An End or a Beginning?

"If people feel that the Dalai Lama institution is no longer much relevant, then this institution will cease — no problem."

- Tibetan spiritual leader The Dalai Lama, quoted on National Public Radio, February 22nd.

This statement by His Holiness The Dalai Lama, which I heard on morning radio, reminded me of a comment from The Rev. Mark Diebel which had come to me some time ago.  (The morning radio program randomly reminds me of a lot of things).  For one reason or another, Mark Diebel's comment has not been previously posted on the blog.  Like the Tibetan leader, Mark's letter looks with equanimity on the passing of institutional verities that are dear to us.  The Episcopal Church as we know it is ending, he says, but will be replaced by something else as yet unforeseen.  What it will become is in our hands and God's, seems to be the implication.  Mark+ has allowed me to pass on his comment or not, as I see fit, so with that permission I will post it now:

As much as I support TEC and disagree with the general round of critique against its recent decisions and leadership coming from local and distant realignment supporters, it is necessary to develop a coherent and far reaching critique of TEC because like every institution it requires a steady and insightful overhaul all the time. Our "beloved Episcopal Church" is ending and acknowledging the fact is critically important. It's ending is not caused or precipitated by the realignment crowd. It isn't a judgment on TEC; though how it ends -- and how we face it or do not face it -- should lend itself to critical examination. "End" may not be the best word for all of its apocalyptic overtones. I can't think of a better word. What is happening is still sad, and it is still a loss and profound change. (Though it isn't merely loss either. There is opportunity and promise.) What is happening is not only the loss of fellow disciples but a growing awareness that the way of doing business (voting) and how to construct an institution is in a tension that is becoming more and more problematic. There are things ahead that must be worked out between persons. How this happens in practice is not yet settled. TEC has to look forward not backward. The realignment crowd has not solved this power problem either...but instead has stepped back from the problem by posing another authority in the place of voting: bishops. The call to the authority of the Bible is really a call to the authority of the interpreters of it: clericalism. The critique we need isn't about pointing fingers. It isn't some idiosyncratic flaw in TEC that isn't present everywhere else.

The old ways of looking at our denomination, and the old ways of doing the business of the church are ending.  It isn't anyone's fault, and so pointing fingers will not work.  What is needed is a "coherent and far reaching critique" of the institution, looking forward, not backward.  This is the way toward relevance, Diebel+ seems to tell us.  And, with God's help, the way to prevent the institution itself from going out of business.

Comments

[Robert Longbottom]

(The following comment has been edited for length - The Moderator)
I still believe that the use of the word “relevant” is a two edged sword. It is a buzz word used for decades by all manner of Christians attempting to bring the truth of the Gospel to each new generation. We all attempt to make our 'brand' relevant to the community around us. For some that relevance is the social gospel of liberalism. For other's it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What is at essence here is the issue of changing what it is we have to offer so to be meaningful to our culture. In business language we are truly asking ourselves, do we need a new or updated product that is both needed by and helpful to our target group (culture). Or do we need to offer what we have always had in a new and powerful way? ….I believe the fundamental issue that Part Hart takes with the word is accurate when I make the following observation. John White defines relevance of the church as "the Gospel is relevant when it proclaims justice, relieves the physical and spiritual needs of the present generation, and practices loving inclusiveness." (I believe Isaiah chapter 58 would be a great text reference for this statement.) I would define the Gospel being relevant as "the Gospel is relevant when the power of the Holy Spirit enters into a person’s life, giving a life changing relationship with Jesus Christ and bringing emotional, relational, physical and spiritual healing." Neither of us would negate the power and need of the other’s definition, but I believe we both would put the priority on our own understanding. This is truly our greatest difference, and it leads us into divergent answers for meaningful interaction with a broken world.

[John White]

I am grateful to The Rev. Longbottom for his thoughtful response, and for his humility in admitting that the general decline in religious interest eludes an easy answer. But I am afraid that he too easily renounces the word "relevance" in an attempt to avoid the taint of using liberal language. He refers to the need "to bring the gospel in a powerful way to a culture that no longer feels connected to it." Isn't this a perfect description of the search for relevance? The Gospel is relevant when it proclaims justice, relieves the physical and spiritual needs of the present generation, and practices loving inclusiveness. The Rev. Longbottom is gracious in mentioning the social ministry of Zion Church as an expression of such relevance. There are many similar ministries in our diocese deserving of mention.

[Robert Longbottom]

I am glad my comments have caused a few to speak up regarding the issue of relvancy and the church. It also seems to have brought up some issues that have nothing to do with Church and relevancy. I do not know why we can not get away from turning everything into an us verses them mentality that permiates any and all debates in in the church today.
I do have several thoughts on the needs of the church in relating to our culture, but they are too long to post here. One thing I will mention is, I was completely wrong to use the word relevancy. As Rev. Paul Hart so astutly showed in his post regarding relevancy it is not really the issue and attempting to be relevant has often been a cure worse than the original problem. I want to thank Rev. Hart for his post and acknowledge my error.
I guess what I am very much lamenting is the inadequacies in our church to bring the gospel in a powerful way to a culture that no longer feels connected to it. I, like all of you, see the problem yet have no idea really how to answer. Like Neo in the Movie The Matrix, I know that something is not right about the church and the world but I can not wrap my mind around what it is or how to address it. Believe me I have spent a lot of time on this and will continue to spend a lot of time on it. Yet, like you, I try my hardest with the tools I have at my disposal and truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If Mr. Liotta is looking for an example of a ministry that addresses being relevant to its community, I humbly propose to all that the coffee house ministry he leads at Zion South Colton is one of the best examples of innovative ministry to a local community. I would love for him to share the details of this wonderful program as it will be well worth any churches efforts to attempt to copy it.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

I would like to add a postscript to my post. Simply that I am both perplexed by and resistant to the the claim that "The Episcopal Church ... is working for full inclusion of all members into the Body of Christ." It is not. If it were, we would not be in our present condition both within TEC and broader Anglican Communion. Simply put, one group of members has been scandalously pitted against another group of members with both preference and prejudice abounding. We need to own this truth to move forward. If all members were valued equally, we would be conducting ourselves in radically different ways. In fact, that could be a true "new beginning." Regardless of whom one thinks here is the "weaker brethren" in maturity and faith, as St. Paul puts it, we are called to honor and serve them, not run them down or dismiss them for sake of the whole body.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

I am quite sure that I am more in touch with my own motives than Mr. White. Indeed, what Mr. White posits of me is contradicted by what I wrote. Sadly, this could be a good discussion if we leave out the assignment of motives we know nothing about.

As to the substance of the rest of Mr. White's post, Anglicanism is first Catholic or Universal, not local, provincial, or congregational. Indeed, being "episcopal" in "historic succession" has no meaning in any other way but Catholic or Universal. Any view of authority or structure that undermines that Universal or Catholic reality in fact contradicts TEC's own Constitution.

[John White]

Certainly the Gospel always challenges the prevailing culture and demands that we reassess our own cultural buy-in. In that we agree. Nor do I intend to malign Paul Hartt’s motives, but to understand and name them. His motivating goal, as I see it, is to have The Episcopal Church “stop doing what we are doing,” which is working for full inclusion of all members into the Body of Christ. The “new beginning” that he imagines is for The Episcopal Church to accept admonishment and discipline from an extra-territorial body which does not necessarily share our vision or understanding of God’s will. This new beginning would also include “repentance” of our vision as a Church, and a change of leadership in our denomination. This new beginning is posited as fundamental to reversing what Hartt+ sees as a loss of relevance. That, frankly, is the motive that comes across in all that The Rev. Hartt writes. If The Rev. Longbottom is motivated by different concerns, or if he shares the apparent motivation of The Rev. Hartt, we again invite a further elaboration to his sensible letter.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

Mr. White misunderstands my point and especially my motives. The chief problem with "cultural relevancy" is that the Gospel is always counter-cultural. The Gospel is relevant precisely in its contradiction of culture -- each and every culture including the so-called "counter-cultural" ones.

If there is one thing that makes me "cringe" about both the left and right in our Church it is their failure to see how their obsession with culture is counter-Gospel. Mr. White is certainly fair to compare and contrast Victorian and Sixties cultural appeals. My point remains the same.

As for new beginnings, they happen when we stop doing what we are doing. Then something new happens. What we usually mean, however, by "new beginnings" is "I'll keep doing what I'm doing and heading where I'm heading and you stop complaining about it." Whether left or right that approach is disingenuous and perpetuates the stuck-ness.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

In response to Joe Liotta's post: I suspect he is referring to my use of the phrase “histrionic display” to describe the manner in which he expressed his concerns (at some length) to the bishop at a deanery meeting in the Fall. I was troubled by that meeting, and was critical of Joe, but since Joe appears to have taken my comment as a personal slight that continues to sting, I now wonder if my choice of words was uncharitable and inopportune. Joe is a brother in the Lord and I apologize.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

An interesting discussion. In Matthew 16:3, Jesus speaks of people being able to discern the “signs of the times.” This is clearly what is at stake here.

1. I too thought Mark Deibel’s comment was interesting and important.

2. Also important is Fr. Longbottom’s response. Rob is a good friend and an effective priest. He is also one of the youngest priests in the diocese, so when he speaks about generational issues I pay attention. Certainly, business as usual is not enough. But I wonder, where do we go from here?

3. “Progressives” argue that a rethinking of the traditional sexual ethics, and the normalization of homosexuality is precisely what the Spirit is saying to the Church today.

4. On the other end of the spectrum many Evangelicals (Anglican and otherwise) say that the “signs of the times” call for a direct proclamation of the gospel unencumbered by outmoded church symbols, traditions, structures in order to reach an unchurched generation (hence, contemporary praise music, dispensing with elaborate liturgies, vestments, , engaging people outside the church, etc.).

5. One question we might ask is: what ministries or churches today are bearing fruit?

[John White]

The Revs. Longbottom and Hartt are really talking at cross purposes. While Longbottom+ acknowledges the importance of "cultural relevancy of the church," Hartt+ charges that "cultural relevancy almost always makes us cringe," and most attempts to achieve relevance represent "pandering by the Church." We know where he is leading with that attack and we have heard it before. In truth, the message of the Gospel is timeless, yet every generation must interpret its demands and promise anew. Hartt+ dismisses books of a generation ago as having no staying power, yet has he considered the fate of many Victorian works of piety, relevant in their day but musty and forgotten today? Yes, it is Robert Longbottom, of the two, who seems to be on the right track. I would ask him to give flesh to his thoughts and tell us in practical terms how we "reorient ourselves toward a new beginning."

[Joseph M. Liotta]

Robert Longbottom asks some pertinent questions. How is he addressing these questions locally? If he is, is he making any progress.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

I want to thank Fr. Longbottom for his astute observation and encouragement to move beyond the stuck place.

Relevancy is an essential matter worthy of very serious reflection, as is the matter of new beginning. So it is not my intent in the least to discourage the subject but merely to note two things rarely discussed in addressing cultural relevancy.

1. The cure is often worse than the disease.

Ironically, I found myself just today looking at an Episcopal Church publication that was both desperately seeking after and entitled the "Now Generation." One could almost smell some sandalwood incense upon cracking the cover. It could not have been more relevant in its time. Yet where is that generation now? Or their children? Somehow that relevancy had no staying power. How about "The Gospel According to Peanuts?" That one was on the shelf as well. When we look back, cultural relevancy almost always makes us cringe and shows little sustained fruit.

2. Relevancy is too often in the eye of the beholder.

Relevancy can become a blank check for any generation to do a Hail Mary on the tradition and stare at itself in the mirror. This is a very serious problem. There is relevancy and then there is pandering by the Church, and rarely are they well sorted out in practice.

The most cogent and challenging response to this matter of relevancy which I have encountered is in the following article by Robert Jensen: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/03/how-the-world-lost-its-story

I think he is completely right that the only relevancy that matters and in fact will give meaning is the one that punches no particular generation's ticket:

Is the issue in the end really how we make contact?

[Joseph M. Liotta]

Robert Longbottom brings up some pertinent questions. I wonder how he personally answers them and how does he address these concerns in his local church setting. Maybe he can elaborate.

I'm still recovering from his and Christopher Brown's name calling last September. I'm sure that was not the way to address these issues.

[Robert Longbottom]

It is quite interesting that when the issues of sexuality, our diocese relationship with the national church or the Anglican convenant there is much comment and debate on this blog. And this is important that this debate happens. Yet when an issue as important as cultural relavancy of the church and changing the way we do church is brought up and there is not one comment I become concerned that we are not paying the kind of attention issues that may just be more important than all of those in which there is so much debate.
I submit that even though I may not always agree theologically with Rev. Diebel, I am 100% in his corner when he brings up the issue of the end of our church in this posting. I believe we as a church are at an end. The question is will we end by reorienting ourselves toward a new beginning and by being open to the change we so desperately need so to reach the three generations of people we no longer see in our church (45-30,30-20, under 20) or will we end through irrelevancy. If we do not answer this question without any real action then all the other questions of sexuality, the National Church and the Anglican convenant will mean little. Believe me, each of these issues should mean a great deal. Let us not in our important dialogues and debate let the world pass us by.