My sister's wealthy, gay friend wrote to me to tell me that he has set up an endowment scholarship fund in her memory. Here's the information on the eligibility for the scholarships:
The Dillenkoffer Endowment was formed to support gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teens with college tuition grants in Kansas and Missouri.
Gay teens across the country continue to face personal and academic challenges unlike those faced by their straight classmates. In addition to challenges at school, many face rejection by their families and the community at large as well as religious persecution. Even violence is not uncommon. Statistics show gay teens are more likely to abuse substances, drop out of school, run away from home, be involved in prostitution and attempt suicide.
The Dillenkoffer Endowment's mission is to:
* recognize and reward gay teens who are able to succeed in the face of personal and academic challenges;
* help them achieve even greater success through higher education; and
* provide them with the tools to be role models to others as they become young adults.
If you go to the site you will find pictures of my sister in all the transformations of her appearance. She was given to making drastic changes rather quickly and often. She was a lovely person, and I miss her terribly still, as she was my closest confidante. The one-year anniversary of her death is near the end of this month. The address of the site is www.dillenkoffer.org/
I'm sure she looks upon this with great delight.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Six Weird Things About Me
My "friend" Eileen, whom I will never forgive, has tagged me for the meme. Only six? I could go on and on.
1. I am claustrophic. After several hours on a plane, I want to break a window and jump out.
2. I have acrophobia. I can't go more than two steps up on a ladder, or I get dizzy. Once, at the top of Mont Blanc, after ascendng the inside steps to the very tip, I had to descend the outside steps sitting on my bottom. The steps were metal grating that you could SEE THROUGH!
3. I love my time alone. (Is that weird?)
4. I have gephyrophobia (fear of bridges) over water, even bridges over untroubled water.
5. I am the quintessential Jewish mother, even though I'm not Jewish.
6. I'm with Doxy. I simply cannot pass the meme on.
Correction: Eileen did not tag me; it was Julie+. My humblest apologies to you, Eileen.
1. I am claustrophic. After several hours on a plane, I want to break a window and jump out.
2. I have acrophobia. I can't go more than two steps up on a ladder, or I get dizzy. Once, at the top of Mont Blanc, after ascendng the inside steps to the very tip, I had to descend the outside steps sitting on my bottom. The steps were metal grating that you could SEE THROUGH!
3. I love my time alone. (Is that weird?)
4. I have gephyrophobia (fear of bridges) over water, even bridges over untroubled water.
5. I am the quintessential Jewish mother, even though I'm not Jewish.
6. I'm with Doxy. I simply cannot pass the meme on.
Correction: Eileen did not tag me; it was Julie+. My humblest apologies to you, Eileen.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Auden Centenary In York
Henry Alford writes in "Shouts and Murmurs" for The New Yorker, this short humorous piece titled The Knowledge, inspired by an article in The Times noting that cabdrivers in York have been memorizing Auden's poems to entertain their passengers who are visiting the city for the centenary celebration. Here's an excerpt from Alfords piece:
’Ewas me Norf, me Souf, me East and West,
Me working week and me Sund’y rest,
Me noon, me midnight, me talk, me song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.
’E ’ad a gentleman friend, Mr. Auden did, dinnee? Bit of a trouser man, orroight? That seems to be the way nowadays, innit, wif actors and M.P.s and clergy and wot ’ave you. In my day, there weren’t a need to fling yer spanky knackers into other folks’ faces all jumble-wumble and ’ere’s-mine-guv’nor. Though the missus did drag me to see Mr. Rudolf Nureyev at the ballet once. That man packed a full bag of groceries, dinnee?
The whole thing is quite funny and short, so definitely click on the link to read the rest.
Note to MadPriest: this is much more your sort of thing, but I decided that I would have it.
The anniversary occurred on 21 February 2007, so it's probably too late to plan to attend.
’Ewas me Norf, me Souf, me East and West,
Me working week and me Sund’y rest,
Me noon, me midnight, me talk, me song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.
’E ’ad a gentleman friend, Mr. Auden did, dinnee? Bit of a trouser man, orroight? That seems to be the way nowadays, innit, wif actors and M.P.s and clergy and wot ’ave you. In my day, there weren’t a need to fling yer spanky knackers into other folks’ faces all jumble-wumble and ’ere’s-mine-guv’nor. Though the missus did drag me to see Mr. Rudolf Nureyev at the ballet once. That man packed a full bag of groceries, dinnee?
The whole thing is quite funny and short, so definitely click on the link to read the rest.
Note to MadPriest: this is much more your sort of thing, but I decided that I would have it.
The anniversary occurred on 21 February 2007, so it's probably too late to plan to attend.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
"Clarity And Charity" From Bishop Jenkins
Since I do not know whether the comment moderation is kept up to date on the Diocese of Louisiana website, I'll go ahead and post Bishhop Jenkins' response along with my email to him at the website: (See Bishop Jenkins' Response below)
A Response to the House of Bishops
The Clarity and Charity of a Self-Differentiating Act
Each action taken by a leader or a group in leadership towards clarity is not necessarily a movement towards differentiation. The difference between mature leadership and tyranny is that the former makes room for points of view differing from the majority, while the latter can hardly tolerate divergence from the majority opinion. As Ed Friedman once noted, “the more monolithic the system, the more dissent is seen as destructive.” Both the differentiated leader and the tyrant may be clear and well defined but clarity alone does not make an action a mature response. To quote Ed Friedman, “The critical issue in determining differentiation is the ability to tolerate difference.” The paradox between clarity as differentiation or as tyranny is defined in part by the attempt of the leader or group in power to coerce the other into accepting the majority opinion.
Dissent from the actions of various General Conventions does not imply a desire to “divide our Church.” I am one who has a deep “love for the Episcopal Church, the integrity of its identity, and the continuance of its life and ministry.” I have for years suggested that the Episcopal Church should separate (do not hear what I am not saying) in order that we need not separate. Again, this is a concept put forward by Rabbi Friedman. By “separate in order not to separate”, I do not mean division or schism. I am not talking about parallel jurisdictions, as the concept seems to have been put forth. I am not talking about two Anglican Churches in North America or anywhere else. I am saying that we Episcopalians have lately become too close and as in a marriage, such over-closeness, or fusion, often leads to separation or even divorce. I have been told the Canons do not allow for an appropriate sense of distance in our ecclesiastical relations to avoid an absolute separation for divorce. I may be the only person in the Episcopal Church who believes that we have become fused with one another (I have not been able to sell this concept).
I disagree with the widely held perception by members of the House of Bishops that the “Communication from the March 2007 Meeting of the House of Bishops” was in fact a differentiating move. For sure, it was clear, but the inability of the majority to tolerate dissent, to engage a spirit of adventure (one would hope under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), and the tendency towards historical gloss make me question the value of the Communication as an act of self-differentiation.
The Lambeth Conference of 1998 was a clear demonstration to all in the Communion who had eyes to see that the traditional connections and relationships of the Anglican Communion were under great challenge as insufficient for the future of the Communion. The traditional axis of the United Kingdom, North America, and Australia was not alone representative of the future of the Church. I think the great adventure for us as Anglican Christians is to seek prayerfully the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discern humbly where God would have us grow as Communion. The opportunity to avoid fusion and herding as well as separation and schism, is the exciting adventure that is sidetracked by the Bishops’ rigid appeal to our polity. Episcopal Bishops have said repeatedly that brothers and sisters from around the world do not understand the polity of The Episcopal Church. Such a statement seems to suggest that if our brothers and sisters did understand our Episcopal polity, they would accept it. I am not willing to make such an imperialistic assumption. I think many outside of the Episcopal Church do understand our polity. They just do not buy it. I assume that to engage a great adventure of where the Holy Spirit would lead us does not necessarily mean that we know the answer before we even bend our knees in prayer.
I was not at the March 2007 meeting of the House of Bishops when the “Communication” was discussed and voted on. I had returned from Camp Allen to New Orleans for a series of meetings and events that demanded my presence. I would have spoken against and voted against the “Communication” had I been present. It was a done deal by the time I was able to return to Camp Allen.
The Gospel of John tells us of Jesus’ prayer from the Upper Room “that they may be one as we are one.” (St. John 17.22b) As we keep this Maundy Thursday, let us pray that God will in all truth make real in our lives even a dim shadow of that perfect unity of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.
04.04.2007
Here's my comment:
Dear Bishop Jenkins,
I understand that you are under great stress since Katrina and the flood, with scattered members of the flock, priests who have no congregations, priests who have moved on to other locations, ruined churches, and your own home flooded. I want you to know that I pray for you, because I know you bear heavy burdens at this time, and that there is still much work to be done.
I read your response to the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen. I understand that you were not present for the discussion and vote on the "Communication" that the bishops released, and that you would have spoken against it and voted against it, had you been there.
Beyond that, I confess that I understand little of the rest of your response. Where is the "tyranny"? Is it in the House of Bishops? I am not familiar with Rabbi Friedman's books, and I do not understand your statements that reference his ideas.
What can you mean by saying that the Episcopal Church must "separate in order not to separate"? What do you mean when you say that the church has become overclose or fused, which could lead to a divorce?
You say that certain members of the Communion "just do not buy it" [the polity of the Episcopal Church] So, what then? It is not within the power of the House Of Bishops, by itself, to change the polity of the Episcopal Church. There is another House, the House of Deputies. There is a process for making changes in the Canons of the Episcopal Church. I like the democracy in the Episcopal Church, and I would like to retain it.
You say what you don't mean; you don't mean schism or division, nor do you mean parallel jurisdictions, but I'm not sure what you do mean.
I can't think what sort of "great adventure" you have in mind. If the adventure involves putting the Episcopal Church under the authority of the likes of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria and Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, who are already intruding in our church in a manner which they have no right to do, I would be greatly disappointed. There are many problems in their own countries which need to be addressed, and they should stay home and tend to them.
Let me make myself clear, Bishop Jenkins: I pray that the Episcopal Church is not excluded from the Anglican Communion, but should that happen, I would take my place firmly within the Episcopal Chruch. I pray that you do not have in mind to press for a withdrawial of the Diocese of Louisiana from the Episcopal Church.
Although I am only a humble Episcopalian in the pew, I feel sort of dull and stupid not to understand more of your response, even after reading it several times. Perhaps you can shed light for me.
UPDATE: At church today, Sunday April 15, we received a printed handout of Bishop Jenkins' "Response To The House Of Bishops", but without an explanation or translation.
A Response to the House of Bishops
The Clarity and Charity of a Self-Differentiating Act
Each action taken by a leader or a group in leadership towards clarity is not necessarily a movement towards differentiation. The difference between mature leadership and tyranny is that the former makes room for points of view differing from the majority, while the latter can hardly tolerate divergence from the majority opinion. As Ed Friedman once noted, “the more monolithic the system, the more dissent is seen as destructive.” Both the differentiated leader and the tyrant may be clear and well defined but clarity alone does not make an action a mature response. To quote Ed Friedman, “The critical issue in determining differentiation is the ability to tolerate difference.” The paradox between clarity as differentiation or as tyranny is defined in part by the attempt of the leader or group in power to coerce the other into accepting the majority opinion.
Dissent from the actions of various General Conventions does not imply a desire to “divide our Church.” I am one who has a deep “love for the Episcopal Church, the integrity of its identity, and the continuance of its life and ministry.” I have for years suggested that the Episcopal Church should separate (do not hear what I am not saying) in order that we need not separate. Again, this is a concept put forward by Rabbi Friedman. By “separate in order not to separate”, I do not mean division or schism. I am not talking about parallel jurisdictions, as the concept seems to have been put forth. I am not talking about two Anglican Churches in North America or anywhere else. I am saying that we Episcopalians have lately become too close and as in a marriage, such over-closeness, or fusion, often leads to separation or even divorce. I have been told the Canons do not allow for an appropriate sense of distance in our ecclesiastical relations to avoid an absolute separation for divorce. I may be the only person in the Episcopal Church who believes that we have become fused with one another (I have not been able to sell this concept).
I disagree with the widely held perception by members of the House of Bishops that the “Communication from the March 2007 Meeting of the House of Bishops” was in fact a differentiating move. For sure, it was clear, but the inability of the majority to tolerate dissent, to engage a spirit of adventure (one would hope under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), and the tendency towards historical gloss make me question the value of the Communication as an act of self-differentiation.
The Lambeth Conference of 1998 was a clear demonstration to all in the Communion who had eyes to see that the traditional connections and relationships of the Anglican Communion were under great challenge as insufficient for the future of the Communion. The traditional axis of the United Kingdom, North America, and Australia was not alone representative of the future of the Church. I think the great adventure for us as Anglican Christians is to seek prayerfully the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discern humbly where God would have us grow as Communion. The opportunity to avoid fusion and herding as well as separation and schism, is the exciting adventure that is sidetracked by the Bishops’ rigid appeal to our polity. Episcopal Bishops have said repeatedly that brothers and sisters from around the world do not understand the polity of The Episcopal Church. Such a statement seems to suggest that if our brothers and sisters did understand our Episcopal polity, they would accept it. I am not willing to make such an imperialistic assumption. I think many outside of the Episcopal Church do understand our polity. They just do not buy it. I assume that to engage a great adventure of where the Holy Spirit would lead us does not necessarily mean that we know the answer before we even bend our knees in prayer.
I was not at the March 2007 meeting of the House of Bishops when the “Communication” was discussed and voted on. I had returned from Camp Allen to New Orleans for a series of meetings and events that demanded my presence. I would have spoken against and voted against the “Communication” had I been present. It was a done deal by the time I was able to return to Camp Allen.
The Gospel of John tells us of Jesus’ prayer from the Upper Room “that they may be one as we are one.” (St. John 17.22b) As we keep this Maundy Thursday, let us pray that God will in all truth make real in our lives even a dim shadow of that perfect unity of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.
04.04.2007
Here's my comment:
Dear Bishop Jenkins,
I understand that you are under great stress since Katrina and the flood, with scattered members of the flock, priests who have no congregations, priests who have moved on to other locations, ruined churches, and your own home flooded. I want you to know that I pray for you, because I know you bear heavy burdens at this time, and that there is still much work to be done.
I read your response to the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen. I understand that you were not present for the discussion and vote on the "Communication" that the bishops released, and that you would have spoken against it and voted against it, had you been there.
Beyond that, I confess that I understand little of the rest of your response. Where is the "tyranny"? Is it in the House of Bishops? I am not familiar with Rabbi Friedman's books, and I do not understand your statements that reference his ideas.
What can you mean by saying that the Episcopal Church must "separate in order not to separate"? What do you mean when you say that the church has become overclose or fused, which could lead to a divorce?
You say that certain members of the Communion "just do not buy it" [the polity of the Episcopal Church] So, what then? It is not within the power of the House Of Bishops, by itself, to change the polity of the Episcopal Church. There is another House, the House of Deputies. There is a process for making changes in the Canons of the Episcopal Church. I like the democracy in the Episcopal Church, and I would like to retain it.
You say what you don't mean; you don't mean schism or division, nor do you mean parallel jurisdictions, but I'm not sure what you do mean.
I can't think what sort of "great adventure" you have in mind. If the adventure involves putting the Episcopal Church under the authority of the likes of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria and Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, who are already intruding in our church in a manner which they have no right to do, I would be greatly disappointed. There are many problems in their own countries which need to be addressed, and they should stay home and tend to them.
Let me make myself clear, Bishop Jenkins: I pray that the Episcopal Church is not excluded from the Anglican Communion, but should that happen, I would take my place firmly within the Episcopal Chruch. I pray that you do not have in mind to press for a withdrawial of the Diocese of Louisiana from the Episcopal Church.
Although I am only a humble Episcopalian in the pew, I feel sort of dull and stupid not to understand more of your response, even after reading it several times. Perhaps you can shed light for me.
UPDATE: At church today, Sunday April 15, we received a printed handout of Bishop Jenkins' "Response To The House Of Bishops", but without an explanation or translation.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Bishop Jenkins' Response
I had already written a post on Bishop Charles Jenkins' response to the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen and the "Communication" from the meeting. However, the bishop has put up a comments box on the website of the Diocese of Louisiana, and I thought it best to write what I wanted to say there. I had sent him an email, but had not heard back on that, so I pretty much repeated my email and added a bit more. The comments are moderated, therefore I'm not 100% sure if mine will make it to the site. Let me say that it is perfectly polite, but not necessarily complimentary.
Please find the site yourself, because a link will send him here, and I'm not sure I'm ready for that. I will be found out sooner or later, I'm sure, but I'm not going out of my way to identify myself. Is that cowardly of me?
Please find the site yourself, because a link will send him here, and I'm not sure I'm ready for that. I will be found out sooner or later, I'm sure, but I'm not going out of my way to identify myself. Is that cowardly of me?
Monday, April 9, 2007
Supper At Emmaus
Supper at Emmaus by Caravaggio, 1601
Then he [Jesus] said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.From Rmj in the comments to my Noli Me Tangere post below:
As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over. "So he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?"
Luke 24:25-32
We used to have wonderful discussions in seminary about Jesus after the resurrection. Did he have a body, or not? All the Gospel witnesses are intentional[ly] inconclusive. In Luke, he appears to the disciples, but is only recognized in the breaking of the bread, then he vanishes. In John, he walks through walls and closed doors, but has wounds that can be touched, and eats fish with Peter (to prove he's not a ghost).Indeed it is! Assuming Jesus had a body of some sort, I wonder what it would have been like to be among the disciples on the road to Emmaus with Jesus and hear him explain the Scriptures. What would it have been like to break bread with Jesus that night? Although they did not know him as they walked with him, there was something about him that made them want to remain in his presence. I put myself in their company.
Fascinating stuff. Ambiguity is the very warp and woof of life!
Come And Eat With MeFrom Luke 24:25-32
Will you come and eat with me?
You can stay the night.
Stay just a while and have a meal.
As we break our bread, we'll talk.
Stay with me; rest a while.
Here, take your bread.
Wait! Who are you?
You are Jesus, the one who died!
You are dead, but here you are alive,
Here you break bread with me.
You made me come alive,
As you spoke to me of the prophets.
You set my heart on fire when you told me
How you had to suffer and to die.
What! You're gone? Just like that?
June Butler - 4/9/07
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Noli Me Tangere
Noli Me Tangere (1524), by Hans Holbein the Younger
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." When she had said this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”John 20:11-17
Why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch him? In my search for an answer, I found this article in The Smithsonian Magazine, titled "Who Was Mary Magdalene?" by James Carroll, who writes a regular column in The Boston Globe.
The multiplicity of the Marys by itself was enough to mix things up—as were the various accounts of anointing, which in one place is the act of a loose-haired prostitute, in another of a modest stranger preparing Jesus for the tomb, and in yet another of a beloved friend named Mary. Women who weep, albeit in a range of circumstances, emerged as a motif. As with every narrative, erotic details loomed large, especially because Jesus’ attitude toward women with sexual histories was one of the things that set him apart from other teachers of the time. Not only was Jesus remembered as treating women with respect, as equals in his circle; not only did he refuse to reduce them to their sexuality; Jesus was expressly portrayed as a man who loved women, and whom women loved.After his Resurrection, Jesus has a body. He is the same Jesus, but, at the same time, he is different, and his physical relationship with his disciples had to be different.
The climax of that theme takes place in the garden of the tomb, with that one word of address, “Mary!” It was enough to make her recognize him, and her response is clear from what he says then: “Do not cling to me.” Whatever it was before, bodily expression between Jesus and Mary of Magdala must be different now.
Carroll's entire piece is worth reading as a counter-story to the nonsense floating around about Mary Magdalene.
An archive of his recent columns can be found here.
Preface of Easter
Almighty God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ overcame death and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: Grant that we, who celebrate with joy the day of the Lord's resurrection, may be raised from the death of sin by thy life-giving Spirit; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.Alleluia, Christ is risen.
The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Good-bye To All That
The Good Friday services are over, but the remembrance of the death of God and God in the tomb goes on until Sunday. In my youth, Good Friday was a solemn day, a somber day. We spent three hours in church in the afternoon. There was no radio, no movies, nothing that was fun. We knew were commemorating something serious, even as children.
Now church services are shorter; fewer activities are forbidden. In fact, earlier in the day yesterday, I attended a party. Alas and alack! It's still somewhat shocking to me that, in my very Roman Catholic area, a tradition has arisen to have a crawfish boil party on Good Friday. It seems strange to me, and it was difficult for me to participate when the custom began in my own family. What am I doing at a party on Good Friday - the most solemn day of the year? Since it was a family gathering, I'd go, but I felt uncomfortable.
This year as I mulled over the tradition in my mind, I thought to myself, "Is it right for me to be the Puritan in this instance? Should I go, but with a disapproving attitude? The members of my family are not getting up a posse to go murder people or rob houses. It's an innocent crawfish boil. Am I to suggest to my family that they're not to pass a good time on Good Friday? I think not."
I went yesterday with a good heart, and it was much better for me, and, no doubt, for the others also.
Now church services are shorter; fewer activities are forbidden. In fact, earlier in the day yesterday, I attended a party. Alas and alack! It's still somewhat shocking to me that, in my very Roman Catholic area, a tradition has arisen to have a crawfish boil party on Good Friday. It seems strange to me, and it was difficult for me to participate when the custom began in my own family. What am I doing at a party on Good Friday - the most solemn day of the year? Since it was a family gathering, I'd go, but I felt uncomfortable.
This year as I mulled over the tradition in my mind, I thought to myself, "Is it right for me to be the Puritan in this instance? Should I go, but with a disapproving attitude? The members of my family are not getting up a posse to go murder people or rob houses. It's an innocent crawfish boil. Am I to suggest to my family that they're not to pass a good time on Good Friday? I think not."
I went yesterday with a good heart, and it was much better for me, and, no doubt, for the others also.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Deposition
The Deposition by Caravaggio
From the Vatican Museum
When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.
Mark 15:42-47
Good Friday Solemn Collect:
Let us commit ourselves to God, and pray for the grace of a holy life, that, with all who have departed this world and have died in the peace of Christ, and those whose faith is known to God alone, we may be accounted worthy to enter into the fullness of the joy of our Lord, and receive the crown of life in the day of resurrection. BCP p.280
Lately, in the blogosphere, there has been much discussion of the meaning of Jesus' death on the cross, atonement, salvation, and from Rmj, who likes to use fancy words, soteriology. I've put in my two cents here and there, but I've found it much easier to say what I don't believe than what I believe. I've been struggling over the last few days to come up with my own theory on the meaning of Jesus' death. First off, I find that I can't separate the death from the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Second, I have not come up with anything that could be called coherent.
In the comments to a post by Rmj, I found this from Boreas:
Fr. Armand Veilleux, O.C.S.O., a member of the General Council and Procurator General of the Cistercian Order in Rome, essayed an answer which seems germane to this conversiation [on salvation], and which I quote in part:
"Christ saved us by his life, not by his death. But his death is part of his life. It was because he was faithful to being the witness to his Father to the end that he had to accept death as the consequence of this witness. But he did not accept it joyfully. The agony was a tremendous difficulty for a young man who was facing death at thirty-three years of age. Also, if you analyze the New Testament very closely, you see that Jesus puts an end to the practice of sacrifices.... Christ was not killed as a sacrifice, he was murdered. Because he accepted to be murdered, it is his life -- including that consequence -- that has replaced all the sacrifices. And so in our life, we are not pleasing God by making sacrifices; we are pleasing God by living according to his message as Jesus did. And this, our life, is the only "sacrifice" that God wants. So when we celebrate the Eucharist, we celebrate the fact that Christ -- God incarnated as a human being -- has given himself as "food." We are not killing him; we are celebrating his life and the gift of life that he gives us as food -- as nourishment -- for our life."(pp. 231-32
From The Gethsemani Encounter in 1999 by the Continuum Publishing Co., of New York.
The words of Fr. Veilleux come closest to my thoughts on the meaning of the cross. Jesus' whole life, including his death, was the offering.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The Sacrament Of The Last Supper
The Sacrament Of The Last Supper by Salvador Dali. National Gallery of Art, Washington DC
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’
Mark 14:22-25
Over the ages there have been countless discussions, explanations, and disagreements among Christians about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I believe in the Real Presence in the bread and the wine rather than a symbolic remembrance or reinactment of the Last Supper. The how of the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine is something else entirely, and I don't know of a completely satisfactory explanation. Jesus said it, so I believe it.
I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, with transubstantiation, which I find unsatisfactory. I cannot fully explain the Presence, but from the accounts in the Gospels, I find the words of Jesus, "This is my body....This is my blood," compelling.
In addition are these prophetic words from John's Gospel:
I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’
John 6:48-58
....
Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.
John 6:66-68
Those who walked away seemed to have thought that they were hearing words that were difficult to believe. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why would they have left?
I also like these simple words of John Donne:
He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it.'
Divine Poems. On the Sacrament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)