Of Course!!!!

It's so obvious why Williams can't meet with the HoB:

He's going on a 3 month vacation! Ruth Gledhill brought us this info. When asked point-blank about a meeting with TEC bishops, The Divine-Yutz-of-All-England's office says it's still under consideration.

Enough already! Give Taffy the heave-ho and invite as many of "his" parishes as want to get out from under him as possible to join up with us. Paraphrasing Merseymike on Thinking Anglicans, and I've come to agree: We liberals need our own church because nothing good can come of a church with these rabid "orthodox" fundamentalists.

Thanks, reasserters: This is where you've led me in 4 short years, from being opposed to +Robinson's episcopacy on grounds of charity, being in favor of gay celibacy on grounds of charity, and in favor of developing as many conservative-friendly "alternatives" as possible.

Sugar-Coated Willful Ignorance is Still Willful Ignorance

From the comments in a blog on the "listening process":

. . while I and, so far as I can tell, all other members of our parish are ready
and willing to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and while some
who report that their experience tells them that there is no sin in it--and such
persons are still welcome to receive Communion, etc.--I do not and will not hold
"dialogues" or sessions on whether or not homosexual behavior is approved by
God. I am the Rector and I have been ordained to teach the Word of God, not a
private word, and the teaching in our parish is that homosexual acts are
objectively sinful and displeasing to God. That, of course, is not to say that
homosexual persons cannot be in many ways very pleasing to God. They are, like
all sinners, loved by God.

The subject seems to be closed

Saying that God's Word is the literal written word of the Bible is idolatry. Raising the teaching of a church above actual human beings' health and harmony is idolatry. Refusal to believe the Spirit can reveal inaccuracies and mistakes in long-held traditions is idolatry, faithlessness, bad theology, and a denial of one of the greatest benefits of Christ's Ministry and Passion.

Faithlessness needs books to read and hierarchies to look to.

Not the Mr. Bean

A Great Lesson



Eschatology

Naturally

The virtueless followers of Virtue (the newest male swimsuit model), felt the need to have a liberal revisionist heretic to point and laugh at to make them feel better:

BISHOP OF PENNSYLVANIA COULD FACE ECCLESIASTICAL COURT TRIAL

By David W.
Virtue
www.virtueonline. org
3/28/2007

The Bishop of
Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison could face an
ecclesiastical court trial.

A complaint alleging that he has mismanaged the finances of the
diocese by the Diocesan Standing Committee, which includes ten lay and
clerical members of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, was forwarded on
March
14 to the Title IV Review Committee pursuant to Canon IV.3(26).

The
charges were approved by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and a
letter was
sent under the signature of David Booth Beers, Schori's
attorney and sent to
the Rt. Rev. Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr. Diocese of
Upper South Carolina who
heads the committee.

On Friday, March 2, 2007, the members of the
Standing Committee and
those who had filed the complaint against Bishop
Bennison had a
meeting with David Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop,
and his
assistant, Mary E. Kostel, and Michael F. Rehill, Special Counsel to
the Standing Committee, and his assistant Pamela L. Lutz.

"It was a
full and frank discussion of the complaint against Bishop
Bennison and the
canonical process and procedures," said a member of
the Standing Committee
of the Diocese.

Most of the diocese including his liberal backers would
now like to
see the bishop gone. He has lost the trust of the diocese and
calls
for his resignation reached crescendo proportions at the last diocesan
convention, when it was learned that Bennison had covered up his
brother
(also an Episcopal priests') sexual exploitation of a young
girl.

Bennison also faces two civil court suits filed by Fr. David L. Moyer,
the Anglo-Catholic priest at Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA
for "bad faith and fraud".

Now, apart from the fact that I think most liberals would say, "Okay. A trial sounds about right," there are another reason this story, nay, the very article itself is likely to backfire.

It's in this line (emphasis mine):

Most of the diocese including his liberal backers would now
like to see the bishop gone.

Can ya see lil' Davy and his swarm of imps and the problem this creates for them?

Liberals want to see any wrongdoing rectified; if the man is incapable of leading, or is corrupt, or has broken the law, the consequences necessarily fall on him. That's it.
In the case of Dapper Don Armstrong, though, his side has done everything they can to deny any reality to the charges, to cast a "liberal conspiracy" as the reason for the charges, to publicly smear those involved or even stand against Armstrong as this shepherd fleeced the flock (and, yes, dear SF and T19 commenters, we saw the remarks -- even questioning the choir director's sexuality, tsk! -- before your keepers and spin-controllers got rid of them. I think some folks may even have copied and saved some of them!).

So, who seems more corrupt as a group? Who is more desperate to appear righteous?

Hmmmm.

Solid Theological Statement at the End

But will it ever replace "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You?"

Theological "Debate"

I've posted this on Barkings of an Old Dog, which blog I will link to, as it's gentle, thoughtful, diverse, and liberal (though, doubtless, it will be seen as a monstrous attack on all things orthodox to whom "I disagree" is the cruelest thing you could say). My post there, in response to a specific post of Clumber's, does however apply to the ongoing debate, so I'll put it here:

When I read the explanations of Scripture from Matt, Frederica Matthewes-Greene, Duncan, and any other number of people who want to just love us gays to death, I can't help but think of my mother's expression that they're
"going around their ass to get to their elbow." Dan et al says: "[it addresses
pagan] temple worship: here's why, why, and why." Matt et al says: "Ah! But when
you take it in context of the word 'is' as understood by the Greek fisherman of
the Oygothumpem district of the town of Caesarea, and read that through the lens
of what we expect the Jews of Lower Backwater, Galilee understood at the time at
4 o'clock on a Tuesday, maybe, and after having dragged the text through the
wardrobe to Narnia, we see that it comes to something near enough to what I
believe to suit me."

However, these same people,before any scholarly refutation, will claim a "clear reading" of the text affirms what they say. What kind of honest debate is that?

Students: Compare and Contrast

Here is what the CANAbals have said:

"In a recent Washington Post article, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola was
characterized as "an advocate of jailing gays." That is not true.
Archbishop
Akinola recently spoke with Martyn Minns and stated that he believes that all
people—whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation—are made in the image
of God and deserve to be treated with respect. "We are all broken and need the
transforming love of God," Archbishop Akinola said during this recent
conversation."

http://http://www.canaconvocation.org/news/archives/20061207.php

Here is what Nigeria has said:

"In Nigeria the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006 is passing through
the legislature. The House of Bishops has supported it because we understand
that it is designed to strengthen traditional marriage and family life and to
prevent wholesale importation of currently damaging Western values. It bans same
sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups. The
Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria has twice commended the act in their
Message to the Nation."

http://http://www.aco.org/listening/reports/nigeria.cfm

Now, I don't wanna call the CANAbals liars, so I'll just say they're deluded pawns who have been complicit in the international rise to power of a dictatorial monster.

Great work, CANAbals!

The Upright Churchmen's Brigade

Apparently, another of the deeply holy and upright fag-bashers

Oh, excuse me!

Loving conservative preachers (just can't come to think of them as priests)has shown the deep morality of their side, by taking off from his diocese before charges can be presented for . . . oh, so much that ya just need to read it, kids:
http://http://www2.gazette.com/other/graceepiscopal.pdf

Naturally, the good Don Armstrong makes it clear that this is all a conspiracy to destroy him in his godly quest, rather than the revelation of him as a thieving, lying, self-centered, destructive boll-weevil of a human being -- which, of course, he can't be, as he is one of the holy and absolutely god-led conservatives (which god should be announced any day now).

Here's fair-and-balanced from "Virtueless Online" by the swimsuit model himself! --
http://http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1802338/posts
(some intelligent readers may experience nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite and extreme drowsiness).

It's Here, It's There, It's Everywhere, and Rightly So

Oh! How embarrassing!

(One of the people at work asked, "Who's the guy in the suit? Is he a Baptist preacher? Do they have Southern Baptists in Australia?")

Definitions

Theology: an invention of sensible, sound Christians interested in doing God's work to keep the rest busy and out of their way. Unfortunately, has a tendency to become toxic when taken seriously.

Trinitarian Formula: the same as above, but for bishops.

Two things:

First, now that I look at it, "blogroll" sounds like something you'd find next to the lutefisk on a smorgasbord.

Second, I have been doing intense research into the story of St. Dyphthong, whom you may remember from her mention in the piece on St. Fosgate. At present, my researches are hampered by no small amount of choking vellum dust, a few truly risque palimpsests ("Theyre ons wasse a yonge anchress fromme Norwiche . . . "), and a pressing need to clear my gardens before the south Georgia weather reaches its cheerful 90+ degrees by 11 am.

Just Added to Blogroll

Wormwood's Doxy, who has a beautifully cogent and well-articulated reflection on repentance and the Passion. For any in seminary or diaconal formation, this will save you on reading a large chunk of John MacQuarrie's christology. :D

To: House of Bishops

Here's what others think you will do from Susan Russell's blog http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2007/03/can-we-quit-asking-why-katharine-signed.html:

The HOB didnt close the door to issuing the clarifications as required in the
Communique; I believe they will cave in a deal before September. Don't count
your chicks before they have hatched.

Prove them wrong. You did well.

What Don't They Get? Or Do They Not Care?

The "orthodox" are still not getting that the message they're giving gays and lesbians is not Good News. It's not even good news.

As far as the reasons given, it's Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, as if that somehow trumped, rather than complimented, human existence. It's simply madness. Even David, in his psalms, said that "God's Law" was found to be good after thorough testing, and the whole anti-gay position has not been found good.

Look, I've been given the gift of celibacy. I'm not in a relationship, not interested in one. That is a gift, not something foisted on me. It came. There is no gift in demanding celibacy. There is no love or goodness to be found in demanding someone give up another who compliments, or some way, completes them. Such demands are not good, not holy, and not justified by any amount of actual testing.

There's also a great deal of outright arrogance in claiming to know what is actually going on in a homosexual relationship from the outside. From a hostile viewpoint. From someone who has no experience of such a relationship.

Do these "orthodox" care? I've arrived at the opinion they don't. It's not about spiritual care, no concern for gay people at all. As long as we weren't in public, and not in their churches, they wouldn't give two craps if we were having orgies while shooting heroin into our eyeballs. It's selfishness, on their part. That's all I can believe. Otherwise, how could they NOT understand that their message is not one of hope or joy or goodness to those hearing it? Not a message of freedom, but of mindless, unwarranted emptiness and deprivation? How can they not see that the message requires -- if the Biblical injunctions are taken literally -- that homosexuals, not homosexual acts, must be excluded from the church? Paul didn't say "Those committing homosexual acts. . ." but "homosexuals" will not inherit the Kingdom. At least Fred Phelps has enough Integrity to carry it all the way!
How can they not realize, these "orthodox," that they are, indeed, driving people from the Gospel (if they truly believe they are preaching the One and Only Gospel)? How can they not realize that, through their teachings, are responsible for the despair, the abuse, the violence, the death that gays have experienced? How?

They don't care.

Finally, and what makes me finally know we must divorce from these people or forever be made unhealthy and beaten down, is the sheer amount of dissembling and sleight-of-hand they do in self-justifying. On Fr. Jake's Dan and Matt Kennedy, Dan gave some very thorough and grounded exegesis on the Romans clobber verse (a monstrous bit of ignorance if read literally), while Kennedy simply says over and over that Dan is reading things in that aren't stated. Later, the subject of Pauline marital injunctions are brought up, and Kennedy, who I still give "props" for his level tone, answers:

No, in the context, there was an engaged couple obviously intending on a life-long relationship but having difficulty maintaining celibacy. Paul advises marriage so that they do not commit fornication.

Now, please feel free to go to 1 Corinthians 7 and find the reference to "Johnny and Suzy Engaged-Couple." Here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=31&context=chapter.

Sorry, but their god is not a god I owe anything to, having created me for nothing more than his amusement and my misery in the only life I know I have, and a relationship with his followers is not a relationship I owe anything to.

Venables speaks on the HoB's resolves

Sorry.

I haven't been blogging the past couple of days:

1. Because everyone else is covering it so much more intelligently than I could.

2. It's spring in South Georgia and I feel, even with Nasonex, as if my head were stuffed with cotton.

Love you all!

Keep up the good fight, and forget not our friends in other provinces!!

The Future (American) Church?

Our friend, MadPriest, is concerned that, if we are kicked out of the AC, we will retire behind our fences and all but forget the liberals in CofE and far more dangerously hostile environs.

I'm afraid he knows us too well.

We can't forget the people in other countries who've stood behind us. Whatever their national church's ethos, the individuals have been our allies and supporters, giving us inspiration and sustenance and sheer moral imperative to carry on. They've done more than they know. If we allow TEC to abandon them to an inimical ecclesial environment, we will have done something truly reprehensible and cowardly.
I was heartened to see the statement from the HoB affirming intention, regardless of official AC standing, to continue contact and work with those outside, but in relation with, the American church. This needs to be made firm, and a real plan for forming a network for mutual sustenance and ministry formed. If this is done, we can count ourselves lucky to know what pitfalls to avoid in allowing too much rigidity and grasping for centralized power to come about. Along with abandonment of allies(or, worse, endless flipping committees to "discuss" them), we must avoid the same imperialism we've been accused of. If we wind up establishing mission fields in those places in which our individual allies are surrounding by antipathy, we must do so in mutuality (for lack of a better term)of cultures and traditions. We should not seek an "American Communion" to stand in opposition to an "Anglican Communion" but a new expression to serve specific needs withing the larger, true Communion which is through the Father. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father's words remind us that, even as he rejected the prodigal, the relation to the father made the elder son a "brother."

BUT, all this is getting ahead of ourselves.

Without actually being out of the AC as full members, we should not, and, indeed could not in good conscience, seek to establish separate mission fields unilaterally. There is work and talk (hopefully not "just talk") to be done yet. If we are kicked out or leave, it will not be victory, but it will not be defeat. It will be that Dark Night out of which greater clarity, reconciliation and consummation may come. If we remain in the AC, we will have to continue to defend ourselves, keep firm limits to what is now an apparent stream of aggression, without becoming hardened and isolationist.

It's exciting and terrifying, now, not because we have misstepped or given in to sensuality and arrogance, but because our clergy and our laity have stated our committment to an understanding of God, our committment to God, and will find, necessarily, that "it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."

Conservospeak

From Thinking Anglicans comments:

"My read is: (1) the HOB's blathering (my term) about the need and virtues of unity ultimately was merely a cover for putting an enforced (and to my mind opressive) "unity" within TEC above communion unity . . ."

Doubleplusungood.

Enforced and op(p)ressive unity? You mean like trying to ramrod a "scheme" (perfect word, btw) past normal and appropriate channels? Trying to co-opt the polity of a church that predates the Anglican Communion by a group that has been meeting since the venerable age of the 20th Century? Smear campaigns (however vigorously denied) and misinformation concerning the absolute necessity and unquestioned good of an Anglican Communion, which has been transformed into something dictatorial, manipulative and PURELY POLITICAL, thanks to the "orthodox?" Playing martyr by sitting down in the mud, as the American schismatics have continually done, and claiming TEC pushed you there?

No.

You pseudodox types get yourselves together, take time to react and get it out of your system, make your decisions about what to do, and stay or go, but stop smearing and name-calling. Going to some other denomination, calling yourself Anglican, becoming the new "Anglican Presence" in America, whatever you do, God go with you and may you find joy and His Presence. But, if you go, just fucking go and stop abusing and reviling us.

I'm not trying to be triumphalist. Indeed, we haven't "won" anything but more complexity and uncertainty for the near future and the likelihood of complete realignment and redifining mission and presence for the long term. It's not easy, not simple, hard work. I'm not trying to "kick you" when you feel you're down. I'm not grabbing the American macho position of prophet of victory -- "the foot of one kicking ass in the wilderness" -- but, I am saying stop it. Blow off your steam and get on with your own mission and leave us out of it. If you come here to beat up on liberals because of your disappointment, I'm not engaging you. If you become abusive, I'll ban you. I suggest the same in other liberal blogs and commenters.

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE PETULANCE

For Lovers of Music and H. P. Lovecraft

From the Christmas album:

Oh, Cthulhu Chorus
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Solstice/mp3s/OhCthulhusample.mp3

Freddy the Red-Brained Migo
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Solstice/mp3s/FreddySample.mp3

Carol of the Olde Ones(With Words!)
http://www.cthulhulives.org/solsticecarol.html

From the Hit Musical-Which-Must-Not-Be Shoggoth on the Roof

Tentacles!
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Musical/PrologueSample.mp3

Shoggoth Prayer
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Musical/Prayer%20Sample.mp3

These songs are available on cd (honest!) at the H. P. Lovecraft Historical Societ (www.cthulhulives.org), along with other hilarious items and a surprisingly good b/w version of "Call of Cthulhu" in the old silent movie style.

See The Pyramids Along Denial

If H. P. Lovecraft wrote sketch comedy:

(*) Note

The layout invariably sucks immediately upon conversion by blockquote.

HoB response

For those who haven't seen, the House of Bishops (Thanks be to Our Lord Jesus Christ!) has declined the kind invitation of the Primates to play whipping boy. In addition, the Primates were rather taken to task in the released statements for failure to acknowledge TEC's polity, repeated failure to acknowledge the "passing grades" we were continually given by the various "compliance" committees, and the Primates' silence on issues of vital concern in exploitation and abuse of women and children. In addition, firm clarification was made on the nature of what we proclaim and the Christian basis for which we proclaim it, which is Christ Himself.

I echo others in saying "Thank you, House of Bishops."

Some excerpts(*):

We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the
dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim
the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave
or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including
women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We
proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian
persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We
proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to
women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their
differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is
distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican
Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we
proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and
open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that
others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with
great regret and sorrow accept their decision.

With great hope that we will continue to be welcome in the councils of the
family of Churches we know as the Anglican Communion, we believe that to
participate in the Primates' Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal
Church for many reasons.

First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of
primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our
autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution.

Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and
the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were
participating together.

Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church
following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life
independent of the Church of England.

Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation
heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It
sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of
high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the
papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by
its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of
prelates.

Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme
encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break
relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work
necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural
phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage
and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and
the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the
Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and
could well lead to its permanent division.

***

. . we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our
brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the
networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone
Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant
commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico,
Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church
in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America,
Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the
world.

***

Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The
Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion;
and

Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The
Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal
Church; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral
Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious
to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to
participate in it; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to
work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are
compatible with our own polity and canons.

Adopted March 20, 2007

The House of Bishops

The Episcopal Church

Spring Meeting 2007

Camp Allen Conference Center

Navasota, Texas

***

All firmly, but graciously, stated.

However, we now have to be ready to deal with the consequences of this response. I am not one of those resting on the idea that our monetary contribution will speak -- the "orthodox" in this situation are quite willing to do the whole nose despite face thing; plus, who am I to wish them ill in pursuing the religion they are comfortable with? If they kick us out, we have to be prepared to pursue other relations - though the HoB statement seems to indicate that that is already "in development." I hope we won't spend our time mourning the loss of a "communion" which is predated by our church.

However, I think we have to see this, not as a given, but a close call. A wake up call to the sheer belligerence aimed at TEC and liberals in general.

So, the mood here is one of cautious optimism.

Our Elder Siblings and Unexpected Comforters

One of the groups present at our new church building's dedication was a large contingent from Temple B'Nai Israel with their rabbi. It meant a great deal to all of us and was moving to see our elder siblings in the faith reach out to us, when some fellow Christian denominations will have nothing to do with us. They also presented us with a huge and beautiful lily placed in our narthex.

In addition, I recently found out that the stained glass in the doors into the nave was a gift from the construction company (Yay, LRA!) who did the work. They are lovely, simple stained-glass crosses in the grisaille style favored in Cistercian monasteries.

I'll have pictures of both when I can download them.

Reminder

Again, I don't have an isp of my own. I work nights, and my company is kind enough to let me log on here in my down time, so, if you hear nothing over the weekend, or longer, it's nothing sinister.

Thanks!

What a Difference a Weekend Makes!

Just two days and my little blog has been found by our own christian right-wing.

How exciting.

TO MY FRIENDS:

Many of you have expressed concern that I feel beset by those who have come here to express their rather elaborate outrage concerning my comments on the "orthodox" (as opposed to actual orthodox) in the current TEC unpleasantness. No worries. I survived high-school, and the nastiness they've posted here is basically on the same level. Besides, if all these "orthodox" believers have come all the way to my little unimportant backwater blog, never supposed to be for any but local (if that wide) interest, then it tells me a lot about how desperate they must be for spin control, and, if I had any doubts, the piling on here indicates I am on the right side. I had no idea that their support was so narrow and their apprehensiveness so vast.

TO MY DETRACTORS:

I've read through the comments and see that you feel very strongly that I should apologize to your great leaders for my unkind comments about them. I hear you, and the answer is "no."

If you re-read the most reviled post, "They Really Are Just Bad People," you'll see that I specifically refer to them merely as talking heads for the "Bad People." They are usually not so foolish as to actually express hatred. It's not that I respect them -- respect is earned, and they have not.

Except one:

Matt Kennedy, you have come here, into a place in which you might be expected to express anger and defensiveness, but have been clear and gracious. You have swerved neither to the right nor the left in defense of your position. Well done, sir. We will never be able to share in a church, but I respect you and believe your beliefs sincerely held.

For the rest of you, you came and could've said, "We understand your anger, but look, this is really what we're trying to say . . . ," you might've tried to defend your position, having come into my "home." You didn't. Instead, you confirmed every bit of what I supposed and said with gems like:

You want hate-filled rhetoric. Sure. Here's some more.You
are not a Christian. Your self-description as a "gay liberal" proves that. You
will burn in hell, unless you repent from your sin, choose Christ, and
completely change your lifestyle and beliefs: both your liberal lifestyle and
beliefs and your gay lifestyle and beliefs. Choose NOW! You may call that a
hate-filled diatribe. Two thousand years of Christian, and Two billion
Christians alive today call il the Gospel. Choose now.

You've been told you're doing damage to actual people, and maintain you are not -- to the faces of those you're hurting. The disingenuous outrage is an attempt to dull the knowledge that you really do know the harm you're doing. I'm sure you'll deny it, but we see it. You say you don't hate, but your words betray you. You, regardless of your own self-image, are seen as harmful, hateful, bigoted and vicious. You may want to look at what you're doing that causes that, as you are the only part of the equation you have any control over.

Now, I'm sure I'll hear the pointless argument of "not helping my cause" -- which I've addressed. I'll be told I'm being mean and hateful, on my own part. Yes, but I never claimed to have either moral high-ground or the mind of God. I've not claimed to be so close to God that my trying to do what is right is unmixed with sin and harm. I'm not nice to those who hurt me (if I go to Hell, it will likely be for that, not homosexuality . . . or liberalism!). I wish I were, but I'm not. I just have to be sorry for not being sorry. Arrogant I am, but I have enough humility to know it and love of God to regret it. It's called self-awareness. I also have hope that you'll abandon this pointless and destructive position, though I despair of it. I'm this complex being, you see, and I'm aware of that. I don't fall prey easily to angelism. It's self-awareness, and it seems in short supply.

So, if you continue to come here, as an "orthodox" believer, you will get your little feelings hurt. If you don't like seeing the reflection you cast, don't come here. If you do continue, stop complaining. It was the hair-shirt you chose. Don't be surprised if I hang onto your comments (like that adorable bit of deep theological reflection quoted above) as proof of what I've said about the actual onus for this schism. But, you can rest assured that I pray for your conversion, and, fallible, hateful, resentful, rebellious (can't forgive too good, dammit), etc. as I am, I hope for it, so you can console yourself, if you insist on staying, by saying that I, your less-than-humble host, love the sinner but hate the sin.

OH SH*T! IT'S DR. TRAN!

It made me laugh.

How VirtueOnline, T19, Standfirm hope the Primatial Vicar Works

"It's good you done that, Bishop Bob! Real, real good! Now, p-please, wish it into the cornfield!"

Seriously

Since the biggest concerns here seems to be that a non-celibate homosexual will get into the priesthood or the episcopate and the sanctity and seriousness of marriage, I believe, in all seriousness all sincerity and for due consideration, we should consider a much more restrictive view of the married clergy, along the lines of that in the Orthodox Church.

First, priests either come to the priesthood married or do not marry at all. This is reasonable. A person enters the priesthood with what is needed to tend to a congregation. To suddenly add a family on top of that is unfair to priest and parish. If the priest simply must marry after vows, he must be removed from his post -- not defrocked, perhaps, but relieved of priestly duties, at least, and seek secular employment. This is upfront and makes no demands that someone entering the priesthood should object to as too much.

Second, the discernment process for marrieds to enter the clergy should be much more rigorous. A full opening of the household and its running should be presented to the bishop and discernment committee. This is where the greatest problems will come in for the priest, and he cannot place family above priesthood. He is set aside for God and His people, not in the ordinary course of things as the average married person. The slightest hint of instability in the marriage, poor parenting, or an inability to put priestly duties first should be enough to stop the discernment, formation, or active priestly duties.

Third, bishops, as pastors for an entire diocese, must be unmarried. Whether widowers or single, gay or straight, they must be celibate and free of romantic relationship. Those in married or "dating" relationships should be phased out immediately.

Fourth, divorce and remarriage are absolute disqualifiers to the Holy Orders. Those currently serving as ordained clergy in such a relationship should be placed in an immediate process of "phasing out." Those divorcing while in the ordained clergy must be secularized, as they have provided a failed example of marriage as sacramental bond. Some way of allowing them to support themselves in the process of finding new employment must, of course, be implemented.

None of this is beyond the capacity of those who are called to the clergy by God, nor is it unreasonable to require such rigorous discipline. Does it hold clergy to a much higher standard? Absolutely, and rightly so!

It does not address the issue of homosexuality adequately, but, at least, it would keep the burden from being unequally placed upon homosexuals. Equally, though, it is not punitive towards heterosexuals as it provides a rigorous commitment witness from the clergy and a positive witness to the sanctity and gravity of marriage.

In Christian Love

From MadPriest's blog:

But Rev. Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council,
told Cybercast News Service that "Bishop Robinson has garnered a place in
history as the defiant homosexual cleric who preferred to force his
sexuality on
the larger church at any cost, rather than weigh the costs of
what his actions
would take on the entire Anglican Communion.

And:

In response to Gene, Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at
Concerned Women for America said the folowing: "In today's twisted pop
culture which demands that all morality is entirely relative, being gay is in
vogue. Many young people are experimenting with the homosexual lifestyle as a
trendy sexual option."

Now, I think it is important to tell the Truth in Christian Love, as Anderson et al would say, and, I think it's important that we call stupid STUPID!

This, Mr. Barber and Mr. Anderson, is willful ignorance, displayed for all to see, and willful ignorance is STUPIDITY.

Don't get upset boys! We love the sinner, just hate the sin.

The American Problem

That's what it is, really, isn't it?

It's not about TEC. No. It's fueled because we Americans are seen as synonymous with our government -- currently, a spoiled, paranoid, bullying government. The Episcopal Church has become conflated with that, and, as such, is fair game.

It's not helped by the fact that the loudest and most insistent public face of the church in this country -- the schismatics -- are, themselves, spoiled, paranoid and bullying. This is entirely evident in the "demands" to make TEC acceptable to their lordships of the "orthodox anglicans" presented by one virtueless Virtue -- you can find the answers posted on Telling Secrets in the post "What Would It Take." Go there. Don't be lazy. Look at it and Virtue in all their glory, and see the true face of the "loyal opposition." I can guarantee you the rest of the world sees it.

Zbigniew Brzezinski referred to our current government's stance as "Manichaean paranoia" -- the belief that, we, the Good, are entitled to use any tactics, any manipulations, against the Evil, them. Make no mistake, the "orthodox" in TEC are doing the same. And the rest of the AC sees them.

I had been confused by the accusations of ecclesial imperialism against TEC; we have not forced our practices or consciences on any other, even our own. The disingenuous claims of the Virtues and Andersons and Minnses and Duncans are just that: disingenuous. They know that they will not be held responsible by God if TEC is mistaken in it's "liberal agenda" (as the "orthodox" would have it). If they disagree, well and good and we've MADE ROOM FOR THEM! So, where is the ecclesial imperialism? There is none in TEC for the AC to have seen.

But it is in the "orthodox" -- they will have their way, over all objections, using any means. This is what the AC sees, and expects of us on the liberal side, if we "win." Why shouldn't they? The schismatics are obnoxiously and aggressively visible, claiming to speak for all American christians. The AC is legitimately afraid we will shove our beliefs on them, because they can see the Network, CANA et al doing just that to us. What we need to do is reassure them, we are not like that. If we can. The lies from the right are so strident and blatant, they are hard to keep up with (Manichaean paranoia at work!)

To those in the Global South, believe me about this: you are being used, just as we are. These "orthodox" are very stereotypically American, and, when they've used you to become Top Anglican Dog in America, they will use their money and influence to start directing you "poor, misguided foreigners" in the way to do things. Don't fall for it. We can't offer you greater power, but we're not interested in taking it from you, either.

March 15 - St. Fosgate

St. Fosgate of Dyphthong delivering the sacred "Scram"

It's a special day for my family, as this is the feast of St. Fosgate of Dyphthong, a saint which is creatively traced into my family's lineage. For those who know little of this saint, here is an entry from a largely apocryphal website.

ST. FOSGATE of DYPHTHONG

Patron of Lawns, Badgers; Invoked against bermuda grass, childhood lameness

(aka: Fossportus, Fosseus, Fozzy the Recluse)

(b:?-d:shortly after breakfast, 1156 or 1430)

Fosgate was a relatively obscure saint from the small Scottish border village of Dyphthong (itself named for St. Dyphthong of the Squinky Eye, patroness of macrame-workers and the "out there"; invoked against sudden braking on wet pavement).

Fosgate came to live a hermit's life in this largely untamed environment only after having grown up in Canterbury. His desire to spread the Gospel to these wild parts was manifest when he was asked his reason for coming to Dyphthong and he responded, "It ain't Canterbury." He was known for his miraculous lawn, which was always of a greenness unsurpassed, no matter the time of year, and the ease with which he related to badgers. Indeed, early iconography of this "popular" saint shows him surrounded on his deathbed by mourning badgers carrying candles. It was a popular image, oft found in working-class homes, coming even to the Americas. There, the strong Protestant influence removed the saint's image. Later, the candles themselves were removed and replaced with playing cards. Finally, even the badgers were removed and replaced with dogs, an animal Fosgate despised (he referred to their intense loyalty as "doglike").

His association with curing childhood lameness is described for us by Harold of Belafontayne in his six-volume opus Birds and Obscure Saints of the Borders. Here is Harold's description:

Whilst travelling along the borders of Scotland, in that most wild region, I came upon the tale of a local saint, reputed to have the most miraculously green lawn, with whom badgers consorted as with a kindred spirit. I desired greatly to see the holy hermit's verge-of-grace and turned my travels to the muddy, largely ignored hamlet (author's note: And this was centuries before Shakespeare even wrote Hamlet!) of Dyphthong.

It took me no small searching to find the great man's anchorhold, and this is what I found:

A great emerald sward of surpassing beauty and striped with many passings of the mower surrounded a small stone hut. All was surrounded by examples of the saint's wisdom, writ large on placards, such as: "Keep Ye Out" and "Trespass Not Lest Thou Be Prosecuted" and "Hie Ye Away, Salesmen" -- all reminding us to seek not to interrupt true prayer, to keep away from sin and God's Wrath, and be not deluded by those who seek profit of the Gospel.

I espied, nearby, a lad seated upon the bank across the way and playing with a ball. He surely was lame, for, having thrown his ball accidentally into the saint's enclosure, didst ask his companion to retrieve it. This companion rejoined, "What? Hast thou a broke leg?" and the lad looked all of a sudden downcast and discomfited, but moved not.

At this moment, the saint, bearing an hosepipe came briskly round the building, obviously to kindly retrieve the ball for the lame child. Seeing, however, the boy did not move (his companions - godly lads - dispersed quickly in deference to the saint's holiness) perceived he was lame. As I watched, the saint did turn yon hosepipe upon the lad and generously blessed him with asperges, uttering the ecstatic cries "Oi!" and "Gerroff!" Then, as our lord to the man at the pool of healing, he cried, "Hie thee!" and Lo! the boy did not only walk, but ran! The saint then, in kindness and holy afterthought, hurled the lad's ball at the retreating child, followed in quick succession by a pot of marmite (to remind the lad to keep his strength up, as our lord gave food to the little dead girl) and a heavy, brass-bound breviary (to remind him to be constant in prayers of thanks for his healing). The boy, however, in joyous wonder at his healing, kept running, failing to notice the saints gifts or his own toy. This grieved the saint greatly, as I heard him bewailing "I missed! I missed!"

Then the saint caught sight of this humble pilgrim and, taking up his hoe, didst advance rapidly and determinedly to give blessing. I, thinking the better grace to leave the holy man to his prayers, made quick my escape, lest he should overtake me and administer blessing upon my head with his garden implement. So great was the man's holiness, though, that he could not be dissuaded to give sage advice as I fled the scene of such holiness, saying, "Seek thou gainful employ, hippy!" and this I have ever taken to heart.

St. Fosgate was martyred, ironically, by a Christian ruler of Scotland (either King David or someone else). Tales are conflicting, but it seems that Fosgate was tending his beloved lawn and the king's hunting party crossed his land. The saint rose and cried out -- some say to expose and correct some hidden sin in the king -- and the king struck him down. Most sources say that he cried, "Oh, King! Thy sins are many and deep! Thy people suffer needless at thy hand! Repent! Repent!" though some eyewitnesses claim his last words were, "Nice skirt, jackass!"

As penance, the king built a chapel, and subsequent indulgence-selling stall, on the saint's lawn. The chapel and stand have long since been used to board up the many deserted local businesses, but the lawn remains green and well-kept. A miracle, as there is only the one caretaker.

Veneration of the saint's relics (some 500 lost footballs and flat disks called "frissebeys") continued until the Dissolution. The boy who was healed became a hero of local legend, appearing in various forms in lay and ballad, up 'til 1805, when Lady Carmilla Jones-Ungwent wrote The Lay of Childe Forrest, a long, almost unreadable work, largely of note here for the lines:

Loonlike runs Fosseus about,

"Oi!" and "Gerroff!" the saint doth shout.

Contemporary records indicate that the boy was actually hanged, with a group of other mental-defectives, for involvement in an underground stoat-throwing ring.

Fosgate's writings and wisdom have descended to the present day, though usually in altered form, such as:

"Thou needst not a broken leg to know the pain thereof."

"White trash, though possessed of motte and bailey, still continueth white trash."

"If it is in a thing's God-given nature to be whole, complete and free of defect, seek not it's repair."

Iconography: Fosgate is usually depicted surrounded by winged badgers, carrying a hoe and/or hosepipe, free-flowing. He is less often depicted waving a disk triumphantly over his head at an outraged child. His most famous iconic image depicts the holy "Scram" he spoke to a papal legate who asked him to hold a crown while he relieved himself.

St. Fosgate of Dyphthong, March 15.

They Really Are Just Bad People.

While I stand by the belief that most of those in the pews who are on the opposing side concerning homosexuality are basically good people, whenever I read something by one of their talking heads, especially Kendall Harmon, or Matt Kennedy, of King Bob of Pennsylvania, I am reminded that these people are, in the end, just bad people. They enjoy hurting others, they delight in degrading others, they simply trill with joy like little tiny carrion birds over any "wit" they think they can show at a liberal's - especially a gay liberal's - expense. All you need to do is go to StandFirm or Titus or even comments in Thinking Anglicans to see behavior akin to a pogrom.

Unfortunately, I see many more in the comments fields of various blogs taking up the same language and banner. Some may stumble here and say, per usual complaint, that my remarks don't help the ongoing dialogue. Well, with such people, the dialogue is over. It was when they shut off their hearts, seeking to dominate and win. In so doing they stepped outside of Christlike behavior, and, while I'll pray for them, I'm not required to help them in their wickedness. I've seen them lie, I've seen them purposely try to do harm -- these are simply NOT decent people. Sorry if that hurts anyone, but you gotta face hurtful facts, sometimes.

Take heart, though! Evil always fights hardest when God's Grace is closest to winning, and we have to be ready to make welcome those of basic decency and goodwill who differ with us, or wish them well if they will not stay.

Words I Enjoy

Labrador
Varsouviana
Recondite
Prestidigitation
Hurdy-gurdy
Lapland
Hamantaschen
Ahasueris
Filbert
Palimpsest

Those Who Risk for Love

MP has asked that we spread this letter across the blogsphere, and I, for one, am glad to and acknowledge my gratitude.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHURCH
Conversion of St. Paul, 2007

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

As you are no doubt aware, our church finds itself in a turbulent, confusing, and painful time. Many issues are involved in our current struggles: authority, hermeneutics, ethical and theological visions and convictions, and the complex relationships of gender, power, and patriarchy. Though the “presenting issue” is the place of LGBTT folk in the Body of Christ, the roots of our conflict go much deeper.

As a priest in the midst of this struggle, it has become clear to me after much prayer and soul-searching, that my spiritual conscience can no longer abide by the laws which I am required to uphold in regard to the blessing of same-sex unions and marriages. It is my conviction that our current ban on such practices is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust. Upholding such a position (even unwillingly) forces me to bend severely (if not break) my priestly vows, my baptismal covenant, and the Word of God inscribed within my heart. I therefore publicly declare that I will, when requested, officiate at same-sex marriages and offer blessing upon committed same sex unions. I will no longer discriminate against homosexual people when it comes to the exercise of my priestly duties.

I am aware, of course, that the stance I am taking will likely lead to serious consequences, and I am prepared to face these consequences openly and publicly. It may be helpful to consider my action a form of ecclesiastical civil disobedience. With conflict and rhetoric rising in the worldwide communion, too many queer brothers and sisters are being further marginalized and excluded. In some parts of the world, this takes the form of outright violence: as I write, the coordinator of Changing Attitude (a sister organization of Integrity) in Nigeria is living under a death threat from his “fellow Christians”. Here at home, it is often a more subtle form of oppression: exclusion rendered invisible. As a priest and leader in the church, my complicity in upholding our current law makes me at least partially responsible for the ongoing suffering of LGBTT Christians, and I can no longer take part in that. If my current action helps render visible that which has been made invisible, then I will be happy to bear the consequences. I too will stand “outside the gate”, where so many other queer Christians have been sent.

To be clear, there are three main reasons for my choice of taking this stance. On one level, this is a clear issue of justice, solidarity, and human rights. On another level, this is an issue of evangelism: our church’s continuing discrimination against LGBTT people is a scandal which keeps many of my peers from being able to hear the good news of Jesus. And finally, this is an issue of personal integrity: I can no longer, in good conscience, uphold a law which I consider unjust, as well as theologically deficient.

Some might say that my actions sidestep the legitimate process of discernment underway in the church. I understand that concern, and I have wrestled long and hard over what to do, working within our established canons and structures to the best of my ability. However, I also see my current course of action as being part of the wider church’s discernment. We have heard many arguments about the cost of blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining unclosetted queer folk; we also need to recognize that there is a cost as well to not moving in this direction. The cost is a huge amount of suffering for LGBTT Christians who are pressured to remain silent. The cost is that some of us, straight and gay, will no longer be able to abide the status quo, and we will simply cease to obey an unjust law. The cost is that others will quietly leave. That reality needs to be part of our church’s discernment. In this, I am not leaving the church, nor relinquishing my orders. Instead, I offer my current action, with all its consequences, for the ongoing discernment of the Body.

Yours in the unquiet peace of Christ,


The Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck

Thank you, Fr. Beck.

Look What They Done!

I'm angry!
No. Not about Matt Kennedy, alleged priest of the alleged church of The Good Shepherd (who must be regretting giving His name on that one) -- you can find Kennedy's mockery and public foolishness on Stand Fallacious.
I'm angry about something serious.
They've desecrated my beloved Persians.
I've always had a thing about the ancient Persian Empire -- you know, the ones who also worshipped One God and basically kept the Middle East for the last time in history? And then, this, this movie! 300 -- the usual rah-rah, chest-thumping, frat-boy "heroism" you've come to expect from Frank Miller - who attracts a sophisticated enough audience in his graphic novels to get the complexities of his vision. Movies attract a less sophisticated crowd, and that, my friends, is why I'm angry that they brought 300 to life.
Some lessons, to prevent the l.c.d. amongst moviegoers from assuming 300 is history:
The Spartans were terrible people.
Compared to the Persians, the Spartans were barely people at all.
Xerxes, though a jerk, was not a complete jerk, and the sadly predictable result of a privileged life, while his father, Darius, and grandfather, Cyrus, were geniuses.
Leonidas was a brute.
This is Xerxes

This is not a Persian emperor:

This is a Persian emperor:
This is not a Persian Immortal:

This is a Persian Immortal:

Finally, and MOST EGREGIOUSLY . . .

This is NOT NOT NOT HOW RODRIGO SANTORO IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK!

This IS how Rodrigo Santoro is supposed to look, not like Ru-Paul on crack.

Sorry, but it needed to be said.

Disappointments All Around

Grandmere Mimi wrote about her "Windsor Bishop" on her blog, Wounded Bird.
http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/index.html

I find myself deeply disappointed in my diocese, as well. The Diocese of Georgia has "committed" us, in our last convention, to working on this increasingly unpalatable Communion. Like the other "good folks" out there, I hear no condemnation from them, through our Deputies or our Bishop, for Akinola's support of Nigeria's monstrous anti-gay legislation (http://politicalspaghetti.blogspot.com/2007/02/passage-imminent-i.html, for a debriefing).

I have contacted both the Presiding Bishop's and the Diocesan Bishop's offices, asking for some explanation on all sides, some balance of the pros and cons of all that came out of Tanzania. I've begged to hear someone talk to us rather than at us about this. Wondered why we have heard no reproof at the blatant disregard for our church and its members by the ABC and the rest of the Primates.

So far, I have received no reply from my bishop, though it is a large diocese, to be fair, and he is active in making personal visitations. I'm still holding out hope to hear.

From the PB's office, I received this reply:

Dear Friend:

I am writing on behalf of the Presiding Bishop to thank you very much for youremail. On Friday the Presiding Bishop held a community gathering with EpiscopalChurch Center staff to discuss the Primates' Meeting in Tanzania. For your convenience I am copying into the body of this message an article fromEpiscopal News Service regarding the Friday gathering, and a link to the mp3file may be found by navigating this link:http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82812_ENG_HTM.htm. Please know that this comes with the Presiding Bishop's prayers and best wishes for you during this time in the life of the church.

Very truly yours,
Robert B. Goodfellow
Communications Aide

Bland, thy name is Goodfellow. I've communicated since, receiving no reply. You'll find this person's email below in "Once More Unto the Breach" -- my hope being that, if we simply flood him with enough requests for clarification, continue pestering for real info and not spin, someone may give us the info out of sheer frustration and annoyance.

I don't know which would be more depressing, to think that my diocese and my bishop, my brothers and sisters, agree with Akinola, et al, or are simply trying to preserve some presence in an increasingly meaningless and absurdly comical bit of conceit allowing us to, as we have been accused of doing by the RCC, "play at being Catholics."

Neither position speaks of the maturity of our church and its witness.

Maturity of Faith?

It seems to me that a mark of maturity (and I'm certainly not claiming any great measure of maturity for myself) is the ability to tolerate uncertainty, tension, disagreement, even conflict. I'm not talking of hopeless confusion, on the one hand, nor a dead resignation on the other. Rather, I'm talking of the ability to pick a way through life's multiplicity and facticity in a way that is authentic, that has integrity, while recognizing our own limitations and the possibilities within others, even in the face of conflicting beliefs.

Anyone who has studied adolescent behavior, or, for that matter, dealt with or been an adolescent, knows that a part of that developmental stage is a need for certainty coupled with a passionate defense of one's own understanding as the only, or at least, best certainty. There is little tolerance in most adolescents for differing opinion, and passionate defense -- to the point of stormy and melodramatic displays -- of one's understanding is typical. This is a good and necessary part of development. It allows the adolescent psyche to seek a stable platform from which to operate while in the process of differentiation from the parents, thus facilitating the development of a more secure individual for the future. At the same time we respect that development, though, we recognize it is not a stable way to form a society. It's why we restrict the voting age, why we have ages of consent and allow for an adult to have custody of a youth who is physically capable of caring for and providing for him/herself.

Yet, Christianity has historically not given its own structures the same consideration. One needs only to read any theologian, including (perhaps especially) the Church Fathers, to see a sort of adolescent brashness. Edith Pargeter, writing as Ellis Peters, noted in one of her Cadfael mysteries that theologians seemed more intent on discrediting and deriding opposing theologians than on glorifying God. The Church, in its structure and traditions, has attempted to grasp at God, to encapsulate and delimit God's activity and structure Grace in an absolutist, closed system. Again, this is necessary to support the maturing of Christian faith, but, should such a mindset be allowed to define the Christian religion? We protect our socio-economic systems, our political systems, from the excesses and perversions that arise from such artificial certainty, recognizing that these systems must be an adult contract. At the same time, we give over our faith systems to the loudest, brashest and most demanding voice - "Give us Barabbas!!" It would seem we take the care of our money and land far more seriously than the nourishment of our souls.

A Long Slog

That's what my mother used to call a particularly difficult stretch of road, work . . . life.

This is a long slog in the church for me.

It's confession time, so if open emotions embarrass you, please look away.

During all of this, I have actually come to the point that I've hoped and, paradoxically, prayed that I would be able to simply lose my faith. You see, if that happened, I would be able to move on, stop caring what "those wacky Christians" are up to, because it would mean nothing in any case.

But I can't. I need God.

I've prayed to be able to simply walk away. To forget the whole damned thing, and move on.

But I can't. I need God's people, my parish family.

I've prayed, finally, to simply not wake up. Don't worry. I'm not suicidal. It's simply that I am that tired, heartsick, and soulsick.

I have to admit that, even though I will not, cannot, give up in this struggle in the church's history, I have been damaged. Maybe I've damaged others. The worst part is the bitterness within myself, the lost serenity I once knew in prayer, the constant anger, even hate. The sense of betrayal in others . . . and self. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just too weak.

Maybe . . .

This is Gethsemane.

We've certainly seen our Caiaphas, who's said it's better for this one group to die than the Anglican Communion be destroyed. We've had our Pilate who's washed her hands because it would put her up against it politically to do what is just. We have had a Judas or two, telling us we're loved, kissing us to betray us and deliver us up to destruction in return for a payment of greater power in the communion. The Sanhedrin met in Tanzania, and, though the evidence was lacking, we were still convicted. You must enter to win. But Christ entered the tomb to win. Maybe . . .

. . well, I'm depressed. Can you blame me?

What the Hell is Wrong With This Man?!

Rowan's produced another nugget. Apparently, he's determined to either force us down or force us out.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/070305.htm

A conservative on Thinking Anglicans spoke of our democratic polity with derision, and suggested that, if the consent of the governed in our church is to be sought, we can remove the word "episcopal."

If this increasingly monstrous ultimatum and its toxic fallout is approved by our leadership, then we have no leadership, and we can, indeed, remove the episcopal. A bishop is a pastor, not just upper management, and to accept this is breaking the pastoral relationship. To that end, if this is agreed to, we need to withhold all contributions. The worker deserves his wages, the one leaning on the shovel does not.

Tell the PB that this has to be a "no thanks."

As Promised - Pics of the New Church

This is our priest. He is originally from Pennsylvania, but, as you can see, has settled into the Southern church custom called "fellowshippin'!"

This is our new aumbry. The St. Patrick's emblem on front was designed by one of our parishioners.

The new credence table.

This is our brand-new altar. Though you can't see it, the St. Patrick's emblem is carved on the front.

This is our hand-carved Italian crucifix, moved from the old church building.

This is our font. The carved-wood base is new, but the marble top is from the font at the old church.

Once More Unto the Breach!

Bit of an action note:

It might be a good thing to let PB Jefferts Schori know how many of her national flock are displeased about the communique and her handling of its explanation.

I sent an email to the PB's office and received a response from her Communications Aide, Robert Goodfellow:

rgoodfellow@episcopalchurch.org

She needs to know the pabulum isn't going down. Maybe she really believes we want such an arrangement. Never underestimate how isolated from the "real people" the leader is in even the most egalitarian environment.

For Those In Peril Because of Their See

From MadPriest:

The wrangle over homosexuality in the Anglican Church has taken a new turn here with the Chang`ombe congregation rejecting their bishop, Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo. A letter has been sent to the head of the Anglican Church in Tanzania, Archbishop Donald Mtetemela, expressing their rejection of the embattled bishop's leadership."Since Bishop Mhogolo has continued to support homosexuality, which is against God`s teachings, he does not deserve to be a church leader," the letter says, in part.

Like Davis Mac-Iyalla, this man has placed himself in very real peril for gays and lesbians. The next time you get one of those patronizing questions about why we have to be so aggressive and rush everything so, for God's sake, keep men like this in mind, and answer, "Exactly. For God's sake."

Serious note

On Thursday night, several heavy thunderstorm cells combined and moved through Alabama and south Georgia. We in my area were largely spared, but tornadoes claimed victims and casualties throughout the swath the storms cut. Please pray for the injured and deceased.

Please keep St. Patrick's parish in your prayers, as well, as our new building is consecrated at 3 pm Saturday, 3/3.

God gives us joy to temper our sorrows, and sorrow to humanize our joys.

Psalm 84

My parish will have its new church building consecrated/dedicated at 3 pm EST this Saturday. It is a big deal for us, and, if I can get pics, I will.


"3Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God."

Rowan the Bully?

I don't think, from what I've seen, that Rowan is a bully. Nor do I think he's changed his theology from his days as a professor.

I think it's likely something much more pathetic. I think Rowan is one of those "hangers on." He wouldn't initiate bullying, but would probably have joined in with a group of kids already bullying a smaller, weaker kid. He wants to blend in with the dominant crowd, to side with the most likely winner. Similarly, university professors are stereotypically liberal. Rowan would've wanted to blend in, again.

In the end, I can't find myself angry at Rowan Williams. How can you be angry at someone without enough authentic self to get angry at?

"In MY Parish . . . "

One of the constant refrains I hear from other gay episcopalians as to why we should accept this "fast" is that it really won't change things. "In MY parish . . ." they begin, inevitably.

Just keep in mind:

"Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head! Well put!" - Mordcha the Innkeeper, Fiddler on the Roof