Saturday, May 31, 2008

Far Left

Based on some theological reflection we did this morning at the Mission Church group gathering, I came home to look something up and stumbled across this online test.


Brain Lateralization Test Results
Right Brain (24%) The right hemisphere is the visual, figurative, artistic, and intuitive side of the brain.
Left Brain (60%) The left hemisphere is the logical, articulate, assertive, and practical side of the brain


This result does not surprise me. As I said during this morning's reflection, "I need to be more intentional about getting out of my left brain." I am learning to trust my intuition more often, and now and then I make an effort to nurture my creative impulses. Not that left brain activity and thinking are bad, just that I feel the need for more balance, a wider perspective on life
Update: I went back to the site and took the two other Left Brain/Right Brain tests. On the word test (a list of 30 words) I tested 30% Right Brain and 76% Left Brain. Using the 25 pairs of words, the results are 36.4% Right Brain and 63.6 Left Brain.

Peace,
Jeffri

Friday, May 30, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Casting Out

Reading Plan Text for May 30: John 16:1-7

Jesus continues to prepare his Disciples for what is to come. He warns them that they will be put out of the synagogues, as the religious leaders threatened to do to the blind man in Chapter 9 and the other leaders who believed in Chapter 12. He warns them that they will be killed by those
who will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. And they will do so because they have not known the Father or me. (16:2-3)
Obviously, as discussed before, John's community faced this exile and shunning from the synagogues of their own time. Jesus' promise of the coming Advocate (the Holy Spirit) was--and is--an important one.

More and more Anglicans are learning what it is like to be cast out of their religious communities. Lbgt folks have been experiencing this for years. Now many conservatives are experiencing it. And now that they are experiencing that pain, they are attempting to take their communities--their churches--with them, casting out those who disagree with their actions.

That is one problem with their actions--the casting out of others who have been members of those churches. Another is that no one is actually casting them out, no matter what they say about lawsuits, etc. They have chosen to leave. They try to turn it around and say that the Episcopal Church has left them by its actions and heresy, but they are not being asked to leave their churches. They are trying to take their churches with them.

And finally, no one is trying to kill them or advocate for stringent legal sanctions against their personal liberty. No matter how the rejectionists try to twist it, a number of high-level Anglican leaders in the provinces to which they are "fleeing" have publicly supported proposed legislation curbing freedom for lbgt folks and spoken out against our civil liberties.

So where is the Advocate in all of this? Sometimes it's hard to tell. As Mom commented on my post of the other day, where was God when Matthew Shepherd was beaten and left to die?

Peace,
Jeffri

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Listening - NOT

I've written about the Anglican Communion Listening Process and the failure of the Anglican Communion to follow through on any of the Lambeth Conference Resolutions about such a process. Philip Groves' promised study guide has just been released. Episcopal Cafe's The Lead has a brief post and is not impressed:
All well and good, but the book does not do what Resolution 1.10 at Lambeth 1998 suggested that it do. It does not listen to the experiences of gays and lesbians. Rather it listens to perspectives about them. It may be a valuable book, but the change in charge represents a failure of nerve at the highest level of the Communion. It is a tacit admission that some of the leaders of our communion are so bigoted that they will not allow gays to speak for themselves unless space is provided in the same forum for others to speak against them.
Note these two key sentences:
It does not listen to the experiences of gays and lesbians. Rather it listens to perspectives about them.
And this surprises us how? I'm guessing this will get dragged out just like the one we attempted here in the Episcopal Church.

Here's the "Listening" Process' site on the Anglican Communion web site, should you decide you want to learn more about it.

Peace,
Jeffri

Reading And Writing

blog readability test

Lisa Fox, one of my favorite bloggers (I like the way she looks at things), wrote about a conservative blogger who used an online tool to test the readability of selected conservative and liberal blogs. Take a look at Perpetua of Carthage's "Rating the Anglican Blogs for Readability". Here is her conclusion:
I was pretty much random sampling among the blogs I knew. I am not claiming this pattern of results would still occur in a larger sample. But in this sample, it appears that the conservative Anglican blogs (and some of these are very popular blogs) require a greater intellectual engagement than the progressive Episcopal blogs.
She says she didn't do a broad or scientific sampling, but her conclusion smacks of elitism, which I see as one of the great problems of the Episcopal Church. Not only are we seen as a denomination of the wealthy and privileged, we often perpetuate that image--and worse--by our elevation of scholastic achievement and attainment. Recently, our office received a voice mail request from a priest who was looking for materials to prepare adults for baptism and confirmation. I pulled together a list of our usual resources and gave her a call. She was familiar with all the resources I had, but they did not fit her needs. The people she was working with were all "blue collar" (her words) folks, many of whom had not completed high school and a couple who had not even completed middle school.

Where were resources that meet the needs of these folks? Why does our church assume that everyone who walks through the door has, or will soon have, a college education? What kind of message does that send to the world?

I admit that education has always been my biggest prejudice. I am constantly reminded in my everyday encounters with people that just because someone doesn't have a college education does not mean they aren't intelligent or wise. Three of my grandparents never went to college, and my paternal grandfather had only an eighth grade education. So how did I acquire this prejudice?

I don't know, and I struggle with it. As a person with a college degree and a lot of postgraduate work, it means a lot to me that this blog has a high school readability level. Just as it meant a lot to me when a former rector of our parish told me that he was impressed that I didn't use a lot of "fifty-cent words" when I preached. It means that my writing and speaking are accessible to a broad range of people. And isn't that the sign of an effective communicator?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: What?

Reading Plan Text for May 29: John 15:22-27

It was to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.' (15:25)
This verse jumped out at me when I read today's passage. What is John doing? The hate people have for Jesus exists simply to "fulfill the word"? What kind of God does that--makes people hate to prove a point? Like when God hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to make a point?

Or is it humankind trying to make sense of things? Trying to understand something greater than themselves and put it in terms they can comprehend?

Which brings me back to my first question. What is John doing? He wants to emphasize something to his audience: Jesus is the fulfillment of all that has gone before. Jesus IS the Christ.

The second part of the verse equally intrigues me. "They hated me without a cause." I can think of many causes why people would hate Jesus, but all of them stem from a single source: Jesus challenged the status quo.

If you are a person in power, and someone challenges that power, how do you react?

If you are living in comfort, and someone challenges your lifestyle, how do you react?

If you are complacent, and someone challenges your complacency, how do you react?

If someone disrupts your life, bringing major, uncomforatable change, how do you react?

From discomfort to hate for the change bringer is not a big step.

Peace,
Jeffri

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

More On Bishop Robinson--The Australian One

Clerical Whispers has a new story on the controversy surrounding Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's book.

Bishop Robinson now has a web site. You can find his tour schedule, reviews of Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church, documents and articles about the controversy, and some of the bishop's published articles and papers.

I haven't read his book yet, but given the amount of attention it is receiving, I figure it will be at a library or bookstore near me soon. Although he is a Roman Catholic bishop, given his role in Australia and what I've read so far, it seems to me that his insights into the abuse scandals in his church might prove helpful in looking at abuse in churches in general.

Peace,
Jeffri

The Joys of Commuting

Fun With Trains

The board (the screen, actually) told us that the 5:23 to Bridgeport was on Track 23. I was a bit earlier than usual, but I went right to the train. Because the third car from the rear--my usual car--was the bar car, I found a seat in the second car. At about 5:10 the passengers on the train across the platform suddenly got up, exited their train, and started boarding ours. A Metro North employee stepped into our car and announced that the 5:23 was now on Track 28. Trying to get off the train while the other passengers were already trying to board was difficult.

In the middle of this madhouse, a conductor made an announcement over the PA system on the train. The 5:23 to Bridgeport was on Track 28, and this train was now the 5:01 to New Haven. That caused a sudden pause in the mayhem as many of us trying to get off the train realized that the 5:01 also stopped at our stations, and we might even get home a few minutes earlier. So we turned around and found new seats on the train.

Obviously, the original train scheduled for the 5:01 had equipment problems, so they had to switch equipment. But what part of getting a whole trainload of passengers off a train while simultaneously getting another whole trainload of passengers onto the same train causes mass confusion doesn't Metro North understand? It would have been less confusing and caused less grumbling if they had gotten us off the 5:23 first and then moved the passengers for the 5:01 over. I understand that the 5:01 was late by that point, but the mob scene wasn't any faster than an orderly transition would have been. And in the confusion, one passenger did not get off the train, and so the 5:01 had to make an unscheduled stop in Stamford, which is the 5:23's first stop (the 5:01 makes its first stop in South Norwalk).

Fun With Cars 1

We arrived in South Norwalk earlier than I would have if I'd taken the 5:23. I got to my car and found that I couldn't get into it from the driver's side. A whompin' huge SUV was parked in the space next to me, but parked over the yellow line. Both the cars to the SUV's right were also badly parked, leaving a space that wasn't complete. The SUV's driver pulled into a space too small for it anyway, obviously more concerned about being able to park on the second level--the level of the station waiting room--than whether or not I could get into my car. I was sorely tempted to key the SUV but decided responding to inconsiderate behavior with inconsiderate behavior wasn't the way to go.

So if you're reading this driver of the SUV with Connecticut plate 129 LDX, next time think about what you're doing because the next person you park in might not be so considerate in response.

Fun With Cars 2

Why is it that drivers in the New York Metropolitan area (the "tri-state" area of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) can't figure out how to merge? Is it so difficult to let one person into the line of traffic in front of you? Would it really delay you all that much longer to show some consideration to another driver?

And what don't you understand about traffic lights? Would it kill you to stop when the light is red? No. But it could very well kill you to run the light because you can't wait an extra minute or two to get where you're going.

Maybe the rising price of gas is a good thing. More of us will ride bikes and walk! Of course, if they ride bikes like they drive...

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Preparation For Hatred

Reading Plan Text for May 28: John 15:18-21

If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. (15:18)
Jesus it trying to let the Disciples know what they will be facing in the very near future. Unfortunately, they will not fully understand until they encounter that hatred first hand.

I don't think anyone can truly prepare you for being hated. The first time you encounter raw, open hatred shocks you to the core. Other kids called me "fag" and "fairy" through most of my youth. I wasn't a jock, and I liked books, so I was a "fag." I did well in school, and teachers liked me, so I was a "fairy." My brother used "faggot" and "stupid idiot," even long after I came out. But none of that was hatred.

I came out during graduate school--although I'd taken the first steps during college. I got involved with the fledgling student group on the U-Wisconsin/Madison campus. One day sitting at an information table in the student union, some students called us names, which wasn't unusual. But a couple of them spit at us. While working on some legislation that year, we encountered conservative religious groups that called us sinners and wished us dead. It was scary to look in these people's faces and see the look in their eyes. Hatred.

One night several of us had been to one of the local gay bars. Three of us were walking home when we were confronted by a gang (well, at least five) of young men who threatened us with physical violence. They chased us for several blocks until we reached a more populated area, and then they disappeared into the night. I didn't leave my apartment for two days. Raw, naked, hatred.

Jesus can tell the Disciples they will be hated. He can tell them why. He can tell them what they should do. But he cannot truly prepare them for what they will face in the coming years. They, and we, can only trust that God will be with us.

Peace,
Jeffri

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops:

Reading Plan Text for May 27: John 15:9-17

It has been one of those weekends. Here is the prayer from the end of Burridge's commentary for today.

Lord Jesus, thank you that you call us your beloved friends
inspire us to love one another as you have loved us
and send us out to bear much fruit that will last.
Peace,
Jeffri

Monday, May 26, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Vine, Wine...

Reading Plan Text for May 26: John 15:1-8

The familiar "I am the vine, you are the branches" image seems odd coming immediately after the "Rise, let us be on our way" that ends the previous chapter. Both my NRSV and Burridge say that some scholars believe that Chapter 18 followed 14 and that 15-17 are a later insertion. However, Burridge continues,
even if 14:31 originally led into 18:1, the gospel as we have it today, and in every ancient copy, includes these chapters here. Others suggest that they set out at 14:31 and these three chapters are delivered by Jesus on the way to Gethsemane. Since these chapters develop many of the key themes, it is better to see Jesus' comment as giving some urgency to the Discourse. After all, it is not unusual at dinner parties to say, 'we really must be going', several times before actually departing, such is the interesting conversation! (p. 180)
This is one of those times when I find Burridge a bit off the mark. By this point, even the densest of the Disciples must sense that something is not quite as it should be. The conversation has become a bit strained, and Jesus is trying to make sure the Disciples get his message before he is taken from them.

On the other hand, Jesus is repeating himself for the umpteenth time, and it's tempting to just tune him out. Or have another glass of wine. Or leave.

And yet...

Peace,
Jeffri

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Hope In The Midst Of The Tempest

As we weather the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot, there are some glimmers of hope.

For instance, this story posted on Clerical Whispers about four denominations that will share a church building in a new suburb of Dublin. I read Clerical Whispers on a regular basis. The author is a Roman Catholic Priest, but while most of the stories are about the RC Church, his blog does cover things Anglican as well. The outside perspective is interesting.

Episcopal Life Online has a piece by Doug LeBlanc that you should read. Actually, almost anything Doug writes is well worth reading. When he writes news, it is balanced and well researched. When he writes commentary, it is thoughtful and insightful. I've broken bread with Doug, and he's one of those folks I always hope to get to know better.

Then there's this article from a newspaper in Washington state (hat tip to Episcopal Cafe): Five Things To Know About Being An Episcopalian.

Finally, this article from The Telegraph about the House of Bishops in England dealing with the issue of women bishops. And not backing away from it!

And now back to bailing out the teacups.

Peace,
Jeffri

Saturday, May 24, 2008

GAFCON Odds And Ends

It seems that GAFCON has a new logo. From the GAFCON website:

GAFCON has produced a new logo style and wording. Veritas means truth which is the vertical relation between God and humanity which is Christ. Uniti means united which is the horizontal relationship between all believers found in the body of Christ.Uniti now replaces Unium.

Unium, also means united, but as a non dictionary hapax legomenon could cause misunderstanding.

Go take a look. Is it my imagination, or is "Jerusalem 2008" more prominent than it was. GAFCON stands for Global Anglican Future CONFERENCE. And their program clearly shows conference sessions scheduled for their time in Jerusalem. And look at this piece posted on their web site They say
Pilgrims will visit traditional sites in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage June 22 – 29, 2008
but then they go on to say:

The goals of the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem are to:
1. Provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2. Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.

There are more workshop sessions planned than pilgrimage visits. But they aren't planning to try and take over the Anglican Communion, or split from it if they can't...

And my grandmother was the rightful queen of England.

Five Melbourne, Australia, delegates to GAFCON have started a blog to keep the folks back home up to date on the goings on at the...ummm... CONFERENCE--they even call it "the conference" in the subtitle to their blog. I'll be checking it out occasionally between now and GAFCON, and then I'll probably check it regularly for the duration of the CONFERENCE.

George Conger wrote this article posted on the Anglicans United site. I found these two paragraphs particularly interesting:

From among the 100 North American participants at Gafcon, chosen by the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Rev Robert Duncan (pictured), the majority of US Episcopal bishops will attend both Gafcon and Lambeth, arguing it is important to witness to the wider church the situation afflicting the American church.

Behind the scenes of the conference, however, attempts to forge a common front among the fissiparous elements of the Anglican right-wing will take place. While united in their opposition to the innovations of doctrine and discipline on offer from the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church, questions of women’s ordination, rivalries and jealousies between different American factions, as well as the traditional doctrinal divides between evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have yet to be fully resolved.

Bishop Duncan selected? Who died and elected him Primate of the United States?

The second paragraph clearly shows those issues which will fracture any organization, be it the Anglican Communion if the rejectionists succeed in taking it over, or some conservative Anglican denomination created as a result of their planning.

Peace,
Jeffri

Friday, May 23, 2008

Of Polygamists, Gay Marriage, And Twisted Logic

Thursday a Texas appeals court ruled that the State Department of Family and Protective Services illegally removed the children from their homes at the ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Shortly after the news hit the wires, Kendall Harmon posted the story on his blog. Given the way conversations about Christian marriage happen on Kendall's blog and Stand Firm (and many of the same folks comment on both blogs), I was interested in seeing what the comments were. Take a moment and go read them for yourself. Also read this post, this post, and their comments.

Now look at the comments on posts dealing with same-sex marriage on Kendall's blog here, here, and here.



Next, look at this post on Stand Firm. As with the first story on TitusOneNine, note the concern about children being taken away from their parents and the issue of home schooling. Now go look at the comments on this post (be warned, not only may contain poison, but there are over 370 Comments).


Whenever the subject of "gay marriage" comes up, inevitably the conservatives will bring in the "slippery slope" argument that approving gay marriage will lead to the approval of polygamy and worse. Nor is a gay household formed by marriage a healthy place for children, in their opinion. BUT, when it comes to the children being taken from their parents by the state, all of a sudden polygamy is not so bad. Especially since child welfare concerns often touch on the issues surrounding home schooling--something dear to the hearts of many conservatives.

What I often observe when reading many conservative and rejectionist bloggers and commentors is that their view of the "black and white" sides of an issue change with the issue under discussion. When talking about gay marriage, polygamy is evil. When talking about the rights of parents and children, polygamy is neutral.

Can you say "gray?"

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Let Us Be On Our Way

Reading Plan Text for May 23: John 14:22-31

In today's passage Judas (not Iscariot, as John tells us) chimes in. That makes it a quartet of questioners standing in for us and prompting further explanations from Jesus.

But the discourse is winding down, and Jesus attempts to prepare the Disciples for what is to come.
And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe. I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be on our way. (14:29-31)
The time for questions is over. The explanations are done. It is time to face the trials to come. Unlike us, however, the Disciples remain pretty much clueless. And maybe that's a good thing.

Imagine for a moment what might have happened if the Disciples fully understood that Jesus was about to be crucified. Perhaps they would have spirited him away someplace. Maybe they would have made an armed defense. The story could just as easily have become one of the expected temporal, military Messiah. And then what would our Scriptures have looked like?

Instead, they followed Jesus.

Rise, let us be on our way.

Peace,
Jeffri

Thursday, May 22, 2008

More GAFCON Gaffes, Glitches, and Glimmers

GAFCON is in the news and on the blogs these days. The major story, which broke late yesterday, is that the Most Rev. Mouneer Anis, Presiding Bishop of the Middle East and Jerusalem will not be attending. You can read about it in this post on Episcopal Cafe. Father Jake has also written about it here. In his commentary Jake uses the term "Rejectionist Anglicans" for those organizing and attending GAFCON. It fits, and I will probably adopt it moving forward. Thanks, Jake!

I also like Mark Harris' title for his comments on Archbishop Anis: GAFCON: A richness of embarrassments. I just wish I'd thought of it first.

Canon Terry Wong of the Province of Southeast Asia has written this thoughtful commentary about the upcoming conference, in which he says

...there are many Anglican clergy/leaders who have felt isolated and ‘displaced” through this period of crisis. GAFCON provides an opportunity for such clergy and leaders to meet others to find encouragement, bonds of fellowship and mission partnership together.

Of course, lbgt clergy have never felt "isolated and 'displaced.'"

The bishops of the Common Cause Partnership have called for "40 Days of Prayer" leading up to GAFCON. "40 Days of Prayer" is a concept/activity that is popular in evangelical circles and brought to a higher level of visibility by Rick Warren. It is also at the root of the 40 Days of Discernment program developed by the Rejectionists in Virginia as they prepared to pull their parishes out of the Episcopal Church. While the original concept was good--and biblically based--it's become trite and just one more way of saying, "See, we're holier than you."

And then there's this news release from the GAFCON organizers: 1,000 Christian leaders, 280 bishops to GAFCON in Jerusalem.

Over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors.

So that's approximately 560 out of 1,000 who are bishops and bishops' wives. Of the remaining 440 one wonders how many are clergy and how many laity.

There's even a Wikipedia entry for GAFCON!

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: What Did He Mean?

Reading Plan Text for May 22: John 14:15-21

My computer had the electronic version of brain freeze last night, so I'm posting later than usual.

As I have talked about before on this blog, language changes. If we do not update the language of our texts, our understanding of them changes as the language changes. Burridge gives us a clear example of this in his commentary for today:
As a result of this, Jesus says that he will ask the Father to give us 'another Paraclete' (14:16)... The Greek word, Paraclete, means 'someone called alongside' to help or assist. Its direct translation into Latin gives us the word 'advocate'. it is often used in the law courts to mean someone who is 'called in' to speak for someone on trial, either as their defending counsel or to intercede with the judge on their behalf. Thus two possible English translations are 'Counsellor' or Intercessor', both of which can be found in some bibles... Another greatly loved translation is 'Comforter'. This gives us the image of someone 'called in' to console someone in need or grief, as the disciples are here; but the original meaning of 'comfort' through the Latin is to give strength or courage. The Bayeux tapestry has 'Bishop Odo comforteth his men', with a spear from behind! Thus the Paraclete is our counsellor, advocate, intercessor, comforter, strengthener--an all round helper. (pp. 176-177)
In this instance we see not only what happens when language changes, but also how the choice of words when translating from one language to another affects our understanding of the text.

To give you an example of a difference in translation, here is the image of Bishop Odo from the Bayeux Tapestry. Note that the translation below the image on this web site says "Here Bishop Odo with a staff in his hand encourages his Squires." The original Latin, embroidered into the tapestry, is transcribed above the image, "HIC ODO EPISCOPUS BACULUM TENENS CONFORTAT PUEROS."

Many scholars and educators recommend reading the Bible with more than one translation at hand. Even in one language, there are various translations. And translations will reflect the views and understandings of the translators, intentional or not. The King James, or "Authorized," translation is an excellent example. The translators were chosen very carefully, as much for their political and religious views as for their language skills. I recommend Adam Nicolson's God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, if you want to learn more.

So what exactly did Jesus mean when he told his disciples,
And I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever. (14:16)?
Memories passed down by word of mouth. Oral stories written down in a language which is drastically different in its modern version, and revised/edited by a writer--or writers--with a specific agenda and specific audience. A text translated into a language spoken only by the church and preserved only by scholars, by scribes with their own agendas producing numerous versions. Texts in an arcane language translated by leaders with religious and political agendas into a myriad of other languages for "the common man." Translations modernized as language changes and research bring new understandings of both the original language and its context--not to mention the context in which the first stories were told and preserved.

We will probably never know exactly what Jesus said, or precisely what he meant. We just have to trust that, as generation passes the story to generation, the Holy Spirit has a hand in the transmission of the message.

Peace,
Jeffri

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Triplets Anyone?

Reading Plan Text for May 21: John 14:8-14

Now it's Philip's turn to play the dense disciple: "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." (14:8)

At this point, I can picture Jesus' exasperation. After all, Philip was one of the first believers to bring someone else into the fold (remember Nathanael back in Chapter 1?). "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me?" (14:9)

And then Jesus plunges, yet again, into "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," followed not to far by my brain going off with Elizabeth again into "I am the walrus..."

Right now I just don't have the patience to deal with John's mysticism and repeated twistings about who Jesus is. At least this time, we hear something new:
Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that i do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. (14:12-14)
Well, mostly new anyway.

I leave you with the quote from St. Theresa that Burridge puts at the end of his commentary for today:
Christ has no hands but our hands to do his work today. He has no feet but our feet to lead men in his way.
Peace,
Jeffri

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Thomas

Reading Plan Text for May 20: John 14:1-7

We often hear Thomas referred to as "Thomas the twin," most likely because John calls him this twice. Both times the NRSV notes tell us that the Greek used is Didymus. The Aramaic root of the name Thomas also means twin, so when John writes "Thomas (who was called the Twin)" (20:24) and "Thomas called the Twin" (21:2), it is redundant. I wonder if we really know the apostle's actual name? Some sources identify him with Jude (the "other Judas," son of James), but Luke makes it quite clear in Acts that they are two separate people.

And just whose twin is he? Some sources tell us Jesus', but most remain silent on the subject. Sometimes I think he must be Peter's twin. Both of them are dense when it comes to understanding what Jesus tells them. Thomas also bears the added burden being Doubting Thomas.

Many people identify with Peter. I tend to identify with Thomas. He is loyal--he tells the other disciples that they should follow Jesus to Bethany after Lazarus' death. He asks honest questions in his misunderstanding of Jesus' words--as in today's reading. He wants to see the resurrected Jesus for himself. And ultimately, he picks up the pieces of his life after Jesus leaves them and carries on the work--even going to India, if the traditions are believed. I wonder if Thomas serves as a stand in for John's community in this Gospel?

If nothing else, Thomas' question prompts the next "I am" statement from Jesus in response. Burridge spends the third section of his commentary on today's passage talking about this "I am" statement and how it relates to the others.
As with the other 'I am' sayings, these are all key Jewish terms which Jesus is claiming to fulfill... As the Jewish law and scriptures brought people to God, now Jesus is claiming to be the way to the Father, where all truth and life is to be found. (p. 173)
I wonder if Thomas spent the rest of his life pondering Jesus' answer?

Peace,
Jeffri

Monday, May 19, 2008

GAFCON: What Happened To Jordan?

According to Episcopal Cafe's The Lead, organizers of the Global Anglican Future CONference have released the schedule of the pilgrimage portion of the meeting that will take place in Jerusalem June 21-29. The article quotes from a GAFCON press release, which as of this writing, I cannot find on their website. Although GAFCON leaders stated that the conference would not be held in Jerusalem, and their brochure says
An initial Consultation in Jordan will include the pilgrimage leadership,theological resource group, those bishops serving in majority Islamic settings and other key leaders.
a look through the the entire brochure and the schedule, makes it pretty clear that a full-blown conference will take place in Jerusalem. Even if they claim it is a pilgrimage. So why should we believe any claims they make that this so-called pilgrimage is not the next step in splitting the Anglican Communion? Especially given some of the Focus Topics listed on the agenda.

Mark Harris has some thoughts on his Preludium blog. He draws pretty much the same conclusion I do about the Jordan and Jerusalem pieces of GAFCON. You should also read Father Jake's commentary on bishops who have accepted or declined invitations to the Lambeth Conference.

Here are some other commentaries on the latest GAFCON developments:

Anglican Down Under
Craig Uffman at Anglican Centrist
LC.net Canada (www.lambethconference.net--not an official web site of the Lambeth Conference) -- Scroll down to the end for their projected costs of attending GAFCON as a Pilgrim and Lambeth as accredited press.
Pluralist Speaks

Peace,
Jeffri

Odds And Ends

Some odds and ends I've collected over the past couple of days.

Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face: From the Irish Blog Clerical Whispers we have "Vatican says prohibition against gays in seminaries is universal." Gay, and even homosexual, does NOT equal pedophile, or even ephebophile. They already have a clergy shortage...

Don't Read This With Anything In Your Mouth: There's a new blog from Father Christian called GAFCON (hat tip to the Mad Priest). I'm serious, if you value your computer, don't have anything in your mouth when you read it!

Gene's Not The Only One: It seems the Roman Catholic Church has their own Bishop Robinson who has become "an issue." Clerical Whispers posted this article about Geoffrey Robinson, the resigned Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Australia.

And This Surprises Us How? Jason Byassee wrote an article called "Anglican Angst" that appears in this week's Christian Century.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Loving One Another--NOT

Reading Plan Text for May 19: John 13:31-38

The editors of the NRSV titled this section "The New Commandment,"but as Burridge points out, it is also the lead-in to Jesus' "Farewell Discourse."

Little children, I am with you only a little longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.' I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." (v. 33-34)
We haven't done a very good job of following this commandment down through the centuries. And it is blatantly obvious that love is not important in the ongoing tempest in the Anglican teapot. The conservatives point accusing fingers at the liberals, and the liberals at the conservatives. However, some of the least loving behavior I've witnessed has been on the part of the conservatives.

Take, for instance, the recent layoffs at the Washington National Cathedral. Someone sent Stand Firm a copy of an email sent to Cathedral volunteers to let them know what was happening. Greg Griffith, of course, posted it, and, no surprises here, the comments started flying. Out of the 43 comments posted the last time I looked, one--count it ONE--comment showed any concern for the people who had lost their jobs. More important to the folks at Stand Firm is their agenda, their fight against the liberal trends of the Episcopal Church.

Then we observe many bishops of the so-called Global South who refuse to even show up at the Lambeth Conference with the bishops they label as unrepentant. Many conservative commentators see this as an act of "tough love." I might buy that argument, except that these days tough love often serves as nothing more than an excuse for abusive behavior.

And should any conservatives come back with the tired argument about the lawsuits against groups trying to take physical property out of the Episcopal Church, I suggest reading this post of Father Jake's.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when this particular passage comes up for discussion at Lambeth--if it does.

Peace,
Jeffri

Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Yesterday I spent the late afternoon and early evening at one of the local Barnes & Nobles doing some recreational reading. By that I mean it had absolutely nothing to do with church, religion, or theology in any way, shape or form. I picked up a couple of books on language, mostly because the subject interests me. However, if I happen to stumble across something that I can apply to the development of a couple of conlangs (Constructed Languages, think Star Trek's Klingon and J.R.R. Tolkien's various languages of Middle Earth) I dabble with.

Among my selections for the afternoon was David Crystal's The Fight for English: How language pundits ate, shot, and left (Oxford University Press, 2006). I found several things that I will take into consideration as I continue work on the conlangs. However, I also came across something else of interest.

This is a lesson everyone who studies language eventually learns. You cannot stop language change. You may not like it; you may regret the arrival of new forms and the passing of old ones; but there is not the slightest thing you can do about it. Language change is as natural as breathing. It is one of the linguistic facts of life... If all the energy that has been fruitlessly spent over the past 300 years complaining about language change had been devoted to improving our grasp of the nature of language, and developing fresh methods of language teaching and learning, we would be a lot better off. (pp. 89-90)

What is happening here is change, change, change, but the language is not getting worse as a result of it. Nor is it getting better. It is just--changing. It is keeping pace with society, as it always must, sometimes changing slowly, sometimes rapidly. Today, with so much social change about, especially as a result of increasing ethnic diversity, the spread of English as a global language, and the effect of Internet technology, we find the language changing more rapidly and widely than ever before.

This puts some people in a real panic. They see a disaster scenario. But there is no need. If the language had been decaying at the rate of knots predicted by Dryden et al., there would have been no language left by now! (p. 90)

I could not help but think of the tempest in the Anglican teapot when I read this. First in terms of the prayer book, and then in terms of both Christianity and the Anglican Communion. Just as language changes, so does culture. And as culture changes, so does the church. Recently I heard a speaker at a conference (I wish I could remember who, but I can't find my notes at the moment) say that every time the church went to a new place, it changed. Every place Christianity encountered a new culture, it changed. We even see evidence of this in Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian writings we have.

As crystal wrote about people dealing with changes in language, we can see the same thing in the the church. What we have here is change, change change. And the church must change or die. No matter how often conservatives point to the megachurches that hold conservative Christian views, or point out that the largest congregations in the Episcopal Church are conservative ones (actually the largest are both the very conservative and the very liberal), they cannot stop the changes that they see as the scourge of liberalism destroying the church.

The church is not being destroyed. It is changing. That may mean the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it. It may even mean the end of Christianity as we know it. But Christianity will survive. It will survive because it will change. It will figure out how to do the things Christ asked us to do in new ways.

Sink or swim, folks. The choice is yours.




Peace,
Jeffri

Friday, May 16, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Into The Darkness

Reading Plan Text for May 16: John 13:21-30

And it was night. (v. 30)

Jesus identifies Judas as the betrayer, for those who pick up the sign, and Judas hurries out. Into the darkness. This is the opposite journey begun by Nicodemus at the beginning of the Gospel, when he arrives at night. Burridge writes,
Judas, however, despite having been chosen to sit with 'the light of the world', is going the other way. 'And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil' (3:19). (p. 169)
I didn't notice it when we read 3:19 weeks ago, but doesn't John have it backwards? Shouldn't that be "and their deeds were evil because people loved darkness rather than light"? I suppose it's a "the chicken or the egg" conundrum.

For me, the most troubling piece of this reading is verse 27:
After he [Judas] received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him.
Burridge is quite clear that this does not absove Judas, he still made the choice of the darkness. But John puts it right out there. Satan. Perhaps this bothers me because some self-identified Christians on the far right of the spectrum have tried to drive Satan out of me--literally try to exorcise me--because of my sexuality. And I have to ask myself, just who is doing the evil act here, and where is Satan in it?

And it was night...

Peace,
Jeffri

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Tide Has Turned

Within minutes the news hit the online news sites and the blogosphere. The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3, 172-page decision, overturned the state's ban on what is commonly termed gay marriage. Reactions from groups on all sides of the issue were both swift and predictable. For a summary of news stories, take a look at Susan Russell's An Inch At A Time. For comments from the liberal/progressive wing of the church, go to Father Jake's.







And from the conservative/regressive wing Stand Firm.






Since the ruling concerns the state constitution, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservative forces in California already had a petition for a November ballot initiative underway. The initiative would amend the California constitution to include the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Governor Schwarzenegger has said in the past, and said again today, that he would oppose any effort to overturn the court's decision. That from a fairly conservative Republican. Not to mention that six of the seven justices are Republicans as well.

Even if the ballot initiative succeeds, it is clear that the tide has turned. Courts across the country look closely at rulings by the California Supreme Court and quite frequently follow them in their own rulings. More than that, our society is changing. It is always changing. The push for marriage rights by a segment of the lbgt communities has caused us to look more closely at marriage and what it is. Churches will have to accept the fact that the trend is to look at marriage more in line with it's original form as a civil contract rather than the religious meaning it acquired after the twelfth century.

Churches need to get out of the civil aspect of marriage. Clergy should NOT be agents of the state and should not perform the civil, legal, contractual piece. Churches should bless the marriage (heaven knows they bless everything else on earth!), not enact it. In some ways, that would make it much easier for those congregations and denominations that do not want to deal with gay marriages in their churches.

The tide has turned. You'd better learn to swim, or you'll be swept away.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops:

Reading Plan Text for May 15: John 13:12-20

This is one of those days where I am drawing a comlete blank.

Your turn.

Peace,
Jeffri

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Remember

Reading Plan Text for May 14: John 13:1-11

Once again, reading John's Gospel feels like inhabiting a time warp. Today Jesus washes the Disciples' feet, which we commemorated almost two months ago on Maundy Thursday. This year we had a very different experience at our parish. Mom wrote about it on her blog. The key piece for me today is the end of her entry for that day:

Foot washing is done. We move on to share communion. These children probably do not fully grasp what we have just experienced together. And that's okay. Next year when we gather for this same ritual, they will remember. They will be one year older. They will be in a different place spiritually. They will understand a little more. They may participate, they may not. But they will remember.

I will remember.

At the Church Center we have Eucharist every day. Recently, lay people began participating on the preaching rota. Today my friend Luke preached. He began by listing many of the non-canonical Gospels, including some recently rediscovered ones, and talking about the hoopla that surrounds such discoveries. Then he told us he'd discovered a new Gospel, one that you can trace by reading carefully in all four of the canonical Gospels. He called it "The Gospel of Missing The Point."

Aha, I thought to myself, we've been seeing a lot of this in John's Gospel as I've been following along with the Bishops and others around the Anglican Communion. We see it again in today's reading. The Disciples--again--miss the point of what Jesus is doing and saying.

But they remember. The church remembers. We re-enact this scene every Maundy Thursday, year in and year out. And that is what Mom is talking about. Sometimes we must remember before we "get the point." And sometimes we remember long after we've forgotten the point. The ritual keeps the point in our memories--both our own memories and the corporate memory of the church.

They will remember.

I will remember.

Peace,
Jeffri

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: One Last Time

Reading Plan Text for May 13: John 12:44-50

These seven verses seem almost tacked on and out of place at the end of this chapter. My NRSV titles this section "Summary of Jesus' Teaching." Burridge doesn't see them as out of place at all. It is the reprise of the main themes of the first act before the curtain rises on act two (pp. 162-163):
  1. "The one who sent me"
  2. Jesus has come as light into the world
  3. The relationship of the Father to the Son
The one glaring difference between this summary and all the previous times he has taught these themes is that John does not provide a specific audience for this discourse. Perhaps John's community is the audience to which it is addressed.

To me it seems more like a teacher's last review before finals. Pay attention, you will see these on the exam!

And now, as Burridge writes
The reprise dies away, the audience are quiet and the curtain is ready to rise on the second half. (p. 163)
Peace,
Jeffri

Monday, May 12, 2008

My Five Most Important Books

Newsweek runs a regular column in their "Periscope" section called "A Life in Books." Usually an author of note is asked to list "My Five Most Important Books," plus one or two additional books, which might be "A book you hope parents read to their kids," or "an important book that you admit you haven't read." There is also a brief reason why with each title. If you want to look at some of the series, go to the Newsweek web site and type "A Life In Books" into the site's Search engine at the top of the page.

After reading Claire Tomalin's list in this week's issue, I found myself pondering the topic during the rest of my train ride home. It has been a more difficult exercise than I thought it would be. Often one of my most important books is the one I'm reading or have just finished. Are they the ones I reread most often? Or the ones that have had the greatest impact on my life? Do I even realize how much a book impacted my life years after reading it? Or what if a series played a major role (and so many Science Fiction and Fantasy books are written in trilogies!), how do you pick one of the series?

At this moment, and in no particular order, here is my list.

1. Watership Down, by Richard Adams. A group of rabbits strike out on their own to make a new home. Adams creates a rich culture and an adventure/quest story.

2. The Book of Common Prayer. I AM an Episcopalian, after all.

3. La Folle de Chaillot (The Madwoman of Chaillot), by Jean Giraudoux. Greedy businessmen plot to destroy a Paris neighborhood in order to profit from oil found under it. They are defeated by a group of "misfits."

4. Ella Minnow Pea, by Mark Dunn. "A Novel in Letters" chronicles an island country's slide into totalitarianism and ultimate redemption. Both funny and frightening.

5. The Mayor of Castro Street, by Randy Shilts. As a college freshman spending Thanksgiving Break with a dorm mate on his family's farm in a small Minnesota town, I watched the story of the assassinations unfold on TV and in the newspapers. Shilts' book was published the year I graduated from college and played a role in my own coming out process.

"An Important Book" that I admit I haven't read: Pedagogy of The Oppressed, by Paulo Freire.

A classic that, on rereading, disappointed: The Old Man and The Sea, by Earnest Hemmingway. I hated it in ninth grade English class, and I hated it when I tried to read it again a couple of years ago.

A book you want your kids (if I had any) to read: It's a toss up between The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum (and this surprises you how?) and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series.

So that's my list. What's yours?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Hiding

Reading Plan Text for May 12: John 12:36-43
After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them. (v. 36)

Nevertheless, many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue... (v. 42-43)


Why is everyone hiding? In Jesus' case, we can probably assume that it is yet again a case of "not yet his time," even this close to his death and resurrection. Burridge writes

Now this final dialogue with the people in Jerusalem after their procession of welcome has brought the interlude almost to an end. Warning that they will only have the light for 'a little while longer', Jesus left the stage and 'hid from them' (12:35-36). He will not appear in public again until the crucifixion. The light is temporarily eclipsed.

The evangelist, as narrator, turns to address his audience directly for the first time since the Prologue. Here, he reflects on what has happened, and tries to understand and explain it. (p. 160)


John quotes Isaiah to explain why Jesus is not accepted and then moves on to those who believe but don't come out in public. Why? Because they feared being expelled from the synagogue, which according to John, means that "they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God" (v. 43).

Sort of like lbgt folks who stay hidden because they fear being expelled from their churches. Yet when they come out and claim their full inclusion in the Kingdom of God Jesus proclaims, they are accused of "loving human glory more than the glory that comes from God."

Hiding is done. It's time to move on to the next phase.

Peace,
Jeffri

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Babble at Church

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?" (v. 4-7)
When the reader reached this point in today's reading, she paused. One by one, several members of the congregation stood and repeated those verses in a number of languages. Occasionally at Pentecost, we have heard them all read at once, recreating a semblance of the babble that was heard at the first Pentecost. And we've done it one language at a time.

This year, for the first time in a very long time, I signed the verses in ASL (American Sign Language). It has been nearly 10 years since I've taken any classes, and I'm very rusty. I fumbled a couple of signs and left out one. It was still effective, given the comments I heard from several people.

Now and again I think about taking up ASL again. There is a group that meets a couple of times a month at the LBGT Community Center in the City, but it meets rather late on a weeknight for someone commuting. I suppose I should look locally. I know one of the "deaf" congregations in our diocese meets in a nearby town.

Of course, I should also be taking Spanish given our work at the Church Center. And I'd like to brush up on my German and French...

Peace,
Jeffri

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Never Alone And Never Done

Reading Plan Text for May 9: John 12:27-36

One of the interesting things about John's Gospel is that Jesus never goes away to a quiet place to pray and reflect. He often leaves places and crowds, but that is to escape arrest or stoning as it is not yet "his time." There are no quiet places in John's story. Something is always going on.

Instead, in this passage we see Jesus praying in the moment where he is.

And even at a moment of extreme anguish and questioning, Jesus continues teaching. Somehow he manages to be at peace, be with God, and continue his calling in the midst of the turmoil around and within him.

Take a deep breath. "Be at peace."

Let it out. "Be with God."

Repeat.

Sometimes, like tonight, it is all the prayer I can manage.

Peace,
Jeffri

Sleepless in Norwalk, Part 2

My mind continues to spin projections and more projections. Every time I think I've reached a calm place, I turn out the light, and it starts again.

Spinning, spinning, spinning...

I pulled out my Prayer Book again to re-read the portion Psalm 31that I read during Compline last night (well, before Midnight, anyway). It reads as a prayer.

1 In you, O Lord, have I taken refuge;
let me never be put to shame: *
deliver me in your righteousness.

2 Incline your ear to me; *
make haste to deliver me.

3 Be my strong rock, a castle to keep me safe,
for you are my crag and my stronghold; *
for the sake of your Name, lead me and guide me.

4 Take me out of the net that they have secretly set for me, *
for you are my tower of strength.

5 Into your hands I commend my spirit, *
for you have redeemed me,
O Lord, O God of truth.

And the repetitious meditation using my prayer beads.

On the week beads: Be at peace; be with God
On the cruciform beads: All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

Peace,
Jeffri

Sleepless in Norwalk, Part 1

Lois' comment on my What's Your Spiritual Type? post prompted me to go take two more of the Beliefnet quizzes.

First, the "What Faith Are You?" or "Belief-O-Matic". The introduction says

Even if YOU don't know what faith you are, Belief-O-Matic™ knows. Answer 20 questions about your concept of God, the afterlife, human nature, and more, and Belief-O-Matic™ will tell you what religion (if any) you practice...or ought to consider practicing.

Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul.

So, twenty questions later:

Your Results:
The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa.

Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.


  1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
  2. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
  3. Liberal Quakers (90%)
  4. Reform Judaism (84%)
  5. New Age (83%)
  6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%)
  7. Sikhism (76%)
  8. Mahayana Buddhism (73%)
  9. Hinduism (70%)
  10. Bahá'í Faith (68%)
  11. Secular Humanism (62%)
  12. Orthodox Judaism (61%)
  13. Jainism (60%)
  14. New Thought (58%)
  15. Theravada Buddhism (55%)
  16. Scientology (51%)
  17. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
  18. Taoism (49%)
  19. Islam (46%)
  20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (41%)
  21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (38%)
  22. Nontheist (35%)
  23. Eastern Orthodox (34%)
  24. Roman Catholic (34%)
My Pagan friends would probably not be surprised. Nor, I suspect, would many conservatives of my, or of my blog's, acquaintance.

Then there's "What Kind of Christian Are You? Its introduction is even more tongue-in-cheek:

The following "diagnostic" quiz will attempt to pigeonhole you, reducing you from a complex, nuanced person to a simple caricature. We obviously don't pretend that this is scientific, and, to be honest, part of the goal is to have some fun.

But there is a serious point here, too: One's approach to the Bible reveals a great deal about one's approach to religion generally. More so than denomination, one's attitude about who Jesus was and what the Bible is can define an individual's spiritual type.

So we hope that in addition to being interesting, this quiz will help you learn something about yourself. At the end of the quiz, we'll offer you the opportunity to complain about the quiz to others who have scored similarly.

So, once more into the breach...

You scored 211, on a scale of 0 to 400. Here's how to interpret your score:

0 - 59
You are a Jesse Ventura Christian (a.k.a. a "Secularist" or non-Christian).


60 - 149
You are a Bishop Spong Christian (a.k.a. "Biblical Revisionist").


150 - 249
You are a Hillary Rodham Clinton Christian (a.k.a. "Left-Leaning Traditionalist").


250 - 329
You are a George Bush Sr. Christian (a.k.a. "Right-Leaning Traditionalist").

330 - 400
You are a Jerry Falwell Christian (a.k.a "Historicist").

Well, if those are my five choices, I would have to agree!

Just a couple of amusements for a sleepless night.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Huh?

Reading Plan Text for May 8: John 12:20-26

My NRSV edition heads this passage "Some Greeks Wish to See Jesus," and Burridge titles his commentary "We Want To See Jesus." The first three verses bear out these designations, but Jesus' response to Philip and Andrew is a total non sequitur. He launches into a summary of what he has said before. The only difference is that, for the first time, he prefaces his discourse with "The hour has come..."

The logic of this transition escapes me. However, Burridge writes

The interest of Gentiles helps Jesus realize the moment has come. After his ministry in Galilee, Judaea, Samaria and Jerusalem, now 'the world' is seeking him. He told his mother and the Samaritan woman that his 'hour is not yet' but 'coming' (2:4; 4:21-3) and he has often evaded capture because 'his hour had not yet come' (7:30, 8:20). But now 'the hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified' (12:23). The whole story has been leading towards this--and we might expect it to be glorious. (pp. 156-157)

The Greeks coming 'to see Jesus' means that now is the 'hour to be glorified', the time to put the words into action. (p. 157)

I think that logic is a bit of a strained jump. No, it's a BIG strained jump. Either that, or we're missing something from the original writings. Or maybe we're not meant to figure it out. As one of my friends often says, "It is what it is."

It is what it is. This describes a situation I'm currently dealing with and really can't share at this time. But after having verse 25 more or less jump out and hit me over the head, so to speak, I'm realizing that I need to stop projecting, stop trying to hang on and let go.
Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Easier said than done.

Already I can tell that this is going to be a sleepless night.

Peace,
Jeffri

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: The Sacred King

Reading Plan Text for May 7: John 12:9-19

Burridge writes
Although Mary's anointing Jesus' feet hinted at a burial, rather than anointing the head as for a king, the next scene looks like a coronation. (p. 154)
Jesus' entry into Jerusalem might very well have resulted in his coronation. Much of what John records in the first part of the Gospel can be looked at in terms of the ancient characteristics of divine/sacred kingship. There is the divine anointing, in this case the descending of the Spirit witnessed by John the Baptist--not to mention the implication of his divine parentage. Jesus provides for the people at the wedding at Cana and in feeding the 5,000. He heals repeatedly, even raising the dead. He judges with mercy when the scribes and Pharisees bring the woman caught in adultery.

Is it any wonder that the Sanhedrin is nervous? Can we doubt that the occupying Romans are any less nervous?

Burridge continues
Jesus, however, has consistently refused political kingship and withdrew into the desert last time to hide from them. Now he finds, not the conqueror's mighty horse, but a young donkey, a symbol of peace and lowliness. (p. 155)
Yet sacred kingship is not entirely political. The king also bears the duties and responsibilities of the priesthood for the people. Jesus clearly knows this as demonstrated by telling us that he is the Good Shepherd and the Light of the World.

Burridge concludes
...far from a military campaign for one nation against another, the Good Shepherd is bringing his sheep from all the world into one flock. (p. 155)
The King arrives to complete the final act of his sacred kingship.

Peace,
Jeffri

Monday, May 5, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops:

Reading Plan Text for May 6: John 12:1-8

I'm going to "cheat" today and post a sermon from Holy Week three years ago.

Peace,
Jeffri
==========================================

John 12:1-11
by Jeffri Harre
St. Paul’s Episcopal Church
Fairfield, Connecticut
March 21, 2005

“Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany…” Before the cheering crowds of his entry into Jerusalem, before Judas’ betrayal, before being arrested by the temple guard and taken first to the chief priests and then to the Roman governor, before, before, before… For a brief evening of quiet, Jesus stops at the house of his friend Lazarus. “There they gave a dinner for him,” John tells us.

This story or ones similar to it can be found in all four Gospels, but only Mark and John place it before the final trip to Jerusalem. And only John gives such a detailed account naming names and including specific descriptions of certain people and things. In John there is no “excess baggage,” every phrase has a reason, even if it isn’t always clear to us immediately. So, who are these people, and why are they here?

The first one mentioned is Martha, dependable, steadfast, practical Martha. When Lazarus died, it was she who ran out to meet Jesus. It was Martha who worried about the stench when they opened Lazarus’ tomb. And it was Martha who proclaimed her belief in Jesus as the Messiah. However, there are guests in the house, and Martha’s immediate response is to make sure that the meal is prepared and everyone is served. This time, unlike the last time there were guests in the house when she complained to Jesus that Mary wasn’t helping with the meal, she goes about her business quietly.

Next is Lazarus who “was one of those at the table” with Jesus. Even though he would obviously be the host of this evening, he also has nothing to say. However, this is not out of character given his complete silence after Jesus raised him from the dead. Lazarus may be a beloved friend, but anything he might actually have actually said is superfluous to the story of the Christ John is weaving for us.

John now turns to Mary, who plays the crucial role in this little drama. She brings a twelve ounce jar of very expensive imported perfume into the dining area. We know it is expensive both because John names it and Judas tells us it could be sold for 300 denarii. Nard is short for spikenard, which grows in the Himalayas and was used in perfume by wealthy Romans. Very few people in Roman Palestine would have been able to afford this luxury. Yet Mary takes this costly perfume, pours it over Jesus’ feet and then wipes it away with her hair.

This brings us to Judas, the first person to actually speak in this scene, and the only one to speak besides Jesus. He complains that the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. But the Gospel writer does more than give Judas a couple of lines of dialogue. We are also given two additional details to make sure that we know Judas is, to quote Dorothy talking about the Wizard, “a very bad man.”

At this point, Jesus intervenes. He tells Judas to, “Leave her alone. She has bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.”

Finally, there are the growing crowd in Bethany that has come to see the local celebrities and the chief priests who are even more nervous about their waning influence in the wake of Jesus’ ministry. These groups not only provide a marked contrast to the oasis of calm in Lazarus’s house, but also a transition to the entry into Jerusalem and Jesus’ final days.

But inside the house are people who know who Jesus is. Lazarus knows from his experience of being raised from the dead. Martha knows and has proclaimed her belief. Judas knows. And Mary knows. All of them know at some level or another that Jesus is the Messiah, promised to the world. But only Mary understands fully what it means and what is to come in the days ahead. While Martha serves, Lazarus sits, and Judas complains, Mary takes the expensive perfume and anoints Jesus’ feet—something usually done only while preparing a body for burial. Through her actions Mary shows that she knows that Jesus will die, and she knows there will not be an opportunity to do this loving service for Jesus before his burial.

Mary knows that without the events of the coming days—the entry into Jerusalem, the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, the trial, and the crucifixion—there can be no Easter. As Joan Chittester writes, “We go through death so that life can become new over and over again, so that over and over again, we can see the lives of those around us with new eyes.” If we take nothing else from this short scene from John’s Gospel, let us remember to take time with Mary to face head on the events of this week so that we may fully understand and celebrate the coming resurrection of our Savior.

Amen.

What's Your Spiritual Type?

In preparation for an upcoming meeting, our priest asked members of the "mission church" group at our parish to take the Spiritual Type quiz at beliefnet.com. Here are my results:

Quiz: What's Your Spiritual Type?
You scored 64, on a scale of 25 to 100. Here's how to interpret your score:

25 - 29
Hardcore Skeptic -- but interested or you wouldn't be here!
30 - 39
Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed
40 - 49
Active Spiritual Seeker -- Spiritual but turned off by organized religion
50 - 59
Spiritual Straddler -- One foot in traditional religion, one foot in free-form spirituality
60 - 69
Old-fashioned Seeker -- Happy with my religion but searching for the right expression of it
70 - 79
Questioning Believer -- You have doubts about the particulars but not the Big Stuff
80 - 89
Confident Believer -- You have little doubt you've found the right path
90 - 100
Candidate for Clergy

Taking these kinds of quizzes, while interesting and helpful for discussion starters, often proves frustrating. Many times the choices given to answer a question do not really fit what I think or believe. Here are a couple of examples from the "What's Your Spiritual Type?" quiz:

Q9. I believe that angels:
1. Exist and intervene to assist the pure-hearted
2. Exist but only watch us, taking no action
3. Exist only on the spiritual plane, not in this life
4. Do not exist

Q17. I think children should:
1. Be raised to practice the faith of their parents
2. Be taught spiritual awareness but also to avoid affiliating with formal religion
3. Be encouraged to reject faith in favor of secular philosophy
4. Be exposed to many religious traditions and encouraged to make their own choices

So given the answers I had to choose from, the results to don't surprise me.

There may be an update on this. During our conversation this afternoon about this, Lois said that her "type" came out to be "Quaker," So I'm wondering if she meant for us to take the What Kind of Christian Are You? quiz.

Peace,
Jeffri

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Power Struggles

Reading Plan Text for May 5: John 11:45-57

The plot thickens. Jesus has raised Lazarus, and as happeneds over and over again, some of the witnesses believe him, and others go running to the Pharisees. They call a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. They determine that Jesus must be put to death because his acts threaten to bring the Roman rulers down on their heads. Jesus heads out of town, and the Sanhedrin issues a warrant for his arrest.

In his commentary, Burridge writes:
They [the Pharisees and the Sadducees] are frightened that 'the Romans will take away our holy place and our nation.' (11:48). They are not concerned bout whether what Jesus says is true, or if God's glory is really with him, but with their own control. The temple of God has become 'our place' and the people of God are 'our nation'. (p. 150)
I cannot help but think of our present situation in the Anglican Communion. I know that many of the conservatives within the Episcopal Church, and especially those who have left the Episcopal Church and placed themselves under the "guardianship" of other provinces, feel that the current leadership of our church is the current equivalent of the Sanhedrin. They see the leadership, and a "liberal cabal" behind it (and not so secretly, they say), ignoring Jesus or not believing in him at all. Many liberals see the entire thing as a power struggle to maintain power by those who were once in control and see that power slipping away.

But Burridge continues:
Ultimately their fears are realized in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70; with no temple and no power the Sadduces disappear, and the Pharisees are left to regroup Judaism around the law. (p. 151)
So who is so focused on the law that they can't see what Jesus is seeing? Again, the conservatives point their fingers at the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church, claiming that the lawsuits are "Unchristian" and the deposition of conservative bishops illegal under the canons of the church. Of course, they are not above pulling out the rule book when it supports their purposes. And who is it that holds up a tiny handful of biblical passages that they claim are immutable law/rules for lbgt folks who want to be Christians? And who is it that is pushing for a Covenant, a set of rules, for the Anglican Communion? And who is it that once they have pulled the Anglican Communion apart will focus on the rules that will keep them "pure"?

Meanwhile, Jesus is out in the world doing God's work. Shouldn't we be doing the same?

Peace,
Jeffri

Gender Obsessed

This weekend I went to the LCFD (Lavender Country & Folk Dancers) Spring Dance Camp in Woodstock. They hold two a year on the East Coast, and starting this year, they are also sponsoring a camp on the West Coast. Tony and Beth Parkes were our callers (calling both contras and squares), Graham Christian led English Country Dancing, and music was provided by Dark Carnival.

I love these weekends. They are a chance to get away, catch up with old friends, meet new friends, and do something that we all enjoy: dancing. We do "gender-free" dancing, which, as I've explained before, is that anyone dances whichever role--lead (traditional man's) or follow (traditional woman's)--they wish to dance. During a conversation with Beth, she told me that at "gendered" dances she uses the terms "gents" and "ladies," because these are roles we take on for dancing. While that makes sense to me, and to many of us, in LCFD we stay away from gendered language. We use armbands to distinguish the two roles. Those wishing leading wear an armband (which may be tied around your wrist, tied to your name button, around your neck, as a headband...well, you get the picture). Those following do not have an armband. So callers use the terms "bands" and "bares" (for "bare arm") when calling a dance for us.

In spite of the fact that we call this dancing "gender free," there have been times when we--only half jokingly--say that we are in fact gender obsessed! At times this comes from the fact that there are some women who absolutely will not dance the bare arm role and some men who absolutely will not dance the armband role. At other times it because there some men who refuse to dance with women as partners and some women who refuse to dance with men as partners. There have been dances when people have become quite strident about these issues, although that has lessened a great deal over the years.

A great variety of people come to our camps. We've had transvestites attending for a number of years. In fact, one who used to come regularly would come with his wife. Both were welcomed into the community. One of the issues we've had over the past few years, however, is the lack of younger folks coming to camp, and to our local dances. That seems to be changing at the local dances. My "local" dance in New York City has been attracting a lot of young adults--many of them college students. So when I arrived at camp this weekend, I was glad to see a small group of young folks who had obviously come together. I quickly learned that many of them dance in the Boston area.

Equally as quickly, it became apparent that some of these young dancers were transgendered. Of course, they were made to feel welcome, and they seemed to feel very comfortable. Some of them were experienced dancers, and some of them new to contra dancing. But as the weekend progressed, I found myself somewhat troubled by the presence of these transgendered young folks. I really had to think about it. Part of it was that it wasn't always clear if one of them was identifying as male or female. It was awkward in some cases trying to determine which pronoun to use. Our way of handling that when one of them became the topic of conversation was to say, "the young person who... (is wearing the red tee shirt, has the blond hair, etc.). Or, if we knew names, we'd use names exclusively and no pronouns. A couple of them had names that were clearly male, but body shapes were not quite. In those cases, we did use masculine pronouns. Some were quite clearly identifying themselves as female, and then we'd use feminine pronouns.

As I thought about it some more, I realized that part of my issue was that I found one of the young men (and I will think of him as such, since that is how he wishes to self-identify, at least within our dance community) very attractive. Now, it was pretty clear that this person was at least born as a female, and he may or may not be transitioning from female to male. I danced with him as a partner once and encountered him as a neighbor in contra lines several times, and he came across as physically male. Not to mention the fact that he seemed strong enough to pick me up and toss me a good distance, and I'm not a small person. So here I was admiring this young man (and admiring someone you find attractive does NOT mean you are going to get involved in a relationship that is anything other than friends or dance partners, thank you), and evidently it messed with my head, so to speak. Who are we attracted to and why? And what does this say about our sexuality?

Please note, I am not saying I am attracted to women. But here was this young person...Did I mention he has beautiful eyes?...and the situation just threw me for a loop. So I learned that transgendered folk make me more uncomfortable than I believed. But that is MY issue, not theirs, and by the end of the weekend, I was pretty much able to relate to them as I do with any other dancers at camp. We talked. We danced. We flirted (the gender free dance community is the only place where you can flirt with pretty much anyone and not get into trouble). Hopefully, none of them were really aware of my discomfort, and I hope I made them feel welcome. Maybe someday, if they keep coming to camp, we might have a conversation about it.

There is always something more to learn about being a human being and being in relationship with other human beings. We are all part of God's wonderful creation.

Peace,
Jeffri

Friday, May 2, 2008

Bible Study With The Bishops: Come Out!

Reading Plan Text for May 2: John 11:33-44

I really am with “some of them [the Jews]” when they say

Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying? (11:37)

Then we watch as Jesus, in a scene that foreshadows his own resurrection, has the stone rolled away from the tomb. He says a prayer to God and then shouts “Lazarus, come out!” (11:43)

Come out!

Most lesbian and gay people can not read those words and feel their power. Those of us who have lived “in the closet” know how life crushing that can be. For some, it is so deadly that it leads to physical death, often by suicide. The pressure to stay in the tomb created for us by society is immense. So to hear Jesus’ shout is liberating.

Come out!

But even after we leave the tomb, like Lazarus, we are fettered by some very vocal segments of society. We cannot do it alone. Jesus’ words to those gathered at the tomb are just as relevant to those around us:

Unbind him, and let him go. (11:44)

Let them go.

Let them live in the fullness of life. Let them be fully human.

To us Jesus says

Come out!

To you Jesus says

Let them go.

Peace,
Jeffri