John Danforth served as a Republican Senator from Missouri from 1976-1995. During his distinguished career, he was known for firm political convictions spoken with a voice of reason and civility. What you may not know is that in addition to being a lawyer, a member of the Senate, and US Ambassador to the United Nations, Danforth is also an Episcopal priest, completing theological studies at Yale at the same time he was finishing law school. Following his retirement from active political life, Sen. Danforth has engaged in the work of peacemaking on several different fronts. As a priest, he presided at the funeral of President Reagan which was held at the National Cathedral.
Danforth recently preached the Commencement sermon at my seminary, The Seminary of the Southwest (Episcopal) in Austin. In his sermon, he cast a vision of the Episcopal Church as a body uniquely suited to engage in the critical work of healing and reconciliation in our deeply wounded body politic. He said:
In today's Gospel, the Pharisees locked people out when they should have been binding them into God's kingdom. In the Epistle, Paul was willing to embrace conflicting religious practices for the sake of the Gospel.
The model suggested by each lesson is of a church that invites, brings in and holds together all sorts of people with all kinds of differences. It is a church for just the project Peggy Noonan has in mind.
We Episcopalians are especially well positioned for this project. It's our tradition. We are the middle way. We reject extremes. We do not insist on doctrinal purity. We allow a variety of beliefs in our common prayer. We welcome all to our altars. We boast of being inclusive. The Episcopal church is in the business of holding things together. Some might think we are too broad a church, too open to differences in belief. But in the work of holding things together, our breadth is our strength, not our weakness.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What then should be our next steps? How do we go about the work of holding together a fractured country? The first step might be consciously to adopt reconciliation as the ministry of the Episcopal Church. If that's our work let's say so, and let's keep it in the front of our minds.
And let's make it clear that we are respectful of a variety of political opinions, even if we disagree with them. Some evangelical churches have done the opposite. You may have read a book called The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. If not, I commend it to you. It's about the segmentation of America into like minded communities and how some churches foster segmentation. It describes niche churches where members cluster together according to politics, reinforcing each others opinions. A predictor of how people will vote is where they worship. If we are serious about being inclusive, we must resist being a niche church that is identified with only one part of the political spectrum.
Here's a link to the full text of Senator Danforth's excellent sermon.
What do you think? Can the Church serve as an agent of healing and reconciliation in what is becoming an increasingly toxic public square? How might we at St Thomas serve as agents of reconciliation? Can we ourselves extend charity, civility, and respect to those whose political views differ from ours? Can we hold our own political views with sufficient humility to listen to and perhaps even learn from others? As we approach another election season, it seems to me that the manner in which we conduct our political conversations is at least as important as any particular policy issue. How we treat each other may shape our future more profoundly than who wins this or that election.
Thanks, Lex; a timely topic, indeed.
ReplyDeleteWhen Danforth's book was hot off the press, I had the pleasure of leading a book review of it at a club to which I belonged at the time. I even made an unsuccessful effort to have him travel from St. Louis to join us in Seattle for the occasion. The book was well received by our group & discussion was spirited and very enjoyable, especially since one of the participants in the discussion was from St. Louis and had been in law school with the good senator.
I agree that the Episcopal Church's openness is an asset that is helpful to our ascent as a people. Except for the Unitarians, I can't think of any other denomination as welcoming of such diverse views. I have battled change since the new Prayer Book only to be on the losing side every time. I was adamantly opposed to women in the priesthood until I experienced how truly wonderful the first female priest I encountered was.
In my view, the principle issue facing the country now is that our governments have become too large, too corrupt and too profligate for people who truly care about our country to be as compliant as we have been historically. I think this is sadly leading to anger and coarsened discourse and, I suspect, it is likely to only get worse. Of course, this is upsetting to the Peggy Noonans of the world; just as, I suspect, she will not have to be upset by the death of her father in an immoral war.
So, how do we co-exist when our ideas are so divergent about issues that so many of us feel so strongly? I’ve asked this question of myself many times. I have tacked between not discussing controversial subjects, to actually leaving the fold for a couple of years, to being too outspoken.
In responding to a controversy in a previous post last week, I think our very own Josh Hosler hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
“I believe that one of the most powerful witnesses to the Kingdom of God is the friendship of those of who have nothing in common but Christ. Not Christ plus feminism, not Christ plus capitalism, not Christ plus climate change ... just Christ. Christ is enough to unify us.”
Such wisdom; so simple. Why didn’t I think of that?
Very best,
Steve S.
Well, Steve, I certainly can't take credit for that wisdom; it comes from C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters." (Of course, in "The Screwtape Letters," the demon protagonist saw this wisdom as dangerous to his cause and did his best to distract the humans from discovering it.)
ReplyDeleteSo how does unity in Christ play out? I think some aspects include:
1) Humility. Not one of us has the whole story. And we never will.
2) Prayer and Worship. Queen Elizabeth I was very wise to base the Anglican Church around a Book of Common Prayer instead of a covenant of beliefs.
3) Holy Communion. First forgive your brother for the offense he made against you; then go and partake.
4) Common mission. This does not, in itself, make a church, but it goes a long way toward helping a wide variety of folks experience Christ together. Congregations for the Homeless has been a great example.
Are there others we can add to the list?
Josh
Steve and Josh, this is a great conversation and I hope others will weigh in. In my experience, when folks in a conflicted situation can take a deep breath and circle up around the things they each hold dear (e.g.,the Eucharist, the Incarnation ) and can share mission (e.g.,Congregations for the Homeless, Sophia Way) then the divisions won't be so sharp. Humanizing abstract concepts is also invaluable as in your wonderful example, Steve, of your opening to women in the priesthood after meeting a gifted woman priest. That's a great lesson for all of us of the importance of allowing ourselves to be available to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. And C.S. Lewis' observation that the heart of our faith is simply Christ and Christ alone, not Christ plus this or that ideological issue, is exactly the point of the Mary and Martha story where Jesus gently reminds Martha not to be distracted by "many things" but to keep focused on "the one thing", all that is needful, as he says, namely Christ!
ReplyDeleteWhat do others think?
Well, considering that the theme for the September Collect will be "Mary and Martha," I think someone's bound to be inspired to write an article. Who's up for it? (I'm writing one anyway ... but there could be more!)
ReplyDeleteSenator Danforth says a lot when he defines a term we hear in daily discourse, but don't often think about. "Fanaticism is holding ideas with uncompromising fervor. It's the elevation of ideology beyond the level of debatable opinion."
ReplyDeleteWhen Fanaticism appears Reason leaves the room.
Bob Simeone
Agreed, Bob. In fact, I would say that all our fervently held ideologies block growth towards spiritual maturity. The ideological mind sees everything monochromatically...good or bad;black or white;right or wrong.The contemplative, or spiritually mature, mind sees the world in all its variegated, technicolor reality. This is really the "mind of Christ",Christ embracing all that is, all of Creation, into himself and redeeming it all. When we take on the "mind of Christ", we walk the road of liberation from all the fear and anxiety that all our ideological conflicts stimulate. How do we take on "the mind of Christ"? It seems to me that always begins in prayer...but that's for another topic!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wonder ... how far does such a stance go toward eliminating the possibility of saying with certainty, "This is right ... this is wrong"? A lot of things fall into this category. What's the difference between a fervently held ideology and a moral compass?
ReplyDeleteI confess to enjoying the bumper sticker that says, "If you open your mind any farther, your brains will fall out!" As someone who can be open-minded to a fault, I think this is an important thing to hear.
I think the other term for this would be the danger of "moral relativism." We in the Episcopal Church are often accused of it, though I think many people make the accusation without a full understanding.
Josh, does it have to be either/or? Either rigidly held ideological positions or the empty vessel of "I'm OK, you're OK", "anything goes"relativism? We can always discriminate between behaviors that are "life-affirming" and behaviors that are "life-denying" without falling into the trap of pious judgmentalism.
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly what Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisees who criticized him for instructing his disciples to feed the hungry on the Sabbath in contravention of the letter of the Law. "The Sabbath was made for human beings, human beings weren't made for the Sabbath", he reminded them. It's also the theme of the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7 in which Jesus observes that he didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it! So we look to the person of Jesus, the Incarnation, and ask ourselves, "What did Jesus do"?
Well, he taught "with authority"; he healed he forgave and reconciled; he invited the poor and marginalized to join the feast, and he invited the rich and powerful insiders to sit at the foot of the table so they might learn the humility necessary to take on "the Mind of Christ"; he prayed for his enemies and forgave them; he discerned his Father's will for his mission and ministry and followed it even when it seemed to promise certain death. No moral relativism there!In fact, I would submit that the life and ministry of Jesus provide us with very clear moral guidelines. The problem is these guidelines mostly make us uncomfortable because they challenge our dearly held ideological positions.If the gospel doesn't make ALL of us uncomfortable, whether liberal or conservative, we're just not paying attention to it.
Thanks, Lex! Of course, nothing in life has to be either/or. But I'm always trying to find helpful language (like that you have just given) to counter the attitude that Episcopalians are moral relativists. I totally agree with you.
ReplyDeleteSenator Danforth said it quiet well:
ReplyDeleteI do not suggest that politics should be wishy washy and weak. Many of us have strong opinions on issues of the day. I do suggest that we should spend more effort resolving differences than winning points, that we should acknowledge the good will of those who disagree, and that we should stand up to fanatics on all sides.
Great discussion! Thanks! For a change, I'm more compelled to reflect than to expound!
ReplyDeleteSteve S.
Well, my silence didn't last too long. While reading this article about Boies Schiller, likely the most prominent litigation firm in the land, I was taken by this q & e which related somewhat to our discussion:
ReplyDelete"The Boies legend must loom large at your firm. Is the place full of baby Boieses — sharp, iconoclastic law grads with a taste for gambling?"
"What's typical is the diversity of personality and style at the firm. David has a broad scope of interests and abilities; he sends a strong signal that individualism is tolerated and encouraged. For instance, there's lots of support for our work on Prop 8 [where the firm is arguing against the ban on gay marriage in California], but there are also lots of Federalist Society members here. There's no sense of someone not fitting in because of their views. The idea of a stuffy lawyer is inconceivable here.
Peggy Noonan had a piece in today's WSJ:
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
It relates to your theme, Lex.
The last line is particularly poignant:
"Inner pessimism and powerlessness: That is a dangerous combination."
Steve S.