Is your church culty?

I used, or perhaps misused, the term cult on a message board one time and was told that an established denomination or church cannot be a cult. Period. I told the person I disagreed, to which I was told, "Well, then you'd be wrong." Wikipedia has a nice article on cults that I think would have shed some light on that disagreement, but I've been doing some thinking on my own since then.

The author of the aforementioned article states that "Secular cult opponents tend to define a 'cult' as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members." That definition seems like a pretty good one to me, but when most people think of a cult they think of David Koresh, Heaven's Gate or The Family International. People figure that since their churches don't fit into the same category as those groups that they must be okay. Most people think that a cult is a cult and everything else isn't. If our health was like that we'd either be 100 percent healthy or dead.

The Wikipedia article lists these "key steps" to indoctrinating people into a cult. I will put some of my thoughts about each one and how other groups can act culty.

People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations.

My experience has been that the religious group in question doesn't necessarily put the person in distress. The person might be in distress because of things going on in his personal life. This can present a golden opportunity for said religious group.

Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized.

If a religious leader or group keeps emphasizing a particular sin or shortcoming in your life, then you might have a problem. It could be that a person is a drug user and that repeated drug use results in a host of problems for the person. In that case the person's problems can be reduced to one simple explanation. However, some religious leaders will put a label on you. That label will serve to invalidate any opinions or objections you raise.

They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader.

So often a culty church's pastor or head clergyman will make himself available more than you'd think practical or healthy. They want you to talk and talk and talk some more so that you will tell him something he can hang over your head later. Another article I read refers to "love bombing" in which the initiate is overwhelmed with love. They "kill you with kindness" as someone once said. But, if you stray from their way of thinking that love will disappear.

They get a new identity based on the group.

Some churches will give a baptismal name or something like that, but I've seen that become almost like a game. The person gets to be like a sci-fi character who finds a magic robe or wand and is all of the sudden someone else.

They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.

I've seen them get rid of their TVs and talk about how useless it is to be informed about current events. I've seen them dress like they stepped off the stage of a really low budget production of "A Christmas Carol" and I've seen them act so zealous about their religion that they can't talk about anything else. These things tend to push people away. It's sort of self-alienation.

Cults are usually based on a charismatic leader. I've actually seen a culty church operate under two models mentioned in the article. The psycho-pathological model is one in which the leader has a problem and tries to solve the problem through the members. I've actually seen this and experienced it. Also, there is the social model in which people cut themselves off more and more from people who aren't affiliated with the group. One church I used to attend bought some property out in the boonies and intends to build a church there. That's fine, but then they've talked about building a little subdivision out there for their members.

Here are some more practical examples of how a church can be culty based on the above criteria. Again, a church does not have to meet all of the above to be a cult or to be culty.

Your church might be culty if ...

You have to discuss your decision to go to a relative or friend's wedding or funeral with your leader to make sure he is okay with it.

Younger women or girls are encouraged to marry older men so that at least they have their faith in common.

You start to feel isolated from your family, friends or society because the holidays or religious observances keep you out of sync with your family or friends.

You know people who go by a completely different name at church than at home or work. It's not just a different name but it is actually seen as a different identity.

People seek to engage not in dialogue with non-members but in arguments to defend their religion against perceived attacks.

What married couples can do in the bedroom and even when they can do those things is prescribed. A discussion with the leader might be required to hammer out all the do's and don'ts.

Your leader sends you a letter or email filled with flower language but really doesn't say anything. Speech and writing is often grandiose with no content.

You want to get married, but your leader must "interview" your intended marriage partner to make sure he feels it would be a good match. He has veto power.

People are denied serving on councils or committees because of some sin or another. Sure, we shouldn't let a kleptomaniac be the treasurer or an alcoholic maintain the sacramental wine inventory, but often the logic isn't that clear. Often people just get a label and a second class citizenship status just because they opposed some edict of the leader.

If you have a different opinion and you're told that you're jealous or angry just because of your disagreement.

Is your church culty? I'd think about it if I were you.

Really?

This is a quote from a blog I visit from time to time.

"... not including (my church), which is my Faith, not an 'obsession.'"

Really?

Inclusive?

The last Episcopal church that I attended is a beautiful stone building with priceless stain glass windows and wood carvings that are truly unique in this country. I was told that one other church in the U.S. had carving by this particular artist, but that church burned. The worship style at this church is decidedly Anglo-Catholic or "high church." If a couple is planning to be married the banns of marriage are read. That means that the priest will announce on three separate Sundays that Joe Blow and Jane Doe intend to be married and that persons knowing why these two should be be married should tell what they know. But why?

Reasons for not allowing two people to get married have changed over the years, but some of them might include being too closely related, one person being married already and so forth. Most Episcopal churches I've visited or attended do not follow this old practice anymore. I think the fact that this one still follows the practice is a bit odd, but now that the Episcopal Church has done that they did I think the practice is completely unnecessary.

Recently the Episcopal Church approved a measure to allow gays, lesbians and those living in committed relationships (shacking) to be ordained to the diaconate, the priesthood or the episcopacy. You can read this story for more detail. Huw's post on this matter and the following discussion is pretty interesting too, though I'm not 100 percent proud of my contributions. Apparently the bishops and lay delegates also decided to make it possible for gays and lesbians to be married in the Episcopal Church.

I'm bothered that the local media has been silent on what I believe is the most monumental decision the Episcopal Church has made since 1976 when they began ordaining women to the priesthood. Unlike this decision, however, I can't quite figure out what this actually does to the status of TEC in regards to its authenticity as a Christian body. I can accept women priests and have received their sacraments. Neither the arguments for or against the ordination of women to any kind of ministry impress me, so I have no reason to discount the validity of their ministry. However, this decision goes against 2,000 years of Christian moral theology. I'm upset.

It's very hard being me when it comes to religion. I really feel that structured contemplative worship is something I feel fed by, and I believe that sacramental theology is also important. Even the Baptist church I've been visiting lately has some quasi-sacramental tendencies. I'm what you might call a lower case "c" catholic. I don't believe that pope is infallible and I don't believe that there is one absolute true church that everyone must belong to in order to be saved. I don't necessarily feel comfortable with confession because of experiences I've had and I don't feel that I must run spiritually related decisions by a member of the clergy. I guess I like a middle ground. That middle ground is officially gone. Oh, sure there are other Anglican churches around. There are three Anglican churches whose bishops are in Africa, but the two I've visited don't seem to respect Anglican worship. There is an Anglican Catholic mission in the area, but I have some misgivings about them too.

The real middle ground is gone. They've totally and completely given themselves over to the dark side in my opinion. They have pleased the world. They want to include everyone even though they want to relegate those who disagree with them to a second class status. They want to shock and horrify their opponents. Well, where is Christ in all of this? And, was it announced in very many Episcopal churches today that from now on gays, lesbians and cohabitants will be eligible for ordination? Was it announced that gay marriages in TEC may very well be a reality? No, it was probably mentioned that "We did a lot of work for the Kingdom and we're all very eager to get to work here at home. "A lot of decisions were made and a lot of things happened. We all made a lot of friends at General Convention. We sang kumba ya and life is good." Yeah, let's just keep quiet about what really happened.

Religious holiday?

First I saw on facebook that Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus was planning to con-celebrate the Eucharist with ELCA Bishop Mark Holmerud before the gay pride parade. Then St. Paul's Episcopal Church on the Hill (because somehow I'm on that church's facebook list) sent me an invitation to some gay pride event, and finally Huw posted a sermon I believe he preached at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

Has this become some kind of religious observance right along with Easter or Christmas? Seriously? Celebrating the Eucharist before taking part in the gay pride parade?

New policies

Recently I commented on another blog about some religious issues he'd blogged about. Another reader responded to my comment and linked to a post he'd written about something I mentioned. Though it was a rather tame argument, it did become somewhat of an argument. I'm afraid that arguing about religion, especially on line, is really a dumb thing to do.

Not far from where I live there is a minister who believes that if a person is not reading the 1611 Authorized King James Version of the Bible he/she isn't reading the Bible at all. Surely, if this pastor has been to seminary, he realizes that the KJV hot off the press in 1611 included items like the first two books of the Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Bel to name a few. These aren't books that I've heard many Protestant ministers recommend. But, from what I can tell this pastor isn't one for discussion.

So often people have their own ideas about their faith and nothing anyone does or says will change their minds. I've seen blog posts and essays on line about fasting and other spiritual disciplines in which sweeping judgmental statements are made. People are criticized for not agreeing with the blogger's position. These practices must be practiced according to the letter of the law or else those who fail to do so may be in deep trouble. Often, though not always, the clergy of these churches allow for grace and leniency.

The new policies:

Henceforth I will not be discussing or arguing with these people anymore. They have no authority over me even if I did attend their churches. That does not mean I will not discuss faith/religion on line, but I will not get sucked into debate with people who have no authority over me.

Secondly, I may request that the person give me an email address of his/her priest, minister, rabbi or whatever so that I may discuss the issue with that clergyperson. In many cases I suspect that the spiritual director, if there even is one, would be very disappointed at the things folks are saying on their blogs. I suspect that the bloggers in question would be ashamed or embarrassed to have their pastors read the narrow views expressed in their writing.

In all my days of arguing and discussing with members of one particular religious group -- a group that really stresses a strong relationship with one's spiritual director -- not once did anyone ever say, "You know, this discussion is going places I'm not sure about. I will confer with (spiritual director) and get back with you on this." Not once. Very telling I think. So, if you're willing to include your spiritual director in the conversation, we might move forward (if I decide to violate new police No. 1). Otherwise, no dice.

So angry!

Not me. No, right now I can't say that I'm angry about anything and I hope to keep it that way. I know that prior to Barak Obama's election as president that many conservatives, including Roman Catholics, said that Obama was the wrong choice for president. Enough folks, including Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians disagreed. The fact that a small minority of Catholics, claiming the title "authentic Catholics," would have us believe that they speak for all Catholics, and the fact that not all people of faith agree on everything, are subjects for another post.

Lately, I've heard a lot of conservatives on the radio talking about Obama as if he were the anti-Christ foretold in the Apocalypse of St. John 13:17-18. Others have practically labeled him a communist. It just seems as though this nation is becoming more and more divided each day. I do not agree with Obama or the Democrats on every issue. In fact, there are many issues I don't agree about just as I don't agree with Republicans on many issues. What concerns me, however, is the level of anger and, dare I say, hatred people have for our president.

Some of it I believe is racism, pure and simple. They're angry that an African American won the presidency. Also, many people are angry that the Republican Party failed to retain its control over the White House and Congress. Who better to be angry at than the Democrats?

What this nation needs now more than ever is reconciliation and cooperation. Both sides will have to give a little, which means that giving nothing and expecting the other side to give it all is not going to work. Remember that people called FDR a socialist. That is the same thing people are calling Obama.

R.C.T.J.W.F.

I've just opened another one of the selections we picked up at Trader Joe's last weekend. It's R.C.T.J.W.F. 2006 Petite Sirah. The Acronym stands for "Really Cool Trader Joe's Wine Find," and I think it lives up to it's name. The label, which you'll see if you follow the link, looks like a post-it note. Nice.

More TJ wines

My lovely wife and I went to Trader Joe's this past weekend and picked up some wine as well as many groceries. Two wines that I like so far include the La Boca Chardonnay 2008. I found a review of the 2007, which should give you some idea of the characteristics.

Another wine I really like was a blend called Pancake Cellars Big Day White. It's "60% Sauvignon Blanc, 27% Chardonnay, 12% Gewurztraminer and 1% Pinot Blanc." I'm no wine aficionado, but I would say this wine is very light and could easily be overpowered by something spicy. It's nice, though. I think the label shows a grape dreaming of stomping on people or cities or something.

By the way, these wines are very inepensive at $5 and $6 each. Not bad.

Whine

At this moment (yes, at almost 3 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon) I'm having a glass of red wine. It's an inexpensive Merlot my wife and I picked up at Trader Joe's on a recent trip. It's the Viñas Chilenas Reserva Merlot 2007. I've found a review of the 2006, which uses words like astringent and medicinal. Ditto. Yeah, this isn't my favorite wine in all the world, but I'd hate to waste it. ;-)

I much prefer the also inexpensive Epicuro Salice Salentino Riserva (also from TJ's). This wine is "crafted from 80% Negroamaro and 20% Malvasia Nera" grapes, which are two varieties I had never heard of before trying this wine. That wine is much better. In any event, just give me a nice Malbec and and a nice medium to medium-well steak and I'm good.

Judging other people's religious beliefs?

I've been judged and/or criticized for my religious beliefs over the years and it's not fun. I remember showing off my first rosary (as an Episcopalian) to some folks. When they thought it was a piece of jewelry for a girl I liked they were impressed, but when I told them what it was they quoted Mathew 6:19-24. This made no sense to me at all since the material value of the rosary was relatively small. The beads were plastic and any metal on the rosary was probably stainless steel or aluminum. Somehow these folks felt I was storing up worldly wealth for myself. I suspect they just didn't like the fact that I was using a rosary as a devotional aid.

Sometimes, though I can't help but wonder what people are thinking. This guy asked a (Catholic) priest on the radio once if a woman who had an abortion needed an exorcism. He said no, but I didn't feel like he went far enough in finding out where this guy was coming from. Then there is Mel Gibson. He's a traditionalist Catholic who only uses the Tridentine Latin Rite and recently built a church for himself and other like-minded folks. But then he's been a naught boy lately in a very public (and scandalous) way.

And then I know someone who is getting married and family members cannot come because they aren't members of this particular faith. Sometimes I just don't know where people are coming from when it comes to religion. What happened to "God is love"? I don't know. I don't understand.

Spiritual disciplines

I've been wondering for quite some time how much spiritual disciplines one should undertake. I've been in churches where people were generally encouraged to read their Bibles, pray and go to church. Also expected of course was to abstain from activities that are considered contrary to God's will (murder, theft, premarital/extramarital sex, etc.).

I've also been in churches with rigorous fasting schedules and strict rules. The clergy took a very strong role in each person's life, often hearing confessions, telling people whether they had his blessing to do or not do certain things and so forth (and it wasn't a Roman Catholic church). I guess you could say I've done a lot of church hopping and church shopping, which can be bad. I think a person can get a lot of conflicting ideas and theologies in his head and become very confused.

These days I'm hoping to find a good church for my wife, my son and myself. I don't really want a church where people show up on Sundays and think that's it and that anything more than that is trying to buy your salvation. On the other hand, I don't want to be handed a list of foods that I shouldn't eat on certain days and be told when I can and cannot do certain otherwise acceptable activities. I believe that part of being a Christian is doing things to put us in line with God's will and that doing those things is often unpleasant. Our fallen natures are bent toward doing the will of the flesh, so spiritual discipline seems important.

Self-denial sounds like something we should practice, but how? How much is too much? What is acceptable and what is not? How much of a role in determining the answers to these questions should others have in a person's life? To what extent should we have a spiritual guide or father/mother/"discipler"? These are all questions I've picked up from too much church hopping I think. I wish I knew.

Words?

As a former journalist the meaning and use of words is very important to me. Once, when I was a sports writer covering a girls' basketball game, I asked the coach what happened during the game and he said that his team had been manhandled. The fact that we were talking about a basketball team made up of teenage girls made that particular word stick out to me.

When people talk about their faith they often downplay the importance of using the right words. I'm trying to find the right answer myself. How important is the use of the right words? Last week I was listening to a religious program on the radio and a minister was telling this woman about the importance of the Incarnation. She said, "Oh, I believe that Jesus is God in human form." That reminded me of the Wonder Twins who could lightly punch one another's knuckles and say, "form of a glacier" and transform into the form of a glacier. They did not actually become a glacier. They were super heroes in the form of a glacier. See the problem? They only appeared to be a glacier.

So, is the wording "in human form" correct? In my humble opinion this woman's words did not describe Jesus Christ. The Council of Chalcedon said the following:

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul [meaning human soul] and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

That's why I have trouble with the idea of Jesus being "God in human form." The teaching of Christians for so many centuries has been that Jesus is God and man, not God in the form of man. But, how much does it matter that we all talk the same? This woman, who was really more concerned about kicking her nicotine habit than deep theology, probably isn't sitting at home right now thinking about personhood and what it means to have a rational human soul and/or a divine nature.

Hebrew 2:14-15 says, "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

I think it's important to speak clearly about the Incarnation because without Jesus assuming our nature we cannot be saved. However, I struggle with how much emphasis we should put on speaking correctly. I think I should make sure I don't say something that seems to "water down" the reality of Jesus' humanity or divinity, but should I appoint myself the language police for others? Can I assume that this woman I heard on the radio doesn't truly believe in the Incarnation? How do I know that she doesn't have a correct understand of this great mystery and just chose her words poorly? I don't.

However, I think it's bad to let people be ignorant of what our faith really teaches. I think it's uncharitable to let people think that, for example, Jesus only looked like a man and was only divine. So, where is the balance? I've been in churches where no one seemed to worry about what anybody really believed, and I've been in churches where people will make sure you know you're wrong if you speak incorrectly about an article of faith. I've been uncomfortable in both settings.

The Big Blue Martini Nation

So, The Lexington Herald-Leader is reporting that they have fired now former coach Billy Gillispie. The story mentions how Gillispie was first first introduced to UK fans back in 2007. An "impromptu" prep rally followed by a press conference. Even at the time I thought it reminded me of two people meeting for the first time before their arranged marriage. "Oh, I've been in love with you from the time our eyes met ... five minutes ago."

From beginning we've heard rumors of alcohol abuse, womanizing (including college age girls), which may or may not be true. However, we know about the intense practices, the conflicts between the coach and the players, his refusal to speak to a civic organization (per the news article) and his rudeness to the press. His rude statement to Jeanine Edwards during halftime at the Ole Miss game was inexcusable.

Being fired sucks, and when I read Mitch Barnhart's and UK President Lee Todd's statements about why he was fired I felt my stomach turn a little bit. However, I think he was wrong for UK from day one. Actually, I think he'd be wrong for pretty much any basketball program. He's rude, obnoxious and (if the rumors are true) immoral.

I hope they find a good coach who will represent the Big Blue Martini Nation well. Having said that, who cares? Seriously.

It's a game. Seriously. If people would put half the energy they put into following UK basketball like a religion and getting all bent out of shape over wins and losses and put it into their families, their churches, their communities or anything worthwhile this state would be in a better place. Seriously.

Odd one

I finished Odd Hours and I really hope Dean Koontz writes another installment of the Odd Thomas series.

Reasons why

My lovely wife and I were outside yesterday doing some much needed maintenance to the house when I heard a public service announcement on the radio. It said that many young people are choosing to abstain from premarital sex. Well, that's great. I'm all for teenagers abstaining from sex.

The problem is that the speaker said that having sex "just to fit in" isn't good. Is that why people have sex? Maybe some girls and an even smaller number of boys would, but I think the folks who created this announcement are out of touch. Adolescence begins so much earlier than it used to, which means more time for the hormones to rage. Add an oversexed media to the mix, which the announcement mentioned, and you have ingredients for people wanting to have sex because of biology. Believe it or not, but people who have gone through puberty have this "programming" inside them that says, "Reproduce now, not later. Or, now and later would be okay too."

The key is to tell people that they must fight that "programming" until such a time as they are older and married. Frederica Mathews-Green has a solution for this problem that I don't quite agree with. She basically says the same thing I do except for the older part. Then again, I haven't heard many Eastern Orthodox folks talk about her much anymore. Sure, there are some teens who are just doing it to fit in. "It's mostly the girls" I can almost hear you say. Well, Dr. James Dobson was complaining once about girls calling boys and being too aggressive. So ... oh, never mind, that's a topic for a whole other blog let alone post. I just think we try to sanitize people or something.

My point is, telling teens not to drink alcohol or smoke pot just to fit in makes sense. There isn't a biological drive to chug cheap American beer or to do shots of cheap tequila. There isn't such a drive to smoke a joint either. Ignoring the fact that people do have a biological drive to reproduce and telling them "it isn't going to make you cool" is just downright dangerous.

Anyone out there?

I'm beginning to suspect that no one is actually reading this blog but me (to proofread the blog). That can be good, though. I used to have another blog a long time ago and people read it and didn't like what I had to say.

I heard something on NPR the other day about yet another newspaper going the way of the dinosaur. Actually, the newspaper will continue to operate on line, but much of the staff (including those folks who actually printed the paper I'm sure) will soon be unemployed.

I graduated from the University of Kentucky in 2000 with a Journalism degree. Once upon a time that degree could get you through some doors, but I'm not so sure that's the case now. In these economic times it doesn't do much. I worked at a weekly paper for a while, but I eventually thought I would benefit from moving to a daily newspaper in a slightly bigger market. I no longer work for that paper for reasons that I won't go into. For right now I am no longer a journalist.

I said a few years ago that a journalist is the 21st Century version of an elevator operator. Thanks to the Internet I don't need to go by a printing press for thousands of people to read my thoughts. I can talk about politics or beer and I don't need a printing press for you to read it, much like I don't need to ask someone to push "three" for me. Still, there is still some level of mystique about a newspaper. After all, Clark Kent wasn't a blogger and Jimmy Olsen didn't take photos to post on flickr. A funny side note, someone once referred to my co-workers and I at the weekly paper I worked for as a bunch of Lois Lanes.

All this brings me to the question, what does it mean to be a writer? I've been told that I "write well." I've also been told that I my writing is horrible and that it needs so much editing that it is no longer mine once it has been edited. In the context which that was said, that statement made the speaker appear somewhat unethical, but I wont' go into that here. Anyway, I have some ideas that I would like to turn into novels or short stories, but somehow I just can't get do much with them. I've written some short chapters my latest idea, but what next? I have a plot, but it has holes and problems.

Character A comes to Character B for help. Character A has a problem, but what exactly is it? Or more to the point, what can Character B do to help? I don't know. So, I write this blog and wonder if anyone is out there.

Very Odd

I recently received a slightly used copy of this book in the mail the other day. I've read Forever Odd and Brother Odd, so I was excited to see what old Odd Thomas is up to these days. You see, he sees and interacts with spirits of the dead. They can't talk to him, but he can learn things from them.

In Brother Odd, he was the guest of a monastery in California where he discovered that one of the monks was up to something very evil. I've also read a couple of other books by Dean Koontz and I highly recommend him. I wish I could write like him.

Based on other things

I was listening to NPR today and heard the story about Obama rescinding the Bush administration's ban on funding stem cell research. The reporter said that people suspect that a lot of Bush administration policies in this area were not based on science but "other things." These other things were not mentioned by name, but it was obvious that the reporter had nothing but disdain for those "other things."

Could those "other things" be faith and morals? Who needs those when you have science? The idea that one's religious convictions should be kept at home as if in a shoe box is ridiculous.

New (to me) brew on the block

My über-beautiful wife and I went to the Atomic Cafe last night and I saw a beer that made me curious. The Rogue Dead man turned out to be an excellent choice. Very malty with a semi-bitter finish.

The meal was pretty good too, but just being out with my wife and tasting a new beer made the evening very nice.

In search of wisdom goes in search of ...

A new church. I have been praying over time that God would direct my family to a church where we can all be fed with God's grace. We tried a Baptist church last Sunday that was very unlike any Baptist church I had ever visited. It was semi-liturgical. The choir processed in behind a banner/cross and there were vesicles and responses. It was nice, the people were nice and I liked the music. But, I didn't feel like I just absolutely have to go there.

Tomorrow my family and I are very much considering attending a Presbyterian church. The children's coordinator there is someone my wife knows from her childhood, so that is a plus. I'm hoping to find some place where we can have community and grow as Christians. By community I mean a group of fellow Christians are welcoming, open, honest, sincere, non-judgmental and so forth. I'm also looking for a group of people who can tolerate differing opinions about faith, politics, child-rearing and so forth. I'm hoping we can find that place.

... and speaking of that same old topic

One of the local Episcopal churches is having a rabbi come and talk to them about sexuality in the Old Testament. From a strictly academic stand point that sounds somewhat intriguing, but why a rabbi? Jews and Christians read the OT very differently (they don't see Jesus where we do). So, why would I necessarily want to hear what a rabbi has to say about sexuality in the OT? Why not invite a seminary professor or a member of the clergy who is an expert in this field?

And why sexuality? Don't Episcopalians appear obsessed with sex anyway? What about finances or the environment? Anything but sex.

The great demise

When I was 13 or so I was invited to "Mass" at an Episcopal church. I only found out months later that most Episcopalians don't refer to their Sunday service as Mass or consider themselves "English catholics without the pope," etc. Still, I had questions about what Christians believed about God, and the basic reply I received from anyone at the little church I had previously attended was "read your Bible."

Well, many men and women more learned than I have read their Bibles and come to a plethora of contradicting ideas about the Trinity and the nature of Jesus (i.e. Arius thought the Son was a creation of the Father instead of co-eternal). I had questions and I needed answers. About halfway through my first visit to An Episcopal church I got those answers. In the Nicene Creed, which is recited at almost every Eucharist (though I know someone will point out that this isn't always traditionally the case).

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father ... And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life ... who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified ...

This answered my fundamental questions about the Trinity. Of course the mystery of the Holy Trinity is far beyond the scope of human intellect, this helped. I fell in love with The Episcopal Church (TEC), and I was determined to convert. My parents didn't want that as TEC too closely resembled Roman Catholicism for their liking, but eventually they gave me the green light. At once I soaked up all the information about TEC I could, especially anything Anglo-Catholic. I had a rosary, a St. Augustine's Prayerbook, and a crucifix on my wall. I was set.

Whether I was leading the Christian life or even making a real attempt to be a Christian is another story. My journey out of TEC to other churches and back is also another story. The main focus of this post is how TEC is literally imploding while you would never know it based on what is said on a typical Sunday. My attempts to discuss the growing doom and gloom in TEC with Anglican clergy has been met with the same problem-what-problem? reaction.

Time and time again I've given up on TEC and then gone back because I like a good liturgy. I was sitting in the pew of an Episcopal church I could practically hit with a baseball while standing on my front porch (if I had a good throwing arm) when the bishop said some very questionable things about what Jesus really meant when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I wasn't convinced. I really do believe Jesus meant that only He is the say to the Father. What does this mean for the good pagan who has never heard the Gospel? I think the Bible has some answers for that, but basically all I can do is trust God's mercy.

I've always seen TEC as a place for people who have an appreciation for liturgy as well as a sacramental world view without having to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome (that would be the pope). But lately, one Episcopal priest's claim that there is room enough for disagreement within the Anglican world just doesn't do it for me. How much disagreement is healthy? My reading of the Bible says that Gene Robinson shouldn't be allowed to receive Communion let alone hold the office of bishop. Other folks' reading of the same book says otherwise. How can we claim to follow the same religion? I don't know.

So, I'm watching bishops and congregations storm out of TEC while competing churches and communions are being formed. I've visited a couple of those Anglican churches under the authority of foreign bishops and even joined a continuing Anglican church once, but I found them to be either very angry or very confused about their identity. I also found them to be very much like the other splinter groups claiming to be catholic, Anglican or whatever. To reiterate, I'm watching the legitimate Anglican body within the United States fall apart and I hate to see it happen.

On a Myspace group that I'm a member of, someone talked about "frozen" Episcopalians and "progressive" Episcopalians. I can't imagine what side he is on in these difficult times. So, my wife (not an Episcopalian) and I have begun looking for a church where we can worship together. Why am I willing to walk away from TEC? How could I expect my wife to join a church that is in such disarray? And, if I can't expect her to join, then what am I doing there? I can't sit and watch the clergy of the local churches try and pretend the shit ain't sinkin' when the water is up to their eyeballs.

I am hungry and need to be fed wih the living bread. I am thirsty and need to drink living water, not fight in the trenches over what parts of the Bible to agree with or not.

Update: I forgot to mention that the block quote is from the Nicene Creed.