Several people have asked how I'm doing, what's going on, etc. I thank you all, MadPriest, Doxy, Mimi, James, all for your concern, but there's really nothing that can be done.
I usually just limit telling people to what is happening at the time, but since it only seems fair to fully answer the question that, for the first time in my life, I feel people really care to hear an answer to, here goes, the full monty, as it were.
There are specific problems at the moment: a water heater that is malfunctioning, and, being old, may need replacing -- with savings totalling about $3.52. There is the ongoing difficulty with the neighbor child and his four-wheeler (though the past few days have been blessedly quiet). I'm finding myself in a dark place with worship; I do the 4 prayerbook offices daily, preceding the noon prayer with the Angelus. I meditate 20 minutes a day, 2 times a day. Yet, I find myself frustrated and uncertain about what I'm doing -- it seems just spinning my wheels, putting on a show. I search for enlightenment, theosis and just wind up sitting, or mouthing prayers, my mind going a thousand different other places. Finding someone to guide and teach this, in this area, is near impossible and, in every area, tends to be expensive. I admire the Zen tradition of dokusan and the relationship of roshi and student, but we seem to have very little comparable in Western Christianity and, frankly, I have no interest in pursuing any relationship with an Orthodox priest or monk. Bad experiences.
Add to this bad health, in general -- constant headaches, stomach difficulties. I'm in horrible shape, and, true to depression, can't convince myself to even walk, which I used to enjoy. I've always always suspected I would die by 40, and that's in less than a month. Most of the time, I'd be grateful, and by most, I mean 98% of the time. There's also such rage and frustration. People shouldn't live like this, and, it seems, most people don't care, not about themselves and certainly not about each other. Death, compared to that, would be a mercy.
So, it's pretty grim. But, I'll come through it, not to brightness and hope but to the animal will to survive. I've been through it too many times to think that it'll be actually enough to energize me to change what needs changing. After a while, the depression will drag me down again, and that is the most horrible part of it, knowing it's lurking like Hook's crocodile. Still, for all those who tell me to hang on, you can at least take comfort in knowing that I'll be too cowardly to end it and just drag on to let a life I'm unequipped for keep torturing me until my body simply gives up. That's about as hopeful as it ever gets for me.
You all did ask.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Dreck from Drexel
Saw this and had to share the textbook definition of a "split from reality":
Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which humans distort God's created order. God the Creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful and multiply. When human beings 'exchange' these created roles for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have 'exchanged' the truth about God for a lie."
The diversity of opinions across the Communion has led some persons to conclude the Anglican Communion will have to divide, seeing that those who are convinced that the Gospel is clear in its teaching and must take precedence over culture cannot accommodate those who believe the contrary.
The split - if it occurs - will be about the most fundamental of all questions: the nature of reality. Which relationships correspond to God's ordering of life, and which violate it? - it's Drexel Gomez, whom some refer to as a bishop, or some sort.
The only thing worse would be if some fricking idiot put him in charge of - I dunno - overseeing a process of making a communion-wide covenant.
Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which humans distort God's created order. God the Creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful and multiply. When human beings 'exchange' these created roles for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have 'exchanged' the truth about God for a lie."
The diversity of opinions across the Communion has led some persons to conclude the Anglican Communion will have to divide, seeing that those who are convinced that the Gospel is clear in its teaching and must take precedence over culture cannot accommodate those who believe the contrary.
The split - if it occurs - will be about the most fundamental of all questions: the nature of reality. Which relationships correspond to God's ordering of life, and which violate it? - it's Drexel Gomez, whom some refer to as a bishop, or some sort.
The only thing worse would be if some fricking idiot put him in charge of - I dunno - overseeing a process of making a communion-wide covenant.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Darkness
Going through a rough time right now. Really depressed. It could be lack of sleep or illness. The circumstances of that make it even worse. I have a neighbor with two boys -- he bought the older one a four-wheeler, which he allows him to ride in the backyard. Great, except I have to sleep during the day and their backyard is right outside my bedroom window. AND, of course, the damn thing spews out neighborhood-covering clouds of dirt and dust -- not the best thing when your neighbor has chronic problems with sinus and upper-respiratory infections. But, still, I'm afraid to confront them, to say anything. Which makes me feel even less worthwhile.
It's one of those times when I really do truly hate humankind, including myself.
It's one of those times when I really do truly hate humankind, including myself.
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Reasserters Are Right In One Thing . . .
Our lack of clarity about our position.
You may feel your knee jerking, at this point, if you are a liberal, but keep in mind I am a liberal as well.
I constantly find myself looking at these "Baptists in pretty clothes" who seem to have popped up and formed cysts within the larger Episcopal Church. I can only conclude that that has to do with a lack of clarity in our position, vis a vis catechetical training. Most "Inquirer's Classes" are dry, exceptionally perfunctory events covering a few hours, spread out over several months, with absolutely no requirement of actual retention of any of the material, were it worth retaining in any case.
Now, as a largely progressive church, we are a bit averse to forcing others to "sign on" to a belief set. That is well and good. But, we must be aware that such an aversion is part of a belief set without which, the very nature of the church we've joined and formed dies. There is no shame, no fascistic tendency in saying "These are our beliefs and positions, and, if you are to be a part of us, you must accept the applicability of these beliefs and positions to the way our church is run." Would so many of these fundamentalists, clearly looking for nothing more than more fundamentalism but with pretty vestments and a pseudo-RC "communion" have joined if we had made it clear that that is not, nor will be, what TEC is? Probably not. We are committed to a certain way, and that way is not the way of such people.
Perhaps one of our first priorities, once this brouhaha has settled, is to form an actual process for our catechumens. The Reasserters predict our death because all they see is the popular trend of fundamentalism, without looking at what we might have in common with that great-growth denomination of "none." We might have what they're looking for. We can't, as it seems Reasserters have, write them off as the unwashed masses who have no faith or stamina, but see if we, in TEC's polity and vision, don't have what they're looking for. Don't underestimate these people as all being patrons of a spiritual McDonald's (some are, certainly, and that has led to the trend in Fundamentalism); many, if not most, are willing to expend energy and to commit time for something they understand and are a part of. Why should any of the unchurched be interested in a life committment to something requiring a few desultory chats on ecclesial history, a brief meeting with a bishop they have no other knowledge of, and the promise of coffee hour?
One of our first priorities, therefore, should be a catechumenate to replace the sad little "inquirer's classes." A real period of study and requirement. It seems the recipe for meteoric falls in number, but those who are committed will come, will stay and will infuse us with the energy that led them to the committment that, apparently, so many of us had to stumble into accidentally, on our own. To that end, we need to stop with the public vs. private policy that has largely occupied our leadership, and make a few bold statements on inclusion . . . including where inclusion stops and simply becomes indulgence.
You may feel your knee jerking, at this point, if you are a liberal, but keep in mind I am a liberal as well.
I constantly find myself looking at these "Baptists in pretty clothes" who seem to have popped up and formed cysts within the larger Episcopal Church. I can only conclude that that has to do with a lack of clarity in our position, vis a vis catechetical training. Most "Inquirer's Classes" are dry, exceptionally perfunctory events covering a few hours, spread out over several months, with absolutely no requirement of actual retention of any of the material, were it worth retaining in any case.
Now, as a largely progressive church, we are a bit averse to forcing others to "sign on" to a belief set. That is well and good. But, we must be aware that such an aversion is part of a belief set without which, the very nature of the church we've joined and formed dies. There is no shame, no fascistic tendency in saying "These are our beliefs and positions, and, if you are to be a part of us, you must accept the applicability of these beliefs and positions to the way our church is run." Would so many of these fundamentalists, clearly looking for nothing more than more fundamentalism but with pretty vestments and a pseudo-RC "communion" have joined if we had made it clear that that is not, nor will be, what TEC is? Probably not. We are committed to a certain way, and that way is not the way of such people.
Perhaps one of our first priorities, once this brouhaha has settled, is to form an actual process for our catechumens. The Reasserters predict our death because all they see is the popular trend of fundamentalism, without looking at what we might have in common with that great-growth denomination of "none." We might have what they're looking for. We can't, as it seems Reasserters have, write them off as the unwashed masses who have no faith or stamina, but see if we, in TEC's polity and vision, don't have what they're looking for. Don't underestimate these people as all being patrons of a spiritual McDonald's (some are, certainly, and that has led to the trend in Fundamentalism); many, if not most, are willing to expend energy and to commit time for something they understand and are a part of. Why should any of the unchurched be interested in a life committment to something requiring a few desultory chats on ecclesial history, a brief meeting with a bishop they have no other knowledge of, and the promise of coffee hour?
One of our first priorities, therefore, should be a catechumenate to replace the sad little "inquirer's classes." A real period of study and requirement. It seems the recipe for meteoric falls in number, but those who are committed will come, will stay and will infuse us with the energy that led them to the committment that, apparently, so many of us had to stumble into accidentally, on our own. To that end, we need to stop with the public vs. private policy that has largely occupied our leadership, and make a few bold statements on inclusion . . . including where inclusion stops and simply becomes indulgence.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
If I Criticize Publicly . . .
. . Honor demands that I laud publicly.
Presiding Bishop Warns Schismatics
Well done, Katharine.
And well done TEC leadership . . .
. . better late than never, I suppose.
ADDENDUM:
I also have to express my pleasure at TEC FINALLY acting on the misconduct allegations against Bennison, et al.
No one wins when that sort of "liberal" pops up. They are "evidence" to the conservatives that they are right about us, that, by such examples, we have no morality, no ethical compass. People of this sort are not liberals but mere libertines, abusing power, abrogating responsibility, indulging self.
Presiding Bishop Warns Schismatics
Well done, Katharine.
And well done TEC leadership . . .
. . better late than never, I suppose.
ADDENDUM:
I also have to express my pleasure at TEC FINALLY acting on the misconduct allegations against Bennison, et al.
No one wins when that sort of "liberal" pops up. They are "evidence" to the conservatives that they are right about us, that, by such examples, we have no morality, no ethical compass. People of this sort are not liberals but mere libertines, abusing power, abrogating responsibility, indulging self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)