Maundy Thursday

Note to self: Maybe I should just watch some of the more gut-wrenching services before I volunteer to participate in them. Then again, I had the best seat in the house for all of the action.

I have never been to a Maundy Thursday service before. And I had never seen a service that included feet washing. I thought the idea was so weird until I was there. After our priest washes the congregants feet, he blessed the person, and Gil tailors his blessing to the person. There is no cookie-cutter way of doing the blessing and he seems to know exactly what one needs to hear. My job was to hold the cross behind the person whose feet Gil was washing, so I heard all of the blessings. Maundy Thursday can be an emotionally wracking service because one is symbolically left with the sense of Christ's absence. After communion, all of the host is consumed, there are no consecrated elements left in the tabernacle (special attention is paid to showing the congregation that the ciborium is empty), the presence candle nearby is snuffed, and the ciborium's veil is replaced by a black shroud. The altar party then processes out of the sanctuary, and the altar guild then strips the altar. The altar lights are extinguished, not to be burned again until the end of the Easter vigil.

So, I was at this emotionally draining service for the first time, verge of tears for most of it. And I was the crucifer and acolyte. The closest I came to breaking down was watching the altar being stripped after we had processed out. I felt a true sense of loss. Walking back into the sanctuary afterward, I tried to say something. I opened my mouth and nothing came out. I left in silence.

Various thoughts, then war.

Sunday was my first discernment meeting; it's Palm Sunday at that. The Day of Information (ordination orientation) is May 9th and Gil and I wanted me to have one or two meeting completed by then.
______________
I'm getting in touch with bishops on the General Convention's Theology Committee of the House of Bishops to ask them questions about the statement on just war theory that was released a week ago. I've e-mailed the chair and I'm still waiting for a response.
______________
The dinner with Richard Cizik was a great event. It occurred to me that I need to be more mindful about how I answer the question about what I'm studying. Studying "Christian questions of war and peace" sounds more neutral than saying that I study "Christian justifications for violence." The latter betrays my pacifistic leaning, but I'm slowly coming to appreciate a very curtailed version of the just war theory.
______________
There are those who think that being elected to office grants a politician a special type of charism (spiritual gift) of prudence in office. I certainly haven't seen evidence of such charism. Most American Christians have rejected the notion of the divine right of kings, so it is a bit disconcerting to see others claim that elections bestow this charism upon politicians. The Episcopal Church has not fallen for this line of argument, which is refreshing to see considering how much the denomination has functioned as an establishment church.
______________
Upon doing research, I found that the EC actually called its people to consider doing penance for the evil of the Iraq War.

"Resolved, That the 75th General Convention call upon all Episcopalians as an act of penitence, to oppose and resist through advocacy, protest, and electoral action the continuation of the war in Iraq,and encourage the President and Congress to take proactive steps to end our participation as soon as possible."-2006 General Convention Resolution 2006-D020.

The rest of the resolution can be found here http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_generate_pdf.pl?resolution=2006-D020
______________

One of my classes this semester is more practice-based, Religion, Violence, and Conflict Resolution, than the other more theoretical class Religion, War, and Peace.

Two weeks ago the topic in the former class was the Bosnian wars. One particular tactic in the war was to rape women and intentionally impregnate them, holding them in detention until the allowable window for abortion passed. Since it is believed that the male is responsible for the ethnic line, it looks like genocide to the men whose women were raped. Noel, I'll try to send you the study we read.

Relatedly, this past week we talked about trauma, triggers, and how to rebuild a lasting and just peace after trauma knowing that in many cases it's frequently impossible to completely heal. We also talked about the stigma that PTSD and the like triggers in those who do not have it. Part of the problem is that when someone with symptoms tries to tell the story, those who listen cannot comprehend the level of pain, so they downplay it. Picture this physically, two people sitting across from each other; It is like the person telling the story holds it out for the other, and the other rejects it. "That doesn't sound so bad." "You should get over it." Bullshit.

The military seems to be putting returning soldiers through diagnosis for COS/PTSD upon return from deployments, which is good, but it can also take years for some symptoms to present.

Something that struck me as a good sign is that we (meaning the people of a nation that sends our brothers and sisters into hell on our behalf) are learning that there is a cost to fighting that inscribes itself onto and into the body and soul of the soldier. While I was living in the South (though it's a common argument elsewhere) I frequently heard people say that "we" have become too soft and that we are no longer suited for warfare. I do not accept that argument. It is more accurate to say that we are now allowing our soldiers to admit that there is a cost taken on by them, no matter how "glorious" or "necessary" the war. It's also worth mentioning that the great majority of the people who gave this diagnosis of modern America's weakness were never in the military.

Watching Ken Burns' latest documentary on World War Two brought the point home to me, that even the quintessential "war that we had to fight," the war against the "ultimate evil of Hitler" had a cost on the soldiers. They just came home and did not talk about it until now...now that we have allowed it to be acceptable to talk about. (Yes, World War Two was a just war although it was fought with some unjust tactics.) We do not want to know the cost, so we call war necessary and say that soldiers should not feel sorry for anything. Some do not feel sorry at all, but some still do feel sorry. Why don't we take that seriously?

I think that this is a critical element of the national dialogue when we are preparing for war: Are we prepared to intentionally traumatize a significant portion of our population? This directly relates to just war theory; it should be part of the criterion that seeks to address whether the harm to be done by fighting will outweigh the harm that we seek to end through war.

More to come later...