Wednesday in Lent 2

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away. (Mark 4:5-6)

I cannot read these verses without thinking about folks who have a religious experience, become excited about its meaning in their lives, align themselves with their new-found path, and hope / assume/ desperately desire that this will now answer their questions, solve their problems, and make their fragmented lives whole. The phenomenon is the same no matter what path they follow; it is not unique to followers of Jesus.

If a freshly planted seed has soil and water and time to develop a good root system it can withstand a great many stresses. But if not, there is little hope. Last year I planted 8 fruit trees and a dozen roses. Seven of my fruit trees hung in there. One did nothing. When I finally pulled it up I could see that no roots had developed. The same with a rose bush that did not make it. I do not know why the others succeeded where these did not, but these clearly could not draw nurture from the soil, had no vitality to produce leaves, much less fruit or flowers in some future year. They remained sticks in my back yard.

Enthusiasm is natural when we experience some great blessing. It might be faith or it might be a new job, a new home, a new love. There is the period of "limerence" or infatuation. Everything is so rosy, so full of promise, ripe with potential. When we are in that state we are not likely to foresee obstacles, hidden shoals, limitations, or contrary indications.

When trials, failures, and questions arrive it becomes difficult to cling to this new thing if we have not established roots. What may have sprung up easily at first simply cannot last for long.

I have wondered about many in the Episcopal Church or some other Anglican province who came in from some other background (and all are welcome!) yet have not had either the opportunity or the inclination to develop Anglican roots. I am thinking of folks who may be attracted to sacraments or our liturgy or our sense of historical continuity yet are still, at heart, Calvinists or charismatics with only the thinnest veneer of Anglicanism. Or perhaps they came from the Roman side and desired a touch more freedom yet remain uncomfortable to Anglican messiness with no central curia to bring it under control.

This is a delicate subject. Having come to Anglicanism from a Baptist background, I was viewed with great caution by commissions on ministry and standing committees. They wanted to be sure I was not still more Baptist than Episcopalian and I had difficulty convincing them. To me it was silly because I had always been a high-church, sacramental Baptist (I know, utter oxymorons) who gladly jettisoned most of my Protestant trappings as I "swam the Thames." Nonetheless, I was sure of who I was. I had read, as I have shared here before, the BCP and all the trial liturgies from cover to cover, and the Constitution and Canons likewise. I was a student of Church history and knew a fair amount of the history of doctrine. I deeply appreciated an approach to theology that involved a constant dialogue among Scripture, tradition, reason, and the concrete present situation in which one lived, worshiped, served, and theologized. I had long since abandoned an approach that pulls verses out of context and applies them haphazardly and with great assertion of authority. I had studied the Bible, the issues involved in its development and transmission, and the history of its interpretation. In the Anglican ethos I found a true home. The broad embrace of our via media was important to me as we lived with the tension of being finite yet growing together in grace, of not having final answers yet being loved and transformed by the One who transcended both question and answer.

I do not think the Anglican ethos, as I have known it, is a true home for many. They do not seem to have the roots that can live with both wet and dry periods, with stresses of hot and cold, with attacks both above and below the soil line. Their frustration and discomfort lead to demands to remake the Anglican family into something it has not hitherto been. Perhaps at this point I should shift the analogy to that of the branches grafted on, as St Paul described the nations grafted onto the rootstock of Israel. Some grafts onto the Anglican stock do not seem to be taking well. What I find problematic is their desire to change the rootstock to conform to these grafts.

I myself am a graft, not a native Episcopalian. Perhaps I am blathering and spouting nonsense. But I toss it out there anyway. Just thoughts occasioned by a few verses from today.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that?
In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that. (1 Corinthians 5:9-6:8)

And, speaking of the roiling debates within Anglicanism these days, how about today's office lesson from the Epistles?

"Do not even eat with such a one." There we have the text for primates who will not receive communion with our Presiding Bishop because she consented to something they believe fosters sexual immorality. Though why a committed relationship that is so obviously grace-filled should be considered immorality remains the unanswered question. "Because the Bible says so" is just so much bullshit. No careful study of the texts supports such a bellowing denunciation. I think a more honest answer is "because that is what we were taught the Bible says."

This is one of my learnings from my days amongst fundamentalists (and I use that term in the narrow, historical sense): people confuse what they are told the Bible says with what it actually says. They are given a particular interpretation of a certain passage and forever thereafter assume that is what it means. They do not undertake individual research on the text, except to read commentaries that are already in conformity with what they were told. The other commentaries and studies, of course, are works of the devil. Whatever disagrees with the received interpretation is and can only be the work of godless unbelievers and deceivers. It is very difficult to break out of that kind of hermetically sealed hermeneutic.

And then there is the question of the courts. How very unseemly, and contrary to apostolic advice, it is for believers to take one another to secular courts!

Well, color me skeptical, but once again I raise the principal of "cui bono?" Who benefits?

There is no question that when Christians sue each other in court it is a scandal that does little to make our faith look attractive. I almost typed "does little to glorify God" but I backed off, and for a reason. There is a romantic notion that rolling over and letting the patrimony of the church be looted is a very Christ-like thing to do. While I am a firm believe that the Church is the people and the rest are "just things" I also uphold the principle of incarnation whereby a gathered people makes very good use of "things" like furniture on which they may sit and shelter over their heads and places to gather in general where formation for ministry may take place and kitchens where people may be fed, etc. In a sacramental faith "things" are never "just things."

I don't believe ceding ground to bullies is in any way Christ-like. Jesus, in his unique vocation, was led like a lamb to the slaughter. This does not mean we should all line up and carry signs that say "kill me." Jesus also unmasked bullshit.

Nor do I think God is glorified when pirates or bullies get away with their behavior.

You will also note that those who attempt theft are the ones who will first cry that it is unseemly to call them to account for it. As has beens said in many other places, if you stop stealing there will be no need to bring in the courts. Do not try to get self-righteous all over my ass about this topic. If you want to leave TEC, go! But leave the silver in the sacristy and the key under the mat.

"Why not rather be wronged?" Paul asks. Because it's unhealthy boundaries and lack of accountability, I answer. If I took these verses out of context and used them as guiding principles in all things, I would support the idea that all Christians should become complicit in every imaginable injustice. And that, I submit to you, does not sound like good hermeneutics, good ethics, good theology, or good practice.

O God, you so loved the world that you gave your only-begotten Son to reconcile earth with heaven: Grant that we, loving you above all things, may love our friends in you, and our enemies for your sake; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
--the BB