Emergent pope speaks at Lambeth

Photo/Mary Frances Schjonberg
© 2008 Episcopal Life Online

Brian McClaren spoke on behalf of emerging types at the Lambeth Conference a few days back, and apparently gave a shout out to COTA in Seattle, which is cool.

For those of us in the emerging know, Brian's message was by this point predictable, but it's spiriting none the less that it appeared at Lambeth (quoted from Episcopal Life Online):

"McLaren said the emerging culture "has been orphaned by religion -- religion has stopped answering its questions, it stopped making sense, it was very willing to withdraw into its shell and have the world fall apart." He said the culture has also been orphaned by science "that promised solution but ended up giving only more deadly weapons. And it turns out that many of yesterday's solutions caused today's terrifying problems." Members of this world have also been orphaned by technology, economic systems and consumerism and by "governments that continually promised them the world and continually deliver pitifully mediocre results."

He also gave what I think is a deserved shout out to Anglicanism from the emerging perspective:

"McLaren called on the bishops and others to recognize and use Anglicanism's characteristics and diversity to make disciples in the emerging world. "Some of the best teachers explaining the Gospel of the kingdom of God are Anglicans," he said...

He said movements within the Anglican Communion, such as the Church of England's Fresh Expressions effort and the Alpha Course, are "wonderful, creative" ways of bringing Christianity into that world.

In addition, "the fact that you are a global communion means that you are forced to realize that different cultures are dealing with different struggles -- there's no one-size-fits-all solution," he said. Acknowledging that those diverse contexts are the "source of some of the struggles in the communion," McLaren said they can be a "great asset if you realize that we're in different place, different contexts [and] we have different challenges."

Anglican liturgy, he said, "makes space for spiritual seekers in a way that a lot of mean-spirited Protestant preaching doesn't." The liturgy offers "beauty, mystery, intelligence, clarity," he added."

It'll be interesting to hear how Bishops are responding to his presentation. Olympia's Bishop, Greg Rickel, was enthusiastic, as was Bishop Alan. Those were pretty predictable though: they're bloggers. I'm more interested to hear how (or if) GAFCON and Global South types respond. I've got a sort of vague sense that "traditionalists" don't generally like the emerging church, but it doesn't seem to be a big enough stream yet internationally to really get people upset in one direction or another. It also doesn't seem that there's much participation in the emerging dialogue from south of the equator, which is of course where most Anglicans live. We market ourselves as a sort of third option, and you do see some generally constructive dialogue happening in emerging circles, even around the issue of sexuality. From here out it will be intriguing to see how much attention is given to the themes of the emerging dialogue in the global Anglican conversation. I've always viewed the 'emerging conversation' as almost a euphamism for 'what the youngsters are talking about', and it would make sense that young leaders would hammer out the solutions that will lead us forward--we're the ones who are going to have to live in the world we create, after all.

Maybe you'll find this unusual...

But I just spent two hours trying to create an outline for a religious Order or Community. Something like this. I even created a flag for it:

Christian Music on the Rocks

I've had an eventful few weeks and I feel like I've got a lot of processing to do and a few stories to tell, so I'm hoping that I can find a lot of time over the next few days to blog. I have a meeting all day tomorrow and Shayne flies in on Sunday, so that might be wishful thinking. We'll be touring the Seattle sights and hopefully going to the US Air Guitar nationals next door to my house, and going to see TOLSATD next door to my house.

In any case though, to begin filling you in on what I've been up to, as you may know our friend from New Zealand, Christie, was visiting for the last few weeks. Two Sundays ago another friend from New Zealand also happened to be in town, Brooke Fraser, who is the artist in the video above, so we all went to the show from which the clip was taken at a little club down from our house. Brooke isn't actually a friend, beyond Angel having said hi to her at the show. She is however a well-known artist in New Zealand, and apparently in the Christian world.

Being there, I realized that it was the first time I'd been to a "Christian concert" in years--since college, I would guess. The last time I went to a "Christian concert" in a secular club was when I saw P.O.D. at Bogart's in Cincinnati, I think in 2000. At the time I felt it was cool that Christians were in a bar, b/c it seemed like a good way to share the gospel. This time I felt like it was kind of a sneaky thing to do. Then I thought of it as redemptive, now I thought of it as kind of dishonest or something, and at least a little bit silly. The Christian rides in on the white horse with a siren song to save the hordes of drunken sinners. Problem is that only Seattle Pacific Christian College students showed up, along with other Christians sheepishly sipping our PBRs.

That's my cynical and unfair projection though. I'm not sure that Brooke was trying to convert anyone--she didn't talk like it--probably just trying to sell records and get her music out. She's an evangelical, but she's a NZ evangelical, which isn't quite the same thing as a US evangelical. They're more "She'll be right, mate", and we're more "If you don't save them, who will?" Whatever the case, I went in to the concert not wanting to like her. I'm not the sappy Christian music type anymore, after all. Now I'm obviously too cool for you because of my knowledge of obscure indie-music that you've never heard of, like everyone else in Seattle (and every other major white-liberal enclave). My taste in music shows that I'm gritty and tough, with a great sense of humor and a depth of understanding. Fact is though, Brooke kicked ass in the most wholesome of ways. I found myself enthralled against my will, as maybe you are too watching the video while you're reading this. Or maybe I just still like sappy music.

Dangerously Faithful

Is this for real? I don't know. Watch the video, and here's the guy's website. Fresh Fire indeed.

Maybe it's just an elaborate hoax designed to make Christians look like dangerous lunatics ready to attack at their first impulse. You know, like the Prince Caspian movie, or the War in Iraq.

Hot tip to Justice and Compassion.

Back and Forth

I've not been in the blogging mood lately...

My life during the last three years has been a constant nervous mess as I've gone back and forth on discernment, and I'm as sick (and increasingly bored) of going through it as you are of reading about it.

For an update in the process though, I've realized that I'm finally at peace about whatever happens with ordination. For the last month I've been thinking that I'd rather not deal with the cost that comes along with ordination, and now I'm back around to thinking it might be worth it. In any case, what happens happens.

I've decided that I'm going to be honest regardless. Generally the priest's role has involved a lot of pious lie-telling, and I'm going to avoid that--even if it means I won't be ordained. We'll see how that plays out with the community, but if I'm going to be a priest, I'd like to at least be an honest priest.

So, from here out, to hell with trying to convince people that I measure up, and to hell with pretending I'm a Christian in a sense that I'm really not.

Capitol Hill Religion: For the Jew, the Italian and the Red Head Gay

Last week, I put up this post about religion on Capitol Hill in Seattle, hinting that I'd be posting again about what I think religion should look like here. Having thought about it a bit, I've come to realize that that whole endeavor is a little bit silly. Capitol Hill is a sampler platter of culture, and religion is really just culture that's been sanctified by magic hands and holy potlucks.

The fact is that I'm glad that there are a bunch of different groups that have organized the varieties of religious experience on the hill, and it's stupid to try to distill that into one "should" of religion here. That might be obvious to some, but honestly I think that ultimately that's what a lot of religious leader types aim for--at least those coming from a Christian perspective, which I can speak for somewhat authoritatively. As an individual, at best I think what you can say about the "should" of religion on Capitol Hill is that you have to hold to it pretty loosely. You have to approach things from a generally pluralist perspective if you want to be able to stay sane in a culture that is as mix and match as this one. It's not surprising that you meet a lot of cafeteria religion types around here. For faith communities, my guess is that the best you can do is try to fill a niche. The Hill for Jesus is great, as long as you don't mean the whole Hill.

As a member of a religious community, this is a difficult tension to keep. I'm a St. Mark's Episcopalian, and despite my aspirations to religious leadership, I'm generally personally non-committal on religious suggestions that go beyond "be good" and "love people". However, I've also got an interest in seeing my community continue to survive and thrive, and that sort of saccharine religiosity generally doesn't go far enough to be appealing. We're a healthy community in terms of population and resources, but we have to figure out how to continue to be so. Because there just aren't very many Episcopalians out there anymore, it's not exactly clear how to do that. Being reflective of the culture is important, and we've done that pretty well in adopting an aggressive position on social justice issues and inter-religious dialogue and cooperation. My feeling is that people on the Hill, in all of their diversity, have a generally positive view of the St. Mark's community, which is a good thing I suppose. (See The Stranger review of their worship here: It's number 29.) We've also been aggressively gay-friendly, which goes a long way in our neighborhood. Despite it's recent troubles, St. Mark's is actually probably in a more stable position than any other church in the city besides Mars Hill. Go figure.

(On MTV's old show The State, there was a sketch called "The Jew, the Italian and the Red Head Gay" which I was going to use to preface this post. However, apparently they haven't finished putting everything that has ever happened up on the internet, so I couldn't find video. Here's the script though. Thanks for the transcription whoever's site this is)

The Jew, The Italian, and The Red Head Gay
David (Jew), Ken (Italian) and Kevin (Red head Gay): The Jew, the Italian and the Red Head Gay, we all live together on Avenue A, we have zany adventures from day to day.

David: The Jew!

Ken: The Italian!

Kevin: And the Red Head Gay!

David: Come on Ken, it's the end of the month. We need the money for the rent, where's the money?

Ken: Oh, I'm sorry Dave, I spent it all on pasta. I'm gonna make a big tomato sauce.

Kevin: Oh, I would help you with that Ken, but I'm busy picking out these pretty curtain patterns for the apartment.

David: Fine, I'm gonna go get some bagels, I guess.

Kevin: Okay. Toodleoo schnookums!

Ken: All right Dave, Ariverderchi!

Ken, David, and Kevin: The Jew, the Italian and the Red Head Gay, we all live together on Avenue A, we each see the world in our own way.

David: The Jew!

Ken: The Italian!

Gay: And the Red--Head--ha--Gaaaaaaaaaay!!!

(great 70's disco music)

Whole Cast in ridiculous costumes: The Red Head Gaaaay, the red head gaaaay, the red head gaaaaaay. The red head gay!

Religion on Capitol Hill

As disciplined as I've been in obsessing about religion and where I want to live, I was dismayed today when I took stock of how little time I've actually spent obsessing about religion in the place where I do live, on Capitol Hill in Seattle. I've decided to begin rectifying that situation, and made that topic the subject of consideration for today's afternoon constitutional.

Capitol Hill is a convergence zone for a bazillion people groups, so it's no surprise that even after three years I find it a hard place to characterize religiously. The most visible religious building and community is undoubtedly St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, which is the center of worship for a subset of the local community that can be fairly labeled as almost uniformly white, of the upper classes, and liberal (though being of that subset, many there would be upset that I pointed that out). It's also probably fair to say that St. Mark's is the epicenter for GLBTQ Christianity in the city as a whole, having had a prominent and active gay dean and an "open and affirming" policy for years.

It would be wrong to say that St. Mark's characterizes religion on Capitol Hill though, because it really is a mixed bag. There's a large Catholic population here along with the Episcopalians, but I think the Hill is most clearly a "spiritual" place, and non-traditionally religious. There are lots of yoga studios and such, and the grocery stores sell magazines like Tikkun and Tricycle. Having a large white liberal population, there's also a visible Cult of the Sunday Morning New York Times. The prominent hipster population here was probably best served by the now closed Coffee Messiah, which was only religious in an overly-defensive and self-consciously ironic sense. There are several Black churches within a few blocks of my house, but my feeling is that those really belong more to the adjacent and historically African-American Central District than Capitol Hill proper (although, again, the white liberals would be defensive about that, wanting to make sure you know that we live in a diverse neighborhood). There are regularly Evangelical groups that try to "Win the Hill for Jesus", but the evidence seems to suggest that it's not working. (Apparently one of those used to meet in a Pizza parlor right down the road from us--Piecora's.) Actually, there are a smattering of traditional WASPy churches around, but most of them have dwindling congregations and some are closing up shop. There is an old Christian Scientist Church building just down the road from us that is being turned into Condos, and it's close to an old Methodist Church that is now business offices. Now that the Christian Scientists are gone, the most unlikely church left on the Hill, if you ask me, is Volunteer Park Seventh Day Adventist Church. I really don't know where their congregation comes from. There's a cool looking Greek Orthodox Church called Church of the Assumption, but I don't know how anything about their congregation either. I haven't run into anyone who I knew was Greek Orthodox, but they tend to be stealthy. Apparently, there are no more Jews on Capitol Hill--or, well, no synagogues, though there is one close by on First Hill. I've seen Buddhist monks walking down Broadway, but don't know if there are any temples around. I guess my expert opinion would be that Capitol Hill is a ultimately a pretty decent microcosm of the religious diversity of the US as a whole. Its nucleus is comprised of disinterested agnostics and miscellaneous (though unusually liberal) Christians, with lots of fringe groups floating around the edges.

If you're wondering why I'm telling you all of this, it's because along with the thousand other things I might do in the next few years, I might be working here on the Hill on some sort of Episcopal missional front. (Yes, Wesley, I am confused.) With that in mind, I've probably got another post forthcoming, on what I think religion should look like on Capitol Hill...

Part Two: An Episcopal Theology of Sex, Jr.: On Pornography!

(Being a straight, white male writing from a straight, white male perspective, this post inevitably drifts towards the not-totally-accurate stereotype that men are the viewers of pornography and women the subjects. Thanks in advance for your willingness to hear what I have to say rather than getting hung up on the limitations of my perspective (though feel free to point them out). I know they're there, but it's impossible to try to appropriately address all of the perspectives in this conversation in a couple of posts.)

Ewwkay, at the end of the last post I said that I think an interesting place to begin the pornography discussion

"is with a suggestion that was made by one of the girls at my church in our annual youth group 'sex talk': that is, that pornography is actually something that can be empowering to women, and can be a celebration of the beauty of the human body".

To give you a bit of my reasoning, I'm starting here not because I'm fully comfortable with the statement, but because I'm inclined to think that there are good cultural and theological reasons to turn the Christian porno conversation on it's head, and to start with an approach that is open to affirming positives as well as negatives when it comes to this topic. For one thing, I think that if we view sexuality through the lens of sacramentality, wherein sex is viewed as something fundamentally holy and good, we're required to not be quickly dismissive of a type of sexual expression that is reportedly (though dubitably?) being practiced by 28,258 Internet users a second, and which can arguably be practiced without physical or material harm to others. We have to at least leave open the possibility that the bulk of those tens of thousands of pornography creators and viewers/second aren't morally bankrupt agents of a massive satanic conspiracy. I mean, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Along those lines, I also think that it's necessary to hold this discussion in the sphere of reality, where pornography is recognized as a cultural norm--in the US and elsewhere--that most don't have major problems with and that probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, no matter how much we Bible-beaters rail against it. Jesus' relevant suggestion,

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL."

might be a good place for us to start, but it isn't a complex enough statement to address the depth of the issue.

As with almost all issues, I'm not ready to make any strong affirmations on this, but I will give you my inclinations in a loosely particular order:

1. If I had to make a blanket and summary statement on my views on pornography, it would be that there is nothing prima facie wrong with sexual imagery, and that sexual imagery can in fact be viewed in positive--even 'holy'--terms, but that the pornography industry as it exists in reality raises major problems of personal morality and social justice that have to be addressed and acted upon from a Christian perspective.

2. With a sacramental view of sexuality in mind, I think we have to--at the very least--affirm that the human factors that make the porno industry possible are positive aspects of our nature: that is, the male's desire to look at naked women (or men, or vice versa, depending on your sex and the way your door swings), and the female's (or male's) willingness to be admired and desired. Without these things, we'd all die out in a generation and frankly live much less interesting lives. Men who like nudie mags aren't perverts, and women who pose in them aren't sluts--they're just people doing what all of us do in some form or another.

With that in mind, the suggestion that some forms of pornography can be empowering to women, and that sexual imagery can represent a celebration of both beauty and sexuality is not really that far fetched. (Even if the suggestion that those things are true at a general level is questionable.) Sexuality is a part of who we are--part of God's image in us--and sexual imagery represents one form of sexual expression. The sexual acts and fantasies that accompany the production and viewing of that imagery do not have to be rejected as 'wrong' in blanket fashion, but can in some instances be seen as a healthy aspect of what it means to be human.

3. Porno does not have to equal a male's exploitation of a female in every case, because there is undoubtedly a sort of economy in all of this that can in theory represent an equal exchange: Hugh Heffner says to the beautiful young woman, I'll make you famous and give you an opportunity for advancement if you'll let me sell pictures of you in my magazine, and the beautiful young woman says to Hugh Heffner, I'll let you take pictures of me (and airbrush them) if you give me lots of money and the prospects to eventually end up acting in crappy movies and marry a rock star. (I'm not saying this is necessarily a good trade off, but it is a trade off that you can't paint as one party exploiting the other, at least in every case.)

On this track, questions of justice are the most difficult questions in relation to pornography: Does the woman get a fair trade-off in the experience? Does she dehumanize herself in the transaction? Does she really have a full say in what is done with her image and personality? What's the cultural and social cost? The biggest problem with pornography, I think, is that women do indeed get the short end of the stick in these sorts of transactions, and are generally exploited, at least to some degree.

4. Pornography is a subjective term, and our moral approach must be situational. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is different from Playboy, which is different from 'erotic art', which is different from the porno movie and pay internet site industry, which is different from amateur internet porn, which is different from voyeuristic photos circulating without consent, which is different from child pornography. In each case, there are different issues which must be addressed, and it's unrealistic to pretend that these should be treated as one phenomenon.

5. Social relationships should play a role in pornography usage: there are different questions for the secretive male pornography viewer whose wife objects than for the female pornography viewer whose boyfriend finds that quality endearing. In both cases, these particular social questions have less to do with whether the imagery should be seen as offensive than with whether or not they are.

6. Pornography--and the porno industry--plays a major negative role in US culture. That is, it does play a role in the objectification and dehumanization of women from a male perspective, and it does play a role in the development of a sense of inadequacy among many girls and young women (though on this one I honestly think Teen Cosmo is a bigger problem than Playboy...). It's not the sole source of the problem, but it's a part of our social fabric that is generally in an unhealthy place.

7. Pornography would probably be less widespread (and damaging) if we could talk about sexuality in an open, non-guilt ridden, manner, and if Christian leaders would stop trying to suppress it.

8. A full discussion of this issue is impossible without female input, but most females don't want to talk to men about it. Vice versa is also true.

Part One: An Episcopal Theology of Sex Jr.: On Pornography!!

A month or so back I posted a few times on sex, or more specifically on my attempt to develop a way to think about sexuality consistently and realistically from an Episcopalian perspective. For a while now I've been wanting to write a little more on that topic, and have been thinking that the logical next step is to try to make a few Episco-theological suggestions about pornography based on the ideas I presented in the original post. In honor of my brother and his professed love of porno joining the blog, and in the interest of continuing to post on topics of prime interest for evangelical teenage boys, I've decided that it's finally time to give that a go. My hope, as always, is to try to be faithful to reality and Anglican tradition as I see them, and to avoid saying anything that will get me fired from my youth ministry job or shunned by my friends and neighbors.

This one, I must say, is extremely difficult--definitely more difficult than coming up with some spiritual suggestions about sexuality in general--because it's an attempt to address a religious belief that I sort of made up (well, not really) to reality: that is, it's an attempt to interpret pornography through the magical seer-stone glasses of a sacramental theology of sex. This attempt is also extremely difficult (and questionable) because I'm a male, and the most troubling moral aspects of pornography from a social justice-oriented Christian perspective relate to the exploitation and objectification of women. Because of the difficulty of the topic, this is going to need to be a multiple-post discussion. With that in mind, let's dive right in...

First off, let me clarify--this discussion isn't about masturbation. I'll only go so far here as to say that I generally think that that dirty deed is morally neutral (so Christians, stop your ridiculous obsessing about it). Spoiler alert for the ladies: all healthy men--even most husbands and sexually active boyfriends--do it with some degree of regularity, and it's an (almost) unavoidable bodily function. It's gross and unwholesomely fun, but so is pooping and sneezing and most everything else we try to confine to the bathroom. Giggling nerd scientists have even recently found evidence that it's good for us guys. Spoiler alert for the men: the stats show that almost all women also do it at some point in life, though not as much as you would probably like to think, and not as frequently as you do. If God doesn't want us to masturbate, then, well, he isn't very realistic. We could of course argue about masturbation all day, but I don't want to do that here, and if you're interested here's a random link to some people that do.

What I'm more concerned about is pornography--or, maybe more specifically, imagery that is created in order to produce sexual arousal. (Those might be different things, but for the sake of simplicity let's use porno as the blanket term in our present discussion.) The usual process with this sort of discussion in Christian circles is to start from the position that pornography is evil, offensive and degrading to women, and then to try to think of things to say about why God doesn't like it and neither should you. I--being ever the pragmatist and ever the diplomat--don't want to start there, because I don't know that it's really very helpful. In my scattershot research, I have come across fewer scientific statistics in relation to porno usage than I have on inter-personal sex, but I would be willing to wager that all of the religious condemnation of porno has played a relatively minor role in actual human behavior anyway.

I think a much more interesting place to begin the discussion (monologue) is with a suggestion that was made by one of the girls at my church in our annual youth group 'sex talk': that is, that pornography is actually something that can be empowering to women, and can be a celebration of the beauty of the human body (and the qualifying 'can' is important here). I cringed when she initially made this suggestion ("No!! Don't say that!! That's the patriarchal media corrupting your innocent young mind and transforming you into a tool for exploitation!!"), but I think it might be important to hear the idea out. With that in mind, I'm going to leave this topic as I go about my business over the weekend. Feel free to share your thoughts and talk amongst yourselves...

Maybe I'll be a Deacon for the Whore of Babylon?

Along with being occupied with about fifty work commitments this weekend, including a major fundraising concert at Multifaith Works and Youth Sunday at St. Margaret's, I've been doing some interesting reading. About five years ago, my dad's dad lent me this old book that I've finally opened up, audaciously titled "Birth of a Reformation" about the founding of the denomination I grew up in, The Church of God (Anderson). Our founder was one D.S. Warner, an itinerant preacher who got kicked out of the "Winebrennerian" sect (also called the Church of God) because of his view that Christians can--and should--be entirely sanctified and free of sin. He subsequently denounced the Winebrennerians, and all other members of all other churches, and tried to start a non-sectarian Church by going into congregations and exhorting members to leave their Babylonian, Satan inspired organizations behind to worship with him. The turning point for him happened on April 9, 1878, when he wrote in his diary:

"The Lord blessed me and greatly awakened my own mind and I think opened the eyes of others to the importance of abandoning all human and party creeds, party names, party spirit, and party interests in order to maintain a life of perfect holiness, as well as to the duty of returning to the "faith once delivered to the saints" in its entirety."

The movement took off, at least a little, and 150 years later it's a (non-denominational) denomination with about a million members around the world, though it still has no official membership. Charles Schultz of Peanuts fame and Bill Gaither of awful Southern Gospel Music fame are the only two COGAites whose names you probably recognize, though I think saccharine Christian singer Steven Curtis Chapman also was a (non) member at one point. My family goes back with the movement about as far as you can: my great-grandparents on both sides were part of it, my Grandma's dad was ordained in it, and all of us kids were raised in it, though my generation and my parents' generation have generally crept away from it.

For those of you who've followed my postings for any amount of time, you might be interested to know that this is the (non) denomination that I grew up in, as I have since embraced the second most Babylonian denomination of them all (after the Catholics) in the Anglican communion. The interesting part about reading this book for me has been that it's helped me to identify some of the roots of my complaints about the Episcopal Church, where I still find myself sitting a little uneasily. In fact, I'm surprised by how much I identify with Warner's worries about membership in any religious sect, though my cultural situation is quite different from his, and though I'm not yet as sold as he was on phrenology. How very American-individualist of me, but I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion that "To join a sectarian denomination is never by divine prompting, but is urged from human source". I would agree, in fact, that I'm an Anglican due to pragmatic (though also spiritual) expediency rather than a strong sense of "divine calling" to the denomination. I'm here because I feel like I need to be somewhere, and this will do.

Something that's certainly affecting the way I'm reading this is that I've been going through another cycle of questioning whether I really want to marry the Episcopal Church and become a priest. I'm just still not sure that the benefits of the priesthood outweigh the costs, or even that I really want to spend my life playing the role that a priest does. I don't know that I want to embed myself that deeply in the church community (and hence cut myself off that completely from the non-church community) , or put myself in the situation where I'm dependent upon the church for income (to pay off the ridiculous student loans that I will accrue if I go to seminary, among other things). I feel like this church, like all churches, is so screwed up that I need to maintain some level of separation from it and function as a critical/prophetic voice rather than as a sanctioning voice. As a priest, that's a difficult role to play--not just b/c your livelihood depends upon keeping the church happy, but also b/c your pledged role is to be a unifier and gatherer in the community.

Which is why I'm finding myself newly enamored with the Diaconate. A Deacon's role in the Episcopal Church is basically to live in the real world, and to grab the institutional folks and shake them until they wake up to what's happening there and act accordingly. (You're also supposed to focus your time on working with the poor, the ill, and the dispossessed, which I'm totally down with.) It's an ordained position, so the bishop lays his/her magic hands on you and tells you that you're special, but not generally a paid one, and hence not generally one that I've thought about much. Now though, having realized that there are lots of other things a strapping young lad like myself can do to make money, I'm getting more and more intrigued by the possibility of freedom to exist in the real world and the church simultaneously. D.S. Warner, of course, would be disappointed with me, but honestly it's in his spirit that I'm thinking in these terms. I just can't see myself as someone who wants to sanctify the Way Things Are. I want to travel outside of the structure and challenge it as much as I want to travel inside the structure and sanction it.


(This popped up when I typed in "Deacon" on corbis.com. It's a picture of Queen.)

This is what you say you'll do as a Deacon, and I find that I'm pretty comfortable with it--probably more comfortable than I presently am with the promises you make as a priest:

"My brother, every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ,
serving God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
God now calls you to a special ministry of servanthood
directly under your bishop. In the name of Jesus Christ, you
are to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the
sick, and the lonely.

As a deacon in the Church, you are to study the Holy
Scriptures, to seek nourishment from them, and to model
your life upon them. You are to make Christ and his
redemptive love known, by your word and example, to those
among whom you live, and work, and worship. You are to
interpret to the Church the needs, concerns, and hopes of the
world. You are to assist the bishop and priests in public
worship and in the ministration of God's Word and
Sacraments, and you are to carry out other duties assigned to
you from time to time. At all times, your life and teaching are
to show Christ's people that in serving the helpless they are
serving Christ himself."

Staying in Communion

So, today I had my meeting with one of our bishops, and generally things went well. Her advice was--should I make it through our commission on ministry--to start seminary in Canada at VST. Should I decide to stay there after a year or two, it would be a possibility to speak with the bishop in Vancouver about transferring in as a postulant (technical term for someone who's been sent to seminary by their diocese to prepare for ordination), which is generally less trouble than transferring in as someone midway through the discernment process. I'd finish my seminary there, and be ordained through the Canadian Church (and thus not tainting my resume with America). Otherwise, should Angel and I decide not to stay in Canada, I would have to do at least a year of seminary in the ECUSA--San Francisco, NY, etc. Seems pretty sensible to me :). A kind and gentle experience with the heirarchy, and it looks like a set-up that Angel and I can work with. Big ups, Bishop Nedi.

Looking back towards our previous days' discussion on discernment/ordination/the establishment, the fact is that I value the community aspect of Anglicanism too much to break off into a non-denominational group. While I think that there is value and need in the church for independents, it just doesn't work that well for me. I believe in the universality of the body of Christ--there is no right church or wrong church. Under that philosophy, I would ultimately stay "in communion" no matter where I go. However, there's something important to me in the symbolism of being a recognized part of a "catholic" church. It communicates something of the all embracing, historically connected, eternally existing nature of the church that I think I'd be in danger of losing should I go it alone. It's a big part of what drew me here, and I'm not ready to leave it yet.

I mentioned something yesterday as well about how I feel that Anglicanism works a little more smoothly in communally oriented cultures than it does in individualistically oriented ones, like the US. The point, I think, is that the Anglican system relies inherently on human trust for the community: you put yourself in the community's hands in the expectation that it's only through the community that we connect with God. When we all take that attitude, it works--people value the community at all levels, and thus look out for one another, practice neighborly love, etc. The shepherds take care of the flock, and the flock looks out for the shepherds. In some cultures, that sense that "we're all in this together" is stronger than in others. In the US it's weak, and the sense is that you have to take care of yourself because nobody else is going to do so. (That's why, Kiwis and Canadians, Hell will freeze over before we have a fully universal healthcare system here--if I can figure out a way to pay for insurance, why can't they?) Anglicanism here is essentially the same as it is elsewhere, in that it teaches a communal ethic and praxis. However, it often doesn't function naturally within our culture, because it's constantly struggling against the cultural push to take care of yourself, and to distrust your neighbors and leaders. (That sort of attitude creates a lot of unnecessary anxiety, by the way.) Not a universal sentiment here, but it's widespread enough to be noticeable on a daily basis if you're tuned in (especially if you're tuned in to Fox News). Particularly as we're getting a big infusion of (inherently individualistic) post-evangelicals (including myself), there's a significant struggle between individualism and communalism, which I think is creating ripples in lots of places. And that's a piece of why I want to move to Canada.

What I'm thinking

Whew! I'm humbled and delighted at the outpouring of advice, as well as the depth of discussion created by my posting of Mike's original letter! I do feel a little bad--and would like to apologize--about posting the letter prior to getting Mike's full public opinion. I know he presented himself in a way that he may not have done publically otherwise. (Don't worry Mike, I'll tell Karen to go easy on you :). In any case, she understands the frustrations of trying to change things from within the establishment as well as any, so I suspect that she might not disagree with you as totally as you think... ) Clearly though, he shouldn't feel bad about what he said, because what he struck a chord that was sufficiently challenging that folks got a little defensive--always a sign that you're somewhere close to the truth.

And indeed, I posted originally because Mike stated so clearly what one side of my mind has been saying, and I was eager to hear if anyone would be kind enough to voice the other side, and "talk me down" so to speak. In this discussion, John Hebenton has been, for my money, the best advocate of staying with the institution. I have to admit that his views might be skewed a bit, being part of the (relatively) very healthy New Zealand Anglican Church. NZ is just a better world than the US all around :). In the US, my experience is that Anglican/Episcopal heirarchy functions a little differently, with our individualism and distrust of our neighbors throwing some unfortunate wrinkles into the Anglican system, which in my view functions most effectively in communal cultures, as does Catholicism. I'd like to comment more on that later, but I'm pressed for time right now and wanted to let you all know--who've been kind enough to put in a lot of time trying to help/persuade me--a little bit about what I'm thinking.

Tomorrow I have a meeting with the bishop who is in charge of discernment in our diocese, partly to discuss my place in the process. I think I've sorted out the gist of what I'm going to say--informed in many ways by this discussion.

Having spent two years in formal discernment in the Church, I've come to realize that there are currently several very strong pulls in my life, all of which I see as essential to fulfilling my calling. There's the pull to pursue the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, the pull to settle somewhere which promises to be a long term home, and the pull to give Angel the opportunity to get her career as a nurse practitioner established.

We've realized that the best hope for a long term home for us might not be in the US, because we've drifted out of connection with our culture, and neither of us has the desire or will to stay around and fight the political and ideological battles that will be facts of daily life in our chosen careers. (Remember that she works in health care and I work in religion and social services...) We've realized that essentially we're trying to fight the culture we live in on a number of levels, and that's not really where we want to spend our energy. So, it seems that the most promising location for us to accomplish our goals seems to be the Vancouver, B.C. area. It's got Nurse Practitioner jobs, it's got an Anglican seminary, it's absolutely beautiful, it's no further from family than we are now, it has a culture similar to New Zealand's (which we loved), and it's a two hour drive away from our present home, so we can maintain our present relationships, at least on some level.

My hope is that I can continue in the process of discernment, and ultimately the process of ordination, in the diocese I'm in, and also achieve the above stated goals. I think I can, if the community is willing to work with me and bend a few of it's less important principles. I think I am called to the priesthood, and that I have a voice that will be valuable for this community. I also want to give back to the people who have helped and supported me here as much as possible. However, the fact is that if this diocese isn't willing to send me to seminary in Vancouver--i.e., if it wants me to go to New York or San Francisco for at least a year--I'm not at a place where I'm sure that I'm willing to make the sacrifices that it would take to be ordained here. I'd rather step back and go through the steps I need to with the Diocese of New Westminster--albeit continuing in discernment during my time here in Seattle. I'm confident that I can fulfill a priestly role, and find work to support myself and Angel in any case, so I'm at peace with that. One of the functions of the discernment process is to help the discerner realize when it might be time to "wait" when it comes to ordination, and I'm at peace with my situation if that should be what we decide. (At the same time, my prejudice is that "wait" would be a decision that's made based primarily on unnecessarily rigid enforcement of diocesan procedures, rather than a healthy view of what's good for me and the church community in general).

I am of course putting the cart before the horse here--I'm not at a point where I've been presented by my congregation, and my bishop isn't at a point where she, or the Commission on Ministry, are making any decisions. However, I'm confident in my calling at this point, and I think that the Church will recognize it. (If not, what a relief in some ways!) I need there to be a full understanding--a full level of honesty about where I am--in order to continue in this process (more great advice from John H.) , and we're at a stage where this discussion is important.

With that, thanks once again for all of the great, and often very touching, advice. Now, it's off to pick up my wife and have my 28th Birthday dinner!

My second anonymous letter in two days (sort of)

Some advice on my dilemma: Somebody give me some advice here. What do you think? Can somebody defend the other side?

In my inbox today, under the title "Unsolicited, totally inappropriate advice"

"Hi Tim,

We don't really know each other - we're Facebook friends, and we have a common friend in the inimitable Karen Ward (who would disagree with me in the strongest terms on what I'm about to say). I friended you on FB when I saw that you were asking questions that resonated with me on the Anglimergent site. In any case, you don't know me, so obviously take this very impertinent advice with a grain of salt. However, for whatever it's worth, here's what some dude you don't know thinks after reading your latest blog post:

Don't do it, brother. Don't get ordained. Don't endanger your marriage. Don't submit yourself to a denominational hierarchy which you're completely right not to trust, for all that it's made up largely of well-intentioned, faithful people. It's preoccupied with priorities that have very little to do with what it sounds like God is calling you to - or with God's kingdom, for that matter. (I'm not for a moment denying that these are thoroughly mixed up with kingdom priorities and kingdom-hearted individuals within TEC.)

My opinion is that you have much to lose and little to gain by becoming a covenanted part of that hierarchy. You don't need them. You don't need their permission, and you don't need their resources. Just move wherever it makes sense to go for you and Angel, find some Jesus-followers with similar callings, and start doing church. Do it as Anglican as you're called to do it. I'm an Anglican, and I have strong, active friendships and partnerships within the TEC system, but that's not my primary place of ministry and Christian community. The church I'm primarily a part of is nondenominational (but not isolated or stand-alone - we have *strong* peer network relationships with both denominational and nondenominational communities) with Anglican "DNA" - we use the BCP in worship and much of our tradition is very Anglican. But not exclusively so, and we're not formally affiliated. We don't need a bishop's permission to experiment, and we're free to forge generative friendships with folks in TEC *and* (for example) CANA - and, of course, ELCA, PCUSA, PCA, EFree, etc., etc. And we do!

You don't need permission. You don't need ordination. You don't need a building (start in a home or rent a coffee shop), a pension, or a full-time salary (get those through other means - Angel's job, you work part time, etc.). All you need is a small collection of people who are hearing God's call in similar ways and are bold and humble enough to listen to the Spirit and each other in community.

I could say more, but I've already said way more than I have any right to say. But I just wanted to offer this opinion: you don't need to make this bargain. It can be done without turning over your future to an organization that has other things on its mind. We're doing it. It's hard as hell sometimes, but it's friggin' wonderful too.

Peace,
(Person whose name I removed b/c I didn't get their permission to post this, but you probably wouldn't know anyway because I don't.)"

This is reassurring anyway

America's Unfaithful Faithful

It's true what they say about politics and religion

As you can probably tell from my recent posts, those two subjects are likely to drive me insane. Politics have me contemplating leaving the country of my birth (again), and religion has me questioning everything I've done in life to this point. When you put the two together, I have these potentially irreconcilable needs to 1. move away to B.C. and 2. stay put in the US to finish jumping through hoops so I can be ordained sooner rather than later. (There's also a number 3, which may be incompatible with either or both of the other two--the need to support my wife in her career development). It feels like I've hit a breaking point on a lot of things, and some sort of shift of direction has got to happen in my life trajectory. I'm not convinced yet that ordination in the Episcopal Church and I are compatible--though I have to stay optimistic.

The frustration is that my concerns have very little to do with calling. The role of priest, as I understand it, and as the church outlines it, is as appealing as ever. Theologically the church works, and it seems that on the other side of this process the church works. The frustration is what the next 3-5 years look like. Right now they look like uncertainty, which is driving both Angel an I crazy. At this stage in the process, I really am at the mercy of the Bishop and the Diocesan Commission on Ministry. I'm relatively confident that my church will support my ordination. Once I get to BACOM and the Bishop, I'm relatively certain that they will also (though no guarantees). However, after that it is all up in the air. Worst case scenario, they may tell me that I have to spend three years in seminary in a different state and two doing CPE's (ministry placements). Best case scenario, they may tell me that I can go to Vancouver, do one year of seminary and settle--doing placements there and getting acquainted with the Canadian Church. It could also be anything in between, and it could be that they'll say that I'm not cut out for this. It could be that they'll say that I am cut out for this, and that I have to fulfill requirements that will be potentially damaging to my marriage (i.e., spending a year somewhere and then returning--which would be essentially impossible to make work with Angel's work, at this stage in her career, so could require us to live apart during my training. That's one path that, for me, could be a deal breaker with this church). All of those are real possibilities. Maybe I'll get a significant say in this, maybe I won't. I don't know yet.

The more I get into it, the more I realize that I don't trust this hierarchical power thing that we have going in the Episcopal Church. We're supposedly moving towards a less clerical and more communal, lay-led structure, but we have some work to do--particularly in our approach to ministerial training. Can an episcopally structured church really model a communitarian style of leadership and decision making (can Americans?) ? Can it provide the room for structural change that is needed to integrate Gen's X,Y and Z, and provide a place for young ministers to be formed and do their work? Spiritually, I believe in Anglicanism. In considering the job that priests do, and the way that they function in this church, I'm content with Anglicanism. Structurally, at the top, I have questions about whether our system is capable of adapting to change quickly enough to continue to meet needs. Economically and culturally, I have questions about how committed to doing what's right among the poor this church can be. And, of course, the church in BC stands out there as a great uncertainty, since I know from my experience in NZ that each diocese within the church is it's own story.

Church Leaders and Narcissism

For those of you who've been following the Mars Hill/St. Mark's situations, here's some interesting info from Wikipedia on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, submitted without comment: (link)

DSM Criteria
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brillance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
is interpersonally exploitative
lacks empathy
is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
(see also: Full list in DSM-IV-TR)

- Lifetime prevalence is estimated at 1% in the general population and 2% to 16% in clinical populations. 50 to 75% of those with this diagnosis are men.

- Hypothetical Causes

The etiology of this disorder is unknown, but, according to Groopman and Cooper[3], factors identified by researchers as possibly contributing to this disorder include:

An oversensitive temperament at birth
Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents
Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem
Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback
Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents
Severe emotional abuse in childhood
Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or talents by adults
Learning manipulative behaviors from parents
Some narcissistic traits are common and a normal developmental phase. When these traits are compounded by a failure of the interpersonal environment and continue into adulthood they may intensify to the point where NPD is diagnosed. It has been suggested that NPD may be exacerbated by the onset of aging and the physical, mental, and occupational restrictions it imposes

Pathological narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity. In its more extreme forms, it is narcissistic personality disorder. NPD is considered to result from a person's belief that he or she is flawed in a way that makes the person fundamentally unacceptable to others. This belief is held below the person’s conscious awareness; such a person would typically deny thinking such a thing, if questioned. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognised their supposedly defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ view of them and behaviour towards them.

Psychologists commonly believe that pathological narcissism results from an impairment in the quality of the person’s relationship with their primary caregivers, usually their parents, in that the parents were unable to form a healthy, empathic attachment to them. This results in the child conceiving of themselves as unimportant and unconnected to others. The child typically comes to believe that he or she has some defect of personality which makes them unvalued and unwanted.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is isolating, disenfranchising, painful, and formidable for those diagnosed with it and often those who are in a relationship with them. Distinctions need to be made among those who have NPD because not each and every person with NPD is the same. Even with similar core issues, the way in which one's individual narcissism manifests itself in his or her relationships varies.

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen. They may also demand certain behavior from their children because they see the children as extensions of themselves, and need the children to represent them in the world in ways that meet the parents’ emotional needs. (For example, a narcissistic father who was a lawyer demanded that his son, who had always been treated as the "favorite" in the family, enter the legal profession as well. When the son chose another career, the father rejected and disparaged him.)

These traits will lead overly narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they do not respond adequately to the parents’ needs. This punishment may take a variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the parents' narcissistic needs.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility.

Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

The exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, disregard for others, and constant need for attention inherent in NPD, adversely affects interpersonal relationships. Individuals with NPD frequently select as mates, and engender in their children, "co-narcissism," which is a term coined to refer to a co-dependent personality style similar to co-alcoholism and co-dependency. Co-narcissists organize themselves around the needs of others. They feel responsible for others, accept blame readily, are eager to please, defer to others’ opinions, and fear being considered selfish if they act assertively.

- Theories on Narcissistic personality disorder and shame
It has been suggested that Narcissistic personality disorder may be related to defenses against shame.

Gabbard suggested NPD could be broken down into two subtypes. He saw the "oblivious" subtype as being grandiose, arrogant and thick skinned and the "hypervigilant" subtype as easily hurt, oversensitive and ashamed.

He suggested that the oblivious subtype presents a large, powerful, grandiose self to be admired, envied and appreciated, which is the antithesis of the weakened and internalised self that hides in a generic state of shame, in order to fend off devaluation, whereas the hypervigilant subtype, far from fending off devaluation, is obsessed with it, neutralising devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers.

Jeffrey Young, who developed Schema Therapy, also links shame to NPD. He sees the so-called Defectiveness Schema as a core schema of NPD, next to the Emotional Deprivation and Entitlement Schemas. The Defectiveness Schema is compensated with three Schema Modes (coping strategies):

Surrender: Choose critical partners and significant others; puts him- or herself down.
Avoidance: Avoids sharing "shameful" thoughts and feelings with partners and significant others due to fear of rejection.
Overcompensation: Behaves in a critical or superior way toward others; tries to come across as perfect.
Note that an individual with this schema might not employ all three schema modes.


- Treatment and prognosis
Though there is controversy in the profession, most psychiatrists and psychologists regard NPD as a relatively stable condition when experienced as a primary disorder. James F. Masterson's A Therapist's Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach outlines a prominent approach to healing NPD, while discusses a continuum of severity and the kinds of therapy most effective in different cases. Typically, as narcissism is an ingrained personality trait, rather than a chemical imbalance, medication and therapy are not very effective in treating the disorder. Schema Therapy, a form of therapy developed by Jeffrey E. Young that integrates several therapeutic approaches (psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral etc.), also offers an approach for the treatment of NPD.

It is unusual for people to seek therapy for NPD. Subconscious fears of exposure or inadequacy are often met with defensive disdain of therapeutic processes.

Pharmacotherapy is rarely used. In a review of the literature, one patient responded to Wellbutrin.

Because NPD contributes to negative, stressful life experiences characterized by the mental health field as "clinically significant distress" or "impairment", co-existing conditions of depression and anxiety are typical.

A Green Lent

Interesting blog here about adopting green disciplines for Lent.

I like watching spiritual disciplines change with the times. Something resonates here.

Personal Blurtings on Religion and Authority in America

In thinking about the Mars Hill and St. Mark's controversies, and in dealing through my own issues in discernment for ordination to the priesthood, I've been thinking a bit about authority in religion over the last few days.

America's a funny place, particularly when it comes to religion. We're fiercely independent in principle--we don't like the gubment telling us what to do, and we think everybody deserves the opportunity to do what they want. Then, when it comes to religion, we turn over all of our spiritual (and often personal and financial) independence to these figures with nothing more than a shiny suit and a B.A. from Middle Nowhere Holy Spirit Bible University to legitimate their authority. And with predictable results, in many cases.

Why are we so bad at questioning religious leadership, when challenging authority seems to come as such second nature here? I think I'll cook up a few crackpot theories, mostly based on personal experience:

One guess is that most of us need authority ultimately, whether we like it or not, and religious leaders are essentially filling a power vacuum. In the US we don't trust government or other community leaders, but we need to trust someone to lead us. (Otherwise, we'll be the ones who are responsible for our own actions, and no one wants that). Religious leaders are happy to oblige, with claims to ultimate truth, and the handy ability to utilize all of the benefits of power, while transferring the responsibility for their decisions on to God or the Bible. B/C they're effective at meeting some of our social, emotional and spiritual needs, we transfer a deep level of trust to them. In short, we like having someone around to tell us what to do, and our leaders like having people who they can tell what to do. That's not exactly how I have experienced my present situation in the Episcopal Church, b/c it's not exactly how the power structure works, but I would say that it accurately described the way I functioned religiously growing up.

Another (contradictory) guess? We do question religious leadership, but don't let that deter us from our commitment to the church. We tend to think, in general, that we know better than our ministers, but we're happy to keep them around to keep things running. Occasionally they'll say something helpful, and we're happy to pat them on the back for that. If they screw something up seriously, we can get rid of them without too much trouble. We go to church because it's a good show and a good experience, or we have friends there or gain something important from it--not primarily because we agree with the leader. That helps to explain our other inexplicable religious tendency--to sit through long, boring and irrelevant sermons week in and week out. It also, I think, crudely describes the way I think about religious leadership now, in my more callous moments.

In my case, I also tend to spiritualize my submission to authorities--priests, and bishops and the lot: submission teaches you humility, which helps you to be a better person, etc. Ultimately, though, I think a lot of my personal submission is pragmatic: I have to submit to authorities if I want to be a part of this organization--even though I may have serious disagreements with them. That recognition, in itself, is a bit scary to me, because it stinks of a personal willingness to sell out. I'm not sure how deep that tendency is, or how important the issues that I'm "selling out" on are. I'm also not sure that it's such a bad tendency--sometimes it's a good thing to trust leadership who's been there done that. Still, it makes me feel a little dirty to recognize that I'm willing to tow the party line for reasons other than that I agree with the party line.

St. Mark's Cathedral and Mars Hill Church

I'd planned on cleaning the house right now, but I have a blog post that's been just itching to get out for several weeks now. It's no wonder that my wife hates me:

Seattle (my Seattle anyway) has two religious organizations that really matter: Mars Hill Church (denomination, hipster baptist) and St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral. (Full disclosure: my membership is at St. Mark's, and I have a lot of friends at Mars Hill.) The two places couldn't be more different, but have interestingly gone through parallel leadership crises in the last year. In both cases, two well-respected senior leaders were dismissed under the ultimate authority of the most senior leader--Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill and Robert Taylor at St. Mark's. I'm convinced that there's an interesting religious lesson in the processes and aftermaths, and I've been trying to sort out what that lesson is.

The players in the two dramas couldn't be more different--Mark's a rugged "muscular Christianity" type, and Robert is a liberal gay South African champion of the homeless. The leaders dismissed at Mars Hill were straight white male elders named Paul and Bent, while at St. Mark's they were both women--one a lesbian liturgist and the other an African-American academic who later made headlines by declaring "I am both a Christian and a Muslim". You couldn't have planned a better typecast for the liberal/conservative divide.

In both cases there was a strong congregational outcry, and some degree of media attention (a Google search will turn up what you need), as well as a general series of non-answers from Church leadership about the why's and how's of the firing processes. In both cases nothing terribly exciting or controversial has come out. To me, the disimpassioned observer, it just looks like there were probably simmering personality issues, and leaders were removed when the opportunity arose. In both cases the leaders apparently acted irresponsibly and shortsightedly in their method of dismissal, and in neither case has their been sufficient explanation given to the congregations for the firings. Interestingly, both cases have drawn up discussion a