Foundational Necessity of Law and Tradition

I've been hearing a lot about anarchy and such of late.  I'm not totally sure what this means.  But, I do know that when everything and anything goes there is chaos, and chaos may have its place, but not as the foundation for our existence.  Remember that in Genesis 1, God takes chaos and orders it. 

I am reading an advanced proof of Richard Rohr's latest book Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life (Jossey Bass -- out in May 2011).  In it he talks about the foundations that are built in the first half of life (unfortunately we tend to stay put in this half of life and don't move on to the 2nd half).  In this period of life we develop our sense of identity and security, to name a couple of key elements.  As he develops his understanding of the first half of life he speaks of tradition and law as the foundation, the starting point of our journey.  He notes that "we cannot each start at zero, entirely on our own."  The traditions that we inherit not only help keep us from falling, but they help us understand how to fall and how to learn from our falls.  We don't truly help our children if we prevent them from falling and failing.  They have to learn how to recover from falling, but falling.  

This leads me to the piece I'd like to quote at length, for it underlines the value of law and tradition to the spiritual journey.   I should note that when we read Paul, we need to remember that Paul didn't reject Law, he didn't want us to remain so tied to Law that we couldn't move on into God's future.  But consider this:

Law and tradition seem to be necessary in any spiritual system both to reveal and to limit our basic egocentricity, and to make at least some community, family, and marriage possible.   When you watch ten-year-olds intensely defend the rules of their games, you see what a deep need this is early in life.  It structures children's universe and gives them foundational meaning and safety.  We cannot flourish early in life inside a totally open field.  Children need a good degree of order, predictability, and coherence to grow up well, as Maria Montessori, Rudolph Steiner, and many others have taught.  Chaos and chaotic parents will rightly make children cry, withdraw, and rage -- both inside and outside.  (Rohr, pp. 28-29). 

Thus, the Ten Commandments aren't the end of the journey, they're the beginning, the foundation.  Without law and tradition, we experience shapelessness, and that, as Rohr suggests, could lead to the "death of any civilization or any kind of trustworthy or happy world" (p. 30). 

I'll just add something into the mix -- to parents who believe that you shouldn't give your children a foundation in a particular faith, but that you'll just let them choose when the time comes -- you're taking away the foundation upon which they can make that choice when the time comes. 

Law and Tradition -- they are essential foundations.  They cannot, however, be the end of the journey!  As Rohr notes, the second half of the journey involves much greater freedom, but you have to have the security of the first half foundations under your belt so you can take the step of faith to take this journey.

"The Past is Our Constant Companion"

I am a historian by training, which means that I have a certain concern about the past.  Indeed, I find much that is valuable in the past.  I also live in an ever-changing world that needs to move into the future and not get stuck in the past.  As the pastor of a congregation with a relatively long and in many ways glorious history, I know the temptation to stay with what is tried and true, and yet . . .

So, what shall we do?  I am intrigued by comments made by Doug Pagitt in his latest book Church in the Inventive Age (Sparkhouse Press, 2010).  Doug shared with us some of the insights that make up this book at the Theology after Google conference last March.  I'll be giving a full review when I finish the book, but knowing that Doug is one who is seen by many as cutting edge -- emergent, etc. I found these words intriguing.  He writes that while churches can get stuck in the past, or on the other hand throw off the past with no regard to the strengths of our history, neither approach is helpful.

The past is not our standard.  It is not the test of whether something is right or good.  But it's also not an albatross we need to shuck off as quickly as possible.  The past is our constant companion.  It is always with us.  The question is what do we do with it -- return to it, let it rule, or take its best efforts with us into the future?  (pp. 7-8).

So what shall we do with our history?  Do we cart it around with us as if museum pieces?  Do we dwell in the past?  Or do we let the blessings of our history help frame for us a sense of the journey that our spiritual ancestors took, giving us guidance and wisdom for our journey?  These are questions worth pondering.  

The March toward Marriage Equality

When Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman, passed, it did so by a rather narrow margin -- 52% to 48%.  Opponents to same sex marriage received tremendous financial support from religious groups, especially the Mormon Church.  This amendment served as a response to an earlier California Supreme Court ruling that overturned bans on same gender marriage because they were inherently discriminatory and akin to bans on interracial marriage, which had been overturned in California by the Courts.  What is interesting about California is that it's easier to amend the constitution than pass a budget, and so needing only a simple majority, the voters reversed the court ruling.  That effort led to efforts to overturn the California law by taking it to federal court and arguing that this ban stands contrary to the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Leading the challengers to the law was an interesting pair of attorneys -- two men who faced off against each other in 2000 before the Supreme Court.  The issue then was the 2000 Presidential Election, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in and ended Florida recounts and handing the election to George W. Bush, even though Al Gore had won the popular vote.  Maybe you remember that.  Anyway, Theodore Olson, Bush's lead attorney in that case, would go on to be Solicitor General -- the position that Elena Kagan held until receiving confirmation yesterday as our next Supreme Court Justice.  Olson is a conservative, a republican, and an advocate for gay marriage!  Sometime back he wrote an important op-ed piece in which he argued for a "conservative case for same sex marriage."   In that piece he wrote:

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

So, earlier this week, arguing for the opponents to Prop. 8, his position was vindicated by the Court, when Federal Judge Vaughn Walker argued in his ruling that that tradition alone, including the presupposition that marriage fosters procreation,  is not sufficient to deny rights to one segment of society that is not accorded to another.  

I know that there will be much outcry about activist courts that overrule the will of the people.  Remember, however, that it was the "will of the people" that banned interracial marriage.  It wasn't the legislatures that overturned that discriminatory practice, but the Courts.   It was the will of the people that segregated buses, lunch counters, and schools.  It wasn't legislation that overturned these discriminatory practices, it was the Courts (only afterwards did the Civil Rights legislation get passed to affirm what the courts had already deemed appropriate). 

More important than the initial effects of this ruling are the longer term ones.  Remember that in that earlier election, the vote was rather close -- just a 4 point margin.   While California is considered more liberal than most states, there large swaths of the state that are fairly conservative.  In addition, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church have significant presences and they both actively backed Prop 8.  In addition, while Latinos and African Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to be social conservatives.  Finally, while the trend in 2008 led to the amendment, recent polls suggest that the wind is at the back of those who support same gender marriage.  So, what's next?

Obviously this will be appealed, and expect it to go all the way to the Supreme Court.  My sense is that the Appeals Court will sustain the District Court judges ruling.  What will be interesting is whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case.  It may not choose to do so.  If it does choose to rule, then the question is -- where will Anthony Kennedy take his stand?  If it goes all the way and the Supreme Court rules in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, then we have a perfect storm.  If Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional then so is every other marriage ban across the nation -- including federal ones.  I think that's what scares religious conservatives (and even many moderates and liberals -- remember that the President has expressed his own discomfort with gay marriage).     

The cultural wind is at the backs of those who support same sex marriage.  Society has become more and more accepting of gays.  In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality is not a chosen "persuasion," but a genetically defined orientation.  The judge in this case accepted as foundational the premise that this is not something that is either "chosen" or "changeable."  My sense is that among those under 40, the majority is not only accepting of gays, but supportive of gay marriage.  The idea that marriage is primarily designed to support procreation is no longer foundational.  We marry for love and companionship, with children as a secondary element.  Besides, with adoption and artificial insemination  there are other avenues for creating families. 

If society is moving in this direction, the religious community seems to be somewhere behind the curve.  It will be a long time coming in Roman Catholic Churches, whose teaching reinforces the principle that marriage, sex, and procreation all go together (my uniformed assumption is that the Orthodox churches would be somewhere in the mix here -- at least regarding the importance of tradition).  Most evangelical churches will stand back from it because they believe it is contrary to their reading of scripture.  Thus, that leaves more moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant churches.  We are, to this point, a mixed bag.  The United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have taken the most progressive positions.  Disciples of Christ have left these issues to congregations -- with discussion at the "level" of the General Church essentially staying out of the conversation.  What is important to note in all of this is that no church will be "forced" to marry anyone they don't wish to marry.  Although clergy fill a societal role in officiating at weddings (we sign off on the licenses), we are not required to act contrary to theology or beliefs.  

So, where will this lead?  Only time will tell! 

Worship and the Progressive Christian Church -- laying out a new pattern

It may seem ironic that some of the churches with the most conservative theology have the most culturally-connected "worship."   I put "worship" in quote marks, because in some ways -- as planners of church services have a tendency to do -- much of this "worship" borders on pure entertainment.  It uses all of the technology and style of the current cultural moment.   Worship in many progressive or liberal churches -- those in the old Mainline traditions -- have a tendency to be quite traditional and conservative.  The theology might be liberal but the medium is old style and traditional -- with liturgy, hymns and organs instead of guitars, free form worship, praise songs, and preachers in Hawaiian shirts.

So, what might a more culturally engaged, but theologically progressive worship look like?   I reposted a piece last week written by my friend Keith Watkins, which launches a series of posts that will engage this question.  Keith is deeply rooted in liturgical studies and treasures the ancient patterns.  But, he wants to envision what might be if we were to create worship contexts that are true to our liturgical patterns of Word and Table and yet be culturally aware. 

In his second post of the series, he takes up an address by Thomas Schattauer, the current president of the North American Academy of Liturgy.   In this address, Schattauer lists five perspectives on worship and the ways in which we formulate it:

•Recovery of historic practice toward a distinctive community witnessing to God’s purpose in the world

•Use of cultural materials toward a wider embrace of people (be it the unchurched or particular ethnic groups)

•Attention to the experience of the marginalized toward justice and inclusion of God’s reign

•Focus on relational community toward social belonging and wholeness

•Openness to the movement of God’s Spirit toward personal healing, holiness, and hope

Keith admits that his focus us been on that first perspective, but seeks to broaden it out in search of an alternative way of doing worship in progressive churches.  I'm going to repost three key paragraphs so you can see what Keith is trying to do. 

My perspectives have been deeply influenced by the first of Schattauer’s impulses: the liturgical movement. Schattauer says that its central interest is “to give the church clearer definition as a community of Christ through the focus on central practices which constitute persons in relation to Christ and to one another, most especially the reading and proclamation of Scripture, baptism, and Eucharist. Moreover, the purpose of this community in Christ constituted in its liturgical assembly is to be understood in relation to God’s purpose in the world.”

As useful as it is, Schattauer’s list gives insufficient attention to another impulse that I encounter with increasing urgency in theological literature and in conversations with church people week after week: the need to restate central Christian doctrines in ways that can be affirmed by people who have dismissed older ways of stating Christian beliefs and who are searching for believable ways of describing their faith. My early theological studies focused upon the continental liberal tradition and for a generation my closest theological colleagues were advocates of process theology. While I have only limited competence as theologian, the mood, perspective, and themes of contemporary liberal theology are important to the way I think about my life as a Christian.

My plan for this series is to propose that the classic union of Word and Table, understood in its simplest and most direct form, is the place to begin our construction of worship that is “something other.” I then will discuss each of its components, in their order as they appear in the classic shape of the service. Along the way, I will take time out to comment on specific challenges—atonement theologies in the eucharist, for example—that are especially challenging to the progressive Christians whom I meet week after week, in churches on Sundays and lots of other places on the other days.

I am deeply interested in where Keith will take this.  I have devoted considerable attention to the form that worship takes, in the hope that the worship services I help plan will bring people into the presence of God, so that they might worship God fully, and be empowered and encouraged so as to engage in the mission of God in the world -- bringing wholeness and healing to a deeply fragmented and wounded world.  To do this one must think deeply about what one is doing -- bringing theology, culture, and tradition into conversation with each other.  Theology provides the fulcrum upon which we balance culture and tradition.  It is not an easy task and requires that we attend to those who have wisdom in these matters -- even if we don't follow in every point of contention.  I invite you to participate in the discussion here and to continue over to Keith's blog, where you can read the full piece and engage him in conversation. 

The Dangers of Spiritual Amnesia

Being a historian, I love to talk about the past.  I'm especially interested in talking about such obscure groups as the Nonjurors.  You  ask: who are the Nonjurors?   Well that is a subject for another day -- but here's a link just in case you're really curious. 

But, more to the point, American Christians have a tendency to relegate history to the back burner of the conversation.  We're all about the present and the future.  We'd just as soon not get stuck in the past, unless of course we're daydreaming about mythical golden ages when everyone was a Christian and the nation was Christian.  There is a tendency, as well to recreate history to suit our own purposes -- as we saw recently with the Texas Textbook Committee.  Or maybe we'll develop the hubris to think that our age is the beginning of the next great age of faith, surpassing all that came before. 

Diana Butler Bass wrote a piece yesterday for her new Huffington Post  blog posting entitled "Is Western Christianity Suffering from Spiritual Amnesia?"   I'd like to clip a couple of excerpts and comment on them because I believe she's raising important questions.

At the present juncture of history, Western Christianity is suffering from a bad case of spiritual amnesia. Even those who claim to be devout or conservative often know little about the history of their faith traditions. Our loss of memory began more than two centuries ago, at the high tide of the Enlightenment. As modern society developed, the condition of broken memory -- being disconnected from the past -- became more widespread. Indeed, in the words of one French Catholic thinker, the primary spiritual dilemma of contemporary religion is the "loss and reconstruction" of memory.

If we're suffering from spiritual amnesia, we're likely suffering from a spiritual identity crisis.  This is an age when the changes are coming at us fast and furious.  Many of us feel as if we're rafting the the white waters of the Colorado River.  Where is our anchor?  Our sense of identity?  One of the consequences of amnesia is a loss of identity.  You simply don't know who you are or where you come from.  That is the danger that faces us today, and its largely our own fault.  We've simply not told our stories.    

Although many recoil from the term tradition, tradition is something we need to reclaim if we're to reclaim a sense of identity that will anchor us as we shoot the rapids of modernity/postmodernity.    Diana clarifies this a bit in her closing paragraph:

About a year ago, I heard Newsweek's Jon Meacham say, "History is to a country what memory is to an individual." The quip seems particularly apt to American religious groups. To paraphrase, history is to a religion (or a denomination, church, or faith community) what memory is to an individual. To lose memory is neither funny nor sad; rather, it is a path to profound brokenness, a loss of self, meaning, and God that leaves us in darkness unable to act in purposeful ways in the world. Thus, I wonder: Is spiritual amnesia a precursor to religious Alzheimer's, a fatal loss of memory for which there is no cure? I hope not. And I hope that religious people -- especially my progressive brothers and sisters -- can tether their passion for contemporary faith to ancient wisdom.

As we seek to tether our passion for faith to the ancient wisdom, let me recommend Diana's own book People's History of Christianity (Harper One, 2009) as a good place to start.  And, if you're a bit more ambitious, you might check out Diarmond MacCulloch's Christianity:  The First Three Thousand Years (Viking, 2010).  MacCulloch's book just arrived in the mail from the publisher, and all I've had time to do is flip through the pages -- but even though it's over a thousand pages in length -- it looks as if it will be a good read.