Life As Performance Art 40

I am going to begin this post by grumbling quite openly about how frustrating it is getting anything typed on this laptop. Either I am not able to properly capitalize letters, or the cursor jumps all over the page, causing me to truncate and interrupt sentences, so that I have to waste valuable time figuring out where the errant sentence went, then to carefully highlight, cut and paste it back to where it rightfully belongs. I will actually try to mention today when this happens, if only, Gentle Reader, to give you a heightened sense of appreciation of the hard daily grind it can be shoving out these various thoughts and insights and other little jewels and pearls that your loyal scribe might have to offer. This is a (I have to stop in order to properly capitalize the t in This) helpful seguey as well into what I want to write about this morning. Accepting, using and celebrating limitations, flaws and imperfections in order to convey profound and beautiful truths is the theme today. I am thinking particularly of a conversation I had recently about an Anglican clergy conference (held in cushy, luxurious and decadent Whistler, that world famous mountain resort favoured by the uber-wealthy) about the problem of Paul, which is to say, that Paul, the apostle, St. Paul, to some evangelicals, the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity (please vision me smiling as I write this!). Well, for Catholics, it's the Mother of our Lord. I still haven't figured out who it might be for Anglicans. Oh, that's right, if they don't want to believe in something, then Anglicans will revision it out of existence in order to suit their prejudices and preferences and blindspots of the day. This is what they are doing about Paul (small p, have to correct it), or so I heard from this conference. Anglicans (better capitalize the a) traditionally do not like Paul. He wrote not very nice things about women, homosexuals and slavery, positions that simply do not square with contemporary, postmodern Anglicanism. There latest whopper? Paul didn't write those letters, someone else did. Or, rather, that Paul wrote only the good parts that don't offend postmodern Anglicans. The nasty bits about women, homosexuals and slavery, were the product of other contemporaries of Paul, but simply ascribed the writings to the great Pharisee. Uh-huh. And maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury does karaoke impressions of Madonna when no one is looking. I simply conceded to the priest who told me about it, that they could be right, but only because I didn't feel like getting into yet another useless argument. But, really, I don't know. And you know something else, Gentle Reader? None of those Anglican clergy really know who really wrote those nasty parts either. It could be true, but I still have my doubts, not because I happen to agree with Paul's alleged views on women, homosexuals and slavery, and I certainly don't agree with him. But, rather, by so simplifying things in order to suit postmodern Anglicanism, we are left off the hook from having to really think, struggle, accept and, yes, even celebrate paradox. They were doing the same thing recently about the traditional take on Mary Magdalene, that she couldn't have been a prostitute, and was likely simply a successful businesswoman. I have also known my share of savvy hookers, who have done very well at the oldest profession. But this is still revisionism. This isn't to say that Mary Magdalene wasn't a sex worker (just copping the politically correct terminology here, Gentle Reader). Maybe she sold shoes. Or sexy underwear. Or who only knows? Or cares? But likely, some of the postmodernist feminists in Anglican circles were simply so offended by that traditional take on the woman who loved Jesus that they simply had to rehabilitate her image, making her more like them, or at least more like they would want to perceive themselves. Even though I have no difficulty accepting that other scoundrels just might have written the nasty parts of Paul's letters, at the end of the day, does it really matter? I rather like the idea of an imperfect limited Paul, never quite entirely free from the limitations and prejudices that hobbled his insights, being so infused and filled by the Holy Spirit, that he can simultaneously write some of those amazing paeans and anthems to the glory of God on one page, and on the next page, scribble some drivel about slaves obeying their masters, or that homosexuals cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. It is fully conceivable that he did hold those points of view, that he did write those despicable words, interposed between his wonderful word hymns to the glory of God. (the cursor just jumped, so I have to cut and paste) , And let us not forget the less than auspicious beginnings of Anglicanism:of how a corrupt, venal and murderous despot wanted to divorce and remarry so told the pope of the day to bugger off, so he could marry this French girl named Anne and so he became the head of the Church of England, even though there were no discernible improvements to his character. This is the way God meets us. In our imperfections, and he still fills and uses and channels through us his love and grace despite ourselves, our imperfections and our downright dumb and offensive personalities. For us, it is still going to be our job, whatever era we happen to be living in, to struggle and muddle our way through it. Did Paul write all those things? I don't know. And neither do you. What I do know is that none of us ever gets it right, and that God's patience with our stupidity is inexhaustible, just as inexhaustible as his love for us.