|
Letters
|
|
Episcopal Life welcomes letters and will give preference to those in response to stories. Letters should be no longer than 250 words and must include the writer’s name, address, phone number for verification. Pictures are welcome. Send to Letters, Episcopal Life , 815 Second Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017; or e-mail to letters@episcopal-life.org. All letters will be edited for brevity and clarity.
|
|
|
Signs of Romantic movement
|
|
|
Thank you for Chris Herlinger’s fine Art & Soul article on Elaine Pagel’s book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (February), but I do not think its popularity is a “surprise.” Nor do I think that its association with Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code is “curious.” Finally, I do not think that their wide popularity is due to their “asking … legitimate questions about authority.”
I believe that the main reason for all this is that both books are perfect examples and vehicles of the new Romantic movement, which has been growing in strength since the 1960s and now dominates our culture. It is very similar to the first Romantic movement of two centuries ago in that it produces a profound fascination with the ancient, the primitive, the exotic, the esoteric or secret, the heretical, the interior, the individual, the chaotic, the complex, the diverse, the apophatic, the holistic, the mysterious, the paranormal, the mystical, fantasy, and the disparagement of traditional religion (Schleiermacher’s Cultured Despisers).
The evidence for this in popular culture is the vast popularity of such movies as The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter trilogies and innumerable other movies and TV shows about angels, demons, ghosts, monsters and heroic struggles with evil powers. One commentator describes the devotees of Harry Potter as “obsessed, incurable diehard Romantics.”
Contemporary theology shows many signs of the current Romantic movement, such as a new fascination with creation out of chaos (Keller, Huchingson, Bonting). The main evidence in the churches is the current spirituality movement, which arose in the 1970s and shows all the marks of the Romantic movement mentioned above.
Owen C. Thomas
Berkeley, Calif.
|
|
|
Questioning appreciated
|
|
|
Elaine Pagels’ latest book, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (“Picking and choosing,” February), as with her other, equally controversial and equally misunderstood books, demonstrates that devotion to dogma will never welcome and always protest the inquiring mind.
The Bible reflects unquestioned revelation and inspiration. But it also reflects unquestioned editorship and interpretation. The selection and rejection of material, while often heated, was not accomplished by a heavenly review board, but very human ones, subject to the same human failings, agendas, doctrines, hang-ups, etc. that plague us today.
All that people like Ms. Pagels offer is a fresh look, in light of additional material, at issues that do not necessarily reflect the last word that so many would stubbornly have us believe.
I would so much rather talk with someone like Ms. Pagels, from whom I might learn something, than with some smug, doctrinaire, inflexible dogmatic whose unrelenting certitude can teach me nothing but contempt.
Wayne A. Silkett
Boiling Springs, Pa.
|
|
|
Haiti news appreciated
|
|
|
My mother and I really appreciate your articles on Haiti. During the last Haiti Connection Conference, my mom and I had the opportunity to meet Father Max [Accimé]. It was in your article we found out he was safe. During that same conference, I had an opportunity to meet Father MacDonald [Jean]. During this past summer, Father MacDonald stayed with my parents during the General Convention. In that same article, you told us he was picked to be one of the Seven Wise Ones. It had been a long time since we received any good news out of Haiti, and you gave us that.
Cara Johnson
Eden Prairie, Minn.
|
|
|
List very useful
|
|
|
In the March issue, Active Voice had a column by the Rev. Richard A. Bamforth. He posed several powerful questions. I am in the midst of writing my fourth book, a medical/science fiction mystery. I would love to use this list of profound questions. I am just starting the novel and have it roughed out, but I know I want this. I will also be using this list as part of my yearly spiritual assessment, and do thank you and the Rev. Bamforth for providing this food for prayer and meditation.
Devin J. Starlanyl
Brattleboro, Vt.
|
|
|
Bringing back memories
|
|
|
I just finished reading the article about McVickar (“How blind I was,” April). We were at St. Peter's about eight years ago to attend the christening for the second son of friends of ours who were living in Morristown at the time. As soon as I read Sharon Sheridan’s description of McVickar's getting up to use the lavatory in the middle of the service, it was like it happened yesterday.
At the time, I was very impressed with how everyone in the congregation seemed to take the interruption by an adult in their stride. Apparently he made quite an impression on everyone and all who were touched by his love for his church and his fellow parishioners. We all need more simplicity in our lives. A simple lesson by a man who lived (not entirely of his choosing) by simplicity.
May McVickar rest in peace. I hope to read more of Sheridan’s articles in the future.
Ellen Berntson
Haddon Heights, N.J.
|
|
|
Looking for equality
|
|
|
Tom Cashman (“What a message we send,” March) highlights a very real and deeply imbedded cultural pressure toward ordination for legitimate ministry. Ordination appears to be the only substantive recognition of vocational ministry in the Episcopal Church.
The now-fashionable Total Common Ministry will never be achieved until clergy are employed for the duties to which they are uniquely ordained – ministration of the sacraments – and the other work of the church is shared among those qualified. There are, for example, certified lay pastoral counselors whose skills far surpass those possessed of many ordained pastors. What can we say of the rector who is unqualified to be an administrator? Or the sloppy liturgist under the chasuble? Or the inarticulate priest in the pulpit? It is time to let the gifts of the spirit guide the structuring of our communities and ministries and the appointment of leaders.
Unfortunately, Mr. Cashman makes no reference to the inequalities in the compensation of clerical and lay employees. For laity, there is a glass ceiling, much like that confronting many (e.g., women) in the corporate world. Almost without exception, lay people are paid less than clergy, whose minimum salaries are mandated by the dioceses. Benefits for lay employees and their families are in general much less generous than clergy entitlements (pensions, insurance, etc.), if any are offered. According to the Church Pension Group, only one-third of eligible lay employees receive their earned benefits. Tax-free housing benefits, car allowances, sabbatical leave and continuing-education subsidies further skew the imbalance. Experience and responsibilities should determine compensation, not one's order of ministry.
When the Episcopal Church is sincerely committed to the ministry of all the baptized, then it will put in place, through the legislation of diocesan and General conventions, fair and equitable treatment and empowerment of all its ministers.
Christian M. Clough
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
Analysis correct
|
|
|
Thomas Cashman is right on with his analysis of how the Episcopal Church, despite all its talk of lay ministry, still, in practice, sees ordination as the most complete way to effect any significant ministry.
I look back on my own ordination to the priesthood 26 years ago, and in hindsight I am embarrassed; one could have concluded I was being crowned a monarch. Most ordinations I have participated in over the years were no less dramatic liturgically … bordering on the investiture of royalty.
Recently, The Living Church quoted Dean Peter Moore of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry who stated, "Since so few Episcopalians have even a modicum of knowledge of the Bible, the gospel that evangelical rectors preach sounds Baptist to untutored ears."
As long as this blatant patronization, denigration and sweeping generalization of the laity as dumb sheep persists, why are we surprised that our "best icons of lay ministry" are ordained?
Steven M. Giovangelo
Indianapolis
|
|
|
New model needed
|
|
|
Tom Cashman raises an important issue. However, the only place to get clergy is from among the laity. The shift that needs to take place is to stop assuming that to be ordained deacon/priest, you must attend seminary and work full-time or part-time in a paid position in the church.
I believe most parishes could work very well being served by a team, large or small, of people ordained to serve as priests and deacons without becoming professionals. Of course we should have to give up the image of the parish priest as an inerrant, omnipresent person and learn to have the parish function as a community with a team of ordained clergy.
The Rev. Ronald Nevin.
Estero, Fla.
|
|
|
Commentary distressing
|
|
|
I was dismayed to read the Rev. Leon Spencer's commentary on U.S. contributions to combat HIV/Aids in Africa. For more than 10 years, both Democratic and Republican administrations and legislators mostly avoided this issue until President Bush, in last year's State of the Union address, proposed $15 billion to combat the international HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Father Spencer complains that the money is too slow, too little and unfair. He further complains that the United States is placing stipulations on which countries get the money and how it is spent. Imagine that. Most incredibly, he implies, none too subtly, that the entire program was a politically inspired sham to garner votes, and goes on to criticize the United States as the "least generous donor nation in the world."
As a veteran of many stewardship campaigns, let me suggest two things to Father Spencer: First, learn to take “Yes” for an answer; and next, try saying, "Thank you," when someone gives money to your cause. You may find that these two simple acts work better to stimulate further donations than complaining that past donations were miserly, slow and poorly intentioned.
Joe Fluet
East Wakefield, N.H.
|
|
|
Thanks for article
|
|
|
[The Rev. Leon Spencer’s] article demonstrates the attitude of the Bush administration that they can say anything that sounds good but never need to back up the words with commensurate actions.
I believe this article deserves wide dissemination.
Thank you.
David J. Morris
Santa Clara, Calif.
|
|
|
A different question
|
|
|
The movie The Passion of the Christ rekindled the historic question, "Who killed Jesus?" As an Episcopalian living in the 21st century, I am curious to raise the question, "Who wouldn’t kill Jesus or someone who preaches and lives like Jesus today?"
Jesus let an adulteress go unpunished. Those who are soft on crimes are not likely to be potential accusers or killers of Jesus.
Jesus befriended sinners and violated religious laws of his time. Religious people today who welcome those of different behavioral orientations and establish inclusive practices in their religions are less likely to want to kill Jesus.
Jesus taught "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek." It would be difficult to suggest that those who do not carry arms for self-defense and those who are against sending other people’s children to kill and be killed in a foreign land for their own interest would want to kill Jesus.
Who else wouldn’t be the potential accusers and executioners of Jesus or someone who preaches and lives like him today?
This is just a thought for the Holy Week and the rest of my life trying to be a follower of Jesus.
Ke Chiang Hsieh
Tucson, Ariz.
|
|
|
Attitudes not representative
|
|
|
It pains me to know that the ECUSA is providing a platform for people like Dr. Leila Richards (“Working for Peace: Palestinians, Israelis join in protesting Israel’s diving wall,” April). I doubt that she represents the attitudes of a majority of American Episcopalians. I am certain that she does not represent me.
By aligning herself with the suicide bombers and those who believe that Israel has no right to exist (and thus no right to defend itself), she takes a position that I find both irresponsible and indefensible.
Dr. Richards has a right to make a fool of herself by joining the Arafat/Hamas side in this conflict. She probably would have been delighted to become a "human shield" during the Iraq war, too. My concern is that she has no right to make it appear that the rest of American Episcopalians share her opinions.
Warren Anderson
Lancaster, Pa.
|
|
|
A False dichotomy
|
|
|
The Rev. Scott-Hamblen argues that we must not even risk the possibility that parishioners will misunderstand our discussion of tithing and think "that we are more interested in their money than we are about their holiness" (“Obsessed with money,” April). I fear even more the reality of Episcopalians who refuse their holy calling to follow Christ Jesus through their generous and sacrificial giving of their time, skill and effort -- and even their money -- for the work of God on earth.
Recently, I spoke with someone who was interested in joining my parish, but was concerned about the Episcopal Church's reminder (at the last General Convention) that we are to strive to tithe, as part of living out a spiritual rule of life. Thanks to this new parishioner's openness, she and I had a detailed discussion about her finances -- she is on a limited, fixed income -- and the calling of every Christian to follow Jesus' first disciples in giving generously and sacrificially of every aspect of our lives. I believe that she left our conversation knowing both that I valued her as a person and that I valued her effort not to exempt her money from her undertaking to live as a faithful follower of Jesus.
I believe that Father Scott-Hamblen has created a false dichotomy between inviting faithful stewardship of our wealth and seeking a faithful sacrifice of one's heart to God. How can one truly give one's heart to God and still want to keep back one's money for things that do not give life? Parish clergy and their parishioners can discuss the faithful use of wealth in ways that are sensitive and that treat individuals as valued children of God, valued enough to be asked to follow Jesus, who held nothing back for our sake.
The Rev. John D. Perris
Harwich Port, Mass.
|
|
|
Concept of church distorted
|
|
|
In a response to The Rev. Robin H. A. Eames of Ireland, [bishop of Armagh, primate of Ireland and chair of the Lambeth Commission looking into matters of sexuality dividing the Anglican Communion], Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold refused to answer direct questions put to him because he cannot put his spin on the answers. The story Griswold produced does nothing but confirm the distorted concept of the Episcopal Church he has.
1. For the last 35 years, morality in the United States has been declining, and the effect is starting to show up on families. This does not make it right; in fact, it puts even more responsibility on the church to help lead us on the right path instead of helping put us in the gutter.
2. Gene Robinson was (and is) living in sin. Period. If a married person, priest or not, it doesn't matter, leaves their spouse to shack up with another partner of any sex, it is living in sin.
3. Blessing his conduct is an unfaithful act. Griswold not only condoned, but blessed behavior that God told us he hates. That is a slap in the face of God.
4. Griswold keeps trying to convince us that there are different interpretations of Scripture. That is not true. If it were, he would cite a reference or verse. He cannot.
6. God hates homosexual conduct. Gen. 1:28; Gen. 2:18; Lev. 18:21; Lev. 18:26-27; Rom. 1:18-24; 1 Tim. 1:10.
7. Those who engage in this will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Cor. 6:9-10.
Tom Ivinson
Royal Oak, Mich.
|
|
|
Foreign aid problematic
|
|
|
Is Leon Spencer swinging on the same moonbeam as Dennis Kucinich, our resident Marxist?
In case you haven’t heard, the world is changing daily and the United States is so broke we are now spending $1_ billion per day more than we have. Democracies last about 200 years, until it dawns on us we can vote ourselves free goodies from the public treasury.
As long as the world is giving us precious little help in fighting militant Islam (it’s going to be them or us), let the rest finance the health woes of Africa. Only Uganda is vigorously trying to stop the extension of disgraceful sexual behavior. Our church is not helping by saying “do anything you want because it’s the theology du jour.”
Most foreign aid just postpones any constructive action and is lived on by recipients. “Development assistance” or whatever is just words, and next year demands for more money will just increase. Where are demands for celibacy, monogamy, faithfulness?
How many countries is the United States stuck in as the required protector, banker, feeder and subsidized drug provider? Now it is Haiti, with us the universal cannon fodder for the selfish and ungrateful.
A. B. Bassler
Armada, Mich.
|
|
|
Solution needed
|
|
|
Regardless of denomination, the universal complaints heard are the same: attendance is down, donations are down, too few volunteers to man the programs, not enough interest. What will be out fate?
An op-ed piece in the Jan. 25 New York Times recited statistics regarding some of the many phases of societal change that have taken place over the past 30 years. The article states that only 56 percent of all adults are married (as compared with 75 percent 30 years ago). Add to this the much-reported news that half of all marriages now end in divorce.
The article also states that traditional households (married with children) dropped to 26 percent of all households (compared with 45 percent a little over 30 years ago).
People are being affected, even if subliminally. Sincethe church is people, is it really any surprise that churches are being affected as well?
Should tradition move over and make room for transition? Obviously there is no single answer. Therefore, it might be a helpful start for the church hierarchy and a laity representation (nonparishioners included) to seek out a vehicle for combining ideas, which will lead to a solution for saving our churches. Suggestions anyone?
Peggy Cannon
Bay Shore, N.Y.
|
|
|
Heal past wounds
|
|
|
It dismays us to see, once again, turmoil and threats of yet another division in the fabric of Christendom. Our thrust today should be toward healing the wounds of the past, not in creating new ones.
Some of us have accepted Bishop [Gene] Robinson’s consecration for New Hampshire in a positive way, while others are threatened. A big stumbling block for many is tradition or Scripture. There certainly are numerous moral strictures in Scripture, which we no longer abide (usury); also certain moral blindness is found the norm in Scripture, which we have, today, have rejected (slavery, inferiority of women).
The point is that human civilization and culture today is not a caveman culture or a 3000 BC or a 1000 AD culture. At the prompting of the Spirit, human culture and self-understanding is a dynamic, growing thing, not a static, frozen thing. Love is the foundation, the cornerstone from which all our deliberations should emanate. While we look to tradition for guidance, in our view, since the first centuries A.D. we have been writing the New Testament.
Ray C. Smith
West Collingswood, N.J.
|
|
|
Split already made
|
|
|
In the March issue was a letter from a Rev. Jim Melnyk of Raleigh, N.C. It cried out for a response. The Episcopal Church has altered the Bible by popular vote to suit its desires. To ask for dialogue with dissenters is very naïve. You either agree or you don’t. To justify their action, they used the spin of interpretation technique. And when you go down that road, you can come up with almost anything.
We must have our own bishops to maintain our standards of worship. It is obvious the present church will no longer do that. With regard to splitting the church, it has already been done with the blatant action the church has taken. If we are denied our own bishops, some will stay and be very unhappy with the liberal edicts coming from the church until they get fed up. The rest will leave for other Christian churches.
I am an old man, and I do not want to leave the church I have known for many years, but I will not condone the brazen disregard for God’s word. My children are grown, but I am very concerned about the effect this very liberal teaching will have on our future generations.
Robert P. Owen
Livonia, Mich.
|
|
|
Spencer piece ‘slanted’
|
|
|
I take exception to Leon Spencer’s column in the March issue, “Show us the money,” as being just a politically motivated, unnecessary, slanted Bush-bashing. For example, he states, “We might complain that the disinclination of the Bush administration to support the Global Fund to fight AIDS is yet one more indication of unilateral tendencies.”
President Bush asked for $2 billion for 2004 and more than that in 2004. This does not demonstrate a “disinclination to support.” It may not be as much as he said, [but] $2 billion is not just hay, and it ultimately comes from us taxpayers. That much money ought to buy something. Instead of being thankful, Mr. Spencer screams, “Show us the money,” as if his pet program is the only priority taxpayers have to support and $2 billion is nothing.
He states that it will only go to two Caribbean countries and 14 African countries. That is 16 countries – how much of the world do we taxpayers have to support? We have AIDS people of our own to care for. What kind of guarantees do we have that the money will go to the people needing it? All too often, Americans give to a worthy cause just to see the money line the pockets of whoever happens to be in power. As reassurance, he states that the Global Fund is “widely hailed” as the most effective program around. So was Enron.
I realize that you will find a reason not to publish this, but I had to write it. Not all Episcopalians are hand-wringing apologists.
William A. Abbott
Seattle
|
|
|
End U.S. AIDS first
|
|
|
Concerning Leon Spencer’s commentary in the March issue, before we earmark $15 billion to fight AIDS and related diseases in Africa over a period of five years, the first thing to do is to eradicate those diseases in the U.S.A. Mr. Spencer shows a anti-George Bush attitude and calls the United States a very uncaring nation in the Third World. It has been proven and seen that these projects and funds are easily corrupted and seldom reach the people where they are most needed.
Charles Peete Jr.
Memphis, Tenn.
|
|
|
