This morning the United States Army said that the suspect in the mass murder at Fort Hood shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before shooting. Of course, yesterday the Army said that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was dead, but now says he's not quite, so perhaps the Army's grasp of the facts is not yet firm. Still, let's say that it's true, what does it mean?
It means that Nidal Malik Hasan was Muslim, and that's all it means. A psychiatrist, he was obviously mentally ill, for one does not engage in acts of mass murder being of sound mind. Psychiatrists are not exempt from the diseases they treat. Mentally ill people are often religiously obsessed, (Richard Dawkins would say that by definition religious people are mentally ill, but he's mad as a hatter) and often equate the voices in their heads with God (or devils) telling them to commit some heinous act.
This does not mean that every Muslim American or Muslim immigrant is a potential mass murderer, any more than every Roman Catholic is potential child molester or every evangelical is a potential "abortion doctor" murderer.
What is most troubling about this incident is not Hasan's religion, nor the fact that Hasan's mental illness went undetected or excused. What is most troubling is that it is one more piece of evidence that the "fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here" war has been an abject failure. We lost that war. We lost it because we did not understand that one cannot fight ideas with guns. While we were busy doing the Imperial heavy lifting of changing regimes, young people in this country and around the world were being seduced by the idea that it was America who was the oppressor, America who was the terrorist nation, America who was the greatest threat to the future of the human race. One cannot disprove or dislodge those ideas by launching wars in distant deserts against people who all share the same religion. For all you will do is prove their arguments to be true.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Father Burwell Responds
Father Burwell has responded to my post in two emails sent last night. Rather than take any of what he said out of context, I will print them in their entirety below.
Dear Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to get to know me a little bit better today and I appreciated your kind report of our time together. I still feel we are closer on our theology than you do, but I can live with that. I only wish that you had mentioned more of the why I voted in favor of the four resolutions. In his speech to the convention the bishop passionately urged us to support the first four resolutions. The first resolution was not perceived by us the way you did, and I thought I made that clearer that I evidently did. If I had thought it was as you presented it, I too would have had problems with it.
Like you, I do agree resolution is problematical. But Resolution 2 was a resolution on strategy for engagement with the wider church, not a plan to begin leaving it. Resolution 2 did not take a stand on Scripture, ethics, or even the doctrine, discipline or worship of the Church. As a strategic proposal, the resolution was, in fact, amoral (neither immoral nor moral). As I mentioned to you, because am a priest who made an ordination vow to support his bishop and because I am a dean chosen by the bishop to represent him, I do not consider disobedience on amoral issues to be an acceptable course of action. Quite simply, I am duty bound to follow my Bishop's leadership in this matter, even if the strategy is not one that I myself would pursue. Thus, when faced with a vote on an issue of amoral strategy, I believe I can disagree privately with my bishop but I must publicly support him when he specifically and publicly asks me to do so.
My vote on Resolution 2 was motivated by catholic ecclesiology. I see the promises I made in my ordination vows requiring fidelity with my Bishop on matters of this nature despite my personal reluctance to pursue such a strategy. Had Bishop Lawrence asked something of me that plainly contradicted the teaching of Holy Scripture or the Church throughout the ages; that would have been an entirely different matter. No one is ever obligated to obey Episcopal leadership when to do so would require sin against God. I have conducted my entire priestly ministry with these principles ever before me.
I can not understand how my loyalty to my bishop in a non-moral resolution on a strategy intended to engage the church (not leave it) by staying and making a statement of conscience should call into question my fitness to serve you as bishop. I simply can not understand how something like this completely negates (or at the very least discounts) all of my gifting in the very areas Upper South Carolina said it wanted for their next bishop.
Is this grace? I wouldn't treat you this way and I humbly ask you to reconsider.
In Christ,
Jbb+
Email #2
Tim,
One last note and I'll shut up. You also wrote that Dioceses do not have the canonical right to reject individual resolutions with which they disagree. Actually, while canons passed by convention are binding, resolutions are not. This is why a canon was passed requiring ordination of females.
If resolutions of the Church are indeed as binding as canons, why were Bishop Browning and 28 other bishops allowed to go unpunished when they posted a statement years ago saying that they would not abide by a resolution passed by the 1979 Convention? Here is a quote from /Toward a Full and Equal Claim/: "...we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses..."
Their statement of 30 years ago was praised in the wider church as a statement of conscience. That is what SC was doing, in the eyes of the people who crafted it.
I promise I'll say no more till I hear back from you. Thank you for hearing me out.
In Christ,
Jbb+
Dear Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to get to know me a little bit better today and I appreciated your kind report of our time together. I still feel we are closer on our theology than you do, but I can live with that. I only wish that you had mentioned more of the why I voted in favor of the four resolutions. In his speech to the convention the bishop passionately urged us to support the first four resolutions. The first resolution was not perceived by us the way you did, and I thought I made that clearer that I evidently did. If I had thought it was as you presented it, I too would have had problems with it.
Like you, I do agree resolution is problematical. But Resolution 2 was a resolution on strategy for engagement with the wider church, not a plan to begin leaving it. Resolution 2 did not take a stand on Scripture, ethics, or even the doctrine, discipline or worship of the Church. As a strategic proposal, the resolution was, in fact, amoral (neither immoral nor moral). As I mentioned to you, because am a priest who made an ordination vow to support his bishop and because I am a dean chosen by the bishop to represent him, I do not consider disobedience on amoral issues to be an acceptable course of action. Quite simply, I am duty bound to follow my Bishop's leadership in this matter, even if the strategy is not one that I myself would pursue. Thus, when faced with a vote on an issue of amoral strategy, I believe I can disagree privately with my bishop but I must publicly support him when he specifically and publicly asks me to do so.
My vote on Resolution 2 was motivated by catholic ecclesiology. I see the promises I made in my ordination vows requiring fidelity with my Bishop on matters of this nature despite my personal reluctance to pursue such a strategy. Had Bishop Lawrence asked something of me that plainly contradicted the teaching of Holy Scripture or the Church throughout the ages; that would have been an entirely different matter. No one is ever obligated to obey Episcopal leadership when to do so would require sin against God. I have conducted my entire priestly ministry with these principles ever before me.
I can not understand how my loyalty to my bishop in a non-moral resolution on a strategy intended to engage the church (not leave it) by staying and making a statement of conscience should call into question my fitness to serve you as bishop. I simply can not understand how something like this completely negates (or at the very least discounts) all of my gifting in the very areas Upper South Carolina said it wanted for their next bishop.
Is this grace? I wouldn't treat you this way and I humbly ask you to reconsider.
In Christ,
Jbb+
Email #2
Tim,
One last note and I'll shut up. You also wrote that Dioceses do not have the canonical right to reject individual resolutions with which they disagree. Actually, while canons passed by convention are binding, resolutions are not. This is why a canon was passed requiring ordination of females.
If resolutions of the Church are indeed as binding as canons, why were Bishop Browning and 28 other bishops allowed to go unpunished when they posted a statement years ago saying that they would not abide by a resolution passed by the 1979 Convention? Here is a quote from /Toward a Full and Equal Claim/: "...we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses..."
Their statement of 30 years ago was praised in the wider church as a statement of conscience. That is what SC was doing, in the eyes of the people who crafted it.
I promise I'll say no more till I hear back from you. Thank you for hearing me out.
In Christ,
Jbb+
Monday, November 02, 2009
The Bishop Candidate: The Very Reverend John B. Burwell Part 5 Lunch at Queen Anne's Revenge
The Very Reverend John B. Burwell,wrote to me after one of my posts and told me that I had misunderstood him. Some of our email exchange was posted here. We agreed to meet for lunch today to sit down in person and try to understand each other.
We met at Queen Anne's Revenge, a pirate-themed restaurant in the Disney-esque planned community of Daniel Island. We joked about how in the future there might be crack-dealer themed restaurants, with family-oriented rides at theme parks celebrating those fun-loving gangstas. He paid for my delicious lunch of shrimp and grits. I found him to be an engaging person, who seemed genuinely hurt that I didn't get him.
I told him my faith story, to help him understand why I hold onto The Episcopal Church like a lifeline, and why those who seem so insistent on theological correctness leave me cold and angry. He told me that he shares my passion for The Episcopal Church (no abbreviations today) and why he would never, ever, under any circumstances, leave it. He told me that he had paid a steep price for his outspokenness among the secessionists in his Diocese, describing himself as being "shunned" for walking out of an August 13 meeting of the Standing Committee where five resolutions were prepared for the special diocesan convention of October 24. The text of those resolutions is here.
The first of those resolutions,“The Lordship of Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture” was passed by 86.7% of those present, including Fr. Burwell. I could not have voted for it, since it contains a statement that I take exception to: “The substance of the 'doctrine, discipline and worship' of The Episcopal Church ...is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.” The (Apostles' and Nicene) Creeds, yes. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, maybe. The Thirty-Nine Articles and "the historic prayer books:" not so fast, buster.
The Thirty-Nine Articles are received by The Episcopal Church as part of the heritage of the Anglicanism, and while they are in the Book of Common Prayer (in the section under "Historical Doctrines of the Church"), they are not part of the doctrine, discipline or worship of The Episcopal Church. According to the Canons, the doctrine of The Episcopal Church "is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.” The Discipline of the The Episcopal Church according to the Canons is “found in the Constitution, the Canons, and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer”. The worship of course, is found in the Prayer book's Daily Offices and the Sacramental and Episcopal Services, as well the Book of Occasional Services. As to "the historical prayer books," well that is a long, seperate subject in itself. Suffice it to say the there is one authorized Prayer Book for The Episcopal Church, that of 1979. All the others are interesting historical documents in themselves, but we don't use them in worship any more. This all is pretty weird considering the title of Resolution was "the Sufficiency of Scripture."
Resolution 2 is really problematic. It authorizes "the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church" with which the Diocese of South Carolina disagrees. Further, it declares that "the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56 to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese." The reference is to resolutions passed by General Convention this year. Dioceses do not have the canonical right to reject individual resolutions with which they disagree. They are binding upon all jurisdictions of the Episcopal Church until amended or superseded.
Resolutions 3 and 4 are perfectly innocuous, considering that Dioceses have the right to have missional relationships with other Dioceses anyway. They are written in a sort of "Here I Stand" breathlessness, but they are like saying "we love Jesus." You don't need a resolution to do it.
Resolution 5 is a particularly noxious bit of sexual purity doublethink which says that the Diocese of South Carolina "will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered." Instead, it will "speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ." In other words, "those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered" better stop believing that or risk damnation.
So how did Fr. Burwell vote? "I helped defeat Resolution 5, " he said, "because it singled out sexual sin from other other sins." On the others? "I voted for Resolution 2, because I am a Dean and in submission to my Bishop. To do otherwise would have required me to resign." He also supported 1,3 and 4.
We talked about the diaconal charge of submission and Fr. Burwell reminded me that he is not just a priest, but a deacon, and thus in absolute submission to his Bishop. Since Bishop Mark Lawrence told him he must vote for it, he did. Too bad he didn't resign over the issue. A resignation over that issue would have been seen favorably in Upper South Carolina, and just might have guranteed him selection as the Eighth Bishop of this Diocese.
John Burwell told me repeatedly, "I am not a politician. Sometimes I just say what comes to my mind." I suppose that was a defense against my telling him that his comments about Spanish language versions of Day By Day were offensive.
At the beginning of this process, I was determined not to endorse any of the candidates, but to explore their record and to try to determine how they would lead us as a Diocese. I will have to submit to whichever of them becomes Bishop or renounce my Ordination vows. My job as a Deacon is to tell you the truth.
John Burwell is a kind man, and I am thankful for the grace with which he reached out to me and received me. I am grateful to have gotten to know him better. He is deeper, more thoughtful and more engimatic than the one-dimensional character I had pictured him to be. The work he has done at Holy Cross reveals a gifted church planter and developer. He and I are miles apart theologically, but I am sure that his love for Jesus is genuine, and in The Episcopal Church that's supposed to be what keeps us in communion with each other.
Still, it all comes down to this: John Burwell's votes last week at his own Diocesan Convention call into question whether he can serve this Diocese or The Episcopal Church as a Bishop.
We met at Queen Anne's Revenge, a pirate-themed restaurant in the Disney-esque planned community of Daniel Island. We joked about how in the future there might be crack-dealer themed restaurants, with family-oriented rides at theme parks celebrating those fun-loving gangstas. He paid for my delicious lunch of shrimp and grits. I found him to be an engaging person, who seemed genuinely hurt that I didn't get him.
I told him my faith story, to help him understand why I hold onto The Episcopal Church like a lifeline, and why those who seem so insistent on theological correctness leave me cold and angry. He told me that he shares my passion for The Episcopal Church (no abbreviations today) and why he would never, ever, under any circumstances, leave it. He told me that he had paid a steep price for his outspokenness among the secessionists in his Diocese, describing himself as being "shunned" for walking out of an August 13 meeting of the Standing Committee where five resolutions were prepared for the special diocesan convention of October 24. The text of those resolutions is here.
The first of those resolutions,“The Lordship of Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture” was passed by 86.7% of those present, including Fr. Burwell. I could not have voted for it, since it contains a statement that I take exception to: “The substance of the 'doctrine, discipline and worship' of The Episcopal Church ...is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.” The (Apostles' and Nicene) Creeds, yes. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, maybe. The Thirty-Nine Articles and "the historic prayer books:" not so fast, buster.
The Thirty-Nine Articles are received by The Episcopal Church as part of the heritage of the Anglicanism, and while they are in the Book of Common Prayer (in the section under "Historical Doctrines of the Church"), they are not part of the doctrine, discipline or worship of The Episcopal Church. According to the Canons, the doctrine of The Episcopal Church "is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.” The Discipline of the The Episcopal Church according to the Canons is “found in the Constitution, the Canons, and the Rubrics and the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer”. The worship of course, is found in the Prayer book's Daily Offices and the Sacramental and Episcopal Services, as well the Book of Occasional Services. As to "the historical prayer books," well that is a long, seperate subject in itself. Suffice it to say the there is one authorized Prayer Book for The Episcopal Church, that of 1979. All the others are interesting historical documents in themselves, but we don't use them in worship any more. This all is pretty weird considering the title of Resolution was "the Sufficiency of Scripture."
Resolution 2 is really problematic. It authorizes "the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of the Episcopal Church" with which the Diocese of South Carolina disagrees. Further, it declares that "the passage of Resolutions DO25 and CO56 to be null and void, having no effect in this Diocese." The reference is to resolutions passed by General Convention this year. Dioceses do not have the canonical right to reject individual resolutions with which they disagree. They are binding upon all jurisdictions of the Episcopal Church until amended or superseded.
Resolutions 3 and 4 are perfectly innocuous, considering that Dioceses have the right to have missional relationships with other Dioceses anyway. They are written in a sort of "Here I Stand" breathlessness, but they are like saying "we love Jesus." You don't need a resolution to do it.
Resolution 5 is a particularly noxious bit of sexual purity doublethink which says that the Diocese of South Carolina "will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered." Instead, it will "speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ." In other words, "those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered" better stop believing that or risk damnation.
So how did Fr. Burwell vote? "I helped defeat Resolution 5, " he said, "because it singled out sexual sin from other other sins." On the others? "I voted for Resolution 2, because I am a Dean and in submission to my Bishop. To do otherwise would have required me to resign." He also supported 1,3 and 4.
We talked about the diaconal charge of submission and Fr. Burwell reminded me that he is not just a priest, but a deacon, and thus in absolute submission to his Bishop. Since Bishop Mark Lawrence told him he must vote for it, he did. Too bad he didn't resign over the issue. A resignation over that issue would have been seen favorably in Upper South Carolina, and just might have guranteed him selection as the Eighth Bishop of this Diocese.
John Burwell told me repeatedly, "I am not a politician. Sometimes I just say what comes to my mind." I suppose that was a defense against my telling him that his comments about Spanish language versions of Day By Day were offensive.
At the beginning of this process, I was determined not to endorse any of the candidates, but to explore their record and to try to determine how they would lead us as a Diocese. I will have to submit to whichever of them becomes Bishop or renounce my Ordination vows. My job as a Deacon is to tell you the truth.
John Burwell is a kind man, and I am thankful for the grace with which he reached out to me and received me. I am grateful to have gotten to know him better. He is deeper, more thoughtful and more engimatic than the one-dimensional character I had pictured him to be. The work he has done at Holy Cross reveals a gifted church planter and developer. He and I are miles apart theologically, but I am sure that his love for Jesus is genuine, and in The Episcopal Church that's supposed to be what keeps us in communion with each other.
Still, it all comes down to this: John Burwell's votes last week at his own Diocesan Convention call into question whether he can serve this Diocese or The Episcopal Church as a Bishop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
