The Rev. Steve Lawler should have just given up chocolate or television for Lent.
Instead, Lawler, of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Ferguson, decided to adopt the rituals of Islam for 40 days to gain a deeper understanding of the faith.
On Friday, he faced being defrocked if he continued in those endeavors.
“He can’t be both a Christian and a Muslim,” said Bishop George Wayne Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri. “If he chooses to practice as Muslim, then he would, by default, give up his Christian identity and priesthood in the church.”
I take it that the large booklet on the floor does not contain words from the Koran. That would be a big no-no for Muslims and regarded as disrespectful of holy writ.
This speaks volumes about TEC. Lawler has no problem reconciling his Episcopalian views with Islam. How profound.
[i]He also talked about how he was born and raised Roman Catholic but left it during his early 20s because he didn’t care for its conservative viewpoints.
“The Episcopal church is a fairly open church,” he said. “If I was the pastor at a very conservative church, I could come in one day and have the locks changed (for doing the Islamic rituals).”[/i]
There you have it.
I can certainly see some benefit from praying regularly five time a day, fasting and giving up alcohol and ham and bacon sandwiches, but the Reverend Lawler seems to have crossed over from the ‘rituals’ of Islam into its beliefs, and one can no more try to “gain insight” into Islam by adopting its beliefs as a Christian, any more than one can gain insights into early Middle Eastern religion by building altars in high places and incinerating children.
Good that his bishop has belatedly stepped in, but whatever has this priest been up to in exercise of his ministry? It really doesn’t sound very wholesome at all for his congregation.
“but whatever has this priest been up to in exercise of his ministry?”
Poke around the web site for an indication or two:
http://saint-stephens.info/
I came across this interesting piece on the St. Stephen’s website:
Welcoming Catholics
When I see stuff like this, the first thing that comes to mind is that this “Christian” is woefully ignorant about the richness of our faith tradition. It’s like he’s “bored” and needs to find fulfillment outside of our church because he hasn’t a clue about the spiritual exercises, extensive opportunities for prayer and deeper spiritual awareness that encompass millenia of Christianity.
He’d be as esoteric a Muslim as he is a Christian, so let them have him, lol. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but this guy sounds really immature and shouldn’t be leading others. I’m glad the bishop has spoken up forcefully, and I hope he follows through in getting this priest some help.
But Anthony in TX at 6:
It’s all “inspired by the life and work of Jesus”, doncha know.
Whatsamatter with you people? Don’t you understand “inclusive” and multicultural”? Now get with it!!! Wake up and smell the babaganoush.
L
Just took a look at the comments posted at the newspaper site. Read betsybug354 — she’s a Christian and her husband is a Muslim. Interesting.
No one seems to be commending the bishop for taking a strong and verbal stance on this…
What seminary did he attend? Just for full disclosure about toxic effluent.
#11 — I did.
And Caedmon, you shouldn’t have left out the sentences that immediately followed the bit you quoted, which say he discovered that the Episcopal church is more strict than he thought and the bishop said he’ll be defrocked if he continues.
Charles is right. The bishop has acted appropriately and that needs to be said.
I was studying the picture that is provided in the original story. Looking around his office, I don’t see anything that would lead someone to believe he is a Christian pastor. If you walk into my office, you will see a picture of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just a thought.
This news story is very interesting. The priest at its center is likely to be a very intellectual person, probably intending a “harmless†exploration of another religion as part of an empirical “study†in order to “understand†it and thus contribute to peace among peoples. A great deal of this has happened over the years, usually involving the religious practices of the Far East, with all of their attractive mystery and exoticism.
Yet, I do not believe such efforts differ substantially from those who, at the height of 19th century Imperialism, went about collecting bits of various cultures to take back home and exhibit in showcases and exhibitions, or discourse upon earnestly in learned publications. The notion underneath it all is that one can “understand†something by dipping one’s toes into it, ultimately finding the hidden point at which all of these religious traditions share a much-to-be-desired “common root.†In so doing, the assumptions include the idea that all religions must have such a “common root,†and that the “student of religion†can extricate him or herself from what is being “studied†and remain objective, “uncontaminated,†so to speak, by the “data†of experience.
Yet this, by itself, means that Fr. Lawler really didn’t “experience†what it is to be a Moslem in any serious manner. He is merely gathering data (that stratum of data he is equipped to measure) and then comparing that data to his already-established (but largely un-spoken and probably non-debatable) empirical ideal of a an “Ur-religion.†In the process, he is likely making assumptions that he truly “understands†the texts and practices of Islam in anything like an actual believer in this faith would. Such pseudo-science contributes to the massive literature of misunderstanding, arrogance, and spurious theory frequently referred to as “comparative religion.â€
My own experience of interfaith dialog led to very different methods. People employing the above methods were generally the very most difficult and disruptive people at the table, we found. Their unspoken supposition that one can somehow abstract one’s self from one’s own background, culture, lens, etc., proved to make fruitful learning (where that could happen) impossible. They would interrupt, become very paternalistic, and display a remarkable hauteur with regard to others, combined with a very shallow sense of their own religious tradition. This was to expected, as such people prided themselves on never really giving themselves over to faith, since they were first-and-foremost “remaining objective.â€
What seemed to be much more effective in inter-faith dialog was for people who practiced their faith deeply (not just skimming along on the surface, or trying to construct some illusory “rationalized†and syncretistic mish-mash) and graciously (as opposed to belligerently) to come together regularly with no other agenda than to share their understanding of that faith as it applied to a given topic. This established relationships among participants and their respective communities without making anyone feel that a “hidden agenda†existed.
I would suggest that people who want to learn about Islam (or any other religious practice) become deeply proficient in their own faith, read about others, attend the worship of other faiths for some context, and then enter into sincere and humble listening, rather than into the tired illusion of empirical “objectivity,†leading to a sort of “grand unified theory†of religion.
As a Christian, I believe and know Our Lord and Savior to be “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.†I have experienced the joy of the Risen Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit in orthodox (but spiritually alive) Christianity. No matter how many Daily Offices a Moslem or a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian said, or Advent Wreaths they lit, or Lents they observed, unless they understood Christ Jesus in the way a Christian does—and must—it would be a grotesque parody of the truth to say they “understood†Christianity.
It is my experience that love must proceed knowledge in these matters. We cannot have a short course in another faith and expect truly to understand another person. This is illusory. In the Christian life we must become like Christ by acquiring his mind. Then, and only then, may we reach out to the other with no agenda beyond loving that person in Christ—and that is the best anyone can do as a Christian.
Perhaps part of the problem is to be found that in contemporary practice, this “Christianity without knowing the Risen Christ†has produced swarms of Fr. Lawlers: people whose certainty outstrips their knowledge.
[blockquote]The priest at its center is likely to be a very intellectual person, probably intending a “harmless†exploration of another religion as part of an empirical “study†in order to “understand†it [/blockquote]
This is a telling statement. Wish I had thought of it. Really, this same sort of logic leads people to meet another person, not for an affair, but just to share stories, later you read that the people began an affair and subsequently left their spouses. It was all just “harmless” but then these people always think they are doing good – wherever they go. They are really just pot stirrers, they dabble in a bunch of things and think themselves superior. Good grief.
One could certainly examine some of the spiritual practices of Islam to see what instruction they might have for us. A Catholic priest once lamented to me that he wished Catholics would take Lent as seriously as Muslims take Ramadan. To pray five times a day seems worthwhile (but then again, we have the Daily Office, if we would actually practice it). Facing East during prayer, well it was early tradition to face our sanctuaries towards the East as well. I see nothing wrong with borrowing a daylight fasting tradition for use during Lent, I’m experimenting with it myself this year. Depending on the prayer, addressing Allah is not a problem either (it is the Arabic word for God, the word Palestinian and other Arab Christians and Jews use for God). Reading the Qu’ran for a better understanding of its teachings is not an unreasonable thing to do.
All of that being said, I’m in entire agreement with Hursley, whose comment I find incredibly insightful.
I have known Steve Lawler for about 23 years. (My memory could be slightly inaccurate in this regard, so let’s assume a margin for error of +/- 1 year.) I don’t agree with Steve about everything – I am more old-fashioned than he re: liturgics, in particular – but I know him to be a good and well-intentioned man, as well as a good priest. That said, I don’t think he handled this well.
I would hope that no one here has a problem with someone praying five times each day. And surely no one would criticize facing east to pray; that would be entirely illogical, given that so many of our churches were designed to face east – and the ones that don’t have given us the phrase “liturgical east.†I am hopeful that, as [i]#17 Alta Californian[/i] noted, everyone is capable of understanding that “Allah†is simply the Arabic word for “God,†and therefore the word Arabic-speaking Christians use to refer to God. In other words, in and of itself, praying to “Allah†should be no more objectionable than praying to “Bog†(Russian), “Dios†(Spanish), “Dieu†(French), or “Gott†(German). I would also like to think that no one takes issue with adopting dietary restrictions during Lent, or fasting during Holy Week.
Personally, I found the Donne aspect interesting and rather compelling, albeit perhaps more appropriate for someone who either isn’t, and/or doesn’t intend to be, ordained. Although it didn’t really seem to do Thomas Merton any harm.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to understand another religion. That said, I don’t think studying the Qur’an is the most appropriate Lenten discipline. However, none of us has any idea if Steve also intended to study any other, more obviously Christian subject, in addition to the Qur’an; the article didn’t say.
In short, I think I understand what Steve was trying to do, and I also think he set about it and presented it poorly; inviting the local paper to write about it was particularly unwise. I think the bishop responded appropriately, and that he came across well. I think the whole problem could have been avoided with a little forethought, and that everything probably would have been fine if Steve hadn’t sought the paper’s attention, and if he had presented it as being inspired by Muslim practice, rather than adopting it. In addition, I think he should have discussed it with his bishop ahead of time instead of springing it on him (and in the newspaper, no less!). Oddly, to me, this whole thing seems rather out of character for Steve.
[b]#15, Hursley:[/b] Your own personal experiences with interfaith dialogue notwithstanding, I can say with absolute certainty that Steve is the least “difficult and disruptive†of souls; he is a gentle and kindly man who is possessed of an almost limitless patience. He doesn’t interrupt, isn’t “very paternalistic,†and to my knowledge has [b][i]NEVER[/b][/i] displayed [i]any[/i] “hauteur†– whether “remarkable†or unremarkable – “with regard to others.†I would like to suggest that you refrain from making such assumptions about people whom you do not know and have never met; it might also be helpful if you avoided then making grand pronouncements based upon those same completely baseless assumptions.
[b]#14, padreegan:[/b] The photo that accompanies the story doesn’t show very much of the office, so I don’t see a basis for any conclusions about the overall décor. I haven’t been in Steve’s office recently, but unless it has changed radically since the last time, I can say with some assurance that he does have some Christian iconography on the walls. Also, your office has a “picture of our Lord Jesus Christ� Really? Who was the photographer? Or perhaps you meant to say that you have a print or painting which [i]purports to depict[/i] Jesus. Last I checked, the Bible contained no in-depth descriptions of His appearance, and certainly no portraits, so no one really knows what He looked like. Aside from that, do you really mean to suggest that every priest’s office must have some sort of depiction of Jesus on the wall?
Dear Fishsticks:
My apologies to you and Fr. Lawler for offense caused by my apparently unfounded assumptions. I take this as very valid criticism. My concerns were grouped around the technique being used in this case. Fr. Lawler’s language, as reported in the paper (and this is always to be questioned, of course), seemed to point to an approach to this subject that can easily lead to the misunderstandings in interfaith efforts I described. My opinion was by way of a pronouncement, based on my experience and the occasionally very painful consequences of what seemed to be the intellectual understanding of the “research” involved. I am sorry to have caused you pain in this matter.
Thank you, Hursley. I shouldn’t have been so snippy with you, and I apologize. I tend to find it far more upsetting when someone I care about ia attacked; it’s never as upsetting to me when [i]I[/i] am attacked.
I do think Steve has erred here, but I did want to make it clear that he’s not one of “those types.” (I’ve encountered them, too. Never a pleasant experience.)
You also hinted at one of the main reasons I think it was a mistake to bring in the Post-Dispatch: you can’t control what the writer writes, or the editor publishes, so you have no way of ensuring that the whole story is fairly told. (I can think of many times when a newspaper has left out what I consider to be key details, or the writer has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the church, or has even gotten the story completely backward and reported the opposite of what actually happened!)
Dear Fishsticks:
Yes, the Internet: it does tend to bring out the best in us (or, at least, the most fulsome and self-important, in my case). I am glad that we can mend this rift. While opinionated, I don’t relish leaving a trail of bitterness in my wake. I’ll seek to qualify things more next time. The whole matter brought back a great many memories and brought up a lot of thinking over the years about this thorny issue.
Ditto, Hursley.
Fishsticks, does your old friend understand that Muslims completely deny that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father? That is, that God begets a Son? Does your old friend actually believe that himself? If not then fine, we just have another Ann Redding. If he does then he should have the minimal IQ to know that ever since the Muslim cult arose it has been at complete, irrevocable odds with anyone who is a baptized Christian. Muslims disbelieve the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, his death (yes, they don’t believe a prophet could be crucified) or his resurrection. Again, if your old friend does believe these things, and Lent is (I assume very little of Episcopalians understanding) about the Passion of Jesus Christ, all the things Muslims utterly reject, I cannot see any reason at all to even think of what Muslims think and do in this of all seasons. If your friend became a Muslim (how would it be that much different for a lot of Anglicans?) his coreligionists would kill him if he reverted and *began* to believe what Christians do about Jesus. Does your friend have that much free time on his hands? How much is he paid to do that as an example to his congregation and what would it be like if they had no one at all in his place? If he is a “good priest”, what is a bad one like? He might be well intentioned. He also doesn’t know enough to come in out of the rain. I hope you meet some more intelligent folks.