Have Pity for Bruce Jenner

Don’t laud Bruce Jenner, but do have pity upon him. His model for femininity is the women of the Kardashian tribe. Do you remember that they rose to fame through Kim Kardashian’s friendship with Paris Hilton and the release of a 2003 sex tape with her former boyfriend Ray J? She then posed for a nude pictorial in Playboy. In that environment does Jenner have a chance of understanding heathy female identity? Even the Washington Post is uncertain, “Did Bruce Jenner or Caitlyn Jenner win those Olympic gold medals and appear on those TV shows? And if Caitlyn Jenner did, must history be rewritten? Is every source that refers to “Bruce Jenner, record-breaking athlete” — or “Bruce Jenner, guest star on ‘Silver Spoons'” — now in need of a correction?” Or perhaps is it Bruce Jenner himself who is in need of correction? He should be accepted, as all of us sinners should be, but he does not need our approval. “On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the children of man” [Psalm 12:8]. 

Under the Rainbow Bridge on Memorial Day

Under the Rainbow Bridge: A Family Tragedy

Late in 1941 three things came together: the new Mustang, the newly constructed Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls, and a young fly-boy named Nelson Perdue. The Mustang was a small fighter plane that out performed the Spitfire and was destined to take a major role in the war. The Rainbow Bridge had some strong romantic connections as the replacement for the Honeymoon Bridge, which collapsed due to an ice jam in the Niagara River. The new bridge had a marvellous view of Horseshoe Falls. Put those two tempting items together with the newly engaged Nelson Perdue and a sunny day in the fall of 1941 and you have the stuff of family legends. The tragedy is that Nelson was lost somewhere over Germany later in the war, leaving only the sparse legend surrounding his name. My aunt lost the most, and the event coloured her life for some time to follow.  The rest of the family barely knew him. I never met him. Now sixty-five years later I know only the brief legend which was always told with joyful admiration, “Nelson flew under the Rainbow Bridge!”

What comes to mind is the admonition of a 8^th Century Saint, John of Damaskos, “All human affairs, all that does not exist after death is vanity. Riches vanish, glory leaves us… every man born of the earth troubles himself in vain… by the time we have gained the whole word we shall be in the grave, where king and pauper are one.”[1]

What is truly important? What is it that exists after death? Certainly if God is our one true Love, all other loves and relationships will exist in him. Here I want to raise a very important question for those of us in The Episcopal Church today.  Sixty-five years from now what will remain of the conflicts, vested interests, and personalities of the crisis within the church today? The simple answer is not much!

In 1771 conflict arouse in the Church of England.  250 clergy who were deeply affected by the spread of Unitarianism submitted a petition to parliament.  British Statesman Edmund Burke responded: "These gentlemen complain of hardships: let us examine a little what that hardship is. They want to be honored as clergymen of the Church of England … but their consciences will not allow them to conform to the doctrines and practices of that Church. That is, they want to be teachers in a Church to which they apparently no longer belong; and that is an odd sort of hardship. They want to be paid for teaching one set of doctrines, while they are teaching another."[2] Today’s conflict is only a variant of an ongoing debate between the orthodox and those who, like the second century heretic Marcion, refused the authority of Scripture and the Church wherever either disagreed with him. 

Marcion we know, because the theologian Tertullian named him, but who are the 250 clergy who petitioned Parliament in 1771? Their names are lost to posterity and they are only an obscure footnote in the history of the Church. At least my family remembers that it was Nelson Perdue who flew under the Rainbow Bridge.  Karl Barth said something to the effect that it is one of God’s miracles that the Church still exists. For twenty centuries, battered and bruised, the Church, the Bride of Christ rises from the ashes of conflict and opens the door to Salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

From the perspective of history, there is nothing novel, or particularly earth shaking in the current attempts to deny the authority of Scripture in faith and practice.  Roseanne Roseannadanna was right, “it just goes to show you, it's always something! If it's not one thing, it's another!” Of course it is. St. Paul clearly warns us, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”[3] So what’s new?

Conflict within the Anglican Church is like waves crashing against the beach.  No matter how many times they come in, they always recede again. In the meantime, what are we to do? First, and it ought to be obvious, don’t build your house on the sand.  Build your house on the rock!  This is precisely where Jesus presents a stiff challenge to today’s Church.  What is the rock?  The One whom we call the Rock says, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”[4] 

The rock, very simply, is the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture itself.  By definition, “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”[5]  The poet John Donne said it very nicely, “The Scriptures are God’s Voice.  The Church is His Echo.”[6] I am well aware that not everybody wants that to be the solution for the painful stresses within the Church today, but I’m afraid that it is, and I don’t see away around the rock except by walking on the sand. Stability in times of distress is a matter of basic principles firmly held. I have always enjoyed the seashore, but for some reasons which should be obvious, I wouldn’t insist on building my house on the sand.

The second thing we are to do is follow the advice of Jesus who said “Fear not!”[7] and “Love one another!”[8] Instead of worrying over things that are out of your control, put your trust in Him who is our steadfast love[9] and do the amazing thing he told you to do, and “love one another.” That’s a whole lot better than pushing and shoving and saying uncharitable things.

The third thing we are supposed to do you already know.  Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."[10] He didn’t mean for you to do it only on mild sunny days, but in all kinds of weather, even when it’s stormy.  The secret of Church Growth is this: Go and make disciples!  That is as simple as inviting people to Church.  How do I know?  Because that is the way most of us came to faith in the first place; somebody invited us.

                                                                                                            

---

[1] John of Damaskos, quoted by St. Peter of Damaskos in “The Fifth Stage of Contemplation” in the Philokalia, Vol.3

[2] Alfred Plummer, The Church of England in the Eighteenth Century, (London: Methuen, 1910), edited in contemporary English, Rob Smith 2006, p. 168

[3] Acts 20:28-31 ESV

[4] Matthew 7:24

[5] The Articles of Religion, BCP, p. 868

[6] John Donne, Sermons VI. 5-7

[7] Many places in the gospels, but for a helpful verse look up Psalm 64:1b

[8] John 15:12 etc.

[9] Psalm 144:2

[10] Matthew 28:18-20

Why “Bugger” is a Bad Word

                        

      It was a summery day and I was a little Canadian boy at a Private Day School of the English variety.  All little boys in our Private Day School wore short pants.  Only big boys were allowed to wear trousers.  We all wore school jackets with lovely bold stripes, and white shirts and school ties.  In high glee I was chasing another small boy around a small circular garden and shouting at him something like, “I’ll get you, you little bugger!” 

      Suddenly an adult figure looms out of the receding mists of my memory.  It is Mr. Steele who grabs me by the scruff of my neck and calls a halt to my joy by informing me that “bugger” is a very bad word.  Why at that age a word like “bugger” should be a very bad word was incomprehensible because there were bugs all around us and the word “bugger” was quite obviously about bugs. 

      I was remanded to the Teacher’s Study for the lecture on why bugger is a bad word.  I received a deeply mystifying and completely incomprehensible lecture on why “bugger” is a bad word.  Of course what buggery is, is never actually mentioned, just a lot of vague bosh.  I have no idea what the explanation might have been.  My shameful indiscretion was reported to my parents who also seemed to think it was a bad word, but didn’t seem to be able to explain why.  But I did understand that for some inexplicable reason I shouldn’t say “bugger” because adults didn’t like it.  I don’t remember feeling even the slightest shame or guilt for using that unmentionable word. 

      At this distance two things emerge.  One, if you are going to tell someone that something is wrong, be as clear as you possibly can.  Two, the person you may be trying to instruct might not have the experience to understand what you are actually saying unless you spell it out.  Why a teacher like Mr. Steele should make such a big deal about a word that had something to do with bugs at that time remained mystifying.  The stupid bugger should have laboured harder to understand where a little boy was coming from. But even that insulting remark avoids the real point. 

      Language is a funny thing and it doesn’t always tell us what we need to know for words are easily manipulated.  There was a time when a bishop of Tennessee could with impunity pray, “Give us gay and grateful hearts, O Lord.”  He couldn’t do that today.  If we don’t know the meaning of the words we use how are we to address very real problems from the viewpoint of Christian morality?  Why is “bugger” a bad word?  The following entry from the Online Dictionary will help:

Noun 1.

bugger - someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)

In I Corinthians 6:9 the NIV translates the word as “homosexual offenders.”  The NKJV is characteristically more blunt and uses the word “sodomites.”

The problem we have in the Church today is that we forget what words actually mean and we would be horrified if we knew.  There is nothing gay about Gay, it is all rather sad and St. Paul speaks about it rather clearly: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:24-27).  Paul’s clarity is obviously why Holy Scripture has to be explained away by those who don’t want us to know what a “bugger” is.

The Rev. Canon Dr. Rob Smith

 “The Scriptures are Gods Voyce; The Church is His eccho.” – John Donne 17^th C

The Tame Geese

Western Christianity is mostly comfortable and passive. There is a short parable by Søren Kierkegaard that raises the question, “Will you step out in faith, and meet the challenges that God places in front of you?

"A certain flock of geese lived together in a barnyard with high walls around it.  Because the corn was good and the barnyard was secure, these geese would never take a risk. One day a philosopher goose came among them. He was a very good philosopher and every week they listened quietly and attentively to his learned discourses. 'My fellow travelers on the way of life,' he would say, 'can  you seriously imagine that this barnyard, with great high walls around it, is all there is to existence?

I tell you, there is another and a greater world outside, a world of which we are only dimly aware. Our forefathers knew of this outside world. For did they not stretch their wings and fly across the trackless wastes of desert and ocean, of green valley and wooded hill? But alas, here we remain in this barnyard, our wings folded and tucked into our sides, as we are content to puddle in the mud, never lifting our eyes to the heavens which should be our home.

The geese thought this was very fine lecturing. 'How poetical,' they thought. 'How profoundly existential. What a flawless summary of the mystery of existence.' Often the philosopher spoke of the advantages of flight, calling on the geese to be what they were. After all, they had wings, he pointed out. What were wings for, but to fly with? Often he reflected on the beauty and the wonder of life outside the barnyard, and the freedom of the skies.

And every week the geese were uplifted, inspired, moved by the philosopher's message. They hung on his every word. They devoted hours, weeks, months to a thoroughgoing analysis and critical evaluation of his doctrines. They produced learned treatises on the ethical and spiritual implications of flight. All this they did. But one thing they never did. They did not fly! For the corn was good, and the barnyard was secure!"

The Tame Geese, by Søren Kierkegaard

Charity and Clarity

Without clarity there is no charity, for Love cannot exist without Truth. He who is Love is also Truth and you can’t have one without the other. 

An unpopular truth is that Love and Truth also cannot exist without Holiness, for He who is Love and Truth, is also Holy and calls us to be Holy. One cannot accept God without accepting all that He is. You can’t choose one attribute at the expense of the others. In the bellwether issue of sexuality the debate rages on and on, in part because we have become afraid of stating what we really believe because in so doing we are accused of a lack of charity.

Sexuality as an issue is derivative and related to the larger issue of whether or not we believe that Christ actually transforms lives, or perhaps even the question as to whether or not our lives need to be transformed; but remember that it is the God of Love who said, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” The question of sexual orientation is foreign to the biblical authors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the biblical writers ever concerned themselves with “Gay” or “Straight.” What they were concerned with was behavior and transformation of life. In surrendering to Christ are we willing to let the past die, and be made new creatures in Him?

There is a welcome call for unity in the Episcopal Church, but that call is often extended to us on the basis of Love without Clarity over the very issues that divide us. Unity is not possible for people who will not be transformed into the image of Christ. That transformation calls us to grow in Love; in surrender to Truth, and in Holiness. The issue fundamentally boils down to whether or not Scripture is authoritative in the matters of sexuality, or whether our contemporary humanism is the ultimate authority. If you accept the authority of Scripture you accept at face value what it says about sexuality. What it makes abundantly clear is that there should be no sex outside of the marriage union of one man and one woman. 

There is another related question: Don’t we have something better to talk about? Is this issue, the issue on which we want to spend our time? Unfortunately the issue is being pushed by those who reject the authority of Scripture and the call to transformation in Christ. That will come to a crisis point at the next General Convention of the Episcopal Church which will consider changing the definition of marriage and repudiating the current clear teaching of The Book of Common Prayer that tells us that marriage is between one man and one woman. Do we want to spend time on this issue? No. Do we have to? Yes.

In all of this we are being confronted on the national level with a New Fundamentalism that makes man the measure of all things, and extends absolutely no tolerance to those who wish to remain true to both Holy Scripture and Tradition.  From that quarter there is clarity, but no charity.

Meditation and Impertinence

There is a popular approach to “meditation” that has the impertinence to put words in the mouth of Jesus. The leader of the meditation sets a scene, perhaps a woodland, mountain, or ocean scene, and places you in that scene with Jesus, and then has the Jesus of his, or her, imagination tell you what Jesus is saying to you. I know that often the intention is good, but it banks on reference points and scenes that you might not be able to identify with, and makes assumptions about your life and experiences that are sometimes unwarranted.

One very popular book uses this technique, putting the following words in the mouth of Jesus, “Don’t let unexpected events throw you off course. Rather, respond calmly and confidently, remembering that I am with you.” Now that is good wisdom, and perhaps fair enough theologically, but those are not the words of Jesus, but the words of the author. If the leader is biblically and theologically informed his, or h er, assumptions may be generally true, but they may not in fact apply to you.

A safe way to set the scene for the meditation is to draw on any number of biblical scenes or stories that you might be able to enter into imaginatively; then allow God through that scene or story to speak to you. The meditation should draw you into the presence of God where you can listen to what God is saying to you in that scene or story, not tell you what the leader thinks God is saying.

The true goal of a meditation is to lead you into the Presence of God, rather than attempting to instruct you or move you any particular direction. The classic Benedictine approach to meditation is Lectio Divina, which has four steps; Reading, Reflecting, Responding, and Resting. Read the biblical passage over several times. Reflect on the meaning of the passage and what God might be saying to you. Respond to God in prayer. Then Rest in the Presence of God.

Who is the Enemy that Martyrs Christians?

Who is the enemy that martyrs Christians? We are glad to point the finger at the blood lust of radical Islam, but that is too simple an answer. Consider what Holy Scripture actually says. The murderer of Christians is, “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations… arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality… And I saw the Woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” John the Revelator reveals that the Woman is, “the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." [Rev. 17].

In the days of John and the early Christian martyrs the great city was “Rome, domina Roma, the pride and queen of the world!” “Rome was th' whole world, and all the world was Rome” [Spenser’s Ruines of Rome, 360 f]. In our age this Woman is the kingdom of this world, with all of its great cities, Washington, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Beijing, and all the other centers of power. It is the World, archetypal Babylon revisited in the kingdom of this World, that bids Christians kneel before it and proclaim that it is a god, or ultimately die. What is so weird is that so many Christians are eager to accommodate to the world, to its ethos and morals.

Always remember the testimony of the Psalmist, who with joy confessed, that it is the Lord God, “Who struck down great kings, for his steadfast love endures for ever; And slew mighty kings, for his steadfast love endures for ever; Sihon, king of the Amorites, for his steadfast love endures for ever” [Psalm 136:10-12]. What He has done before, He will do again. Our Lord Jesus Christ has risen from the grave and He is the Victor over death, over hell, and over all the kingdoms of this World.