Monday, December 12, 2011

On "Occupy"

A personal note: I suspect I am about to disappoint many of my friends and acquaintances with what follows. To those who find themselves disappointed with my words, or with me, I apologize. I do hope, however, that each person who lands on this page will take the time to read and to ponder my thoughts. Thank you!

I lived through the Sixties and Seventies, decades which in some sense give definition to the word, 'protest.' I watched the Civil Rights movement unfold, as well as the anti-war movement. I witnessed the murders at Kent State (and yes, I say, 'murders', intentionally). Memories fade with time and I am certain that representatives of the establishment at that time were not pleased with any of the protests, but I remember particularly rather more extreme angst expressed at the some of the behaviors of the Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground. What differentiated the more extreme groups from the larger corpus of protesters was the intensity of the behaviors. A passive sit-down on public property was one thing; bombings were another thing. Striving to change the minds and hearts of the populace was thing; instilling terror into the populace was another thing.

While many at the time believed the goals were laudable and noted that most of the methods non-violent, such violence and intimidation as existed served to inhibit the overall success in the minds of most thoughtful people. Although I am sure that there were many spokespersons who articulated a host of perhaps even rambling demands, the two central foci of the times were (1) an end to the war in Viet Nam and (2) an end to bigotry and racism. Among those participating in the non-violent forms of protest, as least as I remember it now many years later, most all activities, demonstrations, sit-downs, etc., took place on public properties. I do remember a few microphones being seized at conventions and some sit-downs in private universities, but one can legitimately argue that said institutions, while privately owned, are quasi public in nature. Generally, there seemed at the time to be a connection between the goals of the movements and the behaviors of the participants.

As I fast-forward to the current protests which fall under the banner of 'Occupy", or "Occupy Wall Street", I observe some similarities and I observe some differences to the protests of what I am fond of calling, 'The Age of Protest.' For the most part, the current movement seems to be non-violent in nature although there certainly have been some notable exceptions. For the most part the activities have taken place on public lands, but again, there are some very notable exceptions. While there seems to be an underlying concern about economic injustice which binds the various activities together, there is a notable dearth of agreement across the various demonstrations on goals, methods and the statements of grievances. To be sure, ending a major war is a relatively easy goal to articulate. It is harder both to measure and to accomplish, but the goal of ending bigotry and racism is also easy to articulate.

Bringing an end to economic injustice is a much more difficult concept to articulate and finally to understand than are the goals of ending a war and eradicating racism. One has first to define what is economic injustice in a way that will win the hearts and minds of the majority of people, and then one has to articulate both goals and methodologies by which the task will be accomplished. USA Today reported that at least two members of Occupy believe they have a right to seize and live in foreclosed properties, in one case because of an allegation that the foreclosure is illegal and in another simply because the protester wants a nicer place to live. Foreclosed properties universally represent people who have not kept a commitment to pay a mortgage. There are a myriad of reasons for such failure to pay, from the loss of job or major medical emergency on the one side of the spectrum, to the recognition that a property no longer has the worth it did when purchased resulting in a personal choice to abandon the house and loan on the other side of the spectrum. One can argue unfair lending practices, pressure to purchase, a desire to participate in the American Dream, etc., but finally and inescapably, no mortgage is granted without the willing signatures of the purchasers, a process often accompanied by a fairly rigorous routine of approval such that the purchaser knows something very important is taking place. There is an element of personal responsibility when one assumes debt which at least to a degree mitigates the charge of 'economic injustice'.

People of good conscience can (and do) look at the same facts and come away with differing analyses. Two actions of the Occupy movement involving the response of churches strike me as inappropriate, although I recognize that many of my colleagues deeply disagree with my analysis. The efforts to seize property at St. Paul's Cathedral, London, and again, to seize property owned by Trinity, Wall Street, were, I believe, both unfounded and ill-advised. Both churches, St. Paul's, London, and Trinity, Wall Street, were at the time actively involved in trying to aid Occupy, but were perceived by participants as not helping enough. How much is enough, and what happens, again I opine, to the hearts and minds of the populace when a movement steps over a line. Quite recently (12/12/2011) ports on the West Coast of the USA and Canada were seized bringing an effective end to business as usual and inflicting economic harm to often unrelated parties. While the target may have been as cited by some, Goldman Sachs, it is also true that working women and men as well as consumers are, to borrow a not-so-nice term, 'incidentally damaged'. As one who worked in a union while in college to make ends meet, and one who knows what it is to earn a living on an hourly wage, I ache for those whose lives are being upended by the very people who are protesting such heartache in their own lives. It seems as if the method does not meet the goal.

I prefer to be on the positive side of movements for change. I prefer to see the good in the behaviors of those who are willing to step up to protest perceived inequalities. I suspect, although I do not know, that the vast majority of those who are participating in Occupy wish to engage in behaviors which are (1) non-violent, (2) with the bounds of the law, and (3) held on public property. My observation is, thus far, that Occupy is not wholly non-violent, is often not within the bounds of the law, and simply is not confining its protests to public land. Choosing to squat on and/or seize private land does nothing to impress me. Taunting police does nothing to impress me. Closing down places of work where folk are striving to eek out a living does nothing to impress me. If the battle is for the hearts and minds of the populace, refraining from anarchical behavior while engaged in non-violent, legitimate protest does impress me. Clearly making the case for one's concerns while recognizing and addressing both sides of an argument impresses me. Recognizing that those charged with keeping order in society are also human beings, people with spouses and children, people giving of themselves often in very difficult and dangerous places, impresses me.

One final test for me, and one which I observed time and again in the movements of the Sixties and Seventies, is the acceptance of personal responsibility for one's behaviors. Sadly, I do not see much acceptance of personal responsibility in Occupy. To be sure, folk are choosing to give of themselves, to put themselves on the line, to be present in the protests. I acknowledge that with a certain degree of gratitude. There is, however, a need for those who cite 'economic injustice' with regard to issues of debt to ask themselves how they have participated in the problem. I am not impressed by cries of undo pressure to take on debt, the need to have what everyone else seems to have as an entitlement, and the right to a prosperous life. As I recall, the unalienable right is to the pursuit of happiness -- pursuit means effort, commitment, and yes, personal responsibility.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011


An online dialogue the other day spurred my thinking so it is time for a post to the blog.

I stipulate the following observations as a portion of reality in the world today. There is evil in the world. There is nastiness. Abusive behaviors, manipulative behaviors, and struggles for both power and control are evident. Random acts of violence, to include murder, rape, mayhem, assault, et cetera, exist. Intentional acts of violence, to include shootings, bombings, poisonings, beheadings, lynchings and other activities of terrorists are real. People steal from one another. I do not intend this list to be comprehensive. One can go on and on as the list of nastiness is long and anti-human behaviors seem to be on the increase.

Each of us has choice in how best overtly to respond to one of the many provocations cited above. We can respond "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", and in many cases no one will criticize such a choice thinking same to be thoroughly justified. We can respond with overwhelming counter-force in the hope that the 'enemy' will be not only punished for the initial insult, but also be given serious pause concerning future behaviors. "Don't tread on me" is the phrase which comes to mind. Nuclear deterrent is an example, at least in theory, of overwhelming counter-force. We can choose to "turn the other cheek," and if asked “for our coat give our shirt” as well. I feel certain there are a number of other responses from which to choose.

In addition to the overt responses noted above, there is another, perhaps more subtle, level of response which each of us takes in response to provocation, sometimes knowingly and sometimes perhaps not so. It is this level of response which impacts our very souls. How we perceive the world in which we live helps to determine the world in which we dwell. I do not mean that we can change the realities, but how we choose to let the realties change us is within our control. When evil shuts us down, closes us off, and makes us edgy, nervous and suspicious, evil wins. When the terrorist creates enough fear that day-to-day living is impacted, the terrorist wins. When we choose to dwell in the hurt and pain, the pain and hurt win. The interesting point here is that it is our response, and not the presence of evil, or the behavior of the terrorist, or the hurt and pain, which rules the day. In this sense, we do create the world in which we live.

Conversare is the infinitive form of a Latin word which is best translated, "to live with, or have dealings with". Literally, the word means, "to turn around". From the root come our English words, "conversation" and perhaps also, "conversion". If you expand the possibilities of meaning beyond the merely literal, the word suggests how best people relate, one to another. I think it not too much of a stretch to say that one "converts" through "conversation". For conversation to take place, one must be attentive and open to the other. One must listen. Listening is an other-centered activity. For conversion to take place, one needs to feel first safe and valued, such that defensiveness can be abandoned in favor of presence. In a good marriage, for example, each partner seeks to assure a safe and secure place for the other such that both parties are equally valued, mutuality prevails and a genuine oneness is fashioned out of two. In such a union it is not about right and wrong but care, nurture and love. One subordinates one's own need(s) in favor of the other, and when both do that, each individual thrives. It is one of the great miracles of life. From the microcosm of marriage to the macrocosm of international relations, the dynamics remain the same. Conversion comes through conversation, and for conversation to be genuine, open, honest and forthright, there must first be a safe place where each party is valued. Mutual interest must prevail in the heart and mind of each party. One might cite the Amish as one group which seeks to model this approach to life.

Speak softly and carry a big stick? I think not. Create safe places for the others in our lives, celebrate diversity and remain open to all that is good even in the face of evil -- that is conversare and it is fundamental to healthy human beings.

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Breath of Pentecost

I've been reflecting on the Latin word, a verb which typically would be listed in a dictionary as:

spiro, spirare, spiravi, spiratus

If I remember correctly, because Latin is an inflected language, wherein verbs are conjugated, the various endings of the verb meaning various things, unlike English which uses helping words rather than endings, we have:

I breathe, to breathe, I have breath, breath

Our English word 'spirit' comes as a cognate from the participle, the fourth word listed above, 'spiratus', which translates 'breath'.

The Gospels report that Jesus 'breathed on them' as he said, 'receive the Holy Spirit', i.e., 'receive the holy breath.' It is not just a play on words, although it is that, it is rather the recognition that life is defined by respiration (continuous breathing). When breathing stops, life stops.

Receiving the Holy Spirit as we celebrate on Pentecost really means that we breathe God into our lives, and that only as we accept the breath of God into our bodies can we possibly live in/with God most fully. When we do that in community along with other people, that 'religious breath' becomes a more powerful force for following the teachings and conveying the love of Jesus.

Interestingly, 'ruah' from the Hebrew and 'pneuma' from the Greek, words used in the biblical texts which we translate as spirit, also both mean 'breath'!

Begs the question why the reformation translators came up with the word, 'ghost', as a proper rendering of the original languages! When we talk of the ‘Holy Spirit’ we're not talking, at least biblically, about an embodiment like Casper, but rather simply about breathing God into our lives and receiving (pardon the pun) inspiration!

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Approaching Ambiguity Creatively Means No Anglican Covenant

As one attempts to comprehend the reasons behind the current malaise in major Protestant organizations here in the United States, if not also in other "Western" countries, the question obtains, "why?" Is it possible to look beyond the presenting issues of border crossings and criteria for ordination to point to root issues such as, perhaps, corporate fear and/or the desire to centralize power? Is it possible to dig even deeper, to look for the fundamentals of corporate dysfunction? I postulate that the discomfort which stems from living in an increasingly disordered world may be an important factor in the current dysfunction. Ambiguity is antithetical to the desire for an ordered life yet we live in an increasingly ambiguous world. Instantaneous global communication only serves to heighten the ambiguity.

In the early 1970s the Episcopal Church in the dioceses of Maryland and Washington teamed up to offer recent graduates from seminary a two year program of continuing education, a program which combined group techniques with didactic presentations. Among the topics covered was leadership, what it means to be a leader, how to be an effective leader, and understanding various styles of leadership. I remember particularly materials from Teleometrics International which enabled each individual to self-analyze one's approach to leadership, and compare same to principles known to be effective based on scientific measurements. The materials appeared to be designed for corporate leadership and the training of managers in business applications, a fact which fit neatly into the emphasis of the church at the time of inquiring about how the organization and development of the corporate world might dovetail with the church. The church adopted from that work, as but a few examples, written job descriptions for employees, performance programs with annual reviews based upon the job descriptions, and, not coincidentally, the now ubiquitous "mission statement".

Concomitantly, some within the church were working on the distinctions between leadership in the business setting, and leadership in the voluntary sector. The management of an organization where people are paid to participate might well be different in kind and degree from management in an organization where people participate by choice, without monetary compensation. So-called voluntary institutions might well require adaptive techniques of leadership in order to be effective and successful. Churches are typically examples of the voluntary sector. Organizations dedicated to providing theory and training specifically for voluntary institutions developed and frequently were supported by the Church. In many dioceses participation in programs such as those offered by the Mid-Atlantic Committee for Training and Consulting or the National Training Laboratories were considered mandatory continuing education for clergy. While the information about leadership and management in the corporate world remained helpful to churches, typically training for leaders of churches was adapted to reflect the differences between the corporate environment and the voluntary sector.

One of the principles of effective leadership is that there does not have to be a disconnect between the well being of the company and the well being of the individual. The well being of company and worker can be "both and" rather than "either or" if effective leadership techniques are implemented. The often ambiguous relationship between the needs of the employer and the employee can be utilized to best effect for both at least theoretically. This dynamic is inherently more important in organizational structures where there is no monetary compensation for effort expended. Put succinctly, no one is forced to attend a church, a fact which churches seeking success must remember. The words of one of my mentors ring loudly in my ears to this very day: "You can only do what the people will give you permission to do." Another way of stating the case is that 'successful leadership in a voluntary organization requires the support of the members of the organization.'

In The Episcopal Church, the heritage with which we are gifted is one of openness and inclusion, people from various points of view and belief all worshiping together, bonding via a shared liturgy and good will. This heritage springs directly from the English Reformation and the unique solution to the ambiguity which the Catholic/Protestant split caused in the sixteenth century especially. Only in England were Protestant and Catholic forced (by government edict) to worship together during the Reformation. Perhaps only from Reformation England, therefore, can come the learning that in the midst diversity creative solutions exist. The wax and wane of Protestant influences vs. Catholic influences in the Church of England, and the resultant Anglican Communion, has been the cause of ambiguity ever since, but the creative solution has been to utilize a shared liturgy as the basis for togetherness among people of good will.

It is hard if not impossible to see how an attempt to codify the belief and practices of the constituent Provinces of the Anglican Communion is a creative solution to the ambiguity with which we all live in a global environment characterized by huge differences in demographics. The proposed Covenant is not a win/win solution -- it is a "play by my rules or I will take the ball and go home" stance. Instead of the highly commended (and scientifically verified) "both and" solution, the Covenant seeks to impose an "either or" choice as the only solution to the ambiguity with which we all are living.

So many years ago, I learned that my primary style of leadership is collaborative in nature, but that my backup style is authoritarian. Backup styles of leadership typically only are employed when the leader is under unusual stress, often as a last resort. In a voluntary system, 'collaborative' works but 'authoritarian' does not. In times of stress one must resist the temptation to utilize seductively attractive but ultimately unsuccessful styles of leadership, the more so in the voluntary system we call church. Perhaps those who are advancing the "either or" document called the Anglican Covenant to address the discomfort caused by the ambiguity of life in the church today might well consider a different approach, one in which openness and acceptance of all people prevail, one in which people of good will worship together even thought they may think and believe differently. Such a solution would be a "both and" solution, a creative approach to ambiguity.

The Missing Link: Where Have All The Thinkers Gone?

People who pay attention to the role of The Episcopal Church internationally know that TEC is a member of The Anglican Communion, a voluntary association of various provinces of like-minded Christians who either trace their history to the Church of England, or who wish to be in relationship with same. The Provinces historically hold in common a similar liturgy expressing the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist, acknowledgment of the two principal Creeds, the presence of the "historic Episcopate," and the belief that the Holy Scriptures "contain all things necessary to salvation." Although I am no expert in the inner workings of the Anglican Communion, it is my understanding that membership is determined finally by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. During the second half of the twentieth century and extending to the current time, the relationship of TEC to the AC has been strained due to various actions by TEC which on their face appear to be more liberal than are many of the Provinces, and indeed than is the Church of England itself.

Particular examples of the strain between TEC and C of E are the role of women in the church, and more recently the role of GLBT persons in the church. TEC permitted women to be ordained to the Priesthood before the C of E, and currently ordains women to the Episcopate while the C of E still does not. Regarding GLBT persons, the processes of ordination are open in the Episcopal Church both to the Priesthood and the Episcopate while in the C of E such is not the case, particularly to the Episcopate. It is my understanding that divorced clergy were accepted in TEC well before the C of E, and again the more so regarding the Episcopate.

There are substantial differences of polity (rules of governing) such that TEC is much more democratic in constitution and operation while the C of E is much more authoritarian. The most striking example is that in TEC bishops are elected by local dioceses (elections affirmed by both laity and clergy across TEC), but in C of E bishops are appointed by the Crown. Similar differences exist across the spectrum of the Anglican Communion between the various Provinces. Some Provinces are much more authoritarian than even the C of E, such that new bishops are simply appointed by existing bishops -- a most unfortunate kind of nepotism which leads to the potential for stifling of thought and extreme centralization of power.

The term of the day which is being used to describe the tension within the Anglican Communion is a "straining of the bonds of affection" between the various Provinces. This "straining of the bonds of affection" led the leaders of the AC initially to address the issues, often with position papers and statements of the bishops gathered in once-a-decade meetings in England. More recently the leaders have drafted a "Covenant" which attempts to set forth what are the defining characteristics of the AC, and to define some methods for resolving differences when they arise between the various Provinces. The logic appears to be that if one can define what is essentially Anglican, then one can limit participation to those who are in conformity with said essence, and discipline those who fail to continue to be in conformity.

As the proposed document is written, at least as this observer reads it, any Province can call into the question the actions, behaviors and beliefs of any other Province, setting into motion a process which ultimately adjudges the matter and sets forth potentially corrective actions. Failure to abide to the corrective actions can lead to "relational consequences". The process of the adoption of the Covenant is, itself, potentially punitive as the failure to adopt is likely to trigger a "relational consequence" -- that is, a Province either agrees to the Covenant and continues to be in the Anglican Communion, or fails to agree and is marginalized within the Anglican Communion.


What makes this process new is that heretofore individual Provinces were autonomous in the day-to-day management of their affairs, but with the Covenant in place individual Provinces will be subjected to the whims and wishes of the various other constituent members. Since sociological demographics vary from Province to Province so highly, it is easy to see how an action or accepted belief in one part of the world might not be acceptable to those in another part of the world. Again, heretofore this problem has been solved at the Provincial level without interference from afar. The covenant brings to an end the autonomous nature of the individual Provinces, and opens each Province to criticism and potentially punitive actions from one or more of the other Provinces. Thus, the Ugandan Province can call into question the Province of South Africa, and the Southern Cone can question TEC, etc. It is a sea-change in the nature of the Anglican Communion.

Historically, members of the Anglican Communion have been content to worship along side one another using similar liturgy and celebrating the four-fold outline of belief as enumerated above. Taking a clue from the work of Elizabeth One, the notion is that Protestant and Catholic, Reform and Orthodox, can, indeed should, worship together at the same altar using the same liturgy without questioning the personal integrity and beliefs of the individual kneeling next one to the other. The freedom of conscience guaranteed by Elizabeth to solve the discord between reform and traditional believers has led to a Communion historically more open than closed, more broad than narrow, more accepting than rejecting. It has been called a very large umbrella under which people of many individual beliefs neatly fit. This openness has permitted a theological flexibility giving rise to some very courageous theologians who in other presentations of Christianity may have been silenced -- I think of John A. T. Robinson, for example, or James Pike of the twentieth century, to George Whitefield, the brothers Wesley, and even John Henry Cardinal Newman, all of earlier Anglican origin. Today one marvels that N. T. Wright and John Spong stand side-by-side as bishops and theologians within the Anglican Communion. Make no mistake and mark my words well, this diversity of thought and belief is threatened by the proposed Anglican Covenant.

It Is Irrational

As if the attempt to define faith and belief is not mistaken on its face, the removal of reason from the equation is simply nuts, crazy, irrational to use a more appropriate word. From the earliest days of the AC, the exercise of human reason has been an integral part of the Church of England, and the resultant Anglican Communion. One of the greatest writers of the sixteenth century, one Richard Hooker, is attributed with the notion that Anglicanism is defined by the tests of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. By Scripture, Hooker means that theology must be rooted in and compliant with the record we find in the Holy Bible. By Tradition, Hooker means the accumulated teaching of the Church, most particularly from the time of Jesus forward to today, but arguably from the earliest recorded understandings of humankind regarding God. By Reason, Hooker means that we are called to exercise our brains, to think, to apply knowledge and intellectual skill to theology. When put into the context of the Reformation when Hooker was writing and when the teachings of the Pope were rejected at the cost of excommunication, the use of Reason as a test of faith comes more sharply into light. Without Reason, the Reformation as we know it today simply would not have occurred and Tetzel would still be selling get-out-of-hell-free cards to faithful lemmings.

Many have wondered why Reason is not included in the explication of faith and belief in the Anglican Covenant. Only recently have we learned that the omission of Reason as a test of theology on a par with Scripture and Tradition is not accidental at all but is, in fact, intentional. That singular quality which gave birth to the Church of England, separating it from the Roman Catholic Church in the middle of the sixteenth century four hundred and sixty some years ago, has been oh so discretely and quietly removed from the basic statement of what is the Anglican Communion. It is an incredibly, awesomely incomprehensible omission, and bespeaks at best a woesome ignorance of the crafters of the document. At worst it reflects a clandestine and subtle attempt to stifle differences, giving power into the hands of a few which heretofore they have never enjoyed. It distorts history and the very nature of the fundamental principles upon which the Church of England is based, it inhibits the expression of intellectual freedom and severs all pretense of the single greatest gift of our heritage -- our openness and acceptance of the other.

Surely God Weeps

TEC, the Church of England and many other representations of traditional Western Christian faith and belief are not doing very well when measured by the number of people at worship. The one thing TEC does have which seems to be attractive to the younger folk who are coming is the openness which historically has marked our denomination. The notion of Jesus with outstretched arms saying, "Come to me all who are heavy laden," is an inclusive and very attractive invitation. "Yes, he includes even me," you can hear them saying. When he called the brothers Zebedee, James and John, he did not ask for their signatures on a confessional document stipulating their assent to particulars of his thinking. The Anglican Covenant is just that, a confessional document stipulating particulars of faith, attempting to set boundaries around what is acceptable and what is not. The big, broad Anglican bumbershoot capable of protecting so many is no longer wide and broad, but is now more like a folded-up, mini-sized toy insufficient to protect even one individual from the precipitation of intolerance and inequality. Folk on the outside looking in at our petty quarrels and squabbles merely shake their heads and walk away: "who needs that", they say. Who can blame them? I cannot help but believe that the God of Love who invites all to come and follow must surely weep at the damage we are doing to ourselves even as this is being written. Apparently an unhealthy fear has taken hold of those in positions of authority such that immense harm is in the process of raining down upon the C of E, TEC and the Anglican Communion more broadly. This Covenant, this attempt retreat and retrench, to define who is "in" and who is "out", to centralize power, is fatally flawed not only in execution but more importantly in concept. The removal of reason from the document is quite understandable since the concept is so wholly irrational.