Modest Proposal
Due to my recent upswing in meta-Episco type activities, I've taken to reading more Episco-type blogs. (You must believe it if it's on the interwebs--Also, I've been using break to catch up on 30 Rock. Yes, and?) The results have been intriguing.
There seems to have been a spate of disturbing and somewhat outlandish accusations towards my little Church by people who you'd think would know better. Or, at least, people you'd think would phrase it nicer. Or, at the VERY least, people you'd think would make better word choices, or recognize sarcasm when they heard it.
Take for example, the Revd. Canon David Anderson, recently elected (or appointed, I'm not sure how they function) a bishop in the Nigerian Church in these here U
nited States. Also, he's the president and CEO of the American Anglican Council. Clearly, he's a busy, busy man. As quoted recently in a letter posted on the Episcopal Cafe, he compares the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Vichy government during the Nazi regime, accusing him in part of "allowing the pantheistic and homosexual agendas to flourish."
Whoa there, fireball.
Look at the guy, does he look particularly vicious?
Granted, maybe the beard doesn't work in his favor......
Ok, look.
Back to my point.
First thing, smaller thing first: Pantheistic?! The hell you say! I spent most of yesterday being unreasonably bothered by this, before I figured out a Theory. Behold my theory!
In an American Western context, being called 'pantheistic' is like being called primitive, being called heathen, uncivilized. It pushes similar buttons. Pantheistic, after all, is what we all were before Abram got his talking to. From a religious studies standpoint, there is a long-standing bias against those traditions that are pantheistic, that has only recently been named and fought against, seeing them as somehow lowest on the totem pole. (No Pun intended, but you see?!) If religious development is evolution, then pantheistic traditions are unevolved, and got left behind. Cute though they might be, there's the belief built in that we've moved beyond them. So, with all that baggage, it's a pretty upsetting thing to be called, and in this context, not a nice thing to say to people who also took the baptismal covenant.
(This is bracketing the fact that pantheism is actually really cool, and works really well for millions of people. However, I strongly doubt any of them belong to TEC, so the name doesn't fit. Some people are pantheists, and are very good at it. We shoudl hire them to fix global warming, on account of we suck. Some people are Christians, and are very good at that, but occasionally do incredibly stupid things, like accuse other Christians of being different religions. The divine loves and dwells in everyone, and that's probably why David Anderson just called me a pantheist, as we'll see in a bit.)
Setting all that aside for a bit, what I think Canon Anderson was attempting to convey, albeit with the sublety and grace of a hippo performing Martha Graham, was that we place too much emphasis on the immanence of God. And he got that confused with pantheism. And in that case.....
There's not a whole hell of a lot I can do. Some one failed you, sir. Someone with a dictionary.
Pantheism is the belief that all living things have a spirit that is divine. i.e. a separate divine force for each thing. Ex. "I worship the spirit of the tree. Not the spirit that unites all living things that I find uniquely visible in this tree in it's tree-like form, but this tree!"
Immanence
is the belief that God is present throughout all creation by the very act of creating living things. God, despite being transcendent (totally other! sui generis!) also decided to create a world that lives, thus imparting spirit and life into the world. (This also involves fun things like contingency. Find a systematic theologian and make them explain it all to you one day, grasshopper.) Thus: "I worship the spirit of God I find in the tree, that spark of life I find here that unites all creation, and me with it. (so goes a non-denom theist) That spark of life that also occasionally has been known to get incarnated in unwed teenage girls in 1st cen Palestine and get killed as a criminal then get resurrected. (so goes the Christian version.) " So. Like pantheism, in that we believe the divine is in all living things, but not like pantheism in that we believe that it's united, and in God, and also not limited to living things.
And about the whole Nazi thing.....can we just agree not to call people Nazis? Let's just not do it. Especially when they're in your own church. (Especially when it makes no sense. Who are the Jews, in this scenario?!) Especially, when you're supposed to believe that God lives in them, just like God lives in you, just like God lives in everyone.
And have you heard? We also eat our babies and drink their blood in some sort of ritual sacrifice! I expect a full color flyer about that one to come out within 6 months.
There seems to have been a spate of disturbing and somewhat outlandish accusations towards my little Church by people who you'd think would know better. Or, at least, people you'd think would phrase it nicer. Or, at the VERY least, people you'd think would make better word choices, or recognize sarcasm when they heard it.
Take for example, the Revd. Canon David Anderson, recently elected (or appointed, I'm not sure how they function) a bishop in the Nigerian Church in these here U
nited States. Also, he's the president and CEO of the American Anglican Council. Clearly, he's a busy, busy man. As quoted recently in a letter posted on the Episcopal Cafe, he compares the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Vichy government during the Nazi regime, accusing him in part of "allowing the pantheistic and homosexual agendas to flourish."Whoa there, fireball.
Look at the guy, does he look particularly vicious?
Granted, maybe the beard doesn't work in his favor......
Ok, look.
Back to my point.
First thing, smaller thing first: Pantheistic?! The hell you say! I spent most of yesterday being unreasonably bothered by this, before I figured out a Theory. Behold my theory!
In an American Western context, being called 'pantheistic' is like being called primitive, being called heathen, uncivilized. It pushes similar buttons. Pantheistic, after all, is what we all were before Abram got his talking to. From a religious studies standpoint, there is a long-standing bias against those traditions that are pantheistic, that has only recently been named and fought against, seeing them as somehow lowest on the totem pole. (No Pun intended, but you see?!) If religious development is evolution, then pantheistic traditions are unevolved, and got left behind. Cute though they might be, there's the belief built in that we've moved beyond them. So, with all that baggage, it's a pretty upsetting thing to be called, and in this context, not a nice thing to say to people who also took the baptismal covenant.
(This is bracketing the fact that pantheism is actually really cool, and works really well for millions of people. However, I strongly doubt any of them belong to TEC, so the name doesn't fit. Some people are pantheists, and are very good at it. We shoudl hire them to fix global warming, on account of we suck. Some people are Christians, and are very good at that, but occasionally do incredibly stupid things, like accuse other Christians of being different religions. The divine loves and dwells in everyone, and that's probably why David Anderson just called me a pantheist, as we'll see in a bit.)
Setting all that aside for a bit, what I think Canon Anderson was attempting to convey, albeit with the sublety and grace of a hippo performing Martha Graham, was that we place too much emphasis on the immanence of God. And he got that confused with pantheism. And in that case.....
There's not a whole hell of a lot I can do. Some one failed you, sir. Someone with a dictionary.
Pantheism is the belief that all living things have a spirit that is divine. i.e. a separate divine force for each thing. Ex. "I worship the spirit of the tree. Not the spirit that unites all living things that I find uniquely visible in this tree in it's tree-like form, but this tree!"
Immanence
is the belief that God is present throughout all creation by the very act of creating living things. God, despite being transcendent (totally other! sui generis!) also decided to create a world that lives, thus imparting spirit and life into the world. (This also involves fun things like contingency. Find a systematic theologian and make them explain it all to you one day, grasshopper.) Thus: "I worship the spirit of God I find in the tree, that spark of life I find here that unites all creation, and me with it. (so goes a non-denom theist) That spark of life that also occasionally has been known to get incarnated in unwed teenage girls in 1st cen Palestine and get killed as a criminal then get resurrected. (so goes the Christian version.) " So. Like pantheism, in that we believe the divine is in all living things, but not like pantheism in that we believe that it's united, and in God, and also not limited to living things. And about the whole Nazi thing.....can we just agree not to call people Nazis? Let's just not do it. Especially when they're in your own church. (Especially when it makes no sense. Who are the Jews, in this scenario?!) Especially, when you're supposed to believe that God lives in them, just like God lives in you, just like God lives in everyone.
And have you heard? We also eat our babies and drink their blood in some sort of ritual sacrifice! I expect a full color flyer about that one to come out within 6 months.
posted by Dajjimeg at
6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home