Set 7: The Holy Scriptures
Monday, January 7, 2013, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
LIMITED RESOURCES: A printed one-volume annotated Bible, a printed one-volume Concordance and a printed 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
NO electronic or Internet resources.
A reminder: This is not a liturgical question; it seeks, rather, a careful discussion and application to contemporary faith and culture of a biblical mandate for repentance.
A. In both Old and New Testament writings a call to God’s people for repentance is clear and undeniable. In an essay of 500 to 750 words, explore this call through exegesis of the following texts:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 and Matthew 4:12-17
Your essay should address the literary, historical, and theological highlights of each text and set forth the biblical case for repentance as represented by these texts.
B. As an ordained person, you have just attended the monthly meeting of your Ecumenical Community Clergy Council. The topic discussed was “Preparing for Lent.” One member had suggested that the group consider sponsoring “Ashes to go.” She remembered some media coverage on Ash Wednesday 2012 showing clergy imposing ashes on street corners in the downtown business district and suburbs. She recalled that there was a great deal of positive reaction to this practice, stressing the theme that the churches were “meeting people where they are,” and commenting that with people’s busy lives, this was a visible way to reach out to the community. Another member was strongly opposed, asking, “What would be the biblical basis for this?” The group then had turned to you for your position on your colleague’s original suggestion.
In an essay of 500 to 750 words, address the following questions:
In what ways does such a contemporary practice (“Ashes to go”) respond faithfully to the call for repentance as articulated in Joel and Matthew?
In what ways does it not?
General Thoughts on the Holy Scriptures:
You are NOT writing for biblical scholars. I think the best audience to have in mind are advanced high school students and college students. In other words you should be presenting an exegesis that shows you are aware of basic critiques of the Bible if someone where to look up stuff but should say nothing that would prompt any one to look anything up. OVER THINKING this section is your biggest hurdle. Keep It Simple Stupid...
This question in specific:
You have two resources... use both of them...
First Section:
In both Old and New Testament writings a call to God’s people for repentance is clear and undeniable. In an essay of 500 to 750 words, explore this call through exegesis of the following texts:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 and Matthew 4:12-17
Your essay should address the literary, historical, and theological highlights of each text and set forth the biblical case for repentance as represented by these texts.
This question looks daunting until you remember it is about absolute BASICS. Your immediate response might be panic at the idea of having to remember literary, historical, and theological exegesis... but the key word here is HIGHLIGHTS as in Highlights for Children! Also this is a place where reading the whole question first is really important. You are going to use one of these texts to argue for Ashes to Go and the other to argue against it... so keep that in mind. So here is the lay out...
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17
(90 words) The literary nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The historical nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The theological nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The biblical case for repentance nature of the text.
Matthew 4:12-17
(90 words) The literary nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The historical nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The theological nature of the text in HIGHLIGHTS
(90 words) The biblical case for repentance nature of the text.
You should be using a good one volume annotated bible that gives you all the information you need.
Second Section.
As an ordained person, you have just attended the monthly meeting of your Ecumenical Community Clergy Council. The topic discussed was “Preparing for Lent.” One member had suggested that the group consider sponsoring “Ashes to go.” She remembered some media coverage on Ash Wednesday 2012 showing clergy imposing ashes on street corners in the downtown business district and suburbs. She recalled that there was a great deal of positive reaction to this practice, stressing the theme that the churches were “meeting people where they are,” and commenting that with people’s busy lives, this was a visible way to reach out to the community. Another member was strongly opposed, asking, “What would be the biblical basis for this?” The group then had turned to you for your position on your colleague’s original suggestion.
In an essay of 500 to 750 words, address the following questions:
In what ways does such a contemporary practice (“Ashes to go”) respond faithfully to the call for repentance as articulated in Joel and Matthew?
In what ways does it not?
So the first paragraph is really all fluff. Ignore it.
Next realize that NO ONE cares whether or not you like Ashes To Go. The question here is can you put aside whatever opinions you personally have and show the basic arguments for both sides.
You need to look at your exegesis and decide which text supports Ashes to Go and which one does not then you will right a 375 word essay detailing the pro argument based on that exegesis and marking important sections of the BCP. Then you will do the opposite.
As always grammar and spelling matter.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Breaking the GOEs: 2013 Church History
Set 6: Church History
Monday, January 7, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
NO OUTSIDE RESOURCES
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church begins its definition of a council as: “A formal meeting of bishops and representatives of several churches convened for the purpose of regulating doctrine or discipline.” (ODCC, 3 ed., [1997], p. 422)
The authority and impact of three “councils,” thus broadly construed, form the basis of this question.
The Council of Nicaea (325)
The King in Parliament in relation to the Church of England in 1533
The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1789
Choose two of the three “councils.” In two essays of approximately 250 words each, set each one in its historical context, describing the circumstances for calling the “council,” the issue(s) that the “council” had to address, and the impact of the “council.”
In an essay of approximately 500 words, compare the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of the Council of Nicaea to the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of another “council” you have chosen.
Based on your discussion, evaluate in an essay of not more than 500 words how successful Church “councils” have been in regulating doctrine and discipline.
General Thoughts on Church History:
Truth be told this is the question that I am dreading because there is so much history in my head and in a testing situation if one concept moves into the wrong file suddenly everything is wrong. So for me here it is really important to remember that this is supposed to be super simple history. The GOEs want to make sure you know the BASICS. It happens that I can talk about Bishop Colenso’s books and the tracts in response to them in detail and how that contributed to the first Lambeth Conference... On the GOEs most of that information is too much detail and too esoteric. These questions are not being graded by church historians, remember that.
This Question:
This is a question where it is really important to read the whole question before starting. Talking about all three councils is not going to help you any more than talking about two... you have to talk about the Council of Nicaea, so don’t skip that one (if you have no idea what it was about and know the other two better I am slightly worried). Also you are writing three different essays BUT try to keep them in some form of alignment.
The first paragraph:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church begins its definition of a council as: “A formal meeting of bishops and representatives of several churches convened for the purpose of regulating doctrine or discipline.” (ODCC, 3 ed., [1997], p. 422)
This is, for the most part, fluff. Do not get to wrapped up in it.
The presentation:
The authority and impact of three “councils,” thus broadly construed, form the basis of this question.
The Council of Nicaea (325)
The King in Parliament in relation to the Church of England in 1533
The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1789
So you have read through question. You know you have to talk about Nicaea. Basically at this point it is a matter of do you remember what happened in 1533 or 1789 better. This is actually where I think the Board is being really cruel to the majority of learners. Most of us do not remember or relate to things by dates and there are other ways to open up a discussion on history. The deal being, however, that the GOE is never going to address a truly esoteric point in history so any point they bring up is going to be the major one not the minor one. In this case we have the first council of Nicaea, the year when the King rescinded parliament’s ability to appeal to the Pope in matters religious, and the second General Convention of the ECUSA where the Constitution was ratified and the denomination as we know it really began.
The first question:
Choose two of the three “councils.” In two essays of approximately 250 words each, set each one in its historical context, describing the circumstances for calling the “council,” the issue(s) that the “council” had to address, and the impact of the “council.”
Remember that in reality here you are choosing the Council of Nicaea and one other “council”
This truly could not be an easier essay outline set up. Basically you have 60 words to give historical context, 60 words to describe the circumstances, 60 words to describe the issues, and 60 words to describe the impact of a major historical council in Church History. ALL YOU CAN DO HERE IS BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. [To be clear the THREE SENTENCES in this paragraph, not included this side note, is 58 words... we are talking the basic of basic history.]
Second Question:
In an essay of approximately 500 words, compare the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of the Council of Nicaea to the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of another “council” you have chosen. The big question in this one is what in the world does the Board of Examining chaplain mean when it says “sources, exercise and reception of the Authority of the Council”.
Once again we have a straightforward essay outline:
The Sources of the Authority for Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Exercise of the Authority Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Reception of the Authority Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Sources of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The Exercise of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The Reception of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The key being that the first Council of Nicaea is universally maintained as authoritative through what is considered orthodox Christianity (they kicked out the Arians) while the others are much more limited.
Third Question:
Based on your discussion, evaluate in an essay of not more than 500 words how successful Church “councils” have been in regulating doctrine and discipline.
The main thing here is to not consider this an opinion peace. This is still a history peace and here is how it works:
In 125 words note how the Council of Nicaea continues to regulate doctrine in Christianity.
In 125 words note how the other council continues to regulate doctrine in Anglicanism/ECUSA
In 125 words note how the Council of Nicaea continues to regulate discipline in Christianity.
In 125 words note how the other council continues to regulate discipline in Anglicanism/ECUSA
Just remember that this is about your ability to relate History and historical facts not your opinions about them. You can think the Council of Nicaea is the worst thing to happen to Christianity but this question is about the Historical implications of the Council not your opinion on the council. The word limits do not generally allow very much depth. That is fine put forward the BASIC facts as if the reader had no foreknowledge of what they were asking. And, as always, spelling and grammar count.
NO OUTSIDE RESOURCES
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church begins its definition of a council as: “A formal meeting of bishops and representatives of several churches convened for the purpose of regulating doctrine or discipline.” (ODCC, 3 ed., [1997], p. 422)
The authority and impact of three “councils,” thus broadly construed, form the basis of this question.
The Council of Nicaea (325)
The King in Parliament in relation to the Church of England in 1533
The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1789
Choose two of the three “councils.” In two essays of approximately 250 words each, set each one in its historical context, describing the circumstances for calling the “council,” the issue(s) that the “council” had to address, and the impact of the “council.”
In an essay of approximately 500 words, compare the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of the Council of Nicaea to the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of another “council” you have chosen.
Based on your discussion, evaluate in an essay of not more than 500 words how successful Church “councils” have been in regulating doctrine and discipline.
General Thoughts on Church History:
Truth be told this is the question that I am dreading because there is so much history in my head and in a testing situation if one concept moves into the wrong file suddenly everything is wrong. So for me here it is really important to remember that this is supposed to be super simple history. The GOEs want to make sure you know the BASICS. It happens that I can talk about Bishop Colenso’s books and the tracts in response to them in detail and how that contributed to the first Lambeth Conference... On the GOEs most of that information is too much detail and too esoteric. These questions are not being graded by church historians, remember that.
This Question:
This is a question where it is really important to read the whole question before starting. Talking about all three councils is not going to help you any more than talking about two... you have to talk about the Council of Nicaea, so don’t skip that one (if you have no idea what it was about and know the other two better I am slightly worried). Also you are writing three different essays BUT try to keep them in some form of alignment.
The first paragraph:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church begins its definition of a council as: “A formal meeting of bishops and representatives of several churches convened for the purpose of regulating doctrine or discipline.” (ODCC, 3 ed., [1997], p. 422)
This is, for the most part, fluff. Do not get to wrapped up in it.
The presentation:
The authority and impact of three “councils,” thus broadly construed, form the basis of this question.
The Council of Nicaea (325)
The King in Parliament in relation to the Church of England in 1533
The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1789
So you have read through question. You know you have to talk about Nicaea. Basically at this point it is a matter of do you remember what happened in 1533 or 1789 better. This is actually where I think the Board is being really cruel to the majority of learners. Most of us do not remember or relate to things by dates and there are other ways to open up a discussion on history. The deal being, however, that the GOE is never going to address a truly esoteric point in history so any point they bring up is going to be the major one not the minor one. In this case we have the first council of Nicaea, the year when the King rescinded parliament’s ability to appeal to the Pope in matters religious, and the second General Convention of the ECUSA where the Constitution was ratified and the denomination as we know it really began.
The first question:
Choose two of the three “councils.” In two essays of approximately 250 words each, set each one in its historical context, describing the circumstances for calling the “council,” the issue(s) that the “council” had to address, and the impact of the “council.”
Remember that in reality here you are choosing the Council of Nicaea and one other “council”
This truly could not be an easier essay outline set up. Basically you have 60 words to give historical context, 60 words to describe the circumstances, 60 words to describe the issues, and 60 words to describe the impact of a major historical council in Church History. ALL YOU CAN DO HERE IS BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. [To be clear the THREE SENTENCES in this paragraph, not included this side note, is 58 words... we are talking the basic of basic history.]
Second Question:
In an essay of approximately 500 words, compare the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of the Council of Nicaea to the sources, exercise and reception of the authority of another “council” you have chosen. The big question in this one is what in the world does the Board of Examining chaplain mean when it says “sources, exercise and reception of the Authority of the Council”.
Once again we have a straightforward essay outline:
The Sources of the Authority for Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Exercise of the Authority Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Reception of the Authority Council of Nicaea (80 words)
The Sources of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The Exercise of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The Reception of the Authority of the other council (80 words)
The key being that the first Council of Nicaea is universally maintained as authoritative through what is considered orthodox Christianity (they kicked out the Arians) while the others are much more limited.
Third Question:
Based on your discussion, evaluate in an essay of not more than 500 words how successful Church “councils” have been in regulating doctrine and discipline.
The main thing here is to not consider this an opinion peace. This is still a history peace and here is how it works:
In 125 words note how the Council of Nicaea continues to regulate doctrine in Christianity.
In 125 words note how the other council continues to regulate doctrine in Anglicanism/ECUSA
In 125 words note how the Council of Nicaea continues to regulate discipline in Christianity.
In 125 words note how the other council continues to regulate discipline in Anglicanism/ECUSA
Just remember that this is about your ability to relate History and historical facts not your opinions about them. You can think the Council of Nicaea is the worst thing to happen to Christianity but this question is about the Historical implications of the Council not your opinion on the council. The word limits do not generally allow very much depth. That is fine put forward the BASIC facts as if the reader had no foreknowledge of what they were asking. And, as always, spelling and grammar count.
Breaking the GOEs: 2013 Christian Theology and Missiology
Set 5: Christian Theology and Missiology Saturday, January 5, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
LIMITED RESOURCES: A printed one-volume annotated Bible, a printed one-volume Concordance, a printed 1979 Book of Common Prayer and a printed Hymnal 1982. NO electronic or Internet resources.
Dorothy Sayers famously observed that if people depended upon the Church to answer the question, “What is the Trinity?” the vast majority of people would respond:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.’ Something put in by the theologians to make it more difficult—nothing to do with daily life or ethics.”
Drawing on the allowed resources and your own understanding, write an essay of approximately 1,500 words explaining how the doctrine of the Trinity is relevant to “daily life or ethics.”
General thoughts on theology and missiology:
I might sound like a broken record at this point but it is really important to NOT make these questions about your theology or your missiology. The GOE is interested in whether or not you can articulate a basic understanding of theology and missiology on a subject in a way that a person with only a passing interest in either would understand. This is where actually having an intense interest in theology and missiology can be in your DISFAVOR. Keep It Simple Stupid!
This question in particular:
As long as you do not get wrapped up in your own theology, etc. this question is actually pretty straight forward on account of the resources that they give you. They allowed you access to three resources and you need to consistently use them.
The first paragraphs:
Dorothy Sayers famously observed that if people depended upon the Church to answer the question, “What is the Trinity?” the vast majority of people would respond:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.’ Something put in by the theologians to make it more difficult—nothing to do with daily life or ethics.”
I love Dorothy Sayers, both for her theology and her mystery novels. I know where Sayers goes next after this quote. I have to toss that information out of my head. This is not exactly fluff but it is dangerous because people will either be bummed out because they have no idea who Dorothy Sayers is or be super excited because they can talk about Dorothy Sayers until the cows come home. This whole thing is just set up, take the general idea and move on from the details.
The actual question:
Drawing on the allowed resources and your own understanding, write an essay of approximately 1,500 words explaining how the doctrine of the Trinity is relevant to “daily life or ethics.”
The quote comes into play here a little bit... in that we know we want to undue the idea that each part of the trinity is “incomprehensible” as well as the construct as a whole. Here is how you do this: Open up the BCP to the CATECHISM and find a statement about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Ghost that you can argue is “relevant to “daily life or ethics””. Do the same for the Trinity as a whole (this last one is the hardest). Find a Bible passage that backs up that statement about each part of the trinity and the trinity as a whole. Open the hymnal to the hymns on “The Holy Trinity” and find a hymn or hymns that have lines that can back up your general thesis. If you can get one hymn to line up with a set of statements from the catechism and fill in with some bible you are set. The outline would be:
375 words on: God the Father is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Son is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Holy Spirit is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Trinity is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
I know there is a lot of really cool Trinitarian theology out there. I am half way through Sarah Coakley’s text “God, Sexuality, and the Self” and want to bring it up like crazy in this essay... DON”T... I recognize a lot of need to work with how we approach the terms “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” when it comes to inclusive language DON’T DO THAT HERE... Just write a basic essay from the catechism about the trinity to get people to the point where they might be interested in the other stuff. Keep it simple, check spelling and grammar, and keep yourself out of it.
LIMITED RESOURCES: A printed one-volume annotated Bible, a printed one-volume Concordance, a printed 1979 Book of Common Prayer and a printed Hymnal 1982. NO electronic or Internet resources.
Dorothy Sayers famously observed that if people depended upon the Church to answer the question, “What is the Trinity?” the vast majority of people would respond:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.’ Something put in by the theologians to make it more difficult—nothing to do with daily life or ethics.”
Drawing on the allowed resources and your own understanding, write an essay of approximately 1,500 words explaining how the doctrine of the Trinity is relevant to “daily life or ethics.”
General thoughts on theology and missiology:
I might sound like a broken record at this point but it is really important to NOT make these questions about your theology or your missiology. The GOE is interested in whether or not you can articulate a basic understanding of theology and missiology on a subject in a way that a person with only a passing interest in either would understand. This is where actually having an intense interest in theology and missiology can be in your DISFAVOR. Keep It Simple Stupid!
This question in particular:
As long as you do not get wrapped up in your own theology, etc. this question is actually pretty straight forward on account of the resources that they give you. They allowed you access to three resources and you need to consistently use them.
The first paragraphs:
Dorothy Sayers famously observed that if people depended upon the Church to answer the question, “What is the Trinity?” the vast majority of people would respond:
“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the whole thing incomprehensible.’ Something put in by the theologians to make it more difficult—nothing to do with daily life or ethics.”
I love Dorothy Sayers, both for her theology and her mystery novels. I know where Sayers goes next after this quote. I have to toss that information out of my head. This is not exactly fluff but it is dangerous because people will either be bummed out because they have no idea who Dorothy Sayers is or be super excited because they can talk about Dorothy Sayers until the cows come home. This whole thing is just set up, take the general idea and move on from the details.
The actual question:
Drawing on the allowed resources and your own understanding, write an essay of approximately 1,500 words explaining how the doctrine of the Trinity is relevant to “daily life or ethics.”
The quote comes into play here a little bit... in that we know we want to undue the idea that each part of the trinity is “incomprehensible” as well as the construct as a whole. Here is how you do this: Open up the BCP to the CATECHISM and find a statement about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Ghost that you can argue is “relevant to “daily life or ethics””. Do the same for the Trinity as a whole (this last one is the hardest). Find a Bible passage that backs up that statement about each part of the trinity and the trinity as a whole. Open the hymnal to the hymns on “The Holy Trinity” and find a hymn or hymns that have lines that can back up your general thesis. If you can get one hymn to line up with a set of statements from the catechism and fill in with some bible you are set. The outline would be:
375 words on: God the Father is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Son is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Holy Spirit is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
375 words on: God the Trinity is relevant to daily life and ethics because:
The Catechism makes this clear when:
Which is strongly supported in the bible verse:
And is a theology we sing in the hymn:
I know there is a lot of really cool Trinitarian theology out there. I am half way through Sarah Coakley’s text “God, Sexuality, and the Self” and want to bring it up like crazy in this essay... DON”T... I recognize a lot of need to work with how we approach the terms “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” when it comes to inclusive language DON’T DO THAT HERE... Just write a basic essay from the catechism about the trinity to get people to the point where they might be interested in the other stuff. Keep it simple, check spelling and grammar, and keep yourself out of it.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Breaking the GOEs: 2013 Contemporary Soiceity
Set 4: Contemporary Society
Friday, January 4, 2013, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
You are the rector of a congregation in a medium-sized city with a centrally located church building. For several years, yoga groups have met in your parish hall; a number of your members attend these classes. More recently, under the leadership of the last rector, the rise of interest in meditation brought a Zen Buddhist meditation group to meet in your chapel once a week; a few of your members participate in these meditation sessions. A group of Muslims has now approached you to ask if it could rent space for Friday prayers because the lease has expired on the last place it met.
Canonically, you know that the use of space is the rector’s decision, but you wish to involve vestry members in replying to the request and setting future policy. They are looking to you for guidance.
In an answer of 1,000 words:
1. Relevant to the decision you must make, describe how these three religious practices (yoga, Zen meditation, Friday prayers for Muslims) relate to Christianity.
2. Explain how the relationships identified in Part 1 inform your decision about whether or not to agree to the request of the Muslims and whether or not to continue to allow the other two groups to meet in your facility.
General thoughts about Contemporary Society Questions:
So these questions are often tricky because they are about contemporary society and the church and that is just a tricky subject. It is really, really important to ANSWER THE QUESTION with these ones because in all probability you are going to have some intense emotional gut reaction. The big issue here is that the readers do not, as a rule, want to know your personal opinion on contemporary society they want to know whether or not you are AWARE of the issues in contemporary society and general opinion.
This question in specific...
There is a lot going on here, a lot of opinions that can be expressed, and a lot of need as a test taker to stay focused on the questions at hand.
The first two paragraphs:
You are the rector of a congregation in a medium-sized city with a centrally located church building. For several years, yoga groups have met in your parish hall; a number of your members attend these classes. More recently, under the leadership of the last rector, the rise of interest in meditation brought a Zen Buddhist meditation group to meet in your chapel once a week; a few of your members participate in these meditation sessions. A group of Muslims has now approached you to ask if it could rent space for Friday prayers because the lease has expired on the last place it met.
Canonically, you know that the use of space is the rector’s decision, but you wish to involve vestry members in replying to the request and setting future policy. They are looking to you for guidance.
In this case these paragraphs are not fluff, but they involve a lot of extra information that are not relevant to the questions that follow. So pay attention to facts about the situation and not feelings.
First section
Relevant to the decision you must make, describe how these three religious practices (yoga, Zen meditation, Friday prayers for Muslims) relate to Christianity.
So the question being asked is how does the “religious practice” relate to “christianity” and you have 500 words to do it. I am going to fill this outline out a bit with my own thoughts to give an idea of where to go.
Yoga (166 words)
1) [Identify what Yoga is] Yoga is a physical practice that comes out of the cultural and religious heritage of India. While it comes out of a spiritual tradition it is taken up by many solely for exercise and health benefits.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] The physical practice of Yoga does not require any specific metaphysical beliefs. Christians who enter into it can find spiritual nourishment in it the same way they would in running or other forms of exercise. They should, however, be aware of its religious roots and approach that tradition with the same care they would other religious beliefs. Zen
Meditation (166 words)
1) [Identify what Zen Meditation is] Zen Meditation is a centering practice developed within Zen Buddhism. It is distinctly part of that tradition and practitioners must take up some of the ideals of Zen Buddhism in order to fully engage with it but not ascribe fully to the beliefs of Zen Buddhism.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] Zen Buddhist meditation practices have many things in common with Christian Centering Prayer practices. Many devout Christians, the Trappist Monks Thomas Keating and Thomas Merton for example, have found their Christian faith nourished by learning from Zen Buddhist. Zen Buddhism holds some tenets that are not in line with Christian thinking and Christians who engage in conversation or mutual times of prayer/meditation with Zen Buddhists need to keep this fact in mind.
Friday Prayers for Muslims (166 words)
1) [Identify what Friday Prayer for Muslims is] Friday evening prayer for Muslims is the religious equivalent to Sunday morning worship for Christians.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] This is a principle service for believers of the Islamic faith. Full participation in it by non-believers who are not potential converts might be problematic if not offensive. Christians could not, in good conscious, fully participate without having to deny core essentials of Christian faith. It is important, in the midst of our differences, to note that Christianity and Islam have a long history of both peaceable living and full out warfare as well as a common religious heritage.
Considerations on the first section...
I want to be clear what I did here. I tried my best, with the information in my head, to present my knowledge of how these practices exist within contemporary society. I might think that Yoga is intrinsically pagan, but that is not how it is perceived in contemporary society. I might think that any one who looks into Zen Buddhism is on a road straight to hell, but that is not how many very traditional Christian’s view it. I might think that Muslims should never enter into a church building and pray, but that is not what is being asked. ANSWER THE QUESTION. [For the record I prefer Tai Chi to Yoga, there is a Zafu and Zabuton set a foot from the desk I am sitting at, and I have a deep respect for practitioners of Islam in the midst of many theological differences.]
Second Section
Explain how the relationships identified in Part 1 inform your decision about whether or not to agree to the request of the Muslims and whether or not to continue to allow the other two groups to meet in your facility.
So this is one of those rare cases where the GOE is actually asking for your specific opinion. Be true to yourself but please do not say anything too radical. It is also important to realize what is at the heart of this question: How does the relationship between Christianity and a Religious Practice inform our theology of hospitality. Also the reader's want to make sure you are not going to decide on a whim to upset practices that have been part of a Church's faith life for several years.
My response, for those who want to see an example, would run something like this.
When Christ sent out the disciples he told them to go out to a town and rest in the house that offered them peace in return for their peace. Difference in beliefs or religious practices does not forbid us from sharing peace with one another and offering hospitality. Being in community with people who hold beliefs contrary to ours and figuring out where we disagree and where we agree, where we can be together and where we can be apart, is difficult but life giving. The goal is to learn to disagree better in the midst of peace. The Parish has already found itself entering into this reality and discerning opening our space up further, while maintaining the core beliefs in the Creeds, is a a distinct possibility. etc. etc. etc.
So there we go. As always, answer the question, keep your personal opinions at bay unless they specifically ask for them, and check your spelling and grammar.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
You are the rector of a congregation in a medium-sized city with a centrally located church building. For several years, yoga groups have met in your parish hall; a number of your members attend these classes. More recently, under the leadership of the last rector, the rise of interest in meditation brought a Zen Buddhist meditation group to meet in your chapel once a week; a few of your members participate in these meditation sessions. A group of Muslims has now approached you to ask if it could rent space for Friday prayers because the lease has expired on the last place it met.
Canonically, you know that the use of space is the rector’s decision, but you wish to involve vestry members in replying to the request and setting future policy. They are looking to you for guidance.
In an answer of 1,000 words:
1. Relevant to the decision you must make, describe how these three religious practices (yoga, Zen meditation, Friday prayers for Muslims) relate to Christianity.
2. Explain how the relationships identified in Part 1 inform your decision about whether or not to agree to the request of the Muslims and whether or not to continue to allow the other two groups to meet in your facility.
General thoughts about Contemporary Society Questions:
So these questions are often tricky because they are about contemporary society and the church and that is just a tricky subject. It is really, really important to ANSWER THE QUESTION with these ones because in all probability you are going to have some intense emotional gut reaction. The big issue here is that the readers do not, as a rule, want to know your personal opinion on contemporary society they want to know whether or not you are AWARE of the issues in contemporary society and general opinion.
This question in specific...
There is a lot going on here, a lot of opinions that can be expressed, and a lot of need as a test taker to stay focused on the questions at hand.
The first two paragraphs:
You are the rector of a congregation in a medium-sized city with a centrally located church building. For several years, yoga groups have met in your parish hall; a number of your members attend these classes. More recently, under the leadership of the last rector, the rise of interest in meditation brought a Zen Buddhist meditation group to meet in your chapel once a week; a few of your members participate in these meditation sessions. A group of Muslims has now approached you to ask if it could rent space for Friday prayers because the lease has expired on the last place it met.
Canonically, you know that the use of space is the rector’s decision, but you wish to involve vestry members in replying to the request and setting future policy. They are looking to you for guidance.
In this case these paragraphs are not fluff, but they involve a lot of extra information that are not relevant to the questions that follow. So pay attention to facts about the situation and not feelings.
First section
Relevant to the decision you must make, describe how these three religious practices (yoga, Zen meditation, Friday prayers for Muslims) relate to Christianity.
So the question being asked is how does the “religious practice” relate to “christianity” and you have 500 words to do it. I am going to fill this outline out a bit with my own thoughts to give an idea of where to go.
Yoga (166 words)
1) [Identify what Yoga is] Yoga is a physical practice that comes out of the cultural and religious heritage of India. While it comes out of a spiritual tradition it is taken up by many solely for exercise and health benefits.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] The physical practice of Yoga does not require any specific metaphysical beliefs. Christians who enter into it can find spiritual nourishment in it the same way they would in running or other forms of exercise. They should, however, be aware of its religious roots and approach that tradition with the same care they would other religious beliefs. Zen
Meditation (166 words)
1) [Identify what Zen Meditation is] Zen Meditation is a centering practice developed within Zen Buddhism. It is distinctly part of that tradition and practitioners must take up some of the ideals of Zen Buddhism in order to fully engage with it but not ascribe fully to the beliefs of Zen Buddhism.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] Zen Buddhist meditation practices have many things in common with Christian Centering Prayer practices. Many devout Christians, the Trappist Monks Thomas Keating and Thomas Merton for example, have found their Christian faith nourished by learning from Zen Buddhist. Zen Buddhism holds some tenets that are not in line with Christian thinking and Christians who engage in conversation or mutual times of prayer/meditation with Zen Buddhists need to keep this fact in mind.
Friday Prayers for Muslims (166 words)
1) [Identify what Friday Prayer for Muslims is] Friday evening prayer for Muslims is the religious equivalent to Sunday morning worship for Christians.
2) [Identify how it relates to Christianity] This is a principle service for believers of the Islamic faith. Full participation in it by non-believers who are not potential converts might be problematic if not offensive. Christians could not, in good conscious, fully participate without having to deny core essentials of Christian faith. It is important, in the midst of our differences, to note that Christianity and Islam have a long history of both peaceable living and full out warfare as well as a common religious heritage.
Considerations on the first section...
I want to be clear what I did here. I tried my best, with the information in my head, to present my knowledge of how these practices exist within contemporary society. I might think that Yoga is intrinsically pagan, but that is not how it is perceived in contemporary society. I might think that any one who looks into Zen Buddhism is on a road straight to hell, but that is not how many very traditional Christian’s view it. I might think that Muslims should never enter into a church building and pray, but that is not what is being asked. ANSWER THE QUESTION. [For the record I prefer Tai Chi to Yoga, there is a Zafu and Zabuton set a foot from the desk I am sitting at, and I have a deep respect for practitioners of Islam in the midst of many theological differences.]
Second Section
Explain how the relationships identified in Part 1 inform your decision about whether or not to agree to the request of the Muslims and whether or not to continue to allow the other two groups to meet in your facility.
So this is one of those rare cases where the GOE is actually asking for your specific opinion. Be true to yourself but please do not say anything too radical. It is also important to realize what is at the heart of this question: How does the relationship between Christianity and a Religious Practice inform our theology of hospitality. Also the reader's want to make sure you are not going to decide on a whim to upset practices that have been part of a Church's faith life for several years.
My response, for those who want to see an example, would run something like this.
When Christ sent out the disciples he told them to go out to a town and rest in the house that offered them peace in return for their peace. Difference in beliefs or religious practices does not forbid us from sharing peace with one another and offering hospitality. Being in community with people who hold beliefs contrary to ours and figuring out where we disagree and where we agree, where we can be together and where we can be apart, is difficult but life giving. The goal is to learn to disagree better in the midst of peace. The Parish has already found itself entering into this reality and discerning opening our space up further, while maintaining the core beliefs in the Creeds, is a a distinct possibility. etc. etc. etc.
So there we go. As always, answer the question, keep your personal opinions at bay unless they specifically ask for them, and check your spelling and grammar.
Breaking the GOE's: 2013 Christian Ethics and Moral Theology
Set 3: Christian Ethics and Moral Theology Friday, January 4, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)
In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is quoted as criticizing the scribes and Pharisees for neglecting to practice justice (as well as mercy and faith).
1. In an essay of 1000 words, present and expand on a Christian understanding of justice, drawing on your knowledge of sources in Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought. Identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology.
2. In an essay of 500 words, explain in detail what it means for individual Christians and the Church as a body to practice these forms of justice.
General Thoughts on Christian Ethics and Moral Theology
So this is one of the sections where there is a history of the question blind siding people from left field. The reality is that Cristian Ethics and Moral Theology are huge fields of study with a large number of teaching methodologies and no standardized Episcopal Seminary curriculum. The key thing is that there is generally one question every year that 70% of people fail and often it is this one. That is a sign that the question is the problem not the test takers.
This question in specifics:
This is a BAD question. I can tell you right now that if I was not in exactly the right head space and got this question I would have failed it. Here is the problem: “a christian understanding of justice” DOES NOT exist. There are multiple concepts of “justice” within the Christian tradition and the further statement to “identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology” further confuses the matter.
My initial response to a question that appears to be seeking an understanding of an unlimited number of “justices” and their relationship to “Christian Justice” would be to talk about eco-justice, class-justice, and queer-justice issues and how they relate to Christian ethics. THIS IS THE WRONG ANSWER... but there is good news because you should be able to tell it is the wrong answer immediately if you remember one thing...
THE GOEs NEVER WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL PET ISSUES! If at any point you are looking at a question and it appears the question wants you to express a few of your favourite things then IMMEDIATELY SHOVE JULIE ANDREWS IN THE CLOSET, LOCK THE DOOR, AND LOOK AGAIN.
What this question wants you to do is discuss three different ways of going about justice: Retributive Justice, Redistributive Justice, Reconciliatory Justice, etc.. It would have been really helpful if the question had stated this fact clearly. The only reason we know that this is how things are is because otherwise we would have to be talking about three of our pet issues.
The first paragraphs:
Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)
In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is quoted as criticizing the scribes and Pharisees for neglecting to practice justice (as well as mercy and faith).
This is fluff. All but useless contextual fluff.
The third paragraph:
In an essay of 1000 words, present and expand on a Christian understanding of justice, drawing on your knowledge of sources in Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought. Identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology.
So this is, as always in the GOEs, a case of the simpler the better. You have to talk about three things, only talk about three things. For each of those three things you must cite some part of scripture and some part of tradition.
Paragraph 1: Retributive Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition
Paragraph 2: Redistributive Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition Paragraph
3: Reconciliatory Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition
Final Paragraph:
In an essay of 500 words, explain in detail what it means for individual Christians and the Church as a body to practice these forms of justice.
So here is how you can go horribly wrong here... you can name one of the three above as the best version of justice for christianity. THIS IS THE WRONG ANSWER. Truth be told I think Bishop Tutu has proven overwhelmingly that Reconciliatory Justice is the only form of Christian Justice... but when it comes to the GOEs no one cares about my favorite things or specific thoughts they care if I understand the basics. The basics here is that you have just proven that three types of justice can be upheld by scripture and tradition. The question is how do we engage as individuals and a church in all three as Christians.
so the outline would be:
Retributive Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
Redistributive Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
Reconciliatory Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
And the question is done.
So along with all our other notes about keeping it simple, double checking for grammar, etc. the key thing here is to remember that the GOE’s will never ask you to express personal pet issues, axes you have to grind, or about your favourite things. They always want you to express an understanding of basic information. If you find yourself picking up your battle axe or pumped to talk about your favorite issues, step back and refocus.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)
In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is quoted as criticizing the scribes and Pharisees for neglecting to practice justice (as well as mercy and faith).
1. In an essay of 1000 words, present and expand on a Christian understanding of justice, drawing on your knowledge of sources in Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought. Identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology.
2. In an essay of 500 words, explain in detail what it means for individual Christians and the Church as a body to practice these forms of justice.
General Thoughts on Christian Ethics and Moral Theology
So this is one of the sections where there is a history of the question blind siding people from left field. The reality is that Cristian Ethics and Moral Theology are huge fields of study with a large number of teaching methodologies and no standardized Episcopal Seminary curriculum. The key thing is that there is generally one question every year that 70% of people fail and often it is this one. That is a sign that the question is the problem not the test takers.
This question in specifics:
This is a BAD question. I can tell you right now that if I was not in exactly the right head space and got this question I would have failed it. Here is the problem: “a christian understanding of justice” DOES NOT exist. There are multiple concepts of “justice” within the Christian tradition and the further statement to “identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology” further confuses the matter.
My initial response to a question that appears to be seeking an understanding of an unlimited number of “justices” and their relationship to “Christian Justice” would be to talk about eco-justice, class-justice, and queer-justice issues and how they relate to Christian ethics. THIS IS THE WRONG ANSWER... but there is good news because you should be able to tell it is the wrong answer immediately if you remember one thing...
THE GOEs NEVER WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL PET ISSUES! If at any point you are looking at a question and it appears the question wants you to express a few of your favourite things then IMMEDIATELY SHOVE JULIE ANDREWS IN THE CLOSET, LOCK THE DOOR, AND LOOK AGAIN.
What this question wants you to do is discuss three different ways of going about justice: Retributive Justice, Redistributive Justice, Reconciliatory Justice, etc.. It would have been really helpful if the question had stated this fact clearly. The only reason we know that this is how things are is because otherwise we would have to be talking about three of our pet issues.
The first paragraphs:
Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)
In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is quoted as criticizing the scribes and Pharisees for neglecting to practice justice (as well as mercy and faith).
This is fluff. All but useless contextual fluff.
The third paragraph:
In an essay of 1000 words, present and expand on a Christian understanding of justice, drawing on your knowledge of sources in Scripture and the tradition of Christian thought. Identify and differentiate at least three forms of justice commonly discussed in Christian ethics and moral theology.
So this is, as always in the GOEs, a case of the simpler the better. You have to talk about three things, only talk about three things. For each of those three things you must cite some part of scripture and some part of tradition.
Paragraph 1: Retributive Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition
Paragraph 2: Redistributive Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition Paragraph
3: Reconciliatory Justice (330 words)
1) Define the type of Justice
2) Show an example is scripture
3) Show an example from Christian Tradition
Final Paragraph:
In an essay of 500 words, explain in detail what it means for individual Christians and the Church as a body to practice these forms of justice.
So here is how you can go horribly wrong here... you can name one of the three above as the best version of justice for christianity. THIS IS THE WRONG ANSWER. Truth be told I think Bishop Tutu has proven overwhelmingly that Reconciliatory Justice is the only form of Christian Justice... but when it comes to the GOEs no one cares about my favorite things or specific thoughts they care if I understand the basics. The basics here is that you have just proven that three types of justice can be upheld by scripture and tradition. The question is how do we engage as individuals and a church in all three as Christians.
so the outline would be:
Retributive Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
Redistributive Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
Reconciliatory Justice (166 words)
1) As a christian individual
2) As a church
And the question is done.
So along with all our other notes about keeping it simple, double checking for grammar, etc. the key thing here is to remember that the GOE’s will never ask you to express personal pet issues, axes you have to grind, or about your favourite things. They always want you to express an understanding of basic information. If you find yourself picking up your battle axe or pumped to talk about your favorite issues, step back and refocus.
How equal sin and equal love is not always equal...
"We are all equally sinners" and "God loves everyone equally" are standard defenses of people who claim their stances around the sin of homosexuality are not oppressive. They are correct in that those two statements are not oppressive and lay the ground work for a non oppressive understanding of both sin and love. Unfortunately a firm foundation does not always a plum house build. The next step one must look at is the material repercussion of sin and the theological/pastoral relationship between an individual and sin.
The law codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are just, exceptionally harsh, but just. There is a certain level of sin1 and there is a certain level of punishment. If you commit adultery, masturbate, are involved in a male on male rape, you should be put to death. Now this is a horrific material repercussion, the loss of life, but it is one applied equally to a category of sins, mortal sins. I might disagree, and I do, with categorizing these things as mortal sins or even sins of the same level... but I can recognize the system as internally just. There is a certain level of sin, mortal sin, and all mortal sin has the same material punishment, death. I cannot say that about how many theologies of sin today approach mortal sins.
In a culture that had material justice around mortal sin we would not be able to differentiate between adulterers, masturbaters, and those who participate in same sex acts.2 I think we can all attest to the fact that the cultural implications for a male who acknowledges actual acts of masturbation is markedly different from the cultural implications for a male who admits even the temptation to partake in a same sex act. The same can be said for the implications of stating one or the other in a Roman Catholic confessional booth.3 The reality being that Christian traditions that consider all mortal sins equal do not treat them as equal nor do they seek for society to treat them equally. This lack of internal justice shows that while a church may say "we are all equally sinners" it does not mean that the church "treats all sins, even those of the same level in tradition, as equal". This cultural and pastoral privileging is the first means of oppression.
The next question is wether or not all selves are treated equally in the relationship between self, God, and Church. Is the self marked by homosexuality equal to the self marked by heterosexuality? Selves marked by homosexuality are not allowed, in many traditions, to be chaste only celibate. Chastity is the capacity to discern fully the use of one's sexuality and then live out that discernment. If a tradition refuses selves marked by homosexuality to be chaste then the church is seeking to block the relationship between those selves and God in a way they are not selves marked by heterosexuality. This is an inherent privileging of any self marked by heterosexuality over selves marked by homosexuality.
The way these theologies do this is by refusing to acknowledge the concept of sexuality in any way shape or form and only recognizing sexual activity. The question is never about the emotional, physical, spiritual, or mental well being of the individual involved but only about the specific sexual acts involved. The only sexual act that can be emotionally, physically, spiritually, or mentally beneficial is procreative sex in the context of marriage. Any person who puts forward that their emotional, physical, spiritual or mental well being is benefited by any other form of sexual activity is automatically invalidated. This individual is, by default, incapable of having a proper relationship with God and their conscious is inherently flawed until such time as they deny such benefit and recognize they were under the sway of satanic forces. This automatic invalidation of personal conscious and a person’s capacity to understand their own relationship with God is how “God loves us all equally” must be met with “and we all have equal ability to love God” or it can quickly be a phrase of prejudice. So here is the end of it. If your theology maintains systems where homosexual “mortal sins” are treated differently from other “mortal sins” and dictates that homosexual individuals are inherently flawed in their ability to relate to God and maintain their own conscious... then your theology is prejudiced against the LGBTQ community. You can hold prejudicial theologies and maintain prejudicial systems and fully believe that “all sins are equal” and “God loves all equally”. These statements do not absolve one from being an instrument of oppression. They just don’t.
The law codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are just, exceptionally harsh, but just. There is a certain level of sin1 and there is a certain level of punishment. If you commit adultery, masturbate, are involved in a male on male rape, you should be put to death. Now this is a horrific material repercussion, the loss of life, but it is one applied equally to a category of sins, mortal sins. I might disagree, and I do, with categorizing these things as mortal sins or even sins of the same level... but I can recognize the system as internally just. There is a certain level of sin, mortal sin, and all mortal sin has the same material punishment, death. I cannot say that about how many theologies of sin today approach mortal sins.
In a culture that had material justice around mortal sin we would not be able to differentiate between adulterers, masturbaters, and those who participate in same sex acts.2 I think we can all attest to the fact that the cultural implications for a male who acknowledges actual acts of masturbation is markedly different from the cultural implications for a male who admits even the temptation to partake in a same sex act. The same can be said for the implications of stating one or the other in a Roman Catholic confessional booth.3 The reality being that Christian traditions that consider all mortal sins equal do not treat them as equal nor do they seek for society to treat them equally. This lack of internal justice shows that while a church may say "we are all equally sinners" it does not mean that the church "treats all sins, even those of the same level in tradition, as equal". This cultural and pastoral privileging is the first means of oppression.
The next question is wether or not all selves are treated equally in the relationship between self, God, and Church. Is the self marked by homosexuality equal to the self marked by heterosexuality? Selves marked by homosexuality are not allowed, in many traditions, to be chaste only celibate. Chastity is the capacity to discern fully the use of one's sexuality and then live out that discernment. If a tradition refuses selves marked by homosexuality to be chaste then the church is seeking to block the relationship between those selves and God in a way they are not selves marked by heterosexuality. This is an inherent privileging of any self marked by heterosexuality over selves marked by homosexuality.
The way these theologies do this is by refusing to acknowledge the concept of sexuality in any way shape or form and only recognizing sexual activity. The question is never about the emotional, physical, spiritual, or mental well being of the individual involved but only about the specific sexual acts involved. The only sexual act that can be emotionally, physically, spiritually, or mentally beneficial is procreative sex in the context of marriage. Any person who puts forward that their emotional, physical, spiritual or mental well being is benefited by any other form of sexual activity is automatically invalidated. This individual is, by default, incapable of having a proper relationship with God and their conscious is inherently flawed until such time as they deny such benefit and recognize they were under the sway of satanic forces. This automatic invalidation of personal conscious and a person’s capacity to understand their own relationship with God is how “God loves us all equally” must be met with “and we all have equal ability to love God” or it can quickly be a phrase of prejudice. So here is the end of it. If your theology maintains systems where homosexual “mortal sins” are treated differently from other “mortal sins” and dictates that homosexual individuals are inherently flawed in their ability to relate to God and maintain their own conscious... then your theology is prejudiced against the LGBTQ community. You can hold prejudicial theologies and maintain prejudicial systems and fully believe that “all sins are equal” and “God loves all equally”. These statements do not absolve one from being an instrument of oppression. They just don’t.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Breaking the GOEs: 2013 Theory and Practice of Ministry
Set 2: Theory and Practice of Ministry Thursday, January 3, 2013, 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
For three years you have been the clergy person in charge at St. Christopher’s Church, a congregation in a populous community. You receive a phone call from a chaplain working with one of the local hospice programs. She shares with you that a 12-year-old girl has been admitted into the hospice facility with a terminal disease. She is being kept as comfortable as possible but is approximately a week from death and is unresponsive.
The family has indicated to the chaplain that they are members of St. Christopher’s. They say they have been inactive at St. Christopher’s for at least five years and do not know the clergy person there, though they still consider it their spiritual home. You do not recall ever meeting the family. The chaplain tells you that she would be willing to continue to minister to the family but also feels it important to at least let you know of the situation.
In an essay of approximately 1,500 words, clearly identify and explain the theological, pastoral and practical issues that inform what you choose to do or choose not to do. Include in the essay any other people or resources you might consult to help you reach your decisions.
General Thoughts on Practice of Ministry:
These questions are ALWAYS about whether or not you are a grounded and centered individual able to process a problematic situation. DO NOT TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE READERS WANT TO HEAR. Take a few minutes, ground and center yourself, and look at the question and ask what part of dealing with a problematic situation is it asking about... then answer it.
Now this specific question:
The first two paragraphs here are emotionally moving important contextual fluff. It might be very easy to get caught up in that and write a few paragraphs of your own about how you relate to the problem, how it makes you feel, what experiences you have had that make you prepared to deal with it correctly. DO NOT DO THAT! You will be waisting your limited word count on information the readers are not looking for. Giving your readers a good cry is not part of the grading rubric. In fact by doing the above you are NOT answering the question at all but doing the opposite.
The meat of this question is fully in the last paragraph:
In an essay of approximately 1,500 words, clearly identify and explain the theological, pastoral and practical issues that inform what you choose to do or choose not to do. Include in the essay any other people or resources you might consult to help you reach your decisions.
This is when ANSWER THE QUESTION becomes really important. The question is NOT “what will you do?” but “how will you figure out what you will do?”. The real question here is about whether or not you know you have limits, recognize your need for help, and have identified means of getting help.
This is the essay outline. With what immediately come to my mind as topics, your mind probably comes up with better ones...
Section I (500 words): Theological Issues
A) Ecclesiology (Are they actually members of my church?)
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) Theodicy (What does it mean for a parent to bury a young child if God is good?)
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
Section II (500 words): Pastoral Issues (how can I prepare to work with them)
A) I do not know anything about a family that considers me the leader of their spiritual home.
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) I have my own baggage around childhood terminal illness.
1) What resources or person do I turn to with this problem.
Section III (500 words): Practical Issues
A) I do not have a relationship with the Hospice Chaplain
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) We will soon be moving from end of life care to funeral arrangements
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
So there is a basic outline. Maybe your points are different from mine, that is fine, the question is not your points versus my points but what points come up for each of us and are we ready to handle our points to be grounded and centered priests.
Maybe you have time to add a section C to each group. That is great. Make sure, however, that you get something articulate down for all three points and not take up too much time on any one section.
Maybe your looking at this and saying that it is too simple, almost stupid, redundantly basic. Congratulations! If this looks redundantly basic to you then you have been well trained. That is what this test is about: Do you have the simple, almost stupid, redundantly basic concepts to be a priest down. Nothing more and nothing less. Do not try to make it more than it is... that is, as far as I can tell, the major trap people fall into.
NO EXTERNAL RESOURCES
For three years you have been the clergy person in charge at St. Christopher’s Church, a congregation in a populous community. You receive a phone call from a chaplain working with one of the local hospice programs. She shares with you that a 12-year-old girl has been admitted into the hospice facility with a terminal disease. She is being kept as comfortable as possible but is approximately a week from death and is unresponsive.
The family has indicated to the chaplain that they are members of St. Christopher’s. They say they have been inactive at St. Christopher’s for at least five years and do not know the clergy person there, though they still consider it their spiritual home. You do not recall ever meeting the family. The chaplain tells you that she would be willing to continue to minister to the family but also feels it important to at least let you know of the situation.
In an essay of approximately 1,500 words, clearly identify and explain the theological, pastoral and practical issues that inform what you choose to do or choose not to do. Include in the essay any other people or resources you might consult to help you reach your decisions.
General Thoughts on Practice of Ministry:
These questions are ALWAYS about whether or not you are a grounded and centered individual able to process a problematic situation. DO NOT TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE READERS WANT TO HEAR. Take a few minutes, ground and center yourself, and look at the question and ask what part of dealing with a problematic situation is it asking about... then answer it.
Now this specific question:
The first two paragraphs here are emotionally moving important contextual fluff. It might be very easy to get caught up in that and write a few paragraphs of your own about how you relate to the problem, how it makes you feel, what experiences you have had that make you prepared to deal with it correctly. DO NOT DO THAT! You will be waisting your limited word count on information the readers are not looking for. Giving your readers a good cry is not part of the grading rubric. In fact by doing the above you are NOT answering the question at all but doing the opposite.
The meat of this question is fully in the last paragraph:
In an essay of approximately 1,500 words, clearly identify and explain the theological, pastoral and practical issues that inform what you choose to do or choose not to do. Include in the essay any other people or resources you might consult to help you reach your decisions.
This is when ANSWER THE QUESTION becomes really important. The question is NOT “what will you do?” but “how will you figure out what you will do?”. The real question here is about whether or not you know you have limits, recognize your need for help, and have identified means of getting help.
This is the essay outline. With what immediately come to my mind as topics, your mind probably comes up with better ones...
Section I (500 words): Theological Issues
A) Ecclesiology (Are they actually members of my church?)
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) Theodicy (What does it mean for a parent to bury a young child if God is good?)
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
Section II (500 words): Pastoral Issues (how can I prepare to work with them)
A) I do not know anything about a family that considers me the leader of their spiritual home.
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) I have my own baggage around childhood terminal illness.
1) What resources or person do I turn to with this problem.
Section III (500 words): Practical Issues
A) I do not have a relationship with the Hospice Chaplain
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
B) We will soon be moving from end of life care to funeral arrangements
1) What resource or person do I turn to with this problem?
So there is a basic outline. Maybe your points are different from mine, that is fine, the question is not your points versus my points but what points come up for each of us and are we ready to handle our points to be grounded and centered priests.
Maybe you have time to add a section C to each group. That is great. Make sure, however, that you get something articulate down for all three points and not take up too much time on any one section.
Maybe your looking at this and saying that it is too simple, almost stupid, redundantly basic. Congratulations! If this looks redundantly basic to you then you have been well trained. That is what this test is about: Do you have the simple, almost stupid, redundantly basic concepts to be a priest down. Nothing more and nothing less. Do not try to make it more than it is... that is, as far as I can tell, the major trap people fall into.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Breaking the GOE: 2013 Liturgy and Music
Set 1: Liturgy and Church Music Thursday, January 3, 2013, 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
LIMITED RESOURCES: A printed one-volume annotated Bible; a printed 1979 Book of Common Prayer; a printed Book of Occasional Services; a printed Lesser Feasts and Fasts; the printed Enriching Our Worship volumes; a printed Holy Women, Holy Men; and printed authorized Episcopal hymnals. NO electronic or Internet resources.
Create a liturgy for a nature-oriented event in your pastoral context. You may imagine any such situation: for example, the planting or harvesting of crops, the blessing of a fishing fleet, the planting of a community garden, the reclaiming of land after a natural disaster, or the blessing of animals.
1. In a well-organized essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Give the pastoral reason for the rite;
B. Explain the theological understanding of creation that informs your liturgical design.
2. In another essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Outline the celebration, explaining why you structured it this way and why you chose the liturgical texts, readings and music, showing how your choices conform to the rubrics of the liturgical books listed above;
B. Describe the roles of the members of the congregation, including the liturgical leaders;
C. Describe the liturgical choreography (the movement of the assembly, including the liturgical ministers) and the use of space.
General Thoughts on Liturgy and Church Music...
These questions are ALWAYS about your proficiency with our Liturgical Resources. In this question you MUST use the BCP, Hymnal 1982, and EOW I. You also need to try to use HWHM/LFF or BOS as well as a Hymnal Supplement. Here is a check list for this question to keep in mind:
Identify for your answer:
Relevant Pages of the BCP
Three THEOLOGICALLY relevant hymns from the Hymnal 1982.
A TOPICAL canticle from EOW I.
Relevant Material from HWHM/LFF or the BOS.
One THEOLOGICALLY relevant hymn from a supplement.
ALSO: DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE TO DO A EUCHARIST UNLESS IT FITS!
Now this specific question:
First Paragraph:
Create a liturgy for a nature-oriented event in your pastoral context. You may imagine any such situation: for example, the planting or harvesting of crops, the blessing of a fishing fleet, the planting of a community garden, the reclaiming of land after a natural disaster, or the blessing of animals.
WARNING: The initial reaction may be to do something creative and brilliant. To show everyone your knowledge of medieval nature liturgies, your deep personal devotion to modern celtic spirituality, or the need for us to embrace the feminine aspects of God in nature. DO NOT DO THIS. As a general rule the more creative a response the question asks for the more simple, clear, and well thought out the answer needs to be.
The first question is this: In the past few years have you taken part in the creation of a “liturgy for a nature-oriented event”? If you are lucky enough to have something like that in your history then run with it, create next years version or a version for a slightly different context.
If not then do not try to be creative or special. Look at the four suggested examples. If you have experience with farming or fishing communities choose one of the first two. If you do not have such experience DO NOT DO THOSE LITURGIES. If you have experience with community agriculture then choose the third option. If you do not have such experience DO NOT DO THAT LITURGY. If the only thing you have even ever heard of is a “Blessing of the Animals” then do that. This is NOT the space to show of your brilliance and creativity it is a place to show you have a basic understanding of our liturgical resources.
I am going to presume that we are running with one of the four examples. Now here is the deal in reality there are only two actual examples in the question. The first three are Rogation Services the last one is a St. Francis Day Celebration. If you did not look at the first three examples and think “Rogation Service” that is a good sign you should NOT try to make a liturgy for them. If you did not see “Blessing of the Animals” and think “St. Francis”, well then I am not sure how much I can help you. One of the four examples, I pray at least the last one, should have struck you as doable. DO THAT ONE. It does not matter that everyone else is probably doing the same one just do the one you can and do it simply and clearly.
The Rogation Service is on page 103 of the BOS and St. Francis is celebrated on Oct. 4.
Now go through the check list (above) for using your liturgical resources. Keep in mind that not doing a Eucharist might be a good idea and make your life simpler.
Second Paragraph:
1. In a well-organized essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Give the pastoral reason for the rite;
B. Explain the theological understanding of creation that informs your liturgical design.
Now lets rewrite this a bit:
In 325 words describe why this liturgy makes sense in your context.
In 325 words explain the theology you are teaching in this liturgy.
The first 325 words are basically set up. Lay out three pastoral needs of the hypothetical community and a how this liturgy hopes to address them.
The second 325 words should note the theological teachings that address those pastoral needs. Try to quote the Catechism, quote a Hymn, and quote a rubric or prayer from the liturgy.
Remember to keep it simple and obvious:
"Christians need to recognize that they are part of creation. This liturgy will connect them with creation through the planting/fishing/garden/animals in our midst. This is theologically grounded in our understanding of God’s love for creation. The hymn “All Things Bright and Beautiful” expresses this theology well."
Expand that a bit, organize it the way they tell you and move on. It is not creative or brilliant. It is basic, uncontroversial, and shows you know the liturgical resources. THAT IS ALL YOU WANT IT TO DO.
Third Paragraph
2. In another essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Outline the celebration, explaining why you structured it this way and why you chose the liturgical texts, readings and music, showing how your choices conform to the rubrics of the liturgical books listed above;
B. Describe the roles of the members of the congregation, including the liturgical leaders;
C. Describe the liturgical choreography (the movement of the assembly, including the liturgical ministers) and the use of space.
So lets rewrite this...
In 250 words create the bulletin for the service show that it conforms to the rubrics and why you chose the extra stuff you did. Remember SIMPLE and CLEAR:
"The St. Francis Day Blessing of the Animals will be a variation of “Order for Evening” because there is a lot of openness in the rubrics while still giving an outline for worship with a special event. Its only required prayer, the Prayer for Light, includes an option that is very creation centered."
or
"We will be blessing the fields/ships/garden on a Sunday afternoon after our principle service so there will not be a eucharist. ... Form V of Prayers of the People fits well because of..."
Make sure not to get excited and forget major rubrics. For instance one cannot, according to the rubrics, celebrate St. Francis Day and a Blessing of the Animals on Sunday morning unless you are at St. Francis Episcopal Church. You might have done this, you might plan to do this, this might be the best idea ever... DO NOT WRITE IT IN THE GOEs. This is a time for conforming to the rubrics and not doing anything exceptional.
In 250 words name all the principle players in the liturgy. DO NOT FORGET TO NAME THE CONGREGATION AND THEIR PURPOSE. And what their purpose is at this liturgy.
In 250 words describe the how things will move. Give a procession line up and discuss the space and who will face who where and when. When it comes to the GOEs we should all be LOW CHURCH.
Proof check for the following:
REWRITE ANY SENTENCE INVOLVING A SEMI-COLON OR MORE THAN ONE SUB-CLAUSE.
CHECK FOR ANY OF YOUR COMMON MISTAKES. (mine are not using the plural form for Priests, their/there, and where/were)
MAKE SURE YOU ANSWERED THE WHOLE QUESTION.
LIMITED RESOURCES: A printed one-volume annotated Bible; a printed 1979 Book of Common Prayer; a printed Book of Occasional Services; a printed Lesser Feasts and Fasts; the printed Enriching Our Worship volumes; a printed Holy Women, Holy Men; and printed authorized Episcopal hymnals. NO electronic or Internet resources.
Create a liturgy for a nature-oriented event in your pastoral context. You may imagine any such situation: for example, the planting or harvesting of crops, the blessing of a fishing fleet, the planting of a community garden, the reclaiming of land after a natural disaster, or the blessing of animals.
1. In a well-organized essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Give the pastoral reason for the rite;
B. Explain the theological understanding of creation that informs your liturgical design.
2. In another essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Outline the celebration, explaining why you structured it this way and why you chose the liturgical texts, readings and music, showing how your choices conform to the rubrics of the liturgical books listed above;
B. Describe the roles of the members of the congregation, including the liturgical leaders;
C. Describe the liturgical choreography (the movement of the assembly, including the liturgical ministers) and the use of space.
General Thoughts on Liturgy and Church Music...
These questions are ALWAYS about your proficiency with our Liturgical Resources. In this question you MUST use the BCP, Hymnal 1982, and EOW I. You also need to try to use HWHM/LFF or BOS as well as a Hymnal Supplement. Here is a check list for this question to keep in mind:
Identify for your answer:
Relevant Pages of the BCP
Three THEOLOGICALLY relevant hymns from the Hymnal 1982.
A TOPICAL canticle from EOW I.
Relevant Material from HWHM/LFF or the BOS.
One THEOLOGICALLY relevant hymn from a supplement.
ALSO: DO NOT THINK YOU HAVE TO DO A EUCHARIST UNLESS IT FITS!
Now this specific question:
First Paragraph:
Create a liturgy for a nature-oriented event in your pastoral context. You may imagine any such situation: for example, the planting or harvesting of crops, the blessing of a fishing fleet, the planting of a community garden, the reclaiming of land after a natural disaster, or the blessing of animals.
WARNING: The initial reaction may be to do something creative and brilliant. To show everyone your knowledge of medieval nature liturgies, your deep personal devotion to modern celtic spirituality, or the need for us to embrace the feminine aspects of God in nature. DO NOT DO THIS. As a general rule the more creative a response the question asks for the more simple, clear, and well thought out the answer needs to be.
The first question is this: In the past few years have you taken part in the creation of a “liturgy for a nature-oriented event”? If you are lucky enough to have something like that in your history then run with it, create next years version or a version for a slightly different context.
If not then do not try to be creative or special. Look at the four suggested examples. If you have experience with farming or fishing communities choose one of the first two. If you do not have such experience DO NOT DO THOSE LITURGIES. If you have experience with community agriculture then choose the third option. If you do not have such experience DO NOT DO THAT LITURGY. If the only thing you have even ever heard of is a “Blessing of the Animals” then do that. This is NOT the space to show of your brilliance and creativity it is a place to show you have a basic understanding of our liturgical resources.
I am going to presume that we are running with one of the four examples. Now here is the deal in reality there are only two actual examples in the question. The first three are Rogation Services the last one is a St. Francis Day Celebration. If you did not look at the first three examples and think “Rogation Service” that is a good sign you should NOT try to make a liturgy for them. If you did not see “Blessing of the Animals” and think “St. Francis”, well then I am not sure how much I can help you. One of the four examples, I pray at least the last one, should have struck you as doable. DO THAT ONE. It does not matter that everyone else is probably doing the same one just do the one you can and do it simply and clearly.
The Rogation Service is on page 103 of the BOS and St. Francis is celebrated on Oct. 4.
Now go through the check list (above) for using your liturgical resources. Keep in mind that not doing a Eucharist might be a good idea and make your life simpler.
Second Paragraph:
1. In a well-organized essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Give the pastoral reason for the rite;
B. Explain the theological understanding of creation that informs your liturgical design.
Now lets rewrite this a bit:
In 325 words describe why this liturgy makes sense in your context.
In 325 words explain the theology you are teaching in this liturgy.
The first 325 words are basically set up. Lay out three pastoral needs of the hypothetical community and a how this liturgy hopes to address them.
The second 325 words should note the theological teachings that address those pastoral needs. Try to quote the Catechism, quote a Hymn, and quote a rubric or prayer from the liturgy.
Remember to keep it simple and obvious:
"Christians need to recognize that they are part of creation. This liturgy will connect them with creation through the planting/fishing/garden/animals in our midst. This is theologically grounded in our understanding of God’s love for creation. The hymn “All Things Bright and Beautiful” expresses this theology well."
Expand that a bit, organize it the way they tell you and move on. It is not creative or brilliant. It is basic, uncontroversial, and shows you know the liturgical resources. THAT IS ALL YOU WANT IT TO DO.
Third Paragraph
2. In another essay of approximately 750 words:
A. Outline the celebration, explaining why you structured it this way and why you chose the liturgical texts, readings and music, showing how your choices conform to the rubrics of the liturgical books listed above;
B. Describe the roles of the members of the congregation, including the liturgical leaders;
C. Describe the liturgical choreography (the movement of the assembly, including the liturgical ministers) and the use of space.
So lets rewrite this...
In 250 words create the bulletin for the service show that it conforms to the rubrics and why you chose the extra stuff you did. Remember SIMPLE and CLEAR:
"The St. Francis Day Blessing of the Animals will be a variation of “Order for Evening” because there is a lot of openness in the rubrics while still giving an outline for worship with a special event. Its only required prayer, the Prayer for Light, includes an option that is very creation centered."
or
"We will be blessing the fields/ships/garden on a Sunday afternoon after our principle service so there will not be a eucharist. ... Form V of Prayers of the People fits well because of..."
Make sure not to get excited and forget major rubrics. For instance one cannot, according to the rubrics, celebrate St. Francis Day and a Blessing of the Animals on Sunday morning unless you are at St. Francis Episcopal Church. You might have done this, you might plan to do this, this might be the best idea ever... DO NOT WRITE IT IN THE GOEs. This is a time for conforming to the rubrics and not doing anything exceptional.
In 250 words name all the principle players in the liturgy. DO NOT FORGET TO NAME THE CONGREGATION AND THEIR PURPOSE. And what their purpose is at this liturgy.
In 250 words describe the how things will move. Give a procession line up and discuss the space and who will face who where and when. When it comes to the GOEs we should all be LOW CHURCH.
Proof check for the following:
REWRITE ANY SENTENCE INVOLVING A SEMI-COLON OR MORE THAN ONE SUB-CLAUSE.
CHECK FOR ANY OF YOUR COMMON MISTAKES. (mine are not using the plural form for Priests, their/there, and where/were)
MAKE SURE YOU ANSWERED THE WHOLE QUESTION.
Breaking the GOEs: Introduction
So it is eleven days until the GOE's... Time to start breaking them to make an omelette...
Let me be clear I am a seminarian taking them in eleven days, probably like you. The only thing that might differentiate me from you is that I used to work in special education and specialized in getting students with all types of learning styles through that meat grinder which is modern standardized testing. There should be nothing theologically interesting in these posts, note there should not be anything theologically interesting in the GOE either and we will get to that. The sole reason for these post are to dismantle the test and the questions.
First Rule: THE GOEs DO NOT MATTER. Let me repeat that THE GOEs DO NOT MATTER. There is no statistical correlation between being a good priest, theologian, biblical scholar, etc. and doing well on the GOEs. There are, in fact, many exceptions in the ranks of priests who have failed the GOE that show that it has no correlation to long term ministry capacity. Also most diocese have a plan in place for what happens when a person fails a section of the GOEs. If you do not know your diocesan policy FIND OUT NOW! A five day testing ordeal is stressful enough without extra baggage.
Now to be clear the GOEs do matter, just no where near as much as we make them matter in our heads. They are an easy, if a headache, way to have a general method of testing BASIC proficiency in the seven canonical areas.. The word BASIC here is key. The GOEs are supposed to be about basic proficiency, sometimes the test givers mess up on this fact, but my guess is that the test takers do it more. We will get more into this later.
Second Rule: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. After a few years of seminary you are used to writing for some of the most brilliant minds in Christianity. THESE ARE NOT THE MINDS GRADING THE GOEs. The GOEs are graded by a wonderful group of people. Many of them have no theological training and many that do were trained decades ago to an M.Div. level. They have been very well trained to look at the specific seven questions being asked this year. This means a few key points need to be kept in mind.
Episcopal Theology with Jehovah Witness presentation. The Jehovah Witnesses present all their information at a fifth grade reading level. (This is a theological point they have that anything God wants people to know should be comprehensible to all but the most limited.) The reality is that this is the level most newspapers and trade paperbacks are written at. It is not the level most seminarians have been reading and writing at for two years. All of the readers are capable of reading far above fifth grade level, they are probably not, however, doing it on a regular basis. Absurd as it might be due to the nature of a question pretend you are going to publish your answer in the church newsletter and expect it to be understood by the vast majority of your parishioners.
Your theological interest are not in your favor. It does not matter what your theological interest are, how relevant they are, or what significance they have to transforming the church into the instrument it needs to be in the world. I congratulate you for your interest in the tractarians, radical feminism, Celtic spirituality, or the like. There will be many points in your ministry to bring them to bear... The GOEs are not one of them. Your interest are your interest and esoteric to the majority of Episcopalians, including, probably, the readers. If you get "lucky" and a question seems right up your ally be very wary to not get derailed in your interest and actually miss the question. You have spent the past years reading cutting edge theology and finding your theological loves... The readers have not and will easily get lost.
Students write to show what they know, scholars write to teach. This is really critical. In the GOEs you are not a student trying to prove you have learned all the course material. You are a scholar showing that you can teach practically about a subject to a general audience. Getting nervous and regurgitating random brilliant facts about the general subject of the question will not help. Concisely teaching the basic information you know will. Do not try to prove you are right on a subject, teach a general introduction to the subject.
Third Rule: ANSWER THE QUESTION. I am going to go through most of the back questions and break them in the days ahead. So we will see in practice what we will present at the moment in theory.
K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). This bears repeating from above. GOE answers should not be brilliant or creative, brilliance and creativity are too easily confusing and esoteric, they should be simple and straightforward. If a GOE question incites in you an amazing epiphany of creative brilliance... blog it later. You might be an awesome foodie chef... During the GOEs you are cooking for the hypoallergenic retirement home of mid-western curmudgeons. It is a pass/fail exam do not be daring be safe.
The Question is the Answer. One of the biggest gifts the GOE gives you is that the layout of the question always tells you how to structure your answer. Rarely the GOE presents some erroneous situational prompt that needs to be completely disregarded. In most cases you can literally outline your entire answer directly from the question without any major mental processing. Follow their outline, their word count expectations, do exactly what they tell you when they tell you. Do not create something new and brilliant whole cloth, follow the template and meet the stated expectations.
USE THE RESOURCES. Have a trusted one volume Annotated Bible with good basic exegetical information available. This will literally be the amount of exegetical information you will need to pass, being able to use an annotated bible is more important than whatever facts you can cram into your head. Use ALL the liturgical resources. Okay, maybe not ALL of them but you need to use the BCP, the catechism (if they ask about theology of liturgy reference the catechism directly), a hymnal, and any relevant parts of the BOS and the EOWs. If they give you access to a resource use the resource in some way.
So there are the three rules for GOE test taking: The GOEs do not matter, Know Your Audience, Answer the Question. We will get down and dirty with past GOE questions in the days ahead. Take care of yourself, schedule a spa day, and relax as much as possible in the days ahead.
Let me be clear I am a seminarian taking them in eleven days, probably like you. The only thing that might differentiate me from you is that I used to work in special education and specialized in getting students with all types of learning styles through that meat grinder which is modern standardized testing. There should be nothing theologically interesting in these posts, note there should not be anything theologically interesting in the GOE either and we will get to that. The sole reason for these post are to dismantle the test and the questions.
First Rule: THE GOEs DO NOT MATTER. Let me repeat that THE GOEs DO NOT MATTER. There is no statistical correlation between being a good priest, theologian, biblical scholar, etc. and doing well on the GOEs. There are, in fact, many exceptions in the ranks of priests who have failed the GOE that show that it has no correlation to long term ministry capacity. Also most diocese have a plan in place for what happens when a person fails a section of the GOEs. If you do not know your diocesan policy FIND OUT NOW! A five day testing ordeal is stressful enough without extra baggage.
Now to be clear the GOEs do matter, just no where near as much as we make them matter in our heads. They are an easy, if a headache, way to have a general method of testing BASIC proficiency in the seven canonical areas.. The word BASIC here is key. The GOEs are supposed to be about basic proficiency, sometimes the test givers mess up on this fact, but my guess is that the test takers do it more. We will get more into this later.
Second Rule: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. After a few years of seminary you are used to writing for some of the most brilliant minds in Christianity. THESE ARE NOT THE MINDS GRADING THE GOEs. The GOEs are graded by a wonderful group of people. Many of them have no theological training and many that do were trained decades ago to an M.Div. level. They have been very well trained to look at the specific seven questions being asked this year. This means a few key points need to be kept in mind.
Episcopal Theology with Jehovah Witness presentation. The Jehovah Witnesses present all their information at a fifth grade reading level. (This is a theological point they have that anything God wants people to know should be comprehensible to all but the most limited.) The reality is that this is the level most newspapers and trade paperbacks are written at. It is not the level most seminarians have been reading and writing at for two years. All of the readers are capable of reading far above fifth grade level, they are probably not, however, doing it on a regular basis. Absurd as it might be due to the nature of a question pretend you are going to publish your answer in the church newsletter and expect it to be understood by the vast majority of your parishioners.
Your theological interest are not in your favor. It does not matter what your theological interest are, how relevant they are, or what significance they have to transforming the church into the instrument it needs to be in the world. I congratulate you for your interest in the tractarians, radical feminism, Celtic spirituality, or the like. There will be many points in your ministry to bring them to bear... The GOEs are not one of them. Your interest are your interest and esoteric to the majority of Episcopalians, including, probably, the readers. If you get "lucky" and a question seems right up your ally be very wary to not get derailed in your interest and actually miss the question. You have spent the past years reading cutting edge theology and finding your theological loves... The readers have not and will easily get lost.
Students write to show what they know, scholars write to teach. This is really critical. In the GOEs you are not a student trying to prove you have learned all the course material. You are a scholar showing that you can teach practically about a subject to a general audience. Getting nervous and regurgitating random brilliant facts about the general subject of the question will not help. Concisely teaching the basic information you know will. Do not try to prove you are right on a subject, teach a general introduction to the subject.
Third Rule: ANSWER THE QUESTION. I am going to go through most of the back questions and break them in the days ahead. So we will see in practice what we will present at the moment in theory.
K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). This bears repeating from above. GOE answers should not be brilliant or creative, brilliance and creativity are too easily confusing and esoteric, they should be simple and straightforward. If a GOE question incites in you an amazing epiphany of creative brilliance... blog it later. You might be an awesome foodie chef... During the GOEs you are cooking for the hypoallergenic retirement home of mid-western curmudgeons. It is a pass/fail exam do not be daring be safe.
The Question is the Answer. One of the biggest gifts the GOE gives you is that the layout of the question always tells you how to structure your answer. Rarely the GOE presents some erroneous situational prompt that needs to be completely disregarded. In most cases you can literally outline your entire answer directly from the question without any major mental processing. Follow their outline, their word count expectations, do exactly what they tell you when they tell you. Do not create something new and brilliant whole cloth, follow the template and meet the stated expectations.
USE THE RESOURCES. Have a trusted one volume Annotated Bible with good basic exegetical information available. This will literally be the amount of exegetical information you will need to pass, being able to use an annotated bible is more important than whatever facts you can cram into your head. Use ALL the liturgical resources. Okay, maybe not ALL of them but you need to use the BCP, the catechism (if they ask about theology of liturgy reference the catechism directly), a hymnal, and any relevant parts of the BOS and the EOWs. If they give you access to a resource use the resource in some way.
So there are the three rules for GOE test taking: The GOEs do not matter, Know Your Audience, Answer the Question. We will get down and dirty with past GOE questions in the days ahead. Take care of yourself, schedule a spa day, and relax as much as possible in the days ahead.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Unpacking Standpoint Theory in the context of Feminist Thought...
Standpoint theory comes out of the philosophy of Hegel as
taken up by Marx and stated as a clear theory by George Lukacs. Modern
continental philosophers, Zizek and Badiou of note, have accented and critiqued
it heavily. In its original context the underprivileged group was the working
class, the proletariat, and the privileged group was the upper class, the
bourgeoisie. It was then taken up by feminist, originally female labor, and is
a core component of many “subversive” theologies/philosophies (aka Feminism,
Black, Queer, etc). An important aside is the fact that the origins of
Standpoint theory are themselves androcentric such that within feminism there
is continued debate to its validity, definition, and applicability.
Standpoint theory recognizes the general validity of
scientific methods of research and discerning truth that developed during the
enlightenment. The major critique is that these methods in and of themselves do
not create an objective viewpoint. Since the individuals posting the questions and researching the
answers are primarily of a white European male cultural context the system
inherently gives privilege to that cultural context. Standpoint theory holds
that for a greater amount of objectivity questions and research have to arise
from a variety of cultural contexts.
Standpoint theory is not ethnocentrism. Feminists who hold
to standpoint theory would not hold that the feminist perspective is a superior
ground of knowledge than other perspectives, not even androcentric ones, but
that the feminist perspective is essential to the others for discerning
objective truth. It is not that any specific group holds a special repository
of knowledge but that each group has the capacity to question knowledge and
provides a necessary critique in the pursuit of truth.
Standpoint theory is not, however, relativistic or
pluralistic. Standpoint theory does not hold that all perspectives are equal in
discovering truth nor does it hold that all perspectives restrict themselves in
equal ways in their search for the truth. It does recognize that a specific
question will best be posed within the context of a certain perspective, at
first, so that the general discussion of the question will be fuller and more
applicable to reality. It further recognizes that objectivity is gained by
adding perspectives to the situation not by postulating an objective knower.
In approaching an issue from standpoint theory one would
first ask which cultural context is most able to ask the pertinent questions to
gaining understanding on the issue. Once an initial amount of questions and
research had begun then conversation partners within other cultural context
would be included to gain further objectivity. In the midst of this
conversation not all perspectives would be considered equal and certain
cultural context would be considered to have more authority. Perspectives, even
ones generally considered to not have authority on the subject, could be
conjectured as having that authority to gain further understanding of the
issue.
Standpoint theory requires a good amount of nimbleness of
thought and openness to other perspectives in order to function. It is very
easy to fall out of standpoint theory and into relativism or ethnocentrism. It
is a theory that seeks objective truth but denies any specific standpoint the
capacity to own objectivity.
this overview relies heavily on the following article:
Harding, Sandra. Rethinking Standpoint
Epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity”.
in Alcoff, Linda, and Elizabeth Potter. Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge, 1993. pages 49-82.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The Bigotry of "bi-vocation"
The church, in my opinion, needs to stop using the term
“bi-vocation”. At this point every time I hear it my mind simply says “time to
listen to some (uncalculated) lies, (outright) denial, and (unintentionally)
bigoted opinions”. It is time to stop being “nice” and get real about our
situation. We are not going to do that with a lack of discernment, clericalism,
and parochialism.
I have met bi-vocational priest. They have discerned with
the church and God amazing ministries that have them living out a personal call
within two distinct ministry settings: Priest/Doctors, Priest/Teachers,
Priest/Social Workers, Priest/Carpenters, and many other permutations. The
church has not discerned that form of call in myself, nor with the majority of
my seminary peers, nor with many of the priest currently in ministry. A priest
called to a position that requires supplementing income with another job is not
suddenly “bi-vocational”. They are just a priest who needs to make sure they
can eat. Personally I am all right with this being a possible personal reality, things
are tight out there for everyone. Just be honest with me about this reality, do
not try to glorify it by calling it “bi-vocational”, do not dishonor my friends
truly called to bi-vocational ministry.
I have met congregations where the laity have been honored
enough to recognize their gifts to lead worship, preach, and provide each other
pastoral care. Generally, however, the church is still afraid of empowering the
laity to the point where they feel they can worship without a priest present.
One priest cannot be in four places on Sunday but the priest can meet with a
group of three trained lay preachers for bible study and breakfast and hash out
sermons together each week. Maybe each community does not have Eucharist each
Sunday, but a schedule can be coordinated so that each community has access to
the Eucharist each week. This is a matter of lay education, lay empowerment,
and taking priest off of pedestals. AKA this is a matter of really hard work
that will be ridden with conflict and risk versus the easy route of
“bi-vocational’ clergy.
The major hurdle there, of course, is our latent parochialism. The church has infected its parishes with generations of defining themselves against each other, of refusing to see our commonality and being proud and defiant of our differences. If clergy, lay church administrators, lay church ministers (education, music, etc.), and the people in the pews began looking at themselves as ministers of the Episcopal Church in geographic region X that holds parishes A, B, and C instead of opposing forces A, B, and C fighting over the scarce resources of region X then I swear the majority of our issues would disappear. Imagine area clergy coming together and having one 24 hour emergency pastoral care phone that gets handed over week after week. Or instead of three quarter time parish administers there was one full time running one office and one bulletin production house. Imagine having an area associate to cover youth and young adult ministries, clergy sabbaticals and vacation, and a different view from the pulpit.
The major hurdle there, of course, is our latent parochialism. The church has infected its parishes with generations of defining themselves against each other, of refusing to see our commonality and being proud and defiant of our differences. If clergy, lay church administrators, lay church ministers (education, music, etc.), and the people in the pews began looking at themselves as ministers of the Episcopal Church in geographic region X that holds parishes A, B, and C instead of opposing forces A, B, and C fighting over the scarce resources of region X then I swear the majority of our issues would disappear. Imagine area clergy coming together and having one 24 hour emergency pastoral care phone that gets handed over week after week. Or instead of three quarter time parish administers there was one full time running one office and one bulletin production house. Imagine having an area associate to cover youth and young adult ministries, clergy sabbaticals and vacation, and a different view from the pulpit.
So please stop using the term “bi-vocational” and thinking
exhausted priest working part time jobs that are not their vocation while doing
full time ministry to a parish is actually the answer to our problems and not an inherent, if requisite, problem in itself. Please start
respecting those priest truly called to bi-vocational ministry, please start
empowering the laity, and please stop fighting with the parishes that neighbor
the one you go to.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Remember that CPE is to Ministry what the Woodshed is to Jazz…
So in jazz, and realize I am not a Jazz musician just a fan,
woodshed is a verb. It means to practice one’s musical instrument. More
specifically it is that really dirty, messy, not so pretty form of musical
practice best done in a woodshed in an isolated area. It is the hard requisite
work necessary to get to know an instrument and how to play it so that one can
perform well. On the actual day of the performance the only woodshed stuff the
audience is going to hear is when musicians make sure they are in tune, warmed
up, and ready to go.
CPE is basically the ministry equivalent to the Woodshed. It
is really dirty, messy, and not so pretty and best done with a group of people
you will never see again in an isolated area far away from one’s actual
ministry. It is the hard necessary work to get to know oneself and how one
reacts to crisis so one can perform well. In the actual midst of working with
someone, a known individual with whom one has regular interaction, the only CPE
stuff this someone should see is that the pastor is listening, available, and
ready to be there.
In my personal experience there are four times I want
someone to engage in “reflective listening”:
- I have never met the person before and they are learning about me in the midst of this crisis.
- I am in the midst of a confessional booth and the priest is seeking clarity.
- I am fully in the midst of crisis and obviously need some one to help me hear myself think but there better be some deescalation in addition to reflective listening.
- I am opening up with a person about something for the first time need to be sure they hear what I am saying.
Otherwise what I want is a companion and a natural
conversation around the issue at hand. I want the minister to truly listen to
me, I want the minister to not be reacting out of their own baggage… aka I
want, need even, the minister to have gained the core skills brought about by
CPE. What I do not want is to feel like verbatim fodder. I do not want to be a
time to catch up on rusty listening skills. Most especially if I am interacting
with the minister on account of their faith tradition then I do not want a
series of responses that do not involve the critique and advice that tradition
holds and would form me towards in relationship to the issue at hand.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Marrying your brother… why Adelphopoiesis Liturgies are not early Christian Same Gender Marriages…
So in the late 1970’s early 1980’s John Boswell, an
extraordinary academic in many ways, wrote about Adelphopoiesis Liturgies and
postulated the concept of Same Gender Marriages between gay men in the early
church. This and many other piercing questions to the history we take for
granted are found in his text Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality. This text is not a
revisionist history but consistently points out the exceptions that prove the
general consensus, that the past was 100% homophobic, to be quite wrong on many
accounts.
Recently, for reasons I am not quite aware, there has been a
series of memes on the internet about his research, specifically from his text Same-Sex
Unions in Premodern Europe. In this text
Boswell shows that certain individuals who took part in an Adelphopoiesis
Liturgies also had many other major markers, such as mutual gravestones and
cohabitation, which would mark them as a gay male couple. To consider these
specific couples to be known gay couples the church blessed using an available
liturgy is a plausible hypothesis. To call the Adelphopoiesis Liturgy a Same
Gender Marriage Liturgy, however, is not.
Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. In less then a
week one of my good friends is getting married, I am one of his groomsmen.
Mutual friends describe our relationship as an “epic bromance”. In the early
centuries of the church male Christians who found themselves in the midst of an
“epic bromance” would take part in an Adelphopoiesis Liturgy to name each other
brothers before the church and God. They would place their hands on the Gospel
Book, the priest would pray over them asking the Holy Spirit to give them the
gifts requisite to being true brothers to each other. They would also take on
all legal and cultural obligations that brothers have for each other.
Now let us say me and my soon to be married bro did this. We
would be brothers, but not husband and husband. The relationship recognized in
the rite is a spiritual one and has no mention or expectation of us physically
consummating our love in any way. It would be expected for me to be a witness,
just like a familial brother, at my bro’s wedding. What would happen there, by
the way, is his bride would come in covered in a veil, be blessed, and the
priest would witness the transaction from the bride’s father’s household to her
husband’s household. If something would happen to my spiritual brother I would
quite possibly take his wife into my household and might even be responsible
for producing his heir through the Greco-Roman form of leverite marriage.
Needless to say this is not what we are talking about any more when we use the
term “marriage” nor are the basic expectations of the Adelphopoiesis Liturgy
what are being sought by most same gender couples that I know about.
To return to Boswell:
“To insist, for instance, that in order to constitute
“marriages” homosexual unions of the past must emulate modern heterosexual marriage
is to defy history. No marriages in ancient societies closely match their
modern equivalents. Most were vastly more informal; some were more rigid. Most
cultures regard marriage as a private arrangement negotiated between two
families. No precise criteria could be specified as constituting a “legal”
marriage during most of the period of this study: two people who lived together
permanently and whose union were recognized by the community were “married”.
Even early Christian theology recognized the difficulties of deciding who was
and was not married; Augustine was willing to designate as a “wife” any woman
who intended to be permanently faithful to the man she lived with (De bono
conjugali 5.5)”[1]
I want to highlight two major points from this. First is
that no historical reality is going to viably represent modern day concepts of
marriage. Second that Boswell is looking through the historical record for gay
couples that were “two people who lived together permanently and whose union
were recognized by the community” and found that some probable candidates had
taken part in Adelphopoiesis liturgy as a way to be recognized
as family by the community. He did not find any evidence that Adelphopoiesis Liturgies regularly constituted anything equivalent to the marriages sought by modern same gender couples; he simply found that they were at some points used to constitute a community recognition between two men who show other markers of possibly being a long term committed same gender couple.
Having now possibly dashed the dreams of a
pure precedent for same gender marriage rites within the Christian tradition
let me close with a few of my hopes. First that the church will continue to
seek a theology of Marriage that speaks to a life long committed emotional,
physical, and spiritual relationship between two equal and mutual individuals.
Second that the church will invest its time in developing liturgies and
theologies around friendship and spiritual family that we had in the past but
now completely lack. My dashing of the idea of ancient same gender marriage
comes from the barrier this causes to the development of both goals.
[1] Boswell,
John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Isaiah 53: 7-12 poetical paraphrase
I worked this out for a retreat liturgy I am putting together. It is a poetical paraphrase of Isaiah 53:7-12 where I strove to remove the distinctions between the parts of the trinity played out, at least in a Christian perspective, of the text...
Oppressed… yet submissive,
like a sheep being lead to slaughter
like an ewe, dumb before those who shear her
not even opening her mouth
Taken away by oppressive judgment
Who could describe that place?
sliced away from any nourishing earth
by the sins of those who deserved punishment
Buried amidst the wicked liars,
In the cold tombs of the oppressors
One who had warmed the hearts of victims
And ever told the truth.
God longed to be open to our pain
an offering for our guilt and shame,
so that we might have abundant life,
might prosper and have purpose
Anguished tears bring vision
Loving devotion brings full joy
Cut off once from all that is living
Bearing away all that is shame
Once again to make things whole
God having now known death
Having been numbered amidst the wicked
Intercedes for the sins surely born.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Who does God want me to love most?... some reflections with the BCP
"Who does God want me to love most?"... this is a question that I have encountered in multiple ways. I remember a Bible study where one individuals adamantly felt that since the verse reads "Love your neighbor as yourself" that love of neighbor must come first because "neighbor" is first in the sentence. I also have come across, and find great value in, liberation theologies that recognize the intimate relationship between the suffering of Christ and the suffering of current victims of oppression and injustice. Recently a friend sent me this article by Fred Clark advocating that the priority of our compassion should be towards the victims of oppression until such time that justice has occurred. These theologies are an understandable reaction to the inherently bad theologies that perpetuate victimization in the name of celestial rewards.
I do not think, however, that these are the only two options on the table. I do not think I am limited to a choice between theologies that ignore the dignity of the oppressed in the name of a future heavenly kingdom or theologies that ignore the dignity of the oppressor in the name of exceptionally important issues of social justice. I believe there must be another path to walk.
I think about my personal wrestling with "loving my neighbor as myself". I have had to do a lot of work on loving myself. To this day I battle with issues of shame and self worth. I also can get caught up in my own thoughts and my own vision and ignore the needs of others. To this day I battle with issues of slowing down and hearing and integrating the experience of others into how I see the world. I believe I am called into a path that will always have me reflecting and balancing with only the occasional graceful moment along this tight rope.
I have wrestled with this in my Bible readings for quite some time. The issue is that I found myself constantly encountering biblical passages used by both traditions, often they are used well if quite differently. I often could not readily differentiate where reading into the text ended and reading from the text began. At some point I found myself putting down the Bible and looking to my tradition for possible clarity. As an Episcopalian this meant that I began to flip the onion skin paper of the Book of Common Prayer.
Where I found myself was balancing the Baptismal Covenant (p 305), the Examination of Deacons (p 543), and the Examination of Priests (p 531). I think that in these four liturgical spaces the church has expressed its theology around this question rather clearly. I am not looking at these in the context of "this is what Lay People do", "this is what Deacons do", and "this is what Priest do"; I will even put forward that such separation is inherently problematic. I do put forward that these are the places where we present how we nuance the situation and recognize that some individuals are called to live into certain nuances more than others for the sake of the whole.
The core statement, by default, is the Baptismal Covenant. The ordination examinations are simply two highly limited methods of working out a life of ministry in the context of the Baptismal Covenant. The last question and answer of the Covenant is:
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will with God's help.
I think that at this point the ground is pretty clear. I can neither ignore issues of social injustice nor can I fail to have compassion for and recognize the dignity of every human being. Every human being means everyone, regardless of where that individual is in the midst of issues of social injustice.
This is then reiterated in the Priestly Examination. In the examination for priests the candidate is must be able to affirm a call "to love and serve the people among whom you work, caring alike for young and old, strong and weak, rich and poor". That word alike is pivotal. Priests are called to preach by action a loving and serving of all individuals regardless of age, wealth, or power. They are called to lead others to similar lives of love and service by such example.
The trap here, the obvious and overwhelming trap, is how do we not allow those with power and wealth hold us captive. This can easily happen casually with no maliciousness or ill intent by those with wealth and power. It is how the system works. The answer is Deacons. Deacons live into the ministry that points out the trap, springs the trap, and gets us out of the trap when we fall into it. In the examination for deacons the candidate must be able to affirm the call "to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely". Here there is a particular interest on the victims and those facing oppression. This particularity is, however, still in the midst of service to all people. I would suggest that this nuance comes from an understanding that service to those oppressed and victimized by society that does not serve all people in society cannot, in the end, bring about holistic and systematic change of society.
The Deaconal nuance is what keeps our Baptismal call "to respect the dignity of every human being" real. It is what ensures that we do not give this vital section of our Baptismal Covenant lip service but truly calls us to ensure that we are not blind to the needs of another in the midst of whatever our particular wealth and power might be. It is the examination and vow all priests take first to ensure that they do indeed "love and serve... alike" by having a service to all people that remembers the particularity of "the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely". It is the requisite work of Deacons to constantly call out the entirety of the church, from the individual to the whole pragmatic structure, to the needs of those who are oppressed and victimized. It is all, however, so that the vital work of the Church, primarily in the hands of the laity, can be work that strives "for justice and peace among all people" and respects "the dignity of every human being" regardless of where they are in the structures of the world.
This is, I think, all a call, a striving, to see each other with God's vision. A remembering that Jesus lived, died, and rose again for no one individual before all individuals. A knowledge that the Love of God that we live into cannot be quantified, measured, or looked at as a form of capital.
I do not think, however, that these are the only two options on the table. I do not think I am limited to a choice between theologies that ignore the dignity of the oppressed in the name of a future heavenly kingdom or theologies that ignore the dignity of the oppressor in the name of exceptionally important issues of social justice. I believe there must be another path to walk.
I think about my personal wrestling with "loving my neighbor as myself". I have had to do a lot of work on loving myself. To this day I battle with issues of shame and self worth. I also can get caught up in my own thoughts and my own vision and ignore the needs of others. To this day I battle with issues of slowing down and hearing and integrating the experience of others into how I see the world. I believe I am called into a path that will always have me reflecting and balancing with only the occasional graceful moment along this tight rope.
I have wrestled with this in my Bible readings for quite some time. The issue is that I found myself constantly encountering biblical passages used by both traditions, often they are used well if quite differently. I often could not readily differentiate where reading into the text ended and reading from the text began. At some point I found myself putting down the Bible and looking to my tradition for possible clarity. As an Episcopalian this meant that I began to flip the onion skin paper of the Book of Common Prayer.
Where I found myself was balancing the Baptismal Covenant (p 305), the Examination of Deacons (p 543), and the Examination of Priests (p 531). I think that in these four liturgical spaces the church has expressed its theology around this question rather clearly. I am not looking at these in the context of "this is what Lay People do", "this is what Deacons do", and "this is what Priest do"; I will even put forward that such separation is inherently problematic. I do put forward that these are the places where we present how we nuance the situation and recognize that some individuals are called to live into certain nuances more than others for the sake of the whole.
The core statement, by default, is the Baptismal Covenant. The ordination examinations are simply two highly limited methods of working out a life of ministry in the context of the Baptismal Covenant. The last question and answer of the Covenant is:
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will with God's help.
I think that at this point the ground is pretty clear. I can neither ignore issues of social injustice nor can I fail to have compassion for and recognize the dignity of every human being. Every human being means everyone, regardless of where that individual is in the midst of issues of social injustice.
This is then reiterated in the Priestly Examination. In the examination for priests the candidate is must be able to affirm a call "to love and serve the people among whom you work, caring alike for young and old, strong and weak, rich and poor". That word alike is pivotal. Priests are called to preach by action a loving and serving of all individuals regardless of age, wealth, or power. They are called to lead others to similar lives of love and service by such example.
The trap here, the obvious and overwhelming trap, is how do we not allow those with power and wealth hold us captive. This can easily happen casually with no maliciousness or ill intent by those with wealth and power. It is how the system works. The answer is Deacons. Deacons live into the ministry that points out the trap, springs the trap, and gets us out of the trap when we fall into it. In the examination for deacons the candidate must be able to affirm the call "to serve all people, particularly the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely". Here there is a particular interest on the victims and those facing oppression. This particularity is, however, still in the midst of service to all people. I would suggest that this nuance comes from an understanding that service to those oppressed and victimized by society that does not serve all people in society cannot, in the end, bring about holistic and systematic change of society.
The Deaconal nuance is what keeps our Baptismal call "to respect the dignity of every human being" real. It is what ensures that we do not give this vital section of our Baptismal Covenant lip service but truly calls us to ensure that we are not blind to the needs of another in the midst of whatever our particular wealth and power might be. It is the examination and vow all priests take first to ensure that they do indeed "love and serve... alike" by having a service to all people that remembers the particularity of "the poor, the weak, the sick, and the lonely". It is the requisite work of Deacons to constantly call out the entirety of the church, from the individual to the whole pragmatic structure, to the needs of those who are oppressed and victimized. It is all, however, so that the vital work of the Church, primarily in the hands of the laity, can be work that strives "for justice and peace among all people" and respects "the dignity of every human being" regardless of where they are in the structures of the world.
This is, I think, all a call, a striving, to see each other with God's vision. A remembering that Jesus lived, died, and rose again for no one individual before all individuals. A knowledge that the Love of God that we live into cannot be quantified, measured, or looked at as a form of capital.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Insidious Straight Acting Donatist Queers
People will never
fight for your freedom if you have not given evidence that you are prepared to
fight for it yourself. Incidentally, that’s the reason that every gay who is in
the closet is ultimately a threat to the freedom of gays. I don’t want to seem intolerant
to them and I think we have to say that to them with a great deal of affection,
but remaining in the closet is the other side of the prejudice against gays.
Because until you challenge it, you are not playing an active role in fighting
it.
Bayard
Rustin, Brother to Brother: An Interview with Joseph Beam, 1986[1]
Over the past few weeks
I have heard from many different venues statements about how members of the
Queer Community[2] can forgo
social stigma by acting “straight”. I have come across this in the form of “I
have the privilege to act straight and not face persecution” as well as “gays
are not really persecuted because you choose to act out like that”. These
statements are not new but they seem to come at heightened levels at times of
high racial tension.
I know about “acting
straight” to avoid prejudice. I grew up in an “act straight” household. My act
straight mantra growing up included “The open palm never touches the hip”,
“Always squat never bend over”, “Always say “here, [dog’s name]” never use the
word “come” to call a dog, and countless others.[3]
Breaking any of the mantras resulted in verbal abuse, restriction of
privileges, and at points physical abuse. “Straight Acting” might be a
necessary short term reality but over the long term it helps no one, least of
all the individual doing it.
There is so much
insidiously wrong with the idea of “straight acting”. It is basically a secular
form of Donatism. Donatism is a Christian heresy where the outward moral
actions and history of a person is what validates them to be called Christians.
The reality is that there is not a litmus test of outward moral actions and
history of a person that defines them as “straight” or “queer”. To pretend such
is to both buy into the system of prejudice and to deny the validity of certain
individual’s “queerness”.
I can think of several
heterosexual couples I know that involve a bisexual or transgender member. Now
walking down the street on a given day are these couples “straight acting” or
“queer acting” or are they just being wonderfully themselves? I remember a colleague of mine being mortified that his
mannerisms did not betray that he was a gay man, that he was in some way not
acting “queer” enough. I know people who, in my opinion, could not “act
straight” if their life depended on it, despite possible protestation to the
contrary[4],
and people whose attempts to “queer it up” are so dead in the water it is not
funny. Being “queer” is about being true to who you are and allowing other
people to do the same it is not about fulfilling certain projections of an
insidiously broken society.
This call to “straight action” is even more insidious, however, when it is brought up in relationship to race. Bayard Rustin, in an earlier part of the interview quoted above, said that we have “to say to the gay rights movement, if you want to win you must join us as individuals into the civil rights movement and to say to the civil rights people if you really want to get freedom for blacks don’t think you can do it by getting freedom for blacks alone”. A portion of the white queer community does indeed have the capacity, to call it a privilege is to defy the word’s definition, to extricate themselves as individuals from the basic cause of freedom through harmful complacency by “straight acting”. This portion does not, however, in any way represent the fullness of racial and ethnic diversity within the queer community nor even the capacity of all its white members.
This call to “straight action” is even more insidious, however, when it is brought up in relationship to race. Bayard Rustin, in an earlier part of the interview quoted above, said that we have “to say to the gay rights movement, if you want to win you must join us as individuals into the civil rights movement and to say to the civil rights people if you really want to get freedom for blacks don’t think you can do it by getting freedom for blacks alone”. A portion of the white queer community does indeed have the capacity, to call it a privilege is to defy the word’s definition, to extricate themselves as individuals from the basic cause of freedom through harmful complacency by “straight acting”. This portion does not, however, in any way represent the fullness of racial and ethnic diversity within the queer community nor even the capacity of all its white members.
Now for every group with
a freedom movement there are members of that group who habitually practice
harmful complacency, various relatives to “straight acting”. The privilege, as it were, of some
white queer individuals is the ability to partake of only one practice of
harmful complacency in order to extricate themselves from the overall fight for
individual’s freedom. Individuals who are people of color or other minority
group who are also queer would have to take up multiple such practices in order
to extricate themselves.
[1] Carbado,
Devon (ed), Time on Two Crosses: The Collected Writings of Bayard Rustin. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 2003. p. 278
[2] I recognize
that this term is still divisive within the community as a whole. As a
theologian I am using the term to represent the entire community from which
queer theology derives, which is more expansive than LGBTQ.
[3] In case
these are confusing: Placing an open palm on a hip was considered a very
feminine stance. Bending over to pick something up was considered a seeking of
anal sex. Use of the word “come” to call a dog could be taken as use of the
word “cum” thus making Timmie’s call to Lassie, “Come, here boy”, no longer
innocent.
[4] My
protestations to the contrary I include myself in this category… so much for
the “straight acting” indoctrination of my youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)