Late this afternoon we received a memo from the vice president of the organization, the Human Resources director and the four new Center directors. Attached to the memo was a timeline for the actual mechanics of the transition to the new organization. We have been waiting a long time for this. Some of the items on it were supposed to have been in our hands a month and a half ago. And, as it turns out, during the week that we are supposed to be packing up our offices or cubicles for moving, a colleague and I will be in Vancouver attending Start Up! Start Over!
Our new Center Director suggested that it might be beneficial for both of us to attend the conference as part of our new roles in the organization. Not many days later she stopped by my desk and dropped off a copy of Anthony Pappas' Entering The World of The Small Church, and suggested that the two of us should read it before the conference.
A couple of weeks ago, several folks throughout the organization received from the vice president's office an invitation to participate in a FutureThink seminar based on the book by Edie Weiner and Arnold Brown. A member of my current department ordered copies for both of us.
Earlier this week the Center Director sent out a memo requesting feedback on suggested dates for a retreat for the new Center. Attached was a copy of Joseph F. Coates' article "Scenario Planning."
And somewhere in one of the boxes stored in my cubicle is my copy of Wikinomics, which the Director of my current department ordered for each of us some over a year ago after the new vice president had mentioned it during one of their meetings. I suppose I ought to dig it out and add it to the "read really soon" pile.
Looks like I won't be needing my book of Sudoku puzzles on the train for the next couple of weeks.
Peace,
Jeffri
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Teaching the Future
Reading Plan Text for February 29: John 3:9-15
In today's reading the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus continues, and Nicodemus still doesn't get it. Jesus in his reply starts out addressing Nicodemus directly, but then his language shifts to the plural form of you along with "we" instead of "I." Burridge (the author of the Commentary) provides this bit of information. Once again those of us who must read the scriptures in translation miss a lot of the nuances--and also a lot of the not so subtle things--in the texts. Burridge continues:
It's been a long day, and I really don't have much else to say.
Peace,
Jeffri
In today's reading the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus continues, and Nicodemus still doesn't get it. Jesus in his reply starts out addressing Nicodemus directly, but then his language shifts to the plural form of you along with "we" instead of "I." Burridge (the author of the Commentary) provides this bit of information. Once again those of us who must read the scriptures in translation miss a lot of the nuances--and also a lot of the not so subtle things--in the texts. Burridge continues:
It is as though the quiet night-time conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus has been replaced by Jesus speaking through the evangelist and the early Christians to the rest of the Jews, and indeed, to the whole human race, asking them to 'receive our testimony' (3:11).What leaped out at me, even before reading the Commentary, is that Jesus is teaching about the future--his future. Just as he is the temple that will be raised back up in three days, first he must be lifted up--on the cross. Once again, John's Jesus is much more explicit from the beginning about who and what he is, not to mention about what he will experience.
It's been a long day, and I really don't have much else to say.
Peace,
Jeffri
One Sheet Of Paper
Today I received an email from a friend with some amazing art work. She wrote at the beginning, "These are truly extraordinary." Then came the introductory text:
However, the sculptures are real, and they are the creations of artist Peter Callesen. These are amazing pieces; definitely worth a look. Here you can see what he did with single sheets of A4 paper, and here are some larger ones. Of his A4 Papercuts Peter writes:
Half Way Through, 2006
Acid free A4 115 gsm paper, pencil, and glue
Go look and enjoy.
Entries for an art contest at the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in DC The rule was that the artist could use only one sheet of paper.My first clue should have been that Hirshhorn was misspelled. The second clue was that no contest of any kind was listed on the Hirshhorn's site. A little digging revealed that this email is yet another one of those Internet "viral emails."
However, the sculptures are real, and they are the creations of artist Peter Callesen. These are amazing pieces; definitely worth a look. Here you can see what he did with single sheets of A4 paper, and here are some larger ones. Of his A4 Papercuts Peter writes:
My paper works have lately been based around an exploration of the relationship between two and three dimensionality. I find this materialization of a flat piece of paper into a 3D form almost as a magic process - or maybe one could call it obvious magic, because the process is obvious and the figures still stick to their origin, without the possibility of escaping. In that sense there is also an aspect of something tragic in most of the cuts. Some of the small paper cuts relate to a universe of fairy tales and romanticism, as for instance "Impenetrable Castle" inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Steadfast Tin Soldier", in which a tin soldier falls in love with a paper ballerina, living in a paper castle. Other paper cuts are small dramas in which small figures are lost within and threatened by the huge powerful nature. Others again are turning the inside out, or letting the front and the back of the paper meet - dealing with impossibility, illusions, and reflections.
Half Way Through, 2006Acid free A4 115 gsm paper, pencil, and glue
Go look and enjoy.
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: A Night Visit
Reading Plan Text for February 28: John 3:1-8
It always surprises me whenever I re-read John just how different this Gospel is from the Synoptics, and just how many of our most remembered stories about Jesus' ministry are found in John alone. Nicodemus' visit to Jesus is one of those stories.
One of the things that stands out for me in this story is that we must beware of making sweeping generalizations about the various groups we encounter in the Gospels. Here is a Pharisee who recognizes who and what Jesus is and comes talk with, and perhaps learn more, from him. I always thought that Nicodemus came at night because he didn't want to be seen by the other Pharisees, or be seen AS a Pharisee, paying a visit to Jesus. Burridge, however, points out that rabbis often studied at night because it was a quiet time. I think both elements are present, but I also see that Nicodemus will be following a path many of us do when it comes to our faith and belief in Jesus--from quiet and/or pretty much hidden, to open and vocal support.
Nicodemus is also like many of us in his initial attempt to understand what Jesus is saying literally rather than spiritually.
Burridge spends some time in this chapter talking about "Water and the Spirit" here and throughout John. One particular thought that jumped out at me:
Peace,
Jeffri
It always surprises me whenever I re-read John just how different this Gospel is from the Synoptics, and just how many of our most remembered stories about Jesus' ministry are found in John alone. Nicodemus' visit to Jesus is one of those stories.
One of the things that stands out for me in this story is that we must beware of making sweeping generalizations about the various groups we encounter in the Gospels. Here is a Pharisee who recognizes who and what Jesus is and comes talk with, and perhaps learn more, from him. I always thought that Nicodemus came at night because he didn't want to be seen by the other Pharisees, or be seen AS a Pharisee, paying a visit to Jesus. Burridge, however, points out that rabbis often studied at night because it was a quiet time. I think both elements are present, but I also see that Nicodemus will be following a path many of us do when it comes to our faith and belief in Jesus--from quiet and/or pretty much hidden, to open and vocal support.
Nicodemus is also like many of us in his initial attempt to understand what Jesus is saying literally rather than spiritually.
Burridge spends some time in this chapter talking about "Water and the Spirit" here and throughout John. One particular thought that jumped out at me:
The paradox of this gospel is that although John's theology is extremely sacramental in the way ordinary things like water, bread and wine are used to convey great spiritual truths and meanings, he never actually describes the sacraments of baptism and communion, or indeed any others.
Peace,
Jeffri
The Commentary Has Arrived!
My hoped for transit time for the Commentary proved to be actuality. It arrived in this morning's mail delivery. The inside back cover contains a blurb informing us that these commentaries are published in the U.S. as the Daily Bible Commentary by Hendrickson Publishers. I did some checking around, and you can get it from Christianbook.com for $6.99 (almost half price!) here. Amazon.com and a couple of other places are out of stock--there must be a run on the Commentary on John for some reason. While I'm happy to have the "2008 Lambeth Conference Edition," quite frankly, I'd probably have been just as happy not to shell out $40 for the book and airmail delivery from Britain.
During the train ride home this evening I quickly read through the Preface, Introduction, and the chapters on the portion of John we've read so far. As I suspected, the Reading Plan follows the chapters of the Commentary. Each chapter is laid out so that it is on two facing pages, and each ends with a brief prayer. There is a great deal of food for thought in these pages--too much to go back and catch up on, if I want to keep up with the Reading Plan. At some point I may go back and delve more deeply into those sections.
The introduction puts John's Gospel in context in terms of history, culture, community, language, and in comparison with the other Gospels. At the end you will find a one page Glossary, a short annotated bibliography "For Further Reading," the Reading Plan, and a one page blurb on the bible studies being developed for the 2008 Lambeth Conference itself. There is also a preface by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams at the beginning of this edition. I have a few things to say about it, but I'd rather you read it for yourself before I let loose.
In a sermon I preached several years ago I said that John's Gospel was my least favorite. Since then, as I've studied it more and also become more aware of the mystic elements of my own faith, I have been coming to appreciate John more and more. What I've read of Burridge's commentary so far makes me feel that this appreciation will grow over the next months.
Peace,
Jeffri
During the train ride home this evening I quickly read through the Preface, Introduction, and the chapters on the portion of John we've read so far. As I suspected, the Reading Plan follows the chapters of the Commentary. Each chapter is laid out so that it is on two facing pages, and each ends with a brief prayer. There is a great deal of food for thought in these pages--too much to go back and catch up on, if I want to keep up with the Reading Plan. At some point I may go back and delve more deeply into those sections.
The introduction puts John's Gospel in context in terms of history, culture, community, language, and in comparison with the other Gospels. At the end you will find a one page Glossary, a short annotated bibliography "For Further Reading," the Reading Plan, and a one page blurb on the bible studies being developed for the 2008 Lambeth Conference itself. There is also a preface by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams at the beginning of this edition. I have a few things to say about it, but I'd rather you read it for yourself before I let loose.
In a sermon I preached several years ago I said that John's Gospel was my least favorite. Since then, as I've studied it more and also become more aware of the mystic elements of my own faith, I have been coming to appreciate John more and more. What I've read of Burridge's commentary so far makes me feel that this appreciation will grow over the next months.
Peace,
Jeffri
Walking At Lunchtime
It's a pretty nice day, so I took the opportunity to go for a walk at lunchtime. The sidewalks at home are still treacherous in many places. And sometimes at the end of the day I'm just too tired to want to bother walking at all. Besides, leaving the building for half an hour in the middle of the day makes a nice break. For 30 minutes I can forget about all things Episcopal, all things Anglican, and all things reorganizational. (By the way, we've been told that if someone asks, we can tell them where we've been placed in the new structure.) Not to mention that it's good for my blood pressure and blood sugar levels.
One of the things about Manhattan that surprises me over and over again, especially when I haven't been out walking in a while, is that it's not flat. For some reason, given that it's an island and its location, I have this mental picture of Manhattan as being relatively flat, especially from the Midtown area south. What makes this mental picture even more odd is that every morning I walk UPHILL from Grand Central Terminal to the office. Maybe it was all that time I spent in Chicago as a child. Chicago is relatively flat, at least the parts of it I frequented during visits to my mother's family. So my child's eye picture of "city is flat" seems to remain with me.
Today's surprise? I learned that the Murray Hill neighborhood is just south of where I work. For years I'd heard about Murray Hill. One of the Ricardo's phone numbers on I Love Lucy was MUrray Hill 5-9975. And for some reason it was a popular neighborhood for fictional settings in New York City. Today as my path went whichever way the walk lights led, I found myself in Murray Hill and realizing that it was Murray Hill. Six years I've been working here, occasionally walking through parts of the Murray Hill, and I never knew I was just two blocks away from my office.
The other thing I love about walking in the City is the architecture. For a time during my childhood I wanted to be an architect. Then I found out how much math was involved. However, buildings still interest me--especially older buildings. There are lots to see around here. Sometimes I wish I'd spent more time learning to draw, so I could capture some of them in sketches. Still, it is fun to look.
And now back to our regularly scheduled...
Peace,
Jeffri
One of the things about Manhattan that surprises me over and over again, especially when I haven't been out walking in a while, is that it's not flat. For some reason, given that it's an island and its location, I have this mental picture of Manhattan as being relatively flat, especially from the Midtown area south. What makes this mental picture even more odd is that every morning I walk UPHILL from Grand Central Terminal to the office. Maybe it was all that time I spent in Chicago as a child. Chicago is relatively flat, at least the parts of it I frequented during visits to my mother's family. So my child's eye picture of "city is flat" seems to remain with me.
Today's surprise? I learned that the Murray Hill neighborhood is just south of where I work. For years I'd heard about Murray Hill. One of the Ricardo's phone numbers on I Love Lucy was MUrray Hill 5-9975. And for some reason it was a popular neighborhood for fictional settings in New York City. Today as my path went whichever way the walk lights led, I found myself in Murray Hill and realizing that it was Murray Hill. Six years I've been working here, occasionally walking through parts of the Murray Hill, and I never knew I was just two blocks away from my office.
The other thing I love about walking in the City is the architecture. For a time during my childhood I wanted to be an architect. Then I found out how much math was involved. However, buildings still interest me--especially older buildings. There are lots to see around here. Sometimes I wish I'd spent more time learning to draw, so I could capture some of them in sketches. Still, it is fun to look.
And now back to our regularly scheduled...
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: John Explains
Reading Plan Text for February 27: John 2:21-25
Finally, we come to the point of the conversation after the Temple incident:
The last three verses in today's reading expand this theme, but from a slightly different angle. People are believing in Jesus and who he is as he continues to work among them. Obviously, he is not keeping quiet about his work. However, he clearly is not about to trust those outside his immediate circle because he can see them for what they are--although what he sees is not explained.
I'm still having trouble with the way the Reading Plan is breaking up the stories. Perhaps I need to be approaching these snippets more in the spirit of midrash, since the incompleteness lends itself to that kind of reflection.
Peace,
Jeffri
Finally, we come to the point of the conversation after the Temple incident:
But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.The Gospel is a record of a community's memories of Jesus and his words and deeds. It's not just the disciples that remembered that Jesus said this, it is the entire community. This passage also gives us one clue as to why John placed this story at the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than toward the end, where it appears in the other Gospels. John is making it explicitly clear who and what Jesus is from the beginning.
The last three verses in today's reading expand this theme, but from a slightly different angle. People are believing in Jesus and who he is as he continues to work among them. Obviously, he is not keeping quiet about his work. However, he clearly is not about to trust those outside his immediate circle because he can see them for what they are--although what he sees is not explained.
I'm still having trouble with the way the Reading Plan is breaking up the stories. Perhaps I need to be approaching these snippets more in the spirit of midrash, since the incompleteness lends itself to that kind of reflection.
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: Who Is This Nut?
John 2:17-20
So this Nazarene and his buddies arrive in Jerusalem for Passover. They stride into the Temple where the Nazarene takes a whip to the vendors in the outer courtyard, chases them all out into the street, and shouts some gibberish about his father's house. Obviously, the officials want to know what the heck he's doing and why: "Who put you in charge?" And his response? A boastful "Go ahead and knock the whole place down! I'll put it back up in three days!" At which point the crowd begins to think he's really crazy. "In three days? Three DAYS? You've got to be kidding! It's taken 46 years to complete this much! How on earth could you possibly put it all back together in three days?"
As with everything, John (we really don't know who the author was, but for ease of reference, I'm referring to him as John) must have a reason for making the Cleansing of the Temple Jesus' first truly public act. No preaching, no parable, no miracle, just barge into the temple and clear it out. Clearly, Jesus is here to make a point. The point is not obvious to the crowd at the temple, and it is not even clear to us until the next verses, which we'll read tomorrow.
In the meantime, here's this nut disrupting preparations for Passover. By morning he'll be the talk of Jerusalem. And as the saying goes, "Bad publicity is still publicity--it gets your name in the paper!" Jesus certainly has everyone's attention for whatever he's going to do next.
Peace,
Jeffri
So this Nazarene and his buddies arrive in Jerusalem for Passover. They stride into the Temple where the Nazarene takes a whip to the vendors in the outer courtyard, chases them all out into the street, and shouts some gibberish about his father's house. Obviously, the officials want to know what the heck he's doing and why: "Who put you in charge?" And his response? A boastful "Go ahead and knock the whole place down! I'll put it back up in three days!" At which point the crowd begins to think he's really crazy. "In three days? Three DAYS? You've got to be kidding! It's taken 46 years to complete this much! How on earth could you possibly put it all back together in three days?"
As with everything, John (we really don't know who the author was, but for ease of reference, I'm referring to him as John) must have a reason for making the Cleansing of the Temple Jesus' first truly public act. No preaching, no parable, no miracle, just barge into the temple and clear it out. Clearly, Jesus is here to make a point. The point is not obvious to the crowd at the temple, and it is not even clear to us until the next verses, which we'll read tomorrow.
In the meantime, here's this nut disrupting preparations for Passover. By morning he'll be the talk of Jerusalem. And as the saying goes, "Bad publicity is still publicity--it gets your name in the paper!" Jesus certainly has everyone's attention for whatever he's going to do next.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, February 25, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Process Note
My reflections on John's Gospel get posted late in the evening, because they are usually the last thing I do before going to bed. I have made them part of my evening prayer and reflection time. However, that means, you don't see them until later the next day. I'm thinking that it might help our discussions--not that there have been any yet--if I work a day ahead. Starting tonight, I will be posting reflections for each day's reading the night before.
Of course, it might not make any difference, and I may just continue having this discussion with myself.
I'm hoping that this schedule of readings will make more sense once the Commentary arrives. And I'm hoping the Commentary will spark some better reflections. Or maybe...
Well, in any case, I'm off to do tomorrows readings.
Peace,
Jeffri
Of course, it might not make any difference, and I may just continue having this discussion with myself.
I'm hoping that this schedule of readings will make more sense once the Commentary arrives. And I'm hoping the Commentary will spark some better reflections. Or maybe...
Well, in any case, I'm off to do tomorrows readings.
Peace,
Jeffri
Bible Study With The Bishops: Get Out!
Today's passage from the Reading Plan is John 2:13-17, the Cleansing of the Temple.
This story has always puzzled me. What is the point? The outer precincts of the temple are not the "holy areas," because non-Jews are allowed into this part. Is it perhaps one of those "the other religions do this in their temples, so we ought not to be doing it in ours" situation? Or maybe Jesus simply did this to get attention so that the conversation that comes in the next verses (to be read tomorrow) can take place?
This passage is one of those from which we could extrapolate all sorts of things. For instance, should we really be having Christmas Fairs in our undercrofts or parish halls? What about bake sales? Car washes in the parking lot? You could even make an argument against having animals in the building for Saint Francis Day celebrations! Various denominations and sects have instituted rules based on interpretations of verses that are even more ambiguous than these.
Peace,
Jeffri
This story has always puzzled me. What is the point? The outer precincts of the temple are not the "holy areas," because non-Jews are allowed into this part. Is it perhaps one of those "the other religions do this in their temples, so we ought not to be doing it in ours" situation? Or maybe Jesus simply did this to get attention so that the conversation that comes in the next verses (to be read tomorrow) can take place?
This passage is one of those from which we could extrapolate all sorts of things. For instance, should we really be having Christmas Fairs in our undercrofts or parish halls? What about bake sales? Car washes in the parking lot? You could even make an argument against having animals in the building for Saint Francis Day celebrations! Various denominations and sects have instituted rules based on interpretations of verses that are even more ambiguous than these.
Peace,
Jeffri
Keeping Secrets
A couple of days ago the news came across one of my mail lists that Honor Moore had written a book about her father, Bishop Paul Moore that is due out in May. It also noted that an excerpt would be appearing in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker. This morning a link to an online interview with Honor on the magazine's web site came across the same list. I listened to the interview while doing some filing, and I bought the March 3 issue on my way to the train home. I was catching up on other reading during the trip home, so I didn't get to Honor's excerpt until this evening while working on my parish web site (graphics are cumbersome in the content management system I've inherited, so I had lots of "wait time" during which to read).
Reactions to the article have already started to hit the blogosphere: Elizabeth Kaeton's Telling Secrets, Mark Harris' Preludium, and Episcopal Cafe's The Lead are the first three I happened across. The story hasn't yet hit the conservative blogs I usually read, nor even that place I try not to visit. I'm sure it won't be too long before it does. Nor will it be long before some of the liberals also start to rip the good bishop to shreds. As Elizabeth writes:
I met Paul Moore three times, and only after he had retired as Bishop of New York. The first time he dropped in on a friend of mine, while I happened to be visiting. The second time that same friend and I were walking in Greenwich Village and ran into him on the street. The last time was at my parish when our new rector, who happened to be Paul's godson, invited his godfather to preside at the first Easter Vigil held at the parish.
Honor's public revelation of her father's sexuality was not a surprise to some of us. It had been more or less an open secret in some circles. But it wasn't knowledge to be shared outside the circle. Given his generation, it was simply the way life was and is, even though our society has become more open about matters of sexual orientation and identity.
Reading the excerpt of Honor's book was a rather more personal experience for me than I imagine it will be for many (but not all). I don't know why that should have surprised me, but it did.
My father, a respected school teacher, lived a similar life. I learned about his secret at 13 when I stumbled across some of his porn collection, not unlike Honor finding a book in her father's study. My mother made a similar discovery nine years later, shortly after I'd come out to my parents during Christmas break. The resulting strain on our family manifested itself in many ways. More secrets were revealed over the next few months, but others remained untold until after Dad died.
I give my parents a lot of credit for the way they worked through that period. They remained amicably married, for the most part, until my father died of Pancreatic Cancer 10 years later. I know there were rough patches, and sometime I picture them as being somewhat like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt after they weathered their own difficult marital problems. Each of my parents was also instrumental in helping me heal my strained relationship with the other.
My mother and I had always been close, but during college, as I came to terms with my sexuality, we grew distant. At one point she wrote me a letter letting me know how badly she felt that I didn't confide in her any more. My reply was a rather undeserved lashing out, in spite of the fact that I rewrote the letter three times before sending it. I don't think we'd be speaking even now if I'd sent either of the first two drafts! My father was furious. No matter what went on between the two of them, he was always fiercely protective of my mother. He told me in no uncertain terms that he expected me to go to Chicago while Mom was there visiting her parents. I resisted, but he was adamant. Finally, I said I'd go. It was a long, silent weekend, but it was the beginning of the healing of our relationship.
My father and I had never been really close, and after the family turmoil of my college years, we drifted even further apart. Then one year I was planning a vacation trip, one of the Windjammer Cruises I'd been wanting to take for a while. Brian wasn't going with me that year, as our work schedules were such that our vacations fell at different times. At some point during the planning process, Mom came to talk to me. Dad, it seemed, really wanted to go on the same cruise, and would I consider traveling with him. I hemmed and hawed. Given our relationship, I just couldn't picture the two of us sharing one of those tiny cabins for a week. Mom pleaded, reasoned, and kept after me until I finally relented. I was NOT a happy camper. Traveling alone with my father was not the way I wanted to spend a vacation.
As it turned out, Dad and I had a great time. We were good traveling companions. We had some time to talk. We found we could enjoy each other's company. By the time we returned home our relationship relationship was well on its way to wholeness. I have always been thankful that Mom pushed and prodded until I agreed, because for the last two years of his life, Dad and I had a good father-son relationship.
I'm not sure why Honor chose to tell her father's story now. That she tells it in the context of their relationship is tremendously important. As this article, and then the book, become the topic of conversation, critics on all sides of the issue must remember that other people are involved. We can argue until we are all blue in the face about the rightness and the wrongness, the opportunities missed or not missed, and every other permutation of this particular aspect of Paul Moore's life. What we must not forget is that he was a human being in relationships with other human beings. As was my father. As am I. As is Honor.
It is not our place to judge. It is our place to love.
Peace,
Jeffri
Reactions to the article have already started to hit the blogosphere: Elizabeth Kaeton's Telling Secrets, Mark Harris' Preludium, and Episcopal Cafe's The Lead are the first three I happened across. The story hasn't yet hit the conservative blogs I usually read, nor even that place I try not to visit. I'm sure it won't be too long before it does. Nor will it be long before some of the liberals also start to rip the good bishop to shreds. As Elizabeth writes:
I hope we're proved wrong, but knowing the blogosphere...There will be rending of garments and much wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth on both sides of the aisle about this book and her revelation.
Some will cry that many LGBT people could have been helped and the church's journey to greater social justice advanced years sooner "if only he had told the truth."
Others will cry that the church and his legacy is soiled by this truth that should have remained secret - that nothing good can come of any of this.
There will be those who will laugh and scorn the Body of Christ in its incarnation as The Episcopal Church and say this is but one more piece of evidence of its 'internal decay' which provides them with one more reason to leave 'this apostate church.'
Still others will say, "I told you so!" and smirk, "See, Gene Robinson is not the first gay bishop. He's the first honestly gay bishop."
I met Paul Moore three times, and only after he had retired as Bishop of New York. The first time he dropped in on a friend of mine, while I happened to be visiting. The second time that same friend and I were walking in Greenwich Village and ran into him on the street. The last time was at my parish when our new rector, who happened to be Paul's godson, invited his godfather to preside at the first Easter Vigil held at the parish.
Honor's public revelation of her father's sexuality was not a surprise to some of us. It had been more or less an open secret in some circles. But it wasn't knowledge to be shared outside the circle. Given his generation, it was simply the way life was and is, even though our society has become more open about matters of sexual orientation and identity.
Reading the excerpt of Honor's book was a rather more personal experience for me than I imagine it will be for many (but not all). I don't know why that should have surprised me, but it did.
My father, a respected school teacher, lived a similar life. I learned about his secret at 13 when I stumbled across some of his porn collection, not unlike Honor finding a book in her father's study. My mother made a similar discovery nine years later, shortly after I'd come out to my parents during Christmas break. The resulting strain on our family manifested itself in many ways. More secrets were revealed over the next few months, but others remained untold until after Dad died.
I give my parents a lot of credit for the way they worked through that period. They remained amicably married, for the most part, until my father died of Pancreatic Cancer 10 years later. I know there were rough patches, and sometime I picture them as being somewhat like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt after they weathered their own difficult marital problems. Each of my parents was also instrumental in helping me heal my strained relationship with the other.
My mother and I had always been close, but during college, as I came to terms with my sexuality, we grew distant. At one point she wrote me a letter letting me know how badly she felt that I didn't confide in her any more. My reply was a rather undeserved lashing out, in spite of the fact that I rewrote the letter three times before sending it. I don't think we'd be speaking even now if I'd sent either of the first two drafts! My father was furious. No matter what went on between the two of them, he was always fiercely protective of my mother. He told me in no uncertain terms that he expected me to go to Chicago while Mom was there visiting her parents. I resisted, but he was adamant. Finally, I said I'd go. It was a long, silent weekend, but it was the beginning of the healing of our relationship.
My father and I had never been really close, and after the family turmoil of my college years, we drifted even further apart. Then one year I was planning a vacation trip, one of the Windjammer Cruises I'd been wanting to take for a while. Brian wasn't going with me that year, as our work schedules were such that our vacations fell at different times. At some point during the planning process, Mom came to talk to me. Dad, it seemed, really wanted to go on the same cruise, and would I consider traveling with him. I hemmed and hawed. Given our relationship, I just couldn't picture the two of us sharing one of those tiny cabins for a week. Mom pleaded, reasoned, and kept after me until I finally relented. I was NOT a happy camper. Traveling alone with my father was not the way I wanted to spend a vacation.
As it turned out, Dad and I had a great time. We were good traveling companions. We had some time to talk. We found we could enjoy each other's company. By the time we returned home our relationship relationship was well on its way to wholeness. I have always been thankful that Mom pushed and prodded until I agreed, because for the last two years of his life, Dad and I had a good father-son relationship.
I'm not sure why Honor chose to tell her father's story now. That she tells it in the context of their relationship is tremendously important. As this article, and then the book, become the topic of conversation, critics on all sides of the issue must remember that other people are involved. We can argue until we are all blue in the face about the rightness and the wrongness, the opportunities missed or not missed, and every other permutation of this particular aspect of Paul Moore's life. What we must not forget is that he was a human being in relationships with other human beings. As was my father. As am I. As is Honor.
It is not our place to judge. It is our place to love.
Peace,
Jeffri
Walking
I went out for a walk during the first half of my lunch break. Outside. Walking. I haven't been able to do that for weeks. It's either been too cold, too yucky, or we've been too busy at work. Pretty soon I'll be able to walk from home to the train station in the mornings and back again in the evenings. I thought about it this morning, but it was 22 degrees outside. That's just too cold to be outside for the 20 minutes it takes to walk to the station.
I do "walk" most days. What I actually do is pace in my apartment while reading in the evenings. However, it is effective, and I can see the difference in my legs; not to mention that between the walking and watching what I eat, I am losing weight gradually. Faster would be more gratifying, but I'm more likely to keep it off the way I'm doing it this time.
My plan is to start bicycling again, with the ultimate goal of being able to take another bike tour next year. There are still a couple of trips in Ireland that I'd like to take, and the same company now offers a variety of trips in several other countries. They also offer some walking tours, but I really enjoyed the biking I did in Ireland. I can't believe it's been almost seven years since my last trip.
But walking is enjoyable, too. I like walking in the City at lunchtime. Lots of people watching as well as seeing how the area changes gradually. And the exercise is good.
My lunch break is about over, so it's back to my work.
Peace,
Jeffri
I do "walk" most days. What I actually do is pace in my apartment while reading in the evenings. However, it is effective, and I can see the difference in my legs; not to mention that between the walking and watching what I eat, I am losing weight gradually. Faster would be more gratifying, but I'm more likely to keep it off the way I'm doing it this time.
My plan is to start bicycling again, with the ultimate goal of being able to take another bike tour next year. There are still a couple of trips in Ireland that I'd like to take, and the same company now offers a variety of trips in several other countries. They also offer some walking tours, but I really enjoyed the biking I did in Ireland. I can't believe it's been almost seven years since my last trip.
But walking is enjoyable, too. I like walking in the City at lunchtime. Lots of people watching as well as seeing how the area changes gradually. And the exercise is good.
My lunch break is about over, so it's back to my work.
Peace,
Jeffri
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: Water Into Wine
Today I'm caught up with the Reading Plan. Having read passages from the last two weeks in two groups, rather than passage by passage, I don't I understand the logic of the daily divisions of the passages. For instance, today I read the passages assigned for this past Thursday and Friday. Together they comprise the entire story of the Wedding at Cana. Yet Thursday's passage was John 2:1-8 and Friday's John 2:9-12. Looking at the Plan, I can see that the folks who put it together are following the sections from the Peoples Bible Commentary on John. I'm assuming (yes, I know, a dangerous thing to do) that it will make some sense when my copy of the commentary arrives.
I've already done some writing about this passage here.
Again, I pulled down the four translations and the EfM Year 2 binder. The first thing that jumped out at me reading the story this time was "On the third day..." On the third day of what? In this instance The Message helped to clarify this. It begins, "Three days later..." That means that the wedding took place three days after the conversation with Nathanael at the end of the previous chapter. Going back to the notes in my Harper Collins Study NRSV I found this little snippet:
Reading the passage this evening, I was struck by Jesus' hesitation to do as his mother asks. He does not hesitate in proving to his first disciples who he is, as shown in his conversation with Nathanael. John the Baptist has also been publicly vocal about who Jesus is. Yet in Cana he tells his mother, "My hour has not yet come." This almost sounds like the Jesus we see in Mark who keeps ordering his disciples "tell no one!"
There was nothing interesting in the EfM binder. I'm anxious to see what the Commentary has to say.
Peace,
Jeffri
I've already done some writing about this passage here.
Again, I pulled down the four translations and the EfM Year 2 binder. The first thing that jumped out at me reading the story this time was "On the third day..." On the third day of what? In this instance The Message helped to clarify this. It begins, "Three days later..." That means that the wedding took place three days after the conversation with Nathanael at the end of the previous chapter. Going back to the notes in my Harper Collins Study NRSV I found this little snippet:
The third day seems to continue the series of days from 1:29, 35, 43. (p. 2016)What is the point of this concern with the chronology of the early days of Jesus' ministry?
Reading the passage this evening, I was struck by Jesus' hesitation to do as his mother asks. He does not hesitate in proving to his first disciples who he is, as shown in his conversation with Nathanael. John the Baptist has also been publicly vocal about who Jesus is. Yet in Cana he tells his mother, "My hour has not yet come." This almost sounds like the Jesus we see in Mark who keeps ordering his disciples "tell no one!"
There was nothing interesting in the EfM binder. I'm anxious to see what the Commentary has to say.
Peace,
Jeffri
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops: In The Beginning
Today I started my catch up reading on the Lambeth Conference Daily Reading Plan. Since the commentary has not yet arrived, I pulled four translations of the Bible and the EfM (Education for Ministry) Year Two binder (the New Testament) from my bookshelf. That's essentially the same thing I do when I start to prepare a sermon.
The four translations I have are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The Message. I like each of them for different reasons, and they are the four I tend to consult most frequently. That's why I own one copy of each--two of the NRSV, because I have a small edition for traveling. When I need to see one of the myriad of other translations, I can look just about any of them up on the Internet.
The EfM texts are not the be all and end all of biblical commentary or scholarship, but they do provide a good place to begin. And since I am a graduate of the program and currently co-mentor a group at St. Paul's Fairfield, they are a reference on my bookshelf. If I need other commentaries, I usually borrow them from a friend or coworker, check them out of the library, or look them up on the Internet.
A couple of comments about John in general. To me, and to others, John is the most mystic of the Gospels. John is also the source of some of our most familiar and beloved images of Jesus--The Good Shepherd and the Vine and the Branches, to name just two. I have some things to say about these, but I'll wait until they come up in the reading plan to discuss them.
So today I read Chapter 1 in the four translations. What follows are my thoughts about the opening of John's Gospel.
The first thing I noted was that Verse 1 remained unchanged through the first three translations:
The second thing that jumped out at me was that the author of John glosses over Jesus' baptism. John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove, a familiar image, but the actual baptism is not mentioned. Nor do we hear God saying "This is my beloved Son" in the manner found in the Synoptic Gospels (or "You are," in Luke).
It was also interesting to note that the KJV and The Message make the Cephas/Peter means stone/rock connection directly in the text rather than in a footnote.
The story of Nathanael's reaction to Jesus struck me as a foreshadowing of Thomas' need to see the resurrected Jesus for himself, both stories like bookends of the need for concrete proof at the beginning and the end of the story. Both Nathanael and Thomas are also present when Jesus appears in Galilee after his resurrection.
The EfM text, like most commentaries and other introductory texts, talks about the similarities and differences between John and the other three Gospels. A couple of passages that caught my eye when I skimmed through it:
Of course, then there is John the Mystic:
And finally, this little gem from the EfM text:
Tomorrow we'll begin Chapter 2 and be caught up with the Reading Plan. If you've been following along, did you note that there are no readings for Saturdays or Sundays? I wonder why they did that? Anyone have any ideas about that?
Peace,
Jeffri
The four translations I have are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The Message. I like each of them for different reasons, and they are the four I tend to consult most frequently. That's why I own one copy of each--two of the NRSV, because I have a small edition for traveling. When I need to see one of the myriad of other translations, I can look just about any of them up on the Internet.
The EfM texts are not the be all and end all of biblical commentary or scholarship, but they do provide a good place to begin. And since I am a graduate of the program and currently co-mentor a group at St. Paul's Fairfield, they are a reference on my bookshelf. If I need other commentaries, I usually borrow them from a friend or coworker, check them out of the library, or look them up on the Internet.
A couple of comments about John in general. To me, and to others, John is the most mystic of the Gospels. John is also the source of some of our most familiar and beloved images of Jesus--The Good Shepherd and the Vine and the Branches, to name just two. I have some things to say about these, but I'll wait until they come up in the reading plan to discuss them.
So today I read Chapter 1 in the four translations. What follows are my thoughts about the opening of John's Gospel.
The first thing I noted was that Verse 1 remained unchanged through the first three translations:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Peterson's Message paraphrases it this way:
The Word was first,I'm not always fond of the way Peterson paraphrases the ancient texts, but usually his rendering is clear and understandable. Not in this case.
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The second thing that jumped out at me was that the author of John glosses over Jesus' baptism. John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove, a familiar image, but the actual baptism is not mentioned. Nor do we hear God saying "This is my beloved Son" in the manner found in the Synoptic Gospels (or "You are," in Luke).
It was also interesting to note that the KJV and The Message make the Cephas/Peter means stone/rock connection directly in the text rather than in a footnote.
The story of Nathanael's reaction to Jesus struck me as a foreshadowing of Thomas' need to see the resurrected Jesus for himself, both stories like bookends of the need for concrete proof at the beginning and the end of the story. Both Nathanael and Thomas are also present when Jesus appears in Galilee after his resurrection.
The EfM text, like most commentaries and other introductory texts, talks about the similarities and differences between John and the other three Gospels. A couple of passages that caught my eye when I skimmed through it:
Seeking to understand the Fourth Gospel does not commit us to any particular theory of its origin. What is at stake is not how it got that way, but what it means. (p. 180)It seems to me that "how it got that way" does have some impact on "what it means," but then I tend to be of the Historical-Critical school of thought when it comes to bible study. Which shouldn't surprise any of you who know me.
Of course, then there is John the Mystic:
As we see again and again, Johannine words and phrases and even whole passages often seem ambiguous, very probably because the evangelist intends the text to carry more than one idea or image. (p. 185)There are times when looking at John's Gospel from the Historical-Critical method just doesn't work. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut, your heart, and/or your faith.
And finally, this little gem from the EfM text:
One might think of this Gospel as a Greek drama, with Jesus as protagonist, the Jews, antagonists, and the disciples and /or crowds as chorus. (p. 178)This brings to mind a discussion about Corneille's Polyeucte during one of my college French literature classes as to whether or not the protagonist had the "fatal flaw" necessary to make him a tragic figure. Whether or not Jesus is a tragic figure might make for an interesting discussion, don't you think?
Tomorrow we'll begin Chapter 2 and be caught up with the Reading Plan. If you've been following along, did you note that there are no readings for Saturdays or Sundays? I wonder why they did that? Anyone have any ideas about that?
Peace,
Jeffri
Friday, February 22, 2008
February Shower
No, not the weather. A baby shower.
Willow and Luke, friends and co-workers, are expecting their first child in seven weeks. Some of the folks from Willow's department organized the shower, which was held this afternoon in the conference room on our floor. There were goodies, gifts, and guffaws (okay, laughter, but I couldn't resist the alliteration).
I crocheted a baby blanket as my gift to Willow and Luke. Wednesday night I ran out of yarn with only one side left to be edged, so I finished it last night after a run to Michael's. Here is a picture of it spread out on my queen-size bed before wrapping to give you an idea of the size.
Here is a closeup of one corner. I used acrylic, worsted weight, four-ply yarn and a size N hook.
And here is Willow opening it at the shower.
This is Luke reading aloud to us from one of the books they received. He'll make a great Dad.
And here is a picture of the two of them together. Willow is wearing the ribbon hat put together during the opening of the gifts. It was a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend an hour on a winter afternoon.
Peace,
Jeffri
Willow and Luke, friends and co-workers, are expecting their first child in seven weeks. Some of the folks from Willow's department organized the shower, which was held this afternoon in the conference room on our floor. There were goodies, gifts, and guffaws (okay, laughter, but I couldn't resist the alliteration).
I crocheted a baby blanket as my gift to Willow and Luke. Wednesday night I ran out of yarn with only one side left to be edged, so I finished it last night after a run to Michael's. Here is a picture of it spread out on my queen-size bed before wrapping to give you an idea of the size.
Here is a closeup of one corner. I used acrylic, worsted weight, four-ply yarn and a size N hook.
And here is Willow opening it at the shower.
This is Luke reading aloud to us from one of the books they received. He'll make a great Dad.
And here is a picture of the two of them together. Willow is wearing the ribbon hat put together during the opening of the gifts. It was a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend an hour on a winter afternoon.Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, February 21, 2008
It's In The Mail, And We're Already Behind Schedule
This morning I received an email from the Bible Reading Fellowship in England letting me know that they had "dispatched" my order. Since I spent a little extra for shipment by air, I'm hoping that my copy of the Commentary on John will be here sometime next week.
Also this morning I printed out the Daily Reading Plan the Bishops will be following as they prepare for the Lambeth Conference. I noted that the plan began last week on February 11, even though the Anglican Communion News Service did not issue their release until yesterday. So we're already behind schedule! I'll catch up on the Gospel reading over the weekend and on the commentary selections when my copy arrives.
As we prepare to join the bishops in their bible reading and study, take a moment to go over to Scott Gunn's Seven Whole Days and read his post "Why the Lambeth agenda is just right." Also check out The Episcopal Majority for Christopher Webber's series "Unity And Diversity in the Lambeth Conference":
Peace,
Jeffri
Also this morning I printed out the Daily Reading Plan the Bishops will be following as they prepare for the Lambeth Conference. I noted that the plan began last week on February 11, even though the Anglican Communion News Service did not issue their release until yesterday. So we're already behind schedule! I'll catch up on the Gospel reading over the weekend and on the commentary selections when my copy arrives.
As we prepare to join the bishops in their bible reading and study, take a moment to go over to Scott Gunn's Seven Whole Days and read his post "Why the Lambeth agenda is just right." Also check out The Episcopal Majority for Christopher Webber's series "Unity And Diversity in the Lambeth Conference":
- Part 1 - The Beginning
- Part 2 - Broader Agendas
- Part 3 - Coming to Grips with Unity and Diversity
- Part 4 - Living Together as a Truly Global Community
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bible Study With The Bishops
The Anglican Communion News Service announced today that
The conference bible studies will be based on the "I am" sayings in John's Gospel, and recommended pre-reading is the People's Bible Commentary (PBC) Commentary on John's Gospel by Richard Burridge. You can download the reading plan here and follow along with the bishops as they read through the Gospel and the commentary. You can order the new edition of the commentary, which includes a day-by-day, week-by-week reading plan and a new foreword by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from the Bible Reading Fellowship. I've ordered a copy, and I'm planning on following the preparatory reading leading up to the Lambeth Conference.
The conference bible studies themselves,
What I am thinking is, in the midst of the tempest in the Anglican teapot and the controversy surrounding the Lambeth Conference, what would happen if people across the Anglican Communion read and study along with the bishops? What might grow out of conversations stemming from our reading and studying together?
Anyone interested?
Peace,
Jeffri
At the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Professor Gerald West (University KwaZulu-Natal, Southern Africa) has convened an international group to prepare Bible studies for the Lambeth Conference. Members of the group came from DR Congo, USA, UK, Tanzania, and India.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has encouraged as many as possible in the Communion to make such preparation a priority.
The conference bible studies will be based on the "I am" sayings in John's Gospel, and recommended pre-reading is the People's Bible Commentary (PBC) Commentary on John's Gospel by Richard Burridge. You can download the reading plan here and follow along with the bishops as they read through the Gospel and the commentary. You can order the new edition of the commentary, which includes a day-by-day, week-by-week reading plan and a new foreword by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from the Bible Reading Fellowship. I've ordered a copy, and I'm planning on following the preparatory reading leading up to the Lambeth Conference.
The conference bible studies themselves,
specially prepared by the Bible Study group on the “Signs in John’s Gospel”, will be available in May on the Lambeth Conference website, designed as a series of studies for use in the Communion around the time of the Conference.I'll be keeping an eye open for those as well.
What I am thinking is, in the midst of the tempest in the Anglican teapot and the controversy surrounding the Lambeth Conference, what would happen if people across the Anglican Communion read and study along with the bishops? What might grow out of conversations stemming from our reading and studying together?
Anyone interested?
Peace,
Jeffri
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Two Parts Are Better Than One
GAFCON will still be going to Jerusalem in June, but they have been listening to feedback and have divided the conference into two parts.
Opening session? Keynote speech? Meetings for Bishops only? Exhibitors? This is a pilgrimage? It still sounds like a conference is still being held in Jerusalem. Not to mention that Jordan is in the Diocese of Jerusalem, so did the GAFCON organizers really listen to the Bishop of Jerusalem? And what is going on in Jordan? The GAFCON web site remains silent on the "important Consultation" to be held there.
It will be interesting to see what develops.
Peace,
Jeffri
After consultation with a number of church leaders in Jerusalem, and around the world, the pilgrimage of the Global Anglican Future Conference will now take place from June 22nd through June 29th. An important Consultation in Jordan from 18-22 June will include the conference leadership, theological resource group, those bishops serving in majority Islamic settings and other key leaders. The Jerusalem pilgrimage will focus on worship, prayer, discussions and Bible Study, shaped by the context of the Holy Land.On the surface this seems to address concerns of the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East. On the surface. Take a look at the brochure for the pilgrimage. Note particularly these sections on the second page:
Program – Registration is from 3pm to 6pm on June 22 at Convention hotel. The opening session follows dinner on Sunday evening June 22. The complete program, including meetings for Bishops only, will be provided prior to arrival. A keynote speech followed by Holy Communion is scheduled to end lunch time Sunday June 29.
Exhibitors - Pilgrims and commercial exhibitors can bring displays as part of the
Exhibition section. Please contact GAFCON in advance for arrangements.
Opening session? Keynote speech? Meetings for Bishops only? Exhibitors? This is a pilgrimage? It still sounds like a conference is still being held in Jerusalem. Not to mention that Jordan is in the Diocese of Jerusalem, so did the GAFCON organizers really listen to the Bishop of Jerusalem? And what is going on in Jordan? The GAFCON web site remains silent on the "important Consultation" to be held there.
It will be interesting to see what develops.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, February 18, 2008
It IS The Gays
Hard on the heels of the letter from the so-called GAFCON Primates, a news story about the Anglican tempest in a teapot appeared in yesterday's Kampala, Uganda Sunday Monitor. "Homosexuality: COU may secede" reads the headline of the online version of the article.
The Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary of the Church of Uganda, has warned that the unrestrained conduct of some American clergy in endorsing homosexuality could soon cause the Anglican Communion to disintegrate.
“If they don’t change and continue to support homosexual practices and same-sex marriage, our relationship with them will be completely broken,” Canon Mwesigye said.
And in the alternative, suggested Canon Mwesigye, the African churches and many others in the fold would focus on building their individual fellowships, after all what matters in spiritual growth is belief in and worship of the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Anglicanism is just an identity and if they abuse it, we shall secede,” he said. “Yes, we shall remain Christians but not in the same [Anglican] Communion.”
The article also talks about the Church of Uganda's boycott of the upcoming Lambeth Conference, and concludes:
Hajji Katende [head of religious studies] of Makerere [University] predicts a gloomy end to the raging crisis.
“Homosexuality is going to be a very difficult issue to resolve and I think it will eventually lead to the break up of the Anglican Church, just like the Anglican Church initially seceded from the mother Catholic Church,” he said.
We all talk about the power, the politics, and the interpretation of Scripture, but the issue IS homosexuality plain and simple. We can only wonder what or who is next as they try to purify the Anglican Communion.
Peace,
Jeffri
Saturday, February 16, 2008
GAFCON - Level 2
At the end of January a group of 20 Anglican Evangelical bishops issued an open letter to the conservative primates who have publicly declared that they will not attend this summer's Lambeth Conference. This week those primates responded in an open letter, which is posted on the Church of Nigeria's web site. Note that while the letter from the British bishops is addressed directly to the five primates by their titles, the conservative bishops' response is posted as "GAFCON Response to English Evangelical Bishops." In the letter itself the five bishops identify themselves "as GAFCON Bishops and primates."
The GAFCON bishops are quite clear that two major reasons for their absence are (a) the presence of TEC bishops who participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, and (b) "the presence in some form or other of Gene Robinson and his male partner, and of 30 gay activists." They continue, "We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home."
There it is in black and white, they are afraid of being around lbgt folks. They are afraid they will have to answer questions about their stance on lbgt folks in the church in public. They are holding a separate conference (the Global Anglican Future CONference) largely due to their desire to not be around lbgt folks and their supporters. They have raised their GAy Fear CONdition up another level.
So while these bishops "emphasise [sic] that this action is not intended to signal that we are walking out of the Communion," by naming themselves GAFCON Bishops they have signaled their intent to separate themselves from the larger Communion by boycotting the Lambeth Conference in July and organizing the June conference. They have even given up on the great hope of so many conservatives, the Anglican Covenant:
Peace,
Jeffri
The GAFCON bishops are quite clear that two major reasons for their absence are (a) the presence of TEC bishops who participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, and (b) "the presence in some form or other of Gene Robinson and his male partner, and of 30 gay activists." They continue, "We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home."
There it is in black and white, they are afraid of being around lbgt folks. They are afraid they will have to answer questions about their stance on lbgt folks in the church in public. They are holding a separate conference (the Global Anglican Future CONference) largely due to their desire to not be around lbgt folks and their supporters. They have raised their GAy Fear CONdition up another level.
So while these bishops "emphasise [sic] that this action is not intended to signal that we are walking out of the Communion," by naming themselves GAFCON Bishops they have signaled their intent to separate themselves from the larger Communion by boycotting the Lambeth Conference in July and organizing the June conference. They have even given up on the great hope of so many conservatives, the Anglican Covenant:
Currently the prospects do not seem good for what is proposed in any way to engage with our current difficulties or relate to the facts on the ground. The state of our broken Communion is not mended by the Covenant.It is difficult not to view their separate conference as a major step toward realignment of, if not a splitting of, the Anglican Communion. All because they are afraid...
Peace,
Jeffri
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Numbers Numbers Everywhere
A while ago when my friend Tom and I were looking through our old yearbooks, I was surprised by the caption under my picture in our 9th grade book. The second phrase says "math brain!!"--yes, with two exclamation points. Math brain? I remember math as being extremely difficult. I spent hours at the kitchen table with Mom struggling through my math homework. When I was in 6th grade she had to re-teach me how to do long division, because the way they taught it to us in 4th grade made no sense to me (it was the era of the New Math).
Yet at the beginning of 8th grade the school placed me in Algebra 1, and advanced math class in Junior High School. That meant Geometry in 9th grade and Algebra 2 when I was a sophomore (the first year of high school in Darien in those days). Lots of long evenings at the kitchen table with Mom. I was relieved to finally be able to stop taking math classes after a semester of Trigonometry my junior year.
That began a two and a half year break from math. When I arrived at Rockford College at the beginning of my sophomore year, I had to choose between math and science. I chose math as the lesser of two evils, having suffered through three years of lab sciences beginning in 9th grade (Earth Science, Biology, and Chemistry). Imagine my surprise when I tested into Calculus. Imagine my further surprise to find that I actually understood Calculus. I just couldn't do the proofs correctly because of the Algebra involved. I did extra credit problems and always took advantage of my professor's office hours. So when the same professor offered Intro to Statistics second semester, I thought why not. My mother thought I was crazy. Yet I aced the class, and the skills I learned that semester were ones I used frequently in my various jobs over the years.
Which brings us to Sudoku, those grids of nine boxes of nine squares with some of the numbers filled in. I've avoided it like the plague, after all it involves numbers. Math. Yick. Many people say they're simply logic puzzles. Well, that was another reason to avoid them. I spent years telling myself logic puzzles were fun. You know, the ones that give you clues like "Mary lives next door to John, whose surname is not Smith. Neither of them lives in the house with the blue shutters where the Dalmation lives." Then you are supposed to figure out each person's given name, surname, the house they live in, and their pet. These puzzles even came with a handy dandy grid to help you solve them. I finally realized I didn't enjoy doing them and never picked one up again. Give me a crossword puzzle any day.
Yet every day on the train I'd see people working the numbers. My boss got hooked on them one afternoon last Spring while we were waiting for a delayed flight home. Finally, during a flight to California for a meeting, I decided to try one of the ones in the in-flight magazine. I'd finished the crossword puzzle, the movie was over, and I'd finished my book. It was an unmitigated disaster. How on earth can anyone do these, I thought. So don't ask me why I picked up a booklet of them in Grand Central Terminal on the way home one evening last month. Realizing that the system of dots and x's that I'd used on the airplane wasn't going to work, I studied the first one for a while. Over the following week I had a couple of "duh" moments--things I'd read in the directions but hadn't really understood until I started playing with the grids. Suddenly, these number puzzles started to make sense to me. It wasn't math, it was patterns. These were like jigsaws with numbers, not those wretched logic puzzles. I actually enjoy doing them. Amazing.
I haven't been doing as much reading during my commute time these days.
Peace,
Jeffri
Yet at the beginning of 8th grade the school placed me in Algebra 1, and advanced math class in Junior High School. That meant Geometry in 9th grade and Algebra 2 when I was a sophomore (the first year of high school in Darien in those days). Lots of long evenings at the kitchen table with Mom. I was relieved to finally be able to stop taking math classes after a semester of Trigonometry my junior year.
That began a two and a half year break from math. When I arrived at Rockford College at the beginning of my sophomore year, I had to choose between math and science. I chose math as the lesser of two evils, having suffered through three years of lab sciences beginning in 9th grade (Earth Science, Biology, and Chemistry). Imagine my surprise when I tested into Calculus. Imagine my further surprise to find that I actually understood Calculus. I just couldn't do the proofs correctly because of the Algebra involved. I did extra credit problems and always took advantage of my professor's office hours. So when the same professor offered Intro to Statistics second semester, I thought why not. My mother thought I was crazy. Yet I aced the class, and the skills I learned that semester were ones I used frequently in my various jobs over the years.
Which brings us to Sudoku, those grids of nine boxes of nine squares with some of the numbers filled in. I've avoided it like the plague, after all it involves numbers. Math. Yick. Many people say they're simply logic puzzles. Well, that was another reason to avoid them. I spent years telling myself logic puzzles were fun. You know, the ones that give you clues like "Mary lives next door to John, whose surname is not Smith. Neither of them lives in the house with the blue shutters where the Dalmation lives." Then you are supposed to figure out each person's given name, surname, the house they live in, and their pet. These puzzles even came with a handy dandy grid to help you solve them. I finally realized I didn't enjoy doing them and never picked one up again. Give me a crossword puzzle any day.
Yet every day on the train I'd see people working the numbers. My boss got hooked on them one afternoon last Spring while we were waiting for a delayed flight home. Finally, during a flight to California for a meeting, I decided to try one of the ones in the in-flight magazine. I'd finished the crossword puzzle, the movie was over, and I'd finished my book. It was an unmitigated disaster. How on earth can anyone do these, I thought. So don't ask me why I picked up a booklet of them in Grand Central Terminal on the way home one evening last month. Realizing that the system of dots and x's that I'd used on the airplane wasn't going to work, I studied the first one for a while. Over the following week I had a couple of "duh" moments--things I'd read in the directions but hadn't really understood until I started playing with the grids. Suddenly, these number puzzles started to make sense to me. It wasn't math, it was patterns. These were like jigsaws with numbers, not those wretched logic puzzles. I actually enjoy doing them. Amazing.
I haven't been doing as much reading during my commute time these days.
Peace,
Jeffri
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Catching Up
A week and a half ago I caught one of the bugs that is going around both my office and my parish. It put me totally out of commission for three days last week, and even now I'm worn out by mid-afternoon. Basically, I go home, eat supper, do a couple of necessary chores, and go to bed. At least I've been able to get through the past two nights without the need for cough syrup. Those 4 a.m. coughing fits are exhausting.
During the course of this illness, a lot of stuff happened--some of it important, some of it not so important, and some of it just plain silly. Friday, when I was finally out of bed and returning to work, I found that I'd slept through the Super Tuesday Primaries, the release of the St. Andrew's Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant, more unseasonable weather, and the release of job postings at the Church Center. The real kicker was waking up Friday morning and half-hearing the news report saying "Volcano... erupting... Quito... Ecuador..." Ruth-Ann is in Ecuador for the pilot of a curriculum project, the Executive Council meeting, and another project. Which volcano? How big of an eruption? How close to Quito (or even in Quito)? Fortunately, that worry was quickly eased as I heard further news reports that the volcano was one about 90 miles southeast of the city.
Would that other news stories had come and gone as quickly. The Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks to a lawyers' group about Sharia law have plagued the media and the blogosphere for the past few days. I think it's been blown all out of proportion, but it's also the symptom of a larger problem. Almost everyone is watching the Archbishop's every word to either undermine his position or support their own. The Archbishop is an academic who wouldn't know a sound byte from a mosquito bite--or at least acts as if he doesn't. He still has not learned that the Anglican Communion is not an academic setting, and he can't make it one.
Saturday I drove up to Hartford to attend a communications workshop at the diocese. It was a long day for one still recovering from the bug. Nor had I really wanted to go in the first place, but because the vestry retreat was the same weekend, I was the only one on the parish communications committee available to go. I'm glad I went. I picked up a lot of good information that will help us with our web site and parish communications in general.
Finally, even though we have the list of our positions at the Church Center--two-and-a-half weeks late--we still haven't been given the go ahead to let folks outside know. Hopefully, that word will come once everyone is back from the Executive Council meeting.
That's all for now, as my lunch hour is about up.
Peace,
Jeffri
During the course of this illness, a lot of stuff happened--some of it important, some of it not so important, and some of it just plain silly. Friday, when I was finally out of bed and returning to work, I found that I'd slept through the Super Tuesday Primaries, the release of the St. Andrew's Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant, more unseasonable weather, and the release of job postings at the Church Center. The real kicker was waking up Friday morning and half-hearing the news report saying "Volcano... erupting... Quito... Ecuador..." Ruth-Ann is in Ecuador for the pilot of a curriculum project, the Executive Council meeting, and another project. Which volcano? How big of an eruption? How close to Quito (or even in Quito)? Fortunately, that worry was quickly eased as I heard further news reports that the volcano was one about 90 miles southeast of the city.
Would that other news stories had come and gone as quickly. The Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks to a lawyers' group about Sharia law have plagued the media and the blogosphere for the past few days. I think it's been blown all out of proportion, but it's also the symptom of a larger problem. Almost everyone is watching the Archbishop's every word to either undermine his position or support their own. The Archbishop is an academic who wouldn't know a sound byte from a mosquito bite--or at least acts as if he doesn't. He still has not learned that the Anglican Communion is not an academic setting, and he can't make it one.
Saturday I drove up to Hartford to attend a communications workshop at the diocese. It was a long day for one still recovering from the bug. Nor had I really wanted to go in the first place, but because the vestry retreat was the same weekend, I was the only one on the parish communications committee available to go. I'm glad I went. I picked up a lot of good information that will help us with our web site and parish communications in general.
Finally, even though we have the list of our positions at the Church Center--two-and-a-half weeks late--we still haven't been given the go ahead to let folks outside know. Hopefully, that word will come once everyone is back from the Executive Council meeting.
That's all for now, as my lunch hour is about up.
Peace,
Jeffri
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Let Us Call Them What They Are
Terminology is often a difficult thing to grasp and define. Take for instance the current tempest in the Anglican teapot. I have always found "conservative" and "liberal" awkward ways to define the opposing ends of the spectrum. Kendall Harmon of TitusOneNine fame created the terms "reasserter" and "reappraiser," which have been enthusiastically adopted by the crowd at StandFirm. If only for that reason, I would find these labels offensive. And of course, there is the term "orthodox" which many on the "theological right" of the Anglican Communion have claimed as a definition of who they are, and is currently being used by the organizers of GAFCON. None of these terms completely capture the essence of the debate. For the purposes of this blog, from this point forward I will only use "conservative" to identify those on the "theological right" and "liberal" for those on the "theological left." Yes, they are awkward, but for me they are the closest to the issues under discussion in the Anglican Communion.
My reasons for selecting conservative and liberal are numerous, but let me start with my primary objections to many conservatives' use of the term "orthodox" to define themselves. My American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2002) gives the following definitions for orthodox:
Let me dispense with the second definition first. While there are people who believe the creeds ought to be thrown out, for the vast majority of liberals in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion the creeds form the core of our beliefs. We may argue about language, cultural context, and even that the concept of the Trinity is not biblically based; but then the Church Fathers argued over these same things. In fact, Christians have been arguing about the creeds and their meaning for centuries. Having different ideas about the content and meaning of the creeds does not make anyone more or less orthodox. It can, however make one more or less Orthodox, since disagreements over the creeds were one of the issues that played a part in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.
In terms of "accepted or traditional" Anglicanism, there have always been conservatives and liberals in the church. For the most part, Anglicans have lived with these differences without coming to blows. Occasionally, things escalated to the point of violence--the English Civil War comes to mind. Furthermore, what is "accepted or traditional" is constantly in a state of flux. Think of the Anglo-Catholic reforms, the Book of Common Prayer (even the 1662 "standard" has changed over the years), and which translation of the Bible is used and what passages are read in our services. In fact "traditional" Anglicanism has always meant living with change and the tension that comes with it.
I also want to take a quick look at "reasserter" and "reappraiser." My dictionary shows no definition for reasserter, but it does say this about assert:
People may identify themselves in any way they wish. However, that does not mean they are necessarily correct, nor are we obligated to use their term of choice when speaking or writing about them. This is especially true when dealing with those conservatives who are currently claiming to be the sole orthodox Anglicans and/or identifying themselves as reasserters.
Many conservatives are unhappy with the changes in the Episcopal Church and, once they took their unhappiness to conservative bishops in other provinces, the Anglican Communion. As if the church has been unchanged from its birth at Pentecost. People have been leaving churches over changes and disagreements for centuries--the split between the Eastern and Western churches, the Reformation, the English Separatists... In this recent tempest in the Anglican teapot, many conservatives have left--some to the Roman Catholic Church, some to other more theologically conservative denominations, but many to other Anglican jurisdictions. It is this last movement that is relatively new, and they are not simply going as individuals, but as whole congregations, associations, and even dioceses.
At first these conservatives thought this would be a temporary situation, until the Anglican Communion either brought the Episcopal Church into line or replaced it with a more conservative province. They could remain Anglicans without having to deal with what they see as the apostate Episcopal Church. Over time, however, it has become clear to them that the Anglican Communion as a whole may not be the savior they expected. The conservative primates to whom these people turned have also become increasingly frustrated with their inability to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the entire Anglican Communion to their way of thinking. Out of this frustration GAFCON was born.
Publicly, the purpose of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future CONferernce) seems to be evolving. I will not go into all the details here, since you can read about on their own site and on several blogs, but it becomes clearer and clearer that the organizers hope that GAFCON will realign the Anglican Communion. Ultimately, if one reads what is implied--and sometimes stated overtly--this realignment could lead to the separation of those self-proclaimed orthodox conservatives from what they view as the apostate liberal provinces. Essentially there will be two Anglican Communions, one looking toward the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other toward another figurehead, or, more likely, an Archbishop with real power in their version of a Communion. Separation. Schism.
These groups are no longer looking to change the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. They have all but given up attempting to "purify" them. They are now setting in motion the mechanics to create a separate Communion. So let us identify them by their actions and call them what they are: Schismatics.
Peace,
Jeffri
My reasons for selecting conservative and liberal are numerous, but let me start with my primary objections to many conservatives' use of the term "orthodox" to define themselves. My American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2002) gives the following definitions for orthodox:
Obviously, these folks are not Jewish. Nor do they belong to any of the Eastern Rite churches. Their use of orthodox clearly refers to what is "accepted or traditional" and "adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian creeds."1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, esp. in religion. 2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds. 3. Orthodox a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church. b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism. 4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional.
Let me dispense with the second definition first. While there are people who believe the creeds ought to be thrown out, for the vast majority of liberals in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion the creeds form the core of our beliefs. We may argue about language, cultural context, and even that the concept of the Trinity is not biblically based; but then the Church Fathers argued over these same things. In fact, Christians have been arguing about the creeds and their meaning for centuries. Having different ideas about the content and meaning of the creeds does not make anyone more or less orthodox. It can, however make one more or less Orthodox, since disagreements over the creeds were one of the issues that played a part in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.
In terms of "accepted or traditional" Anglicanism, there have always been conservatives and liberals in the church. For the most part, Anglicans have lived with these differences without coming to blows. Occasionally, things escalated to the point of violence--the English Civil War comes to mind. Furthermore, what is "accepted or traditional" is constantly in a state of flux. Think of the Anglo-Catholic reforms, the Book of Common Prayer (even the 1662 "standard" has changed over the years), and which translation of the Bible is used and what passages are read in our services. In fact "traditional" Anglicanism has always meant living with change and the tension that comes with it.
I also want to take a quick look at "reasserter" and "reappraiser." My dictionary shows no definition for reasserter, but it does say this about assert:
1. To state or express positively; affirm. 2. To defend or maintain. n. asserter.Likewise, there is no definition for reappraiser, but to reappraise means:
To make a fresh appraisal or evaluation of.Quite frankly, and as has been pointed out by others in the time since Kendall made these commonly used terms, both liberals and conservatives can be reasserters or reappraisers at different times.
People may identify themselves in any way they wish. However, that does not mean they are necessarily correct, nor are we obligated to use their term of choice when speaking or writing about them. This is especially true when dealing with those conservatives who are currently claiming to be the sole orthodox Anglicans and/or identifying themselves as reasserters.
Many conservatives are unhappy with the changes in the Episcopal Church and, once they took their unhappiness to conservative bishops in other provinces, the Anglican Communion. As if the church has been unchanged from its birth at Pentecost. People have been leaving churches over changes and disagreements for centuries--the split between the Eastern and Western churches, the Reformation, the English Separatists... In this recent tempest in the Anglican teapot, many conservatives have left--some to the Roman Catholic Church, some to other more theologically conservative denominations, but many to other Anglican jurisdictions. It is this last movement that is relatively new, and they are not simply going as individuals, but as whole congregations, associations, and even dioceses.
At first these conservatives thought this would be a temporary situation, until the Anglican Communion either brought the Episcopal Church into line or replaced it with a more conservative province. They could remain Anglicans without having to deal with what they see as the apostate Episcopal Church. Over time, however, it has become clear to them that the Anglican Communion as a whole may not be the savior they expected. The conservative primates to whom these people turned have also become increasingly frustrated with their inability to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the entire Anglican Communion to their way of thinking. Out of this frustration GAFCON was born.
Publicly, the purpose of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future CONferernce) seems to be evolving. I will not go into all the details here, since you can read about on their own site and on several blogs, but it becomes clearer and clearer that the organizers hope that GAFCON will realign the Anglican Communion. Ultimately, if one reads what is implied--and sometimes stated overtly--this realignment could lead to the separation of those self-proclaimed orthodox conservatives from what they view as the apostate liberal provinces. Essentially there will be two Anglican Communions, one looking toward the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other toward another figurehead, or, more likely, an Archbishop with real power in their version of a Communion. Separation. Schism.
These groups are no longer looking to change the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. They have all but given up attempting to "purify" them. They are now setting in motion the mechanics to create a separate Communion. So let us identify them by their actions and call them what they are: Schismatics.
Peace,
Jeffri
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)