Black Priest Matter... be as Christ to me.

A White Prince Lays a Church Foundation

Absalom Jones was ordained to the Priesthood in the Episcopal Church in 1804. It was 211 years later, in 2015, that Michael Curry was elevated to the role of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. My suggestion is that this process, spanning two centuries, has not been one of building up but digging down. We have, at the very best, dug out the rough space to begin to lay a foundation.

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13) Is an oft repeated bible passage. The goal, too often, has been one of keeping those out of power complacent in their enfeeblement. The conceit being that for a servant to stop laying down their life is to take up the sin of pride. 

Won't you let me be your servant, let me be as Christ to you? The Servant Song by R. Gillard has become a mainstay over the past forty years. The idea, which is a sound one, is that everyone who sings it seeks to enter into the kenosis of Christ, they seek to empty themselves out for the aide and support of others. The problem I have always had with the song is that it does not have the correlating, and requisite, response, to this line. I will let you be my servant, let you be as Christ to me.

To enter into the bonds of friendship as Jesus compels us, we have to name the other individual not only our servant but also our Christ. The perpetuating issue of race in America is that there is a refusal to recognize that which is Black as that which is Christ... that which is Black as that which is Messiah, Lord, Logos, and God. If the questions is won't you let me be your servant then the answer is yes but when the question is won't you let me be as Christ to you then the answer has repeatedly been no. The repeated failure of church and society to say yes in answer to both questions is a marked point as how we fail to inhabit the realm of Christian friendship.

When Absalom Jones was ordained to the Priesthood he was ordained to serve a black congregation that had already formed around him and he and his congregation were denied voice and vote in the councils of the church. It would be 150 years before black clergy and laity were given voice and vote in the councils and conventions throughout the Episcopal Church. It would be 166 years before a black man served as bishop over a diocese. It would be 211 years before a black man served as presiding bishop. Each of these moments, that came about only through the perseverance of many in the face of extreme opposition, was a moment when the Episcopal Church began to say yes. Moments when our Church said yes, that which is Black is that which is Messiah, Lord, Logos, and God.

This is our Church digging the foundation lines, placing the first foundation stones, for building an actual community seeking to inhabit the realm of Christian friendship. We have gotten to the point where every parish would be honored to have a Black Priest, at least specifically in respect to Michael Curry their presiding bishop, be present to preach and celebrate in their community. This is, however, a very different reality to a space where every parish can readily respond to the call of black aspirants to the diaconate and priesthood or where every parish can readily call a black priest as their rector. This is, however, a very different reality to a space where every parish is readily seeking to enter into the transformative but difficult process of actually processing what has been uncovered for them personally in the midst of excavating this foundation. This is, however, a very different reality then a church that has processed its issues and history with race both within and outside itself.

Our church and our society continues to fail in its ability to name that which is Black as that which is Messiah, Lord, Logos, and God. We continue to find ways to construe that which is Black as that which bears the Mark of Cain, that which is less than human, and thus that which can be enslaved, segregated, and imprisoned. That we have so easily moved from outright slavery, to Jim Crow, to imprisonment in corporate prison labor camps speaks to how incapable we are of truly entering into Christian Friendship as a society. Thus it is that Black Lives Matter exists as a movement because as a society we have failed to enter fully into the obligation of Christian Friendship... we are more than happy to say yes, be my servant to that which is Back but have utterly failed again and again to say yes, be my Messiah, Lord, Logos, and God to that which is Black. Until we do so as a church and a society we will fail the basic paradigm of Christian relationship requisite for following Jesus.

        

God in the Tesseract: Remembering the Ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi

"God does not change, He is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow."
                                                              -conservative railing against change...

a model tesseract created in two dimensions by a sequence of
three dimensional diagrams displayed in the right linear order

Like mosts points of heresy the statement above takes a truth, the wholeness and perfection of God beyond change, and then places it in an inappropriate context, the changing and tumultuous existence of created beings within time and space.

The reality is that God does not exist. Existence is dependent upon time and space. Existence is what flows from God, in creation, it is something which God can experience and within which be experienced as fully as existence allows, but it is not something upon which God depends.

To say that God is the same today, as yesterday, and tomorrow is to place God in a box... a box we do not even recognize we are placing God within because it is the Box of Linear Time within which we confine the vast majority of our perspectives. To that end, while still ultimately faulty, we must take God out of the Box and strive to put God in the Tesseract.

We all know how to draw a square on a piece of paper, a two dimensional object, and we handle various types of cubes, three dimensional box shaped things, everyday. A tesseract is this type of object in four dimensions. We can only experience it as a cube, because we move through time in a linear way, but the tesseract itself consistently has characteristics of which we are not aware but might become aware as we shift forward in time. In more familiar terms the Holy Spirit will continue to teach us new things.

Now this is still a broken metaphor, the tesseract is nothing but a more advanced box that limits the nature of God... but it is a less broken metaphor than one that speculates God as a held constant within the confines of time, which is what we so often are trapped into doing by our limited perspective.

Now let us ground ourselves on a specific point in time... January 25th, 1944. Japan was invading China and all foreigners were required to leave and this exodus included all of the Anglican clergy in the country. The one exception was a deacon, Florence Li Tim-Oi. Bishop Ronald Hall made a decision to ordain Florence Li Tim-Oi, who showed all charisms of a call to priestly ministry, to the priesthood and thus provided the Anglicans in China a servant to aide them in going about sacramental ministry... a need so pressing that the reality of Florence Li Tim-Oi being the first woman allowed to enter such a role was suddenly no longer of consequence.

There are two options about what occurred at this moment. The first is that there is a simple box about who God is and that we have to stay in that box whose lines are known. If this is the case then the Rev'ds Hall and Tim-Oi broke a wall in this simple box and walked outside of God's purview. I continue to find this a rather sad and simplistic construction of God more like unto an idol than anything requiring an actual depth of faith. The other option is that an ontological reality always possible but simply not manifested within our linear context fully manifested itself.¹ To put this more simply, something that always could have been happened. Or, to go back to our initial model, a shift occurred in the tesseract which shifted the nature of the cube we can reference within our spacial and temporal reality and thus revealed a deeper truth than the one previously known.

The second possibility, the one I hold to, is a bit scary. It requires faith in a God whose nature is not only at points unknown but who is in reality unknowable. It requires a constant humility in the face of the erosion of understanding and the potential shifts of the box of who God is and what is of God. It holds up faith in a process of discernment and understanding, but is doubtful and suspicious of the static set of known facts considered immovable and set. It does not deny the unchanging nature of God but does recognize the problematic viewpoint by which we have to grasp said nature... more than anything it is prepared to encounter points of intense revolution where pastoral necessity upends historic boundaries of what is pastorally appropriate or theologically sound. It recognizes the Rev'd Florence Li Tim-Oi not only for the pragmatic reality of her blessed life and service with us but the fulfillment of ontological realities brought into our keen by that blessed life and service.

---

1 It is important to note that in all probability this was not the first manifestation of this ontological reality within our perception of linear time. Earlier manifestations from the first centuries of Christianity were simply ignored, repressed, and forgotten by later centuries.

Of Communions and Consequences...

The hope of this post is to give an understanding of the systems of thought at play in the midst of the Anglican Communion and the Consequences placed upon TEC/DFMS in light of our advocacy and inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals and their Proclamation of Christ Crucified. It is geared toward members of TEC/DFMS in hopes that they can gain insight into systems other than our own and how that might inform and condition viewpoints. It is not meant to advocate or excuse any actions or sides (for the authors personal opinions on the subject of LGBTQ+ issues please see his other works).

Firstly we must ask: What is the point of courts, laws, arbitration, and justice? (individual vs communal)

In America we generally approach questions around issues of law and justice from the point of personal vindication and the individual having their rights acknowledged and due compensation given. This is what we have inherited from Western European civilization.

Some other societies, including those with Anglican churches, approach questions around issues of law and justice from the point of view of a community's need for peace, reconciliation, and continued functionality. In the midst of this personal vindication and individual rights can be placed aside if such ensures overall harmony and well being within the community.

Both concepts have strength and weaknesses. Both at their best strive to recognize the basic rights of every individual and also maintain community harmony. The problem arises when the system is forced to decide in one way or another... our system will advocate for the needs of the one over the needs of the many while the alternative system will advocate for the needs of the many over the one.

It is important to recognize that both concepts of law and justice are expressed within systems and cultures that are not egalitarian and struggle with issues of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and cisism. Blaming the concept for the system and culture that it inhabits and the manifestations of kyriarchy therein is not useful.

When forced we will choose to take the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals over the maintenance of the Anglican Communion while they will choose to take the maintenance of the Anglican Communion over the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals. All sides would desire that both the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals and the maintenance of the Anglican Communion could occur but when forced to choose one over the other in the midst of a disagreement about what those needs are, our concepts of the purpose of law and justice bring us to different ends.  

Secondly we need to recognize that alternative views on LGBTQ+ issues are not simply American views on LGBTQ+ issues from the 1950s.

The various movements for liberation of oppressed and minority groups in America, and Western Culture in general, builds upon preexisting concepts of individualism and liberalism that are not inherent to human society. We simply assume that everyone basically agrees with John Locke and his concept of each individual's right to life, liberty, and property. We do this to such an extent that many of us do not even know that the philosophy of John Locke is a key cornerstone of our society.

What is important to realize, as Christians, is that John Locke's Christology was Socinian. It rejects the eternal transcendent nature of Jesus Christ, Jesus as Logos, and thus is not within what is generally considered orthodoxy. In the end his overall philosophy requires the acceptance of certain concepts that are simply not reconcilable with orthodox doctrine. Which is not to say that the human rights advocacy made with such arguments are not reconcilable with the Gospel, but the mechanisms and rhetoric by which they have been brought about at points very much are.

Now this might seem very confusing. We generally do not engage our day to day thinking in this way. America is somewhat unique in how pervasive one particular philosophy permeates the majority of our culture to such a great extent. There was an expectation of conformity after WWII, through McCarthyism and other methods, that perpetuate a unique reality in our culture to this day and underpins our conversation and thinking across our society's spectrum of conservative and progressive. This pervasiveness exists, to a lesser extent, in the rest of western european civilizations but can become completely absent once outside of it.

Our arguments for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals take for granted this shared acceptance of John Locke's thought. That means they actually make little or no sense outside of that philosophical frame work. The problem is that since we take this philosophical frame work for granted we do not recognize we are using it and we do not know how to clearly articulate its importance and value. Further because at many points our arguments actually require taking the gospel of John Locke over the Gospel of Jesus Christ from an outside Christian perspective they look not just worldly but heretical.

This is not to say that the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and the recognition of their Proclamation of Christ Crucified is not inherently orthodox and part of the Gospel truth... but that we are yet to clearly articulate it in such a way that is understandable in a context other than our own. We presume the same context as our own well outside of its boundary and then, not realizing the breakdown of communication that is happening, respond to outside inquiry and detraction as if it is occurring within our context. The issue is not simply a disagreement within an overall philosophical worldview, what we generally experience in our conversations within the United States, but exceptionally different philosophical world views.

To put this in perspective consider various levels of math. Two American Episcopalians have a conversation and we can take a level of common knowledge and worldview for granted such that we are dealing with basic addition and subtraction in the midst of disagreement. Have that same conversation with an American who is a Southern Baptist and the lack of common ground has heightened the conversation to a complexity equal to Algebra. By the time we are seeking to have this conversation across the Anglican Communion we are talking about a level of systems of thought at play to bring us into the realm of Calculus if not Differential Equations.

If we do not take this heightened complexity into account, and learn to recognize it, make our arguments within it and yes allow our own thinking to be transformed by it... then we simply will not make any progress for LGBTQ+ Anglicans/Episcopalians.

Third, and finally, we have to recognize a complex interwoven cycle of violence within the Anglican Communion.

Each of us, and each of our communities, is made up of a complex set of traits and characteristics intersecting to create who and what we are. Some of these traits give us strengths, such as societal privilege, while others give us weaknesses, such as societal oppression. As a rule if we are hurt upon a line of weakness, a point of oppression, we have a tendency to retaliate along a line of strength, out of our privilege in society. For instance if we are hurt because of our stance on LGBTQ+ issues we could respond in retaliation with how we use, or do not use, our material wealth. This is pushing and pulling along the linked lines of privilege and oppression in our relationships. When we do this we are contributing to the complex and interwoven cycles of violence that permeate the Anglican Communion and we contribute to the perpetuation of violence.

We want to construe the recent events in a linear way outside of their context and history. We want to assume that in the context of the Anglican Communion every Primate comes to the table as inherently equal. Both of these presumptions are flawed and not based on a realistic appreciation of what is at play.

TEC/DFMS maintains an exceptionally powerful position within the Anglican Communion. This is in part because we are principally based in America and America's position in world politics. This is in part because of our material wealth and our capacity to fund, or not fund, ministries and human relief efforts across the Anglican Communion. This is in part because of the historical use of both of these realities to foster churches across the globe.

The reality is that our history is resplendent with not only the racism, sexism, heterosexism, and cisism we struggle to overcome within ourselves but also with problematic concepts of Manifest Destiny, which we officially held until our renunciation of said theology at our General Convention in 2009. The violence we have perpetuated, and continue to perpetuate, on account of American Exceptionalism and the manifold issues systematic oppression concurrent with that, cannot simply be ignored in the midst of this conversation. The conversation has to be made across all of these intersections of privilege and oppression. To do otherwise simply contributes to these cycles of violence and does a disservice to all.

The conclusion is that Christian Community is not easy and often chaotic.

We want to presume that Christians can live in community as explained in Acts chapter 2:

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

In context, however, we must recognize that this is a picture of the nascent community of Christians made entirely from Jewish converts... the next story is of gentile converts being promoted to deacons because the needs of widows and orphans, specifically gentile orphans and widows, was not being addressed in the midst of the above community. Shortly thereafter the chaos of arguments and broken community between the party promoting circumcision and the party allowing for the uncircumcised rends the church in twain for a generation.

Christian Community that is actively engaging the Proclamation of Christ Crucified from outside of itself will face chaos and brokenness. It will have to die to certain understandings of itself and be born again. There is not some point of stabilization until the coming of Christ again and the fulfillment of all things in the creation of a new heaven and new earth. For now our place is exactly where we are, in the chaos and brokenness of Christian community within this age. We must enter into this Spirit filled transformational space and not avoid it for our own camp, regardless of what camp that might be.  

 

More than a Miracle Making Magician...

It was a really bad musical called Miracle Maker. The type of musical just good enough for a small community theatre to buy the rights for so that their youth have something to present and not look absolutely ridiculous. I was one of those youth. The premise is that during a field-trip to a science lab the most fetching male of the class, not my role, gets in an accident and gains the power to perform miracles... quickly he is caught up in his new powers becomes a televangelist, healing people and turning water into wine. Then fame gets too much of him and in the chaos all he wants is for the world to stop... and so it does and everyone but him dies instantly. It is at this point that he performs his last miracle, going back in time to undo the accident that gave him the power in the first place.

The musical itself was rather trash, but it does make a crucial point about the nature of miracles and the horrible potential the capacity to make them can bring about. At the end of the day we are talking about much more than turning water into wine, a carrot into a rabbit, or sawing an associate in half and putting them back together for the applause of the crowd. We are talking about more than the ability to cure the ailments of those who seek wholeness.

At this rate, the walls between dimensions will break down.

We are talking about the capacity to unhinge the very fabric of the universe but not do so.  

We are talking about having this capacity and consistently using it to make the world whole.

We are talking about going about making the world whole and staying centered and grounded amidst the human response to these moments of miracles.

The deal with Jesus is not that he could do spiffy stuff... but that the spiffy stuff he did consistently brought world into a more robust harmony with God.

The deal with Jesus is not that he could do spiffy stuff... but that he could do spiffy stuff and never loose his grounding, center, and purpose in the midst of it.

The deal is that we believe a person walked around the earth with the technical capacity to unhinge the very fabric of the universe at any moment... and that never happened... that in fact the very opposite occurred and the very fabric of the universe was brought toward wholeness.

Mary came and requested a small unhinging of the universe... that wine would come about where no wine was... and Jesus, reluctantly, let his time come. The time when he would start to unhinge the universe bit by bit... the struggle to unhinge it in a way that would not cause further pain and suffering but bring about wholeness... the struggle to unhinge the universe in little ways and not get caught up in the act of unhinging it... the struggle that once taken up could only end with one eventuality... the confrontation of the world as it stood and the world as it should be with his very self, his very flesh, as the focal point for the transformation.

And so it began, with no one but the servants knowing what was going on, and for no greater reason than two families needed a bit more time to celebrate and be joyous with each other. This simplistic silly reason was enough for Jesus to take the plunge into the potential unhinging, but in  the end the the eventual rehinging of the universe and all the responsibilities and eventualities such entailed. So did Mary request the healing of the world, so did Mary request her son begin his path to the cross.