Philly for Kerry

I drove over to Philadelphia yesterday for a John Kerry rally. These are the only shots I managed to grab, due to the fact that I didn't have a blue ticket (why do they offer online tickets if they're worthless?), and due to my inexperience with this new camera. Maybe someday I'll figure out how it works.

From the article, in case you don't want to register;

...In Philadelphia, the Kerry crowd was drawn in part by former President Bill Clinton, who made his first appearance on the campaign trail since quadruple bypass surgery seven weeks ago.

A Bruce Springsteen recording, "No Surrender," played and confetti shot into the air as Clinton and Kerry walked down a runway side-by-side, shaking hands with supporters. On stage, the two men joined hands and lifted their arms high into the air.

"I am very proud of John Kerry and the campaign he has run," Clinton told the crowd. "He never gives up"...

...Kerry used the rally to criticize the Bush administration's handling of Iraq on a day when the International Atomic Energy Agency disclosed that more than 350 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from the former Al-Qaqaa military installation, about 30 miles south of Baghdad.

"George W. Bush talks tough and brags about making America safer, but once again he has failed," Kerry said. "His incompetence, step after step, has put our troops at greater risk."

The crowd answered Kerry's criticisms with a chant of "Bush must go! Bush must go!"...

...Joining Kerry and Clinton on stage in Philadelphia were the top Democrats in the city and state, including Gov. Rendell and Mayor Street.

Singer Patti LaBelle, a Philadelphia native, sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" before Clinton and Kerry arrived and a long line of local politicians and candidates spoke to the crowd.

"Nobody was better to the city of Philadelphia than Bill Clinton," Rendell told the crowd, which the Fire Department estimated at 80,000 to 100,000. "As the 44th president of the United States, John Kerry has the ability to top him."

Kerry, who has criticized Bush's economic policies, praised Clinton for leading America "to the strongest economy we ever had."

Energetic but looking thin and pale, Clinton said over the cheering crowd, "If this isn't good for my heart, I don't know what is."

A flag hoisted by a crane flew high in the air behind the two men. The statue of William Penn atop City Hall loomed in the distance against a steel-gray sky...

Carol Moseley Braun and Governor Rendell are to the right of President Clinton in that shot. The Big Dog looked no worse for wear and tear. Good to see him back in the action.

J.

The Mark of a Chosen Person

This arrived in my inbox recently, thanks to Mata Hari (aka LoveisTruth...when are you getting a blog??). It is one of the most powerful stories I've read in some time. Make sure you read the whole thing;

The Mark of a Chosen Person, Jeffrey John...

... If you're ever disillusioned by other Christians it's your own fault because you shouldn't have had illusions in the first place - either about them or yourself. We are all on the margins where God is concerned, but he holds his nose and he uses what he's got. If he wants to use a bad-tempered old bag to feed the poor of Calcutta, who are we to say otherwise? If he wants to use a rampant adulterer to bring freedom to a billion black people, who are we to complain? It was probably their sins that brought them to God in the first place. The question for us is, what comparable good have we achieved to balance out ours?

The Church that Jesus first assembled was a gang of sinners and rejects. Any Church that is His Church ought to know that it is the same. It has to show the same kind of love, the kind that includes and embraces first, then let’s the love do the healing from the inside. That’s what Catholic means. Michael Marshall once wrote: ‘the test of genuinely Catholic Christianity is not that it makes good people better, but that it makes bad people holy’.

Or as Oscar Wilde, another good Catholic put it: We are all in the gutter; but some of us are looking at the stars.

J.

The "Christian" Vote

Today I spent quite a bit of time reading new blogs (new to me). One particular post from Rob troubled me;

Fast forward to 2004, the year of the presidential election. Coming home from somewhere in the car, I turned on a local religious talk show. Yeah, I should know better. The DJ was asking the audience if a vote for Kerry constituted proof that someone's Christianity was a fraud. The general consensus was "yes." Those who disagreed were summarily dealt with by the DJ - a perfect example of why arguing with someone who can hang up on you and get the last word is a bad idea. The conclusion was that Christianity meant believing in George W. Bush and everything he did. Funny, I thought following Jesus, the Savior who died for us and rose from the dead so that we won't suffer eternal death, was what Christianity was about.

Silly me. I must be pretty bad at theology to make that mistake.

So I'm an isolated Christian. I have to hide and hope that no one notices that I'm different.

Those words just about broke my heart. It's been a long time since I was part of a fundamentalist church; about 35 years actually. I find myself guilty of being a bit naive, I suppose, assuming that everyone understood that claims that either Bush or Kerry are "more Christian" is just a bunch of political hype.

For Rob, and others who might think that Bush is the only option for Christians, let me point out a couple of interesting articles. The President's faith has come under close scrutiny lately:

The Washington Post ran this story on October 16; Openly Religious, to a Point; Bush Leaves the Specifics of His Faith to Speculation. We don't know much about this President's personal spiritual life, except for the claims he makes in political speeches. This article seems to have been an opening others were waiting for, as the rush to define Bush's religious beliefs was on.

Ron Suskind, in The New York Times Magazine, followed with this piece on October 17; Without A Doubt, which suggests that Bush's form of Christian faith carries a dangerous form of self-righteousness within it;

Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything that works must be repeated until it is replaced by something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.

Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?

That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.

''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''

And what is that?

''Easy certainty.''

On October 19, Ayelish McGarvey, in The American Prospect, wrote an article entitled As God Is His Witness; Bush is no devout evangelical. In fact, he may not be a Christian at all. There's some interesting stuff in this piece, but then I came across this line;

Judging him on his record, George W. Bush's spiritual transformation seems to have consisted of little more than staying on the wagon, with Jesus as a sort of talismanic Alcoholics Anonymous counselor.

Ouch. Having been accused of not being a "real Christian" myself more times than I care to remember, I don't like it when it's said about others, even if it is someone I personally dislike. Cheap shots like this, and others found in the article, seem uncalled for as far as I'm concerned.

Next, On October 20, Amy Sullivan picks up the thread as guest columnist for Kevin Drum in an article entitled More Than Words. Although Sullivan also feels that McGarvey went too far, she comes to a very similar conclusion;

Every young Sunday School student knows it's not what you say, it's what you do. And on that score, George W. Bush has failed to act according to Christian principles and values. That shouldn't necessarily matter--that shouldn't be a requirement for our country's leader. But it's simply a fact that many voters cast their lot with the guy they believe is led by a moral power greater than himself. I've heard countless voters say they disagree with Bush on the war, the economy, his environmental record, his education agenda, you name it--but they're voting for him "because he's a good Christian man." The press has accepted uncritically that this is so. Maybe that was a mistake.

As you can see, there is not a clear consensus regarding George Bush as THE Christian candidate. I think we can expect more of this kind of press in the next few days.

There is one other direction that the conversation on faith and the presidency is taking that troubles me. Last month, a piece by Mark Noll of The Christian Century appeared; None of the above: Why I won't be voting for President;

As has been the case for the past few presidential elections, on Election Day I will almost certainly cast my vote once again for none of the above. Here is why:

Seven issues seem to me to be paramount at the national level: race, the value of life, taxes, trade, medicine, religious freedom and the international rule of law. In my mind, each of these issues has a strong moral dimension. My position on each is related to how I understand the traditional Christian faith that grounds my existence. Yet neither of the major parties is making a serious effort to consider this particular combination of concerns or even anything remotely resembling it...

...I have arrived at these seven political convictions as a result of my Christian faith. Yet each can be advanced in terms of the public good without reliance on a particular faith. Of course, I may be mistaken either in what traditional Christianity should mean politically for an American citizen in the early 21st century or in how best to argue for these positions with reasoning not demanding a commitment to traditional Christianity. But as long as I hold these positions, I am a citizen without a political home.

Although I agree with his seven convictions, I also strongly believe that not voting is simply wrong thinking. I'm sorry, Mr. Noll, but I cannot respect such a decision. It is this kind of attitude that leads to the apathy we've seen in past elections. One of the greatest gifts this nation has offered to humanity is the democratic process. To refuse the gift because a "perfect" candidate has not risen on the horizon is to be too much of an idealist. There is no such animal as the "perfect" candidate.

The Ivy Bush offers an excellent reflection on Noll's position, including a discussion of some of Stanley Hauerwas' ideas and a link to another discussion on The Morning Retort. The theme is picked up by Except for These Chains, who explores his problem with the "no lesser of two evils" approach to voting.

I haven't presented the discussion of Kerry being a Christian or not, but let me assure you that it's out there too. The only thing I will point out is that John Kerry has not been excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Let's kill that smear campaign right now.

In my opinion, there is no question that George Bush and John Kerry are both Christians, if that is the label they choose to claim. I cannot look into their hearts and know the nature of their relationship with God, and I question the integrity of anyone who claims that they can.

So, Rob, and others, vote for who you think will be the best leader for this nation. And maybe do some church shopping. I assure you that there are faith communities out there that do not employ thought police.

J.

P.S. Just for the record, I will be voting for Kerry, but not necessarily because I think it's my "Christian duty." I'll be voting for Kerry because of the kind of crazy (dare I say fascist? I guess I just did) ideology coming out of the Bush administration, such as this classic example from Suskind's piece;

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

May God have mercy on us all if these egomaniacs are allowed four more years in the White House.

100 Reasons to Fire Bush

The election is a week from Tuesday. Do you know anyone who is still undecided? Here is a great resource offered by The Nation;

100 Facts and 1 Opinion; The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

There's a link to download the pdf version, which is all set up to print as a handout.

Don't bother offering this to supporters of Bush. Apparently most of them follow his lead and don't read.

J.

Counting the Cost

Prior Aelred, a new commenter who has been providing a number of links to excellent articles over the last few days, has just pointed to one by Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, lecturer in philosophy at Wadham college Oxford and chair of InclusiveChurch.net. I found it to be an important addition to the myriad of voices we are listening to at the moment, as I think he articulates the position that many hold, but are hesitant to voice. If we are to engage in sincere conversation about the future of the Communion, I think we have to get honest, and not simply bite our tongues for the sake of unity;

...Reconciliation is what Christians live for. Dr Eames is right: this is the essence of the gospel. I admit my own failure to live as a Christian alongside those who read the Bible in a different way from me.

But — and it’s a big but — what I cannot do is to embrace a form of reconciliation whose price is paid by the most vulnerable and the most sidelined. We cannot purchase our solidarity at the price of another’s silence. The idea that those who have fought like cats and dogs over the past months should kiss and make up, in the name of church unity, thereby allowing a situation to exist whereby gay Christians and their loving relationships continue to be derided as sinful, is intolerable.

This is why I thank God for the leadership being shown by the Most Revd Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA. His initial reactions to the report offered the right balance of regret for the pain caused by division, while affirming “the presence and positive contribution of gay and lesbian persons to every aspect of the life of our Church and in all orders of ministry”. He continued: “I regret that there are places within our Communion where it is unsafe for them to speak out the truth of who they are.”

To misapply the title of Jonathan Freedland’s book that celebrates the triumph of American political democracy: bring home the revolution.

Go read the whole thing.

For the sake of unity, what price are we willing to pay? Even more to the point, what price are we willing to ask others to pay?

The way forward has to be paved with honesty and humility. But for such a path to endure, it must also contain justice. As Corazon Aquino reminds us;

Reconciliation should be accompanied by justice, otherwise it will not last. While we all hope for peace it shouldn't be peace at any cost but peace based on principle, on justice.

J.

The Very Next Day...

From The Living Church;

Saying that the Episcopal Church lacked accountability, the rectors of two parishes in the Diocese of Olympia told the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner on Oct. 19 that their congregations had voted overwhelmingly to seek independence from the Episcopal Church and to affiliate with the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti, Bishop of Recife in the Anglican Province of Brazil.

Contacted in London by telephone on Oct. 20, Bishop Cavalcanti said his decision to accept pastoral care for the two parishes was “a temporary pastoral response to an emergency and the continued defiance [of Windsor Report recommendations] by North American bishops.” Bishop Cavalcanti added that he is prepared to offer oversight to at least two other Episcopal churches and that there would be many more unless the American and Canadian bishops honor the moratorium on further same-sex blessings and the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons called for by the Lambeth Commission on Communion in the Windsor Report.

“We did not create this problem,” Bishop Cavalcanti said. “There are moments in history when we must be willing to make a stand.”

What was it I believe I just read in the Windsor Report, released one day before this incident?

We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
* to express regret for the consequences of their actions
* to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
* to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church.

Is this just one isolated incident? I don't think so. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, just completed a 16 day tour of various cities in the U.S., where he intends to establish alternative parishes. Following the release of the Windsor Report, The Living Church quotes him as stating;

In the absence of any signs of repentance and reform from those who have torn the fabric of our Communion, and while there is continuing oppression of those who uphold the faith, we cannot forsake our duty to provide care and protection for those who cry out for our help.

After all, we had a full 24 hours to show signs of repentence and reform. You snooze, you lose, I guess.

Now that the Report has been ignored, and once again the ECUSA orchard is declared open for free plum picking by foreign bishops, where do we go from here? Do we take the high road and declare a unilateral moratorium? In the name of unity, do we allow these blustering buzzards to continue to feed off of our open wounds?

Quite discouraging.

J.

A Summary of the Summaries

There's been much written about the Windsor Report in the last 36 hours. Here's just a few items that I found of interest;

Here is a summation by Simon Kershaw of Thinking Anglicans.

Here is the most innovative analysis of the Windsor Report I've come across so far. Those naughty bishops.

Beliefnet also offers a well written brief.

Bishop John Shelby Spong's response may be a bit "strident," but is still an important perspective to put into the mix;

The literal-minded are triumphing;
...The Anglican Communion had a relatively minor crisis as new consciousness about homosexuality struggled to be born in the face of ancient prejudice. This commission has taken this minor crisis and turned it into a major revolution that will move Anglicanism toward the literal-mindedness that now threatens not just Christianity, but religious systems all over the world. That is not a future that anyone should welcome. If this report is adopted, it will create a church ill-equipped to live in the 21st century. Death comes in many forms — the inability to embrace new reality is one of them...

Aelred pointed to an article from The Witness that I found to be particularly insightful. This is one of those that you really must read the whole thing, but I'll go ahead and give you an excerpt as a teaser;

The Windsor Report: Reimposing Paternalism?

...The Communion is actually more like the Commonwealth - a federation - than a family. And to invite it to become more of a family by bolstering the role of the father figure is actually to invite more teenage acting-out than has hitherto been the case. For when you bolster the father's authority - by giving him an advisory council so that he can bring the errant to heel - what you actually invite is the errant, if so they be, to err a bit more, to test further the boundaries...

...the undersong of the communion is not family but friendship. And friendships flourish and mature - as the journey on the Emmaus road makes clear - precisely as those traveling disagree with one another. For the person who accompanies them, reveals the scriptures, and interprets their disagreements for them, helping them to achieve a sense of context and balance, is of course Christ, the ultimate guarantor of friendship and reconciliation.

Christianity Today reports that the Windsor Report Leaves Conservative Episcopalians Hopping Mad. I wonder if it would make them feel any better to know that this eccentric heretic is not too pleased with it either? Probably not.

Archbishop Akinola is pretty upset as well;

Why, throughout the document, is there such a marked contrast between the language used against those who are subverting the faith and that used against those of us, from the global south, who are trying to bring the church back to the Bible?...Where is the language of rebuke for those who are promoting sexual sins as holy and acceptable behavior? The imbalance is bewildering...

...the primary recommendation of the report is 'greater sensitivity' instead of heartfelt repentance...We have been asked to express regret for our actions and 'affirm our desire to remain in the communion.' How patronizing! We will not be intimidated...If they do not repent and return to the fold, they will find that they are all alone. They will have broken the Anglican Communion.

Spong and Akinola are both perturbed by this document. Does that tell us anything? Here's the conclusion that Hugo came to;

I'll be the first to admit it: in the world of Anglican blogging, I often only know whether something is "good news" or not based upon the responses of the cyber-savvy traditionalists. If they are unhappy, then there must be reason to rejoice. I don't mean that nastily, mind you! I simply have found that in most cases, the American Anglican Council is a lot like Focus on the Family: knowing what they oppose allows me to be clear on what I support. In this age of information overload, it's really rather helpful.

Seriously, though, I like any report that calls folks back from the brink of schism. More than anything else, what I read here is a rebuke to self-righteous certainty, whether that hubris appears from the right or from the left. I like that.

When the extremes are upset, there's a chance that we're dancing near the truth.

This evening I found myself struggling to identify the various emotions trying to rise to the surface in response to all of this. Then I found a reflection on the significance of this report being released on the feast of St. Luke the Physician by maggi dawn;

Last night, for reasons that had nothing to do with the report released earlier in the day, I travelled a short distance from home to celebrate the Eucharist for St Luke with a community known for its sympathetic and liberal attitude towards gay and lesbian clergy. The Eucharist was sweetly old-fashioned, somewhat of a minority style among church-goers. The atmosphere was warm, and I received the kind of welcome one doesn't always get in Church. This is a community that has held many people safely while they come to terms with their sexuality; it is a community that is deeply marked by the love and presence of Christ.

I don't know what we, the Anglican Communion, will do in terms of walking forward together. But I felt a curious mixture of sadness, confusion and hope as I took Communion last night; sadness knowing that for some years to come people such as these will struggle as they are marginalised and outcast; confusion, because on a day commemorating the healing of the gospel we have opened a great gaping wound in the Church and do not know how to mend it; but hope from Luke the beloved physician and his reminder that the gospel is for everyone, not just those who are regarded as 'acceptable' according to the criteria of religious and cultural tradition.

Sadness, confusion and hope; yes, that's it. Thanks for these words, maggi, and for reminding me that the truth is often discovered within community, among the living testaments to the hope that springs from trusting in the healing power of God's love.

J.

The Windsor Report

The Windsor Report, the long awaited report from The Lambeth Commission on Communion (also known as the Eames Commission) has been released this morning. The traffic might be heavy on that site, so you may want to view it here. It lays out the way forward for an Anglican Communion on the verge of fracturing. The whole report needs to be studied, but here's some excerpts that will most likely be batted around for the next few months, if not years;

More authority for the Archbishop of Canterbury;

The Commission believes therefore that the historic position of the Archbishopric of Canterbury must not be regarded as a figurehead, but as the central focus of both unity and mission within the Communion. This office has a very significant teaching role. As the significant focus of unity, mission and teaching, the Communion looks to the office of the Archbishop to articulate the mind of the Communion especially in areas of controversy. The Communion should be able to look to the holder of this office to speak directly to any provincial situation on behalf of the Communion where this is deemed advisable. Such action should not be viewed as outside interference in the exercise of autonomy by any province. It is, in the view of the Commission, important to accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury is acting within the historic significance of his position when he speaks as a brother to the members of all member churches of the Anglican Communion, and as one who participates fully in their life and witness.

The appointment of A Council of Advice (referred to elsewhere in the media as "The Star Chamber");

In order to perform the role which we have set out for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop should be supported by appropriate mechanisms to ensure that he does not feel exposed and left to act entirely alone, but in a way which is informed by suitable persons, who would possess a knowledge of the life of the Communion, and of the theological, ecclesiological and canonical considerations which might apply to any given situation. We therefore recommend the establishment of a Council of Advice to the Archbishop to assist him in discerning when and how it might be appropriate for him to exercise a ministry of unity on behalf of the whole Communion. Such a body might be formed from any existing council of the Communion, possibly the Joint Standing Committees of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting, or a smaller advisory council drawn from the membership of these bodies. However, it will need to be constituted with specific reference to the sorts of expertise upon which the Archbishop of Canterbury may wish to draw in the development of this particular ministry. This may mean that it is preferable to consider a small group of advisers brought together to fulfil this specific role, drawing on the primates of the Communion, and also on the specific expertise understood to be required.

The Anglican Covenant, which one would assume everyone must sign, promising that we will stop misbehaving;

This Commission recommends, therefore, and urges the primates to consider, the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. The Covenant could deal with: the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes).

The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, officially becomes an untouchable;

We accept and respect the position taken up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the current incumbent of the See of New Hampshire In view of the widespread unacceptability of his ministry in other provinces of the Communion, we urge the proposed Council of Advice to keep the matter of his acceptability under close review. We also urge the Archbishop, unless and until the Council of Advice (or, if the Council should not come into being, the Primates' Meeting) indicate to the contrary, to exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion.

The Episcopal Church apologize for past naughtiness, promise not to do it again, and those bishops who have been naughty voluntarily remove themselves from the councils of the Church;

We recommend that:
* the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion
* pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate
respect to such conscientious decisions.
* the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.

Conservative bishops stop misbehaving; specifically respect diocesan boundaries;

We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
* to express regret for the consequences of their actions
* to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
* to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church.

In extreme situations, delegated pastoral oversight by a bishop other than the diocesan may be warranted, as long as the end result is to work towards reconciliation;

In only those situations where there has been an extreme breach of trust, and as a last resort, we commend a conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight for those who are dissenting. This oversight must be sufficient to provide a credible degree of security on the part of the alienated community, so that they do not feel at the mercy of a potentially hostile leadership. While the temporary provision of pastoral oversight is in place there must also be a mutually agreed commitment to effecting reconciliation.

The conclusion of the report offers both a note of caution and hopeful sentiments, but, in my opinion, is not rooted in reality;

There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, “to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross”, and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died.

We bring the love of Christ to the world by affirming a litmus test as to who is "worthy" enough to be a full member in our elite little club? This may be all well and good for some if we are talking from within the Church, perhaps. But the world is watching to see if Christendom will remain an irrelevant, bigoted club, or if maybe there really is something to our claim to be the embodiment of Christ in the world today. If we are about maintaining the status quo, I'm not interested. Let the club disban. It is the one lost and hurting outside our walls that is our primary concern; not the 99 preoccupied with how we "do church."

There's some good background material on the nature of communion in this document, and some theology worth chewing on as well. I recommend reading the whole thing.

What happens next? The Primates meet in February. Then the Anglican Consultative Council meets in June. Then ECUSA meets for their General Convention in 2006. Then the Lambeth Conference meets in 2008. Unfortunately, the media will have a field day with this for the next four years. In the meantime, in most parishes in ECUSA, it will have little if any impact.

This tempest in a teapot is not about the authority of scripture. It may be seondarily about the way we interpret scripture, but that is not the primary issue. Neither is it about homosexuality. It is about our willingness to take the risk of proclaiming the Good News of God's radical inclusivity. It appears that at the moment the Anglican Communion is not willing to take such a risk. Instead, they have opted for more authority, including the appointment of an Anglican pope. Personally, if I wanted such a hierarchy, I'd be a Roman. I understand Rowan Williams wants nothing to do with this kind of structure either.

The conservatives tested the wind of the times, and decided now is the opportune moment to attempt a takeover of the leadership of the Anglican Communion. The global pendulum has swung in their direction, not only in the Church, but in global politics as well, for now. But I doubt that humanity will be content for very long with a mindset that responds out of a fear of the future, and tries to drag us all back to a past that is painted golden with the brush of nostalgia.

The pendulum will swing back, in God's time. In the meantime, it is essential that we not give in to the self-appointed gate keepers. Their God is just too small to be an expression of Good News to a hurting world hungry for healing.

J.

Created Unique; Called to Faithfulness

Archbishop Tutu's first meditation on Monday emphasized that each one of us is a unique creation, and that the act of creating each one of us is an ongoing project. It might be wonderful if each of us was created complete in an instant, but this is simply not the case. The Archbishop quoted that well-known line; "God writes straight with crooked lines." In this instance, we were to understand this to mean that when things don't quite work out, God changes the plan. God waits until conditions are just right for the emergence of you.

This approach, that our creation is ongoing, is quite similar to Irenaeus' view of human progress. Our destiny is not carved in stone; we are given room to evolve into the unique creation we were always intended to be. Sometimes this emergence is accomplished through a series of stumbles and even falls, especially for those of us who prefer the school of hard knocks.

The Archbishop commented that his favorite prophet was Jeremiah. Why? Because he is such a crybaby. "Oh no, I'm not doing that...try next door!" Not only crybabies, but even folks we might think of as monsters are still children of God, as they still have the capacity for change, and their creation is still in process. "God expands to include what we call rubbish," the Archbishop told us.

He suggested to us that we have attempted to domesticate the Gospel; to make it respectable and beautiful. The truth of the matter, as he sees it, is that God has very low standards. A man spends his entire life as a thief, and that is all changed in a moment; "...remember me?" "Today you will be with me..." The Archbishop assured us that we will all be surprised by those we meet in heaven, and those we don't!

God wants everyone. He quoted Origen; "Even the devil cannot resist the love of the divine!" Why does God embrace such a radical inclusiveness? He used the example of an orchestra, which ebbs and flows through a complex piece, only to pause for the player of the triangle to contribute; "Ding!"

Our response to God is the new thing; without it, like the sound of the triangle, something would be lost. He concluded this first segment by calling us to remember that each one of us is a beautiful and unique creation. He did suggest that we might take liberties in how we use these adjectives; "I'm beautiful, but you're unique!"

We had a few hours of "free time" before Evensong, dinner and the next meditation. Some chose to pray, read, hike or nap. I chose to get in my car and go to town in search for the nearest camera store to pick up some accessories. I met a fascinating salesperson, who immigrated from Greece just a few years ago, but I digress.

During the evening meditation, the Archbishop reminded all of us to be faithful to our ordination vow to be a person of prayer. As an example, he recalled the story of Moses and the burning bush. Then he asked us, "What if Moses would have decided to sleep in a bit longer that day? He would have missed that transformative event." As the Archbishop put it, "God expects us to be there, and wants to bless us as he did Moses."

He recommended to us the discipline used throughout the Anglican Communion of praying the Daily Office, Morning and Evening Prayer, as a part of our spiritual discipline. The Archbishop told us, "I don't know how to pray, so I throw myself into the stream of those who do." When we don't know how to pray, we can also throw ourselves into the stream of worship offered by the Church.

He quoted from the South African ordinal, which calls the priest to "bear the people on your hearts, as Aaron..." This is a reference to the breastplate Aaron wore when entering the Holy of Holies. It is the duty of a priest to stand before God and God's people, as a bridge between these two worlds.

This is very similar to what Michael Ramsey said in his little book The Christian Priest Today; "Be a person of prayer, with the people of God on your heart."

The final quote, which may be the one thing Archbishop Tutu said that hit me right between the eyes, was the following;

God doesn't look to us to be successful. God wants us to be faithful.

I'll be repeating that one to myself for quite some time.

Next; Down from the Mountain

J.

St. Joseph's in the Hills, The Malvern Retreat House

Come to the Quiet

During our retreat with Abp. Tutu, the meditations were offered in the chapel, in which the focal point was the altar pictured above. Interesting reredos, don't you think? I found myself somewhat distracted by it at times.

The first meditation was brief, and included much humor. Abp. Tutu loves to laugh, and at times literally danced around the lectern, giggling to himself. He began by telling the story of one of his early retreats after becoming Archbishop. The retreatants were a large group of women who had gathered for a conference. In an attempt to express his understanding of the inclusivity of God, he began with the statement, "Ladies, under this cassock we are all the same."

The Archbishop spoke highly of our new bishop, George E. Councell, whom he described as one who has "offered his giftedness to help heal a diocese who has been wounded." This is not only a reference to our bishop's commitment to pastoral care for all members of the diocese during this current difficult time; it also speaks of the healing that is beginning within a diocese torn asunder during the time of Bishop Doss. The Archbishop did admit to being a bit confused when one member of the diocese stated that Bishop Councell was "our first bishop who is also a Christian!" He followed this with a belly laugh, and everyone, conservative, liberal and moderate, gathered in that holy place, joined him. It's an amazing thing when humor, used to point out the absurdity of some of our struggles, can somehow move us past our carefully structured positions, and allow us to once again be open to something new.

In calling us into silence, the Archbishop used as his text Matthew 6:31;

Jesus said to them, "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while." For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat.

To be quite honest, most of us were not prepared to begin a silent retreat; this caught us all by surprise, including diocesan staff, who had planned various social functions during our time together.

I've been on previous silent retreats, and said mass for the sisters at a convent on Tuesdays for a few years. At times I find this discipline to be unnecessarily harsh. This was one of those times. The clergy get together only a few times a year, and this particular gathering was larger than most, due to the presence of the Archbishop. Many of us had looked forward to renewing old friendships, making new ones, and sharing what was going on in our lives with our brothers and sisters. But, what is one to do? This was the Archbishop of Cape Town. We entered into the quiet.

My notes of this first session end at this point, with a final scribble being something to the effect that if my vocation was to the monastic life, I'd be in a monastery...grumble, grumble, etc.

Due to the lack of content in my notes, let me offer a few words from Archbishop Tutu drawn from his book, God Has a Dream;

Far too frequently we see ourselves as doers. As we've seen, we feel we must endlessly work and achieve. We have not always learned just to be receptive, to be in the presence of God, quiet, available, and letting God be God, who wants us to be God. We are shocked, actually, when we hear that what God wants is for us to be godlike, for us to become more and more like God. Not by doing anything, but by letting God be God in and through us...

...There comes a time when we evolve, we grow, and we realize that all that actually matters in prayer is being with our Beloved, being with God. Just being together, just like when we're together with the one we love, holding hands and savoring being together with them. Words give way; they are almost superfluous and totally inadequate. Just as if we were to describe a sunrise or the birth of a child, the most eloquent thing is silence. We don't need to always be talking with the one we love. Sitting there in silence or listening to music is always indescribably satisfying and sweet. That is what it's like to be with God in these times of satisfaction and joy.

Was he right? Of course. Two days of being instead of doing did indeed refresh my spirit.

Next; the radical inclusivity of God, and the tragedy of being absent.

J.

Full Days

Wednesday night was Vestry, meaning a late night. I ran out afterwards to catch the last part of the debate during my ride home (Kerry was great, of course, but maybe I'm bias?). In my rush, I left my briefcase, with my Tutu notes, in the office. Since I don't go into the office on Thursdays (and it's a 3 hour drive), my summary of his meditations will most likely have to wait until the weekend.

Today we are having a pet crisis. FYI, there is a first class veterinary hospital in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania. We're headed back there in the next hour. Demi is pretty upset about it, so if you get a chance, pop over and offer her some support.

And finally, Joe (JTFS), who often leaves comments here, finally got his own site! It looks like it's going to be a good one. Go give him a read over on Canterbury Trail.

J.

Desmond Tutu; An Amazing Man

This is a shot I took with my new camera; one of the few that turned out as I played with my new toy during "retreat". I also brought back a few pages of notes, which I'll get to in the near future.

The Archbishop called us to enter into a silent retreat on Sunday night. We tried, but the idea of 185 Episcopal clergy from New Jersey being silent for half an hour, let alone two days, is incomprehensible. So, during gatherings between meals and chapel, you could hear a low hum of whispering instead of the normal deafening swell of voices. At the end the Archbishop concluded that we were attempting to develop a hybrid; a "retreat" that was actually a "conference," and he was afraid that the "conference" was winning. Then he smiled, and with a little laugh added, "But you're getting there...you're getting there."

Before offering some of the content of his meditations, I thought I'd highlight what the Archbishop was up to before joining us at St. Joseph in the Hills. It appears he was making his Broadway debut, playing the role of a judge in a production of Guantanamo: 'Honor Bound to Defend Freedom'.

A few days later, the Archbishop was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. The topic of the interview was the similarities between Guantanamo Bay and apartheid in South Africa and the war in Iraq. The entire interview is worth reading, but I want to highlight just a couple of pieces.

First, a segment that is almost verbatim what the Archbishop shared with us during his last meditation this morning;

AMY GOODMAN: During your years in South Africa before the end of apartheid, you were a deep advocate of non-violence, yet you saw so many detained, so many killed. What do you feel, and what did you feel then? How did you make it through those days? What did you advocate? How did you stick to your principles of non-violence?

DESMOND TUTU: One of the wonderful things actually is -- I've got to speak as a Christian -- is belonging to the church and knowing that you belong to this extraordinary body. When things were really rough, it's wonderful to recall for me now, that I sometimes got, when they, the South African government, had taken away my passport, I got passports of love from Sunday school kids here in New York, and I plastered them on the walls of my office. But although I couldn't travel, hey, here were all of these wonderful people all over the world. I had a -- I met a nun in New York, at a particular time, and I asked her, "Can you just tell me a little bit about your life? How do you "-- and she said, "Well, I am a solitary. I live in the woods in California. I pray for you. My day starts at two in the morning." And I said, "Hey, man! I've been prayed for at two in the morning in the woods in California. What chance does the apartheid government stand?" So, one was being upheld. You know, when frequently you say to people, the victory that we won against apartheid -- a spectacular victory -- that would not have happened without the support of the international community, without the support of people like yourselves, without the support of those who were students at the time who might have been crazies, but they were fantastic in their commitment. And in this country, actually, they showed that you could in fact change the moral climate. Because at the time the Reagan administration was totally opposed to sanctions, and students, but not just students, the many, many people who were prepared to be arrested on our behalf, who demonstrated on our behalf, who boycotted on our behalf, well, they changed the moral climate to such an extent that Congress passed the anti-apartheid legislation, and they even managed a veto override, which was fantastic. And so, I just happened. I always say I was a leader by default because our real leaders were either in jail or in exile, and sometimes when people say, "And he got the Nobel Peace Prize," I say, "Well, actually, you know, it was that they thought maybe it was time it was given to a black." And, ah, he has an easy surname: Tutu. Tutu. Imagine. Imagine if I had a surname like Waokaokao.

The other section that I want to point out tonight is his words on an issue that is one of the most tragic, and least mentioned, results of the war in Iraq; the innocent civilian casualties (estimated to be between 13,000 and 15,000 as of today);

They tell you that a hundred people have been killed, and the United States and its allies are doing that; and they say, "No, no. We targeted that house because our intelligence said so." Intelligence. The same intelligence that said there were weapons of mass destruction? Please. That's been done in your name. That mothers and children have been killed. And when you say, "What about the civilian casualties?" They say, "Sorry, our intention was to target insurgents." And most of us, I think, just shrug our shoulders. But you see, you experienced a little bit on September 11, the kind of thing that is meted out on a regular basis. And they're not -- they're not casualties. Collateral damage. Collateral damage, I tell you. How do you feel if someone says, the people who died in the World Trade Center and in Washington, D.C., collateral damage? Say that to someone who lost a wife. Say it to someone who lost a child, someone who lost a friend. Collateral damage. It's an obscenity. It's an obscenity. It's in order to say, "No, no. They don't have faces. They don't have names." No, this is someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's child. Not statistics. And you know what? God is weeping. God is weeping. God is weeping because -- One of the incredible things, I mean, is that Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, George Bush are all God's children. And as God says, "What ever got into me to create that lot?" And then God sees some of you, all of you, all of you who care, and God then begins to smile through the tears. Please, God wants peace. God wants prosperity for everyone. And do you know what? I have yet to meet people more generous than Americans. And I'm not being smarmy. I have experienced it. My family has experienced it on a personal level. Why don't you want to export your generosity, your compassion, and not bombs?

I'll say more about this gentle, holy man soon.

J.

UPDATE - An important read, from A Tiny Revolution; quotes from Seymour Hersh while at Berkeley last Friday. He repeated the story on NPR. Why isn't the rest of the media reporting this stuff?

In the words of the Archbishop, "It's an obscenity. It's an obscenity...And you know what? God is weeping..."

On Retreat

The clergy of the Diocese of New Jersey will be on retreat from Sunday afternoon through Tuesday. The retreat conductor will be Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Archbishop of Cape Town. I'm impressed that such a well known leader is willing to offer his wisdom to a couple of hundred New Jersey clergy.

The retreat is being held somewhere in Pennsylvania. Since I'm leaving within the hour, it might be time to find out where I'm going?

See you on Tuesday. I'll try to take some good notes, and pass on some of the Archbishop's wisdom.

J.

The Missing Debate

Driving home from Trenton today, I heard a Bush/Kerry debate that seems to have been surpressed by the candidates. It was leaked by The Next Big Thing.

In an effort to be informed citizens, I think we all need to listen to this;

The Debate

Further Debate

Now that I have done my civic duty, back to sermon preparation.

J.

Some Pre-Debate Reading

For those who have grown weary of war and politics, please scroll down to the previous entry, Favorite Author.

For those interested in tonight's debate, here's a few articles worth giving a glance;

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Tale of the tubes/Selective use of data on Iraq
The Bush administration knew there were no WMD.

Blair knew Iraq had no WMD

They lied. The result?

Iraq Body Count

Casualties in Iraq

That enough from me. What is on your pre-debate recommended reading list?

J.

We've Got Trouble, Right Here...

(NOTE: The following post was originally published on October 8, 2003. You can find it as the second entry here. Apparently, Blogger only archives individual posts that go back to 2004. So, to get this one in a place where I can link to it, I've added a year.)

October 8, 2003


I'm a bit anxious today. And no, it's not about Governor Arnold. Being a 5th generation Californian, I'm not that surprised. A social moderate, fiscal conservative with the Kennedy clan as in-laws and the Republican establishment backing him? Of course he got in. Never mind that I think the whole recall thing was simply a power ploy by the Republicans. The Governor-elect claims it will no longer be "politics as usual." That's not what I see from my perspective.

Interestingly, Howard Ahmanson, the millionaire extreme right-wing owner of the company that makes the electronic polling booths, got in on this election. He threw his wealth toward Mclintock, the original Republican front runner. Ahmanson funds a number of right wing causes. For 23 years, he was on the board of the Chalcedon Institute, whose leader, Rushddoney, advocated the establishment of a theocracy, with biblical law becoming the law of the land. Such a law would make "crimes" like homosexuality a capital offense.

This gets me to the real reason I am upset. A group of conservative Episcopalians are meeting in Texas right now, planning how to take over the Episcopal Church. It seems they are very upset that this Summer, our General Convention (our governing body, which meets every 3 years), approved the election of gene Robinson as the bishop-elect of New Hampshire. Canon Robinson has served well in that diocese for many years. The people know him, and selected him out of a number of qualified candidates, to be their next bishop. Since it was so close to General Convention, the "consents" of the other bishop and dioceses was done at the convention itself. These consents are intended to be an affirmation that the election was done properly. They were never intended to be another search committee, made up of the entire Episcopal Church.

So where is the problem? Gene Robinson happens to be a gay man, who is living in a committed, long term relationship.

Now, there are a number of "issues" that might need to be discussed concerning this; the authority of scripture, tradition and reason, for instance, regarding this situation. But, once Gene was approved, the conservative minority, who voted against the approval (46 bishops out of 300) immediately began organizing to leave the Episcopal Church.

So, in a nutshell, there is the situation. It gets much more complicated. But, to tie it to my initial comments, let me add that the group that has risen as the umbrella organization for all the conservative groups is the American Anglican Council. The President and CEO of the AAC is David Andersen, who was previously rector (priest in charge) of a parish in Newport Beach, California. Howard Ahmanson was also a member of this parish.

Howard Ahmanson turns out to be the primary contributor of the AAC. He has pledged $200,000 annually to the organization. There was discussion to add his name to the letterhead of the AAC, but cooler heads prevailed. It would not be wise to allow such a blatant connection between the AAC and an extremist. Instead, Roberta Ahmanson, Howard's wife, was appointed to the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD happens to share an suite of office in Washington DC with the AAC. The IRD is notorious among most of the mainline denominations as advocates for conservative movements, with their clear agenda being to be a subversive element, until they can get their own right wing candidates in positions of authority within the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal and Lutheran churches.

In the meantime, a meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion (no, not the great apes; the archbishops) is scheduled later this month. It appears the shouting of the conservative minority in the USA has been joined by shouts from a few Anglican Archbishops in Africa. This is rather curious, as in 1998, the Anglican Communion, meeting at Lambeth Palace, agreed to allow African converts who were in polygamous marriages to keep all their wives. This was done for pastoral reasons. No one shouted about it. But now, 5 years later, these same bishops sound like a broken record, wailing about how awful it is that one small diocese in the USA will have a homosexual bishop. It doesn't add up. I suggest someone follow the money.

The homosexuality issue is a complicated one. Its not as simple as pointing to a handful of bible verses and saying its wrong, although that's what many seem to be doing. On other issues, such as circumcision, kosher laws, Gentile converts, slavery, women's ordination, birth control, divorce and polygamy, we have been able to listen to the scriptures, and recognize the context in which they were written, and then explore the possibility that God was teaching us a new thing in light of contemporary culture. The same process was used in regards to tradition; how the Church has responded to these issues in the past. These considerations were balanced with reason, and some changes were made. Not so this time. The conservatives have drawn a line in the sand.

Why? I can only conclude it is the "ick factor" at work. Here's how that factor operates:

I hate cooked cauliflower. My grandmother used to pinch my nose and make me eat it. I can't even stand the smell of cooked cauliflower. It makes me nauseous. I know for a fact that it is a sin to cook cauliflower, and I think it should be against the law!

Some heterosexuals get nauseous just imagining what gay sex might be like. They know it must be sinful, because it is so "icky." Armed with these feelings, they find a handful of various scriptural passages, and teachings in the Church (written, no doubt, by others under the sway of the "ick factor"), and claim they know God's mind on this issue.

Personally, I find no passages in scripture that refer to the situation we have today; same sex relationships within the confines of long term, committed, monogamous unions. Most of the passages seem to be referring to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex. This is not surprising, since the authors understood everyone to be born heterosexual.

The reality is, there have always been gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. Some of them have been clergy. I've known more than a few over the years. I was trained as an Anglo-Catholic (smells and bells), ands so I have known quite a few gay clergy. For some reason, the High Church tradition is especially attractive to gay men. I don't know why, but it is a statement that is true to my experience. The tradition of the Church has been, "Don't ask, don't tell." As long as you stayed in the closet, your sexual orientation was not a problem.

About 20 years ago, the Episcopal Church decided this was dishonest. They decided we needed to announce that there were gay and lesbians among our members, and to encourage folks to talk about it. So we have been talking and talking this issue to death. In some places now in the Episcopal Church, same sex blessings are offered for couples requesting the blessing of the Church over their union. In my mind, this is an issue of honesty and integrity.

We can't have it both ways. Either gays and lesbians are full members of this household of God, or they remain second class citizens.

Anyway, I am troubled. We have a small but vocal group meeting in Texas plotting how to get the Primates to recognize them as the official Anglican presence in the USA, and kick the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion. We are supposed to be kind and loving towards these extremists (whose smear tactics and death threats made it necessary for Canon Robinson to wear a bullet proof vest and hire body guards at Convention), but I am feeling neither kind nor loving to toward these schismatics. But, I am keeping my mouth shut, except on this blog. No one reads these things anyway, right?

Whatever happens, right now, the way I feel, no clergy member of the AAC had better set foot in a parish in which I have the ecclesiastical authority. They will be ordered to leave, and if they refuse, I will have the police remove them, with charges of trespassing to follow.

I suppose I shouldn't be so worked up about this. But it breaks my heart to see these self-righteous right wing extremists willing to attempt to tear the Church apart, just so they can "win." As if "right thinking" has anything to do with our relationship with the living God? No thinking maybe; but right thinking?

Maybe next time I adminster communion, I had better first administer an exam, to make sure only those who are "orthodox' receive the sacrament.

May God have mercy on us all.

J.

Favorite Author

From the last book post I gleaned a good reading list. Thanks! Since we kind of meandered towards mentioning our personal favorites, I thought I'd ask that question more directly.

If you were limited to one author, whose work would you choose?

I'd pick Robertson Davies. The first of his Deptford trilogy, Fifth Business, may be the best thing I've ever read. Here's a taste;

These petitioners had no conception of art; to them a picture was a symbol of something else, and very readily the symbol became the reality. They were untouched by modern education, but their government was striving with might and main to procure this inestimable benefit from them; anticlericalism and American bustle would soon free them from belief in miracles and holy likenesses. But where, I ask myself, will mercy and divine compassion come from then? Or are such things necessary to people who are well fed and know the wonders that lie concealed in an atom? I don't regret economic and educational advance; I just wonder how much we shall have to pay for it, and in what coin.

The next two volumes, The Manticore and World of Wonders are also delicious.

He later wrote another series known as The Cornish Trilogy. The first of this set, Rebel Angels, is by far the best, although the next two, What's Bred in the Bone and The Lyre of Orpheus are quite delightful as well.

I'm not sure I can identify why I enjoy Davies so much. Maybe because he is an unapologetic Jungian. Or maybe because one of his stock characters is an Anglican priest who has lost his faith and now teaches Greek at a boarding school.

I have another favorite, another American novelist, who I believe no one can surpass in regards to character development. I'm not going to mention his name, because he is considered so pedestrian, unless someone can guess who it is; only then will I confess to being such an intellectual lightweight.

Who's your all time favorite author? Care to attempt to identity my American mystery man?

J.

Liar

Personally, I'd rather talk about books right now, but we're getting close to an important election, and there's something I've been thinking about that was highlighted again last night and this morning as I read the various spin doctors on last night's debate.

Around my house, accusing someone of being a liar are fighting words. I've recently faced the truth that I count on this reaction sometimes to be an effective deflector from the main issue. I've never been very good at lying, or poker for that matter. In order to lie well, I have to use lots of words, and spin things in such a way that I actually believe myself by the time I'm done. As an example;

"Did you feed the cats?"

"When I went down there this morning, I noticed that their bowls desperately need cleaning. Especially this time of year, when the bugs are coming in out of the cold. I think we need a regular schedule to wash those bowls, don't you?"

"But did you feed them?"

"I said I went down there this morning. Are you accusing me of being a liar to avoid a discussion of their neglected bowls?"

How is this tied to the current election?

After the last Presidential debate, I noticed two new ads on TV; this one from the Bush campaign, and this one from the Kerry campaign.

Here's the text of the Bush ad;

He said he'd attack terrorists who threaten America,
But at the debate, John Kerry said America must pass a "global test" before we protect ourselves.

The Kerry doctrine: A global test.
So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?
A global test?
So America will be forced to wait while threats gather?
President Bush believes decisions about protecting America should be made in the Oval Office, not foreign capitals.

Those who saw the debate know this is taking statements out of context. Kerry did use the phrase "global test," after he stated that he would never allow anyone to veto the President's right to protect the country. So, did the Bush campaign lie?

The Kerry people seem to think so. From their response ad;

George Bush lost the debate. Now he's lying about it...

Those are fighting words. I can never recall a candidate calling the President a liar, especially on the basis of such shakey evidence.

Don't misunderstand me. Personally, I've called the President a liar a number of times. I realize that is a strong accusation. But the particular situation in which I believe he lied has cost thousands of lives. I'm convinced he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, that Hussein was no threat to our security, and lied through his teeth to push forward this unneccesary war. Recent news stories suggest that this accusation is well founded;

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets...

This administration knew that their claims of WMDs were false. Bush knew. A strong but accurate word to describe this President would be "liar." If the Kerry campaign wants to toss around this word, I think they should point to this event (replacing their preferred term, "misled" with the more accurate term, "lied") and not focus on a petty attempt to win voters by quoting a line from a debate out of context.

Last night, in the VP debate, we saw who has really been running the country for the last four years; Dick Cheney. And we saw that he most likely is quite good at poker. The way he was so convincingly able to trot out lie after lie was pretty frightening. No matter how often this is pointed out post debate, the reality is that he came off as the grizzly old veteran compared to Edwards the young pup. Those who will vote to feel safer will go with the old man, even if he is a bold-faced liar.

Now I need to go feed the cats. Maybe I'll even wash their bowls.

J.

What Are You Reading?

I've been a bookworm since grade school. A well written story has always been one of my greatest joys. Even when I was on the street, a paper back was always in my back pocket.

When I was about 19, I developed a friendship with a local cabbie. Roy had gone to college for a few years, and was also an avid reader. Upon reviewing my library, he declared it all "junk." Maybe he was right. I'd never taken a high school English class. When I hit the streets, I dropped out of school. He took it upon himself to remedy this flaw in my intellectual development by dropping off books; Vonnegut, Hesse, Thoreau, Dostoevsky, among others.

When I finally got around to working on an undergraduate degree, of course I majored in English. Getting credit for reading; a piece of cake. The problem was that my reading became limited to what is generally considered "good literature." To be honest, I found much of it, with the exception of a few poets I may have never met otherwise, to be just plain awful.

Seminary was even worse. There was much reading required, but no stories, and little time for free reading. I felt like I was starving. To survive, I took to stealing 90 minutes whenever possible to watch movies; boiled down stories that robbed the imagination of the freedom to form its own images, but better than nothing.

At this point in my life, 15 years after the final paper chase, I find myself with the freedom to once again read whatever I want during my time off. I'm sure Roy would not approve of some of my choices. But guess what; Roy's not here. Today my criteria is simple; if I like the author's way of weaving a story, I read everything they have written.

I am still required to read much non-fiction as a part of my vocation, but I still make space for reading stories every day. I'm told there are people who don't read in bed every night before they go to sleep. That's hard for me to imagine, but I suppose it might be true.

This particular discipline is one of the few things that has been constant throughout my life. Engaging with a well told tale creates a place that is familiar, comfortable and safe. Escapism? Maybe. Beyond that, however, I find that it is a story that has the potential to weave in and out of so many disciplines; psychology, philosophy, sociology, without getting stuck in one or the other. It seems to me that it is the story that has the potential to dance nearest truth.

All the above verbiage is intended to be a simple introduction (disclaimer?) to a discussion of books I've recently read. I hesitate to offer my list, as a list like this tells some people much more about you than you really wanted them to know. But, since Jake is a pseudonym, what the heck. So here's the list;

Smoke, by Donald Westlake - This guy is fantastic. I stumbled across him a few years ago. His wit keep you chuckling, while his character development makes you grieve when the last page is turned. Dortmunder, the philosopher-crook, and his inept but endearing gang, are the major players in most of his stories. Smoke introduces a new character, a burglar named Freddie Urban Noon, who accidentally robs the lab of two scientists who are financed by a tobacco company. Their charge is to prove that cigarettes are good for you. Instead, they stumble across a chemical agent that renders one invisible. I'll just leave it there, so as to not ruin the story.

The Heartbreaker, by Susan Howatch - I've been a fan of Howatch since her Starbridge series; novels set in England in which the prominent characters are Anglican clergy. This one is intended to be a continuation of that series. Nick Darrow, the charismatic priest, his sidekick Lewis, and the healing center of St. Benet's, do play an important role in the story, so I suppose that it could be considered an addition to her earlier work. Personally, I think this is the second of a new series which began with The High Flyer, in which we are introduced to a new character, a woman by the name of Carter Graham.

This story revolves around Gavin, a male prostitute whose clients are the "high flyers" of London. Carter, who is now involved in the ministry of St. Benet's, and Gavin become accidentally linked. As the dust jacket puts it, in this novel Howatch once again shows her skill in "deftly combining the sacred and profane." I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Lamb; The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal, by Christopher Moore - Moore is quite popular today. If you aren't familiar with him, he probably belongs in the same category as Doug Adams and Tom Robbins (although I think Robbins deserves his own category; Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climes is the best thing I've read in a long time; but I digress). I'd heard about this one enough to give it a read. It was enjoyable, and offered plenty of chuckles. It is sacrilegious in places, and he stretches for the laugh a bit. The premise is quite creative (Biff is brought back from the dead, and held captive in a motel by an angel until he writes a new Gospel), but I didn't find a lot of innovative thought in it. It's a quick read, and has its moments, but will never be among my personal favorites.

Just One Look by Harlen Coben - This is a spellbinder by an author I'd never heard of before. Great story; lots of plot twists, well developed characters, and suspense that might cause you to stay up much too late. The story is of a woman whose husband mysteriously disappears. As she looks for him, she discovers a killer is also stalking him. Sounds predictable? Don't underestimate this one. It's a real page turner.

The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell - This is what I'm currently reading. I'm just getting into it, but it seems quite good. This is a new author for me, and I'm hoping that it is as good as it seems, because there is a second book to this series, with the possibility of more to follow. From the back;

Father Emilio Sandoz is the only survivor of a Jesuit mission to the planet Rakhat, 'a soul...looking for God.' We first meet him in Italy...sullen and bitter...But he was not always this way, as we learn through flashbacks that tell the story of the ill-fated trip...
- San Francisco Chronicle

So there they are; the confessions of an incurable bookworm.

Now it's your turn. Anyone else want to fess up? What are you reading? Help out a fellow story addict; feed me some titles!

J.

Why Do You Blog?

Sometimes, when I'm honest with myself, I recognize that one of the main reasons I try to update this site daily is because I really enjoy reading blogs, and I figure it's only fair to give back to those who have given me so much.

The difficulty is that the things that I really long to say in this space cannot always be expressed, for many reasons. Instead I take side trips, into politics, or ecclesiology, or theology, or sometimes just plain silliness...badger, badger, mushroom! I think there is a place for those topics, and a bit of foolishness now and then, and appreciate those blogs that focus on such specific themes. But that's not what I had hoped this place would become.

I'm not sure exactly what my expectations are for Jake's place. But in the last few days, I've seen glimpses in the words of others that have caused a stirring of something within. Perhaps following this internal nudge will help me discover the root of my latest compulsion to write something, anything, in this space daily, even when I know the words will often fail to dance near what is really bubbling up from the inside. It's as if as long as the words keep flowing, the hope lives on that once in awhile the dance will glide close to the silenced longings of the heart.

In the last couple of days I've stumbled across some real gems from my much-neglected blogroll. Real Live Preacher offered these words a few days ago;

Tonight I wish it was like the old days with Real Live Preacher, back when I was anonymous and no one in my church knew about this blog. For some reason this is where I want to come when I’m sad. I want to come here and write. I think of Real Live Preacher as a place. I know that’s a little strange. The blog software comes on the screen and I feel like I’ve left my life behind. I feel like I’m the one that matters here. My feelings matter. What I need matters.

Only it’s not the old days. And I have to be careful in what I write. Not because I might hurt someone at the church, but because I have to be careful that I don’t use this blog as a backwards and roundabout way of sending messages to my church family. That’s a real temptation. It’s the sort of thing you could do without thinking much about it. It wouldn’t be healthy either.

For those who might not know RLP, he is one of the most gifted faith-based bloggers on the net. What caught my eye in this entry was thinking of RLP as a place; a safe comfortable place. I understand that feeling. I also understand his frustration in having to be careful now. It feels like a grieving process when the space no longer feels safe.

Today I visited Bob on The Corner and discovered a post that is one of the best things I've read in some time. It is a marvelous piece, not only because of Bob's skills as a wordsmith, but in the way that he invites others into the conversation.

He tells us about a book written by Renee Alston, Stumbling Towards Faith, and her recent virtual book tour through the blogoshere. He goes on to offer some amazing words about creating safe spaces for the soul;

Renee's story of audacity in the midst of evil is one that resonates to our very core. Renee has written us into her story, creating a communal space - one that is bounded, safe and trustworthy - in which a soul's work can be done, its grounding, connecting, truth-telling and life-giving work.

How often do we come together in ways that welcome the soul and make it feel safe? It often seems that the answer is not very often or not nearly often enough. We know a lot about how to create spaces that invite the intellect to show up, analyzing reality, parsing logic and arguing its case. We know at least a little bit about creating space that invite the emotions into play, reacting to injury, expressing anger and celebrating joy. We are expert at creating spaces that invite the ego to put in an appearance, polishing its image, protecting its turf and demanding its rights. But we seem to know very little about how to create spaces in which the soul can feel at home, able to speak its vulnerable, challenging and transforming truths.

This dances close. Creating spaces in which the soul can feel at home. Yes; that dances really close.

Bob offered a link to Renee's site, on which I found this;

...a fabulous thing about bloggers, i've discovered, is that nearly every one of us has our own particular "soapbox;" ongoing passions and burning issues inside of us that clamour to be let loose on our blogs. we write both to be heard and to hear. we write to invite people into our heads, to dialogue about the world, to talk about what goes onside of us, and to find a place that is ours.

"I feel like I’m the one that matters here"..."able to speak (the soul's) vulnerable, challenging and transforming truths"..."to be heard and hear"..."to find a place that is ours." These are all pieces of the fascination for those of us enthralled by this medium. Words on a screen having the power to nurture, enlighten, transform, convict and give wings to the the soul. What an amazing thing.

Returning to The Corner, I found one last quote from a place I'd never visited from an author I didn't recognize;

I write because I kept my mouth shut all my life. I write because I am alone and move through the world alone. No one will know what has passed through me, and even more amazing, I don't know. I write because I am crazy in some ways and I know it and accept it and I have to do something with it other than go to the loony bin. I write because there are stories that people have forgotten to tell, because I am a woman trying to stand up in my life. I write because to form a word with your lips and tongue or think a thing and then dare to write it down so you can never take it back is the most powerful thing I know. I am trying to come alive, to find the distances in my own recesses and bring them forward and give them color and form. I write out of total incomprehension that even love isn't enough and that finally writing might be all I have and that isn't enough. I can never get it all down, and besides, there are times when I have to step away from the table, notebook, and turn to face my own life. Then there are times when it's only coming to the notebook that I truly do face my own life. And I write out of hurt and how to make hurt okay; how to make myself strong and come home, and it may be the only real home I'll ever have.
-Natalie Goldberg, Writing Down The Bones

..."the only real home I'll ever have..." So close, it's almost within sight...

Words have escaped me. I need to lean on yours. Help me see more clearly, and in the process, possibly cleanse your own lenses. What compels you to draw together words, mold and temper them, and then launch them out into cyberspace?

J.

The Main Event

Tonight is the big debate. Calling it a "debate" is to use a broad definition of the term. In light of the 32 page agreement, tonight's event will actually be two parceled out speeches. They can't directly address one another? Absurd. I'd love to see these two put in a room with no notes, no handlers, and no moderators.

Dubya's Dayly Diary lets us in on a secret addendum to the existing lengthy debate agreement;

1. Kerry shall be required to answer all debate questions in French.

2. Bush shall be required to answer all debate questions in English.

3. Throughout each debate, the backdrop behind Bush shall feature several U.S. flags, the precise number of which is subject to further negotiation.

4. Throughout each debate, the backdrop behind Kerry shall feature a map of Massachusetts and two life-size photos of Kerry with Jane Fonda.

5. During the debates, Kerry shall address Bush as "Mr. President" or, if Kerry so elects, "Monsieur President."

6. During the debates, Bush shall address Kerry as "Senator Kerry" or, if Bush so elects, "Senator Flip-Flop."

7. Bush may, if he so chooses, elevate his torso by sitting on one or more padded telephone books. Alternatively, he may debate atop his mountain bike.

8. Kerry may, at his sole option, fluff up his hair, provided that Kerry's hair elevation shall not exceed 1.2 inches above scalp level.

9. Both Bush and Kerry may, but shall not be required to, wear a hat while debating (hereinafter referred to as "optional head-wear.") Bush's optional head-wear shall be a cowboy hat, and Kerry's optional head-wear shall be a beret.

10. Both Bush and Kerry shall wear business attire during debates one and two. However, during the third debate Bush may, if he so elects, wear a flight jacket, and Kerry may, if he so elects, where whatever garb he wears when he windsurfs.

11. All debate attendees shall be required to sign Bush/Cheney loyalty oaths, including all members of the media, except those employed by Fox.

12. Notwithstanding paragraph 11, Dan Rather shall be excluded from each debate, unless a panel of 6 experts unanimously confirms that his Bush/Cheney loyalty oath is not a forgery.

13. If Bush does not wish to answer any given question, he shall so indicate by saying "I'm glad you asked me that question," at which point the questioner shall thank him for his excellent answer and pose the same question to Kerry.

14. Kerry shall be required to sigh at least three times per debate. Moreover, additional sighs shall be required if any cameraman misses the shot.

15. Bush shall not be asked any question that requires him to pronounce the words nuclear, solidarity and/or Abu Ghraib.

16. In the event Kerry is declared the winner of any debate, Bush shall be entitled to a recount.

In the end, the debate probably won't sway many folks. After all, we know that the election will most likely be decided by the Battle of the Bunny Suits;

It's the question on the lips of the world:

"Which of the three main US presidential candidates looks best in a bunny rabbit suit?"

Do you think Bush's natural awkwardness suits the rabbit suit best? Or do you prefer Kerry, a candidate clearly at ease in his bunny rabbit skin? Or Nader's 'accountant dressed as a bunny rabbit' effort?

I took the poll. I must confess that my vote went to Bush. "Bunny Bush" has such a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

There's only a few days left to register to vote in most states. This is a critical election. If you haven't done so yet, there's still time. Go register now!

J.