St. Thomas Church

Commentary on Capable of God

2005-10-03T13:15:00.000-07:00

A Commentary on
“Capable of God: Evolution and New Creation”
Sarah Lancaster
Theology and Science Vol. 3, No. 2, 2005

In this paper Sarah Lancaster, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Methodist Theological School, explores the challenge that evolution presents for the traditional Christian pattern of creation, fall and restoration and, in particular, how John Wesley’s theology might be interpreted in light of this challenge. (“…if there was no original, pristine creation, then talk about regaining something that was once lost to us becomes enormously problematic.") The paper raised for me questions regarding the nature of evolution and how it integrates with the spiritual worldview which I will attempt to explore in this commentary.
One of the issues raised is that of direction in evolution. It is much easier to see a divine hand if there is direction. Natural selection is described by many as “blind” and “unconscious”. “Evolution is not moving toward a better and higher level of life.” S. Conway Morris (professor of earth sciences at Cambridge University), however, sees a directionality. He concludes that, once life has started, intelligent life is virtually inevitable. Although, as Ian Barbour points out, “It is … rather speculative to estimate probabilities when we have a sample of only one evolutionary history on one planet”, it seems to me that we can see a broad directionality in evolution. We and our environment can be seen at once as jointly the product of evolutionary history, divine purpose and our own activity. It is, however, possible that the Africans are right and the world will be taken over by the ants.
As Darwin’s theory has been expanded to postulate explanations for human nature other questions arise. “Evolutionary psychologists propose that the capacity for all sorts of human behavior, including gratitude, guilt, manipulation and morality, have been selected in nature because they enhance fitness.” It seems to me that evolutionary explanations for human nature encounter their own theodicy problem. (dogma does not square with reality) An example of this is altruistic love as expressed in the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” or perhaps better expressed as “honor your neighbor as yourself”. As Michael Shermer a prominent spokesperson for the atheistic, scientific worldview says, if you are altruistic, “you are a fool”. If the evolution of human nature is explained by fitness to reproduce the “selfish gene”, it is hard to see why altruism has not evolved out of human nature. Is the “Jesus ethic” so counter to reality that it will eventually disappear completely? The question of direction in evolution once again raises its ugly head here. For those that say that there is no direction, but only randomness and chance, the idea that evolution proceeds to reproduce the “selfish gene” once again introduces direction and purpose to the discussion. If we say that evolution is the “supreme being” moving creation in a defined direction to an ultimate purpose, this begins to sound more like theology and philosophy than science. We have an all powerful divinity; it is just evolution and not the God of Abraham.
As we examine human nature and ask the question, how are we different from other creatures, we are led to explore not only how we are different, but where this difference comes from. “Other creatures have some measure of pleasure or pain, and of happiness or misery…The difference between humans and other animate creatures lies in what we are able to understand, will and choose, that is, that we are capable of knowing, loving and obeying God.” Similarly, we may use our understanding, will and ability to choose to opt to do something other than what God would desire for us. The question is, therefore, how do we choose how to act? Do we choose based on a universal moral law or an innate sense of what is right or wrong or, as Freud believed, based on what works in society? Do we choose based on what society decides is legal or do we listen to conscience or the God within? For me we choose based what on the God within, the self or soul is telling us. We can choose to ignore this voice within as Adam, as a prototype for humanity did in the Genesis story, but we know we are making this choice. This God within or soul is what makes us different from other animate creatures.
We exist in a created world that shapes and changes us just as we shape and change the world around us. In this process we have the capability for good as well as for evil. We can be part of this evolutionary process in relationship with the divine or not as we choose. As Buddhist thought would tell us, our actions have consequences for ourselves, for others and for the world. For us to say that we completely understand how this evolutionary process occurs is to exhibit a good deal human hubris.

Evolution and Continuing Creation

2005-04-19T07:38:00.000-07:00

Nothing challenges my faith more than knowing that evolution took so many twists and turns that appear to be chance occurrences So I do what Father Brian recommends and “just let it go.” My faith in Christ remains as strong as ever. I’ll have to live through the mystery of the God/Universe thing.

The refs for my talk are
1) Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Don Brownlee. Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Don is an astronomer, both at the U of Washington.
2) Wonderful Life – The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen J Gould
3) The Book of Life by Gould – all you need to know about the science (NOT theory) of evolution.
4) The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough.

Points of the talk:
We all begin as star dust. All of the elements needed to make us and the planets were made from supernovae – large stars that cook these elements before they explode and spew them out into space to later organize as stars and solar systems.

Darwin was right about natural selection but wrong in viewing evolution as a very slow and steady ‘connect the dots’ process, always with a ‘tendency’ toward more complex forms. There is NO tendency for everything to become more complex and end up with Homo sapiens as a sort of crowning species.

We are the result of many ‘contingencies’ or forces and changes of the Earth’s environment that made natural selection produce another form adapted to the new conditions. Had some things like a K-T comet extinction not occur, or the Moon not formed from a chance collision with a Mars-sized object, or had the Earth not located exactly as far from the Sun that it is (habitable zone) etc,, we likely would not be here at all.

Gould uses the term “punctuated equilibrium” to emphasize that evolution consists of long periods of time where life is happy to stay the same, punctuated by a major event like a climate change (glaciation or too much CO2 … ahem!), a drying up of inland seas, or comet/asteroid impacts that force existing life to ‘evolve or die.’ Examples were presented.

The going theory is that life began with the RNA molecule. The sugars and base pairs (nucleotides) needed to make RNA and DNA exist in space dust and likely arrived in the rocks that made the Earth. Some meterorites have shown the presence of sugars and amino acids – the building blocks of proteins. Or RNA evolved by the chance self organization of organic molecules deep in the ocean vents before oxygen appeared on the Earth.

Another theory is that bacteria came encased in those rocks, presenting a ready-made source of DNA (Panspermia). Others think life began in the hot deep ocean vents with the Archaea, the chemosynthetic extremophiles that make energy from chemicals only and not from sunlight and oxygen.

I showed how proteins are made by DNA and RNA, a wonder of wonders. No one yet has made an RNA molecule in the lab.

We went on to some basic biology showing the 3 domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya. The first two are prokaryotes (having no nucleus) and the Eukarya have nuclei (you and I are Eukaryotes.)

We discussed continental drift (plate tectonics) throughout time showing how Pangea & Gonwanda were huge supercontinents that allowed animals to evolve and migrate wide distances before the continents split up into current geography. Continental drift also caused climate changes. The plates continue to subduct and cause earthquakes and Tsunamis i.e. Banda Ache and Sri Lanka. Is Yellowstone next?

I mentioned the Snowball Earth theory, the very latest theory for the Precambrian period – the time before the Cambrian explosion of life 550 my ago. Some very smart paleontologists think there were two periods of massive glaciations covering almost all the Earth’s oceans and most of the small amounts of land at the time during the Precambrian era (2.5 by ago to 550 my ago). It’s still speculative, but stay tuned.

We covered mass extinctions, esp. the Cretaceous – Tertiary or K-T Extinction 65 my ago that killed the dinosaurs and allowed small mammals to evolve. The ‘K’ in K-T comes from the German “Kreide” = chalk = the type of deposits the Cambrian fossils appear in. The word Cambrian is from Cambria, Wales, where Cambrian fossils appear.

The biggest extinction was the Permian of 250 my ago. It killed 95% of all marine animals. Cause is still unknown.

The Cambrian explosion of sea life found in the Burgess Shale 520 my ago produced animals from all the known phyla today plus a bunch more. Included was a small chordate – perhaps the ancestor of all vertebrates that followed. Many of the Cambrian animals went extinct for causes unknown; perhaps a period of major climate change occurred.

We skipped a few hundred million years and moved on to hominid evolution in Africa. Homo sapien’s DNA is only 1.2% different from a chimpanzee’s. We looked at the latest human lines – one hominid skull recently found in Chad from 7 my ago topping “Lucy” an australopithecine who dated at 3 my ago.

A comparison of mitochondrial DNA samples from Neanderthals and humans shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals did not interbreed. It’s now clear that many Neanderthals went on to serve in the US Congress. Here is how we humans are classified:

Domain Eukaryota
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Sub phylum Vertebrata
Class Mammalia (hair, milk)
Order Primate
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens (“wise” but I have my doubts)

I view life as a great gift from God, and I am grateful I can be a part of it and share it with my loved ones at this wonderful time in evolutionary history. I’ll never understand it all, but I love trying to.

I closed with a quote from Ursula’s book. There was good discussion along the way and all seemed to have a good time. Steve Pauley MD

March 20 Science and Religion discussion

2005-03-22T08:51:00.000-08:00

The Science and Religion Group met on March 20 to discuss the implications of quantum physics. We went through a presentation on the origins and basic concepts of quantum physics. Quantum physics arose out an effort to explain phenomena such as the photoelectric effect which were not adequately explained by classical physics. There developed from this the explanation of light as having both a wave and particle nature. Experiments exploring this dual nature demonstrated the role of the observer in determining the state of a system. When we don’t try to detect it light looks like a wave. Enter the observer and the wave nature collapses. Some have said that the determinism resulting from the collapse of the wave function demonstrates the presence of God. The same phenomena appear with a stream of sub-atomic particles.
In 1927 Heisenburg proposed his Uncertainty Principal i.e. It is impossible to measure simultaneously and with arbitrary precision both a particle’s position and velocity. The consensus interpretation of this principle is that what we conventionally think of as particles of matter are actually fuzzy statistical clouds governed by the laws of chance. The classical deterministic clockwork universe governed by laws of nature does not exist. Dissenters from this view, including Einstein, have proposed other explanations which attempt to account for a role for a divine hand. (“God does not play dice with the universe” – Einstein)
Quantum superposition or indeterminacy is an inherent result of the wave – particle duality. The state of a subatomic particle is undetermined until the observer looks. The observer and the observed are inextricably intertwined. This indeterminate state has been demonstrated experimentally. Experiments have succeeded in creating an atom that is in two places at once. Schrődinger’s cat thought experiment shows that these weird concepts from the subatomic world can have meaning in our macro world.
In Ian Barbour’s construct for thinking about these issues
· Conflict
o God’s hand in designing a deterministic universe
o The presence of chance at the quantum level
o More likely to occur in observational science such as astronomy and evolutionary biology than in experimental science such physics or chemistry.
· Independence
o The lessons of quantum theory demonstrate the limits of human knowledge
o Science is asking what, where and how whereas religion is asking why.
· Dialogue
o Quantum physics offers parallels to religious ideas-the role of the observer in affecting the outcome, holism
· Integration
o A closer relationship as exemplified by eastern religions such as Buddhism and quantum indeterminacy.

Other questions raised by these concepts are
1. What role does human consciousness play in observation?
2. What is the nature of reality? Is there a reality beyond our understanding?
3. What does it mean to be alive or dead?
We will meet again on April 5th to view and discuss the film “What the ‘Bleep’ Do We Know?”.

March 6 Science & Religion Discussion

2005-03-20T13:32:00.000-08:00

On March. 6 I talked about chapter 2 in our book re astronomy and what the current thinking is on how astronomers & cosmologists view the universe and the Big Bang. Included was a PowerPoint talk.

Before the Ppt talk, I reviewed parts of Ch. 2 that spoke to me - how science is a great tool for us to figure it all out, what a gift from God that life is for all of us, and how we'll never be able to explain things like awe, wonder, and love - God's gifts to us.

Fact: the universe began 13.7 by ago in a Big Bang, There was with a sudden "inflation" or huge expansion of the universe caused by dark energy,the four forces emerged (strong force, weak force, and gravity).

Quarks united to form the first simple atomic nuclei (hydrogen, helium, lithium). Later the universe cooled enough for electrons to unite with the nuclei to form atoms.
Neutral hydrogen atoms (one proton and one electron)would not unite to form the first stars until 100 my later. Those stars would form galaxies 1 by later.

The first generation of stars were H and He only. The largest of those had to explode, and in that process protons and neutrons were so compressed that heavier elements formed. The supernova explosions spewed out those elements to form 2nd then 3rd gernation stars with planets like our own.

The make up of the universe is 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, and 4% visible-tangible, the stuff out there we see.

The universe is flat and is expanding and will continue to expand under the force of dark energy which no one can explain.
Dark matter, again unexplained, surrounds galaxies and keeps rotating stars from flying off into space.

Speculation: since quantum mechanics and gen. relativity do not work at the time of the Big Bang, cosmologists have invented "string theory" which says that all fundamental partilces are really tiny strings that vibrate. The frequency of vibration determines what the particle is.

There are 5 string theories and one attempt to unify them - called M or "Matrix" theory but few really understand it. The search continues for a simple explanation of the universe called the Theory of Everything (TOE) or Grand Unification Theory (GUT).

They also postulate that our universe has 11 dimensions - the 3 we experience daily, 7 that are curled up and invisible, and time.

There is no way to prove strings, it would take an atom smasher the size of our solar system. But the big accelerator being built in Cern (French-Swiss border) may be able to smash particles and anti particles with enough energy to create the conditions right after the Big Bang - an instant in time called "super symmetry" a time before the 4 forces separated.

Cosmologists also postulate that there are multiverses that are flat like membranes or "branes" that periodically collide to create new Big Bangs.

Not all universes will end up exactly like ours which depends on the exact properties we see with fundamental partilces.

It is all so mind boggling that we realize we will all die surrounded by the wonder of God's works. The fun part is having God's gift of curiosity and trying to figure it all out.

Next subject 3/20- quantum physics by Don Liebich. (we are a bold group, no?)
Steve Pauley

February 6 Meeting

2005-02-08T09:13:00.000-08:00

In our February 6^th meeting, we began our journey through the topics offered by Ian Barbour in his book “When Science Meets Religion”. This book was produced in response to a request to produce a more readable and user friendly version of his seminal work “Religion and Science”. Most of us agreed that if this volume was more accessible, then we were very glad we were not using the original work. A dictionary was an essential tool in reading the first chapter. Barbour presents four types of relationships between science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.

Conflict: The relationship most dwelled upon by the media. This relationship most often manifests itself when secular materialists and biblical literalists interact; particularly with respect to creation and evolution. Many with a secular materialist world view have set themselves up as the high priests of this “religion”. Barbour points out that: “Scientists and are no wiser than anyone else when they step out of the laboratory”. On the other hand, it is hard to understand the point of view of biblical literalists, particularly in light of the advances in knowledge. It is disconcerting that those with this view are very well organized and have attempted to suppress in educational institutions the type of inquiring dialogue that is taking place in our group. Science is always embracing change and new understandings; religion needs to do the same. (See Bishop John Spong’s “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” and Marcus Borg’s “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”)

Independence (Parallel tracks): There is no conflict here because science and religion are asking different questions; science asks what, when and how and religion asks why and what does it mean. Some of us were on true parallel tracks and others on separate tracks that tended to intersect either now or will some time in the future. Independence avoids conflict, but we miss the opportunity for constructive interaction and mutual enrichment.

Dialogue: “Dialogue emphasizes similarities in presuppositions, methods and concepts…”. Barbour points out that some say that:

“The data of science are unaffected by individual preferences or cultural influences. By contrast, religion seems to be highly subjective and strongly influenced by individual and cultural assumptions. Science is said to require detached observation and logical reasoning, whereas religion requires personnel involvement in a particular tradition and set of practices.

But many historians, philosophers of science and theologians have called into question this sharp contrast, arguing that science is not as objective nor religion as subjective as had been assumed. There are indeed differences of emphasis between the fields, but the distinctions are not absolute. Scientific data are theory-laden, not theory-free. Theoretical assumptions enter the selection, reporting and interpretation of what are taken to be data. Moreover, theories do not arise from logical analysis of data, but from acts of creative imagination in which analogies and models often play a role. Conceptual models help us to imagine what is not directly observable, especially in the realm of the very large (astronomy) and the very small (quantum physics).

Many of the same characteristics are present in religion…”.

Faith is needed in science; none of us has ever seen a quark, but observation and experience lead us to conclude the reality of its existence. Brain science can help explain the role that Buddhist meditation and centering prayer play in achieving a sense of well being and happiness.

Integration: Natural theology, theology of nature and systematic synthesis (?) attempt to integrate the two disciplines. We are in need of more enlightenment in these areas. Perhaps our future explorations will help our understanding here.

Dr. Steve Pauley will lead our next exploration of astronomy and creation on Mar 6. We will not meet on Feb 20 because of the annual meeting. Some of us will join Steve at Galena Lodge on Mar 10 for his stargazing lecture and dinner. We will also get an opportunity to observe some of these phenomena, Inshallah (God willing). Anyone interested in joining us should call Galena Lodge for reservations.

Science & Religion Group

2005-01-25T10:18:00.000-08:00

We had our first meeting of the St. Thomas Science and Religion Group after services on January 23. We have a great group made of people with scientific backgrounds and those with no science background at all, people who have explored some of the issues and those who are searchers. All are welcome. We will be meeting after services on the first and third Sundays of the month. (with some exceptions for special events) Our next meeting is Sunday February 6 at 11AM. We will discuss issues raised in the first chapter of Ian Barbour's book Where Science Meets Religion "Four Views of Science and Religion". We will not meet on February 20, but will meet on March 6 at which time Steve Pauley will lead a beginning discussion of Astronomy and Creation. Some of us will also attend his new moon stargazing lecture at Galena Lodge on March 10. Our plan is to continue these postings so that even those that miss the meetings will be able to stay somewhat current.

The Windsor Report, Take 2

2004-10-21T21:03:00.000-07:00

In my few minutes of spare time this week I have been looking at various responses to the Windsor report. The best article I have found so far comes from Christianity Today, a publication whose editorial views are more conservative than mine. It is an interview with N.T. Wright, a fairly traditional Biblical scholar who served on the commission. The article can be found at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/142/42.0.html

An official response from the Episcopal left can be found on the Integrity web site. Integrity is the principal organization lobbying for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Episcopal Church. Their response can be found at:
http://www.integrityusa.org/press/18Oct2004.pdf

An official response from the Episcopal right can be found on the American Anglican Council web site. The AAC is a conservative organization that was formed in the mid 1990’s in response to the Episcopal Church’s movement toward including gays and lesbians. Their response can be found at:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1177&c=51

The Presiding Bishop’s official statement is on the Episcopal Church’s site:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1177&c=51

And now for something completely different. And silly.
http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/

Enjoy,
brian

The Windsor Report

2004-10-18T20:59:00.000-07:00

Last year the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a commission to make recommendations on how the Anglican Communion can deal with issues of significant conflict. While the precipitating issues were related to the consecration of a homosexual bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions, the commission was not established to speak on the merits of such actions. Rather they were looking at how we can remain in communion when we disagree.

Their report was released on October 18. While I have skimmed the entire report, I have only read carefully the final sections with the substantive recommendations. The entire report can be found at http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/.

The report goes into great detail about how the Anglican Communion has been structured and makes some significant recommendations for making explicit relationships that have been more informal. I look forward to reading it in more detail.

As for the juicy bits, the sections that will be talked about in the public media in the next few days, here is a summary:

There have been three issues of concern. 1) The consecration of a gay bishop. 2) The blessing of same-sex unions. 3) Bishops violating diocesan boundaries and ministering to parishes in other dioceses (i.e. Bishops from Africa visiting conservative parishes in the U.S.)

Here is what the report recommends: (I have added the emphasis)

1) On the consecration of a gay bishop.

134 . . .We recommend that:

¨ the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion.

¨ pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions.

¨ the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.

135. Finally, we recommend that the Instruments of Unity, through the Joint Standing Committee, find practical ways in which the ‘listening’ process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, so that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender relationships. We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned
reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ.

2) The blessing of same-sex unions.

144. While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.

145. We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. . . .

3) Bishops violating diocesan boundaries and ministering to parishes in other dioceses

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
¨ to express regret for the consequences of their actions
¨ to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
¨ to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.

HERE"S WHAT I THINK:

1. Overall I think it is a good report. It is very conciliatory and asks something from both sides.
2. Pro-gay Episcopalians are asked to not consecrate any more gay bishops and to stop publicly blessing same-sex unions until greater consensus is reached in the worldwide Communion.
3. The report, however, does not punish the Episcopal church. We are not told to leave the Anglican Communion. The report "invites" bishops to "express regret" rather than demand they apologize. They are asked to consider withdrawing from participating with bishops from other provinces until they express regret; they are not barred from such participation. In other words, the Episcopal church is not forced to "repent" from its pro-gay actions.
4. The report asks, in several places, that greater conversation take place so that anti-gay factions of the Church can better understand their pro-gay brothers and sisters.
5. Conservative bishops from other countries are asked to stop serving in US congregations without the invitation of the local bishop.

The question is: Will it work? It will be hard for the Episcopal Church USA to stop blessing same-sex unions. (What about non-public blessings?) This will be a bitter pill for the advocates for gay rights that have labored to bring the church to where it is today. On the other hand, it will be hard for the conservatives who have been wanting to form a separate branch of the Anglican Communion in the USA to feel satisfied with the report's recommendations. In the end, we are still very divided.

I don't know where we will go from here. I have faith that the Holy Spirit is in the mix and somehow we will stay together through this craziness.

blessings,
brian

An Especially Good Sunday

2004-10-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

Sometimes after church, Father Brian will sail by me and grin, "Good church today!". He doesn't mean that church isn't always "good". It's always meaningful, but some Sundays, people share deep emotion with us, the music is particularly wonderful, and you can tell that the congregation leaves somehow changed, somehow more uplifted than usual. It's palpable.

Sunday Oct 3rd was a "good church" day. Two babies in lacy white christening gowns and one giggly but very reverent 7-year-old were baptized. A couple celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary shared their profound love and admiration for one another. Another couple thanked the congregation for supporting them during the grief surrounding the tragic death of their son. Two teenagers stood at the lectern and presented the first of a regular series of teaching moments, in which our young people instruct us about the Episcopal faith. During Communion, the unearthly beautiful voice of a soprano soloist accompanied by a contemplative cello sent most of us into a state of instant meditation (even those of us who are pathetically inept meditators!). Downstairs in the church kitchen, another teenage class baked heart-shaped Communion wafers for next Sunday. Everywhere, in every face, was the visible reminder that we are part of a diverse and vibrant and glowing body of Christ.

Barely an hour after the post-church coffee and cake things were cleared away, another service was getting ready to begin. In honor of St. Francis, the Blessing of the Animals took place in our Nave. In processed the choir--singing All Creatures of Our God and King-- with our various dogs and cats. The church was filled with at least a hundred pets and their families: dogs of all shapes and sizes (including about 20 animal shelter dogs), cats cowering in carriers, two hermit crabs in a glass jar, and a remarkably calm guinea pig.

My dog Piper sat quietly at my feet in the sanctuary, gazing up at me in rapt loving attention as I sang (it occurs to me we don't often sing to our dogs!). Of course I started crying. I'm not what I'd term a drop-of-the-hat crier, but "good church" Sundays always make me cry. That's part of what makes them "good". You cry at baptisms, you cry when the music is wonderful, you cry in empathy or joy when people stand up and share deep emotion.

I've read that tears are the soul's way of speaking. I like that.

Father Brian says that tears mean God is at work in your heart at that moment. I like that too.

Being present on a "good church" Sunday is a gift I try to hang onto long after the day has passed.

Cheers,
Susan

Buddha and Christ

2004-10-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago my life was enriched when I was asked to officiate at a joint Episcopal-Buddhist wedding for Pilar and Jeff Tumulo. Pilar is a devout Tibetan Buddhist. Our friendship has grown and recently we have been meditating together and teaching each other about our religious traditions. The experience has been very rich for me. Intrigued by our relationship, many people have asked that we do something that would share our experience with the wider community. This Monday, October 4, at 7pm, we will begin a monthly program at St. Thomas Church where we will invite people into our meditation and discussion. More information is available on our web page: www.stthomassunvalley.org.

Our two local papers did a marvelous job last Wednesday publicizing the event. A couple of concerned Christians have contacted me. They are worried and upset that I would teach a class that looked at Buddhism in a positive light. Here is my response:

"I would like to thank you for your letter of concern. It is clear that we interpret the teachings of Jesus and Christianity differently. I do not pretend to have the last word on matters of doctrine. My beliefs have evolved as I have grown deeper in my walk with Christ. I, of course, can be wrong. I try to articulate my faith as it is today as clearly and carefully as I can so that it can be one voice in the chorus that makes up the Body of Christ. If my beliefs cause you distress, I apologize. That certainly is not my intent. As a priest, my goal is not to transmit my views as if they were necessary components of Christian doctrine; rather I strive to invite people into a life-transforming relationship with Christ where their beliefs will be shaped by that relationship.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and I welcome future correspondence."

Sharing our faith is tricky business. While I have a very open view toward people of other faiths, not all Christians do. My behavior as a public Christian in this community is bound to offend some. It is my hope, however, that we can continue to live with one another in love and respect, even as we disagree.

Waiting for baby

2004-09-22T19:04:00.000-07:00

It is Wednesday night and as I sit in my house writing this, Anna and Kevin are in there house. I am waiting for the call that they are on the way to the hospital. They are waiting for the time to go. Anna has definitely begun labor.

When I was at the church a couple of hours ago, I had the pleasure of updating three teenage girls who were VERY curious about how Anna was. Practically everybody I have encountered today has asked for an Anna update. Yesterday someone who I think may have never met Anna dropped off something from the Goldmine for Anna's baby. The absolute joy of birth is something that must be shared in a community.

At the same time, I am aware that today Lynn and Claire Bailey are returning from Dallas where they buried Lynn's son Gordon. If people around town haven't asked me about Anna, they have asked me about the Baileys. I have received calls from people I have never met wanting to know how to help. Sadness this deep can only be borne in community.

This week, as a church, we are touched by life and death, inexpressible joy and heartbreaking sadness. It is so terrible and so beautiful and I can't bear any of it by myself. I thank God for God and for this remarkable community.

-Brian

A Good Dying

2004-09-19T13:36:00.000-07:00

I suppose my first entry ought to be one of welcome or introduction, but death was part of my world last week so it's the topic about which I want to write. On Thursday I put down my dog of almost 16 years, a Black and White Field Trial Springer, beautiful to the end. She was nearly blind, deaf, arthritic, and suffering from an incurable vestibular disorder that caused her to lurch instead of walk and to crash and burn whenever she encountered stairs. Despite everything she was full of enthusiasm for life until a couple of weeks ago. She let us know it was time to go and the vet confirmed it.

I was blessed to be supported in her dying by a wonderful vet and a dear friend. The three of us gathered at my friend's house on the river and the vet administered the sedative on her dog bed on the back deck in the sun. We kissed her, admired photographs from her long life, and read a poem. It was a dying wrapped in love.

After the vet left, my friend and I searched his yard for the perfect spot to bury her. We chose one based on the view, the orientation to true north, and the tendancy to sun and warmth. We dug and cried, and talked, and laughed and dug some more. We laid her in her dog bed and tucked into her arms her first dog toy, some photographs, a biscuit... We kissed her and covered her with her old dog towel. We talked some more and cried some more. My friend uncovered her and made sure the name on her collar faced the sky. I made sure her long silky ears were smoothed down. We tucked her in again. We cried and talked. We laid hands on her and spoke to her. We wished her well on her journey.

We filled in the hole with dirt--gently, thoughtfully.
We rearranged the sod--meticulously.

We stood in the fall sun, unwilling to leave. My younger dog, her son, trotted out of the bushes and over to the grave. He put his head down, rubbed his cheek on the grass and rolled on his back. He stood and repeated the whole sequence. He returned to the bushes, without a glance at us.

This whole experience was significant for me both as a healing and because of its larger implications. We have a staff member at church who is hours? days? away from delivering her first child. The baby is eagerly awaited. Many hands and hearts will guide this infant from the womb to the world. Many voices are poised to say "welcome".

It will be a birthing wrapped in love.

Such, happily, is the case with most births: more often than not, there are people around to help us into the world and to greet our arrival.

When it's time to die, we're not always so fortunate. We can't control the manner or day of our leaving and as such can't assure that those who love us, whom we love, will be there to guide us, help us, and bid us farewell. There was a time when the task of caring for our empty bodies fell to those who loved us.

We were bathed--gently, thoughtfully.
We were dressed in our finest--meticulously.

Our grave was dug and our box was built by hands that had touched ours. These were sometimes messy tasks but they allowed those who performed them a chance to fully confront the grief of our leaving.

Today, death is sanitized. We're whisked away in special vehicles and tidied up or cremated by people who are professionals at this sort of thing. Backhoes arrive at a discreet hour to dig our holes and return out of sight of the family to fill them in again. Those who love us sit numbly in rooms or churches and struggle to comprehend, to grieve, to remember, to figure out a direction and a purpose for days ahead that seem purposeless.

Father Brian says that often a grieving family immerses itself in making funereal arrangements: housing relatives flying in from other states, getting the obituary into the papers, organizing wakes or memorials or services. They often state, "We don't want a funeral. We want a celebration of our beloved's life." He notes that a funeral is one way people can confront grief. He notes that it is part of a priest's job to help people confront and fully experience their grief. It's much less terrifying to attend to the myriad of details surrounding a death than it is to address the overwhelming grief itself. Put another way, part of a priest's job is to help people confront terror.

I suspect that by laundering the dying experience we've removed the tasks that used to help us confront the terror of our grief. There is something beautiful and purposeful and meditative about preparing a body for burial, about digging a grave, about laying and arranging, and gently filling in the hole.

I am grateful to have been able to actively participate in the dying and burial of my beloved little creature. I will continue to grieve for a while, but from the beginning there was a serenity blended in with that grief. There was no terror, nothing overwhelming.

It was a good dying.

Opening the St. Thomas Blog

2004-09-16T14:07:00.000-07:00

St. Thomas is finally entering the 21st century. I hope that this blog will help us stay connected with our many seasonal members and to continue conversations about sermons and classes beyond the walls of the church. Susan Springer and I will make regular enteries.
Blessings,
brian