. As Peter recognised that God had already given Cornelius the Baptismal gift of the Spirit, so Bishop Hall was merely confirming that God had already given Tim-Oi the gift of priestly minstry, but he resisted the temptation to rename her Cornelia.

To defuse controversy, in 1946 Tim-Oi surrendered her priest’s licence, but not her Holy Orders, the knowledge of which carried her through Maoist persecution.

It was the destruction of communications prior to the war that allowed her to be Ordained - and, in fact, required that she be so. It was the restoration of the lines of communication that caused the storm of controversy. People from around the world were able to stick their noses in where, previously, they had been unable to stick them.

Improved communication without love is just as bad as no communication at all: a smaller world where people fight more is worse than a larger world at peace.

One of the common stories, told wherever I am in the Church, is of the guest list at the Heavenly Banquet. The general idea of the story is the most surprising thing will be finding out who else is there. It’s most often told in the Third Person: they will be surprised to find out that those others will be there too. Romans will be surprised to find Protestants, Southern Baptists will be surprised to find anyone else at all. Based on the experience of the internet, I think most of us will be surprised to find anyone else at all.

Much Love,

Huw

Wednesday (Epiphany 2 Year 2)

Posted by Huw on Jan 23rd, 2008
2008
Jan 23

Commemoration of Phillips Brooks

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 9:18-29, Hebrews 6:1-12, John 3:22-36




Dear Friends,
Christ is Risen!

The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted his testimony has certified this, that God is true. He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.
John 3:31-36

Who says this? Is this intended to be attributed to John the Baptist (as some hold) or is this the author of the Gospel speaking? Is this a recording of a Catechetical commentary on some sayings, as some hold; or some other commentary from the Johannine community? Or, to allow for the most traditional reading, is this the Holy Spirit dictating some important theology into John’s pen?

How do we weave our personal midrash into this text if we can not be sure what the text was?

The Wiki article on the Gospel documents a whole series of differences between John and the other three Gospels. What do these differences mean? Why are they there? What differences were there between this community or this author and the sources of the other texts? (As an aside, some read the Gospel of John to be the most anti-Semitic, and others see it as the least.)

Do we need - at all! - to know what this text was or is the most important reality what it is to us now?

I spent the early part of this morning (from about 5AM until sunrise prayers) packing. I’ve got a week or so left to pack. I’m ok. This AM I tackled the prayer area in the living room. It’s changed a lot in recent years, but one thing that hasn’t changed is in the top left corner: I had a stash of Blessed Bread (antidoron) that I had collected from my days at Holy Trinity Cathedral in San Francisco. In some ways I treated these as “relics” of my priest there - Fr Victor died a couple of spring times ago. But they were, really, blessed bread: just that. Nothing more. Yes, Fr V had touched them. But I can’t say much else. What had really happened is that I forgot to eat them in the week time after I received them (5 years ago) and now, they were simply white rocks of baked flour. I’d checked several times: they never moulded. Today, even, I nibbled one, it tasted stale, yes, but, apart from the crunchiness, nothing was wrong. Well, except for the fact that I should have 5 year old bread in my house.

I took them outside and now (9Am as I write) I’m watching the squirrels and birds duke it out.

I may shortly decide that I can do the same thing to the Pascha Egg that Fr J demanded we keep instead of break a couple of Easters ago.

What are these stale blessed items? They are unusable now. Piety has made them into useless dead things.

At St Gregory of Nyssa Church, following the service of the word, we would all dance (in a very organised line step) from our seats near the preacher up to the open space around the Table. As we went we sang a hymn and kept our hands on the shoulder in front of us: right, left, right, back; right, left, right, back; right, left, right, back. Far from being some kind of conga line, the visual effect was one of a mass of people swaying forward. In my memories of the experience I am reminded mostly of what the Israelites must have looked like crossing the Sea in awe and fear - everyone hold hand so as not to get lost! And sing! “Mi Kamocha Adonai? Me Kamocha b’Elim!” Who is like you YHVH? Who is like you among the gods?

When we got to the Table (the other side of the sea) there, like on Sinai, we wove again our covenant with each other, with the Holy One, with life itself. It was the same thing over again, but it was also something very new, something that would last until the next time we danced. In our dance we wove God into ourselves: the pattern was always the same, but it changed as often as our clothes, our lives.

In the Orthodox Church I experienced a few *very* good preachers - most especially my priest, the late Victor Sokolov (Memory Eternal!). I learned from them - just as much from the liberal sort of preachers I reference on a more regular basis - that it’s not the text that is important. Rather it is the Presence of God, active in our lives that matters. The text is an opening for that Presence, but it is not the Presence itself. The various patristic, ecclesial, critical and homiletic commentaries are also openings for that Presence. But they are not the Presence itself.

We learned in those sermons that we must, every time, dance again in the text. It’s meaningless otherwise, a dead bit of bread that is no longer holy, but only stale and useless for all but the birds and squirrels.

I think it’s important to see the Biblical Text not as some kind of finished product or fait accompli but rather as an open invitation to take our stories and dance them into the Gospel. And, of course, as we do that the Gospel dances into our lives.

But it changes.

“whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath”

Is this still part of our dance? Or, is this a comment from Jesus-following Jews woven into their dance in the same way that non-Jesus following Jews wove this into their liturgy:

And for slanderers [sectarians] let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in out days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down ememies and humbles sinners.

How do we weave today, when we feel a newer connexion? Or do we? What is the dance we use?

Much love,

Huw

Tuesday (Epiphany 2 Year 2)

Posted by Huw on Jan 22nd, 2008
2008
Jan 22

Commemoration of Vincent

Today’s assigned readings:
Genesis 9:1-17, Hebrews 5:7-14, John 3:16-21




Dear Friends,
Christ is Risen!

God said, “This [Rainbow] is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
Genesis 9:12-13

One thing you can say about Teh Gayz: we likes us some rainbows. While I usually find the Rainbow Pride Flag to be kinda silly, I do love that the city of San Francisco always flies the original ones around the city during the month of June (or so). The Rainbow-as-flag has quite a history, extending from the Aztec Empire and Protestant Reformation!

But I’d like to focus on it’s modern religious use - which arises from our passage today.

I’m intrigued by this concept of the Rainbow as a mark of God’s Covenant -
not with the Jews, but with all nations and people.

Within the Jewish tradition this covenant is referred to as the Seven Noachide Laws. These are often broken out into many different rules and regulations (by ehe Rabbis - not the text) and you can see these on the Wiki page linked above; but these are the seven:

  • Prohibition against idolatry
  • Prohibition against blasphemy
  • Prohibition against murder
  • Prohibition against theft
  • Prohibition against sexual immorality
  • Prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal
  • Establish courts of justice

Of course, these things only need make sense from a Jewish point of view: the general idea being “we” have the Covenant of Sinai while “they” have the Covenant of Noah. Both covenants, of course, being written about from within the context of the Hebrew scriptures. Yet the general idea is that we are all - somehow - under a covenant with God. According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, The 18th century rabbi, Jacob Emden

in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to “Seder ‘Olam” (pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.”

And as I thought about that, I recognised a sketch of the Noachide laws in the directives sent, by the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Christians (meanwhile, the Jews at the Jerusalem Council were following the Mosaic Law still). Later Paul will forget about his council and decide that he can issue directives on his own - about many of the things covered in the letter from the council.

I’ve not given it much thought, to be honest. My interest in Judaism is one thing. I looked at the Noachide Laws briefly ten years ago, but many of the folks who are into them seem just a little bit loopy, as in too pious for words. But it’s the idea that draws me: that there is a standard for conduct on par with Torah - not just select parts of the Torah that we decontextualised in order to access them on our own terms. (We like the no-gay-sex rule, but we’ll keep eating shrimp, thanks.) This seems to make as much sense as any approach to Christianity.

So, tonight as I write, I’m intrigued by this idea that Gentiles are under a covenant - even according to the earliest church.

Where can such an idea take us? Away, I think, from “Chosen people” (where we imagine ourselves as a replacement for Israel) and into “average people” where all the people of God are included. Maybe? Or can we envision the early church as Noachide synagogues? Can we imagine what such a movement might look like today?

Much Love

Huw

Next »