Deliver Us From Evil

Greta Christina has a review of the movie.

Often I get visitors from the Roman Catholic Church. Many of them have been in congregations where priests have, in some way, abused their authority. A local pastor had a gambling addiction; the bishop had an affair; a priest in Croton had molested young boys. They say to me, “I love God and the church. I just can’t be in that family any more.”

Andrew Greeley once argued that the fundamental problem is pride and secrecy. The priests don’t listen to the people; the bishops don’t listen to their priests, and the holy see doesn’t even listen to its bishops. People can report to priests; priests can report to the church, but as long as the imperial church places itself above the rule of the state, without being held accountable, it will continue to harm people and open itself to further disaster.

In the early 1940’s a priest in my current church exposed himself to a young boy. He argued it was “sex education.” There was a local controversy. The wardens and half the vestry wanted to excuse the priest, but the bishop stepped in and in a letter argued, “what if it were your boy?” The bishop let the state handle it, and upon their verdict defrocked the priest. The bishop wrote a letter to the priest: “Our prayers are with you. But you have done irreparable harm to the family and to the church.” The case went to court. The bishop followed through.

Thus, my experience has been of bishops doing the right thing, even when parishioners themselves were convinced otherwise. The church is a wide organization.

I know the movie’s story. I get it a lot. I hear from people fleeing the church. Even my uncle, a Roman Catholic, joked with me after telling him about a break-up I’d had: “you aren’t the kind who likes little boys, are you?” He laughed, thinking he’d told an innovative, hilarious joke.

“Heh. Funny.” I replied.

I did not think it was funny.

Ms. Christina is an Atheist. She isn’t content to be a secularist or a humanist, a skeptic or a materialist. Atheism is the true way of understanding the world. Religion is for idiots. It’s really about the supernatural. Justifiably, she carefully unpacks the inconsistencies of particular propositions uttered by the religious.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but she does it with passion.

Here isher review.

And I have a couple complaints.

First, she believes she’s learned the entire nature of the church from a movie.

Yes, a movie. Not much reading on the early fathers, or Aquinas, a church historian or even the New York Times.

Here is what the church is about for Greta: When you teach people — especially children — that the only way to God and Heaven is through the rites of the Church, administered by Church authorities? When you teach people — especially children — that Church authorities have a special connection to God and goodness that ordinary people don’t have? When you teach people — especially children — that defying the Church and its earthly representatives will condemn you to permanent, infinite burning and torture?

The Children! I thought this was the standard fundamentalist cry!

I understand: if you want to example the insanity of American Foreign policy, analyze Cuba; if you want to learn about graft, just examine how stadiums get built. We learn from lenses. And this is Christina’s lens. Is it the right one?

While she turns to the harm that religious institutions do, I wonder how empirically different it is than the eight years of mismanagement and real harm done to the entire world by the previous political administration. Were they religious? Not really. The religious right were their electoral pawns. Most of the neo-conservatives weren’t Christian, or religious. But she seems, however, to think the church behaves differently than other institutions that are shaped without checks and balances.

It’s a fairly pedestrian view: our culture doesn’t support sex and children. Blame the Catholic church! It just seems a little more tawdry than when it’s done in a public school or the boy scouts.

Why doesn’t she ask what the church really says about itself, and what its intentions are? I learned it was motivated by a love of the world and all people, not merely political power, working for their interests. It may be that the two are intertwined, and that it is difficult to tell one from the other. It is a view that can, and should be challenged. But all the evidence should be laid out, not just the ones of the detractors.

Arguing she understands the true maliciousness of religion through this movie is a lot like saying we know a lot about Germany by watching movies by Leni Riefenstahl. Or, saying that Stalin is a good example of Atheism in power. Is it absolutely true? Probably not. Did Germans participate? Are there atheists who would like to round up the dull and send them to Siberia? I’m sure a few. As she condemns the entire church, rightfully, for the coverup, there is an insinuation that somehow sexual abuse is worse because the church is the church. It reminds me a bit of how Michelle Malkin critiques Obama.

It’s not as if atheists are the only people critiquing the church. So is the church. Plenty of Roman Catholic priests are already critiquing the institution. Ms. Christina overreaches in implying these terrible events represents the entirety of religious work, or that finally damns the religious “experience.” There is no doubt that the secrecy and lack of accountability destroyed the lives of many. Where as she might say it is all too religious. I would argue, it is all to human. Alas.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Fr Cutie: Some thoughts

A few weeks, The Rev. Fr. Cutie, aka “Father Oprah” the most famous Latino Roman Catholic priest in Miami, and possibly the world, was received as an Episcopalian. In a year, he will be consecrated as a presbyter in the Church of God, Anglican division.

Apparently, he’d been thinking about the switchover for about two years. Which, coincidentally, was about the time he met his fiancée.

Is it a scandal? Not changing religions. We fought those wars. Luther changed the order after being irked by Italian impiety. Soon after, the English King and a handful of other skeptical types reformatted the faith, offering a freedom from the imperial church, who seemed to be opposed to good times and making money for anyone else except its own cardinals.

Change? Old news. If you aren’t forced to do it by the sword, maybe there’s another church that will make you richer and establish you with the right crowd.

Denominational fluidity has especially been a hallmark of our American Culture. It’s more about who’s parties you like than the distinctions between goats and sheep. Fortunately, we all think we’re in the right place when we get there.

For a variety of reasons, Roman Catholics find it harder to switch. It’s not because most actually believe that the pope is the best dressed guy in the world, or that the RC church has the stairs to the kingdom in some Vatican back alley. It’s a family, and nobody wants to abandon the family. To leave out of personal convenience seems tawdry. Sometimes we don’t agree with everything our mom says, but we don’t go and get a mother who agrees with us. We don’t go sleeping around with a bunch of younger, sexier religions just because our partners are getting a little dowdy. It’s for life.

It’s an old story. Catholic priest wants to get laid. God calls him to be a priest. And he thinks that Episcopalians are Catholic enough. So again, the Roman Catholic church has lost a guy who couldn’t remain in the church because he liked an adult women. To rub salt in the wound, he’s hot.

The real reason this is interesting is not the conversion. What’s wild is that he is a a celebrity. How many Episcopal priests have a TV show that’s not cable access? Most of the hand wringing isn’t because he’s moved over, but because the media does what it always does: compress time and space so that everyone is shocked and left feeling a bit bruised. Modernity allows us to create our own identity, to seek truth apart from culture. Postmodernism just speeds it up a hundred times.

More interesting, he chose the Episcopal Church. It would have made more sense to some if he had become Pentecostal, which is growing immensely in the Latino Community. Instead, he joined a church whose roots are not in Latin America but in the British Isles, a church that was once called the “Republican Party at prayer,” had FDR and Thurgood Marshall as members, and has ordained a gay bishop.

How was this possible? He chose the church for theological reasons. This is an example of a faith delinked and unmoored from cultural identity. If it had only been sex he could have stayed Roman and remained a layperson. But his cultural identity as a Roman Catholic was challenged by the cultural hegemony of American Protestantism.

Perhaps what has happened is that he represents the continued alteration of European-American culture by the Latino community. America, by making religion another commodity in the spiritual marketplace, will unmoor Latinos them from their own geography and traditions. That one can choose a faith demonstrates the cultural power of capital. Like most Americans, Latinos will find it easier to choose whatever faith suits them. Cutie chose the Episcopal Church.

I suspect, however, this will not be a one way change. What will also change is the Episcopal Church. I’m not sure if he will be eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking Gin and Tonics at our garden parties. Instead, we Episcopalians will be serving beans and rice and drinking Mojitos. Not a bad change for us. Let’s welcome it.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Lectionary, Proper 6, Year B

1 Samuel 15:34 – 16:13 and Psalm 20
Ezekiel 17:22-24 and Psalm 92:1-4, 12-15
2 Corinthians 5:6-10, (11-13), 14-17
Mark 4:26-34

“Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”

How do we choose leaders? What was it about David? He was the youngest; he was also the one doing the work. This is counter to the way leadership is often handed: to the eldest.

I’m also intrigued by the liturgical element. We anoint people for a variety of reasons. Our anointing people is a way of reminding them that they are kings; as subjects to Christ they have their own personal authority.

Why did the leaders fear Samuel? After all the men had passed Samuel, he didn’t choose any of them, but the boy who wasn’t there? David wasn’t respected, it seems, in his own family.

The psalm today is a great example of the church being for people: 20:4 May he grant you your heart’s desire, and fulfill all your plans. Amen to that!

How does work give us meaning and make us feel powerful? The last verse in Ezekiel is I will accomplish it. Accomplishment – how does it work with grace and God’s power? That we can accomplish things is an analogue to God’s creativity; our work is a mirror and reflection of God’s work. This might be an entry into seeing our own lives, our work, as callings. Psalm 92 develops this sense of God’s work.

Paul is considered, by some, a great humanist – he’s like a positive psychology cheerleader. I think the reading is provocative: From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! A human point of view is through status, success, failure. In Christ, we see people through their passions, desires and dreams. We see them each as kings. We are confident in them. When we talk of faith – let us first discuss what we have confidence in.

The Gospel is the Mustard Seed parable. A few notes to remember: the mustard seed is like a weed. It’s everywhere. It also doesn’t take much to harvest. Sometimes when parishes work to hard, they are missing the point: it is better to work naturally, to harness the gifts that are already present. Play to our strengths.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Thomas Frank: The Republicans Aren’t Dead Yet

One of my favorite intellectuals.

Thomas Frank writes about how Republicans may gain power again: conservative anti-elitism.

In that situation, Republicans may well decide to press their offensive against the elite by depicting the Democrats as the party of Wall Street. I know this sounds counterintuitive, possibly even hypocritical. And yet, if they choose to take that route, Republicans will have a lot to go on. Mr. Obama’s great success in reaping campaign money from Wall Street, to begin with. Or his mystifying tendency to give important economic oversight jobs to former hedge fund managers and investment bankers — rather than, say, regulators or experts in corporate crime.

He may be right, but a lot of it depends on health care. If health care passes, it marks the end of the Republican party, and inevitable left-ward shift in American politics.

Gawain de Leeuw2 Comments

Robert Fisk Asks the Question

“The only real question, perhaps, is whether Obama has asked himself the most important question: does the “Muslim world” actually exist?”

In the Independent:

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Common Council Prayer

Let us pray

Almighty God, creator of the universe and earth, our island home,
we invoke the spirit of wisdom upon the common council,
and all those participating in these proceedings.
We ask you to help us focus on the tasks at hand,
open our ears to hear the concerns of our community,
give us a discerning heart to sort through confusion,
and strength to speak our minds with conviction, and humility.
Allow us to be both tenacious and resilient,
Strong, yet flexible,
honest, and collaborative.
We also pray that this country may be free
from all forms of extremism,
including religious.
May our faith first guide us to understand one another
only seeking to persuade, rather than coerce.
For we know that
even though we might not get everything we want,
with you we already have all that we need.
Let it be that when the night has come
we may finish this evening in a timely fashion
knowing that with your grace,
we have governed responsibly.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Trinity 2009 Sermon Notes

Trinity 2009

Isaiah 6:1-8
Psalm 29
Romans 8:12-17
John 3:1-17

A few things to remember about the Trinity

1) The Trinity arose as a response to the real problem of God’s shared suffering with humanity.
2) The cooperative nature of the three persons of the trinity is held in contrast to an alternative: that of rivalry and competition.
3) Fathers and Sons may compete for attention. However, in this relationship they are held together through love, which is the holy spirit.
4) Schoolhouse rock has a neat song about Three as a Magic Number.
5) To assert the Trinity is to say that God has a life, and is not so transcendent or distant that s/he is not participating in human affairs.
6) Asserting the Trinity does not mean we make other theological mistakes (such as, for example, omnipotence).
7) The Trinity is not, properly, a biblical doctrine. It arises from contradictions and problems in scripture, and is a way of cohering the suffering servant with divine power while not making God into a sadomasochist.

The lectionary: Here are a few quotes I’m working with.

From Isaiah:”Our guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out.” Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I; send me!”

I think feeling worthless or guilty is what inhibits us from taking action. We don’t think we can do the job. But sometimes the only way to do the job is to go ahead and do – with humility and attention, ideally with a mentor. This might be a way of exhorting a church, or challenging people – in a gentle way – to examine the sophisticated ways we use excuses to diminish our own power and remain weak.

Paul says, 8:15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of Godand if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ–if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

During the week, I will be asking the following questions: What are we afraid of? What are some good examples of the “spirit of slavery?” Is it like having addictions? When do we bear witness to being “heirs with Christ?” Are we glorifying suffering? Is this sadomasochistic? Are we called to being doormats?

I think it may have to do with maintaining integrity. When we have integrity and vision, we may be challenged directly: we may be crucified. Working in the spirit does not mean eliminating desire, becoming ascetics, or perfect in our piety. Instead, we are called to be mature, to self-regulate, to persevere in one’s vision in the midst of those who would suppress our ability to act and take risks.

John desires salvation: this passage is often used as a proof-text to demand intellectual unity. The passage is like a riddle: and Nicodemus doesn’t answer it correctly. the challenging word, “anothen,” can mean born “again” or “born from above.” Nicodemus, being in the dark, doesn’t understand.

What does it mean to be born “from above” or be a child of the light, rather than the darkness? What does this tell us about the Father? Perhaps it is to affirm that God does not work through violence, but through love. Paul also indicates some differences when he distinguishes between flesh and spirit. The flesh is material, the spirit is intellectual. Yet, we are not expected to completely disparage the physical body we were given.

I sometimes think that the consequence of being “from above” is learning not to be reactive; or to take offense. Jesus did show some rage at injustice; but cleanliness, piety and offenses of religious natures didn’t seem to bother him much.

The word “salvation” implies opening up, to make room. In some sense, by not being reactive, we give people room to express their true feelings, to be more fully the person God loves. Sometimes that’s exactly what we need: a little room! I’ll be thinking of ways we offer “room” for others.

But it is also Children’s Sunday, so I might just talk about a three-leaf clover.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment

Father Cutie Joins Episcopal Church

Should I be amused or shocked? Personally, I think it’s a great addition to the team.

(CNN) — Father Alberto Cutie, an internationally known Catholic priest who admitted having a romantic affair and breaking his vow of celibacy, is joining the Episcopal Church to be with the woman he loves, he said Thursday.
Father Alberto Cutie will deliver a sermon Sunday at a Florida Episcopal Church.

Father Alberto Cutie will deliver a sermon Sunday at a Florida Episcopal Church.

“I will always love the Catholic Church and all its members,” he said at a news conference. “But I want to start today by going into a new family.

“Here before this community where I have chosen to serve and where I live, I am going to continue to proclaim the word of God and my love for God,” Cutie said.

Read it all

Gawain de Leeuw1 Comment

Easter 7 Year B

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
Psalm 1
1 John 5:9-13
John 17:6-19

I might use the first reading from acts to discuss how the church selects leaders. I’d probably diminish using a lottery system (is this a proof text for gambling?), and look for a metaphor that describes how people get selected by God for leadership. The lottery dimension might open up other metaphors using games that require luck, but I’d probably allude to the Hegelian world-spirit idea. I would also emphasize that sometimes we just get chosen. Might be useful to find modern Matthias stories. I imagine Matthias being on the bench, and then being asked to pinch hit. Does he hit a homerun? Who knows? He’s in the lineup.

The Psalmist says “1:3 They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away.”

Using the idea of leadership, this is one way of describing who leaders are supposed to be. Granted trees do sway; but the continue to grow and bear fruit. What is wicked will not last.

The Letter this week is a useful proof-text for those who believe that only a verbal, intellectual agreement with the proposition that Jesus is the Son of God is the way to eternal life. “5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” I think that “God gave us eternal life and this life is in his son” is a very important phrase that is worth memorizing. It does encapsulate the Gospel precisely.

It is also a truism. It doesn’t give us wisdom in itself. It feels much more like a chant. The hard work for the preacher is defining what eternal life is, and what it means that eternal life is in the Son. I usually interpret “eternal” as “fullness,” so we are looking for a fullness, a completion of our task. We have a life, and we are asked to do work. God will give us what we need to do the work, if we know his Son. But what did the son offer us? Peace. For those who find the language of “life in his son” opaque, I would begin with the promise of peace and wholeness. Once we know our mission in life and have the space to fulfill that mission, we are promised a life worth living: an “eternal life.” Jesus Christ, by offering his faith that destroyed the embarrassment of a failed God, actually returns the power to us. To have faith in his Son, is to accept the gift that our work matters, and that we can do the work. Jesus did not take the power back into himself. He gave it to us.

The sermon in John continues. As I said last week, it has the feel of a hymn, a chant, a series of words designed to be etched into the hearts of the cult. They are like glue, or stitches, to heal a broken people. They tend to speak for themselves liturgically.

However, I might use this as an opportunity to explore “sanctification.” Is it something that happens when we bless? What happens to us when we are sanctified? Is it like washing our hands? Or are we set aside? How so, when Jesus then sends us back into the world. Sanctification is about setting some boundaries, at the very least, so that we can learn to see and discern more clarity. Sanctification, perhaps, allows us to understand the “truth.”

Now “truth” is pretty complex, so I am dissatisfied with leaving such a thick, powerful word become simply a song for the community. Obviously, as a philosopher, such a word requires some exploration. I’m always tempted to move quickly to Augustine’s sentence “all truth is one” (I believe he said this in his commentary on Genesis, but it might also be in On the Trinity, but I forget), and defend how science has examined truth. But I might explore how wrong platitudes are sometimes, and that truth tends to dismantle the convenient beliefs we have. I might explore how truth in Christ destabilizes other “truths” especially those that revolve around social stability, wealth and violence.

Last week my core metaphor was sky-diving and rock climbing. If I go the sanctification route, I might use metaphors that have to do with containers, clutter, and organization – for sanctification is, in some sense, a description of how we organize the soul.

Gawain de LeeuwLeave a comment