While I want to continue our discussions of the nature of a bishop, I also think there are some common threads coming out:
In short, I'm not the only one who believes a bishop is accountable; that episcopacy is something "done to" the laity.
Obviously, a bishop is more than mere administrator, upper management in the diocesan "branch office," just as priesthood is more than simply a "career choice." Obviously, there must be some recognition of a bishop's ability to govern and lead wisely, or we would simply have a congregational polity. To that end, there is a degree of submission and obedience expected from the laity, and rightly so. Among the many sound bites and cliches from the Reasserters, they have - inadvertantly, I imagine - given some truth; Truth is not decided by vote.
Among the many charges laid on a bishop, according to the BCP's ordination service, is the interpretation of the Gospel. This is important, I believe, because the word is not interpretation of "Scripture," but of "the Gospel" - the Good News. A bishop, in his/her leadership role, is to interpret what exactly the Good News is. This gives a great deal of authority to a bishop, but - and this is also very important - the same ordination holds the bishop in a remarkable position of accountability, not to institutional church, but to the sovereignty of Christ and the well-being of his/her people.
Some bishops - particularly "Windsor bishops" - have made a great deal of the role of the bishop in guarding the unity of "the Church," but this pales in comparison with the sheer number of times a bishop is mentioned as "chief priest," "fellow presbyter," to "follow Him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as ransom for many." The bishop, while not required to take counsel with the laity, is required to "support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries, nourish them from the riches of God's grace . . .," to take counsel with his/her "fellow presbyters" - and we are all of the Royal Priesthood, by Grace. Finally, and most egregiously ignored by most of our bishops, is this:
"Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the conscience of your people?" (emphases mine)
This pastoral role - responsibility to actual people, to an actual lived-out gospel - is mentioned, enjoined, emphasized again and again, while the duty of "unity" is mentioned, as a charge, perhaps twice or three times, and not, then, to any sort of ecclesial structure, but to "The Church of God."
I may be wrong, and accept that I may be, but it seems to me that the great majority of bishops - ours, CofE's, Nigeria's, Uganda's, Sudan's, even beyond to RC and perhaps the various Orthodox bishops - are completely falling down in this, having traded their role as pastor and presbyter for that of management, operations executive. Perhaps the loss of pastorship(sic) in our episcopacy is the reason for our increasing irrelevance and lack of clear and attractive Spirit.
Please, give me your views.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Breakdown
I've been trying, during the remainder of the Lambeth Conference, to keep from any divining or critiquing, but I think, given the most recent presidential address by Archbishop Williams, we have to accept that, as long as Williams remains in Cantuar's seat, the AC is broken.
His comments in trying to "understand" the two sides demonstrate, on the liberal side, a complete disconnect with the actual beliefs and attempts and values of the liberal faction, and, on the conservative side, a complete disconnect with the realities of the manipulation, brutality, and deception of those in the leadership of the conservative faction.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, quite simply put, is so insulated from the people he is supposed to help guide and represent that he can no longer be taken to be "a part" of us.
While Williams, whose intellect has been woefully inadequate to the realities of his current office and whose quite obvious and destructive prejudice against America, represented by TEC, is in the archepiscopacy of Canterbury, there can be no reconciliation. Either America will be thrown out to make way for a volume business in Third World souls (and never mind the quality of the Christian), or TEC will be "allowed" to remain, without the possibility of ever having any trust in the Archbishop of Canterbury until Williams is out of the office.
He is, quite simply, untrustworthy. I believe that he - Williams - is also exceptionally power-hungry and selfish, as this grab for centralized power coming out of a Windsor Continuation Group entirely devoid of liberals demonstrates.
Unless there is a huge surprise coming out of Canterbury in the next few days, the only possible way TEC can survive is to withdraw all support, financial and otherwise, from the Anglican Communion - particularly Canterbury - until Williams has either accepted and publicly repented from his heavy-handed and uneven actions, or until he has been removed from office.
His comments in trying to "understand" the two sides demonstrate, on the liberal side, a complete disconnect with the actual beliefs and attempts and values of the liberal faction, and, on the conservative side, a complete disconnect with the realities of the manipulation, brutality, and deception of those in the leadership of the conservative faction.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, quite simply put, is so insulated from the people he is supposed to help guide and represent that he can no longer be taken to be "a part" of us.
While Williams, whose intellect has been woefully inadequate to the realities of his current office and whose quite obvious and destructive prejudice against America, represented by TEC, is in the archepiscopacy of Canterbury, there can be no reconciliation. Either America will be thrown out to make way for a volume business in Third World souls (and never mind the quality of the Christian), or TEC will be "allowed" to remain, without the possibility of ever having any trust in the Archbishop of Canterbury until Williams is out of the office.
He is, quite simply, untrustworthy. I believe that he - Williams - is also exceptionally power-hungry and selfish, as this grab for centralized power coming out of a Windsor Continuation Group entirely devoid of liberals demonstrates.
Unless there is a huge surprise coming out of Canterbury in the next few days, the only possible way TEC can survive is to withdraw all support, financial and otherwise, from the Anglican Communion - particularly Canterbury - until Williams has either accepted and publicly repented from his heavy-handed and uneven actions, or until he has been removed from office.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Apologies!
For those who've responded to my question about bishops -
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
I'm so sorry that I haven't had the chance to write, until now.
For those who don't know:
I only have computer access Mon-Fri nights, so I rarely, if ever, get the chance to even check the blog on the weekend, and, when I do have access, it is at work. Given that my employer is so kind, I take pains to make sure that I'm tending my job, first and foremost, which means that sitting down like this takes a bit of doing, and may not get done on busy nights.
I beg your patience.
What I'm trying to do, here, is establish what, in the mind of the TEC and the Church (by which I include all churches, congregational, RC, Anglican, Orthodox) and to see if, perhaps, we in TEC are missing something out here, or if we really are legitimately different, or, if perhaps others are missing something out.
A great deal of my concern is the accountability - reasonable accountability - of a bishop to the people, lay and clergy. I have been taken aback by the first Lambeth meeting I've ever followed, by the degree of secrecy surrounding the whole affair, and the forceful degree to which the non-bishops are being kept out -- it is unhealthy, to my thinking, and unholy. We are told by Our Lord that it is evil that is done under cover, so why must our bishops exclude us from their deliberations, even as informed observers? What reason is possibly so convincing for carrying out meetings that will affect our individual parishes in such seclusion and secrecy? Why should bishops be afraid to speak what they believe in front of the world? Isn't there something wrong, if they are unwilling to do so?
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
I'm so sorry that I haven't had the chance to write, until now.
For those who don't know:
I only have computer access Mon-Fri nights, so I rarely, if ever, get the chance to even check the blog on the weekend, and, when I do have access, it is at work. Given that my employer is so kind, I take pains to make sure that I'm tending my job, first and foremost, which means that sitting down like this takes a bit of doing, and may not get done on busy nights.
I beg your patience.
What I'm trying to do, here, is establish what, in the mind of the TEC and the Church (by which I include all churches, congregational, RC, Anglican, Orthodox) and to see if, perhaps, we in TEC are missing something out here, or if we really are legitimately different, or, if perhaps others are missing something out.
A great deal of my concern is the accountability - reasonable accountability - of a bishop to the people, lay and clergy. I have been taken aback by the first Lambeth meeting I've ever followed, by the degree of secrecy surrounding the whole affair, and the forceful degree to which the non-bishops are being kept out -- it is unhealthy, to my thinking, and unholy. We are told by Our Lord that it is evil that is done under cover, so why must our bishops exclude us from their deliberations, even as informed observers? What reason is possibly so convincing for carrying out meetings that will affect our individual parishes in such seclusion and secrecy? Why should bishops be afraid to speak what they believe in front of the world? Isn't there something wrong, if they are unwilling to do so?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Question About Bishops
Trying to streamline and clarify what I asked yesterday.
SERIOUSLY. I WANT REPLIES. BRING FRIENDS, SINCE I TRY TO AVOID BLOG-WHORING.
COME FOR THE APE
Is it prideful for a "mere layman" to . . .request, or even demand, the information to process the situation and the bishop's response [rather than accepting the bishop's vague reassurances]?
Is it humility, or simple laziness, convenience, or fear that keep us from being more vocal in our opposition to bishops' actions, or, more frequently, inactions?
What is the place of the bishop?
Of the layman?
What are their roles respective to each other?
Is what I (we) have been doing simple bitching and whining, or, in all humility, do we have a right to be included in what our bishops are doing and discussing?
Thank you. I look forward to your answers.
SERIOUSLY. I WANT REPLIES. BRING FRIENDS, SINCE I TRY TO AVOID BLOG-WHORING.
COME FOR THE APE
STAY FOR THE INPUT!
The questions, excised and trimmed from yesterday's post:
Is it prideful for a "mere layman" to . . .request, or even demand, the information to process the situation and the bishop's response [rather than accepting the bishop's vague reassurances]?
Is it humility, or simple laziness, convenience, or fear that keep us from being more vocal in our opposition to bishops' actions, or, more frequently, inactions?
What is the place of the bishop?
Of the layman?
What are their roles respective to each other?
Is what I (we) have been doing simple bitching and whining, or, in all humility, do we have a right to be included in what our bishops are doing and discussing?
Thank you. I look forward to your answers.
Lambeth Roundup 7/23
My Lambeth Roundup tends to be the mere essentials of what I've lately heard.
Ready?
It was all pretty stupid and, when not bullying Americans or putting Americans down, or generally talking about how subhuman, un-Christian and basically nasty Americans are (and they smell, too), it was bible camp for people who shouldn't need it by now.
Deep theology continues. Send shovels, please.
I have looked at the utter garbage being spewed by a great many outside of TEC and the Americas, the lies and propaganda and the Archbishop of Canterbury-all-Americans! smiling about it and I wonder where our bishops' voices are, raised in protest. Well, there's +Leo from Southeast Florida who corrected some misconceptions and noted the disinformation on his blog and . . .
Well, no "and," really; that's it.
I've come to the conclusion that we're going to stay in the Anglican Communion, not because it's good or helpful, or any of that, but because we Americans like playing at ceremony and dress-up and any number of people will leave if we can't pretend to be a mini-RCC "with branch offices worldwide!" . . . even if it means we crush our consciences into a wall and throw them away.
Two things popped out at me.
First, Ivan Dias, Roman Catholic cardinal addressed the conference. He compared the AC to a Parkinson's sufferer. My response to this was:
Ready?
It was all pretty stupid and, when not bullying Americans or putting Americans down, or generally talking about how subhuman, un-Christian and basically nasty Americans are (and they smell, too), it was bible camp for people who shouldn't need it by now.
Deep theology continues. Send shovels, please.
I have looked at the utter garbage being spewed by a great many outside of TEC and the Americas, the lies and propaganda and the Archbishop of Canterbury-all-Americans! smiling about it and I wonder where our bishops' voices are, raised in protest. Well, there's +Leo from Southeast Florida who corrected some misconceptions and noted the disinformation on his blog and . . .
Well, no "and," really; that's it.
I've come to the conclusion that we're going to stay in the Anglican Communion, not because it's good or helpful, or any of that, but because we Americans like playing at ceremony and dress-up and any number of people will leave if we can't pretend to be a mini-RCC "with branch offices worldwide!" . . . even if it means we crush our consciences into a wall and throw them away.
Two things popped out at me.
First, Ivan Dias, Roman Catholic cardinal addressed the conference. He compared the AC to a Parkinson's sufferer. My response to this was:
For two reasons:
First - Parkinson's? Really, Cardster, ya wanna go there? Little tasteless, mebbe?
Second - Why is a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church addressing our bishops about Anglican problems? Huh? In short:
Who hired Schmucky the Clown to come and entertain, and can we fire the person who did so (please let it be Rowan, please let it be Rowan!)?
Second:
Remember how Deng said we should immediately cease all actions against the schismatics?
Apparently, that doesn't apply to Deng's church, though. Details
Note who financed the operation, too.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Most of Us Have Read Deng's Outrageous Statements
If not here.
Again, I am trying to avoid anger and hatred, so, I give you, again, one of my favorite quotes, from one of my favorite Stoics, Marcus Aurelius:
"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together... "
Again, I am trying to avoid anger and hatred, so, I give you, again, one of my favorite quotes, from one of my favorite Stoics, Marcus Aurelius:
"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together... "
St. Mary Magdalene
Robert Lentz's iconHer feast day today, July 22.
All but one of the men ran and hid. The women remained true, even after death.
The weaker sex! (snort)
Yeah! What I said!
This is what I posted to "Gloriman" and "Karen," who were so kind as to respond to my post on Lambeth goings on:
"My problem is that I take a hierarchical church seriously -- I didn't join a church with bishops just for pretty services and a guy or gal in an impressive hat. I don't want a congregational polity, but - and it's an important "but" - I don't want us to repeat the mistakes of the past, assuming unquestioning obedience to bishops. History has conclusively demonstrated the problems there. We must be accountable to the bishop, but the bishop - and this is important I think - must be accountable to us, as well!
We tend to overdo the idea of children in submission to a parental figure; a bishop is as much a child as we are, and, as such, we have every right to expect a LOT more that simply "Well, we've got things going on you don't know about."
Tell us! Convince us, or have the humility to listen to our objections!
Well, that's my little view. :)"
Now, there is more to this than simply being pleased with my own writing: I have been read St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle, and, throughout the first four mansions, the recurring theme has been one of humility -- humility above all leads to the heart of that interior castle.
So, have I erred in Pride, here? Is it prideful for a "mere layman" to call out his/her bishop on an issue, to request, or even demand, the information to process the situation and the bishop's response? Is it humility, or simple laziness, convenience, or fear that keep us from being more vocal in our opposition to bishops' actions, or, more frequently, inactions?
These are serious questions, and I value input. I know that I have a few readers, here, and I'm not trying to pump up my readership - what a responsibility, if I had more than my patient and faithful few! - but I would like it if you would ask others if they would be willing to give their view. I hate disrupting others' blogs to "promote" (or the apt sobriquet "blog whore") mine, but it is important to me to get feedback on this, on a personal level, and as a possible preparation for something I think might be a grand, if futile, gesture.
What is the place of the bishop? Of the layman? What are their roles respective to each other? Is what I (we) have been doing simple bitching and whining, or, in all humility, do we have a right to be included in what our bishops are doing and discussing?
Thank you. I look forward to your answers.
"My problem is that I take a hierarchical church seriously -- I didn't join a church with bishops just for pretty services and a guy or gal in an impressive hat. I don't want a congregational polity, but - and it's an important "but" - I don't want us to repeat the mistakes of the past, assuming unquestioning obedience to bishops. History has conclusively demonstrated the problems there. We must be accountable to the bishop, but the bishop - and this is important I think - must be accountable to us, as well!
We tend to overdo the idea of children in submission to a parental figure; a bishop is as much a child as we are, and, as such, we have every right to expect a LOT more that simply "Well, we've got things going on you don't know about."
Tell us! Convince us, or have the humility to listen to our objections!
Well, that's my little view. :)"
Now, there is more to this than simply being pleased with my own writing: I have been read St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle, and, throughout the first four mansions, the recurring theme has been one of humility -- humility above all leads to the heart of that interior castle.
So, have I erred in Pride, here? Is it prideful for a "mere layman" to call out his/her bishop on an issue, to request, or even demand, the information to process the situation and the bishop's response? Is it humility, or simple laziness, convenience, or fear that keep us from being more vocal in our opposition to bishops' actions, or, more frequently, inactions?
These are serious questions, and I value input. I know that I have a few readers, here, and I'm not trying to pump up my readership - what a responsibility, if I had more than my patient and faithful few! - but I would like it if you would ask others if they would be willing to give their view. I hate disrupting others' blogs to "promote" (or the apt sobriquet "blog whore") mine, but it is important to me to get feedback on this, on a personal level, and as a possible preparation for something I think might be a grand, if futile, gesture.
What is the place of the bishop? Of the layman? What are their roles respective to each other? Is what I (we) have been doing simple bitching and whining, or, in all humility, do we have a right to be included in what our bishops are doing and discussing?
Thank you. I look forward to your answers.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Archbishop of Canterbury's Remarks Do Not Reflect the God We Believe In
I am, honestly, trying to post this without anger, and certainly without hatred.
This is what Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said when asked about his purposeful exclusion of Gene Robinson from the Lambeth Conference:
“The problem we faced within the Anglican matter is that bishops that gather at Lambeth represent not just their dioceses but their participation is part of the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians,” he said, in response to a question as to why ecumenical participants from other Christian traditions were present at the conference but not Bishop Robinson. “Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship for one reason or another is questionable that’s the reason for questioning their participation.”
I'm sorry, but the only thing I can take from that is "He is questionable because we question him."
Jim Naughton gave his take on it here while the Anglican Journal's report is here.
Was Williams being deliberately insulting to liberals in general and Americans in particular? If so, kudos! You've done it magnificently, sir!
If not, perhaps you should have some quiet time.
I hear about Williams' wisdom from others, but it is simply wishful thinking. Whatever wisdom he may have at home is totally eclipsed by a painfully obvious disdain and malice toward Americans. It is crippled even further by an obvious desire to acquire power - to arrogate power - to the "Anglican Communion" that it never had and does not, in any way, deserve. His rather transparent question about how well the structures of the communion have worked in the past (is Minns ghost-writing for him, as well?) betrays this power-lust. The structures have worked perfectly - for what the AC was only ever meant to be, a loose confederation of bishops related by a similar ecclesial parentage. A Gentleman's Club, of sort, was all it ever was or ever should be, except, of course, ladies must now be allowed, as well.
Can we afford, before God, to continue to sacrifice true religious conviction and real communion to a political entity? While I applaud the humility of our House of Bishops in enduring the outrageous, if veiled, insults to TEC, but would remind them, even Christ stood up to the money-changers in the Temple. There is neither dishonor nor malice in telling the truth to power, which, of all our bishops -- even our presiding bishop -- only the ONE excluded has been willing to do so.
Why have you forsaken us, who should be our caretakers and pastors, protectors as well as teachers?
Why have you betrayed our trust in you?
And why do I bother? Who will even read this? I'm just a pew sitter, no priest, no bishop, not wealthy, not a powerhouse of "doing, doing, doing" in my parish or diocese, not worth listening to because I'm not "normal."
Who will even read it?
Believe it or not, Gene, I know how you feel.
UPDATE:
I added Louie Crew's Files on the various bishops to the list on the left of the page.
I think we all need to keep track of what our bishops are doing.
I welcome any other sources of such information, as our Diocesan sites tend to be extremely bland and supremely uninformative.
This is what Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said when asked about his purposeful exclusion of Gene Robinson from the Lambeth Conference:
“The problem we faced within the Anglican matter is that bishops that gather at Lambeth represent not just their dioceses but their participation is part of the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians,” he said, in response to a question as to why ecumenical participants from other Christian traditions were present at the conference but not Bishop Robinson. “Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship for one reason or another is questionable that’s the reason for questioning their participation.”
I'm sorry, but the only thing I can take from that is "He is questionable because we question him."
Jim Naughton gave his take on it here while the Anglican Journal's report is here.
Was Williams being deliberately insulting to liberals in general and Americans in particular? If so, kudos! You've done it magnificently, sir!
If not, perhaps you should have some quiet time.
I hear about Williams' wisdom from others, but it is simply wishful thinking. Whatever wisdom he may have at home is totally eclipsed by a painfully obvious disdain and malice toward Americans. It is crippled even further by an obvious desire to acquire power - to arrogate power - to the "Anglican Communion" that it never had and does not, in any way, deserve. His rather transparent question about how well the structures of the communion have worked in the past (is Minns ghost-writing for him, as well?) betrays this power-lust. The structures have worked perfectly - for what the AC was only ever meant to be, a loose confederation of bishops related by a similar ecclesial parentage. A Gentleman's Club, of sort, was all it ever was or ever should be, except, of course, ladies must now be allowed, as well.
Can we afford, before God, to continue to sacrifice true religious conviction and real communion to a political entity? While I applaud the humility of our House of Bishops in enduring the outrageous, if veiled, insults to TEC, but would remind them, even Christ stood up to the money-changers in the Temple. There is neither dishonor nor malice in telling the truth to power, which, of all our bishops -- even our presiding bishop -- only the ONE excluded has been willing to do so.
Why have you forsaken us, who should be our caretakers and pastors, protectors as well as teachers?
Why have you betrayed our trust in you?
And why do I bother? Who will even read this? I'm just a pew sitter, no priest, no bishop, not wealthy, not a powerhouse of "doing, doing, doing" in my parish or diocese, not worth listening to because I'm not "normal."
Who will even read it?
Believe it or not, Gene, I know how you feel.
UPDATE:
I added Louie Crew's Files on the various bishops to the list on the left of the page.
I think we all need to keep track of what our bishops are doing.
I welcome any other sources of such information, as our Diocesan sites tend to be extremely bland and supremely uninformative.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
St. Swithun of Winchester
"What day is it, my good lad?!"
"Today? Why 'tis St. Swithun's Day, Sir!"
"Today? Why 'tis St. Swithun's Day, Sir!"
St. Swithun
The actual Winchester used by the Saint (stock just visible in window above)
Monday, July 14, 2008
Meditation - WIP
Chime-struck air
Sensate
Spread from source to Source.
Gold-orbed
Gyroscopic of Consciousness
Soundless light
Weaves,
Daily,
The Tapestry of The Word.
Bead-clicking shuttle
Warp
Woof
Woof
Warp
Not the fleshy, wine-red Bayeux
War-dusty
Loud-lit spear
Hate-hailing graceful arrow.
Ours -
Subtle,
Elegant,
Unnoticed -
Is the change-chain,
Golden, minute threading
Heart and heart,
Woof
Warp
Warp
Woof
Weaving -
Daily -
The Tapestry of The Word.
And, yes, I know it sucks, but that's why I have a blog and not a publishing contract.
Sensate
Spread from source to Source.
Gold-orbed
Gyroscopic of Consciousness
Soundless light
Weaves,
Daily,
The Tapestry of The Word.
Bead-clicking shuttle
Warp
Woof
Woof
Warp
Not the fleshy, wine-red Bayeux
War-dusty
Loud-lit spear
Hate-hailing graceful arrow.
Ours -
Subtle,
Elegant,
Unnoticed -
Is the change-chain,
Golden, minute threading
Heart and heart,
Woof
Warp
Warp
Woof
Weaving -
Daily -
The Tapestry of The Word.
And, yes, I know it sucks, but that's why I have a blog and not a publishing contract.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Clinical Depression
It astounds me that there is still so little real awareness of what clinical depression is and what it does. We know it's out there, but there is no real understanding of it, as evidenced by the reactions of well-meaning friends, the guidance given to our clergy, the prescriptions of our doctors, and the often pointless therapies taught to our psychiatric community.
J. K. Rowling said that she drew the idea of the Dementors - horrifying creatures that suck the joy, and, eventually, the souls out of their victims - from depression. It is a wonderful image of situational depression, which most people experience in some degree, but woefully inadequate to give an understanding of clinical depression. Asking "What triggered it?" or "What's making you upset?" are pointless questions, unhelpful, even harmful. There is no "what" that triggered it -- it simply happens. Trying to fix it, pointing out the "bright side" of life is as useless, and, frankly, offensive as trying to fix the death of a friend's loved one, or saying, "Hey! At least you didn't die!" If you try to understand it from that analogy, you might understand the depressed person's irrational behavior, irrational anger at what you think is an attempt to help.
You can't fix it. It seems like madness because, in a sense, it is. The rational landscape is upside down. There is no perception of an objective reality, but the mirror of perception is turned inward, completely darkened, able to neither accept nor reflect light from outside.
We - the clinically depressed - understand both Grace and eternal damnation in a way more direct than most.
Imagine you are in a dark, deep, stifling place, more cavernous than a pit, though, perhaps, the Pit, might be descriptive. Far above, almost beyond the reach of sight, is the light of the upper world you've left. There is a ladder stretching back to the light, but is is broken and unsteady, miles long, and you are too tired, exhausted in mind and body.
You are at the beginning of the depression.
In your exhaustion, there is only one way to go - further down, for the downward-spiralling way is broad and easy. It leads you down to a swirling Emptiness -- not the ever-potential of the Ground of Being, but a hellish soup, unable to take healthy form, but distorted forms and visions erupt in it. Every smile becomes a mocking, every pause in conversation a disgusted rejection -- here, the clinically depressed see Hell, for it is completely selfish, completely inward, completely subjective and born of hate; it is the hate of self and other that unafflicted psychologies can repress and pretend is not there - but I assure you, it is. We see it in ourselves, and we are no different from you save by an unhappy glitch in the wet-wiring. Be glad there is no sorcery to give outward form to the things that giggle and mock in that noxious swirling abyss, because no Lovecraft, no King, no del Toro ever came up with monstrosities like these, that, if they could walk among us, would turn the world inside out, to an empty shell, a shattered Qlippothic wasteland. Why? Because, in that depth of the depression, we want you to feel our pain. I said it was selfish, and that's what hell is; hell is not other people, but yourself, ever inward-looking, seeing only yourself and your disappointments and pains, and that, if you see it, is that Chaos-maelstrom the clinically depressed mind descends to. You've come too far to go back up -- there is no "up" for you now -- but you can't stay. When you stay, the deviant mockeries take over, and we see what happens in their human forms, most often with those bland, self-satisfied people who find circumstances spinning out of control - the extremis of situational depression - without whatever natural protection the inevitable descent of the clinically depressed mind provides. What walks the earth, then, is horrible enough in human guise.
The only way out, is down, into the waiting, dusty, breathless darkness, absolute darkness without bond, without reverberation -- without the vital spark. Descend, descend into a lifeless universe, not just god-forsaken, but with no god to have ever been forsaken by. What can we say about this darkness, this long-tomb-walk? Darkness doesn't signify. It is Utter Void, in which even the mind perceiving it becomes calcified and immovable; no observer, no object, but no unity. Just nothingness. Those who never leave here take the way of the noose, or the bullet, or the razor-blade or the pill. Almost none who come here leave without a piece of it, and find what chemicals or habits or nervous hobbies drive away that little piece that lives in them -- if live is the word for it. After a while, in this place - and there is no quick way through - there are no tears, no sighs, for those things have more life than this place could support.
But for those who stumble all the way through Hell:
The Shining Uncreatedness - not nothingness, but No-thing-ness, which is all potential, all beauty, all goodness. It is the hospital of the Hell-battered heart, the soft, silent/potent embrace of the Ground of Being Who has, you now realize, always been there on this nightmare journey. In that silent Ground of Silence, there are wordless words which tell of things you forgot at birth. They heal you, though not without scars, but only stay as minute reflexes of the mind which carry you through the next downward descent, which - it turns out - is not to Below, but to the Center.
And this is Grace.
Most, I think, take their well-deserved rest here -- only very few seek out the lips that whisper the words of the Shining Uncreatedness, and those few become the great saints, and buddhas, and bodhisattvas, for no man may live who sees the face of God, and they return, ego-dead but Self-alive and never have to take the downward/Center journey again.
After a time, the Shining Uncreatedness gives way to a place, an opening with the stone rolled back. Here is a world new and unspoilt, just for that moment of arising, a world cleansed and fresh -- just for that one moment -- and then . . .
chop wood, carry water - except for those few who saw the Face, and will never go back and need not, and who Chop Wood! Carry Water! laughing and free.
Perhaps, if understood, in that instant of return, our clergy would ask us what we've seen and what we see, rather than nervously demurring. Friends would stay by and wait, speaking words of guidance and hope, rather than platitudes or the fearful/resentful withdrawal.
Perhaps, we could learn, be trained to bring back more than the scars and the grinding certainty of that next downward trip, make a discipline and true practice of it, rather than see it as a hindrance, or stumbling block to practice.
This is my experience of clinical depression, albeit in symbol and hastily-constructed picture. Take it for what you may take from it, though I doubt many will ever read it.
J. K. Rowling said that she drew the idea of the Dementors - horrifying creatures that suck the joy, and, eventually, the souls out of their victims - from depression. It is a wonderful image of situational depression, which most people experience in some degree, but woefully inadequate to give an understanding of clinical depression. Asking "What triggered it?" or "What's making you upset?" are pointless questions, unhelpful, even harmful. There is no "what" that triggered it -- it simply happens. Trying to fix it, pointing out the "bright side" of life is as useless, and, frankly, offensive as trying to fix the death of a friend's loved one, or saying, "Hey! At least you didn't die!" If you try to understand it from that analogy, you might understand the depressed person's irrational behavior, irrational anger at what you think is an attempt to help.
You can't fix it. It seems like madness because, in a sense, it is. The rational landscape is upside down. There is no perception of an objective reality, but the mirror of perception is turned inward, completely darkened, able to neither accept nor reflect light from outside.
We - the clinically depressed - understand both Grace and eternal damnation in a way more direct than most.
Imagine you are in a dark, deep, stifling place, more cavernous than a pit, though, perhaps, the Pit, might be descriptive. Far above, almost beyond the reach of sight, is the light of the upper world you've left. There is a ladder stretching back to the light, but is is broken and unsteady, miles long, and you are too tired, exhausted in mind and body.
You are at the beginning of the depression.
In your exhaustion, there is only one way to go - further down, for the downward-spiralling way is broad and easy. It leads you down to a swirling Emptiness -- not the ever-potential of the Ground of Being, but a hellish soup, unable to take healthy form, but distorted forms and visions erupt in it. Every smile becomes a mocking, every pause in conversation a disgusted rejection -- here, the clinically depressed see Hell, for it is completely selfish, completely inward, completely subjective and born of hate; it is the hate of self and other that unafflicted psychologies can repress and pretend is not there - but I assure you, it is. We see it in ourselves, and we are no different from you save by an unhappy glitch in the wet-wiring. Be glad there is no sorcery to give outward form to the things that giggle and mock in that noxious swirling abyss, because no Lovecraft, no King, no del Toro ever came up with monstrosities like these, that, if they could walk among us, would turn the world inside out, to an empty shell, a shattered Qlippothic wasteland. Why? Because, in that depth of the depression, we want you to feel our pain. I said it was selfish, and that's what hell is; hell is not other people, but yourself, ever inward-looking, seeing only yourself and your disappointments and pains, and that, if you see it, is that Chaos-maelstrom the clinically depressed mind descends to. You've come too far to go back up -- there is no "up" for you now -- but you can't stay. When you stay, the deviant mockeries take over, and we see what happens in their human forms, most often with those bland, self-satisfied people who find circumstances spinning out of control - the extremis of situational depression - without whatever natural protection the inevitable descent of the clinically depressed mind provides. What walks the earth, then, is horrible enough in human guise.
The only way out, is down, into the waiting, dusty, breathless darkness, absolute darkness without bond, without reverberation -- without the vital spark. Descend, descend into a lifeless universe, not just god-forsaken, but with no god to have ever been forsaken by. What can we say about this darkness, this long-tomb-walk? Darkness doesn't signify. It is Utter Void, in which even the mind perceiving it becomes calcified and immovable; no observer, no object, but no unity. Just nothingness. Those who never leave here take the way of the noose, or the bullet, or the razor-blade or the pill. Almost none who come here leave without a piece of it, and find what chemicals or habits or nervous hobbies drive away that little piece that lives in them -- if live is the word for it. After a while, in this place - and there is no quick way through - there are no tears, no sighs, for those things have more life than this place could support.
But for those who stumble all the way through Hell:
The Shining Uncreatedness - not nothingness, but No-thing-ness, which is all potential, all beauty, all goodness. It is the hospital of the Hell-battered heart, the soft, silent/potent embrace of the Ground of Being Who has, you now realize, always been there on this nightmare journey. In that silent Ground of Silence, there are wordless words which tell of things you forgot at birth. They heal you, though not without scars, but only stay as minute reflexes of the mind which carry you through the next downward descent, which - it turns out - is not to Below, but to the Center.
And this is Grace.
Most, I think, take their well-deserved rest here -- only very few seek out the lips that whisper the words of the Shining Uncreatedness, and those few become the great saints, and buddhas, and bodhisattvas, for no man may live who sees the face of God, and they return, ego-dead but Self-alive and never have to take the downward/Center journey again.
After a time, the Shining Uncreatedness gives way to a place, an opening with the stone rolled back. Here is a world new and unspoilt, just for that moment of arising, a world cleansed and fresh -- just for that one moment -- and then . . .
chop wood, carry water - except for those few who saw the Face, and will never go back and need not, and who Chop Wood! Carry Water! laughing and free.
Perhaps, if understood, in that instant of return, our clergy would ask us what we've seen and what we see, rather than nervously demurring. Friends would stay by and wait, speaking words of guidance and hope, rather than platitudes or the fearful/resentful withdrawal.
Perhaps, we could learn, be trained to bring back more than the scars and the grinding certainty of that next downward trip, make a discipline and true practice of it, rather than see it as a hindrance, or stumbling block to practice.
This is my experience of clinical depression, albeit in symbol and hastily-constructed picture. Take it for what you may take from it, though I doubt many will ever read it.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Dying
Morbid, huh? Yet, I see many variations on the theme in blogsylvania since Fr. Jake announced his blog's retirement. The whole denoument has been an Episcopal/Anglican-blogsphere wake.
Well, here' s a fact: I'm dying. So are you. So is everyone we know.
Death . . . I've been accused of being cold and unmoved by death. My mourning - the wild emotional part - tends to be over quickly. I don't think it is coldness, though.
You see, I'm dying . . . and so are you. It makes us fearful, that animal part of us, yet I've lived with an awareness of it for a long time, and it no longer . . . disturbs me so. It's something we're all going to do, so it seems to me that it must not be a bad thing. It's a change -- the last great adventure, and such. Even if it is just oblivion, well, it's fairly universal. Yet, our faith tells us it is not oblivion, moreover that, in some way, we are more with all than we were before, and that those who've died are more with us, at all times than they were in life. That's not fearful, though it is difficult to appreciate, trapped in these little body/mind complexes. It's change. The change is there in Fr. Jake's blog, now. It is gone from sight, yet with us, and we can carry on what we've learned from him and one another, here, there and everywhere. And, like those who went before to part the veil, we will see him again and be with us in sensible as well as spiritual form.
So, that's my little meditation on Death and Dying. I simply can't regard it with horror, beyond the instinctive fear for life that all animals fear. Change is upon us here, transformation, and will be again.
Well, here' s a fact: I'm dying. So are you. So is everyone we know.
Death . . . I've been accused of being cold and unmoved by death. My mourning - the wild emotional part - tends to be over quickly. I don't think it is coldness, though.
You see, I'm dying . . . and so are you. It makes us fearful, that animal part of us, yet I've lived with an awareness of it for a long time, and it no longer . . . disturbs me so. It's something we're all going to do, so it seems to me that it must not be a bad thing. It's a change -- the last great adventure, and such. Even if it is just oblivion, well, it's fairly universal. Yet, our faith tells us it is not oblivion, moreover that, in some way, we are more with all than we were before, and that those who've died are more with us, at all times than they were in life. That's not fearful, though it is difficult to appreciate, trapped in these little body/mind complexes. It's change. The change is there in Fr. Jake's blog, now. It is gone from sight, yet with us, and we can carry on what we've learned from him and one another, here, there and everywhere. And, like those who went before to part the veil, we will see him again and be with us in sensible as well as spiritual form.
So, that's my little meditation on Death and Dying. I simply can't regard it with horror, beyond the instinctive fear for life that all animals fear. Change is upon us here, transformation, and will be again.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
On This Festal Day
This being the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, I was both amused and heartened to see that Rowan seems to have a very low opinion of GAFCON -- our own circumcision party.
NOTE: HERE WE SEE PETER AND PAUL NOT FORMING A COMMUNION WITHIN A COMMUNION
Then again, neither of those two worthies would ever be considered for GAFCON behaving like this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)