Daily Archives: January 30, 2012

God and the Gods–Lectionary reflections for 5 Epiphany, Year B

Posted on by
1

This week’s readings are here.

One of the questions that struck me yesterday as I was listening to the readings (hearing someone else read them aloud often brings new insights) was the status of “the god’s” in Paul’s discussion of eating food offered to idols. Here’s that text: 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. 

Paul isn’t exactly clear on the status of other gods: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth– as in fact there are many gods and many lords– yet for us there is one God…” On the one hand, it seems he denies the reality of those gods, but here, he admits to the existence of “so-called gods.” One explanation for this lies in the hierarchical understanding the universe in hellenistic thought, an understanding Paul shares. There are principalities, and powers, spirits, divine beings, that inhabit the various realms that exist between earth and heaven. They may not be precisely gods, but they have powers that vastly surpass human power.

In this week’s lesson from Hebrew Scripture, we read from Isaiah 40. This passage comes from what scholars call Second Isaiah. This section (40-56, more or less) derives from the period of exile in Babylon in the sixth century. It is evidence for the remarkable transformation that is taking place in theology among the exilic community (most scholars conclude that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, was compiled in this period). Second Isaiah is reaching toward a monotheistic theology that would come to characterize Judaism. We see some of that here.

Earlier in chapter 40, the prophet has proclaimed God’s power and wisdom. He compared Yahweh to the image of a deity:

To whom then will you liken God,
or what likeness compare with him?
An idol? —A workman casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold,
and casts for it silver chains.

Those are verses 18-19. In our passage, the prophet praises God as creator of the universe and as the one who establishes and unseats the world’s rulers. 40:26 is particularly interesting, both in the Babylonian context and in light of Genesis 1. The prophet asks,

“Lift up your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?
He who brings out their host and numbers them,
calling them all by name;”

Two points. First, the reference is to the stars and asserts God’s power over them. In addition, the use of the verb created–the only other instance of the use of this word is in the creation accounts of Genesis, describing God’s creative activity (this from Steed Davidson at workingpreacher.org). In Genesis 1, the creation of the stars makes explicit the limits of their power: “let them be for signs and seasons and days and years” and “let them rule over day and night.” Specifically, the stars, sun and moon do not have power over human lives or fates.

We tend to assume that our understanding of God, is static, has always been the understanding of Christians, if not of Jews (there’s that whole trinitarian thing, after all). In their own ways, both Second Isaiah and Paul are grappling with the relationship of their monotheistic beliefs (that God is one) and their belief in a universe that is filled with other divine beings.

Our problem in the twenty-first century isn’t quite the same–we worry more about whether we can say that other religions might be true, whatever we think of their deities. Still, I wonder about the resonances of both of these passages for the contemporary life of faith.

Why I despair of the future of the Episcopal Church

Posted on by
10

The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church met over the weekend and received this dire report about decline in the church. One word description: catastrophic! But that’s not what sends me into despair or wailing and gnashing of teeth. It’s the dust-up between the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies (You’ll recall that there was a similar controversy at last fall’s meeting over a presentation by Bishop Stacy Sauls).

Over the last decade, pretty much every measure of health of the church has declined by between 10% and 20% and our leadership is arguing over whether it’s appropriate for the Presiding Bishop to communicate directly with General Convention deputies. You can read about it here, if you’ve got the stomach for it.

We’re in the midst of an existential crisis, and our leadership argues over its rights and prerogatives. I don’t care about the merits of either position and above all, I dread what’s going to happen at General Convention 2012, what actions it will take that will divert our energies, attention, and passion away from ministry and mission. I cite two examples

1) The denominational health plan. However praiseworthy its intent, however just and equitable its origin, it is instilling fear in this neck of the church. Those of us with excellent healthcare at reasonable prices fear being forced into less generous plans at higher premiums. Clergy fear the loss of full benefits because of the requirement that laity and clergy receive the same benefit. All of the parishes in our area are facing budget shortfalls as it is, and are contemplating laying off staff. The requirement to offer same coverage for full-time lay employees will probably mean that many parishes will simply reduce the hours of their lay employees. There is deep concern about the way the Denominational Health Plan is being implemented? What is GC doing to listen to and respond to these very significant concerns? I, for one, have heard nary a peep out of those who in their wisdom passed the legislation.

2) Same Sex Blessings liturgies. In 2009, General Convention mandated that the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music gather resources for such liturgies. Rather belatedly, the SCLM began publishing such resources (this past fall). Belatedly, because among the documents is one entitled “educational material for diocesan conventions” that appeared on December 13, 2011. That’s two months after we held our convention in the diocese of Milwaukee.

In 2003, we were completely unprepared for the impact of General Convention, understandably so, because of the date of Bishop Robinson’s election. In 2012, we know what is coming. We know that there will be media scrutiny and intense discussion in the Anglican blogosphere,  From what I can tell of the materials produced by the SCLM, and from what I can tell of what I’ve read, they seem both somewhat superficial and often incomprehensible.

For me, the important question is this: How is General Convention preparing us in local parishes deal with the controversy? And I don’t primarily mean the conversations over the shape liturgies might take.  What materials are they providing local clergy to deal with the phone call from the local newspaper reporter who is writing an article on the topic and interviewing conservative Christian leaders as well?

Once again, my guess is that General Convention is going to leave us to our own devices, ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the local consequences of its actions and increasingly curious why so many of us in the church want to have nothing to do with it.

That’s why I despair of the future of the Episcopal Church. I’ve been active in the Episcopal Church for two decades, I’ve been involved in parish leadership for a decade, and every General Convention in that time has contributed to conflict in the parish and led to diversion of precious resources of time, energy, and passion. I’m looking forward to GC 2012 with fear and trembling.