The Making of a Connecticut Martyr

I've been hesitant to say anything about the inhibition of Mark Hansen, rector of St. John's Church, Bristol, Connecticut, as it seemed obvious that there was more to the story than we were hearing from the initial reactions. But, since there's been nothing new reported in the last few days, it looks like we may never know what really happened.

For those who are not Episcopalian, let me see if I can briefly summarize the story that led to the rather bizarre events of last Wednesday;

Six priests in the diocese of Connecticut no longer recognize Andrew Smith as their diocesan bishop. Why? Because he participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Church. They have demanded that their bishop repent, that they no longer be required to give any funds towards the work of the diocese and the right to choose their own bishop. Here's how the Episcopal News Service described the situation, and the actions by the diocese in response;

...The "Connecticut Six," as they have become known in the media, want to be released from their ordination vows of obedience to Diocesan Bishop Andrew D. Smith, with whom they disagree about Smith's support of the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003. The six, all rectors of congregations, are also demanding suspension of selected canons governing financial obligations, ordination procedures, and clergy succession.

Attempts over the past year to reconcile differences or reach an acceptable way forward -- including Smith's proposed implementation of the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) plan approved by the House of Bishops last year -- have been unsuccessful.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese in March determined that the six rectors had "abandoned the communion of the [Episcopal] church" and recommended that the priests be inhibited from practicing their ministries in the diocese for six months.

The six priests claim that they are being gagged and their careers threatened because they don't support Smith's views. The bishop says that's not true.

"We can disagree about many things, but we cannot disagree about the role of the bishop in his diocese. I cannot break my own vows as bishop, suspend the constitution and canons, and relinquish my authority because we don't agree on a given issue."

Let's stop for a minute and think about the story so far. We are the Episcopal Church. We understand the role of bishops to be quite important. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other Protestant groups. The recognition of bishops in apostolic succession is one of the four elements of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral that defines the parameters for all of our ecumenical discussions. Yet these six priests see themselves as not under the authority of their diocesan bishop, because they disagree with something he did.

I simply do not understand this kind of thinking. The priest functions as a representative of the bishop. The idea of the priest as a free agent is a very Protestant notion, but one that, unfortunately, shows up in almost every gathering of priests. We Yankees have never been fully comfortable with the notion of bishops. They smell too much like aristocracy.

I've served in both progressive and conservative dioceses, and at every clergy gathering, there's always a group of priests that sit and grumble about the bishop. Often, they are the cardinal rectors, who know they could do a better job. They're easy to spot. They're the ones with the permanent frown painted on their faces.

But, I digress. So, these six priests want to be released from their ordinations vows...from the Book of Common Prayer, page 532;

Bishop; Will you respect and be guided by the pastoral direction and leadership of your bishop?

Answer; I will.

...and further, they want to then be given the freedom to choose their own bishop. So much for being a person under authority. Don't like your bishop? Just order up a new one. And, you don't have to contribute towards the work of the diocese, but can still expect to have voice and vote in diocesan affairs, and be recognized as a member in good standing. We live in bizarre times.

The story continues. Note that the standing committee recommended inhibition (suspension from functioning sacerdotally for six months) back in March. But the bishop hesitated.

Personally, I think the hesitation was a mistake. We need to keep in mind the lesson Bishop Bruno learned the hard way in Los Angeles. We have foreign bishops prowling the perimeter of the Episcopal Church, seeking troubled congregations they can gobble up. Six parishes in one geographical area would have been some nice ripe plums for such unsavory predators to stumble upon. If the organization of some of the breakaway groups is any example, that would be enough to declare a new diocese, and appoint a bishop. Now, that would really be a mess, wouldn't it?

In March, Mark Hansen, rector of St. John's, Bristol and one of the "Connecticut Six," sent this message to the members of his parish;

It is with deep regret that I now share in writing what I announced in Church two weeks ago: That April 10 must be my last Sunday as your priest, at least in terms of directly providing for your pastoral care and leadership in worship. After that, I will be officially on sabbatical...

If you read the rest, you will see that this is clearly a farewell letter.

From what I understand, Fr. Hansen's reasons for leaving involved his son's medical needs, which required him to seek other employment that would fulfill those needs. That is an honorable and understandable reason for resigning. But, he made two dreadful mistakes; he allowed himself to be talked into the subterfuge of a "sabbatical," and failed to inform his bishop of his plans.

The parish was afraid that if he left the bishop would appoint a "liberal" as interim in his place. So, they wanted him to remain officially their rector, until they could find a suitable replacement. Thus, the subterfuge.

I almost got involved in a situation like this once. I was serving as interim for a parish in the South. They were very conservative, and rather evangelical. Being a son of the House, and a former evangelical, I simply did what many interims do, and played chameleon. These were good folks at heart, whose previous clergy had led them in a certain direction. So, I avoided the hot button issues, did the interim work that I was charged to do, and preached up a storm. They loved it, so much that at one point, when I was considering leaving the assignment early, one of the lay leaders came to see me, and begged me not to go, as "we don't want the devil getting in here." I tried not to laugh out loud, although I was tempted to do my best Mick Jagger imitation and break out with, "Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?" The point of this tangential bit is that this is a strategy used by conservative congregations in which the trust relationship with the diocese has broken down; they do whatever they can to hold on to their "orthodox" clergy. They believe the horror stories about "those liberals," and imagine them all to be devils in vestments. Thus, St. John's "arrangement" for Fr. Hansen to "officially" be on sabbatical, when in fact, he had left the parish. As I said; bizarre times.

A third party faxed the bishop the above message. This is how he found out what was going on at St. John's. Can you imagine leaving a parish and not contacting your bishop? After all, in the end, it is the bishop's congregation, and Fr. Hansen is his representative. To this day, Bishop Smith tells us he does not know Fr. Hansen's new address.

I walked away from a parish once, for personal reasons. My first phone call was to the bishop. My second one was to the Senior Warden. I can assure you, if I had not made those phone calls, I would not be a priest today. Abandonment of a cure is taken very, very seriously, as it should be.

But let's get back to St. John's. There's one more piece to the puzzle, beyond the fictitious "sabbatical." St. John's borrowed $100,000 from the diocese to build their church. They still owe $77,000. Their last payment on this loan was in December of 2003. Yet, when the bishop contacted them asking where their rector was, he received a one paragraph response, stating that Fr. Hansen was on sabbatical.

Put yourself in this bishop's shoes. A priest who does not accept your authority is missing, a congregation has stopped contributing towards the work of the diocese and paying on a loan given to them in good faith, and foreign bishops are prowling about licking their chops. What would you have done?

Well, here is what Bishop Smith did;

A letter formally inhibiting the Rev. Mark H. Hansen, St. John's rector, was delivered by Bishop Smith to St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol. The Bishop was accompanied by the diocesan Canon for Stewardship and Administration, John ("Jack") W. Spaeth III, the Rev. Susan J. McCone, and Mr. Ed Seibert, who will provide administrative assistance. Fr. Hansen was not at the church or rectory; the bishop has not been notified of an alternate address.

An eyewitness account spells out how ugly and terribly sad the scene was;

...The bishop had planned his timing well. There was only an AA meeting and the church secretary in the building when Drew Smith showed up with Chancellor, computer hackers, and a "priest-in-charge." The entourage made demands of the church secretary, admonishing her with canon law. She responded that she was just a secretary, not an Episcopalian, and didn't know anything about canon law. Several times during the day she was in tears. The hackers set to work on the computer, took down the churchÂ’s website, and brought in a locksmith to change the locks. A few more parishioners showed up, and we stood in the parking lot.

The parish's lawyer showed up, and asked for papers. The Diocesan Chancellor handed him papers from the Bishop and Standing Committee saying that Fr. Mark Hansen was inhibited for abandoning communion, and could not step foot on church grounds, exercise any form of liturgical ministry, or have contact with church members for six months. We stood in the parking lot.

The media showed up, and tried to get interviews. I told them I did not have anything to say. One of the older couples in the church talked to them, and, I think, were interviewed by every newspaper, and television station in the area. The warden, the lawyer, and the rest of us stood in the parking lot. Cell phones kept ringing; I drove off for coffee. One of the members of the parish who makes crafts to help raise money went into the building and asked if she could have her materials, which she donates. We took them out in boxes. The Sr. Warden fetched his alb, which is his own. Bishop Smith and his spokesperson seemed to be giving interviews to the press inside the church's worship space. The two women who were there complained that they felt violated. The men did what men do. We toughed it out. But mostly we stood in the parking lot - for several hours...

The bishop shows up, and changed the locks! Unbelievable.

Is this what it's come to? If so, I'm not sure I have the stomache for these kinds of battles anymore. I have little sympathy for Fr. Hansen, other than recognizing his need to put his family first. He made so many mistakes, and dragged his entire congregation down with him. I do think it is high time that we call the extreme conservatives on their disregard for the authority of our bishops, their subterfuge, and their downright rudeness. But, changing the locks? Bishop Smith has created martyrs, where previously these folks, or at least their rector, were only foolish fanatics.

But, no foreign bishop will scoop up St. John's. And it sounds like there is a "faithful remnant" that accepts the authority of the bishop. So, hopefully, the life of this parish will eventually move on.

What would I have done? I don't know. Like I said, I smell more to this story, like maybe a "Godly admonition" from the bishop that was ignored.

Regarding the other five Connecticut priests; the bishop has agreed not to make his annual visitation to their parishes. Another move that I can't quite figure out. You send one strong message, and follow it up with backpedaling? Remember David Moyer, Bishop Smith. Bishop Bennison waited ten years, and caught the wrath of every conservative on the globe anyway over that one. These five are getting great press, and can now wear the mantle of martyrs proudly. If you are going to lead, now is not the time to blink. The standing committee gave you the green light. Inhibit, but please, leave the locksmith behind next time.

J.

Big Brother is Watching

The FBI is after the ACLU. Imagine that. Details and links are here. Falwell makes an appearance again. That's two weeks in a row. You think I'm carrying a grudge? Hmmmm....nah.

But, for your entertainment, let me bring you the lyrics of a little ditty put together by Roy Zimmerman (it's intended to be humorous; I'm hoping it won't be too off-color for the regs at Jake's place). To "get it," let me refresh your memory of Falwell's statement two days after 9/11;

...I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'

Now I'll let Roy take over;

Jerry Falwell's god was standing by the elevator while we were talking about the party, so we had to invite him.

Secretly, we were all wishing that he wouldn't come, because he's vengeful and jealous and he tends to smite people.

And, of course, he knew we were thinking that, so it made him all the more determined to show up and punish us.

And I wanted to invite my god, but I couldn't find him.

But, Jerry Falwell's god is hard to miss... the gossamer robe and the beard down to here, and the button that says, "What would Jesus do?"

And sure enough, day of the party, there he was at the door.

And he spoke, spaketh he, saying, "I AM COME."

And I knew there was a joke there... but Jerry Falwell's god will not be mocked.

So I said, "Come in."

Jerry Falwell's god
Jerry Falwell's god
Huh!

Now, I'm no heavenly host, but I throw a decent party, and there were people of all kinds there — black, white, Swedish, Norwegian, the whole human spectrum.

And right away, Jerry Falwell's god found the two people who would listen to him and began spaking in a voice so loud, it made the Beastie Boys sound like the Vienna Boys Choir.

And he made the lame to walk.

And these were my friends, so they were still lame, but they could walk.

And he turned the loaves to fishes, and the Oreos to Hydrox.

And he divided up the room, divided he, saying "Gays here, lesbians here, pagans here, abortionists, feminists, civil libertarians, People for the American Way," and frankly, some of us did not know where to stand.

I went with the lesbians.

Jerry Falwell's god
Jerry Falwell's god
Huh!

And he pointed his huge finger at each group in turn, saying, "I blame you, and you, and you, who have secularized society and cast me out of the town square," and I thought, "Man you are the town square."

He said, "Lo, I have lifted the Veil of Protection, for the end days are here, and the judgment is nigh, where I will draw the faithful to heaven and will leave the unrepentant to walk a desolate earth." And I thought, "More polyester for the rest of us."

And he spat fire, and he rained toads, and he brought forth seven bowls of seven plagues, and finally I just said, "Look, I'll tell you one thing Jesus would not do.

Jesus would not wreck a guy's party.

And Jesus would not preach hate.

And Jesus would not stand in the rubble and say, 'I told you so.'

And Jesus would not use an international catastrophe to score points for some misogynistic, narrow, homophobic, anti-Semitic interpretation of his life and teaching.

And if people are jealous and judgmental and vengeful and violent, maybe it's because you made them in your image.

And if people have cast you out of the town square, maybe it's because you are a finger-pointing, moralizing, rageaholic, stone drag who gives deities a bad name!

And if people have turned away from your word, maybe it's because you have spinach in your teeth!"

And he smote me.

Jerry Falwell's god
Jerry Falwell's god
Huh!

J.

UPDATE: You can hear Roy performing this number here (Thanks, Paul).

ANOTHER UPDATE; You'll never guess who Jerry is claiming rang him up the other day. Yep, it was the White House, seeking a little advice regarding the Supreme Court appointment. I suppose this makes it safe to assume that it won't be Tinky Winky getting the nod tonight?

Next to the Bed

Joe tagged me with the "bedside meme." Btw, congratulations to Joe on entering the realm of Daddydom; John Thomas looks like a beautiful baby boy.

My dresser is right next to the bed and, because of limited space, it doubles as my nightstand. Here's some of the things on it right now;

A pewter bowl containing collar buttons, cuff links, etc.

3 knives; one 5" folding hunting, one swiss army, and one small single blade hook.

2 alarm clocks (I often sleep through the first one).

1 DVD (The first season of Northern Exposure)

2 belts

1 comb

2 bottles of holy oil

1 stole

1 Palaroid camera

1 reading light

And, of course, a few books;

RSV bible
Gilead, Marilynne Robinson
Children of God, Mary Duria Russell
Slaves of Obsession, Anne Perry
Alvin Journeyman, Orson Scott Card
The Essential Kabbalah, Daniel Matt
The Stones of Summer, Dow Mossman
Father Joe, Tony Hendra
The Laughing Jesus, Freke and Gandy
How Israel Lost, Richard Ben Cramer

Add to the above assorted scraps of paper, various writing instruments, last year's pocket calendar, and plenty of loose change, and there you have it. It looks like absolute chaos, but I've asked Demi never to try to straighten it up. I'd never find anything if she did.

Ok, who should I tag...hmmm...

Demi (of course)
ck
Jason

For those who were looking for something a bit more profound, like maybe today's sermon, you can find it here. I updated and tweaked it a bit, but that was basically the message.

J.

Santorum in '08, Please!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the darling of the religious right got the GOP nomination in 2008?

Consider the lovely quotes he's already accumulated;

From 2002, regarding the pedophilia scandal in the RCC;

...Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Tuesday, when given the opportunity to soothe the Bostonians' outrage, he digs the hole a little deeper;

"The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

"If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

Does the junior senator from Pennsylvania care to say more about these "alternative views of sexuality"? In fact, he does, as seen in this 2003 interview;

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual...if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does...whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family...in every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality....

Ok,so he's lost the Massachusetts and the gay vote. He could still get the nomination, couldn't he? I think it'll be an uphill battle, especially with his new book coming out this month, which includes pithy little statements like this;

The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas ... move up the economic ladder is just wrong.

Well, there goes the women's vote. If we also consider his identifying the demise of the nation to be yoked to the time when "universities began to champion the importance of 'diversity' as a central education value," it's probably safe to say he's lost the ethnic minority vote as well.

And then there's that little comment he made on the floor of the Senate a couple of months ago regarding the Democrat filibuster;

..the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942; "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

So, the Democrats are Nazis? There goes the crossover vote.

How many straight white male Republicans are there in this country? You think there's enough to get him nominated? One can only hope.

But first, he has to beat Bob Casey in the '06 senatorial race, which doesn't look too promising at the moment. What's Casey's strategy? Keep your mouth shut, and let Rick dig his own grave. It seems to working quite well, according to the polls.

Even Ted Kennedy, who in my opinion is one of the worst choices to champion "moral values," could beat this guy in the general election. Heck, my little pup Barkley could probably beat him. Not that I'm suggesting we should pit "dog on man" or whatever the case may be. That's not to pick on Republicans. It is one thing...

I think I'll now take a page from Casey's play book, and shut up.

J.

Jerry Says I'm Not a Christian

Jerry Falwell sent a letter to his followers in which he attacked the Christian Alliance for Progress, claiming, among other things, that we are not Christians.

My first reaction was, "Who does this guy think he is?"

My second one was, "Why should I care?"

Since it was my turn up to bat, I got the privilege of responding to Jerry.

Some are suggesting it was too hard. Others say it was too soft. I think it was just right. Now, if we just had a few bears, we'd have all the makings of a grand fairy tale.

J.

The Anglican Communion; Does It Matter?

The July issue of Episcopal Life arrived today. It includes an excellent article by the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas entitled Why Should We Care About the Anglican Communion? The July issue is not online yet, but, thanks to the wonder known as google, I was able to locate an earlier, and somewhat different, version of the article here.

Dr. Douglas suggests that there are at least two good reasons for placing a high value on the Communion. The first one is ecclesiological;

...Max Warren, the great General Secretary of the English Church Missionary Society in the mid-twentieth century is credited with saying: "It takes the whole world to know the whole gospel." Warren's statement underscores the belief that the Gospel contains universal truth that is meant for, and accessible to, every person and every culture. At the same time, Warren's words emphasize that any one cultural expression or contextual embodiment of Christianity is limited in its understanding and experience of the Gospel. No individual, no local eucharistic community, no national ecclesial body, not even any one province of the Anglican Communion, can pretend that they alone, that we alone, know and reveal all that God has done in Jesus Christ.

So to know the whole Gospel we need the whole world, in all of our differences, in all of our peculiarities, in all of our gifts, and all of our mistakes. The Anglican Communion, that family of 38 national or regional churches in 164 countries with 75 million members, all of whom trace some part of our history to the see of St. Augustine of Canterbury, offers an incredible means by which the catholicity of the whole Gospel in the whole world can be lived out. To turn our backs on the Anglican Communion is to turn our backs on one possible way by which we can live into the fullness and wholeness of the Gospel.

The second reason is missiological;

...The mission of God is to restore all people, all people, to unity with God and each other in Christ. The mission of God, the missio Dei, is one of justice, compassion, and reconciliation that seeks right relation with and between all people and all creation. In order to be faithful to the mission of God, we need to be in relationship with others, near and far, those similar to us and those very different from us, who share this vision of God's reign.

Unless we are involved in a global mission, our vision of the future may turn inward, and become nothing more than an extended expression of our personal egos. The Episcopal Church is not my Church; it is God's Church. The movement of God; from glory, to glory, rolls through all things. The temptation to trust my perception of the God's movement is to fall prey to a limited vision that is more parochial or congregational in nature, and, in the end, excludes many from God's kingdom.

We need each other. We are called to move from faith to faith, trusting that God is moving among us. This movement breaks the bonds of time and space. In this present moment, in which all times are gathered together, God's mission moves forward; a mission which is nothing less than the transformation of all of creation.

No doubt there will difficult times ahead for the Anglican Communion. We hear pronouncements claiming that this group or that one has broken away. Rumors of future schisms trouble us. No doubt we will see much more of this kind of thing in the years to come. In the end, the deciding act will be who the Archbishop of Canterbury invites to the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

Lambeth has been the principle instrument of unity within the Anglican Communion since 1867. It is fitting that this unity is represented, not by resolution, or mandate, or ultimatum, but by an invitation. And more importantly, a personal invitation. Rowan will personally invite each bishop in the Communion to join him at Lambeth Palace.

What might happen at this coming Lambeth? If we consider worst case scenarios, there is a real possibility that Rowan will not invite the bishop of New Hampshire to the party. Such a slight would most likely result in a number of North American bishops declining their invitation, in a show of support for one of their brothers who is seen as being treated as an outcast and an untouchable. If Gene is invited, other bishops from other parts of the world may decline the invitation. I suspect that some bishops, who are very upset with us for numerous reasons, will decline the invitation if any bishop from North America is invited.

The other worst case scenario to consider is the rumor that a schism has already been planned, with the timing to be prior to the next Lambeth. If this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if Rowan ignores it, and sends an invitation to those bishops anyway.

Regardless of these scenarios, which may or may not come to pass, we can't give in to the feelings of hurt and outrage they may cause. If we look at the history of the Church, there have been numerous divisions, schisms and disagreements that lasted for many years. Some of those wounds were eventually healed, and unity was once again achieved. Some have yet to be healed, although work towards reconciling these divisions continues even today. The next few years may be difficult, but they will not write the end of the story.

The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ. To accomplish this mission, to move with God, we need each other. We cannot accept unity at any cost. We may have to stand firm for the witness we offer the world. But let's never fall into the error of saying to our brothers and sisters "we have no need of you." If we are split asunder in the coming years, let us not despair or become bitter. Instead, let us see these painful wounds as an opportunity to reorient ourselves towards that which is our ultimate hope; the healing power of God's love.

J.

The Madness Continues

The mad dogs have now attacked London.

From Tony Blair;

...This is a very sad day for the British people. But we will hold true to the British way of life.

The purpose of terrorism is just that - to terrorize people and we will not be terrorized.

The news reports show the British people responding with amazing calm to this disaster. I think this madness will strengthen their resolve.

It is times like these that I have to question the hardline pacifist stance. No, we cannot use violence against violence; evil against evil. But we also cannot allow the mad dogs to run wild.

If my home, or that of my neighbor, was attacked, I know I wouldn't hesitate to use force. I'm not justifying such a visceral response, or claiming that it is good ethics. It is, however, a very human response.

May God have mercy on us all, and comfort those who mourn this day.

O God, the Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

J.

Think Globally, Act Locally

A recent post regarding homelessness has caused my head to spin once again around old arguments that have never been resolved. Anyone who has invested much time and energy in poverty issues knows well the high level of frustration that comes with the territory. Real solutions seem impossible, and handing out band-aids leads to burn out.

One reason that real solutions seem to slip away easily is that once you really begin to grapple with root causes, the connectedness of us all becomes vividly apparent. We can't just focus on the microcosm and ignore the macrocosm.

Teaching a person life skills so they gain employment doesn't accomplish much if they can't earn a living wage. A living wage is not possible in a world embracing a global labor pool. Limiting out-sourcing might help American workers, but will hurt those seeking a way out of poverty in China.

What can we do? Good faith efforts are made to address the global reality. The recent Live 8 concert is a good example. Although, I wonder, is canceling debt really a solution? It's a good start, but over the long haul, it doesn't solve much. To make a lasting change, global trade pratices need to be considered.

The fair trade proposals will bring income to those in need, but will also make a living wage even more distant in this country, which brings us back to considering local solutions.

See the frustration?

I don't think it serves anyone to simply ignore this tension, however. Putting on blinders results in duplication of efforts and limited alliances. We have to think globally, and then attempt to model grassroots efforts to work in tandem with the goals developed by those working with a global perspective.

One such perspective that is worth keeping in mind is the UN Millennium Development Goals. To refresh your memory, here are the goals all 191 UN members have pledged to meet by 2015;

1. Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty.
2. Achieve universal primary education.
3. Promote gender equality and empower women.
4. Reduce child mortality.
5. Improve maternal health.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
7. Ensure environmental sustainability.
8. Develop a global partnership for development.

Episcopalians might be interested in learning more about a group within the Church that is championing these goals; Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation.

Continue to feed the hungry and shelter the poor in your own backyard. But keep in mind that real solutions also require us to recognize that our connection with others has moved beyond tribal and national boundaries. We are now engaged in an awesome task; nothing less than transforming the world.

Also remember that we can't fix anything by ourselves. We are called to do what we can do, and then trust God for the rest.

From the EGR website;

A Four-fold Franciscan Blessing

May God bless you with a restless discomfort about easy answers, half-truths and superficial relationships, so that you may seek truth boldly and love deep within your heart.

May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

May God bless you with the gift of tears to shed with those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, or the loss of all that they cherish, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and transform their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you really CAN make a difference in this world, so that you are able, with God's grace, to do what others claim cannot be done.

And the blessing of God the Supreme Majesty and our Creator, Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word who is our brother and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit, our Advocate and Guide, be with you and remain with you, this day and forevermore.

AMEN.

J.

UCC Approves Equal Marriage Rights

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for "equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of gender" on Monday. Chuck Currie, who is liveblogging the Synod, has more info here. I offer a couple of links in this week's Christian Alliance for Progress commentary.

Thanks be to God!

J.

Update on the Anglican Consultative Council

Simon Sarmiento offers a good summation here. As he points out, regardless of how many times the conservatives repeat the spin, this was a defeat for them. Instead of getting the North Americans banned from all leadership positions within the Anglican Communion, the resolution was amended to include the two bodies under the direct authority of the ACC. The resolution affirmed that which already existed; nothing more. The North American delegations had already voluntarily withdrawn from the ACC, and the ACC does not meet again until after Lambeth 2008.

The other interesting thing to note is that this weakened resolution, which changed nothing, only got 30 votes. Since the Global South had 33 votes, it appears that they were the only ones who voted for it, and at least 3 of their delegation either abstained or voted against it. So much for the claim that the majority of the Communion seeks to punish the North Americans.

Susan Russell, one of the presenters for the Episcopal Church at the ACC meeting in Nottingham, debunks the Conservative spin quite well;

1. On June 22nd the ACC passed two resolutions. In the first, they voted to accept the voluntary withdrawal of the US and Canadian delegates from official representation. As both of these provinces had already voted to do just that and the ACC doesn't even meet again until after Lambeth 2008, the truth is: it was a meaningless and repetitive vote.

2. “Listening” was the focus of a second resolution that included the call for the Anglican Communion to listen to the experience of homosexual persons. This affirmation re-engages a commitment to listen made at the Lambeth Conference 1998 -- a commitment that up until now has been sadly ignored. The truth is: the overwhelming endorsement of this radical new commitment by voting representatives from every Province in the Communion is an extraordinarily hopeful sign for ECUSA, the Communion and the Gospel.

3. The vote on the first resolution was extremely close (30-28 with 4 abstentions) and if the US and Canada had been allowed to vote it would not, in fact, have passed. The second resolution passed unanimously. This totally debunks the fiction that the US reactionaries are promoting that it is “North America against the world.” The truth is: half of the world supported us and the other half has committed to listen to us.

Meanwhile, David Virtue gets an "exclusive" interview with Archbishop Bernard Malango, Primate of Central Africa. Keep in mind that Virtue is not highly regarded even in Conservative circles. He is an angry man who is the most mean-spirited Episcopalian I have ever read. So, we cannot put too much weight to anything he reports, including supposed interviews. But, in the off chance that there is any truth in it, it is worth at least noting that the Archbishop stated that the Global South will form their own Communion before the next Lambeth, with their headquarters set up in Alexandria, Egypt.

David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, denounced Virtue's interview, and took a few personal shots as well. Virtue responded of course;

...What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.

Mark Harris wonders if this little exchange among the conservative factions isn't an example of the Chapman plan unfolding on schedule, with the AAC becoming less, to allow the Network to become more.

Personally, I think the Global South is fed up with all the North Americans, liberal and conservative, and they are going to go their own way. Statements such as the recent one out of Kenya suggests that they are now making even more bold ultimatums, because they are ready to bolt. If Rowan invites the North Americans to Lambeth, they're going to split off.

So, what do we do? We press on, recognizing that these are challenging times for the Church. Inclusive Church offers a good definition of this challenge;

...The Anglican Church has made a unique contribution to Christian witness. We have always been Catholic and Reformed, standing between the extreme certainties which caused such terror and suffering in the Reformation era. We are commtted to maintaining the value of that inheritance. We are not surprised when something that has so much within it that works for good and redemption is under attack.

But this Church that we love is now under threat. The Gospel of broad and generous inclusion is being undermined by a dangerously monochrome interpretation of scripture.

The loss of our voice; the change in our ecclesiology; the equating of our Anglican tradition with other hard-line, protestant, or neo-conservative churches would be a serious and permanent diminishing of Christian witness to the world...

The ACC also passed a resolution regarding Israel which has caused some controversy. It seems some folks want to believe the illusion that the Israelis are the good guys, and the Palestinians are the bad guys, in all cases. That Christians would even suggest that the Israelis also have blood on their hands is blasphemy to those who pour over their interpretations of the Revelation to John. But I think this issue is best left for another day.

In honor of today being Independence Day, I'll end with a quote from Judge Learned Hand, shamelessly stolen from Susan Russell;

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
-The Spirit of Liberty, (1944) p. 190.

J.

Homeless Feast at Groomless Wedding

Would-be bride throws homeless a party;

When a would-be bride called off her wedding 12 days before the big event, she threw a party anyway -- and invited the homeless.

Residents of the Interfaith Family Shelter attended the bash thrown by Katie Hosking, 22, a medical assistant, and her parents...

An unusual solution, but there is a precedent for such behavior;

"A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, 'Come; for all is now ready.' But they all alike began to make excuses... So the servant came and reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.' And the servant said, 'Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.' And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.'"
- Luke 14

I'm sure the folks from the shelter appreciated the party, but I can't help wondering how they felt about it when they woke up the next day in the shelter, once again faced with the daily struggle to simply exist.

For some, the experience of an extravagant banquet may encourage them to work even harder to improve their situation, in the hope that one day they might host such a feast. But for others, a taste of the good life can be cause for becoming even more discouraged, and even bitter. The difficulty of the climb out of poverty becomes even more vivid by glimpsing how the other side lives. A one-time flood of generosity is not always the best way to address the needs of those living on the edge of desperation.

People are generous during the season of Thanksgiving and Christmas. Food and toys pour in for the poor. Such generosity is a wonderful thing. But, consider what might be done with those resources if they were spread out over a few months, instead of one deluge of charity that will bring relief for a few days. Sometimes I wonder if people give during the holidays more out of a need to feel good about themselves rather than a serious attempt to address the issues of hunger and homelessness. I suggested this once to a Captain in the Salvation Army . He was in charge of the shelter at which I was the Program Director. I almost lost my job on the spot. I suppose I understand why he got so upset. A couple of huge one-time donations are better than small ones trickling in throughout the year. Something is better than nothing. But is it?

Most of the poor in this country try as much as possible to stay invisible. It is considered un-American to be poor. They are ashamed. They feel like they have some flaw, some missing piece, that keeps them down. They are unworthy of a handout. When they accept one, they feel like a parasite, a drag on society.

If it wasn't for the shame, they would speak up and tell us that they'd rather have a job offer than a turkey on Thanksgiving. They'd rather have the security deposit for an apartment instead of plastic toys for the kids on Christmas. But they don't. They keep their eyes lowered, say thank you, and disappear as quickly as possible.

The US Department of Health and Human Services tells us that as many as 600,000 men, women and children go homeless each night in the wealthiest nation of the world. In New York City, estimates are that 30,000 people live in emergency shelters.

What are the solutions to this? There are plenty of good ideas floating around. But, I think the first step has to be to recognize that some people will always need a hand up. I'd estimate that about half of the homeless suffer from mental illness and drug abuse, or both. They need to get access to professional help for these problems. But, in the meantime, they need to be cared for.

Unfortunately, some of the more "successful" programs will not take residents with these kinds of problems. They cream the crop, taking only those who are employable, thus assuring they keep their stats up. The donors don't object to this practice, and the public seem to pay little attention to it. Why? Because of the almost universal, yet often unspoken, premise that help should only be given to those who prove they are worthy.

Any solution that consciously or unconsciously follows that premise will not solve the problem. As Christians, we should understand this. None of us are worthy of God's grace, God's unmerited favor. It is a free gift. Freely we have received, and freely we give.

We don't offer a hand up to those in need because they deserve it. We offer our hand to them because they are human, created in the image of God, and so members of our family. We don't offer our help out of our need to be generous, but as a response to their need, their current crisis, which might not always fall on Thanksgiving or Christmas.

J.

The End of an Era

The Prez's speech was fairly predictable. I heard that 1/3 less people tuned in when compared to past addresses. They didn't miss much. Salon called it Bush to Errant Flock; 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

Then today, we have this Republican congressman, Rep. Robin Hayes from North Carolina, claiming that there is a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. He seems to have forgotten the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which the CNN article summarizes;

...The 9/11 commission, appointed by Bush, presented its final report a year ago, saying that Osama bin Laden had been "willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq" at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader "had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any "contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," it said.

So, let's see; first we were invading Iraq to remove Saddam and his stockpile of WMD, then, when no WMD were found, the cause was democracy, and now its to get the terrorists. Does this administration really think the American people are going to buy this constantly shifting justification for a war that has taken the lives of 1,700 Americans and 20,000 Iraqi civilians? News flash, Mr. President; THERE WEREN'T ANY TERRORISTS IN IRAQ UNTIL YOU INVADED!

Meanwhile, the real battlefield against terrorism; the one that is connected to 9/11, is ignored. On Tuesday, a helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. 17 Americans died. The Taliban are taking credit. Note that Bush did not mention Afghanistan once in his speech.

He picked the wrong war, for reasons we will never know. From what I've seen on the net, and from what the polls are starting to show, the American people are waking up to the fact that Iraq was a terrible blunder, and that this administration has no idea what they are doing. I think the Bush era is finally coming to an end. Thank God.

Unless, of course, the Democrats fail to get their act together before 2008. But, there's helpful signs on that front as well. It looks like John Bolton will not be the next US ambassador to the UN. It's doubtful if he'll come up for a vote again. It's also doubtful that Bush will use the recess appointment option. Without the Senate's approval, he would never have the respect from other members of the UN he'd need. The Democrats stuck to their guns, and it worked. The Wall Street Journal suggests that Bush should send National Security advisor Stephen Hadley to the UN, and give Hadley's job to Bolton, as it does not require the Senate's approval. Most likely, something like this will happen. Bush will get the foreign policy advisors he wants. Yet, the success of the Democrats in blocking a man who was so obliviously unfit for the job is still sweet.

There's also some good discussions going on about the Democrats needing to talk more about moral values and hear more from people of faith. That's us, folks. About time. I am a Christian Too points to Amy Sullivan's blog entry on Beliefnet, Democrats and Moral Values--They Still Don't Get It;

Now, don't get me wrong. Democratic policies reflect my moral principles much better than nearly anything Republicans do. If you take seriously admonitions to care for the most vulnerable in society, to care for the sick, the imprisoned, the young and the old, at the end of the day, you'll find more to support in a Democratic platform than a Republican one. But, and this is important, Democrats have a credibility problem. For far too long, they've talked about these issues in very abstract, utilitarian terms, taking care to stay as far as possible from terms like "morals" or "values" or "faith" and ceding those concepts to the Republican Party. As one writer recently put it: "Democrats tell voters, 'We know what you need.' Republicans tell voters, 'We know who you are.'"

That's critical. Just calling Democratic priorities "moral values" will not make them so in the minds of voters (even though, as we know, promoting peace and protecting the environment and ending poverty are every bit moral values). Nor will helpfully informing voters that they really need to start caring more about their economic interests do much for the Democrats. Why? Because it's paternalistic, it's saying, We know better than you what's good for you.

That's an excellent point, and one we all need to keep in mind.

Sullivan also points to a WaPO article on Howard Dean. I don't know what you think of Dean right now; he's getting a bit of a lashing lately for his outspoken comments. I like him more and more lately, because he's one of the few that is telling it like it is. No fancy double talk about the war. He said it was a mistake from the beginning, and he's still saying it. Call it shooting from the hip if you want; at least he's a straight shooter. Consider this comment;

..."We have not spoken about moral values in this party for a long time," Dean said. "The truth is, we're Democrats because of our moral values. It's a moral value to make sure that kids don't go to bed hungry at night. . . . It is a moral value not to go out on golf trips paid for by lobbyists."

Here's an expanded version of what Dean is talking about, drawn from an interview he gave to Gwen Iffil;

GWEN IFILL: How important is it that you speak to voters who used to be borderline Democrats, for instance, religious voters or black voters, many of whom are conservative and are drawn to arguments against things like gay marriage, how do Democrats speak to them anymore?

HOWARD DEAN: Well, first of all we have to show up. The idea we're going to win by campaigning in 18 states is just not going to happen anymore. We need to be in Mississippi, in Utah, in Texas, and Oklahoma. I've been to all four of those states in the relatively brief time I've been chair.

Secondly, we need to speak about moral values. We really do. The Democratic Party I think has the kind of moral values that most people, particularly the religious community and particularly evangelicals like. I've had numbers of calls from evangelicals and discussions with evangelicals as well as high ranking members of the Catholic Church since I've been DNC chair.

We want to reach out to folks. You know, the Republicans talk about two issues: Abortion and gay rights. I don't think that most Democratic officeholders have been supportive of gay marriage, but I think we are supportive of rights for every single American. We may have some differences of opinion with the religious community on those two issues but the Democrats are much more in sync with the both evangelical Christians and others, Catholics and so forth, on helping the poor, on making sure that we have -- everybody has an opportunity. I am including everybody in the American dream.

Those are the real Christian values. And those are values that appear to be absent from the Republican platform. I jokingly say in my speeches that I have yet to see the biblical injunction that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom heaven. I have not seen that in the Republican Party platform.

So I don't think that the Republicans have any right to lecture Democrats about morals because our morals really are pretty biblical when you look at them. They really are about being good stewards of the earth that God gave us, they really are about helping children, helping the disenfranchised, making sure that everybody gets included. Those are pretty good values.

I agree with Sullivan that I'm not so sure Dean get's it, but at least he's beginning to identify the problem.

Progressive Christians; we've got some work to do. Howard Dean's goal may be to take back the nation. Our goal may include that, but let's be clear here. Our goal is to reclaim Christianity, and free our faith from the bloody hands of the modern day Crusaders.

J.

Points to Ponder Prior to Prez's Pontification

Before I get started, I want to ask you all to pray for Tommy;

Eternal God, giver of life and health; comfort and relieve your sick child Tommy, and give your power of healing to those who minister to his needs, that he may be strengthened in his weakness and have confidence in your loving care; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Tonight, the President will give a speech that is reported to be his attempt to regain the support of the American people for the war in Iraq; support that the polls suggest is slipping fast.

Faithful Progressive points us to a recent New York Times editorial that highlights three facts about Iraq that we need to keep in mind as we listen to Bush tonight;

1. The war has nothing to do with September 11.
I listened to Rumsfeld over the weekend, and he mentioned 9/11 at least three times while discussing Iraq. This administration is careful to never be caught saying bluntly that Saddam or the Iraqis were directly responsible for 9/11. What they do is slip a reference to that horrible day in here and there, and so infer a connection. I will predict that Bush will mention 9/11 at least six times.

2. The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism.
Did you know that there was never a reported incident of a suicide bomber in Iraq before 2003? Last month, 400 people were killed by these martyrs. 75% of those who die from these attacks are American soldiers or Iraqi security forces.

3. If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.
Rumsfeld, who in 2003 said the war would be over in a matter of months, now suggests the insurgency could last 12 years! (edited, thanks to an observant commentor). Over 1,700 Americans and over 20,000 civilians are dead, and the timetable has moved from months to over a decade.

The plan should be simple; two words. Get out. Our presence is what is bringing terrorists into the country in droves. This idea of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is pretty heartless, it seems to me. Only Iraqi civilians are expendable? I doubt that this kind of ethnocentric strong-arm approach to establishing democracy is winning any hearts and minds in that part of the world.

Returning for a minute to the "12 year" comment by Rumsfeld; even though he claims that the insurgency will have to be fought against by the Iraqis, and foreign troops will be gone (edit), could this be a bait and switch tactic? Could we be being prepared for a much longer deployment? (edit) I wondered why the military was building all those bases all over Iraq. Some of them look rather permanent. Could this have been the plan from the beginning; to use Iraq as a base of operations to control the Persian Gulf?

Since the reasons presented for this invasion have been proven to be lies, we can only speculate. I still think it was primarily because Saddam threatened to assasinate Daddy. But, most likely, we'll never know.

Ok, I say 6 mentions of 9/11 tonight. Any other predictions? The person who comes the closest to the actual number, and posts their guess before 8:00 p.m. will get to guest blog here at Jake's place within the next week.

Of course, if I win, you'll just have to continue to listen to my rants.

J.

"Say No to Stupid Poverty"

I caught Bono on Meet the Press tonight. He's an inspiring man, and quite the diplomat. The video clip is worth taking a couple of minutes to watch. The title of this post is drawn from one of Bono's more pithy statements. He was asking Americans to help in the fight against poverty at the G8 Summit that begins July 6.

Last night, George Clooney and Pat Robertson were on Nightline, supporting the same thing. That's not a typo. Clooney and Robertson.

What's uniting such diverse personalities? The potential to really make a difference in the world at the G8 Summit. Here's The One Campaign's brief explanation;

WHAT IS THE G8 AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?

The G8, or the ‘Group of Eight’ Summit is an annual gathering of leaders from the world’s eight wealthiest and most powerful countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States). This summer, these leaders will gather in Scotland to decide the fate of an entire generation living on less than ONE dollar a day. On July 6th - 8th, President Bush and other G8 leaders will discuss the major social, political and economic conditions that leave nearly ONE billion people living in extreme poverty – nearly half of whom live in Sub-Saharan Africa. With your support and voice, President Bush and other world leaders will know just how important these issues are, and together as ONE, we can Make Poverty History this July.

Here you can send a message to President Bush asking him to;

Help the poorest people of the world fight poverty, AIDS and hunger at a cost equal to just ONE percent more of the US budget on a clear timetable;

Cancel 100% of the debts owed by the poorest countries;

Reform trade rules so poor countries can earn sustainable incomes.

The free Live 8 concert in Philadelphia on July 2 is being held to call attention to the hope that we can make poverty history at this historic G8 Summit.

Philly is only 30 minutes away. I'll probably go. Here's the line-up so far;

Will Smith
Bon Jovi
Dave Matthews Band
Destiny's Child
Jars of Clay
Jay-Z
Kaiser Chiefs
Keith Urban
Linkin Park
Maroon 5
Rob Thomas
Sarah McLachlan
Stevie Wonder

Ok, confession time. My CD collection consists of Hendrix, Tull, CSN&Y, Traffic, Steve Miller, Bob Seger, Moody Blues, Blue Oyster Cult, Joe Walsh and U2. I recognize some of the artists on the above list; Bon Jovi, Dave Matthews, Jars of Clay, Sarah McLachlan and Stevie Wonder. But who are the rest of them? Are they any good? Help out this old man trapped in a time warp.

J.

Friday's Pointers

First, go read the Xpatriated Texan's excellent essay; You are the One. Thurman, of XT, has also agreed to be the NJ organizer for CAP. Since I live in NJ, and plan to participate, I look forward to meeting him. Anyone else from NJ interested in meeting up?

Second, I want to point to a new blog launched by a group from the University of Chicago; Faithand Justice.org; The Religious Left Speaks Up. Some good discussions going on over there. They are seeking submissions. Here's their recent press release;

PRESS RELEASE: THE RELIGIOUS LEFT SPEAKS UP

Faithandjustice.org is pleased to announce the launch of their new site:

http://www.faithandjustice.org

Faithandjustice.org is a challenge to conservatism's hold on religious and moral values in American political discourse. We believe that progressive religious ideas need a stronger voice in politics. We hope to broaden the current political discussion and to make real the values and ideals of the religious left in American politics and policy.

Our new website is a forum to explore and clarify the shared values of the left, improve communication of those values and provide opportunities for action and activism within the progressive religious community. In particular, our site will feature articles on a wide range of issues (including scholarly work and opinion pieces), sermons and statements by progressive religious leaders of all faiths, an ongoing web log ("blog") commenting on current events from the perspective of the religious left, a question of the week and a lively discussion forum to foster participation.

Faithandjustice.org was founded as The Religious Left following the election of November 2004. What started as a midnight idea on blogspot.com, became an overnight sensation when mentioned in The Economist magazine, and is now an organization based out of the University of Chicago.

Press Inquiries may be directed to Allie Carter at editor@faithandjustice.org

Submission Policy:

We invite all kinds of submissions – essays, sermons, papers, meditations, fiction, poetry - on any topic related to progressive religion and politics. Submissions must be between 300 and 1500 words. New works are due the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month for consideration. Publication is at the sole discretion of the editorial board. Please send your submissions to editor@faithandjustice.org.

Here's another new blog that I've enjoyed reading; Higher Plane, written by a flight attendant using the pseudonym "Omis I. Dlaykadrinck". Good commentary on religion, spirituality, politics and the aviation industry.

And finally, I want to point to the most moving thing I've read in a long time; Nunc Dimittis. No lead-up for this one. Just go take a look.

I've finished the renovations of the church's office and narthex this week, and am now starting a sermon on Sunday's troublesome gospel text. I'm beat, and, to top it off, I've got this miserable tooth ache. Grumble, grumble, whine whine.

On the bright side, I've got the Mustang running and tagged, so the drive in to the church is now quite enjoyable. And tomorrow we're holding our Strawberry Festival. Life is good; nothing wrong that some rest, a good dentist and an insightful commentary can't fix.

J.

Anglicans Bow to Primates

By now you've probably heard that the Anglican Consultative Council affirmed the listening process requested in a Lambeth resolution from 1998 and the voluntary withdrawal of the US and Canada from the ACC until Lambeth 2008. They also invited the Primates to be included within their membership.

Regarding the listening process, I don't have much hope that it will ever happen. It's been seven years, and it hasn't happened yet. How can it, when the champion of the extreme conservatives, Peter Akinola, has stated he can't even sit at the same table with a gay man, let alone TALK to one. There is no interest in dialogue among the extremists; never was. They have refused to abide by the Lambeth resolutions calling for this since the beginning, which has played a critical role in bringing us to the place we are today.

The vote to affirm the Primates' request to ask the North Americans to voluntarily withdraw from the ACC was 30 for, 28 against, and 4 abstentions. That's a pretty close vote. So much for the claim that the entire Communion is upset with the North Americans. This was done by secret ballot, btw. Is this how we will decide ethical issues in the future? The original resolution, which called for the North Americans to withdraw from all leadership positions was amended to identify only those bodies connected with the ACC. Why? As I previously mentioned, it's because they don't have the authority to do any more than that.

The Primates will now be members of the ACC. In other words, the only entity within the Instruments of Unity that contains representatives drawn from the laity has now been consumed by the purple shirts. The rule of the Primates has been solidified. For all intents and purposes, the ACC has ceased to exist. As of today, priests, deacons and laypersons are excluded from having any voice in the decisions regarding the future of the Anglican Communion.

Next act in this ongoing saga will be General Convention, 2006. In the meantime, we have other things to do. Press on the Kingdom.

On a different note, I came across a press release, dated in the future (2010) that some of you might have seen about a year ago when it was making the rounds. It seemed an appropriate piece to recall today;

Treat Dogs as Dogs?

A new controversy is bubbling up throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion and threatening its unity. Conservatives in many provinces are insisting that the church return to what they term "the biblical teaching on dogs." Others, especially in Britain and North America, insist that there is nothing unchristian about showing dogs love and respect as creatures of God...

Matters have come to a head over proposals for the Episcopal Church to develop official services for the blessing of dogs. Some bishops have already endorsed such services for use in their dioceses, while others know they occur by reading about them in parish newsletters. Reports of such services also appear in newspapers, usually around the October 4 feast of St. Francis of Assisi, a figure viewed as suspect by conservatives, who regard him as a proto-pan-speciesist.

The conservatives have coalesced as TDAD (Treat Dogs as Dogs). They are extremely well-funded, allegedly by a couple of Texas millionaires who made their fortunes in cat food. TDAD is appealing to Anglican leaders in other parts of the world, and finding support in some places. Several African and Asian prelates read the biblical texts about dogs quite literally, and find support for their views in places in their homeland where packs of scavenger dogs prowl around freely...

Various Episcopal and Anglican bishops are talking quite loudly about schism. In response, the Archbishop of Canterbury has summoned the heads of all Anglican provinces to meet with him at Lambeth Palace. His personal view of the matter is apparent: the meeting takes place the day after he officially opens the Greater London Dog Show. Conservatives hope to be vindicated, while progressives question the validity of the meeting since it will include no dogs, only primates.

Woof!

J.

Tuesday's Pointers

The new position is requiring quite a bit of my time lately, so today I'm just going to point to a few things some of you might find interesting;

Simon Sarmiento is offering good coverage of the Anglican Consultative Council's meeting over on Thinking Anglicans. Lots of good links.

The Revealer points to a timely and rather interesting piece; Daddy, what did you do in the men's movement? So, what's your opinion of Robert Bly?

It's starting to look like this administration has a problem with truth telling. It turns out they lied to the British about using napalm-like firebombs in Iraq. The Bush administration has also been caught red handed attempting to derail the British goal of adressing global warming at the G8 conference next month. If this is how we treat our allies...

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, stated in an interview that he saw no theological objections to a woman becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that there is a lot of prejudice and bigotry regarding homosexuality in Christian circles; "...While some Christians use “biblical grounds” to oppose homosexuality, said the Archbishop, it tended to be more about social prejudice and inherited ideas."

I've got a new post up at The Christian Alliance for Progress; Building Diverse Alliances.

And with that, good night!

J.

ACC Meeting in Nottingham

The Anglican Consultative Council will be meeting in Nottingham beginning Sunday, June 19. As I've previously mentioned, the Episcopal Church was asked by the Primates to "voluntarily withdraw" from the Council. The Executive Council of TEC decided to honor this request, although our delegation will be present to listen and answer questions.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the authority of the ACC. Consider this recent news report from the Episcopal News Service, specifically the following line;

...The ACC is made up of bishops, clergy and lay representatives -- numbering some 75 in all -- and is the only body with legislative authority to act on the report recommendations.

Legislative authority? When did this happen?

The Lambeth Conference Resolution of 1968, which established the ACC, spells out the duties of this body. They are to advise, share information, develop (but not legislate) policy, encourage, guide and review.

To suggest that this body has the power to legislate assumes that there is some structure in place by which the members of the Anglican Communion would be bound by their decisions. This would deny the autonomy of each member, and would redefine the nature of the Communion. Rather than being a loose federation of voluntary members, we would become a legal entity, with the assumption of sharing a common code of canon law.

That is not what currently exists, regardless of what some conservative Anglicans may claim. The Episcopal Church has never been bound by any resolution from any source other than General Convention. The ACC, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury may make statements or pass resolutions, but their authority within the Episcopal Church has always been that of recommendations.

If the Anglican Communion decides to restructure itself, and redefine the hierarchy of authority, that may be a discussion whose time has come. But to suddenly declare such a restructuring as a fait accompli would be the best way that I know of to derail the attempts of many faithful Anglicans to move us in the direction of healing and reconciliation.

I recommend that you consider Christopher's thoughts, Praying with Nottingham. Let us pray for the Church.

J.

Book Lists

Redwood Dragon has tagged me for the Book Meme.

1. Number of books I own.

About six years ago, I made a mad dash across the US, taking with me only what would fit in my car; my dog, my clothes, and 14 boxes of books. I gave away everything else, which included over half of my library. Since then, I've built it up a little, but it still includes only about 300 titles.

2. Last book I bought.

The Time of Our Singing, Richard Powers.

3. Last book I read.

Native Tongue, Carl Hiaasen.

4. Books that mean a lot to me.

All the works of Robertson Davies.
The Passion of the Western Mind, Richard Tarnas.
The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer.
The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Engaging the Powers, Walter Wink.
Christian Believing, Urban T. Holmes and John Westerhoff.
Ministry and Imagination, Urban T. Holmes.

5. Tag (at least) five more.

Pilgrim's Progress
Myriad Musings
I am a Christian Too
The Cat's Cradle
The Cassandra Pages
Faithful Progressive
Kevin G. Powell

J.

REMINDER - The hearing on the Downing Street Memos begin today at 2:30 p.m. on CSPAN3. Here's some good background info on the latest additional memos to be revealed.

Hearing on the Downing Street Memo

From the Downing Street Memo site;

Democratic hearing on Downing Street Memo/Minutes and Pre-war intelligence

On Thursday June 16, 2005, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Room HC-9 of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other Congress Members will hold a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and related evidence of efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.

The DNC will serve as an overflow room, so people can still go there: The Wasserman Room at 430 S Capitol St. SE. After the hearing, Congressman Conyers will personally deliver his letter to the President demanding answers about the path to war, which has been signed by over 100 members of Congress and well over half a million American citizens. There will also be a rally at 5:00pm in Lafayette Square Park, in front of the White House. If you can make it, please attend!

This will be carried live on C-SPAN 3.

J.

Defining the Terms; "Progressive" Christians

Building on yesterday's thoughts about George Lakoff, I've got a new post up at the Christian Alliance for Progress;

What is a Progressive Christian?

We can begin that conversation here as well. For those of you who claim that label, what does it mean to you?

J.

Responding to Conservatives

I recently stumbled across an excerpt from George Lakoff's book Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. All of his suggestions as to how to respond to conservatives are quite good. I found a couple of them to be especially insightful;

...Remember that everybody has both strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively, perhaps active in different parts of their lives. Your job is to activate for politics the nurturant, progressive values already there (perhaps only passively) in your interlocutors...

You can make considerable progress with biconceptuals, those who use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With biconceptuals your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, just which parts of their life they are nurturant about. For example, ask who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they have to those they care about, and how they carry out those responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate to political issues. Example: Real family values mean that your parents, as they age, donÂ’t have to sell their home or mortgage their future to pay for health care or the medications they need.

His comments about "framing the question" are also worth repeating;

...If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense.* Why? Because thatÂ’s what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame.

Never answer a question framed from your opponentÂ’s point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames.

Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values you really hold.

A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: *WouldnÂ’t it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. Example:* WouldnÂ’t it be better if we had a president who went to war with a plan to secure the peace?

Since I'm prone to making every mistake Lakoff discusses in this excerpt, I'm bookmarking this page, and am going to try to read it before posting responses to conservatives in the future.

On another note, for those interested in pushing forward the Downing Street Memo, David Corn offers some good points in his recent article, Reconsidering the DSM.

One final note; in case you haven't heard, another memo has surfaced, dated July 21, 2002 (two days before the DSM; a preparatory memo for that meeting) in which we learn that Tony Blair had agreed with the President's plans to invade Iraq as early as April 2002. This memo also supports the accusation that military action was already a foregone conclusion. The NYT, in a piece that appeared this weekend, chose to ignore all the content in this memo that affirms the implications of the DSM, and instead chose to focus on one line that claimed "no political decisions had been made." From this they deduce that the way the DSM is being used as a "smoking gun" are off base. One wonders who in the media we can trust, when even the NYT leaps at an opportunity to cozy up to this administration.

J.

The Signs of Fascism

Here's the video.

Here's Britt's article.

Let's review the fourteen signs of fascism;

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism.

6. A controlled mass media.

7. Obsession with national security.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

9. Power of corporations protected.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

14. Fraudulent elections.

But of course, fascism can't be growing in the land of the free and the home of the brave; surely we would have noticed.

How do you cook a frog?

J.

More Lies Concerning Iraq

By now most of you have hopefully heard about the Downing Street Memo, in which, at a secret meeting held in July 2002, British authorities report to Tony Blair that George Bush has decided to use the military option against Iraq, and has "fixed the intelligence around the policy." The discussion includes the beginnings of a plan as to how to convince the world that such military action is justified.

Then in September of 2002, a month before Congress voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and over six months before the invasion "officially" began, US and British planes began massive airstrikes against Iraqi air defense targets;

...At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun...

Also in 2002, as secret plans are being made to crush Saddam Hussein, and bombs are dropping all over Iraq (unofficially, of course), it has been revealed that John Bolton orchestrated the firing of the head of a global arms control agency. Why? Because this diplomat made the mistake of trying to send in inspectors to search for chemical weapons, which would have upset the US plans to invade, since they knew damn well there were no WMDs;

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani ``had to go,'' particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war...

...The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help...

...After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq - and other Arab states - into the chemical weapons treaty.

Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program...

Bolton's reward for his bullying tactics? He'll soon be the new US ambassador to the UN. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Yesterday, the British Prime Minister and the President were asked about the Downing Street Memo in a joint press conference. Here's part of the President's response;

...My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well...

This man is so busted, but he just keeps telling lies. You'd think he would have learned a thing or two from Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton; the people will turn against you if they find out you lied.

These lies are in a different category, however. People have died. Specifically, over 20,000 innocent civilians and over 1,600 American troops have lost their lives because of this President's megalomania. These are war crimes.

Let's demand a Congressional inquiry, and awaken the media to this issue.

Time to stop the lies, Mr. President. I hear the word "impeachment" blowing in the wind.

J.

The Kingdom of God

I'm either getting lazy or old, or maybe a bit of both. In any case, I'm not feeling up to two posts today, so I'm going to send you over to the Christian Alliance for Progress to read my Tuesday rant;

The Kingdom of God

J.

UPDATE: For those who still have energy for such discussions, there's a heated one going on in response to Public Theologian's essay, God Also Created Adam and Steve: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage.

Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture

Thinking Anglicans offers us an essay by Mike Russel, Mr. Hooker and the Windsor Report. He makes some points worth noting;

The classic Anglican position, found in Hooker’s “Laws” is that scripture is the primary source of revelation for “all things necessary for salvation” not all things simply. The WR and the Neo-Puritans are attempting to make it necessary for all things simply. Books II and III of the Laws are quite clear on the boundaries set on Scripture’s “prima” authority having already rejected it as having “sola” authority.

So while Scripture is perfect for the purpose for which it was created, it is for Mr. Hooker and those that follow clearly a mixture of documents as well, many of which are bound by time and place. For example, in the Articles of Religion we see the Church setting to the side not only the Apocrypha, but the judicial and ceremonial laws of Hebrew Scripture. What is most interesting in that is that the specific parts of Leviticus we see bandied about quite often are part of the judicial law and not the moral law which is confined to the Ten Commandments.

So classic Anglicanism has at its core a hermeneutic for prioritizing the contents of Scripture and their respective authority. To treat it in any flat literal sense as a repository of eternal commands is not and never has been Anglican. That the WR is hazy on this, wanting to affirm the authority of scripture, but also warning of the dangers and ambiguities related to interpretation, leaves it listing disastrously to the fundamentalist Neo-Puritan side...

"...a hermeneutic for prioritizing the contents of scripture..." This is one of the main reasons that I am an Anglican; because of the "reasonable" approach taken towards scripture. I've been a Baptist, and a Pentecostal (Open Bible Standard), and had to part ways with those traditions because of their claim that one must accept a literal understanding of the bible as the only source of authority. That has never been something I could honestly agree to, since I first read the bible when I was ten years old. If we are honest, we must admit that the bible contains much inspiration and beauty, as well as "all things necessary for salvation," but also some really bad science, more than a bit of harmful theology, and includes parts that were written by some really twisted people.

It seems to me that the "sola scriptura" brand of Christianity that is so dominant today is responsible for so many falling away from the Church. If I could recognize the flaws at age ten, it is safe to assume that most folks see such errors, but are too polite to mention them. If they are required to buy the whole bill of goods, and sacrifice their intellectual integrity in the process, the honest response, the moral response, is to look elsewhere for spiritual nurture.

And now Anglicanism is seriously considering joining fundamentalism, which is no more than the last gasp of a dying world view. The Church of the future cannot possibly uphold such an absurd position. If it tries, the Church will become a museum piece at best.

As Fr. Russel says in his essay;

What we need to do is resolve whether or not we are going to be true to our Anglican heritage with respect to scripture or slip into the crass fundamentalism that has proven so divisive and destructive in every setting where it has come to power.

In the end, this is the issue before us within the Anglican Communion.

If the fundamentalists take over the Communion, Anglicanism will die. That will be sad, but not devastating. I have no doubt that God will raise up something new from the ashes of our current culture wars.

J.

A New Label to Consider

In this complex world in which we live, many of us find "labeling" others as a way to categorize people quickly, in order to respond appropriately. The problem with such labels is that it is a form of stereotyping. Few folks fit so neatly into any box in which we attempt to place them.

But, since labeling seems to be an unavoidable reaction to our attempts to navigate through an overwhelming onslaught of diverse encounters, maybe it's time to pick our own labels, rather than allow others to choose them for us. Here's one rather creative suggestion from The Christian Century;

...Is there an alternative to the vague liberal and anachronistic mainline? We have a suggestion: Christian humanism. Or, if you will, Protestant humanism.

Humanism captures liberal Protestantism’s emphasis on intellectual exploration, on doing theology in conversation with other modes of knowledge. Since the Renaissance, humanism has designated a movement that takes learning seriously and celebrates the ability of scientists, poets and historians to expand knowledge and shape the world. Christian specifies that this appreciation of human freedom and potential is not ungrounded or unlimited, and that human identity is not simply whatever humans want it to be. As creatures of God, humans are most truly themselves when fulfilling divine purposes. And it is “in Christ,” the divine and human one, that we learn what it means to be fully human...

...In recent decades Christian and humanism have been placed in opposition, which makes this an especially good time to put them together. Christian humanism reaches toward the catholic tradition of the church, but it also has the virtue of unpredictability, of genuine openness. So the next time someone asks if you are liberal or conservative, mainline or evangelical, try saying, “I’m a Christian humanist.”

Hmmm..."Christian Humanist"...I think I like it. Of course, when compared to the various other labels I tend to attract (apostate, revisionist, pinko commie, spawn of Satan, etc.), almost anything else sounds good.

J.

Introducing My Pony

I owned a '94 Mustang for a brief time about ten years ago. Since we still had three kids living at home, it wasn't very practical, so I traded it in on an Explorer. I've missed that car ever since. '94 was the year Ford introduced the new body style for the Mustang, which I really like. It also had the 5.0 liter engine, which in '96 was changed to the 4.6. For nostalgic reasons, I've always preferred the 5.0. Over the years, Ford tweaked the body style slightly. The '94 has the most distinctive bubble-shaped top, slightly thinner and lower body style, and horizontal tail lenses. The '05 Mustang is a dramatic change, with the clear intent of returning to the original design from the 60s, which made the car famous. Purist enthusiasts are quite excited about the newest version. Personally, I've always preferred the look and feel of the '94.

Well, last week I ran across the beauty pictured here; a white '94 with a recently rebuilt 5.0 and an immaculate body. The price was dirt cheap, so it is now parked in my driveway. There's a few minor things that need some work, and a couple of modifications I want to make, so it's a "project car" for now. I am beyond thrilled.

It may seem strange to some folks for a priest who is a borderline socialist to be so excited about a material possession. I have no excuse for lusting after this car, but I do have a couple of words of explanation. First of all, this is not just a car; it is the best American-made machine on the road today. Second, keep in mind I grew up in California. The choice of an automobile is more important to some Californians than their house, due to the fact that some commuters spend more time in the car than they do at home. And finally, I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy, and a heavy equipment mechanic at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for a few years after my enlistment ended. Yea, I was a gear head; one of those guys who always had a layer of grease under his fingernails, kept at least one heap in the backyard "for parts," and gave way too much money to the Snap-On salesman.

Fellow gear heads will understand. To the rest of you; I'm smiling today, and I invite you to share in my joy.

Now I need to go see if I can track down the Freon leak so I can get the air conditioning working. Could I pay someone to fix it? Sure, but then I'd miss all the fun!

J.