Chinchillas, confirmands, and vacillating in the culture war

Thanks to Ralph Luker, I learn that celebrated comedian, actor, and director John Cleese is a fellow lover of the chinchilla:

INTERVIEWER: I heard that you had chinchillas on your property. What exactly is a chinchilla?
CLEESE: I'd say it's like a cross between a flying squirrel and a rabbit. I should probably write an animated movie about them. They're very, very nice little creatures.

This makes me very happy indeed.

Since 2000, I've been co-teaching a confirmation class at All Saints Episcopal Church. The class (in true modern Episcopal fashion it is called "Seekers"), runs from October until May, and finishes with confirmation. We had 26 ninth and tenth-grade youth start the course; 24 finished, and all but two ended up being confirmed on Saturday by our splendid new bishop, J. Jon Bruno. We stress constantly that confirmation is a decision for the kids to make themselves -- not for their parents to make for them. We also honor those kids who complete the course and choose not to be confirmed. Usually, there is at least one set of parents who complain that we make a mistake by allowing the kids to "opt out" of confirmation so freely; this often leads to angry phone calls.

What I appreciated most about Saturday's confirmation (besides seeing my usually scruffy teenagers in suits
and dresses) was Bishop Bruno's insistence that confirmation ought to be thought of as a commissioning for a life of service rather than a recognition that one has chosen to affirm the church's teachings. Out of the more than 20 kids who were confirmed, there were a range of opinions on the divinity of Jesus -- but there was unanimity on the centrality of justice and inclusion. It's easy for conservatives (and uneasy moderates like myself) to poke fun of these buzzwords of the liberal church. But on Saturday, I saw several of my kids weeping and trembling with emotion as they were anointed by the strong hands of Bishop Bruno, and I was reminded that for the young, words like "justice" and "inclusion" are still righteous causes for which to struggle and fight.

During his confirmation sermon, Bishop Bruno told us that he planned to perform his first same-sex blessing on Sunday (yesterday) since becoming Bishop of Los Angeles two years ago. He also alluded to the major financial hit that the diocese had taken in the nine months since the elevation of the openly gay Gene Robinson to the office of bishop of New Hampshire. Rightly or wrongly, he helped remind the kids that by being confirmed into the Episcopal Church in 2004, they have stepped forward and taken sides in the culture war. I blanched a bit when I heard that; surely there is more to being a Christian than taking one side or another on the issue of gay marriage! But on the other hand, I wonder how much longer folks like me can do the delicate dance of trying to keep a foot in both camps. After a certain point, the insistence on not taking sides becomes less and less commendable, and becomes -- I fear -- evidence either of cowardice, or, in my case, an unattractive propensity for endless vacillation.

My teens -- with the impetuousness of 15 year-olds -- cannot imagine not taking what they see as the only side of justice. Sometimes, I think one part of my job may be to remind them, gently, that not all on the "other side" are wicked, bigoted, or intolerant. Is that the appropriate job for a youth leader? Well, my first and only real job is to love them unconditionally, listen to them continually, hug them frequently, and drive them everywhere. But perhaps my second job is to help them to see other sides to what they imagine to be settled issues. I'm staying with the confirmation program another year. And perhaps, in doing so, I've already picked my side.

Comments

[John]

Should it not be an affirmation of the Church's teachings? Fiona, the very nice but completely deluded Chairwoman of the Canterbury Student Christian Movement, (and, God help us, a Seminarian) said, when I asked her what she did: "We are a network dedicated to Human Rights and Social Justice". I said in that case, they were the "Human Rights, Social Justice and Inclusion" Movement. She shrugged, and said "We're mostly Christians, I think". If you want to be committed to Human Rights, Social Justice and Inclusion, join Amnesty, Labour or Rainbow Youth. My committment to all three comes out of the gospel, which comes out of the divinity, death and resurrection of Christ. Not the other way around. That's the difference between the Church and secular charites. If you don't believe that, where is the gospel? Why "lead a life of service" if you aren't sure who or why you're serving? When I took my Baptismal vows, again when I joined the Sunday School, and now I've been commissioned into Youth ministry as well (Yes, me), I was very clear what I was getting myself into, what I had to do, who I did it for, and in the end, who did it. I didn't join an organisation or enrol in a campaign, I answered a call to obedience from a person. I have about 20 10 year old boys in my class, mostly Maori and PI, mostly poor. They didn't come to me. They came to Jesus. They don't need me. They need Jesus. I believe just as passionately as you do in Justice and Inclusion. But more than that, I believe in transformation. I believe that when my lads leave for youth, and then again when they get out into the adult cell system, they will be different. Because I "led a life of service and inclusion"? No. Because they met me? No. Because they met Jesus. The divine Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the world. Not the Cosmic Christ who talks in Griswoldian sound bites and UN Resolutions. Was it my commitment to Justice that made Hemi less angry, Luke less jumpy, caused Sam to turn his life around, or Te Ariki and Elliot to become the very first Christians in their whole family? Hell no. It was Jesus. He met them. He changed them. I didn't do a thing except the very thing Mr. Bruno is telling me I shouldn't-Affirm the teachings of the Church, and expound them in life and deed as best I could. I did that before the service, and the service came from that. Then again, I too took sides in the culture war long ago, against both theology that preys on the weak, and politics of the same ilk. Sorry, Hugo. It's nice your Youth are on the path of service, but I prefer knowing who my Master is, even if I don't always serve Him properly. We don't need another programme-We need a person.

[John]

And rereading that post, the tone probably isn't too reflective of that person. Sorry. I stand by the basic point, though.

[Hugo]

And though I don't share your politics, John, I share your love of Jesus. But I also know that sometimes, the only way my youth are going to hear -- and believe -- is through the example that I set in my own life. I am notorious as the "resident evangelical" at All Saints. And some, a few, of the kids have asked me questions about why I am so much more passionate about Jesus than my fellow leaders are.

I don't have to choose between Jesus and justice. Perhaps that's willful blindness to the obvious, but I don't think so. Thanks, in any case, for a terrific post.

[John]

No, not between Jesus and Justice. But between Justice coming from a real committment to the person, work, divinity and teaching of Christianity and Christ (No, they are not separable), ("An Affirmation of the Teachings of the Church", I think Mr. Bruno calls it) and Justice (and service, and inclusion....) coming from a secular mindset with Christian colouring. My point is, it's fine, wonderful to have a life of service. But who and why are you serving? It's wonderful to be committed to Justice. But are you (and I) doing Justice for love of Jesus, or using the "service" of some construct in our heads called "the inclusive Christ" as a means to the end of "social justice"? Is the Church's primary job to be pursuing social Justice, or Christ?. Obviously, we must have both. But cultural politics should never be above Christ. Confirmation is "taking sides", but it's taking sides with Christ against the world, not any political faction inside it. As an Anabaptist, I'd have thought you'd like that! You see, what bothers me is that your confirmation class isn't too sure about Jesus, but they are about politics, or "inclusion". Isn't that the wrong way around? What are you worshipping, in that case? What does that say about the theology behind the class? Who on earth are you serving? Jesus, or Gene Robinson? If the first, why are your class less sure about him than the second? Do you believe Christ can and will save, or are you waiting for the PB and the Secretary-General to pass enough resolutions to bring Heaven now? And if the second, isn't that another form of "Constantianism"- idolatory that both your tradition and mine have an awful lot to say about?

Just wondering.

[Chip]

This story, Hugo, provides as good a (shorthand) summary of differences between the two factions of ECUSA as I've seen. On one side, what's truly important is fighting for "justice and inclusion"; on the other, fidelity to Jesus'/biblical/church teachings is most important. How can the twain meet? To quote Springsteen (out of context) from The Rising, "we stand worlds apart."

And as you know, Hugo, we evangelicals wouldn't disagree that, in a sense, confirmation is commissioning for a life of service. But who or what are we serving? Are we serving the notions of justice and inclusion (or any other ideal, no matter how laudable), or are we serving Jesus? And then, the question becomes, who is the Jesus that we're serving? The Son of God, fully divine and fully human, who came to take away the sins of the world? Or some other Jesus, perhaps a great human teacher or example for us all, the par exemplar of someone who stood for the cause to which we currently are devoted? Here, I think about C.S. Lewis' words in Mere Christianity that we deceive ourselves if we think of Jesus along the latter lines.

And that's why confirmation is so important for taking hold of what we believe -- that we believe the truths about God and Christ as recorded in the Scriptures and summarized in the creeds. Thanks to the empowering of the Holy Spirit, we move from the confirmation service into a life of service to the one in whom we have confessed our belief. But to turn it into a commitment ceremony for justice and inclusion is to wrench it from its historical purpose and lead people astray from what is critical for their Christian lives.

Then, sadly, what we're left with in essence is a different gospel in which making a particular stand in the culture wars is the reason for life. Meanwhile, the Lord of heaven and earth is still calling all people everywhere to "repent and believe the good news" in salvation from a sinful nature that leaves us unable to love and serve God as we ought. These are two radically different views of the purpose of not only confirmation, but also the mission of the church. One is a very new understanding of that mission; the other is the traditional message of the church down through the ages.

I know that you'll agree with a lot of what I'm writing, Hugo. I guess the major point that I'm trying to make is that to confuse the message of the church is absolutely deadly. We won't be making disciples for Christ if we're telling people that to fight the culture wars (on ANY side -- I'm not going to exempt conservatism from this statement) is to be their purpose in life. All of us were made to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (no, I wouldn't call myself a Calvinist, but it's a wonderful summation of our purpose :)). And what we believe about our heavenly Father and the Christian faith is critical, because otherwise, we can't glorify Him.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Hugo]

And Chip, you encapsulate my own ambivalence about remaining committed to the work of All Saints church.

With my kids, I often use the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument that Lewis used -- and they give it a more than respectful hearing. Better a token evangelical in a liberal church than no evangelical at all -- if I am not at All Saints, no one will witness to the youth about a personal relationship with Jesus. Is that self-centered self-justification? Perhaps. Thanks for thoughtful comments, John and Chip!

[Jonathan Dresner]

Interesting. So you are proselytizing Christians of another sect, with that sect's permission?

[John]

Or to put it another way, he's making Christians out of Unitarians.

[Hugo]

You're both right!

[Robert]

Ugghh! Stop the Episcopalian=Unitarian (i.e., Episcopalian=non-Christian) nonsense. First of all, it is probably inaccurate in the extreme on the basis on the real theological distinctions. Instead, it is really just a snarky way to paint Episcopalians as liberals (theologically and socially).

True, there are a variety of views within the Episcopal Church (as there are within most groups). The beliefs of some of the most extreme elements of the Church do not resonate with me. But that applies to BOTH extremes.

However, the readiness with which the "conservative" side is willing to label non-conservatives as non-Christians is tiresome.

I am a "non-conservative" on many of the "defining" issues, but I count myself as a Christian AND an Episcopalian. Indeed, I believe my Faith leads me to those conclusions. And I have no argument that a relationship with Christ is central to our Faith, but is not a manifestation of that relationship a desire to do justice? Therefore, I don't think there is as clear a distinction between the two as this thread has emphasized thus far.

Please, though, give the superficial stereotyping a rest. It hurts my feelings.

[John]

Robert, what else would you call someone who has a committment to justice, but doesn't recognise the divinity of Jesus? It isn't theological liberalism in particular I was taking aim at, but the fact that All Saints are confirming people who do not recognise the Cardinal doctrine of the Faith, however you look at it.

[Robert]

Thanks John for the clarification. On the limited issue of professions at Confirmation, I am sympathetic to your point. I think the Church should teach, without reservation, the historic bases for the Faith -- I can't support an "anything goes" approach to the Creeds and historic doctrines -- out of laziness or whatever other reason.

That said, I recognize that the Creeds are hard and truncated (and "doctines" have and do change after all); therefore, I appreciate an approach to Confirmation that recognizes that appropriating (understanding?) these historic doctrines and Creeds is part of growing in faith and living into their meanings (I'm not trying to be vague -- I'm serious). So, some flexibility at the time for commitment seems reasonable and appropriate. Not because "it doesn't matter", but because it may take a lifetime of growing in relationship to God through Christ to really "get it" (if one is blessed emough). It seems to me to merely demand an acceptance of all dogma probably wouldn't change the reality of the fact that these things take time. Worse, it could lead one to believe that he or she is finished upon the acceptance of that dogma, and stunt future (and necessary) growth in the faith. However, the Church should never abrogate her responsibility to teach and explain even the most difficult parts so that understanding and growth are possible.

Finally, I apologize for my defensiveness, but I feel that (as one with more liberal views on key issues) I am taking heavy fire and thus I am far more reactionary than I should be.

Peace.

[John]

Indeed, and as a Conservative on these issues, I feel exactly the same way. I don't particularly like liberal theology, but I do agree with your general point. The issue is, how much "flexibility" is too much? Before recommending anyone for baptism or confirmation, I'd make good and sure that at the very least, they had a relationship with Jesus, and believed in His divinity, death and resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Bible. The rest, we can talk about later. ;-)

Peace,

John