The Catechetic Converter

I have a confession: I love earnest and even corny religious things. Saints candles, gaudy lenticular reproductions of DaVinci’s The Last Supper, vanilla-scented Virgin Mary statues for the car, the extremely goofy silicone Jesus I bought at a Christian bookstore recently…

Look, give me a Catholic anime mascot character and I. am. in.

Though this might have more to do with me being a weeb...

I love it all. It represents a kind of “true-believer” innocence that reminds me not to take my religion too seriously, too academically, too intellectually. Maybe it’s because I grew up hanging around churches and Christian bookstores, but the moment I see something like a full-color Saint Francis lawn statue or even a WWJD bracelet my heart gets “strangely warmed” like that Wesley brother who started Methodism.

This extends even to liturgy sometimes.

While I will avoid the cringe-inducing cheesiness of much Evangelical worship, or the “bless-their-hearts” attempts found among Roman Catholic “folk masses,” I am not immune to some Rich Mullins or even the Gaithers from time-to-time. And it’s not only music, but even the prayers that might make my Anglo-Catholic fellows wince that I sometimes find power in.

Which leads me to make another confession: I love Eucharistic Prayer C. In the Episcopal Church this is frequently derided as “the Star Wars Prayer” because of such celestial language as:

At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses, and this fragile earth, our island home.

This Eucharistic prayer is right at home with the petition found in the Prayers of the People, bracketed as optional, which asks the Lord to have mercy on those who travel “through outer space” (alongside “those who travel on land, on water, or in the air”). It is also of a piece with the famous “Space Window” at the National Cathedral that features an actual moon rock among the stained glass.

While I do agree that the call-and-response nature of Prayer C is not great (and why I adapted an alternate version of Prayer C to incorporate the responses into what is known as the “anaphora” itself), it is maybe our most “penitential” Eucharistic prayer in the Episcopal Church, contains the most overt declaration our Eucharistic theology (“Risen Lord, be known to us in the breaking of the bread”), and does much to situate the Christian story in both Jewish and global history.

Many in the Episcopal Church do not like Prayer C and choose to omit the line about people traveling through outer space because they find the language of these things corny and embarrassing. But me? I find it earnest and reflective of where we were as a country and a Church when our most recent Book of Common Prayer was assembled.

See, the current Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church is known as the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It was a landmark development that changed the nature of the Episcopal Church when it was approved. This Prayer Book is most famous for centralizing the Eucharist as the principle act of worship across the Episcopal Church, as well as articulating a renewed theology of Baptism that expected public and active declarations of faith—as opposed to the private family affairs Baptism had been for centuries prior. The 1979 book was the result of a lengthy process that would be seen as a major victory for the so-called “High Church” and “Anglo-Catholic” elements of the Church while also putting the liturgical language of the Church into “contemporary” English. Despite its radical move toward a much more ancient and traditional sacramental theology, the 1979 book contains distinct notes of the hippy counter-culture that had influenced Western Christianity throughout the mid-to-late 20th Century. It was a Prayer Book that would play well in the grand gothic arches of our major cathedrals, while also being right at home in a wood-paneled parish hall.

The previous revision of the American Book of Common Prayer was in 1928. This means that, in addition to revising the Prayer Book to reflect the changes that had taken place within the Episcopal Church, the 1979 book also needed to be usable for at least 50 years (in case you’re wondering, the process toward a new Prayer Book revision is under way—initially for 2030, but we’re not sure if that is still the year, given the interruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic and gestures around). So that meant that the church bodies responsible for the Book of Common Prayer had to imagine what things might be like over the subsequent half-century in the United States.

By the late 70s, the United States had emerged from a major economic recession and the end of a deeply unpopular war. The opening of the decade had seen humans first set foot on the moon, the culmination of an almost miraculously speedy program that served as the greatest non-war governmental program in human history. After the ending of the Apollo program, NASA had placed a functioning space station in orbit with plans for a permanent and international one in the near-future. Then there was the advent of the Space Shuttle, a reusable space-faring vehicle that hinted at the promise of expanded and more affordable human space flight. This time period was known as “the Space Age.”

I was born around three years after the 1979 Prayer Book was published (though I was raised as a Baptist and so the Prayer Book would not become a part of my life for many years). I also grew up in Orlando, Florida. My childhood church included many members who worked for companies like Lockheed-Martin, building components for the space program. Practically every year in school we would take a field trip to Kennedy Space Center. Every Space Shuttle launch occasioned an interruption of our school schedule so we could all go outside, look to the East, and see that glowing vapor trail moving toward the heavens. I came to recognize the sound of sonic booms from the Shuttle’s re-entry on its way to land. Heck, my mother even dated a NASA engineer who worked on Atlantis’ engines and later built Endeavor (the replacement to the ill-fated Challenger, the destruction of which is among my earliest memories). This is all to say that “outer space” was part of the matrix of life.

I remember all those fanciful ideas, where we’d have commercial space flights that would allow us to travel around the globe quickly (while experiencing zero-G for part of the flight)—like the Pan-American space shuttle seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Thoughts of orbital hotels, or even lunar hotels. Trips to Mars or even the moons of Jupiter. It was an exciting time.

And it was this same exciting time that the liturgical scholars of the Episcopal Church were assembling the rites and words for God’s people, keeping an eye to the next fifty years. They too were dreaming and praying, imagining a world drastically changed by people traveling outside our atmosphere and seeing Earth among the stars with their own eyes—not just mediated through Time magazine covers or IMAX films at Kennedy Space Center.

In a sense, I like the language of these prayers for the nostalgia they bring, nostalgia for a world we never saw come to fruition. In those nearly fifty years space travel is still only available to a select few (which includes, of course, billionaires taking 11-minute jaunts into the heavens). There are no orbital hotels or lunar colonies. These prayers recall a different world once imagined—a world that some of us still dream about.

Even then, rockets still go up. People live on the International Space Station. So there are those who are traveling through outer space, even beyond the billionaire vanity trips.

A few years back, I was with family at Walt Disney World on vacation. We were at Animal Kingdom and it was night. I use the SkyGuide app on my phone from time to time, and I got an alert that the International Space Station would be traveling overhead in the next few minutes.

If you’ve never seen the ISS, it appears as the brightest light in the night sky (apart from the Moon, of course). It looks either like a moving star or an airplane with no blinking lights. Chances are that you’ve seen it but didn’t know what it was.

So I looked up and pointed it out to my father-in-law. A few other tourists saw what I was doing and asked. After a minute or so, a crowd of maybe 20 or more people had stopped to look up at the ISS flying overhead, all of them in awe. It was clogging up foot-traffic in the park and I was amazed that even among Disney’s multi-billion dollar attractions, people would turn their attention to a bright dot in the sky and marvel.

The Space Age was a time of hope. It still casts a shadow of hope on us. And these corny and embarrassing prayers capture that fact. People actually do travel in outer space and they do need our prayers—perhaps especially the billionaires.

There’s also the fact that maybe some day, we all will be able to truly appreciate “this fragile Earth, our island home,” floating as that pale blue dot among the “vast expanse of interstellar space,” and not only feel the awe of God Himself, but also how small and precious we are and thus how foolish we are to squander and hurt this wholly unique gift on which we live and move and have our being.

—

*The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Christianity #Episcopal #Church #Catholic #Jesus #Space #SpaceTravel #Science #SciFi #liturgy #worship #Retrofuturism #SpaceAge

Yesterday at the Hands Off demonstrations in downtown Honolulu, I had (at least) two encounters that felt like they might be blessings from God. One was when I was handed a trans pride flag (which I wrote about already). The other was when a guy wearing a Trump hat yelled at me (and my clergy colleagues) something about illegal immigrants and then told me to “go back to the mainland.” I know that last one probably doesn’t sound much like a blessing to you. So, let me try to explain.

I’m trying to shift my understanding of the concept of blessing. In the Matthew Beatitudes, Jesus notes that blessings do not always skew toward what we might consider “positive.” For instance, Jesus refers to mourning and persecution as blessings. He says things like:

Blessed are people who are hopeless…

Blessed are people who grieve…

Blessed are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous…

Blessed are you when people insult you and harass you and speak all kinds of bad and false things about you, all because of me… (see Matthew 5:1-12*)

So having people wave and be welcoming to see a priest carrying a trans pride flag is a great thing and feels like a “typical” blessing (even though this is the sort of thing that Jesus cautions us about in Luke 6:26). But I have to consider the possibility that being yelled at is also a kind of blessing. I mean, consider the words of Job:

Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity? (Job 2:10, NASB)

In the Hawaiian Bible, this verse reads:

Eiʻa, e loaʻa anei iā kākou ka maikaʻi mai ke Akua mai, ʻaʻole anei e loaʻa iā kākou ka ʻino kekahi?

I put the two key words in bold. Maika‘i is a word that means “good, handsome, delightful.” It is the root for the Hawaiian term for “blessed,” pōmaikaʻi (the word pō is a word that refers to “thickness” and works here as an intensifier, indicating a “state of goodness,” thus “blessed”). The other word, ka ‘ino, (ka is the article, so “the”), is a word often used for “evil” and “wickedness,” also used for “spoiled” or “gone bad.” It is also a word used to refer to a storm. In this sense, we get an interesting read from Job: do we accept only the good, maika‘i weather as being from God? Do we not also have to accept that He sends ka ‘ino, stormy weather as well? Or as Jesus Himself puts it, right after He gives us the Beatitudes:

[God] makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45 CEB)

Both clear weather and stormy weather can be both “good” and “bad”—even at the same time. So it is my (and our) duty to accept both as blessings, to find the blessedness in even what we might call “bad.”

So what’s the blessing in having an angry Trump supporter yell at me to “go back to the mainland?” Well, before I get to that, allow me to unpack the baggage of that statement for haoles (a Hawaiian term for “foreigner” that has turned into a phrase and sometimes epithet for exclusively Caucasian people). Hawai‘i is one of the few places in the United States where Caucasians are not a majority and don’t hold outsized cultural power, and, thus, one of the few places where they can experience the sort of discrimination usually experienced by people of color in other parts of the country. So being haole is already a touchy thing. It carries with it an assumption that one does not belong here. Darker skinned Hawaiians will sometimes call light-skinned Hawaiians “haole” as an insult. As a Caucasian myself, there is the automatic assumption that I am on vacation, or am clearly from somewhere else—frequently expressed as being given a fork and spoon at a restaurant and not chopsticks**. One of my friends once referred to a guy as “he wasn’t a haole, he was a local-looking guy”—as though there aren’t “local” haoles. So, being told to “go back to the mainland” is about the closest I can get to the experience of being told something like “go back to Africa.” It’s telling me that I do not belong here. That I belong on the “mainland” of the United States (what we here prefer to call “the continent” since, from the Hawaiian perspective, the Hawaiian islands are the mainland).

This is something of which I’m very sensitive. While I am from the continental US, I’m here in Hawai‘i by invitation—I was invited by the Saint Mary’s to be their priest. I never held dreams of living in Hawai‘i, never once vacationed here. My first time ever on Hawaiian soil was for a job interview. Further, the Episcopal Church here in Hawai‘i has its roots in the Hawaiian Reformed Catholic Church, which resulted from King Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma inviting Church of England clergy to come and establish a church here in Hawai‘i because they felt that it offered a vision of Christianity better reflective of the Hawaiian people. So, I am not following a colonizing trajectory. But I also understand that I look an awful lot like the sort of people who have colonized this place. So, while it hurts to be lumped in with the people who continue to pillage this place for profit, I do understand the reasons why it happens. Doesn’t make it any easier, though.

Now, this guy said his piece after reading the sign I was holding. Which, I must confess, was not my choice. A friend asked me to hold his sign while he was taking care of something else. It said “Hands Off!” followed by a list of things that included public lands, Social Security, and immigrants. We were standing adjacent to a pedestrian crosswalk and the light was red. This guy was staring us down, and I saw the red Trump hat on his head. So I gave him a shaka. His eyes scanned my sign and that’s when he yelled something about illegal immigrants. I couldn’t really understand him, except when he yelled about “going back.” Which leads me, finally, to talk about how this is a blessing.

The guy saw on my sign and in my Caucasian appearance something that, to him, screamed “mainland” and not, to him, “Hawai‘i.” I am going to assume that this guy might have been “local.” One of the interesting quirks about Hawaiian politics is that, one, we are a very “blue” state, but tend to skew “conservative” on some issues. And, second, the Native Hawaiian (Kanaka Maoli) population leaned heavily toward Trump in the last two elections. Why? Because the Democrats in Hawai‘i have had political dominance since the end of World War II, but Native Hawaiians have continually been marginalized in their own homeland. Their sacred lands are being used for various military, scientific, and recreational purposes. They continue to be priced out of the housing market (to the point where Las Vegas has become a sort of second home for Hawaiians). And their cultural concerns are treated as obstacles to be overcome rather than legitimate issues to be listened to and honored. Further, there are ten times more tourists on the islands per year than residents, but residents are taxed in order to support the tourist industry and not the other way around—on top of the plague of “income properties” that are built here for tourism purposes while beach parks are rife with Native Hawaiians living in tents and barely making ends meet. Because of this, the logic among many is to either “give the other guys a try” or to vote for someone that they think will break the system so that something better might be built from its ruins. As a Kanaka Maoli friend of mine put it at the protest: “That’s the logic. It’s not great logic, but that’s what they’re thinking in supporting Trump.”

So I have to wonder: did this guy see the sign I was holding and see it as reflective of trying to maintain a status quo that has continued to marginalize local people? Are these positions signaling to him a desire to further a kind of political system that will continue to offer soaring rhetoric about being on the “right side of history” while quietly lining the pockets of (different) billionaires who see Hawai‘i as a golden goose to squeeze of all it can offer to people who only want to take take take?

That is the question we all have to ask. And this is why his anger was a blessing to me: it’s causing me to ask what I’m aiming to do as part of such demonstrations. We’re all mad right now. What we’re doing at the moment is collectively yelling A‘ole!, no!

A‘ole to gutting the government programs that the poor rely on.

A‘ole to ignoring our environment and the unabashed pillaging of Earth’s resources.

A‘ole to sending human beings to what are effectively gulags and concentration camps.

A‘ole to disappearing students for no reason other than their political views regarding the genocide happening to the Palestinian people does not line up with the preferred narrative.

A‘ole to the path toward fascism this administration is on.

But that a‘ole cannot simply be about putting things back the way they were. We must demand something more. As a Christian, I want to see something that more closely resembles the Kingdom of God—where no one is lost, all have enough, and we reject the mechanism of death—used to provide a sense of “peace” to our people at the expense of others. To do that, we have to put a stop to what we see happening now—while also advocating for something better to be built in its place.

Hands off, yes. But also, hands on to the tools and materials for making a better world to come.

Blessed are people when they are handed pride flags, they are giving hope to often hopeless people.

Blessed are people when Trump-supporters yell at them to go back to the mainland, it gives them pause to consider how a better future is possible through Christ Jesus.

—

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

_*Note: This is from the Common English Bible translation, which follows an odd modern English translation custom to change “blessed” into something like “happy.” It reads weird and doesn’t exactly correlate with what Jesus is recorded as saying, so I correct the translation to “blessed” for that reason._

**Note 2: My wife and I refer to this as “getting haole-d.” I can’t express to you, reader, how awesome it feels to have someone just give us chopsticks without asking first.

#Theology #Bible #Jesus #Episcopal #Church #Politics #HandsOff #Hawaii

I just sat at my desk after an eventful day. In the Episcopal Church in Hawai'i, our custom is to observe the annual Chrism Mass and Renewal of Ordination Vows on a Saturday about two weeks prior to the start of Holy Week (this is typically a Holy Tuesday observance throughout much of the Church, but given that we are spread among an island archipelago, moving to the aforementioned Saturday works to better accommodate “neighbor island” clergy). This also just happened to coincide with the April 5 “Hands Off” protests/demonstrations. The service is held at the Cathedral of Saint Andrew, which is practically across the street from the state capitol building—where the demonstrations were taking place.

A number of us clergy (and laity) decided that being present at the demonstrations only made sense, given the spirit of renewing our commitment to minister to God’s people and to participate in the proclamation of the good news of liberation, especially among people feeling the squeeze from those who claim the name of Christian as they support genocide, cuts to aid starving children both home and abroad, etc. etc. And so we walked over to the capitol building to “come and see” what was going on.

A view from the event

Now, I’m a rare (read: weird) Episcopal priest in that I pretty much always wear a black cassock (the fancy name for long black dress that you sometimes see priests wearing: I look like Neo or Snape or Kylo Ren, depending on your generation). So I stood out. People wanted a few selfies. Some thought it was a costume and were genuinely surprised that an honest-to-God priest was out there among them. I gave people blessings (including the Trump hat wearing dude in a car that tried to cuss me out and told me to “go back to the mainland”). Mostly I was there to be a presence, to minister and pray. I learned from my participation in the George Floyd demonstrations back in 2020 that folks are warmed to seeing representation from the Church—which speaks to the idea that (some) folks want the Church, but often feel like it is concerned with things quite disconnected from their lives.

We call this the ministry of presence, and is something we clergy also offer in times of hurt and anguish (like an illness or loss of a loved one). This refers to those times where we’re not going to offer answers, just responses, and trust that the Lord God is working through us simply being there.

While walking among the crowd, a little subset of three people saw me and said “here, now you have a sign” and handed me the trans pride flag that appears at the head of this post. I said “mahalo” and carried it with me as I walked. Something about a cassock-clad priest holding a trans pride flag garnered a few responses and I caught a number of people taking sneaky pictures of me.

Here’s the thing: that flag ministered to me.

I grew up deeply Southern Baptist, leaning toward Independent Baptist (these are the fundamentalists who think that Southern Baptists aren’t “conservative” enough). I was incubated in a very Queer-phobic environment. Our attention was mostly on gay men, but all the other letters of the alphabet were just there, slightly off camera. My views on same-sex attraction and Queer love changed while in my twenties. I was attending an Evangelical university in West Palm Beach at the time, while also working retail to help pay my bills. I had gay co-workers and I came to realize that homophobia is an exercise in abstraction. Once I met actual, open, flesh-and-blood gay people it caused me to reconsider many things. And I was doing this while part of a Biblical Studies program at my university. I began the process of trying to reconcile my religious convictions with what I was seeing “on the ground” as it were. And this all was happening alongside my conversion to the Episcopal Church.

But that’s probably a story for another time.

Suffice it to say, my journey from hating Queer people to seeing compatibility between traditional Christianity and Queer “identities” was a hard-fought battle. But along the way I continued to wrestle with reconciling Trans identities and some aspects of Christian belief, as I understand them. And, to be completely honest, I’m still doing this work (but given the current state of things, I won’t be sharing this at this point—I worry that my thinking will be misconstrued and potentially used for hateful purposes by those with ill-intent; there’s nuance there that I don’t think we’re in a place to appreciate at the moment). But one thing is absolutely certain: Trans people are human beings, created in the image of God. They are gifts, blessings to the world, and to deny them this is to deny a work of God.

I needed this reminder. It is easy to get caught up in the abstractness of ideas and beliefs, and removing them from the flesh-and-blood people that are affected or reflected by these ideas and beliefs. But people aren’t just ideas and beliefs. People live. People sweat in the heat and come home tired from work. People go to protests, or roll their eyes at protests as they drive by. People fall in love and break-up. People want to be free to pursue happiness.

When I was in seminary, a little axiom came to me one Sunday: the minister is always on the other side of the altar rail. From the perspective of the laity, the minister is the one at the altar, or giving communion. But from the perspective of the clergy, the ministers are those who sit in the pews and who come up to receive communion. This is the balance of the ministerial life. God speaks to me through the wider community as I am ordained to try and allow God to speak to you all through me.

In the midst of ministering, I was ministered to. It came in the form of a small polyester flag with marker writing on it. And so now, through these words, I hope to minister to you all in return. Trans lives are human lives. Trans people aren’t just an abstraction, aren’t just an idea. Whatever we might think about them, they are flesh-and-blood people wanting what everyone wants: a life where they are free to pursue happiness and discover who they are in the grand web of the earth and universe, who they are in light of the God who lovingly made them.

—

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Theology #Bible #Jesus #Episcopal #Church #TransRights #Politics #HandsOff

I am a Godzilla fan and have been since childhood. Godzilla is for me what Star Wars and Star Trek are to others (though I am a fan of both of those franchises as well). My office is replete with Godzilla toys...

Proof!

… and I used to be a subscriber to a variety of Godzilla-related fanzines, the most famous of which (in North America, at least) is G-Fan. Older Godzilla fans like myself may recall a years-long debate that took place in the Letters section (which I believe was called “G-Mail” now that I think about it) regarding the mechanics of time travel in the 1990 film Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah.

This movie is preposterous and amazing at the same time

The film’s plot involves a convoluted plan concocted by people from the future to travel back in time in order to ruin Japan’s economy, because Japan has become too rich in the future and other, notably Western, countries want to put a stop to this. As you can imagine, this film was a bit controversial in its day.

This plan involves the “Futurians” traveling first to 1990 to let Japan know that there are time-travelers and that they want to help Japan solve its Godzilla problem. Which then involves the Futurians taking a handful of 1990 Japanese with them to the Bikini Atoll in the late 1940s, where they encounter a “Godzillasaurus” (Godzilla before he is mutated by atomic bomb tests—and who helps entrenched Japanese kill a bunch of American soldiers), and teleport the Godzillasaurus to a different location so that the dinosaur will never turn into Godzilla. The Futurians then secretly leave behind three critters called “Drats.”

These things

Which are then exposed to the nuclear radiation and become the fearsome, three-headed golden dragon known as King Ghidorah. Thus granting the Futurians their own city-destroying monster that they can control.

The implications of this is that the original 1954 Godzilla film never happens, and thus none of the previous films in the so-called “Heisei Era” happened either.

not even the one where Godzilla fights a Monsanto creation

Given that later films in the series will refer back to Godzilla having been around since 1954, Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is notorious for being a lore-breaking film. Which inspired one of those great nerd pastimes: writing letters to fan publications attempting to patch plot holes and make sense of the lore.

Basically, the debate surrounded the “rules” of time travel. Much like the discussion in the film Avengers: Endgame, different movies and stories were cited as the basis for the “rules” of traveling through time, Back to the Future being the most common one. The debate went on for a few months and then vanished for a couple of years, until one letter-writer chimed in and made a claim that has affected my thinking on a lot of things over the years:

Given that we have never seen a real-world example of time travel, we have to assume that time travel “behaves” as depicted in the film as presented.

In other words, claiming that Back to the Future or The Terminator or The Time Machine serve as “the rules” for time travel is to import a narrative framework onto a film like Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, as silly as it is, thus refusing to accept the story on its own terms. It is to insert an outside set of rules into a story, thus affecting the understanding of the story and attempting to view it according to a different standard.

It’s a refusal to let the story be. It’s an attempt to view one story through the lens of another, thus rendering it as a different story altogether.

Two other examples come to mind: the first is James Cameron’s reaction to the infamous discussion about whether Jack could fit on that floating door with Rose at the end of Titanic. In an interview, Cameron once said that the reason Jack couldn’t fit on the door with Rose is that “on page 147 that Jack dies. Very simple.” In other words, this is the story that Cameron wanted to tell: the grand ship as a symbol of class-divide and hubris is reduced down to a single piece of wood which becomes the catalyst for an act of self-sacrificial love.

I think I just wrote my Good Friday sermon.

The other example comes from the theologian Gerard Loughlin. In his excellent book about reading the Bible, entitled Telling God’s story, he challenges the “liberal” reading of figures like John Shelby Spong who deny the virgin birth of Jesus on the grounds that it doesn’t make rational sense, who argue that we are left with a choice between a Mary who was raped or who conceived by way of “parthenogenesis”. To this, Loughlin writes:

Of course the choice is not between parthenogenesis or rape; it is between the story we have, which mentions neither, or some other story. (see footnote 48 on page 121, emphasis mine)

Loughlin, like Cameron, invites us to consider stories on their own terms and merits. This includes the Bible. For Christians, traditionally, the scriptures present the story of the world. In those writings were/are the connective narrative tissues that reveal the meaning and purpose to what we see happening in the cosmos around us. But even in the Church, Christians have seemed to forget this relationship and now see the story of the Bible and the story of the cosmos as two separate stories, often inverting the relationship. As Loughlin later writes

The biblical story is to be fitted into the story of the world, rather than the world into the story of the Bible.

When we consider the long arc of the Bible, we see that the Bible tells us that God called forth a creation out of chaos, thus establishing a trajectory, a narrative. In the course of that creative work, something gave shape to nothing (as in, nothing being the place beyond the boundaries of something), and thus the possibility of us humans opting for an alternative trajectory—moving toward the nothing.

The Chinese theologian and spiritual writer Watchman Nee speaks of this, in his tiny but rich book Sit, Walk, Stand:

Since the day that Adam took the fruit of the tree of knowledge, man (sic) has been engaged in deciding what is good and what is evil. The natural man has worked out his own standards of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and striven to live by them.

What Nee is getting at is that, as a result of humanity’s giving into temptation in the garden, we fostered a trajectory that moves apart from God’s trajectory, thus giving space to impose a different narrative onto the world. The reason why the world feels so given to “wrong” and injustice is because we are experiencing the long-gestating outworking of a sense of rightness and justice that comes from an ultimately empty narrative—“some other story.”

Nee goes on

Christ is for us the Tree of Life. We do not begin from the matter of ethical right and wrong. We do not start from that other tree. We begin from him; and the whole question for us is one of Life.

Nee builds on this to say that we have a tendency to seek out even good things like love, but defined apart from Christ Jesus, thus rendering them lifeless and void. “If we only try to do the right thing,” he writes, “surely we are very poor Christians. We have to do something more than what is right.” Elsewhere he puts it “With [Christ] it is a question of his grace and not of right and wrong.”

This notion of grace is crucial because grace, by its God-defined nature, is effortless. Grace is the fabric of creation, the force that guides the trajectory of the cosmos. When we attempt to impose our own narrative, we deny grace and wind up doing violence to the story of the universe.

This explains, I believe, how we got ourselves into the mess we see today. People professing the name Christian are embracing fascist ideas because they’ve allowed another story to be the definitive story, a story rooted in the void of chaos, the nothingness that exists beyond the bounds of the something that God called into being. And it is this story—not the story rightly told in the scriptures—that has stirred the ire and rage of people who now hate Christianity. Because it is some other story, told under the banner of Christ.

Nee writes

Nothing has done greater damage to our Christian testimony than our trying to be right and demanding right of others. We become preoccupied with what is what is not right[…] But that is not our standard. The whole question for us is one of cross-bearing.

Those in the MAGA movement who use the title Christian got that way because they came to believe that theirs was a story of being right. Being right involves drawing lines in the sand and building walls and closing borders. Being right involves deporting those who don’t look or act the way one has determined is “right.” But the actual, biblical story is one of grace. A story of love.

A graceful story is a story that is open to emergence, of allowing things to unfold and being open to the discovery what comes next.

Once, about twenty years ago, I had gone snorkeling with friends in Fort Pierce, Florida. It was early in the morning and we were riding the outgoing tide alongside the jetty at the state park there. I was taking lead. The water was fairly clear, but there was still a limit to our visibility—which was maybe fifteen feet or more. As the current pulled me along I saw a large, dark shadow immediately in front of me. It was oblong and gray, at least seven feet in length. My mind went to exactly one place:

Shark.

I tried to slow my movement, but the current was strong. I was moving inexorably toward a tooth-filled death, helpless.

As I got closer, things began to come into focus. The gray creature was awfully still, and definitely more rotund than any shark I’d ever seen. Plus I couldn’t make out a dorsal fin. Then suddenly, everything became clear and I realized:

Manatee.

*Sup?*

In front of me was not God’s perfect seafaring killing machine. It was instead maybe the most gentle creature on earth. We all watched in awe as it rolled over on its back and swam alongside us before departing into the murk.

Was I “right” in thinking this was a shark? When I only had limited knowledge, sure. My fear and rising panic were entirely justified because I was working off of both limited data—which in turn caused me to impart a different story onto what I was seeing. But grace allowed the story to unfold, to emerge, and I received new data and the realization that I didn’t need to panic. If I had stopped moving and jumped out of the water, claiming that this was a shark, I would have been “right” so far as anyone knew. But my “rightness” was exposed as “wrong” as more things unfolded in the story.

What has happened for a lot of us in the world is that we’ve determined was is “right” or “wrong” based off the experience of the world as we see it. We foster a note of willful ignorance because our being right has maybe served us.

But grace moves us past arbitrary lines of “right” and “wrong,” and allows us to accept the story as it unfolds. It lets the story be. Having to be “right” risks us telling some other story, of foisting the rules of a different story onto the story as it is.

The world is God’s story. Let the story speak.

—

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Theology #Bible #film #Godzilla #Jesus #Episcopal #Church

People sometimes call me a techie. There was a time where this was true, and is something that I’m getting back into.

See, what I’ve come to realize about the phrase “techie” is that it often means “uses gadgets.” Using an iPad for preaching, or wearing an Apple Watch, knowing my way around social media or the features of my phone, these have garnered the techie designation, but, really, this is just me being a consumer who uses purchased products. Yes, they are “tech,” but my utilization of them was pretty much in accord with standard use. To use a microwave is a “techie” as using a tablet or phone in this case.

But being a proper “techie” is, to me, someone who navigates the concepts around their devices, who seeks to grasp an understanding of their innermost parts, to turn a biblical phrase. In that sense, I was a proper techie in my younger years, when I was learning computing from Mrs. Vincent, my math teacher. This extended into my late teens when I discovered 2600 magazine (which turned me on to the political dimensions of technology) and began to understand hardware integration and decided that I wanted to develop video games. So I convinced my mom that we needed a new PC and that me building one was an important educational opportunity. I acquired the parts (including an ASUS motherboard that I thought was legit but I’m pretty sure turned out to be stolen—I discovered this when I went to boot my machine for the first time and was greeted with an HP logo where there shouldn’t have been one; if not for Mrs. Vincent teaching me about BIOS and DOS, I would have been completely lost) and assembled my machine while watching Hackers, a machine that I would later try to learn C programming on (I wrote a calculator!), even if my ulterior motive was to have a gaming rig that could support the brand new VooDoo 2 graphics card so that EverQuest would play better. I even attempted to use chat rooms as a means to evangelize (which one pastor at the time said was not legit) and I even talked about the possibility of sticking a webcam in the church and streaming the sermon with a chat box underneath the stream (which people didn’t seem to understand then—now every church is doing this!) But my time as a techie began to fizzle out shortly after, the moment my grasp of BASIC vanished during a class at the local community college. After that, I just became a gadget-consumer.

I’ve since gotten back into my techie interests thanks in part to my dropping big-corporate social media in favor of the Fediverse, followed by the installation of Ubuntu Linux on an old mid-2011 Mac that has breathed considerable new life into that machine (as well as me). I’ve since started this blog, where I’ve actually learned a degree of coding through the use of MarkDown and CSS, and I’m now very much into the Free Open Source Software movement that is absolutely suppressed by the big corporations.

All of this is simply a prelude to say that, as a priest, I’ve begun reflecting theologically on technology and our (Christian) relationship to it. If being a proper techie is to seek to understand the conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of technology, then it is inevitable that one will bump up against the theological aspects of technology as well.

God And The Machines

Popularly, the term technology is often applied to gizmos. Things with integrated circuits that utilize electricity. We often fail to remember that things like bread and windows and legal pads and gel pens and roads and chairs and cast iron skillets are all forms of technology. According to Wikipedia technology is “the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve practical goals, especially in a reproducible way.” Technology is, more simply, the practical application of ideas (in addition to also being a term applying to the tools or results of that application). This definition is, to me, an interesting thing to consider in regards to humanity’s relationship with technology in the Bible.

The first piece of technology that humans make, according to the mythological account found in Genesis, is a form of rudimentary clothing. The story goes that Eve and Adam, the first people, were naked and unashamed. But the moment they decided to listen to a talking snake and his advice about whether or not to eat a piece of forbidden fruit, the couple become aware of their nakedness and get to work using fig leaves as means to cover up (there’s a very funny old English translation of the Bible called the “Breeches Bible” because it says that Eve and Adam used the fig leaves to make “breeches” for themselves—leafy britches!). This is technology. Eve and Adam had the conceptual knowledge—the idea—that they were naked and so went about making use of resources to apply that knowledge in a practical way. Then God, once He confronts them over their disobedience (which He figures out because they’re wearing the aforementioned britches), He introduces the technology of hide-based clothing, by killing two lambs and using their skins to cover Eve and Adam.

This story sets up the complicated relationship we have with technology. It is both borne out of our foibles and limitations, as well as being evidence perhaps of divine mercy. Both death and life are intertwined in the advent of human ingenuity.

At the same time, technology becomes a means of mediating God’s own self-revelation to humanity. God gives a law to His people through the use of the technology of writing, in which He also instructs them to build a box that symbolizes His presence among them, to be kept housed in a tent that is designed for portability. Later, that tent is upgraded to a building called a temple, itself situated amidst the technology known as a city, the language of which God also uses to refer to His own home/realm. Once we get to the beginning of the Common Era, we have Jesus (God incarnate) utilizing a whole range of technologies as a means to both communicate things about God, but also to serve as mediators of His presence and grace. The manger, the fishnet, bread, wine, a cross and a tomb are but a few of the technological examples put to use by God Incarnate to reveal His full plan to the world. And in the case of the bread and wine, these are said to become the body and blood of Jesus—and not in some notion of symbol or metaphor, no these are God-ordained technologies of grace, what we today call “sacraments.”

In a sense, these sacramental signs are a kind of machine, things that use power to perform a specific action. In this case, it is both the power of God and the power of the entire creation that is behind these technologies, mediating God’s grace and moving us toward the restoration of the world. As the Orthodox theologian Michael J. Oleska writes:

Eastern Christians believe in sacred materialism. God uses physical objects and visible elements to communicate with His People. The created universe is the means by which we enter into communion with Him. He chose food as the most perfect way to enter our lives. And what is the bread? Flour, yeast and water, baked to a certain temperature? No, it is much more, for to create bread, one needs the whole world. The earth must turn, the rain must fall, the soil must be fertile, the sun must shine, night must come, the wind blow. If all this is in harmony, and humans interact with it appropriately, tending the garden as God originally planned, bread can be baked, communion with God restored [...]

It is all Christ. He chose to make water into wine as his first miracle, but He is always doing that, every vineyard since time began [...] The Word made Flesh only does in His Incarnate Form what the Word, embodied in the whole creation, has always done. (from “The Alaskan Orthodox Mission and Cosmic Christianity,” The Chant of Life: Inculturation and the People of the Land p. 188)

We Are God’s Technology

I have to admit, the idea that technology is “applied conceptual knowledge” sounds a bit like what Saint John the Evangelist writes in his gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [...] The Word became flesh and made his home among us.

The “Word” there is the English rendering of a Greek concept known as “Logos.” It’s a fairly difficult concept to translate directly into English, to be honest. The best I’ve come up with is that the “Logos” is akin to the “kernel” in a program like Linux, the core element around which everything else is built/based.

Honestly, this image is probably the actual best representation of what “the Logos made his home among us” means. (from the Perry Bible Fellowship)

Basically, the idea is that God looked out at timeless time and decided that He wanted to create a universe where He would come to live, and so He built a universe around the “kernel” of Himself as human. So when Genesis says that humanity is made “in God’s image,” we Christians are saying that we are built to look like what Jesus (that is, God-in-flesh) is. Yes, I understand that this does not make sense when we think of time linearly—but there’s really nothing that says time is linear; plus we Christians affirm that God does not exist within time as we comprehend it.

Anyway, Saint John speaks of this notion as “Everything came into being through the Word, and without the Word nothing came into being.” The “Word” (Logos) is the anchor around which everything exists. One of the Episcopal Church’s Eucharistic prayers puts it as “In your infinite love you made us for yourself.” In other words, we are made by God to do what God intends us to do.

Which means we are God’s technology.

This might sound weird at first. Especially if we still associate technology with machines or gadgets. But when we recall that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (as the Psalmist declares) we realize that our “being made” is a confession that to be created means that we fall into the realm of technology. Saint Paul articulates this when he writes that we are “God’s building.” This is overt technological language, applied to us as created beings. We, and the whole universe, are an application of God’s conceptual knowledge—indeed THE conceptual knowledge—reproducible and with particular intention.

And what is that intention? To love God.

I know that sounds selfish on God’s part. Is God so insecure that He felt the need to create an entire universe so that it could foster sapient life on (perhaps) a single planet with the express purpose of giving Him worship and adoration? When we think of God as lacking in love, then yes it does sound like He’s insecure. But when we consider that God is a complete and perfect Being lacking in nothing, then it changes the idea of why God created.

God did not need to create, not in the sense of an obligation (as in filling a lack). Instead God chose to create as an outgrowth of His ever-flowing love. Love demands an object. And if, as Jesus tells us, God is Love, then the only logical conclusion we can reach is that the universe was created to be an object of that Love, borne as a consequence of an eternally radiating love emanating from a complete Being who has love to spare. And if that Being is the originator of all that is, then the love poured into us finds its most worthwhile expression when directed back at the One who graced us with everything that is—out of His love.

But notice what Jesus says about how we apply that love ourselves. He doesn’t tell us to do what all of the other religious practices of His time were doing, which was to direct love at God/the gods in order to win their favor, as though God needed this love. No, Jesus tells us that our love of God is demonstrated best when we love our neighbor—which Jesus defines as everyone and anyone. We are to mediate God’s love among ourselves and in so doing it is directed toward God, who is the One most worthy of receiving love. This is what He designed us to do.

This post is long enough without getting into the programming bug we know as sin (I’ll take that up in a later post). Instead I’ll leave us here to ponder what it all means that we are God’s technology of love, given the gift of technology ourselves that can serve as a mediating factor for receiving God’s love in order to spread it around—by which we show God how much we love Him in return.

—

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Theology #Technology #Linux #Computers #Philosophy #Christianity #Bible #Church #Jesus

What is a Christian?

This seems like it should be a simple question. “Christian” means “little Christ” or even “like-Christ.” So, anyone who attempts to be like Christ is a Christian, yeah? I mean, I’ve had this stated to me outright more than a few times over the years whenever I try to challenge one’s definition of Christianity.

But this is incorrect, even from a biblical standpoint. Because while, yes, the Bible does note that there’s a moment where these followers of Jesus’ disciples are called “Christian,” there is a broader bit of context to consider.

The people who would one day become known as “Christians” were originally called people of “the Way.” “Christian” was a later term applied to them, by the people of Antioch (with plenty of folks out there postulating that this might have been intended as an insult). So they were branded with this name, which they later embraced. But it was not the term that they first applied to themselves—nor was it a term Jesus gave them, at least not in a direct sort of way.

This is all to say that, in order to understand what it means to be “Christian,” we first have to consider what it meant to be people of “the Way.”

For starters, what was “the Way?” Perhaps the most concise answer to this question is provided by Jesus Himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one gets to the Father, except through me.” Now, the term “way” was already a loaded term for Jesus. As a Jew, He would’ve been taught that the Torah was “the way” to God. Following the commandments given by Moses and expanded by scribes and religious teachers continues to be the means by which Jews understand their life and relationship to God. Keeping these things puts them on the path (or, “way”) to God.

Regardless of what one might think about the theological claims about Jesus, He was very clearly a religious reformer/revolutionary. In the gospels, we see Him taking umbrage with the labyrinthine interpretations of the Law that were foisted upon every day people; we see Him opposed to a predatory financial system rooted in the Temple’s religious customs; we even see Him willing to buck deeply held notions around women and non-Jews. Jesus is very interested in expressing a different way of not only being Jewish, but also a different way for non-Jews to have a relationship with the God of Judaism (who was believed and proclaimed as THE God). Jesus lays out—in two sermons, acts of healing, and various parables—an alternative way of living, an actual practice, which He Himself embodies. And so when we get to that famous line in John’s gospel about Him being “the way” what He’s effectively saying is: “go where I go, live a life like mine, and you will see God, you will achieve what the Torah is all about.”

But Jesus’ followers came to see Him as more than an ethicist or reformer. Beyond those dimensions, indeed the soil from which those dimensions sprout, His followers see Him as God, living in human flesh. Which means there emerges a theological dimension to both understanding and following Jesus. And this is the thing that Christians spend their first 300 years or so hammering out, resulting in the Apostles’ and Nicene-Constantinoplian Creeds.

Today, it’s easy for us to look at those theological arguments and wonder what the big deal was all about. But try and consider things from the perspective of the ancients. They were trying to understand precisely who it was they were following and why they should follow Him at all. Because if He’s fully God as well as man, or a simply a human endowed with spiritual power, or even a sort of demigod, there are ramifications to what it means to follow Him.

The kernel of these ideas were held by those first people, articulated as “the Way.” So, this movement later rebranded as Christian carries with it pre-existing theological baggage that continues once the new name for the movement takes hold. It’s not simply a movement of people trying to live an ethical life akin to the one Jesus did. It’s a group of people who do this while also worshipping Jesus as God. Which means that “Christian” is a term that carries particular meanings rooted in both a way of life and a way of worship.

Theology requires a grammar. The conventional term for this grammar is “doctrine.” Misused, “doctrine” is about lines in the sand that separate degrees of faithfulness and rightness before God. But the correct view of doctrine is that it provides the boundaries for what makes a particular theology or religion definably itself. Further, those doctrines inform practices meant to embody what that theology or religion has to say or mean for its adherents.

Dance is a helpful example. There is a clear grammar to dance—whether hula, or ballet, or modern, etc. But once that grammar begins to be stripped away we begin to see something other than dance: perhaps floor gymnastics, or a form of martial arts. This is not to say that dance cannot innovate. It simply means that we have to either review the grammar of dance, or delineate when something ceases to be dance because it has strayed into a space where it uses a different grammar.

Consider the phenomenon of the modern smartphone. Many of us continue to refer to the device as a “phone” but it is completely unrecognizable from the device that Alexander Graham Bell first invented. Now, the “phone” portion of the device is a piece of software and part of what is actually a small personal computer. There is a clear line of recognizability from the wall-mounted telephone of yesteryear and the cellular telephone (today referred to as a feature phone). But the modern smartphone is built more from the design language (that is, “grammar”) of the personal MP3 player than it is the telephone.

Christianity is like this. The doctrines of the faith are what make it definable, following a trajectory of development where we can see certain commonalities in both belief and practice. At the same time, we have also seen a certain degree of disruption (to use the term in its tech-industry, startup sense), largely in the form of the Protestant Reformation, that has affected this notion and has lead us to a place where we have multiple things calling themselves “Christian” while only a few can be accurately identified by that term.

Which leads me, finally, to answer my initial question: what is a Christian?

A Christian is a person who follows Jesus as He has been understood by the Church. By this I mean that Christians believe in Jesus as He is articulated in the Creeds (particularly the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds), and both worship and follow Him in the particular ways defined by the heritage of the Church. Christianity is practiced, not simply “believed.” It is the result of the out-working of what it means to follow Jesus and who Jesus is, placed amidst a trajectory (tradition) of continual out-working. Christianity carries continuity—of both practice and belief.

This is not to say that Christianity is something frozen in time. Rather, it is to suggest that innovations within Christianity (say, the ordaining of women to the priesthood, or same-sex marriage) have to carry continuity with what came before, either through a form of historic recovery (in the case of women’s ordination) or integration into that continuous stream (in the case of same-sex marriage).

The Creeds, as a source of Christian grammar, offer flexibility. They are “what” statements, not “how” statements. This means that there is wiggle-room in how these things are understood. However, there is not wiggle room in regards to the “What” being stated about Christian belief. For instance, we can differ on what it means when we say that we “believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting” (Saint Augustine of Hippo to Pierre Tielhard de Chardin offers a pretty solid range), but if we say that there is no resurrection of the dead and/or life everlasting then we have broken the boundaries of Christian grammar and are now speaking a different theological language. Similarly, the moment we elevate the Bible to a place traditionally occupied by Jesus, seeing it (and not Him) as the “authoritative Word of God,” we’ve also crossed a key boundary of Christian grammar and are now speaking a different religious language (the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is probably the most notable instance of this, and held as the standard statement on “Biblical inerrancy” throughout much of Evangelicalism—interestingly, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 seems to have amended its wording to better reflect that Jesus is the main revelation and the Bible is merely a testament to that fact; so not all Evangelical denominations are created equal here, it seems).

Additionally, there is a continuity of Christian practice that constitutes this grammar: gathered together as people who have been baptized, to share in bread and wine, informed by the reading and expounding of the scriptures and the singing of hymns and psalms, all assembled in an ordered fashion. And from this gathering emerges a way of life, an ethic, itself reflective of a particular grammar of action.

So, to be “Christian” is to be a particular thing. This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons cannot rightly claim the name “Christian.” Yes, they profess Jesus. But their understanding of who Jesus is resides outside the grammar defined by the Creeds (which, by the way, are themselves a kind of summary of what the Bible is all about), by rejecting His divinity. They might be cousins to the Christian faith, but they are cousins removed (akin to the relationship between Muslims and Jews—both claim the same God, but they each have a unique grammar in regards to that God). “Christianity” loses coherence when we fail to assert these facts—which has led us to where we are today, with neo-fascists espousing abhorrent ideas and calling them “Christian.”)

Lastly, let me be clear about another point: saying that someone is not “Christian” is not the same thing as saying that they are headed for damnation. Jesus saying “no one gets to the Father apart from me” is, in my faithful estimation, Him saying that He’s the one who decides the ultimate fate of human souls in the afterlife. I tend to believe that, in time, everyone is welcomed into the always-open gates of the New Jerusalem. But, ultimately, Jesus is the one who saves. Not me. Not any particular institution. Rather, the Church is the place that gives us the language for what it means to be saved, to live into what Jesus has already done. Christianity is, as far as I’m concerned, this profoundly beautiful thing that allows us to live with the freedom that comes with being saved by Jesus. It gives us the language by which we can live thankfully in the light that we no longer feel we have to save ourselves, making it all up as we go along.

—

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Christianity #Church #Jesus #History #Politics #Bible #religion #theology

A very stupid thing I made a few years back

I’m writing this on “Fat Tuesday,” the day before Ash Wednesday. I have numerous bulletins to make, as well as preparing the ashes, but the brain God gifted me with needs the dopamine produced by posting this entry before it can get to work on those other things. Plus, I’m trying to develop a discipline of writing, which means I really ought to be doing this right?

Anyway, Lent begins tomorrow. It marks 40 days of fasting and spiritual discipline for the majority of Christians around the world (Evangelicals not included—they don’t really observe Lent), kicked off for Western Christians by the observance of Ash Wednesday. This is a day where we go to church and have ashes smeared on our heads (or sprinkled on them) as a reminder of two things: we sin and we die. It is meant to get us in touch with the frailty of our humanity as a way to underscore the magnanimity of what Jesus did in re-orienting our humanity through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

But I look at things in much of the world right now and I’m not so sure we need the ashes to remind us of these facts. Ukraine and Gaza (as well as the under-reported turmoil of what is happening throughout Africa, particularly in the Congo region) are stark reminders of the ubiquity of death. And the current state of things in the United States is perhaps the clearest reminder to us that sin is far from gone in the world—and also demonstrating to us how sin and death inform each other. Furthermore, Lent itself is a season of voluntary austerity and deprivation. Lent, in a way, assumes a degree of “affluence” as the “norm” and “deprivation” as the outlier. Given the direction of the economy, Lent feels less like a thing we Christians choose to enter into for a time and more the general reality in which we are moving.

So, why bother? I mean, can we even afford to do Lent this year? Since much will likely be taken away as this administration goes on, wouldn’t we be better off using the time we have as a sort of extended Mardi Gras and treat ourselves until we can’t? Shouldn’t we take the advice of the wise Preacher in Ecclesiastes and “eat drink and be merry” since everything around is “a puff of smoke” and “chasing the wind?”*

Well, this more or less assumes the Western Christian view of Lent. Eastern Christianity (think Greek or Coptic) has a different mindset. For Eastern Christians (whose theology is arguably more reflective of ancient Christianity), Lent is about balance. See, in Eastern Christian practice, one fasts for about half the year and feasts for the rest. This serves as a kind of balance for the earth and our bodies, similar to the YinYang thinking of East Asia or the Ku/Hina thinking of ancient Hawai’i. And this can have notable economic repercussions in Christian societies.

There’s an old tale that gets repeated (one that I’ve been known to parrot myself) that says that fish was deemed appropriate for Lent due to the lobbying of fishmongers. Apparently there is no evidence to support this story. But this does not negate the fact that fasting can carry implications for resisting the “principalities and powers” of our current economic reality. The food industry, for instance, wants to dominate our kitchens and push the kinds of foods they want us to eat. They want us to lean into excess. In his 2016 documentary series Cooked, food author Michael Pollan notes that the sort of foods pushed on us are foods that, if we were to cook them ourselves, would be excessively time-consuming. Think about French fries, for instance. We view them as basically “filler.” But consider what it takes to make French fries: growing potatoes, peeling them, slicing them, blanching them, then frying them. Think about all the little prepackaged cakes or tubs of ice cream in our freezers. Their delectability is largely informed by the difficulty that comes in making these things ourselves. But that labor is outsourced and now these things are largely treated as staples in the Western diet and not the exceptional items they’re really supposed to be.

And the food industry is making bank on that fact.

Pollan’s documentary further notes that the food industry sold us on these things by hammering us with messages that reinforce how stressful our lives are, thus pressuring us into buying their products as a means to relieve some degree of stress. Capitalism selling us their solutions to the problems they created. And the messages are only getting stronger and stronger. The stress and chaos of this administration in the United States is very good for business (and probably why so many CEO-types have gone hard for Trump in the first place).

So, fasting becomes a form of refusal, a form of resistance. It also becomes self-empowering in a way because it can help us remember that we can make choices free of corporate and political pressures.

Saint Paul asserts that while we are at war, our war “is not against blood and flesh”. Which means that we don’t fight this war in the same way we might fight others. The Chinese theologian Watchman Nee notes that Saint Paul’s instructions in this passage are rooted in a defensive stance and not a march into battle. Which means, quite literally, that our war against the spiritual forces that assail us is waged as resistance.

So, food can become a tool in that resistance. Refusing to eat certain foods becomes an act of resistance against the very forces that capitalize on our stress and fear.

But the fasting of Lent is not only a curbing of the foods we eat. It’s also the giving up of certain activities. There’s been much press about the various economic blackouts people are participating in right now. What if we made every Wednesday and Friday (the traditional days of general fasting for ancient Christianity) in Lent a “buy nothing” day? And alongside that maybe consider using any money we save from our refusals and give it to various people (software engineers, journalists) that could really use the money?

Yes, we are facing a reality of involuntary austerity. But Lent is more than just a time of tightening the belt for some vague spiritual benefit. It is about a life of balance. It is a tool in a war of resistance against the very power of Satan itself, manifested in the economic pressures foisted upon us by billionaires addicted to wealth and gaining it at our expense.

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#Lent #Christianity #spirituality #religion #Church #Jesus #Episcopal #politics #economy

We are in the midst of a wave of what is now known as enshittification, which is a term coined by Canadian author Cory Doctorow on his blog, Pluaralistic. It’s a phrase that has taken parts of the internet by storm, a perfect word to describe how seemingly everything has gotten worse. (Apologies to anyone who is bothered by a priest using the word “shit,” by the way. I get that some Christians are offended by swearing, but Saint Paul pretty much uses the word “shit” in Philippians 3:8 when he considers his life before Christ as skybala, so make of that what you will.)

“Enshittification” is marked by four things, according to Doctorow:

first, [platforms] are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.

Notice that those four markers are not exclusive to technology, where the term “platform” could be used for just about any institution.

Including the Church.

Just think back to the 15th and 16th Centuries. The Church had been good. It managed to change the direction of the Roman Empire and even managed to preserve elements of culture and society after the fall of that empire. It was nimble and adaptive to the needs of people in the agrarian days of the early Medieval period and managed to counterbalance the worst impulses of kings and lords (for the most part) because kings and lords were seen as subservient to the lordship of Christ Jesus and His Church, which wielded the power of excommunication as a way to keep things in check. But then, kings and lords wanted more from the Church, an institution they were largely funding. Further, many of the bishops had been welcomed into the halls of wealth and power and now saw themselves largely in political terms rather than spiritual. So the laity began to be exploited through practices like the selling of indulgences (used to fund wars and, later, the construction of Saint Peter’s at the Vatican). Then, the bishops began to exploit the lords and kings to get what they wanted (just consider the story of Henry IV traveling in the snow to get the pope to reverse an excommunication). Then, we get the Reformation Era (which gave birth to my branch of the Church, known as Anglicanism).

Now, we see the same things happening in regards to Protestant Christianity, particularly the Evangelical side of things. Pro Publica is running an article about one of the several Evangelical pastors that are leveraging their spiritual influence in the service of political power. And the question is why? Why would any organization that calls itself Christian engage in this sort of thing?

Why would the Church ever return, like “a dog to its vomit,” to the well of enshittification?

It’s because Christians seem to forget what their religion is all about, largely because Christianity is a pretty inconvenient thing. We want to change the world, we rightly recognize that Jesus calls us to change the world. But the lure of doing such things quickly and conveniently is very very strong. Which I feel like we’ve heard something similar before...

Oh. Right.

I’m beginning to think more and more that “inconvenience” is a Christian virtue, a thing we need to embrace, cultivate, and value (I’ve plans to write more on this in the future). When we consider that the ancient rabbinical interpretation of the Fall was the result of the serpent telling Eve and Adam that they could short-cut their way to god-like-ness that the Holy One was moving them toward by eating that piece of fruit, we see that “convenience” or “expedience” becomes a very alluring temptation. Further, in a prophecy about Jesus found in the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom (frequently called The Wisdom of Solomon) we read:

Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. (Wisdom 2:12-15, NRSV)

So, even the Bible itself acknowledges that the ways of Jesus are inconvenient, while also exposing the short-comings and even wickedness that come from a life of convenience. And those things result in Jesus being crucified. Which is all to say that convenience is powerful and can come with a dark side if we’re not attentive to it.

Christians, as with anyone else, are sinners. We know this, we confess this, we (are supposed to) try and overcome this. But, nevertheless, we live in a sinful world and it is very hard to successfully resist every day. (But this is why we also believe in grace—which is another topic for another time!) The allure of a short-cut to what we think we want is too strong. And so we make a concession here, another there, and then in time we have Rube-Goldberg-machined our way into abandoning our faith and/or calling a heresy or idolatry “Christian.”

Christians have an uneasy relationship with the so-called “separation of church and state.” Our faith demands that we be public and call on the public to repent and follow Jesus. This fact was not lost on some of our most ancient thinkers, most notable being Saint Augustine of Hippo, the great sage of Western (scholastic) Christianity. His mountainous masterpiece, The City of God, deals with the questions of Christians in political leadership. What he effectively argues is that Christians are baptized into a world affected by sin and so all things we humans develop are going to be marked by that fact in some way. But because we confess that sin and confess that Jesus has freed us from sin having lasting, defining power over us, we are able to see past the marks of sin and into a new way of being. So Augustine argues that the Church must make use of the systems of this world, but in such a way to move past the sin-defined flaws of those systems. Judicial punishment, for instance, is supposed to be understood by Christians as a tool that leads to people being restored into the community and not a means of punishment for the sake of punishment. Augustine understood that the guilt of the knowledge of the sin itself is more punishment than the law could ever apply, and so mechanisms of “punishment” are only to help an offender realize the sinfulness of their actions, so that they could come to a place of confession—which is the catalyst for repentance and restoration to the community.

In short, Saint Augustine argues that the Church make use of governmental systems in order to persuade people of what they ought to do, rather than coerce them. In effect, this subverts the systems of government, sinful as they are, in the aims of hopefully working them out of a job.

But, as we all know, persuasion is inconvenient. It takes time. Think of how hard it is to convince people to leave Facebook or Instagram in favor of the far superior experience of decentralized social media like Mastodon and Pixelfed. Wouldn’t it be easier, more convenient, to just force people to leave?

Wouldn’t it be easier if we could just vote the right people into office and get them to make people behave the way we think they should?

Such a view is deeply heretical, from a Christian perspective, because it attempts to supplant the work of God and put it into the hands of us people. Like the Marvel villain, The High Evolutionary, we convince ourselves that we can do it all faster and better because God is not behaving the way we think He ought.

The only way out of the cycle of enshittification is to properly repent and then continue to resist the lure of convenience.

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

header image by J Dean, via unsplash.com. The image of the Temptation of Christ is courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain

#christianity #church #enshittification #technology #culture #politics

Years ago, I had pink hair as part of a ploy to get the youth of my parish to invite friends to church. See, I would let the one who brought the most visitors to church decide what color my hair would be on our summer mission trip. Pink won. The young woman who decided that pink would be my color eventually became an artist and drew the above photo of me as part of a gift when I was called away from that church. She included the line “it’s all good, I’m a priest” (which I think is something I said on the trip).

As a priest, there’s a sense that I’m supposed to have more answers than the rest of you. That, by virtue of my vocation, I’m closer to God and, therefore, the Truth. The reality is that people like me wind up following a call to ordained ministry as the result of chasing questions that wind up becoming other questions. If we’re any closer to Truth it’s only by way of asking deeper questions. That’s what this blog is about.

I’m a priest in the Episcopal Church. I live in Hawai’i, on the island of O’ahu, serving a congregation in downtown Honolulu. Before all of that I was a Southern Baptist growing up in Orlando, then an Evangelical in university in West Palm Beach, then an Episcopal seminarian in Alexandria, Virginia, then back to West Palm in my first parish, followed by six years served as both rector and school chaplain in Boca Raton. My faith has been built and broken down a number of times, refined and challenged, growing me ever closer to the Lord Jesus. Along the way my beliefs have evolved and I wanted to develop a place to share that evolution, in the hope that it might help you come closer to the Truth.

I no longer have pink hair. But in my priesthood I do continue to believe that it’s all good. And I hope you’ll find it to be so as well.

I’m calling this blog The Catechetic Converter not only as a pun, but as a reflection of my sense of my own Christianity: I believe in evangelism (which involves conversion) but in a way that embraces the ancient and Apostolic faith (which means it involves “catechesis”). So, I see myself as one who aims to convert, but from a cathechetical place.

Enjoy. Oh, and feel free to Discuss...

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

I’m probably going to be “that guy” to some of you. That guy who discovers something new to him and then integrates it into his personality and won’t shut up about it until something else comes along to take it’s place. I’ve been that guy kind of all my life, to be honest (ask my friends). My current “that guy” thing is the Linux distribution (I restrained myself from saying “distro”) known as Ubuntu and it has, in a small way, changed my life.

So here’s the deal. I’ve been an Apple guy since at least 2006, after an obsession with Sony products (and the building of a PC just after high school). My first ever Apple product was an iPod, the one with the touch wheel. I was so enamored with the design (as I was with the late-90s clear Macs) that I decided to finally purchase a Mac computer for myself. After my beloved Sony Vaio laptop was stolen from my apartment in college, I went almost a year without a computer (living fearfully and carefully with my entire life on a thumb drive that traveled with me everywhere—this was well before cloud storage). With money bequeathed to me from my grandmother after her funeral, I purchased that ubiquitous white plastic Apple iMac laptop that everyone had (except for the kids who had the black pro model). And I used it all through the rest of college and my seminary education. It was chipped and scratched by the time I got a good deal on a 27-inch iMac with an Intel processor, thanks to a friend who worked at the Apple Store. This was during my first year of marriage, before kids and when my wife had a very well-paying accounting job for a major firm (while I worked as the lowest-paid priest in my diocese). In addition to that, I was fully integrated into the Apple ecosystem: iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches. I read Steve Jobs’ biography (which still sits on my shelf and I pick up to read on occasion even nowadays). I was maybe “that guy” about Apple for a time.

What I love(d) about Apple is the seriousness they took with regards to design. They aimed to make beautiful products. And not only were they beautiful, they simply worked.

I hate Windows. I pretty much hate everything Microsoft. But I really hate Windows. I especially hated that Windows lied to me. Like when I went to delete software, just sending it to the recycle bin was not enough. You had to track down stuff in the registry after running an uninstaller, just to make sure it was all gone. What blew my mind with my first Mac was that deleting software was as simple as moving it to “trash.” Then emptying that trash. Then there was the refinement. Pages offered crisp-looking documents with a range of beautiful fonts. The icons for minimizing and closing windows in MacOS looked like candied jewels. The physical hardware of the machines were minimalist works of art. No company aside from Braun or Dyson seemed to be focused on the connection between function and form quite like Apple. And that philosophy carried over into the software side as well. Jobs was correct in recognizing that personal computing was only going to take off if things were designed with an eye toward intuition. He hung around with guys like Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates, guys who viewed computers in a vein similar to HAM radios. But Jobs knew that he’d have to remove personal computers from the realm of hobbyists and offer a product that seemed “finished” if people were going to shell out loads of money in order to use that product. And the proof is right in front of us: the Macintosh played an instrumental role in the adoption of personal computers and Apple sits as the most valuable company in the world.

Reading Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs reveals something many many people have noted: Apple struggles without Steve Jobs. When Apple fired Jobs, they floundered as a company and got too spread-out, offering products that no one seemed interested in purchasing. Jobs’ return brought with it the foundation of success that the company rides today, but looking at Apple these days and you can see that they’ve not really been able to overcome Jobs’ death (compounded by the losing of Jony Ive from the design side of things as well). Jobs’ philosophy of ensuring that these consumer products simply “work” has morphed instead into an approach of spoon-feeding applications and gradually locking people into the Apple ecosystem, seemingly more to keep them from leaving than any real benefit to remaining.

Take my beloved Pages, for instance. Every time I’ve updated that program (which has gradually become more and more like a mobile app than a proper word processor) I’ve lost fonts that I used and certain settings are gone or buried for reasons that don’t make a whole lot of sense to anyone but the engineers at Apple. Then there’s the planned obsolescence. Which, I get. Maintaining old hardware and software requires people and thus incurs costs on diminishing returns and all of that. But Apple continues to have their hardware and software locked up, which results in these beautiful products becoming seen as disposable, discardable, and furthering an ugly and environmentally catastrophic sense of consumerism.

Jobs seemed to hold the view that a computer should not insist upon itself. The computer, for him, is a tool toward a different end, not an end in itself. Increasingly, Apple feels like they’re making products for the sake of the product, and making changes to those products that feel insistent and not like the catalyst for liberation that Jobs envisioned in his dad’s garage all those years ago.

Which brings me, finally, to Ubuntu.

So that mid-2011 Mac I spoke about? I still have it and use it as my “home” computer. When I was called to be the priest of Saint Mary’s in Honolulu, the private school I had been chaplain to gave Saint Mary’s two refurbished Macs as a gift. Both of them the same year and model of my home computer. That was in March of 2020. One of the machines I appropriated for use as my office computer (because I didn’t have one at the church when I arrived). Shortly after the move, I started noticing that my home machine was running slow. I had a ton of stuff on there, so it wasn’t that unexpected. Then the office machine started chugging and I kept getting notices that my OS was no longer able to receive security updates, etc. It was becoming clear that I needed to buy a new computer—or two.

My parish is not big. I do not make a ton of money. So the idea of asking the parish to purchase me a new computer felt selfish. I was not about to keep apologizing to folks about the leaky roof while logging onto a brand new iMac (I really liked the mint green one). Plus there was the added element of what I’d said above about Apple, that the newer Macs were harder to repair and treated as more “disposable” (they glued the motherboard to the screen!). Conventional wisdom (that I picked up when I was working at EB Games in 2000 and part of the “PC Master Race”) was that a Windows machine should last about five years and a Mac between seven and ten, depending on use-level. These machines were hitting fourteen years of age, so old that I could not AirDrop from my iOS devices on them. So, it was time.

Then, Trump happened. Again. And suddenly all the big tech stuff changed in my eyes. Beating big tech felt like both a Christian responsibility and a patriotic need. I thought back to the early chapters of Steve Jobs’ biography and how he articulated the role tech can play in personal liberation. So I decided that I needed to learn Linux. I actually checked out Linux For Dummies from the library. In the course of my reading I learned that not only does Linux run really great on older Macs, but Ubuntu in particular.

This all means that I found myself in a position to try something new, something that would maybe inject new life into my computers—as well as me and my relationship with technology. I dug out an old external drive and got to work on creating a bootable USB drive for experimenting with Ubuntu on Mac. It was a bit more complicated than I expected. One computer basically forgot that it was able to access a WiFi network and so I had to create the drive on a separate same model Mac. I couldn’t use Etcher to get things going (the Mac was too old), so I had to learn to use the Terminal on Mac (which I’ve ever only used extremely sparingly; reminded me of DOS back in the day, which helped when I built my own PC, or when I had to do stuff with BIOS). I had two machines going, plus my iPad for instructions. I felt like I was hacking the Gibson. Once I got the bootable drive set up, I plugged it into the relevant machine, restarted it in order to boot from the drive, and was blown away at how refined and pretty Ubuntu looked—while feeling a deep sense of satisfaction that I got it to work at all. I fell in love almost immediately and so I wiped the memory of the machine and installed Ubuntu as the operating system, running it like it was a fresh computer.

I’m writing this on that machine, using LibreOffice. I love it so much that I get excited to come to work just to use this computer.

Running Ubuntu on this Mac has had an immense impact on my relationship with computers in just the few weeks I’ve had it. Not only does it feel like I’m using a completely brand new computer, it feels rebellious, like I’m in some sort of special club. When I check out apps online and I see that it has Linux support, I feel like I’m part of an inside joke that only cool people get.

Linux feels rebellious to me. I’m sure there are folks who run servers that do not feel this way. But for someone that lives among the normies, to whom it’s either Windows or MacOS, Android or iPhone, this feels counter-cultural. And it feels empowering, like I get to decide when my technology is out of date. I mean, I’m writing this on a nearly fifteen year old machine (which still looks beautiful), using a twenty-five year old Pro Keyboard (the one with the midnight blue clear plastic buttons—the peak of personal computing design—I got it for like ten bucks at a thrift store). There’s plenty of life left in these things and they do not deserve to be relegated to trash heaps. Indeed, the aesthetic beauty of these products is enduring and Linux ensures that they are still functionally useful.

There’s also a spiritual dimension to this as well. In not letting a mega-corporation or three make my technology decisions for me, I am asserting my own self-worth. I am also experiencing a sort of revival, what Saint Paul refers to as the transforming of one’s mind, in opposition to being “conformed to the ways of this world.” The tools and the knowledge to use them is out there. It just takes a little time and effort to acquire it. It doesn’t need to be doled out to me from on high. Rather, it’s all around us and among us, even within us. And this fact is utterly liberating to know.

It’s weird to say, I guess, but this little operating system has had a huge impact on me. Linux changes lives.

The Rev. Charles Browning II is the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Honolulu, Hawai’i. He is a husband, father, surfer, and frequent over-thinker. Follow him on Mastodon and Pixelfed.

#linux #christianity #spirituality #technology #computers #ubuntu #resistance