Tonight a friend, Diane,  will be ordained a Priest in the Episcopal Church.   An Episcopal Bishop will place his hands on her head and other ordained Priests will crowd around her and place their hands on her at the same time.  It is a very moving ritual, tracing its elements to ancient traditions of the Church, particularly those in the catholic tradition.   The Episcopal Church is a faith community of the larger Anglican Communion which severed its political ties to the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, but continues many of the traditions and practices of its origins in Roman Catholicism.

Obviously, the tradition of ordination of women to the priesthood is of more recent origin, but the form and design of the ordination is basically unchanged.  It concludes by the new Priest offering the sacramental blessing of the  gathered congregation for the first time.   That signals the onset of numerous actions of ordination that were not available to her prior to the ordination.  And it is those actions which help describe what we mean when we refer to her as a Priest.

Some traditions refer to their ordained clergy as “ministers” … and there are some in the Episcopal Church who continue that designation.  But technically all persons in the Church are ministers, each having a function of  ministry, whether it be musical, educational, administrative, pastoral, or other.   Ordained clergy have a specific ministry, however, and in the Episcopal Church that ministry is to administer the Sacraments of the Church. Those include the rites of  baptism, celebration of Holy Communion, reconciliation of a penitent (confession), unction/healing, matrimony, confirmation, and ordination.  Others have roles in these sacramental actions, but the Priest has the unique role of celebrant.

It’s not a magical thing, such as some special power invested in Priests that changes wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ in the celebration of Holy Communion.   It has more to do with Order, the stabilizing of a tradition retaining an ancient practice.  The goal of the Church is to celebrate the sacraments from the first century when they were instituted and to do it with as much historical accuracy as possible.  Therefore, the Priest as officiant is a continuing tradition.  Others, such as an ordained Deacon, may be designated by a Priest or Bishop as officiant for special causes, but the Priest is still seen as the chief officiant.  The exception in Holy Communion, known as the Holy Eucharist, where only a Priest or Bishop may officiate.

In other than the sacramental functions of a Priest, (her) functions of ministry are the same as those of other traditions, and may include parish administration, counseling, teaching, social ministry, music, or other functions of Church life.    Some Priests may be chosen to become Bishops, with the specific ministry of administering the larger body of the Church, a Diocese.

All that being said, what will happen tonight will be historical in form, but very, very personal in tone.  My friend will be surrounded by friends and colleagues who support her and welcome her into this new aspect of her life.   There will be joyous music, poignant words of charge to her by a preacher she has selected, gifts from those in attendance, and … of course … food and drink to celebrate the occasion.

She will receive a stole, a festive scarf symbolic of priesthood, which will be placed around her neck as a sign of service.  It represents a yoke, reminding her of the task of carrying a difficult burden bestowed upon her by a grateful Church and blessed by an ancient Church which looks to her for leadership, wisdom and compassion.

Photo Credit: Cindy Brown Photos

I drew some commentary (not all in written comment) this week about Tim Tebow and his public prayer life.   It’s good to have dialogue on such topics.   Having said that, here’s posting #2 which, again, is not meant to be the ranting of a contrarian.   These are subjects about which people are talking, and which deserve some input.  My hope is that my words are helpful in promoting the debate.

In nearby Cranston, Rhode Island, a very articulate young woman who considers herself to be an atheist, has objected to a poster which has been on the wall in the school auditorium for a number of years.  It is a prayer to “Our Heavenly Father” for many commendable issues a student might face during the school day.   However, to someone like Jessica Ahlquist the prayer is jarring.   It is as if the school had posted a banner which began, “Since there is no God, let us….”   There would be a great cry and beating of breasts by those who believe in God.  And it would be equally deserving of the attention this existing banner has received.

The point of the argument which has ensued is not whether one believes in God or not.  Jessica’s point is that the public display in West Cranston High School assumes that everyone does.  They don’t.  There are some (at least one who has spoken out) who do not want to be included in that assumption.  The law says that there is supposed to be a boundary between public institutions which are sponsored by the government and institutions of faith.  They are both allowed to exist and there is even a hope that they both will flourish.   But they are not to be mixed.  The hanging of a theistic banner in a public high school is against the law, and the courts this past week agreed with Jessica. They say the banner must come down.  At the present time it is covered by paper, awaiting a decision as to whether the court finding will be challenged.

The response has been a cry of outrage.  Jessica has been publicly scorned (even by the Mayor and religious leaders) and there have been overt threats against her.   The outcry against her is reminiscent of the Salem, Massachusetts, witch fiasco of he 18th century.  Some, including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, have come to her defense in terms of the diatribes against her, even though they might disagree with her point.  That’s what thinking adults do.  But her classmates and others have been brutal in attacking her action.

When I was in High School I was a pretty straightforward member of a mainline church.     I was part of a group who thought it would be good to begin the school day with a prayer over the loudspeaker.  My Principal, a devout Presbyterian, sat with me and clarified why we couldn’t do it.  He explained why it was important not to mix religious practices with public institutions of education.  It made sense and my friends and I agreed.  So I am not immune to the thinking of those who are angered by Jessica’s very articulate opposition to the presence of the banner in her High School’s auditorium where she is required to sit regularly.  I don’t happen to agree with them, but I understand what inspires their anger.

This is one of those wonderful teaching moments when “light overcomes heat.”   There are a couple of things which can happen to help the controversy to come to a good conclusion:

1. Recognize, first of all, that this prayer is not a “Christian prayer” as it is being depicted by many in the public.   It is theistic.  If a student is a member of the First Lutheran Church (his) church is not being attacked by the objection.  This helps to de-personalize the matter to some degree, allowing for a more restrained response.
2. It’s a great time for classes to spend time on the constitutional issue involved while it is still such a close matter.    Teachers should jump on this moment, the kind of which doesn’t happen all that often.
3. It’s also a good moment for teaching about “bullying.”  Jessica has been bullied repeatedly this past week, sometimes by people who are seen as upstanding citizens.
4. Alternative methods of exposing the prayer, such as bookmarks, could be employed.  But the banner must be removed (and not just covered up.)
5. What a great moment for a teaching about religious belief, including atheism and its legitimate place in American society.  That can happen in a public school when the topic is historical and sociological, not religious.
6. What a great moment for the religious institutions in Cranston and the area to embrace the topics of theism and atheism in a positive manner, not accusative.

In the meantime, I hope the negativity toward Jessica Ahlquist will cease.  She should be seen as an academic hero for championing her understanding of American jurisprudence.   If I were the Dean of a Law School in the area, I would be offering a scholarship for future study.

Photo Credit: WPRO news

The story rage in NFL football over the past several weeks has not been brutal defeats of reigning teams or even scandalous reports of inappropriate behavior by coaches.  To the contrary, the media has been focused on one man, Tim Tebow, the quarterback for the Denver Broncos.  And it’s not even his playing that has attracted so much attention, although he is an incredible quarterback most of the time.  The subject of the media reports and fan spin  has been the spirituality of Tim Tebow. 

Tim is not shy in talking about his deep personal spiritual life.  He attributes his success as a football player to the Grace given to him by “his lord and savior, Jesus Christ.”   And when he does perform well, or when he seeks strength to perform, he drops on one knee, places his fingers on the bridge of his nose, closes his eyes, and prays.   Right there in front of everyone … he prays.

It has been amazing to hear the responses of all kinds of people, from those who are outraged at public displays of spirituality to those who have decided that he is a saint, or an angel sent to remind us of who is really in charge.   We were in a very fancy restaurant the other evening when the maitre ‘d began talking with us about how wonderful it was to have such a role model as Tim Tebow.  Not knowing a lot about Tebow or the Broncos (or much else about the NFL)  I just listen.

I’ve never been a real fan of public displays of faith, even in the confines of the church.  Raising one’s hands in prayer (although it is clearly an ancient Christian prayer form) doesn’t really turn me on. 

I remember being an American Baptist kid in a primarily Roman Catholic community in what seems like a hundred years ago.  One day we were in gym class where the p.e. instructor (our High School basketball coach) was teaching us about foul shooting.   I could barely get the ball to the rim, to say nothing about sinking it.  I noticed that all my friends were making the sign of the cross on their forehead, lips, and chest before shooting.   They told me that it was because of their sign of the cross that they were getting the ball in the hoop.  I decided to try it, sending the coach into gales of laughter.  He knew my family and knew that this was an uncommon practice for me.  It didn’t help either.  I was the king of airballs.

My concern with the Tebow thing is the theology of it all.   If Tim’s prayer to Jesus is for success in his passes and victory for the team what about the other guys?  Does the other team suffer from lack of support from God because they don’t pray before a play?   And if Tim throws an interception, is Jesus telling him that he shouldn’t have sworn or sipped a beer?  (I suspect he doesn’t do either, incidentally.)  

This form of spirituality that Tebow demonstrates is very individualistic and personalized, as if he has the ear of God all to himself … and as if Jesus would really care about who wins an NFL game.  Maybe that’s not the prayer he’s offering, but it sure looks that way to us in the ignorant masses.  I don’t subscribe to that kind of spirituality or faith stance, and I suspect I’m not alone in that.  I’d like to think that God is more concerned with people dying from disease, hunger, and war than the Denver Broncos.

There is no question that Tim Tebow is a good role model for fans.  He is everything that many other sports stars are not.  I’m glad kids are drawn to him and his personality.   But I’m still very confused by the public prayer concept.  Maybe I need to pray about it.

Photo Credit:sacbee.com

The term The Zed Factor is my own construction.  I’m using it as a way of describing that which The Penultimate Word is not.   This is not the final word, the definitive, the ultimate answer to a question.   To the contrary, it is an answer, an opinion, some thoughts on a topic. Zed is another way of identifying “Z”, the last letter in our alphabet.  In fact, I am leery of anyone who employs the Zed Factor in declaring something to be “the bottom line answer.”    I find that the employment of that concept is usually a cover for a personal agenda and a skewed scholarship to create it.

I listened to an interview on the Emily Rooney Show on NPR’s Boston affiliate, WGBH.  The subject of the interview was a man who is a journalist in the Boston area who happens also to be the cousin of Mitt Romney.  He was there to push his latest book which purports to tell the “inside story” of the man, Mitt Romney.   It sounds like the author has used his relationship with Romney (familial and other) to paint a picture of a more sensitive, compassionate man than the one we are being shown on campaign television.    Most of the book, Rooney commented, is about Mormonism and the author’s relationship to Romney through the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints … the Mormon Church.

The author, R. B. Scott, is quite candid about the faith he shares with the candidate, to the point of saying something which jarred me.  (In an attempt to be perfectly candid, myself, I have to say that I have some qualms about the little I know about Mormonism.  I’m not negative or unfairly biased.  I just have some visceral reactions to what I have seen and learned.)   What I heard Scott say was that Mormonism, like the Roman Catholic Church, shares a belief that is problematic for others, particularly Protestant Christians.  It is the belief that Mormons understand their dogma to be THE ANSWER…the Zed Factor.   It is the bottom line.  They are correct and others are wrong.   That is why Mormons have no problem with proselytizing; they are bringing the truth to others who have a flawed understanding of faith. After I dropped my teeth and recovered them I listened more carefully to the rest of the interview as best I could.

I’ve often heard the Roman Catholic pronouncement that “they were the true Church” and I have learned to live with that, chalking it up to a historical factor that differs from mine, but which is understandable, given 2,000+ years of history.   But I was unaware of the fact that the Mormon Church had a similar understanding.  It does explain the proselytizing thing.  That doesn’t make it any more acceptable, but it does give it a meaning.

The danger in adhering to such a Zed Factor (“we are right and you are wrong”) is that it denies the possibility (I consider it a reality) that God is still alive and continually creating.  That makes sense to me when I have to ask the question about the theological response to such things as atomic warfare, abortion, extraterrestrial life, and other mind-boggling issues.   Those questions couldn’t have been answered centuries ago and trying to squeeze them into ancient “truths” just doesn’t work for me.  I continue to believe in divine inspiration.

Consequently, I choose to see scripture, theology and history as  Penultimate issues rather than Zed issues.   But, hey, I’m not claiming to have the final word on this issue, just the Penultimate.

Photo Credit: Science Photo Library

When I first saw the title of journalist Michael Gerson’s article in The Washington Post this week I was tempted to pass it by. 

“Rick Santorum and the return of Compassionate Conservatism.”

Somehow I just didn’t have the stomach to endure another appeal to the Bush-era thinking that there could be such a thing as “compassionate conservatism.“   My experience with the concept over the past several years has led me to believe it has been a sham.  The concept is just a cover for the Republican Party’s attempt to remove the federal dollars spent on social agencies.  Diverting their ministries to religious organizations and non-profit organizations just exposes much-needed programs for the poor and those others in need to financial struggles and eventual shut-downs when the dollars fail to materialize.  Having been on that end of the spectrum for many years in a variety of capacities, I know from personal experience that the intentions of well-meaning people are regularly mismatched with the impossibility of success.   Not always, but regularly.

But I chose to read the article and I’m glad I did.  I’m not a fan of Santorum and I have really, really serious difficulty with some of his views on people who don’t live their lives like him and his conservative Roman Catholic family.  But it wasn’t so much the promotion of Rick Santorum  in Gerson’s article that attracted me.  It was his careful and intelligent explanation of the social conscience of mainline Christianity and how it plays an important part in the way in which the religious community  regularly responds to human need … even when there isn’t an election year camera posed to record it.  The same can be said of institutions established by Jewish, Muslim and other religious communities.

In the midst of the article Gerson chooses to differentiate between two commonly confused motivations for the urging of compassionate programming by non-governmental agencies:

1. statism: giving over control for the major social programming to the central government, in many cases, the state.
2. subsidiarity: recognizing that peoples’ needs are best met by the institutions closest to those individuals

It is in that context that Gerson briefly describes the principle which is prominent in most mainline Christian Churches, that a purpose of the Church is to care for the poor, the disenfranchised, the prisoners and those in need of medical care.    This principle is not a new one; it has been evident in the Church from the beginning.  The Bible is filled with instructions to its believers that they have a responsibility they cannot shun.  Matthew 25 in the New Testament  spells it out clearly, at least for Christians:

 [³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   ³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   ⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"]  

Too many times religious communities are characterized by their weaknesses, their failures, their flaws and errors.   But the reality is that for centuries the religious community has established hospitals, educational institutions, and very successful social agencies.  This is the place where, for many people, the institution closest to them is their church, their synagogue, their mosque or their similar religious community.

But Gerson makes a good point.  Subsidiarity doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  While the religious community may be the closest to the individual, government may be the institution closest to the religious body.  He points out the paradox which baffles many, especially those of a more libertarian bent:

“But when these institution require help or protection, higher-order institutions should intervene.  So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them.  When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries  that change lives from the inside out.”

This is the flip side of the coin that is so often overlooked by those who would hold a hands-off position on state and religious community issues.   Subsidiarity implies a collaborative effort on the part of government and social agencies (even if sponsored by religious bodies) in providing for the needs of those who fall through the cracks.   President George W. Bush defined this practice in his initiative which sprang from his interpretation of “compassionate conservatism.”    But implicit in his understanding was the withdrawing of government from the provision of benefits which would provide direct aid to the people in need.  Subsidiarity does not dismiss government; it simply defines the distance between government and the person who is homeless or unemployed.

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons has three panels which depicts an older couple driving in the front seat of a car.   The woman turns to her husband, the driver, and expresses lament for the fact that they used to sit close to each other in the car when driving.  One panel allows him time to ponder the point.  The third panel has him turn to the wife and say, “Who moved?”

If government is at a great distance from the people, dismissing it from the principle of subsidiarity, the same question applies:  Who moved?

Photo Credit: AP

The New York Times reports today that the Vatican has created a new form of Roman Catholic diocese to house disaffected Episcopalians and Anglicans who want to become members of the Roman Catholic Church.  There are some conditions which prevail, but for the most part those Episcopalians who are so unhappy that the Church has ordained women, homosexual men and women, and embraced a more “liberal” social stance that they can no longer tolerate the Episcopal Church can now become Roman Catholics.  They will have their own organizational structure with Bishops, parishes, and local priests, who … although they may be married … will be allowed to function as Roman Catholic priests.   Liturgy from the Episcopal Church will be permitted, with some revisions.  Episcopal Priests and Bishops can become Roman Catholics, also.  However, there are restrictions and even those Priests whose wives die before them will not be allowed to remarry, and new Priests cannot be married … ever.

In some ways this is a very positive move, in that there has been a desire for many years to overcome the rift that split the Anglican/Episcopalian Church from the Roman Catholic Church in 1549.   And some in the Episcopal Church will breathe a sigh of relief to know that these unhappy people have found a home and will no longer be grousing about the  way in which Episcopalians understand the Gospel.  This option has been quietly in place for some time, and the “rush” to the Roman Catholic Church has not been evident.  Several hundred people have availed themselves of the opportunity , including numerous Priests and Bishops.  It has been a dent in the 2 million member Episcopal Church which has been somewhat filled by Roman Catholics becoming Episcopalians, seeking a less rigid interpretation of the Gospel.

The caution for those who read this news and consider the invitation is not a new caution: read the fine print.  It would appear that this invitation harbors issues which may not be all that inviting.

The differences between the Episcopal Church and not merely superficial “memberships.”    There are serious differences in theology, practical matters, economics, and polity.   These may be hidden to most people in the pew, but they begin to be more visible when events occur in people’s lives, like births, deaths, marriages, and divorces.

The Episcopal Church is a democratic institution.   The people elect their Bishops, select their clergy, administer their congregations, have choices and options in most matters of spiritual life, and the people are somewhat immune to the political machinations that exist.   That can happen because the theology of the Episcopal Church embraces and respects the ability and right of its members to think, debate, differ, and choose.   The decisions which may bother those who are considering leaving are not knee-jerk reactions by the Church leaders; the legislation allowing change in the way the Church operates emerge from long dialogues, decades in the making, in which the laity are as involved as the clergy.  There is a respect for scholarship, even when it differs from that considered the norm.  Every attempt is made to incorporate those who are on the fringes of society because the theological understanding of the Church is comprehensive.  Dialogue in the Episcopal Church is, at times, feisty, given the passion with which people are invested and respected.  It is not the practice of the Episcopal Church to entertain a veto of a decision by the clergy.  There are conservative, moderate and liberal Episcopalians, all of whom can sit next to each other, pray together, and respect each other.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a democratic institution.   It has never claimed to be, and it regularly demonstrates that difference.   The clergy have authoritative power which can over-ride the decisions of lay persons.   Rules are not always created in democratic forums, but are declared from papal committees or agencies.  Local priests have great authority over their parishes, although Parish Councils have an opportunity to influence decisions.   But in the end, the decision of the clergy (especially Bishops) is not to be challenged.  The theology of the Roman Catholic Church is hierarchical, based upon the belief that power and authority are given by God to the Pope and those to whom he assigns power and authority.   In some places in the world it is more rigid than others, but it remains hierarchical.  There is also a divergence of belief and practice among Roman Catholics ranging from Conservative to Liberal.  However, the influence of those who differ from stated canon law or practice is more muted and less capable of being respected.   Rules are not changed by democratic gatherings.  They are discussed and then proposed to those who have the authority to define canon law.  For many people, that is a cleaner, easier method of defining Church law and practice until one’s loved one is not allowed to be buried in a Roman Catholic cemetery because of Church law, or one’s son’s marriage to a previously-divorced woman is not allowed.   This is the realm in which the differences become personal.  Again, they are based upon theological perspective, and are perfectly valid within that perspective.  They are just different.

There are many ways in which the two bodies are alike, and most Episcopalians celebrate those similarities and long for unity which respects them as well as the differences.  But this move by the Vatican to extend an invitation to disaffected Episcopalians is not the grace moment it may seem to be, and those who consider accepting it should consider the small print.  If, after studying the proposal, it appears to work, then by all means the invitation should be accepted and the person making the move should embrace a setting in which healthy spiritual life can flourish.   At the same time, the Episcopal Church should take note of the invitation and assess its impact and its meaning for the future.

Photo Credit: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Episcopal Church, USA

Photo Credit: Pope Benedict XVI

At the top of the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, stands the statue of “The Independent Man.”   It is a revered statue that symbolizes the ideology employed at the time of the establishment of the state.* Roger Williams and his followers came to the land to be known as “The State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations” to avoid persecution of their religious beliefs after having suffered at the hands of the leadership of the colony of what became Massachusetts.  Rhode Island was created as a new province in which religious belief would be tolerated even if it varied from the norm.  Laws and guidelines for life of the people in this new colony were to be free from persecution for free thinking.   Since established in 1663, the State of Rhode Island has guarded this ideology fervently, often to the ridicule and abuse of other surrounding states.

While the political flavor of the State of Rhode Island is clearly Democratic, the truth is that there is an ideological strength which is greater than a political party.   That is demonstrated by the election of Rhode Island’s current governor, Lincoln Chafee, a former moderate Republican Senator from the State and currently elected as an Independent.   In the year since his election he has repeatedly stood by his affection for and belief in the “independence” ideology which characterizes the state.

In the last couple of months he has drawn fire for his refusal to turn over to the federal government a prisoner indicted for murder in Rhode Island.   Chafee’s insistence in refusing this transfer of custody is based upon the strong anti-death penalty position of the legislature and people of Rhode Island.  In spite of the horror of the alleged murder, Chafee has said that the man must be tried under Rhode Island law which would provide a maximum of “life without parole” should the prisoner be convicted.  If federal courts were to judge him, the possibility of capital punishment could be introduced, as federal law does not reject it.  That, says, Chafee, would be a denial of the strong beliefs of the people of Rhode Island as articulated in their laws and ordinances.   Obviously, a “states’ rights” debate will emerge in the courts which may have national significance.

Who is right and who is wrong in this issue of capital punishment is not the foundation of the current struggle.   Chafee’s obligation to uphold the laws of the State of Rhode Island includes his obligation to respect the ideology behind the laws.  It is that obligation that is being contested by federal law enforcement agencies.

Chafee’s willingness to put his political life in jeopardy by the embracing of a principle is not restricted to this one case.  In December he has been identified around the country by a media that is fascinated with a Governor who insists upon calling the decorated tree in the State House a “holiday tree” instead of a “christmas tree.”   His point is clear that his language gives credence to the strong beliefs in separation of Church and State, particularly given the clear articulation of purpose of Roger Williams and those who defined the founding ideology of Rhode Island.  If those principles can be tossed aside due to public pressure (even by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence) then the whole question of the existence of the state as a separate entity becomes viable.  The establishment of Rhode Island was not an economic or political matter.  It was based upon a clear and enviable ideology which was articulated without ambiguity by its founders.  Unless openly and clearly rejected, the Governor is not only obligated legally, but morally, to defend the positions identified. The irony of the “holiday tree” issue is that the use of such a secular symbol would probably have been rejected personally by Williams and his cohorts.  But the principle surrounding it would have been consistent.

In a year/era when the moral character of public leaders is under scrutiny to the degree we witness in today’s media, it is refreshing to know of an example of a governor who respects the ideology prominent in the very fabric of the state in which he serves.  The impact of the variation of a state’s norms from those of the federal government  is upon the citizens, who must choose to embrace them or deny them accordingly.  And, in this case, perhaps the question raised by the murder trial issue is one for the nation to struggle with.

Capital punishment is  far from being a popular practice in the minds of many … maybe even most … Americans.  But the act of removing a man’s trial from his home state to that of the national courts for the specific purpose of injecting the possibility of capital punishment is abhorrent to even those who consider it a legitimate punishment.  If, as the current case points out, the ability of a state to deny capital punishment is legitimate, that right should be preserved and respected without manipulation of the codes of law.  Federal law provides for each state to determine its own position on capital punishment.  Rhode Island, legally, has determined to reject it as a method of punishment.  Governor Chafee is correct to defend that decision.

Photo Credit: Stephen Conn

*INDEPENDENT MAN — Standing 11 feet tall and 278 feet above ground, the Independent Man is a gold-covered, bronze statue placed atop the State House on December 18, 1899. The Independent Man is a symbol of the independent spirit which led Roger Williams to settle here. The statue weighs more than 500 pounds and is covered with a thin gold covering called “gold leaf.” The spear held by the Independent Man reaches to 14 feet. The statue was designed by sculptor George Brewster

I read recently that cremation is fast becoming the method of preference in America for caring for the remains of deceased loved ones.   There are all kinds of speculations as to why this is happening, including environmental concerns, a rejection of elaborate ceremony, the expense of traditional burial, and the softening of religious inhibitions against the practice.

It has always made sense to me.  As I have watched cemeteries filling up and expanding far beyond the geographical expectations of communities, the idea of a more compact method of dignified burial became more and more reasonable.   I am one of those, also, who isn’t comfortable with the idea of natural deterioration of the body, included bugs eating my body.  I know, I’ll be dead and I won’t be aware of it.  But the thought of it for me and for my loved ones is distasteful.   Somehow, incineration by cremation seems more hygienic.

It’s not as if cremation is a new idea.  It has been practiced by the people of various countries and traditions for centuries, although its approval in the Western world has been more recent.   Religious preferences and prohibitions vary, but the practice is receiving more approval as time and changing mores adapt to an expansive world population, intermarriage, and modernisms which affect theological reasoning.  Even the Roman Catholic Church has relaxed its prohibition against cremation while retaining various rituals and ceremonies which must apply.  As with many options, cremation in Judaism varies with the degree of orthodoxy and secularism of the family.  Islam, however, is firm in its prohibition against cremation.  Some denominations and sects within contemporary Protestantism have restrictions barring or limiting cremation, but increasingly it is practiced.

The cost of traditional burial is increasingly a concern for Americans.  It is not unusual for a family to incur a cost in the range of several thousand dollars, depending upon the degree of glamor chosen by the family.  Natural burial, handled by volunteer or low-cost agencies has sprung up across the country, in which the deceased’s body is removed from the site of death in a station wagon, prepared minimally (according to state requirement) and buried in a natural place where caskets and headstones are not allowed.   The site remains as natural as a field or meadow.

But cremation provides for the family’s choice of interment.  Some families choose to retain the ashes of the deceased in an urn, sometimes in a visible place within the family home.   Others have chosen to spread the ashes at sea, from a mountain top, or over a place beloved by the deceased.   Cremation does not preclude the use of family burial plots in cemeteries or mausoleums.  In fact, it expands the capability of multiple generations being able to use such personally historic settings.   Many places of worship have developed memorial gardens in which cremated remains can be scattered in a setting which is maintained and provides a spiritual solace for the loved ones.

The mobility of contemporary life has diminished the significance of the “family plot” with families spread throughout the nation and the world, with fewer and fewer personal connections to the hometown.  Cremation and the distribution of ashes on a beloved site even further diffuses that hometown burial relationship.  I haven’t quite concluded my thoughts on the place where I would envision my cremated remains being placed.  It’s probably a good  time to draw that thought process to a clearer conclusion, relieving my family of the need for debate on the issue.   There will be enough else to worry about when the time comes without the distribution of my ashes interfering.

Photo Credit: Olson Family

People all over the country are getting heated up over a faux controversy over the use of the term holiday and its related ornaments.    The current affection of many Americans with things “conservative” has not spared references to the season, as many people have chosen to greet friends, relatives and customers with the greeting, “Happy Holidays!“   It seems that some Christian purists believe that such a greeting denies the significance of Christmas, believing that all the decoration, piped music, and massive seasonal spending has everything to do with the birth of Jesus.

In Rhode Island the perennial controversy took flight when Governor Lincoln Chaffee invited the citizenry to the annual lighting of the “Holiday Tree” that decorates the State House in Providence.  The previous Governor had been cognizant of the political implications of using the term “Christmas Tree” by inviting people to the annual tree-lighting ceremony.  The response this year has been a significant statement of umbrage, including a denouncement by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the choice of the term Holiday Tree  by the Governor.

It is amusing/frustrating to me that conservative Christians are so quick to embrace signs and symbols of the December holiday chaos as being purely Christian.  Materialism at its worst is the most prominent sign of what is deemed “the Christmas season.”   If these same Christians were as intent upon claiming the holiday season by showing it to contain the elements of biblical Christianity they would reject the frenzy and spending altogether and embrace a more spiritual form of celebration.  Christian churches, however, are among the first to display their decorated trees, hold money-raising craft and food bazaars, and rush to sing Christmas songs weeks before the actual holiday even exists.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica has an interesting note to add to the dialogue:

holiday:

(from “holy day”), originally, a day of dedication to religious observance; in modern times, a day of either religious or secular commemoration. Many holidays of the major world religions tend to occur at the approximate dates of more ancient, pagan festivals. In the case of Christianity, this is sometimes owing to the policy of the early church of scheduling Christian observances at dates when they would eclipse pagan ones-a practice that proved more efficacious than merely prohibiting the earlier celebrations. In other cases, the similarity of the date is due to the tendency to celebrate turning points of the seasons, or to a combination of the two factors

This historic comment points to the issue of whether the timing of the celebration of Christmas is legitimate to begin with.   Most Christian scholars believe the birth of Jesus to have been later in the year, but that the early church “fathers” placed it in late December to undermine the pagan celebration already existing there.  Kind of like “the monarch’s  birthday” which is  established by British custom on a specific date, having nothing to do with the actual date of the Queen’s birth.

The fact that other religions have holidays that fall within this winter season may have had less significance in previous centuries when Americans believed (falsely) that this was a Christian nation and there was no reason to be bothered by the ignoring of the presence of persons of other faith communities in the nation.   Today, however, the prevailing understanding is that this is a nation in which many faith traditions exist coterminously and are major contributors to the life and well-being of our country.  To ignore their presence or even despair their presence is understood to be outside the mainline thinking of current Americans.   Simply placing a Menorah on the village green does not suffice.

The observance of this holiday season is far broader than the beautiful Christian worship and cultural events.  Designation of a festively decorated seasonal tree as a holiday tree is well within the intelligent and sensitive recognition of citizens, especially those elected to represent all the people of a designated community.  Holding up examples of other places where the President or other Governors and Mayors choose to call the illuminated trees a “Christmas Tree”  says more about the narrow vision of those officials than it does about the legitimacy of the term.  The separation of Church and State principle is a given, foundational matter.  But the embracing of the growing and significant diversity of religious life in America is even more important.

For many years I have enjoyed the sight of decorated trees in the living rooms and on the lawns of friends I know not to be Christians.   They are not exclusively a religious symbol, even to intelligent Christians.   It is clear that the German and other northern European people embraced the illuminated tree as a symbol of the season.  Eventually they took on customs of the nations and regions where they were displayed, in some cases being the focus of very secular, almost raucous events.

There is no question that there is a place for the decorated tree to be used with Christian purposes.   In our home the tree is clearly a Christmas Tree and its absence would be felt.   Trees that decorate the chancel of a Church provide beauty and even rich symbolism to Christmas worship.

But the placing of a lighted tree on the Town Square or in front of the State House is not for Christian worship or adoration.  It is a symbol of a festive season, just as the lighting of the State House with pink lights in October is to support  Cancer research and the green lighting in mid-March announces St. Patrick’s Day for authentic and faux Irish-Americans alike.   If Christians are inspired by the presence of the lighted tree it is a good thing.  But non-Christians can be inspired by it, as well, without ascribing to it a specific Christian meaning.

Photo Credit: London

I read a fascinating article in the New York Times this past week about a woman who teaches at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Amy-Jill Levine is the University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies.    At first blush that might not strike you as unusual, but the story is that Dr. Levine is a Jewish scholar who is recognized as a prominent expert in the study of the New Testament…the Christian portion of the Bible.    Her expertise has given her recognition throughout the realm of theology and is responsible for the fact that her classrooms are packed.

I remember taking a Lenten class at one point in which a Rabbi taught the Gospel of Matthew from a Jewish perspective.  It is one of the more fascinating and enlightening courses I have ever taken.  The quality the Rabbi brought to the study was the ability to catch and interpret the Jewish references that fill the first book of the New Testament.  He was able to wind the cultural and theological threads that are prolific, helping us to understand that the author of the book was introducing Christian history and theology to a Jewish audience.   Many, if not most, of the references he pulled from the text were subtle, and most of us in the class would have missed them completely had he not been there to point them out.

The same is true for Professor Levine and her classes at Vanderbilt.  Wikipedia says of her:

A self-described “Yankee Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Christian divinity school in the buckle of the Bible Belt,” Professor Levine combines historical-critical rigor, literary-critical sensitivity, and a frequent dash of humor with a commitment to eliminating anti-Jewish, sexist, and homophobic theologies.

If that isn’t enough to make you want to dash down to Nashville and sign up for the Spring semester, what would it take?

In a skeptical age when religious scrutiny is prominent, the prospect of studying Christian theology from an objective perspective is awesome.   Most Christians know very little about the substance of Jewish thought and practice.  Maybe just enough to be dangerous.   Maybe we grew up with a Jewish friend who observed Chanukah, or we were invited to (her) Bat Mitzvah.   We might know about some of the details of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) through movies, literature, or storytelling.   But there is a huge library of Hebrew literature, known as the Tanakh, much of which was captured from the oral tradition of Jews prior to the fifth century, BC.

Much of the Tanakh is interpretation, in which scholars and rabbis have debated the “truth” of the text and come to conclusions which have been adopted and incorporated into contemporary Jewish thinking.   Just as there are denominations and sects within Christianity (and Islam) there are differing forms of Judaism, the most frequently identified being Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, and Reconstructionist.   They vary in terms of the intensity of observance of the Hebrew Law, the elements of which are found in the Torah and the significance of which, in everyday life, is debated in the entire Tanakh. 

The significance of the work of Professor Levine is immeasurable.   Her passion to assist in overcoming anti-Semitism is remarkable.  Her gift of being able to do so through the teaching of Christian theology from a Jewish perspective is incomparable.

Photo Credit: AdatShalom

Link to Huffington Post for more information.