Reading Ephraim Radner's review of Reasonable and Holy and the author's responsa thereto, what struck me was how easy it is to get bogged down in exegesis in the same-sex debate. Conservative arguers spill much ink over St Paul's cognitive state and the precise definition of porneia current during Jesus' earthly ministry, but no one needs to persuade me, at least, that Scripture says what it says.
For like my "reasserter" brethren I believe that all Scripture is given to us by God for our edification. I do not, however, believe that "inspired" necessarily means "literally applicable today." That doesn't mean that I wish to discard parts of the Bible, contrary to a common allegation. It's all there, and it's all good. Even the passages in Leviticus that make me squirm teach us about the relationship between God and his Chosen People throughout history, in slavery, exile, war, and also times of peace and prosperity. They teach us about the Covenant, about the struggle of the Israelites to survive under hostile conditions. I may think that the disappearance of temple prostitution obviates my obligation to distinguish myself from my Pagan neigbhours by eschewing same-gender relations, but I am no less a believer in the much-vaunted authority of Scripture per se. Every verse of the Bible has something to teach us, but many cannot simply be invoked at face value anymore. And who decided which those are? Scripture and Tradition (an artificial distinction for the former is a part of the latter) teach us that it is the Church that has been given power to bind and to loose, and for Anglicans, the Church speaks through its synods.
It won't matter how much or how loudly the "reasserters" call for "the plain meaning of Scripture" to be vindicated, or how many smug statements they issue "affirming" the "traditional doctrine of marriage." Unless and until they give a coherent account of why the Church, in Christian charity, ought not now to exercise its authority to "loose" its gay and lesbian faithful, their complaints will fall on deaf ears. In this respect, the problem is similar to that encountered with the ordination of women, where traditionalists often become complacent with the support the Papacy and 2000 years of Tradition, and neglect to address the serious theological problems raised by a male-only priesthood.
As Derek reminded us in a recent comment, the distinction is not, as Radner and Co. would have us believe, between those who interpret the Bible and those who do not, but between those who admit that they do so, and those who do not.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Rose Maniple Ordo
From here on in I will be featuring my monthly in-house kalendar for your perusal. This will take us to Easter Day.
February 2010
21 - LENT I (purple or grey; off-white paraments)
22 - Lenten feria
23 - Lenten feria, comm. St Polycarp of Smyrna
24 - Ember Wednesday in Lent, comm. Philip Tsen and Paul Sasaki (purple) (proper p. 395)
25 - Lenten feria
26 - Ember Friday in Lent, comm. Florence Li-Tim Oi (purple) (proper p. 395)
27 - Ember Saturday in Lent (purple), comm. George Herbert (pericopes of the feria) (proper p. 395)
28 - LENT II (purple or grey)
March 2010
1 - St David of Wales (white)
2 - St Chad of Mercia (white)
3 - John and Charles Wesley (white)
4 - Lenten feria (purple or grey)
5 - Lenten feria
6 - Our Lady in Lent (white and blue) (pericopes of the feria)
7 - LENT III, comm. St Perpetua (purple or grey)
8 - Edward King (white)
9 - St Gregory of Nyssa (white)
10 - Robert Machray (white)
11 - Lenten Feria
12 - Lenten Feria
13 - Our Lady in Lent (pericopes of the feria)
14 - LENT IV (rose) (flowers are permitted on the altar and the organ may be played as a solo instrument; the Litany in Procession is omitted)
15 - Lenten feria
16 - Lenten feria
17 - St Patrick (white or red) (fasting relaxed in some jurisdictions)
18 - Lenten Feria, comm. St Cyril of Jerusalem
19 - St Joseph (white) (proper p. 402)
20 - Our Lady in Lent, comm. St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne (white and blue) (pericopes of the feria)
21 - PASSION SUNDAY, comm. Thomas Cranmer (crimson)
22 - Lenten feria, comm. Thomas Ken
23 - Lenten feria, comm. St Gregory the Illuminator
24 - in the Octave of St Joseph (white), I Evensong of the Annunciation
25 - THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE BVM (white) (not a fast day) (proper p. 403)
26 - Compassion of the BVM (purple or grey), comm. of the Octave
27 - Lenten feria, comm. Charles Henry Brent
28 - PALM SUNDAY (crimson or purple)
29 - Monday in Holy Week (crimson) (proper p. 301)
30 - Tuesday in Holy Week (Chrism Mass in the Diocese of Toronto) (crimson) (proper p. 302)
31 - Wednesday in Holy Week (crimson) (proper p. 303) Tenebrae
April 2010
1 - Maundy Thursday (crimson) (proper p. 304)
2 - Good Friday (black) (proper p. 308)
3 - Great Vigil and First Mass of Easter (purple, best) (proper p. 322)
4 - EASTER DAY, OR PASCH: the Resurrection of Our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the flesh, comm. Reginald Heber (best) (proper p. 355 [day], Sacramentary [dawn])
February 2010
21 - LENT I (purple or grey; off-white paraments)
22 - Lenten feria
23 - Lenten feria, comm. St Polycarp of Smyrna
24 - Ember Wednesday in Lent, comm. Philip Tsen and Paul Sasaki (purple) (proper p. 395)
25 - Lenten feria
26 - Ember Friday in Lent, comm. Florence Li-Tim Oi (purple) (proper p. 395)
27 - Ember Saturday in Lent (purple), comm. George Herbert (pericopes of the feria) (proper p. 395)
28 - LENT II (purple or grey)
March 2010
1 - St David of Wales (white)
2 - St Chad of Mercia (white)
3 - John and Charles Wesley (white)
4 - Lenten feria (purple or grey)
5 - Lenten feria
6 - Our Lady in Lent (white and blue) (pericopes of the feria)
7 - LENT III, comm. St Perpetua (purple or grey)
8 - Edward King (white)
9 - St Gregory of Nyssa (white)
10 - Robert Machray (white)
11 - Lenten Feria
12 - Lenten Feria
13 - Our Lady in Lent (pericopes of the feria)
14 - LENT IV (rose) (flowers are permitted on the altar and the organ may be played as a solo instrument; the Litany in Procession is omitted)
15 - Lenten feria
16 - Lenten feria
17 - St Patrick (white or red) (fasting relaxed in some jurisdictions)
18 - Lenten Feria, comm. St Cyril of Jerusalem
19 - St Joseph (white) (proper p. 402)
20 - Our Lady in Lent, comm. St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne (white and blue) (pericopes of the feria)
21 - PASSION SUNDAY, comm. Thomas Cranmer (crimson)
22 - Lenten feria, comm. Thomas Ken
23 - Lenten feria, comm. St Gregory the Illuminator
24 - in the Octave of St Joseph (white), I Evensong of the Annunciation
25 - THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE BVM (white) (not a fast day) (proper p. 403)
26 - Compassion of the BVM (purple or grey), comm. of the Octave
27 - Lenten feria, comm. Charles Henry Brent
28 - PALM SUNDAY (crimson or purple)
29 - Monday in Holy Week (crimson) (proper p. 301)
30 - Tuesday in Holy Week (Chrism Mass in the Diocese of Toronto) (crimson) (proper p. 302)
31 - Wednesday in Holy Week (crimson) (proper p. 303) Tenebrae
April 2010
1 - Maundy Thursday (crimson) (proper p. 304)
2 - Good Friday (black) (proper p. 308)
3 - Great Vigil and First Mass of Easter (purple, best) (proper p. 322)
4 - EASTER DAY, OR PASCH: the Resurrection of Our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the flesh, comm. Reginald Heber (best) (proper p. 355 [day], Sacramentary [dawn])
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Prayer of Humble Access
So-called liberals often have a troubled relationship with the Prayer of Humble Access, while Catholics may resent its temporary ascendancy over the Agnus Dei. It has been derided as the "Prayer of Humble Excess" and the "Humble Crumble Mumble," but Prayer Book champions wear it as a badge of pride.
In the ordo missae on page 230 of the Book of Alternative Services (that is, the Canadian Rite I, if you will) the Prayer is retained in a redacted form. The obvious source of consternation, "we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table", is still there. ("Even though the dogs are!" as one ordinand of my acquaintance remarked). Gone, however, is the less evidently objectionable "that our sinful bodies..." In Rites for a New Age, Michael Ingham suggests that this is to avoid the suggestion that the elements can offer remission of sin. This seems dodgy to me, as I think it perfectly orthodox to understand receiving Holy Communion with faith as being unto forgiveness of sin. As a concession to comprehension of Puritanism, the clause "in these holy mysteries" had of course been given up before the first Canadian revision of the prayer book.
It is this understanding of the sanctifying nature of the Eucharist that causes the "crumbs" passage to grate. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that venial sin is absolved by reception of the Sacrament. While it is faithful to the Pauline understanding of the Eucharist, I think we have to question how well that tradition squares with that of Jesus himself. Are we to think of Holy Communion as a reward for sanctity or a means thereof? I think that the latter is perhaps a more sensible approach. Since Our Lord commanded us to "do this" it seems disingenuous to plead our unworthiness routinely before going on to fulfil the command.
So there are Catholic grounds for suspicion. There also the "liberal" grounds. They too have a point: it seems liturgically problematic at best to have such an abject prayer after the Confession and Absolution. It might be possible to incorporate such language into the penitential rites if desired, but it seems out of place in the Communion Rite, for how have we made it this far if not having been counted worthy?
Personally, I'm very much a "two book" Anglican. There was a move a few years back to try to get an American-style single book of two rites. I think that both BCP and BAS have their own integrity however. The BCP reminds of the truth of our fallen nature, our inability to save ourselves, and our reliance on God's mercy. The BAS reminds of the truth of redemption by the true Paschal lamb. I wouldn't want us to lose either of these traditions we have inherited. (In some American parishes, Rite I is used in Advent and Lent). The Book of Alternative Services restores practices such as the imposition of ashes, chrismation, Holy Week rites, and an Epiclesis. The rubrics allow for the interpolation of minor propers in the appropriate places. The BCP is dense with wonderful prayers that should be preserved intact.
In the ordo missae on page 230 of the Book of Alternative Services (that is, the Canadian Rite I, if you will) the Prayer is retained in a redacted form. The obvious source of consternation, "we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table", is still there. ("Even though the dogs are!" as one ordinand of my acquaintance remarked). Gone, however, is the less evidently objectionable "that our sinful bodies..." In Rites for a New Age, Michael Ingham suggests that this is to avoid the suggestion that the elements can offer remission of sin. This seems dodgy to me, as I think it perfectly orthodox to understand receiving Holy Communion with faith as being unto forgiveness of sin. As a concession to comprehension of Puritanism, the clause "in these holy mysteries" had of course been given up before the first Canadian revision of the prayer book.
It is this understanding of the sanctifying nature of the Eucharist that causes the "crumbs" passage to grate. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that venial sin is absolved by reception of the Sacrament. While it is faithful to the Pauline understanding of the Eucharist, I think we have to question how well that tradition squares with that of Jesus himself. Are we to think of Holy Communion as a reward for sanctity or a means thereof? I think that the latter is perhaps a more sensible approach. Since Our Lord commanded us to "do this" it seems disingenuous to plead our unworthiness routinely before going on to fulfil the command.
So there are Catholic grounds for suspicion. There also the "liberal" grounds. They too have a point: it seems liturgically problematic at best to have such an abject prayer after the Confession and Absolution. It might be possible to incorporate such language into the penitential rites if desired, but it seems out of place in the Communion Rite, for how have we made it this far if not having been counted worthy?
Personally, I'm very much a "two book" Anglican. There was a move a few years back to try to get an American-style single book of two rites. I think that both BCP and BAS have their own integrity however. The BCP reminds of the truth of our fallen nature, our inability to save ourselves, and our reliance on God's mercy. The BAS reminds of the truth of redemption by the true Paschal lamb. I wouldn't want us to lose either of these traditions we have inherited. (In some American parishes, Rite I is used in Advent and Lent). The Book of Alternative Services restores practices such as the imposition of ashes, chrismation, Holy Week rites, and an Epiclesis. The rubrics allow for the interpolation of minor propers in the appropriate places. The BCP is dense with wonderful prayers that should be preserved intact.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Radner on Haller
From the Living Church a review by Ephraim Radner of Reasonable and Holy. The review is generally negative, not because Br Tobias does not refute the traditional arguments but because he apparently fails to "provide...an overarching vision of Christian marriage..." (I have not read the book in its print form, so I must take Radner at his word, but in my experience Haller's work presents a very clear evangelical paradigm for marriage, albeit one which does not suit Radner).
Radner acknowledges Fr Haller's arguments one by one, but feels that they somehow aren't sufficiently tied together - "discrete" is his word, though how else he would have us respond to the discrete (and in many cases far more questionable) contra arguments isn't clear. Particularly telling, though, is this passage:
Ultimately, the kinds of “objections” to same-sex marriage that Haller is trying to refute emerge from such a larger scriptural vision, and not from their status as discrete arguments. The central element of procreation in marriage, for instance, is bound up with the character of Israel’s calling in fallen (and the Fall has no place in Haller’s scheme) human history — genealogy — and ought not simply to be examined in terms of this or that individual person or couple (a rather modern obsession).
In these remarks, Radner falls victim to a common "reasserter" mistake, the treatment of the subject matter as academic theology. For gay people, the debate is very much about individuals and couples - real people whom the Church at present tells that their relationships are not deserving of recognition. Those who would uphold the law over charity (unlike the Anglican approach to divorce, for example) owe these people a good reason, not a poetic vision. "Marriage has to represent the (male) Christ and the (female) Church" (another common "poetic" argument) is not such a reason, for symbols are meant to assist our devotion and not the other way around. Symbols are helpful as far as they go, but if we become so attached to them that we are willing to give up our fellow Christians as sacrificial lambs to preserve them intact, then we are putting the symbol above the grace which it is meant to convey. If you can't wrap your head around same-sex marriage because it wreaks havoc with the "Bride of Christ" paradigm, then set that paradigm aside, and not same-sex marriage. The lives of gay and lesbian Anglicans are not a kindred matter to the timing of the extinction of the Paschal Candle or the direction of celebrant at Mass. "It throws the symbolism all off!" is just not going to cut it as a reason to bar Christians from two of the sacraments.
Granting that procreation is a common biblical motif, marriage must be reckoned with on theological and not literary grounds. The only question to be asked is, Does God care what gender one's spouse is? I cannot fathom a God who would, and Tobias Haller's writing casts serious on the assumption that there is an intrinsic value in sex difference that renders it necessary for marriage. Yet Radner characterizes his arguments as "familiar," which seems a trifle disingenuous. "Reappraisers" are well aware that our arguments are familiar, but if Radner and his ilk are so "familiar" with them then why have they not bothered to rebut them? Of course, much of the "debate" of the past 30 years has consisted of liberals spilling buckets of ink on the subject, which is then ignored by traditionalists, who insist that a stronger case must be made if blessings are to proceed, but stick their fingers in their ears when it is presented. So Radner is perhaps unwittingly apt here.
The fact is that there is no reason why heterosexuality is essential to the "overarching narrative" of Christianity. Procreation is not "bound up" in the Fall and redemption (although in the western, Augustinian conception it figures prominently), and the recognition of same-gender couples will not constitute a recanting of that narrative. But one of the key reasserter talking points is to portray the gay issue as a more dramatic departure than it is. Gay and lesbian Christians are not trying to overhaul Christian theology (contrary to Radner's assertion, I highly doubt that Haller would have us discard the Fall), and while marriage indeed "touches on" a number of central issues, this doesn't preclude its extension to same-sex couples. There is simply no reason why same-sex marriage must necessarily threaten the "larger scriptural vision" on which the Church is founded, and which gay and lesbian Christians take as seriously as any other.
It is time for the Church to decide whether it will use its power to loose and bind for the welfare of its gay and lesbian faithful.
Radner acknowledges Fr Haller's arguments one by one, but feels that they somehow aren't sufficiently tied together - "discrete" is his word, though how else he would have us respond to the discrete (and in many cases far more questionable) contra arguments isn't clear. Particularly telling, though, is this passage:
Ultimately, the kinds of “objections” to same-sex marriage that Haller is trying to refute emerge from such a larger scriptural vision, and not from their status as discrete arguments. The central element of procreation in marriage, for instance, is bound up with the character of Israel’s calling in fallen (and the Fall has no place in Haller’s scheme) human history — genealogy — and ought not simply to be examined in terms of this or that individual person or couple (a rather modern obsession).
In these remarks, Radner falls victim to a common "reasserter" mistake, the treatment of the subject matter as academic theology. For gay people, the debate is very much about individuals and couples - real people whom the Church at present tells that their relationships are not deserving of recognition. Those who would uphold the law over charity (unlike the Anglican approach to divorce, for example) owe these people a good reason, not a poetic vision. "Marriage has to represent the (male) Christ and the (female) Church" (another common "poetic" argument) is not such a reason, for symbols are meant to assist our devotion and not the other way around. Symbols are helpful as far as they go, but if we become so attached to them that we are willing to give up our fellow Christians as sacrificial lambs to preserve them intact, then we are putting the symbol above the grace which it is meant to convey. If you can't wrap your head around same-sex marriage because it wreaks havoc with the "Bride of Christ" paradigm, then set that paradigm aside, and not same-sex marriage. The lives of gay and lesbian Anglicans are not a kindred matter to the timing of the extinction of the Paschal Candle or the direction of celebrant at Mass. "It throws the symbolism all off!" is just not going to cut it as a reason to bar Christians from two of the sacraments.
Granting that procreation is a common biblical motif, marriage must be reckoned with on theological and not literary grounds. The only question to be asked is, Does God care what gender one's spouse is? I cannot fathom a God who would, and Tobias Haller's writing casts serious on the assumption that there is an intrinsic value in sex difference that renders it necessary for marriage. Yet Radner characterizes his arguments as "familiar," which seems a trifle disingenuous. "Reappraisers" are well aware that our arguments are familiar, but if Radner and his ilk are so "familiar" with them then why have they not bothered to rebut them? Of course, much of the "debate" of the past 30 years has consisted of liberals spilling buckets of ink on the subject, which is then ignored by traditionalists, who insist that a stronger case must be made if blessings are to proceed, but stick their fingers in their ears when it is presented. So Radner is perhaps unwittingly apt here.
The fact is that there is no reason why heterosexuality is essential to the "overarching narrative" of Christianity. Procreation is not "bound up" in the Fall and redemption (although in the western, Augustinian conception it figures prominently), and the recognition of same-gender couples will not constitute a recanting of that narrative. But one of the key reasserter talking points is to portray the gay issue as a more dramatic departure than it is. Gay and lesbian Christians are not trying to overhaul Christian theology (contrary to Radner's assertion, I highly doubt that Haller would have us discard the Fall), and while marriage indeed "touches on" a number of central issues, this doesn't preclude its extension to same-sex couples. There is simply no reason why same-sex marriage must necessarily threaten the "larger scriptural vision" on which the Church is founded, and which gay and lesbian Christians take as seriously as any other.
It is time for the Church to decide whether it will use its power to loose and bind for the welfare of its gay and lesbian faithful.
Observation
Anglican Church in North America apologists are keen to assert that the gay debate is merely a "symptom" of a broader rejection of "orthodox Christianity." When pressed as to what other doctrinal revisions have given offence, however, they are quite vague, yet they get huffy at the suggestion that their raison d'etre is homosexuality, almost as if they are sheepish about the unpalatability of their preoccupation with the domestic lives of their fellow Christians.
The most recent change before same-sex blessings was the ordination of women, and that was nearly 40 years ago, with a plethora of Continuing groups catering to the disaffected. When I pointed this out, a moderator at the Essentials blog protested that she wasn't even alive when TAC et. al. were formed! (I wasn't alive in 1534, but I managed to find my way to Anglicanism nonetheless).
The most recent change before same-sex blessings was the ordination of women, and that was nearly 40 years ago, with a plethora of Continuing groups catering to the disaffected. When I pointed this out, a moderator at the Essentials blog protested that she wasn't even alive when TAC et. al. were formed! (I wasn't alive in 1534, but I managed to find my way to Anglicanism nonetheless).
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
