This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Kansas Town Requires Gun Ownership: Everybody Sing, "Janie's Got a Gun"

Okay, I absolutely love my home state. I am proud to be a Kansan today!!!

Apparently, the Geuda Springs, Kansas' gun mandate fits town's history

The City Council voted 3-2 earlier this month to require heads of households to equip their homes with firearms and ammunition. Violators would be subject to a $10 fine. People who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt. . . .

. . . City Council member John Brewer, who initiated the ordinance, said he thinks it is necessary for protection in a community that has no police force, marshal or money to protect its citizens.

If you've driven I-55 between Lincoln and Bloomington/Normal you've seen the rhyming-couplet signs extolling gun rights and this website: GunsSaveLife.com

And, continuing the gun theme, and in celebration of this wacky news, here's the lyrics to Aerosmith's Janie's Got a Gun

Kirk: The Four (or Five) Principles of Radicalism

The following tenets of radicalism are taken from The Conservative Mind (p. 10), by Russell Kirk.

(1) The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.

(2) Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and various ideologies are presented as substitutes.

(3) Political levelling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical ideal. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangments and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.

(4) Economic levelling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.

As a fifth point, one might try to define a commmon radical view of the state's funciton; but here the chasm of opinion between the chief schools of innovation is too deep for any satisfactory generalization. One can only remark that radicals unite in detesting [Edmund] Burke's description of the state as ordained of God, and his concept of society as joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born--the community of souls.

Go here for a good summary of Russell Kirk's life and faith. (He was, by the way, an important benefactor of Touchstone magazine.)

Kirk: The Six Principles of Conservatism

The following is taken from The Conservative Mind (pp. 7-9, 10), by Russell Kirk.

Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogmata; conservatives inherit from [Edmund] Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time. As a working premise, nevertheless, one can observe here that the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors . . .; they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine. . . .

I think that there are six canons of conservative thought--

(1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs. . . . True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems; conservatives resist what Robert Graves calls "Logicalism" in society. . . .

(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a "classless society." With reason, conservatives have often been called "the party of order." If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.

(4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic levelling, they maintain, is not progress.

(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of "sophisters, calculators, and economists" who would reconstruct society upon abstract desings. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.

(6) Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman's chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence. . . .

In a revolutionary epoch, sometimes men taste every novelty, sicken of them all, and return to ancient principles so long disused that they seem refreshingly hearty when they are rediscovered. . . . The true conservative thinks of this process [of historical change and conflagration], which looks like chance or fate, as, rather, the providential operation of a moral law of polarity. And Burke, could he see our century, never would concede that a consumption-society, so near to suicide, is the end for which Providence has prepared man. If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so that we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.

Go here for a good summary of Russell Kirk's life and faith. (He was, by the way, an important benefactor of Touchstone magazine.)

Sunday After the Entry of the Most Holy Mother of God into the Temple

For the third Sunday in a row, the Healy family worshipped as a unit at All Saints Orthodox Church. Anna has made good on her commitment to worship together weekly as a family.

Last evening, Anna and I got a call from an old friend from our Baton Rouge days of a few years ago. Patty and her husband wrote us this week to try to reestablish snail mail and phone contact. Lifelong Episcopalians, Patty and Harold were encouraging to us as we headed north to Yankee-land to seek ordination. Three years later, Patty wrote to let us know that she and Harold were out of ECUSA for good. In a public forum she had asked Bishop Jenkins where, in relation to the current crisis of leadership over the sexuality issues, he was going to lead the diocese. His equivocal "Into deeper prayer," while not absolutely inappropriate, was not the straight-backbone answer she and Harold needed. Her priest had for a brief time indicated he was going to join the efforts of the American Anglican Council, but then, for reasons uknown, backed down to resume the status quo. Harold and Patty are now seeking catechesis in a Lutheran Missouri Synod parish.

Anna and I could commiserate. And overhearing Anna's half of the phone conversation, I was pleasantly surprised at what my wife had to say about the Orthodox Church.

She told Patty that the Orthodox Church was the only church she and I had encountered around here that dared to tell people the whole Gospel. All the churches we've visited definitely want to tell people about the love of Jesus, but they so staunchly resist telling them why it even matters that Jesus loves them. They preach redemption without sin, and so they preach a gospel which is no gospel.

My wife also seems to have recovered from the mistaken notion that jurisdictions in Orthodoxy are the same as Protestant denominations. She told Patty, quite correctly, that all the Orthodox are the same, whether Greek, Russian or Arabic. Some things (which I would call small-t traditions) were different, but they all believed the same things.

I was quietly bursting with pride. My wife, another Orthodox wannabe? Well, continue reading.

Father and Khouria invited us to brunch after Sunday School today. It was a good conversation. Anna gave Khouria her email for a moms and tots group that meets monthly, and though the latest meeting had just passed, the one coming in December would appear to fit Anna's schedule. So she may go to that.

Anna has noticed that the Gospel she and I have always believed in is preached without restraint and in full at All Saints Orthodox Church. And we four had a lively discussion about the problems we've had with local churches here in the Chicago area.

It seemed as though things just couldn't get any better. And, in fact, Anna did say on the way home, "I just don't like the idea that the priest has so much authority. I mean, I don't feel like I need him to bless me." I lamely attempted to explain the distinction between the priesthood of all believers and the specific ministries of those believers, but well, I'm the husband who's an Orthodox wannabe. I'm not sure the impact was as great as it could be.

But that's just fine. Anna isn't an Orthodox wannabe. But heck she was only recently an Orthodox don-wannabe. She's now worshipping weekly at an Orthodox parish with her husband and her baby. She's being integrated through the young and new moms. And as Father told me long ago, this is how it would happen.

We'll see. And we'll keep praying. But I continue to be blessed by God.

The Gospel of Inclusion V

Today's Gospel of Inclusion comes from fundamentalist John Shelby Spong.

Praise to you, wellspring of ourselves.

Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who elevates their prejudices to the position where they are defended as the will of God is evil.

Anybody who justifies their denigration of another person's being based upon a quotation from an ancient sacred text called the Word of God is simply out of touch with contemporary scholarship.

Anybody who will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily available in medical and scientific circles because it calls into question their uninformed attitudes is profoundly ignorant.

There is no dialogue that is possible in those circumstances, and any attempt to engage in some form of dialogue is doomed to failure. In the process of seeking to do so, truth is not well served, integrity is compromised and one's deepest convictions are violated.

This is the Gospel of Inclusion.

Glory to thee, conformer to our scientific knowledge.

No, really, they BLEW UP the whale!

See the video of the Infamous Exploding Whale.

Here's the hi bandwidth Quicktime link. Here's the medium bandwidth Q-time link. And here's the Q-time for dial up.

And don't forget to read the accompanying Dave Barry piece on it.

Thanks to Bill for this disturbing link.

Why Orthodoxy? Pt. VII

6. Historicity and Validity of the (Orthodox) Church's Claims (Part VII of IX)

When I began my inquiry into Orthodoxy, I was immediately confronted with an alien terrain. Not that the Orthodox Church lacked all the proper evangelical points of theology. There was grace, the Cross and Resurrection, baptism, witness, and so forth. But rather, in Protestantism, I was used to the posture of defense and response. I was used to the idea of giving a reason for why my particular churches were who and what they were, and, indeed, why I was a Protestant as well. But on coming to the Orthodox Church I was shocked that the Church was not all that interested in arguing for its own existence. It just simply was. The Orthodox Church didn't hope that I would feel at home in the Liturgy--though I was told to make myself at home, and did feel at home, during coffee hour and Sunday School. There was no talk of my felt needs. I wasn't promised relevance. There was just the simple invitation: Come and see.

The allusion to Christ's invitation to the first disciples is intentional. For this is precisely what the Orthodox Church claims of itself: that it is in a unique way the one and very Body of Christ.

This claim is, in the present climate, quite controversial. It's controversial to Protestants because the very invitation calls into question their very existence. For if what Orthodoxy claims of itself is true, there was no need for a Reformation, only a reunion. The Orthodox Church's claims are controversial to Roman Catholics, too, not merely because Rome claims for herself that which Orthodoxy claims--to be the one Body of Christ--but because these claims call into question the supremacy of the Roman see, and thereby critiquing Rome's administrative ecclesiology.

The claim is controversial to the non-Christian world as well, at least to the degree that the non-Christian world listens to and takes seriously the claims the Orthodox Church makes. For here is a seemingly merely human body claiming the grace of infallibility on the teachings about life and death, the nature of what it is to be human, the ordering of human relationships, and the nature of authority. The world of Orthodoxy's birth was discomfited enough that it sought to liquidate this rival organization. And this was repeated during the Moslem conquests and the Communist purges. Most of the controversy in the affluent global north and west revolves around Orthodoxy's claims to speak infallibly with regard to human morals.

But there it is: the Orthodox Church says of itself, "We are the Body of Christ." Everyone else says, "Prove it." Orthodoxy merely replies, "Come and see."

I have accepted that invitation, and, remarkably, I have found the "proof" others demand. I use the scare quotes around "proof" not because I think the historical and theological validity of Orthodoxy's claims is not sound and persuasive. Rather I seek to highlight that these things are not about apologetics. No one has become Orthodox by way of a reasoned argument. Those of us who have sought out Orthodoxy, and those who have in time become Orthodox, have only done so because of the demonstration of the powerful grace and mercy of God evidenced by the life lived by the Orthodox Church.

That being said, the historical and doctrinal evidence is all on the side of the Orthodox Church. When one traces the pre-Schism Church, its life and doctrine, especially in the highpoints of the Ecumenical Councils, and then makes comparison to the Orthodox Church, one can do almost nothing else but conclude that this is the same Church. When one traces the history of local Churches like that found in Thessaloniki, and realizes that this very Church has been in existence since the late AD 40s/early AD 50s, another point is added to the truth of Orthodoxy's claims.

My heritage churches and my home parish in the Episcopal Church would claim to have recovered the purity of the apostolic doctrines, purified of the accretions of Roman Catholic abberrations. But where is the twice-weekly fast? Where, in the evangelical church, are the sacraments? Where is the apostolic polity for governing the Church? Where is the teaching on theosis and struggle?

Rome would counter that she has all these things missing from the Protestant churches. But Orthodoxy would ask, where in the ancient councils is the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope? Of papal infallibility? Of supererogation? Rome may have retained the important teachings and life practices of the ancient faith (though one could ask where is the twice-weekly fast in Rome, as well), but why has Rome added to the deposit of faith? Who gave her this authority?

I cannot do much but outline some of the important points of history and doctrine. In essence the Orthodox claim is she alone has unbroken continuity not only with the historical Church of the New Testament (something Protestants most obviously lack) as well as unbroken fidelity, neither adding to nor taking away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (something Rome and Protestants both fail in).

But my stating this will not convince you. Even studying important works like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition will not ultimately convince. The only thing that will make a difference is to "Come and see."

[Please note: Speaking as I must about my previous and present church experiences in light of my attraction to Orthodoxy, I must necessarily and frequently take up a critical stance to many aspects of these experiences. But I have also tried to offer honest and heartfelt positive appraisals where I can.]

Next: 7. Unity of Home and Family in the Faith

A Project of Faithful Thinking I

Introduction

This is the first in a series of reflections on what it means to think faithfully.

The ancient philosophers looked out on the physical world and noted the regularity and orderedness of it and posited that the basic principle of the universe is Logos, or reason. The intellect was that about mankind that made them divine. In the medieval era, the rediscovery of the ancients and this emphasis on reason was renewed in the west and strengthened and formalized through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

But this emphasis on reason and rationality has led to certain crises. On the one hand, Descartes reintroduces and intensifies the problem of mind and body dualism. Then there is the skepticism of Hume in which his fork splits our presumption of the connection of cause and effect. Kant attempts to resolve the Humean dilemma, but to do so must divorce the realm of essential being, something reason cannot know, from the realm of sensible appearances. But Kant's cure is worse than the disease, something Nietzsche exploits. So we have come from reason as the primary ordering of reality to reason as the will to power.

This rather pessimistic account of the primacy of reason in Western thought ought not be construed as totalizing in that pessimism. After all, it seems we cannot escape reason, even to critique it. But certainly in the arenas of science and technology reason has brought historic alleviation of previous human ills, such as the cures for various diseases and the ease and safety of communication and travel.

It seems to me, however, that if a Christian is to think about reason, or for that matter, about anything else, he is obligated to do so from the stance of Christian conviction. That is to say, are Christians to view the prime ordering of reality as reason? Or is there a more fundamental basis for that reality? Is there something more primary than reason? And if so, what does this do to our thinking?

I think the answer to the question of something more fundamental than reason ordering the universe can be answered in the affirmative. And in the attempt to answer that question I want to describe and promote a project for faithful thinking.

The Fatherhood Chronicles XXV: The Liturgy of Bedtime

We are not unique among parents. It is my suspicion that the Liturgy of Bedtime has been enacted since first Adam and Eve laid Cain down for the night. It spans cultures, geographies and histories. More than routine, it is a ritual which binds, bonds and bears the souls of mothers and fathers and their sons and daughters.

The Liturgy of Bedtime assumes various shapes, I'm sure. In our home it's relatively short and simple. We begin with a few minutes of massage. Head to toe, we envelope Sofie in the gentle scented glistening of oil and touch. She has come to expect this. Certain markers of the night and of our actions alert her to this fact: She will be held and caressed. From the first, then, Sofie has learned in a most tangible way, something about the Mystery of Our Lord's Incarnation. In the very first movements of our Liturgy, we have asserted a Christocentric shape.

After assuring her of our love and tenderness, she's given clean, new clothes: a dry and clean diaper; a soft footed sleeper or sleep dress and socks. She fusses a bit on getting dressed. I guess all babies like being naked.

Once she's dressed, she nurses. Not only is she assured of our love and tenderness, we have promised her, as we do each time we feed her, that she will have all her needs met. This, too, is an affirmation of Christ. It is the quintessential vanquishing of the Enemy in the desert.

While she feeds, her dad reads her a story. The tales and pictures speak of cinder-eyed cats, and colorful dinosaurs. We say goodnight to the moon and the socks in the corner. We guess how much we love one another. Sofie isn't too attentive to the stories. She's feeding after all. But we envelope her with words she does not yet understand. This, too, is a promise. For in invisible, not-yet-seen ways, these words will etch themselves in the grooves in her brain. She will, one day, as if by a miracle, for no one can really say how it happens, begin to say back to us all the thousands of words we have poured forth into her hearing.

And it is here, at this point, that in our home this Liturgy of the Bedtime asserts an ever more obvious Christocentric shape. For it is through these very words with which we speak to Sofie of cinder-eyed cats, of love as big as the moon, in these words she will come to know of the Word. God made flesh. Her Savior.

For the stories end, as they always do in our home, with prayer. Since it is Advent, we have begun to pray the anticipatory prayers of the promised Messiah, the hymns of Incarnate Love. We invoke the intercessions of our co-laborers in the faith, the Theotokos and all the Saints. In our Liturgy of the Bedtime, those in attendence are not merely us three, but there with us are three angels who watch over us and guard us, and with them all the heavenly host. There is St Benedict, and St Seraphim of Platina. There, of course, is Our Lady, the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. But most of all, there is the All-Holy and Life-giving Trinity.

And we know this through faith and the tangible blessing of the water in which our Savior was baptized, the water which gives us life and is our life. This water was that in which Sofie was enveloped for nine months. It is the water which suffuses the very core of her cells. And it is the water from which she will be reborn. Christ's baptism sanctifies all the waters of the world. And this water, too, is blessed, overtly, publicly, in the Theophanic Eucharist. This water is signed like a Cross on Sofie's forehead. And all the hosts of spiritual darkness are vanquished.

The Liturgy of Bedtime has concluded. An apocalyptic battle has been fought and won. And all because a little girl must be given the peace and time to rest and grow. So that one day, she, too, will come to know the Savior who gives her life, and whose myriad minions watch over her in sleep.

Heaven in the bedroom. The Liturgy of Bedtime.

Why Orthodoxy? Pt. VI

5. Objective and Existential Worship and Askesis (Part VI of IX)

My very first experience of worshipping at an Orthodox Church did not take place at my current local parish (All Saints in Chicago), but in Omaha, Nebraska, at St Mary's. Ironically enough St Mary's and All Saints are both part of the Antiochian jurisdiction. That worship at St Mary's was in October 1998, and I was an AngloCatholic Episcopalian. (In fact, during that same trip to Omaha, I attended an AC service of the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.)

My first dip into the Divine Liturgy was mostly observation mixed with confusion. There was little I understood about what happened during the Liturgy (the Hapgood prayerbook they had was tortuous to follow), and a lot I didn't understand about that which I could grasp about what was happening. I very much felt an outsider. Which is not to say that I wasn't welcomed by the parishioners. In fact, the gentleman I stood next to did all he could to offer explanations of what was going on in a sort of running commentary, including the proper way to make the sign of the Cross. I was invited to coffee afterwards. I was given all the room I needed to ask questions. But when it came to the worship service itself, I was an outsider.

The second time I worshipped at an Orthodox Church was during July 2000, and this time was at the parish where I now worship. This time, rather than merely being curious, I was primed by several weeks of study and reading, and an increasingly untenable crisis in the Episcopal Church, intensified at the seminary where I was then studying. This time I did recognize universal parts of the Liturgy: the Sursum Corda, the hymn "Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the hightest," and so forth. But I crossed myself backwards. (I had forgotten the lesson at St Mary's.) I genuflected when everyone else bowed. I failed to cross myself often enough. The standing was interminable. And, of course, I could not commune with the congregation. I was an outsider.

I was given a taste of that aspect of Orthodox worship which had been lacking in my heritage churches, and, ironically enough, in the Episcopal Church: the objectivity of worship. No one bothered to ask me whether or not I was comfortable with the service. They didn't cut things out to shorten the service because my feet were tired. They didn't ask me whether I preferred a praise band to modified Byzantine chant. I wasn't consulted as to whether I might take offense at the doctrines and dogmas of the Church that would be proclaimed in the homily--and in the liturgy itself. No one asked me whether I found the constant references to God as Father offensive, or whether I would have like to eliminate the references to the Trinity out of deferrence to our Unitarian visitors. In fact, no one consulted me as to whether I felt it important that the Liturgy start at precisely nine o'clock and whether there should be a clear break between Matins and Liturgy so I could refill my mug at the congregation's in-house coffee bar.

No, I was left with a simple choice: accept it as is, or not at all. No one was going to bother about suiting my tastes. How rude!

Oh, but how necessary! For you see, worship is not about me or my tastes and preferrences. It is all about God. Orthodox don't ask whether or not they "got anything out of the service." Rather, the question is, "Did I worship God appropriately?" And if the answer to the question is to get anywhere close to yes, I have to turn my eyes away from myself and my own preoccupations toward God. There is no need to create a "mood" for worship. We don't need to start with a rousing and rocking series of hymns, then quiet down with more minor-key choruses, then get jazzed up with a "raising the roof" final song. It's not about my mood. It's about God.

And I have found this worship to be absolutely essential to all that I am, think, and do. It is precisely here that the existential part comes in. I do not change worship. Worship changes me. I come and am confronted by the majesty and holiness of God. I am made painfully aware of my sin. I am given the good news: repent and receive God's mercy and grace in Christ. And then, wonder of wonders, I am tangibly united to Christ, and through him to each and every worshipper there present and all the saints in attendance. (Well, in reality the last sentence is in anticipation of the day when that will become a reality for me. For now I can only anticipate.) I am likely not to feel a darn thing. And actually, that's a good thing. It keeps my attention on God and my cross-carrying.

By the same token, however, it is in the midst of this objective worship that I have been most moved. I was praying the Jesus prayer during Holy Communion one Sunday a few weeks ago, and was overcome with tears over the weight of my many sins. I did not seek such emotion. It found me. I have prayed intercessory prayers for friends and loved ones and have been unutterably moved by their need and God's love.

I am not obligated to feel anything. I am obligated to do that which the worship shows me I must do. Pray for others. Give alms. Fast. And serve my brother and sister.

It is only in Orthodoxy that I have found this kind of objective and existential worship. And it is what pulls me ever closer to the day when I will be one with the One Church of Christ.

[Please note: Speaking as I must about my previous and present church experiences in light of my attraction to Orthodoxy, I must necessarily and frequently take up a critical stance to many aspects of these experiences. But I have also tried to offer honest and heartfelt positive appraisals where I can.]

Next: 6. Historicity and Validity of the (Orthodox) Church's Claims

Orthodoxy and Anglicanism: What's the Difference?

I posted the following from Metropolitan Maximos earlier back on 2 September on my blog's first incarnation. Here his Emminence clearly articulates the key difference between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, and why the Orthodox withdrew from ecumenical talks with the Episcopal Church.

The problem with this mentality of some Anglican thinkers is that they have, alas, created a false “source” of truth, which is, actually, fallacy, counteracting the true and only one source of Truth, the Bible in the Holy Tradition of the Church. This “new” but false, “source of truth” is called, in the language of these thinkers, “experience.” Orthodox members in the now defunct Orthodox-Anglican Consultation in the U.S.A. remember Anglican thinkers calling upon this “source” of “experience”: the reason why the sacrament of Holy Chrismation or Confirmation, in the contemporary Anglican perception of those thinkers, is not a sacrament anymore, is that this sacrament is not part of today’s Anglican experience…

The real reason that the dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans in the U.S.A. stopped, was not as much the unilateral action of the “ordination” of women to the Holy Priesthood, or the unfounded accusation of Anglican people like Bishop Spong that St. Paul was a homosexual, or the Anglican liberalism regarding human sexuality, same-sex “marriages” and the like. It was expected that openly gay “clergymen” will be promoted to “bishops”, and lesbians will not only become “priests”, but also “bishops.” It was their belief that, if today’s “experience” is such, then, allegedly, the “Spirit” of God blesses it!

Do these Anglican thinkers realize that an evil spirit may be behind all these things? What the Orthodox denounce in these false practices and teachings is that, they are the practices and teachings which oppose the Will of God as taught by the Bible, thus, being the result of our fallen, sinful, human “experience!”

The Gospel of Inclusion IV

Today's Gospel of Inclusion comes from Anglicans Online (4 November "After the Robinson Consecration").

Praise to you, metaphor without metaphysic.

Those who consider the consecration of Bishop V Gene Robinson to have been a matter of global importance have been issuing statements and press releases this week. Everyone has remained in character: the conservatives and Anglobaptists have in general condemned it, and the progressives and Anglocatholics have applauded it. Thinking Anglicans has gathered the various official statements. Christianity Today has assembled a list of responses, if any, from all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. We note that not all of them consider this sexuality issue to be of paramount importance. We're really quite weary of reading everyone's opinions, and urge those who are going to leave to just pipe down and leave, and those who are going to stay to get on with the business of being Christian. Advent will be here before you know it. We'd like to issue the News Centre Challenge: pick any one of the four gospels, read it through twice from beginning to end, and then ask yourself who that gospel, read in its entirety, urges us to exclude. If reading a gospel all the way through is too much for you, then here are some news stories for you to read.

This is the Gospel of Inclusion.

Glory to thee, bane of the literal-minded fundamentalists.

[Editor's Note: AO might want to read this: Matthew 18:15-20.]

The Fatherhood Chronicles XXIV: Sofie and Mortality

Sofie's development is progressing at the speed of light, it feels like. From finding her voice on Sunday, to blowing raspberries at Daddy on Thursday, to attempts to sit up on Saturday (we call them "Sofie Crunches"), to being more aware of her toys, grasping rattles, interacting with lights and sounds, to noticing other babies. . . the list is getting longer. Just when I was getting used to one cute stage, it begins to disappear into the next.

Which got me to thinking. There's a tragedy here. Sofie is mortal. She will die.

Here's the kicker: Sofie got her mortality from her mother and I. The moment we, through the gracious work of God, gave her life, we simultaneously signed her death warrant. She is now covered, through our prayers, love and protection, with wonderful innocence. But we have written over her her doom: she will sin. Not because she must. But because we have already infected her with the taint of mortality, and her defenses against the Enemy are weakened. She will sin, though not because she must, because her mother and I are sinners, and it will be an example seen (though hopefully ever more rare as Anna and I struggle for salvation) long before she can cognize that when she sees her Daddy swear in anger, when she sees her Momma snap at another driver in impatience, calling him a fool, that these things are sins.

She will die because she inherits from us the contagion of death. She will die because one day, God forbid, she will follow the example of her parents and sin. Her punishment will have been sealed by her own act.

This is monstrous. This is not a happy thought for a new dad and his beautiful and gloriously innocent little girl. This is a hellish outrage. But it is a fact.

Still the Gospel brings to me, the Good News.

Yesterday's Gospel reading was of Jesus' raising Jairus' daughter from death. It's very clear from the text: the father's faith saved the daughter. This is the principle of the Christian home. Think of the Philippian jailer. Think of Lydia. Think of 1 Corinthians 7. But when Father preached on these words, and said, "The father's faith saved the daughter," my heart nearly leapt out of my chest. What a combined feeling of the utter weight of such responsibility and the hope at what Jesus could accomplish!

There is a way that my giving death to Sofie, by her conception and by my own miserable example, can be undone. Not through my own efforts, except by way of testimony, of witness, of martyrdom. But by the compassionate and undeserved work of Christ. The evil that I do, by his grace, may be countered by the daily, moment-by-moment labor of carrying my cross. My little girl will see me sin. But the greater testimony can be that my own struggles, the co-labors of the Saints who are our intercessors, but most of all the glorious inbreaking of God that makes all these struggles possible and efficacious--all of this can be the means for her own salvation.

Through my faith and prayers, Sofie will indeed hear the words of our Savior, "I say to you, daughter, arise." And glory of glories, she will!

The Gospel of Inclusion III

Today's Gospel of Inclusion comes from the diocese of New Hampshire.

Praise to you, heavenly mother-father.

Opponents to the elevation of Gene Robinson as New Hampshire's Episcopal bishop walked out this morning during a service at their Rochester church. Conservatives at the Church of the Redeemer disapprove of Robinson, who is openly gay. They also aren't happy that their interim pastor, the Reverend Donald Wilson, was dismissed last week.

Though about 30 people remained inside the church, those who came out said the diocese should reinstate Wilson or send them an orthodox priest. Wilson was replaced by the Reverend Canon Marthe Dyner, who two attendees said pushed them this morning when they tried to read a statement during the service.

They also said she crumpled a paper held by one of them, and told them they were not welcome to voice their opinions. After the service, Dyner said she had not touched the two, but acknowledged trying to take the statement from them, saying they were disrupting the service. David Tyler, a church official, said the church is not divided. there is only a disagreement they are trying to work out.

This is the Gospel of Inclusion.

Glorty to thee, impersonal life force.

The Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost: The Healy Family Worships Together Once Again

Some wonderful developments worthy of thanksgiving. Though the week began rather dismally with a tooth that went bad followed by a root canal on Monday, it ended with Anna (with no prompting by me, mind you) saying that we should all go to worship together today.

Of course, that hinges on Sofie having a good night. If Mommy and Daddy are up every hour or hour and a half, or if Sofie doesn't sleep well, getting to the Liturgy can be a nightmare. But Sofie did great--and her parents got some good rest--so we dressed her in her frilly pink dress (courtesy of Grandma Micki--Clifton's mom), pink tights, and white satin shoes with satin bows for tiestrings. How much more little girl can you get, huh? She was precious.

This time Sofie stayed awake through almost all of the service (though she napped during Holy Communion). She got hungry and fussy as it came time for the Gospel. I wasn't sure of the protocol, so I encouraged Anna to stay till the Gospel had been sung, but Sofie wasn't having that, so as Father sung the last verse or two, Anna slipped out to nurse.

Thankfully, she came back just as Father was processing with the Gifts and, as is our parish custom, blessing all the children with the Chalice. Sofie, duly blessed, and Momma rejoined me in the pew and we continued worshipping.

It was neat to see Sofie so attentive during the Liturgy. I held her during the Trisagion, and since my sinuses made my throat a little raw, I was singing in the basement. The rumble of my voice in my chest, against which I was holding her, combined with the strange surroundings, held her quiet attention. I also held her while reciting the Creed, and couldn't help but thinking, there we were as a family (and a congregation), preaching the Gospel to my daughter.

Because Anna left right at the end of the Gospel, she missed some parts of the sermon, though she heard a lot of it over the speakers in the nursery. After the service, she told me that she'd heard enough of it that she wanted to hear the rest, and asked that I get a copy of the sermon (which I requested).

She also allowed me to "con" her into staying for Sunday School (a first today!), and again heard a lot that sparked her interest. And yes, I'll be getting the copy of that, too!

I have offered my petitions to God about our home and the ancient Faith. I have also asked the intercession of our Blessed Lady, and my patrons, Benedict of Nursia and Seraphim of Platina. Praise God for today!

The Gospel of Inclusion II

Today's Gospel of Inclusion comes from the diocese of San Francisco.

Praise to you, non-personal ground of all being.

Just last month, Swing accused Schofield and other church conservatives of making plans to separate from the U.S. Episcopal Church. "They will be a gated community of exclusivists," Swing said in a letter to his Bay Area priests. . . .

"The one thing they have in common is self-loathing for the Episcopal Church. ... They want a divorce from the Episcopal Church, and their method of separation will be domestic violence.'' . . .

Swing argues that a majority of the Episcopal bishops of the United States -- by a 62-43 vote -- supported the consecration of an openly gay bishop.

"A person like Bishop Schofield has lived long enough to see what happens to people who create their own little cul-de-sac of Anglicanism," Swing said. "There are all kinds of offshoots that claim to be the true Anglicans, but they are like little meteors that shine in the night and then disappear.'' . . .

Swing warns that lengthy court battles may be in the offing -- Episcopal vs. Episcopal -- for control of church property in California.

"Years of court cases," he says, "will replace (debate over) sex as our primary preoccupation.''

This is the Gospel of Litigation--er, Inclusion.

Glory to thee, androgynous archetype.

The Gospel of Inclusion I

Today's Gospel of Inclusion comes from the diocese of New Hampshire.

Praise to you, projection of our higher selves.

Tactics of fear, intimidation and harassment have escalated in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. With scarcely 48 hours notice, the Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner, Bishop of New Hampshire, has removed Fr. Don Wilson as interim rector at Church of the Redeemer, Rochester, summarily revoked his license to function as a priest in the diocese and appointed Canon Martha Dyner to conduct Sunday services at Redeemer. Bishop Theuner cites Fr. Wilson’s opposition to Gene Robinson’s consecration as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire as justification for his actions. Although the vast majority of parishioners at Redeemer share Fr. Wilson’s convictions, the parish was not given the opportunity to discuss Bishop Theuner’s decision.

This is the Gospel of Inclusion.

Glory to thee, non-hierarchical semi-divine deity-like person.

The Fatherhood Chronicles XXIII: The Day After Daddy Goes It Solo with the Sofie-nator

Okay. It could have been paradise, but it wasn't hell. Maybe a wee bit o' purgatory.

Got home from my office hours on campus to Anna feeding Sofie--a serene and lovely picture. (Dads out there, am I right?) Within the half-hour Anna had left for work. There you go. Four-thirty till nine-fifteen, just Sofie and me.

The first two hours were about what I expected. Sofie started to go to sleep after her feeding, but just sort of dozed for a bit. I held her and just sort of talked to her a little. Then she got more wakeful, so we went over to the Baby Einstein^TM play mat. She had some fun grabbing the ladybug hanging down from the arch. She really grabs onto that thing and cranks it. The setup is set to play a couple of tunes everytime the arches move enough. She pretty much wore the batteries down. All the while she "talked" to her Dad. In fact, she's gone from finding her voice to giving her Dad raspberries. (Keeps one humble, that's for sure. "Hey there, sweetie!" "Glrglmn-thpbt-thpbt-thpbt!")

After she got a little restless, I held her some more. Then she got fussy, so it was pull-out-the-bottle and feed. That went well. In fact, she got even more sleepy (she'd been awake for four hours straight), so when she was suitably snoring, I laid her down.

That lasted ten minutes. From there, the next two hours were pretty tough.

She stayed fussy. I knew it was mainly from being tired. We did diaper changes. We tried the swing. We tried walking around. Nothing worked. She got fussier. Finally, she got pretty worked up. This was about eight o'clock. I didn't know what else to do. So I laid her on a pillow on the futon and said, "I'm sorry, sweetie, but you need to go to sleep. You'll just have to cry for a few minutes."

Don't know what it was, but something did the trick. She quieted down, and within five minutes was snoring soundly.

She did wake up about fifteen minutes before Anna came home, and since it had been a couple of hours, I fed her again. Ultimately, Momma coming home was what she apparently needed. We went through her bedtime routine (massage, read a story, say a prayer and anoint her with holy water, then hold her till she goes to sleep).

On the one hand, it was great to have one long uninterrupted stretch of time with just me and Sofie. I love holding my daugher and interacting with her. On the other hand, I'm not Momma. And Sofie gets that. So I can't quite comfort her the way Momma does (feeding aside). But maybe as more of these Thursday nights pile up, there will be that about Daddy that Sofie understands she needs and will welcome as well.

In any case, I'd rather have a million Thursday nights like last night than the best of, well, almost anything else.

The Fatherhood Chronicles XXII: Sofie Finds Her Voice and Daddy Goes It Solo

Sunday, All Souls Day in the Western Church, was a momentous day in the Healy household. On that day, Sofie found her voice.

Now, it's true that Sofie has emitted occasional giggles. Once, while on the way to eat at the Olive Garden, she let out a long, drawn out, um, well, something like a monotonic laugh/yell. Momma and I disintegrated in joy and laughter.

But Sunday was a whole new step. She essentially engaged in a long monologue. (She's so like her dad!) This went on long enough for Anna to call her mom, then her sister, and for me to call my mom and my dad and stepmom, all of whom got to hear Sofie soundoff live. I 'bout cried folks. I was so thrilled.

She's doing more "talking" now. We had a good conversation before I left for work this morning. And she's giggling more. Cute as all get out!

But tonight is the big test. Momma goes back to work on a more consistent basis. So Daddy goes solo with Sofie tonight. Momma will leave plenty of food. And I know how to change diapers like nobody's business. But Sofie is very much still Momma's girl. I'm pretty much a goofy-looking plaything she enjoys when she wants.

I'll give the update and analysis tomorrow.

Why Orthodoxy? Excursus Pt. II

I wanted to add to the thoughts I posted earlier addressing the question as to whether one's conversion to Orthodoxy must be either about leaving one's former affiliation or about embracing Orthodoxy. Here I want to dwell on how one can own more fully the beliefs and life of one's former religious home precisely by embracing Orthodoxy.

Frequently, onlookers of the journeyings of us inquirers see our journeys in terms of leaving something behind. Truth to tell, so do we. Indeed, that's pretty much a significant part of conversion of any sort. Our "Let me tell you why I'm Orthodox (an Orthodox inquirer)" usually comes out like "Let me tell you why I'm not Religious Affiliation X." As I said in the other post: Ain't nothing wrong with that.

But one of the reactions I got from friends and family in my heritage churches when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church was one of incredulity. One of the reactions from family was that this was an explicit rejection of my upbringing and all the Christian doctrines I'd been taught. (A little melodramatic, but, well-intended concern was behind it.)

My response was as baffling to them as was my action: I became an Episcopalian precisely so I could more fully own my heritage. In the case of my Anglican confirmation, two of those aspects of my heritage were in particular the unity of the Body of Christ and a deeper life of worship. That is to say, far from abandoning all of my heritage church background, I was more fully and intensely embracing two very important doctrines.

The same is true of my inquiry to Orthodoxy.

Though there are indeed things about my heritage churches and the Episcopoal Church that I am rejecting and which gave impetus to my Orthodox journey, there are far more that I am embracing.

My Restoration Movement heritage taught me to take seriously the New Testament Church. This Church was not just some primitivist fantasy, nor a figment of the imagination. It was real, is real and we must do all we can to see its increase. I was also taught to deeply regard the unity of the Church, of the historic Church and to deeply deplore the present state of multiplying divisions among Christians. I was also taught the centrality of the Christian home in the spiritual life. Though this was probably the closest we came to a real biblical understanding of community, it is also the most fundamental of human relationships. Along with this focus on the home came an understanding of the necessity of holiness of life as an indicator of mature discipleship. Christian faith was not merely a set of doctrines to be believed (though at times, this misunderstanding marred the strengths of my heritage churches), but a way of life. Sin was real, and I knew that it was something to be continually repented of. Without holiness, Scripture says, no one will see the Lord. And finally I was taught to know, understand and guard the purity and consistency of the doctrine of the Church.

Despite my severe criticisms of the current degenerate state of the Episcopal denomination, I without hesitation note the strengths I have gained from them, and the gifts I now embrace in Orthodoxy. There is the ascetical tradition of the Church. While it is true that the Episcopal Church does not offer a consistent askesis, I came into an Anglo-Catholic diocese which emphasized the three-fold Benedictine askesis of Eucharist, daily office and private devotion. This has deeply marked me, and I am eternally grateful for the preservation of this askesis. It is no surprise then, that the Episcopal Church, through my parish, also offered me a greater connection to the historic worship of the Church and the daily office. I came to know and love the sacramental tradition of the Church. And finally I came to so much more deeply understand the necessity and treasure of the daily co-labors of the Saints in our lives.

There are more things about which I could speak--and indeed, this series of blogs, for which this is the second part of an excursus, deals with these and other matters--but each of these has been deeply important matters to me, and were important in my previous church allegiances.

In becoming Orthodox, though it's an act not yet completed, I am embracing these things and owning them in the deepest way I know. Though I am leaving some things behind, I am taking up the most important and bringing them with me to an ever greater fulfillment in the Orthodox Church.

Em Church Ecclesiology: Promises and Dangers

One of the "hot trends" in the church growth movement is that of the "emerging church" phenomenon. I have to confess that I'm only just becoming acquainted with this phenomenon, and most of my acquaintance has been via the internet. There are a plethora of books and conferences out there, but I've not read any of the books or been to any of the conferences. (Though the way some of these bloggers write about their conference experiences, it feels almost like being there.) All this is basically a disclaimer saying mine is not an in-depth analysis of the em church, but rather some initial questions and suspicions.

As I understand it, the em church has a few foci: a non- (sometimes anti-) institutional premise which focuses on relationships among smaller gathered groups of Christians, a preference for an emotive and existential worship experience, and a conscious embrace of a "postmodern" worldview. All of these contain both promise and peril.

Relationships and Smaller Groups

In the twentieth century, the popular marketing of this small group trend went under the terms of "house church," "cell group," and so forth. The point was that since we as individuals get lost in the large group, we needed smaller, more intimate settings for discipleship and accountability. This felt need got coupled with a presupposition that the New Testament pattern of eccelsiology was to have several house churches meeting in one city. It appears that the current jargon describes this setup as a "multi-site congregation."

What's interesting to me, is that, historically speaking, this was the genesis for the parish-diocese dynamic. In other words, there was one Local Church (diocese) in a given city, headed by a bishop, and several house curches (parishes) served by presbyters/priests. (Admittedly, this is a very simplified model, but is, I think, a fair description of the very early development of the Traditional Church structure. One sees hints of it in the New Testament, but sees its more developed form in Clement's letter to the Corinthians [c. AD 95] and the Ignatian letters [pre AD 107])

If the trend, then, among the em churches, will eventually follow this historical organic model, I think this a good thing. Especially since another of the aspects of the em church is its conscious a la carte borrowing from various historic practices of the Church (the use of icons, for example). By following this historical development, and coupled with this growing appreciation for Church Tradition and history, the em church may well find themselves consciously returning to the proper ecclesiological structure.

Unfortunately, given the em church's self-conscious non-/anti-institutionalism, they will equate the dynamic organic ecclesiology of history with the sins of institutionalism. Further, since the impetus toward the "house church," "multi-site congregation" also appears to tend to take on the therapeutic motif of our culture, instead of moving toward a more communal understanding of ecclesiology, the individualism still inherent in postmodernism will likely win out and frustrate these efforts.

Existential Worship

The willingness of the em church to explore alternative forms of worship has some potential good. Some of these worship experiences utilize the historic liturgies of the Church. Since these liturgies formulate Christian belief in time-tested ways, then the shaping of Christian minds and hearts by these liturgical snippets is a welcome good.

Unfortunately, one cannot take a screwdriver from the toolbox and very effectively hammer nails with it. And given that the em church worship is still weighted with the orientation toward needs of the individual worshipper, whatever good might come from this eclectic style is bastardized.

Historically, the Church's worship has focused on God, not on the worshipper. While it is true that the liturgies (at least in the East) were translated into the vernacular, and local customs and (small-t) traditions were encouraged, the words, form and structure of worship were predetermined. The Church didn't ask the catechumens if they would prefer more praise choruses over the traditional hymns. The Church didn't bring non-Christians into a "seeker service" to evangelize them. The Church worshipped God. If you wanted to join in, fine, but no one asked your preference.

This alternative worship, furthermore, is too unstable. Though the point of worship is the praise of the Trinity, the effect is the formation of Christian minds and hearts in the beliefs of Christianity. With the style and words of the service changing weekly (or oftener) there is no chance for any substantive formation of Christian minds and hearts. Or rather, the substantive formation is one of pluralism and relativism, the lack of a solid criterion of discernment.

Postmodern Worldview

In many ways, this is the most troubling development of all. The positive, of course, is that insofar as this embrace of the postmodern offers a substantive critique of the modernist hegemony which invaded the Western churches, the em church has an opportunity to embrace again, in a renewed way, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Another positive is that having learned how to communicate with the culture, the em church can experience a greater facility to keep the conversation going when it comes to evangelism.

The difficulty, however, is that it does not appear that the em church is adequately handling the pluralism and relativism with which postmodernist thinking is rife. So far as I can tell, the em church phenomenon does vocalize commitment to absolute truth (albeit not in modernist terms). But this commitment is contradicted by the pluralist and relativist worship--admittedly the most formative of Christian practices--which it promotes. How can one balance the commitment to an absolute, transcendent God with an approach to worship which communicates "It doesn't matter as long as it's sincere"?

There are other more superficial complaints I have, not the least of which is the (in my view) selling out to marketing that the em church phenomenon does. It seems as though new jargon must continually be invented so that it can be trademarked and the books copyrighted. This can lay dangerous foundations for a resurgence of theological nominalism.

Furthermore, the non-/anti-institutional commitments of the em church are themselves being institutionalised. Googling "emerging church" leads to dozens and dozens of websites, books, conferences, and so forth. It all may be "decentralized" but it's just as institutional as the historic Church they criticize for its institutionalism.

But once again, mine is only a beginning glance. These are but impressionistic concerns and questions. If others can help me see the substance, I would be grateful.

The Fatherhood Chronicles XXI: Here's Why

If I ever need to know the answers to "Why _____?" Here they are:

And who said being a ladybug for Halloween ain't hard work?

Do I love my women or what?