In religion, what damned error, but some sober brow will bless it and approve it with a text, hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
- Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, III:2
So, this week's Wednesday Linkage is special because there are only three links I wish to share with you. Somehow they are connected in my brain. I am still trying to figure out why exactly, but this is often my challenge.
First, The Living Church Foundation posted an article by the dean of my seminary alma mater, Seabury Western Theological Seminary. The Very Reverend Gary Hall is responding to some criticisms about the commencement service this past June. The newly elected Presiding Bishop was the preacher. And, it would seem, the communion bread was gluten free, thus it fell apart a little easily. Give it a read.
The second link is from BlogHer. They have featured the RevGalBlogPal webring as one worth reading. They see the freedom of religious dialogue without rancor as laudable...and surprising! That's probably what caught my attention most of all. I concur with the laudable aspect, which is why I belong to that webring. BlogHer just had a conference, I believe. And unless I am mistaken, it was here in Chicago. But I may be confused. It happens.
Thirdly, is this post at Dracula Man. I think that the authors at Dracula Man are not Christian. They may be athiest/agnostic. I dunno. I have not gotten to know them well enough to know that yet. At least one of them is a good musician. Perhaps more are. We'll see is my guesses are correct. Anyway, they are rightly offended by Westboro Baptist Church's interpretation of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
The three of these posts all came to me during the morning and I have been sitting on them all day wondering what it is about religious debate that is so very troublesome...at least it's troublesome to me. These conversations are for the most part appropriate. The one at Dracula Man is not really a conversation as much as it is a rant. Maybe someone from Westboro will chime in. I don't know. That would spice things up a bit. Also, interestingly, Dr. Jerome Pestlebottom does not think that the Marlboro folk are particularly Christian. So, at least I am not being saddled with the task of crafting an apologetic for the position. Heh. But at Living Church and BlogHer (RevGalBlogPal by extension), the conversations are fine, easy really. So, what the heck is so irksome to me?
Is it that crumbly communion bread troubles people? Does this irk me? I mean, as a Baptist I have no room at all to talk about communion bread! Generally, we have very low regard for that element. White bread (sometimes stale) goes well with grape juice. So, yeah, maybe I have nothing to say about that particular. I do find the bit about how Gary Hall's understanding of Anglicanism differs from others intriguing (It reminds me about our conversations in the American Baptist Churches...polity or scripture? Which is the overarching context?). Also, that the seminary's chapel is set apart to push boundaries is curious as well. I like it, I think. It's a liturgy lab. This is true!
I love RevGalBlogPals. I have met friends there...some new, some old acquaintances I have not seen in years. We discuss theology sometimes. We disagree sometimes. But we uphold one another all the time. It's an easy community in that way perhaps because it is online. Disagreement in the pews is always more intense. Online one can step out a little...or step back.
The use of the word "surprising" at BlogHer saddens me a great deal. It's so nice to know that we Christians are still expected to flog one another in the public square. It gives us a great deal of latitude.
Okay, I see that this is going nowhere. I'll mull over this some more and maybe post again later. For the time being, take a gander at the links. Let me know what you think of them. How do you handle religious debate? We have plenty here, you know. I like it. It's a good thing.
But something else is up today...Hmmm...
Posted by tripp at August 8, 2007 06:36 PMI tried to find Fr Montgomery's criticism online to see what the dean was responding to but couldn't. I realise that not all conservative criticism is valid!
Crumbly Communion bread IS a problem for Catholics, for obvious reasons, but of course I see the good intentions behind having gluten-free bread because of cæliac disease, though as an RC diocese told the mother of a little girl with that disease, thanks to concomitance these people (and anybody else) get the entire Sacrament drinking from the cup. (IOW nobody was denying her daughter Communion as she wrongly thought - she just couldn't receive the wafer.)
I can imagine that disease being a problem, perhaps impossible to solve practically, for an ordinand. :(
What's troubling are giving Communion to the unbaptised and the attitude 'we're cool and cutting-edge - we don't need to follow the church's stupid rule on that'. It's NOT just a rule (like which Prayer Book one may use in public worship); it's basic theology. As I wrote at Episcopal Café when another cyber-friend, Derek Olsen, first wrote on this, I respect both closed Communion (which is what I was born into) and the Episcopal Church's current rule (because it makes some sense - I don't necessarily agree with it). IIRC the actual rule is something like 'all baptised Christians who believe in the Real Presence and are prepared to receive' which in practice really means 'all baptised Christians'. Communion without baptism (CWOB) is complete rubbish.
I've no idea what Dr Jefferts-Schori said so I can't comment upon it.
Posted by: The young fogey at August 8, 2007 08:26 PMhum. I know I should probably have a concerned interest in the whole communion piece but I cancelled my subscription to The Living Church some years ago after blatant erroneous reporting about the diocese....
Posted by: mompriest at August 8, 2007 09:42 PMThis has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and for that I apologize...I was browsing the web, came across your blog & looked around for a bit...
Would you please tell your wife that Greg Cartwright says "hi"? I'm rather amazed that I came across this site & ran into Trish, sort of, via an insomnia-induced internet jog.
Have a nice day,
Greg
Posted by: greg cartwright at August 9, 2007 01:23 AMSure thing, Greg! I'll do that. She is on myspace, just so you know.
http://www.myspace.com/pixiedevilred
Posted by: Tripp at August 9, 2007 06:27 AMhttp://erin-go-bragh.blogspot.com/
I'm hurt...you didn't link me, and I had a HUGE blog about Phelps! Well, for any of you interested, take a look at what I have to say!
Mae
Posted by: Mae at August 9, 2007 09:38 AMI'm interested in hearing more about what troubles you or makes you uncomfortable in the situation of religious debate.
How do I, personally, handle religious debate?
I win. :)
But here's the thing -- it's really a challenge for another person to change my mind. His or her argument has to be pretty watertight. Since you personally tend to argue from a more poetic, heart-based point of view, your arguments tend to dissolve on impact, meaning you may wind up feeling somewhat ineffective in religious debates with people of my persuasion.
Posted by: Megan at August 9, 2007 01:07 PMHey, Megan. How you been? Fire off an e-mail and let me know what's up. I received Shannon's note about her new job. That's wonderful...I hope. ;-)
Re: debate
I am a poor debater. I always have been. I am not interested in beating someone as much as I am interested in showing them solidarity of some kind. I may disagree about some things, but that happens. I don't think that disagreement is a problem. And maybe that's why I am irked. I am trying so hard to figure out what people think they are trying to "win." I just don't get it.
Posted by: Tripp at August 9, 2007 02:35 PMYou bring up an interesting point about expressing solidarity. I wonder how many religious debaters are looking for that. I, for one, am not, and I think I receive that effort as an attempt to change the subject or to escape from my argument rather than face it and deal with it head-on.
If we disagree, then we disagree, and I don't experience "solidarity" as a part of that.
If I'm debating with you, our opinions are in conflict. I'm trying to get you to agree with my point of view, which means changing your mind. If you don't change your mind, any expression of "solidarity" means basically nothing to me. While, I hasten to add, it may mean a lot to you!
The "I win" comment was just smartassery, not to be taken too seriously.
Posted by: Megan at August 9, 2007 03:36 PMJust found Fr Montgomery's article:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:F9ODtFP31-4J:stthomaswi.com/+%22Careless+Communion
He omitted, probably not deliberately as he didn't know, the reason for the crumbly bread. They made an honest mistake because of charity (trying to deal with cæliac disease)! Put that under 'God understands'.
Though people trampling on the Sacrament is just another thing that makes it seem like my home - the ritualist slum priests, the Congresses, the old American biretta belt - never existed.
(A long time ago in England I spent an afternoon with somebody who'd been to the Anglo-Catholic Congresses as a child. I didn't dream it all up.)
Fair if rhetorical question: if somebody changed his mind about gay weddings and adopted the Catholic position would Dr Jefferts-Schori call that metanoia?
Posted by: The young fogey at August 9, 2007 08:26 PMMegan,
I think that disagreement and solidarity can come together. What are the chances that you or I will ever be in full agreement about everything? Nill. It is impossible for any two people. My wife and I do not agree on politics or religion. But we are in solidarity with one another. Though different, friendships form a similar bond of solidarity in the midst of disagreement.
We may change one another's minds about certain things. That's true. And I would be lying to suggest that all my attempts at debate lack that aspect. But, strangely, I seldom feel as if you are trying to change my mind. It seems that I have missed something integral. Heh.
YF,
I know that the sermon Shiori preached is posted on the SWTS website. You may be right, but I think that she did a great job of making her well known perspective clear without necessarily alienating those who do not share it. She is by some definitions a pastor to all the ECUSA now. And as such she is responsible to those who disagree with her.
Posted by: Tripp at August 9, 2007 09:49 PMI found it there and read it last last night, thanks. Nothing really outrageous or offensive on the surface - it's all in knowing 'her well-known perspective' which I think Fr Montgomery does. I have a theory that she's fine when scripted (her persona rather resembles John Kerry's IMO) but not extempore: for example the snobbish remark in the New York Times Magazine back in November about having fewer kids than Roman Catholics, even though income, education and fecundity are statistically connected. She could have had that fact in her head and innocently blundered but one could rub it in and Photoshop a version of the denominational outdoor church sign: 'The Episcopal Church: We're richer and better educated (than you)'.
Posted by: The young fogey at August 10, 2007 09:10 AM"IIRC the actual rule is something like 'all baptised Christians who believe in the Real Presence and are prepared to receive' which in practice really means 'all baptised Christians'." -- YF
Actually, the official "rule" is: No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church - 1.17.7
Posted by: Reverend Ref at August 10, 2007 10:59 AMTripp, I would agree that disagreement and solidarity can coexist. But not in the context of debate.
Conversation, yes. Discussion, sure. But *debate,* which is what you asked about, is a different medium.
And btw, I believe I did change your mind about whether a person who doesn't go to church can be a Christian. It took two years of damned hard work, but it eventually happened -- you put it in writing.
Whether there's been backsliding since then, only you know.
Posted by: Megan at August 10, 2007 11:22 AMThat should have said 'late last night' and thank you, Father, for the quotation about the actual rule.
Posted by: The young fogey at August 11, 2007 10:49 PM