May we live in interesting times

Between Glen Beck and the growing Islamophobia on the one hand, and the declining influence of institutionalized religion (at least in the form of Protestant denominations) on the other, observing American religion is a fascinating pastime.

According to most of those present at the rally last weekend, what Beck and his supporters did was more religious revival than political statement. A number of people in attendance seemed surprised by the lack of overt references to politics. It was all about “taking back America,”  religious piety wrapped up in patriotism. For some, Beck has become the first Mormon televangelist.

For others, Beck represents the devolution of Evangelicalism. The current Dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary sees a decline from the evangelical heavyweights of the 70s to Beck. Russell Moore writes:

It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined “revival” and “turning America back to God” that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership, as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

He continues by comparing a “liberation theology of the left” with that of the “right,” seeing little good in either.  Moore places much of the blame for the Christian right’s theological prostitution on the LDS (Mormons). Of course, other Evangelicals also worry about Beck’s commitment to Christianity. (For them the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints isn’t a Christian denomination, at best, it’s a “Christian cult.”

As I was reading these essays, I came across another one, perhaps even more disturbing and challenging. In Esquire, Tom Junod writes about a memorial service sponsored by Transocean for the victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Writing about that service, he said that the common theme of all of the speakers was that the victims were fine Christian men. But so too were the executives of Transocean who spoke, and who are trying to limit their payouts to the victims’ families. Judon expands:

But there is no doubt about the Transocean whose executives took to the pulpit and declared that what was most important about the men who died was their shared faith: it styled itself as a Christian corporation, and as such it is a fulfillment of the Republican dream that began when Ronald Reagan first took office. Forget church and state; the genius of Reagan and his handlers was to forge a partnership between church and corporation by enlisting each in an ostensibly common cause: freedom. That freedom for a corporation and freedom for a church meant two different things; that freedom for a corporation meant the freedom to do whatever the hell it wanted and that freedom for a church meant freedom to tell people that they couldn’t do whatever the hell they wanted, even or especially with their own bodies: this wouldn’t matter so much anymore. What would matter — and still matters — was that the church and the corporation would be held to have the same values, so that one could always speak for the other. Corporations would be liberated, individuals would be exposed to Christian suasion, and the two irreconcilabes of conservative politics would be united under the big Republican “tent.”

Later in the essay, he writes:

we witness the spectacle of Transocean and BP blaming each other for the death of the Deepwater Horizon, but also the spectacle of a corporate shill like Glenn Beck calling for national Christian renewal in an event blessed by Rupert Murdoch. The partnership brokered by the Republican party thirty years ago between the unfettered church and the unshackled corporation has paid off in an historic American divide between individuals and the institutions they serve; has paid off in an America whose culture of individual virtue exists in complementary equipoise with its culture of institutional corruption; has paid off in an America where the individuals are better than the institutions they serve, and know it. Fox and its minions address that divide by insisting that the real divide is between believers and non-believers; companies like Transocean by having its executives speak of the Lord at an event that ultimately owes its existence to corporate negligence.

Stanley Fish’s comments about the way individuals are blamed when their attacks offend us (see Timothy McVeigh and the recent stabber of a NYC cabby) and whole cultures are blamed when the attack offends us (9/11) provides an interesting comparison with Judon’s discussion of the meaning of freedom for individuals and corporations today.

More on end of life care

A study of British doctors and end-of-life care has received a good bit of publicity. It reveals that the less religious the doctor, the more likely he or she is to provide care that may hasten death. On the other hand, more religious doctors are less likely to have talked about end-of-life issues with their patients. Cathy Grossman asks, which is the bigger news? Most reports emphasized the attitudes of non-religious doctors. Read her blog here.

If you haven’t read the fascinating article about end of life care in a recent New Yorker, you can find it here.

Media’s unequal treatment of conflict among Episcopalians and Lutherans?

Everyone knows the conflict over sexuality within the Episcopal Church has been a media favorite at least since General Convention 2003. Last year the ELCA (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country) voted to all partnered gays and lesbians to serve as clergy. It seemed to me at the time that for all the media coverage of our conflict, there was relatively little coverage of the parallel debate among Lutherans. I assumed it was because there was simply less controversy and fewer dissidents among the Lutherans. I may be wrong. Here’s an interesting take on the different treatment of the two denominations.

What’s most interesting to me is that in the comments following this article, various Episcopalians, and former ones, air their grievances and revisit the controversy. I’m wondering whether the difference in media coverage is in part due to the vitriol that passes back and forth between the two sides. Perhaps Lutherans are just too polite to lock horns in public as Episcopalians are wont to do.

Proper 17, Year C

I don’t know how much attention you pay to what’s going on in the news these days. I suppose some familiarity is unavoidable, for we are bombarded on the internet and on TV with the shrill voices of those who seem to be advocating a radical break from American values of religious tolerance and openness to immigrants. There’s the terrible outcry over the Islamic community center that has been proposed for a location a few blocks away from Ground Zero. There’s also the demand from apparently many on the right for an end to the promise of birth-right citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the constitution. The list could go on right to the attacks on President Obama’s citizenship and his Christian faith.

Continue reading

The Feast of Augustine

Today is the Feast of Augustine of Hippo, who died on this date in 430.  Perhaps the most influential theologian in Western Christianity, his legacy is much debated and often decried. He is regarded as the inventor of the notion of original sin, and especially that original sin passes to us through our parents’ sexual act. He does have a robust notion of original sin, that human beings are fallen creatures, turned inward on ourselves and away from our proper end, which is the enjoyment of God. But his understanding of original sin undergoes considerable development throughout the course of his lengthy career and in response to increasingly acrimonious controversies with the Pelagians.

Contemporary Christians and many contemporary theologians have reduced him to something of a caricature–a bitter old man who struggled throughout his life with his sexuality. There is some truth in that caricature, but only some. Augustine wrote millions of words, many of them in the heat of conflict, but many others as he struggled to understand himself, his God, and the world in which he lived. His late treatise On the Trinity is one of the great masterpieces of Christian theology–ridiculously difficult to make sense of, but enormously rewarding. For all of his negative understanding of humanity, and of the gulf between us and God, central to his argument in On the Trinity is that we are created in the image of God, that the image of God in us is an image of the Trinity, and that we can, with our own reason and love, begin to understand the Trinity through our own mental faculties.

Augustine was also a theologian of love. The sexual desire that he sought to suppress and eventually came to control was for him only a physical manifestation of a deeper desire, or love that should always be directed toward God. There are moving passages throughout his work that express his experience of God–the love he had for God, and the love of God that he experienced. Confessions, which is often described as a spiritual autobiography, is much more than that. It is a dialogue between Augustine and God, as Augustine reads and writes his experience with God, and comes through that writing to a deeper understanding of God. While most readers give up after Book IX, which is the end of his story, there are three more books that are something of a riff on Genesis 1, showing Augustine at his most creative theologically and exegetically, and full of deep meditation on the nature of the world, himself, and God.

A famous quotation, from Pusey’s translation of Confessions, I believe of a passage from Book XII:

“Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new; late have I loved you.  And see, you were within and I was in the external world and sought you there, and in my unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which you made.  You were with me; and I was not with you.  The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all.  You called and cried out loud and shattered my deafness.  You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness.  You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after you.  I tasted you, and I feel but hunger and thirst for you.  You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is yours.” xxvii. 38

The Resurgence of Calvinism

The Episcopal Cafe points to a lengthy article in the Christian Science Monitor that discusses the increasing appeal of Calvinism among some contemporary Christians. The article appeared some months ago and focuses on the appeal of certain Calvinist tenets for contemporary Americans seeking deeper religious experience and formation.

I first encountered this phenomenon some years ago when I was living and teaching in upstate South Carolina. One of the local papers did an article on the controversy between 5 point (TULIP) and 7 point Calvinists that was leading to division within denominations, especially among Baptists. The CSM article claims that as many as 1/3 of recent Southern Baptist seminary grads identify themselves as Calvinist.

The article also observes that this development, however strong it may be, goes against two other powerful strands in contemporary American religion. One is the “prosperity Gospel” of many Evangelicals. The other is the flattening out of religious difference and the fact that according to the Barna survey, only 9% of Americans hold to what the survey calls a “biblical worldview.”

What interests me most is the reference to this article at this late date on the Episcopal Cafe, and to the comment thread that has ensued. It was correctly observed that despite the presence of Martin Luther in Holy Women, Holy Men there is no commemoration for Jean Calvin, even though Calvin exerted a much greater influence on the development of the Protestant Reformation in England.

Most of the comments decry Calvin’s influence in Anglicanism and in larger Christianity. I’m no Calvinist, by any means, and I don’t find his theology particularly compelling, either in its take on Christianity or as an intellectual exercise. Still, he was a brilliant theologian, and it is fascinating to follow his logic to its conclusions.  And I should think that if we commemorate all those other folk in our church calendar, there ought to be room for him.

Will American values and the US constitution prevail?

President Obama spoke out against the opposition to the Cordoba House last night.

Andrew Sullivan points to a comment by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston:

“During the interview she also asked me about the plan to build a mosque in New York, very close to Ground Zero. I told her it is a sign of the value we have for freedom in this country, and for religious freedom in particular. We certainly do not want to support groups that promote terrorism, but there are many American citizens who are Muslim, and they have a right to practice their faith. Having a mosque near the site of the attack can be a very important symbol of how much we value religious freedom in this country.

I compared the situation to a historical situation in Ireland: During the Easter Revolution the Irish were very careful to protect the rights of the Protestants in the Free State. They did not take back their cathedral or close their churches. Instead, they wanted people to see they believed in freedom of religion.”

Even Fox News seems to be on board.

Update on clergy burnout

I’m on vacation, so it shouldn’t be an issue. On the other hand, we’re moving, so it’s not much of a vacation. But the materials on clergy burnout I posted earlier continue to reverberate in the blogosphere. There have been a couple of interesting essays. One appeared on Huffington Post written by Anne Dilenschneider. She argues:

When examined more deeply, it turns out that the current emphasis on clergy effectiveness is due to a change in the role of pastors that occurred in the 1920s concomitant with the development of the assembly line and the adoption of the production efficiency methodology of Taylorism in corporate America. At that time, as Richard Niebuhr observed, clergy became “pastoral directors” who focused on the administrative tasks of managing and maintaining churches for the benefit of the denomination. And, as retired United Methodist bishop Richard Wilke has noted, by the 1960s, pastors were being evaluated on their “competency, acquired skills, and professional status.”

To put it succinctly, the pastorate went from being cura animarum (care of souls) to management. Now, I suppose there may be some truth in that argument. Still, what immediately comes to mind are those early modern parish priests and pastors, across Europe, who were in constant conflict with their parishes over finances, responsibilities and duties, and who wrote repeatedly about parishioners who wanted only to be baptized, married, and buried. Talk about burnout–especially when there was no possibility of advancement, and when the arm of the state tried to see to it that you forced attendance at services and catechism classes.

Carol Howard Merritt has a much more nuanced take on the issue. Pointing out that 50% of clergy leave the ministry after their first few years, she highlights all of the stresses on pastors, including expectations, finances, poor preparation, and for mainline denominations, the phenomenon of ongoing decline in membership.

I will be attending a CREDO conference this fall, which is a program of the Episcopal Church’s Church Pension Fund, to help clergy assess their physical, spiritual, and vocational well-being. Herb Gunn of CREDO offered this response to the article and op-ed in the Times:

This research points to an interesting conclusion—that differs slightly from the research Vitello noted. The only major lifestyle factor for which Episcopal clergy are at greater risk than the larger population is stress. Yet remarkably, work-related stress, which frequently leads the general population to employment dissatisfaction, job loss, or job change, exists alongside notably lower turnover intent for Episcopal clergy. Compared to the general population, Episcopal clergy report significant levels of well-being, self-efficacy, and finding meaning in one’s work.

You can read his letter here.

Weddings and Funerals

Andrew Brown blogs about weddings and funerals, taking off from Giles Fraser’s thought for the day on the BBC on August 4 (go to the 1:48 mark). Frasier argues that weddings are all about the couple. Fraser observes that “most clergy prefer taking weddings to funerals.”

Frasier observes that weddings are supposed to be about the couple putting themselves in the hand of someone else; that’s why it’s a sacrament, but instead they become examples of self-promotion, about being “princess for a day.”

I’ve heard from some other clergy that they much prefer doing funerals to doing weddings, and I’ve often puzzled over it. In part, I suspect that sentiment derives from the level of control one has over the events. It’s much easier to stage-manage a funeral than a wedding. I also suspect that it’s about the clergy role in each. Presiding at funerals is rewarding, the congregation, the mourners need those words of comfort and hope. They need help with their grief.

Weddings, on the other hand, are rather different. Clergy are a necessary prop, part of the venue and decoration, if you will. The day is about and for others. I think it’s partly an ego thing. But I’ve also learned that weddings can be an opportunity to help people reflect on their relationship with each other and with God, and in that sense can be quite meaningful, in spite of everything else going on. But then, when I do a wedding, we do it by the prayer book, and I tell everyone, including the wedding coordinator and photographer, that I’m in control of everything that happens once the wedding party enters the nave (I tell funeral directors much the same thing. (h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Clergy Burnout

I shared on facebook, but didn’t blog about this week’s article in the New York Times regarding clergy burnout. I didn’t comment on it in my blog, because it all seemed rather obvious and to be expected. Being the pastor of a congregation is difficult. I find it hard to set the necessary boundaries; there are few weeks when I don’t set foot on church property all seven days. But I live three blocks away, and most downtown destinations require walking past the church, so it’s easy to drop in to pick something up or check on something when I’m on my way to do something else.

But today’s Op-Ed in the Times seemed over the top, blaming parishioners’ expectations for witty and short sermons for clergy burnout. I’m sure the author is a fine man and a good pastor, but perhaps it’s time for him to move on. The author complains about  contemporary consumeristic religion, but most of his examples of conflict with clergy are time-honored. One can find similar concerns expressed by St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century, any number of medieval preachers, or even Jean Calvin in sixteenth-century Geneva.

What seems apparent is that the author doesn’t understand that the role of pastor and indeed the pastor’s message, whether that be in preaching or in pastoral care, needs to be worked out in conversation with those among whom one ministers. It’s only by listening carefully and prayerfully, that one can discern how to minister.