Continuing Education

I love my iPod (thanks, Mom!). Obviously, I use it to listen to music and podcasts, and it's a great tool for playing the flute. But those of you who follow my Facebook posts or Twitter tweets know that I'm also listening to lectures and courses from iTunes U. I've listened to lectures about J.R.R. Tolkien and Johnson's Dictionary.

This week I finished a course available from Open Yale Courses, Diana Kleiner's course on Roman Architecture. I listened to it on the train back and forth to work, and then I'd check out the pictures provided as part of the course material online. I enjoyed it so much that I sent Professor Kleiner an email:

Dear Dr. Kleiner,

I've just finished listening to your course on Roman Architecture on my iPod. Thank you for making it available. The lectures have been my commuting companion for the past few weeks, and I found them both enjoyable and informative. Your enthusiasm for the subject comes through quite clearly on the audio versions of the lectures. I also appreciated being able to go online and look at the pictures you discussed, and often I was surprised at how closely I could visualize what you described without the pictures in front of me.

Thank you again for a great experience.

Sincerely,

Jeffri Harre

Much to my surprise, I received a very nice reply from her:

Jeffri--If I may?

Many thanks for your note. And what you say is very high praise--if you can actually visualize what I am talking about without seeing the images! That said, I'm glad you also checked the pictures out online because I think they came out very well and certainly offer an enhancement. And, in any case, as the saying goes: "a picture is worth a thousand words."

Thanks again for writing and all best.--Diana

Now I'm listening to Professor Dale Martin's Introduction to New Testament History and Literature. Although after four years of EfM, I seem to be a bit better informed than some of his students (the lectures were taped during actual classes), I am learning a lot. I recommended it to my current EfM group and will recommend it to next year's group as well. There's also an Introduction to the Old Testament that I plan on listening to next.

One of the nice things about the Open Yale Courses is that they make available some of the supplemental material for the courses. Check them out.

Peace,
Jeff

Historic Philadelphia--Episcopal Perspective

This morning after breakfast we drove to the Haverford station and then took the commuter train into Philadelphia. We got off at East Market and made our way to Church House, the offices of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. Most of our group took cabs, but four of us walked to the corner of 4th and Locust where the Church House is located. That probably doesn't tell you a whole lot until I tell you that we walked past Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Yes, we were in the heart of historic Philadelphia.

We spent the morning at Church House learning about new resources from Church Publishing and then had lunch. After lunch Henry Carnes, the formation and education person for the diocese (his job description, as with many of ours, seems to be a moving target) arranged for us to tour the Bishop White house. The house isn't open on Tuesdays, but he arranged for a private tour, which was led not by a regular National Park Service guide but by the curator of the historic homes in the National Park Service District. It made for a much richer tour than we might otherwise have had.

Bishop White was the second bishop consecrated for the Episcopal Church, after Samuel Seabury of Connecticut. However, White was the first bishop consecrated by English bishops after an act of Parliament allowed him to be consecrated without swearing an oath of allegiance to the king of England. Bishop Seabury was always a little leery of his own consecration, which took place in Scotland at the hands of non-juror bishops (those who hadn't sworn allegiance to the English crown). Bishop White was also the first Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church while also serving as the Bishop of Pennsylvania AND as the rector of Christ Church Philadelphia.

Which is where we visited next. Founded in 1695, the current building, only the second on the site, was completed in the 1750's. We learned about the history of the church and more about Bishop White. We also learned about the renovations taking place at their 1911 Neighborhood Hall building--the first since the building had been built. Once the renovations are completed, it will once again serve as a vital resource to the community at large.

We stopped at the Bleu Martini for a drink before dinner at the City Tavern. The Bleu Martini wasn't historic, but it was fun. The City Tavern is historic, and the food was pretty good.

We were back to the St. Raphaela Center by 9:00 this evening. We did a lot of walking, and the weather was perfect for it.

Tomorrow we have a couple of workshops and our annual meeting. There are also other things on the agenda, but I'll be leaving for my brother's around 4:00 or so in the afternoon.

Peace,
Jeff

Time To Learn New Skills

I have a stack of books in my office on Christian Formation and children. Some of them are classics, and some of them are recent. The one I just finished is Postmodern Children's Ministry: Ministry to Children in the 21st Century by Ivy Beckwith. The publisher's web site says it

Presents a new paradigm for children’s ministry in the emerging church of the 21st century and explores current ways churches are putting that vision into practice.

Yet Beckwith quotes John Westerhoff's 1976 Will Our Children Have Faith? and Gretchen Wolff Pritchard's 1992 Offering the Gospel to Children. Essentially, what she has to offer forward thinking Christian Educators and Formation Leaders have been saying for 30 years or more.

Basically this tells me is that the Emergent Church is even less aware of how children learn than I thought. It also tells me that not much has changed in the last 30 years in the area of Christian Education/Formation.

However, Beckwith does give one of the best explanations of the transition from modern to postmodern that I have encountered so far.

But these kinds of cultural shifts are never easy--or quick. When the world was moving from the Middle Ages to the Age of Reason, not everyone got there at the same time. People didn't wake up on January 1, 1700, look at their calendars, and say, "Goodness! Look at that! We've moved into the age of modernity." These cultural changes, while tumultuous and significant, are gradual.

And that's where we are now. We find ourselves in a world slowly leaning toward postmodern but still populated by a lot of people who hold a modern worldview. This leads to conflict and to at least one popular misconception about postmodernism. Lots of speakers and writers like to use the word postmodern and generational monikers like Generation X or millenial interchangeably. They treat the postmodern worldview as a life stage that one will likely outgrow as maturity settles in. (p. 21)

Not only has she pinpointed our culture's challenge, she has highlighted the problem the church finds itself confronting today. Some 400 years after the fact, the church has finally adapted to modern age only to find itself in a world very much like the one in which it was born. And it doesn't have the skills to cope.

Obviously, our culture has a very different understanding of the physical world, genetics, and a host of other things about which the ancient world had little or no knowledge. Governments, churches, and other social institutions cannot ignore those changes, as much as the Taliban or the Southern Baptists might wish otherwise. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

However, we now live in a world where Christianity is a minority religion, or soon will be. In some places in the world Christians are persecuted. Yet the church--especially in the "West," but even in the so-called "Global South"--is still operating from a place that assumes Christianity is the social norm.

Our Christian Formation programs must begin to help us see the world around us realistically and equip us to live in it graciously and productively.

I'm not holding my breath, but as I Christian, I live in hope.

Peace,
Jeff

Culture Clash

We continually revise our cultural history, our understanding of who we are as a nation and as a people. It changes as we come to a different concept of who and what our nation is. Sometimes, as historians present us with new information or new ways of looking at existing information, that change in understanding is painful. Two issues that demonstrate this painful conversation of change are the way this nation has dealt with African-American and with Native Americans.

This past week my train reading has been The Last Indian War: The Nez Perce Story by Elliott West. In his preface West writes

The crisis of the Nez Perces and the war that came from it fell within the period usually called the "Civil War era" and dated between 1861 and 1877. This label presumes that the preeminent force of its time was the war to save the union. The war, the developments that caused it, and its historical aftershocks dominate not only the story but also the terms of significance. How valuable an event is to understanding mid-nineteenth-century American history depends on whether and how much it has to do with the Civil War, its causes, and its aftermath.

The problem with this big picture is that many developments with great long-term consequences have little or no place in it...

What do the overland migration to Oregon, Protestant missions to the Pacific Northwest, and Indians' prophetic religions have to do with the crusade against slavery and the secession crisis? Where is a common thread to emancipation, the Freedmen's Bureau, and federal occupation of the South on the one hand and western railroad surveys, reservations, Indian wars, and Yellowstone National Park on the other?

He spends the rest of the preface setting out his premise of a "Greater Reconstruction" and finishes by writing

Those broad points are best shown by giving them body through particular human experiences. Nothing shows that better than the story of the Nez Perces.

The Nez Perces were not the only Native Americans who were forced onto a reservation, nor were they the only Native Americans who maintained friendly relations with the growing United States and still have their land taken from them. Most of us are familiar with the case of the Cherokees and the Trail of Tears. The Nez Perces did not adopt the "white man's" ways as fully as the Cherokee. Their story is more one of a clash of cultures.

The government officials--both "Indian Officers" and military officers--failed to understand that the Nez Perces were not one united tribe but rather several interrelated clans (and family relationships with other peoples of the region). The Nez Perces never fully understood that the Indian and Military Officers reported to the government in Washington, DC.

Christianity also played a role. Missionaries, the general public, and the federal government saw Christianity as a "civilizing" force. Many of the Nez Perce converted, but they tended to integrate parts of Christianity into their own religion. Part of becoming civilized included settling down on a specific plot of land and farming rather than the nomadic hunting, gathering, and horse-raising that were the Neze Perce way of life. It was a way of life suited to the environment of the region in which they lived--most of Central Idaho and parts of Washington and Oregon. It isn't particularly good farming country.

The Nez Perces were "given" a fairly sizable reservation, but then gold was discovered in the area and the terms of the treaty were violated. The government's response?

The overwhelming consensus in the press and official statements was that the Nez Perces were in the right. Their lands were being illegally invaded. The intruders were called human bilgewater...In response, the Nez perce were said to be models of patience and reason, as fit their unblemished record of friendship. In May 1862, Oregon Senator James W. Nesmith delivered an extended hymn to the Nez Perces to his colleagues in the U.S. Senate. The Nez perces were handsome, intelligent, and virtuous, faithful to their word and protective of American citizanes. in return, they had suffered abuses and betrayals. Not that they were unique. From Maine to Oregon, Nesmith said, the government had consistently pledged what it could not deliver. Agents and missionaries had reduced Indians to "squalid thieves, vagabonds, and prostitutes." And now the old pattern was unfolding again. A corrupt and corrupting government was failing its responsibilities.

And Nesmith's conclusion? The Nez Perces must sign another treaty and give up more land. They had to be protected, and protection wasn't possible on the 1855 reservation. the only chance for protection was to have a much smaller reservation. Doing justice meant dealing with the results of botched policy by repeating what had been done in the first place, with the promise that the government would mend its ways, and right soon.

The same reasoning was used again at a later point in the government's dealings with the Nez Perces. Unfortunately for the government, because of the structure of Nez Perces society some of the bands did not sign the treaty. Instead, for a variety of reasons, including retaliatory attacks on white settlements, they decided to head for Canada. So began the Nez Perce War.

The war ended a few months later with the Nez Perces surrendering not far from the Canadian border. One of great quotes of U.S. history came from that surrender: Chief Joseph's "I will fight no more forever." Whether he actually said the phrase is debatable, but it is ingrained in our cultural memory.

This episode was never part of the history I learned in school. I don't know if it is now. Many of our communities refrain from teaching anything that questions how our nation has behaved in the past. And in others, there are citizens quick to raise a ruckus when a curriculum is introduced that even hints at pointing out flaws in the way our country has acted.

I don't think it's a case of assigning blame or pointing fingers at this point. It's a case of looking at what happened and learning from it.

Peace,
Jeff

What He Said

If you haven't already, go read Frank Turner's The imagined community of the Anglican Community on Episcopal Cafe. I particularly like this paragraph:

“The Instruments of Communion,” now being given supposed histories and purposes different from their actual origins and being made vehicles for the controlled invention of identity, are of relatively recent origin. The Lambeth Conference, first convened in 1867 by Archbishop Charles Thomas Longley for providing “Brotherly Counsel and encouragement,” gathered amidst much controversy. Several bishops of the Province of York refused to attend, and Dean Arthur Stanley denied the group the use of Westminster Abbey. In neither its origin nor in its decades of meeting was the Lambeth Conference ever intended as a general conference of the whole church or as a legislative body. Not until 1969 did the Anglican Consultative Council first convene. Only in 1978 did the Primates begin to gather regularly, and they refused to define those meetings as any kind of higher synod. The Lambeth Conference of 1998 (Resolution 3.6) stated that the activities of the Primates should not interfere with the judicial authorities of the several constituent provinces. All of these gatherings were collegial in character designed to further communication and bonds of fellowship among the vastly different churches of what was evolving as an imagined worldwide Anglican Communion.

And this little gem:

During most of the twentieth century spokesmen for the Church of England and for those various churches around the world in one way or another derived from that church have emphasized the reasonableness and moderation of Anglicanism, and thus the Church of England displayed itself for most of the past century. But in point of fact, throughout much of its earlier history the Church of England was an actively persecuting church. Under Elizabeth it persecuted recalcitrant Roman Catholics. After the Restoration in l660 the Church of England drove out the Protestant Nonconformists. Thereafter until the late l820s the Church of England benefited from legislation that prevented Protestant Nonconformists and Roman Catholics from participating in English political life.

And shortly thereafter he names what the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing:

Knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously, the present Archbishop of Canterbury seeks to revive this tradition of centralized arbitrary exclusion and chastisement.

Frank has articulated clearly and concisely what many of us have been thinking and unable to articulate so well.

Also take time to read the comments.

Peace,
Jeff

Sightseeing At Home

This afternoon Rachel and I visited the Lockwood-Mathews mansion here in Norwalk. I grew up in Darien, which is one town west of Norwalk, and I've spent most of my adult life living in Norwalk, but this was my first tour of the mansion. I'd been there once before for an antiques show, but we were only inside two rooms, which were crammed with dealers' booths.

Our tour guide turned out to be one of Rachel's former middle school teachers, so there was some catching up along with the tour. The second floor was closed due to things being moved around in preparation for more restoration work. Instead, we were given a tour of the basement where we saw the bowling alley and some of the original fencing that surrounded the 30 acre estate.

We learned a lot of interesting history. The mansion predates those in Newport by 10-15 years. Most of the builders, carvers, stonemasons, etc. came from Europe. primarily Italy, to work on the mansion and then returned home. Most of them. Some remained, and Norwalk's Italian-American community predated the influx of Italian immigrants by more than 20 years. The entire building, including the interior work was done on site. After the City of Norwalk bought the property for a municipal park, the mansion was used as an office building and storage, which was in many ways responsible for the preservation of many details. When the government of Norwalk decided it needed a city hall, it planned to tear down the mansion and build the new city hall on the site. Preservationists were able to save the mansion not because of it's historic importance, but because it was in a municipal park, and a government building could not be built in the park.

Our guide told us stories about how the museum has acquired original furnishings and artwork over the years. Some of the artwork came from descendants of the Lockwood and Mathews families. Furniture occasionally comes up at auction, and is purchased. One desk returned to the mansion when a woman noted the woodwork around the library fireplace and remembered a desk in her husband's office. She told him about the woodwork, and he replied that he'd bought the desk from the city during a tag sale of mansion's contents.

One of the interesting things for me was to see the difference between the restored drawing room and the room next to it which had been conserved (the grime from 140 years was cleaned using rubber erasers!). A small card room off the drawing room sits directly below the prayer room on the second floor.

Other places in Norwalk I have yet to visit include the Mill Hill Complex of three historic buildings and a burial ground, the Norwalk Museum in what was the South Norwalk City Hall, the Sheffield Island Lighthouse, and the SONO Switch Tower Museum. Expand the radius, and Fairfield County has a variety of historic homes, museums, and things to do.

Sometimes when you want something to do on a weekend afternoon, you don't have to go very far.

Peace,
Jeff

A Dying Art?

The August 3rd issue of Time (which came out on Friday July 24th) contained an article titled "I'm 26 years old, and I can't write in cursive," by Claire Suddath. It's an interesting look at the decline (she calls it "the death") of handwriting in our modern culture. Suddath notes:

I am a member of Gen Y, the generation that shunned cursive. And now there is a group coming after me, a boom of tech-savvy children who don't remember life before the Internet and who text-message nearly as much as they talk. They have even less need for good penmanship.

And later:

penmanship has almost no bearing on job performance. And aside from the occasional grocery list or Post-it note, most adults write very little by hand... We are living in the age of social networks and frenzied conversation, composing more e-mails, texting more messages and keeping in touch with more people than ever before. Maybe this is a trade-off. We've given up beauty for speed, artistry for efficiency. And yes, maybe we are a little bit lazy.

I do a lot of writing on the computer, this blog for example. And often it is faster and more efficient. But sometimes, I find it necessary to write a draft or two by hand in order to put my thoughts in order. I also hand write my journal in a notebook. I tried writing on the computer and then printing it out and putting the pages into a three-ring binder, but it seemed mechanical after a while, and I gave it up.

I have no problem text messaging, tweeting on Twitter, or using Facebook to connect with friends and colleagues, though I probably don't "Facebook like a native." But there is something about writing by hand that speaks to my mind and my soul.

Maybe it's my generation--I'll be 50 in January--the tail end of the Baby Boom easing into Gen X. I don't share most of the Boomers' common memories, and my world view has more in common with the Gen Xers. It's like having a foot in two worlds, and hopefully, that experience will keep me flexible in adapting to change and not becoming stuck in my ways.

Peace,
Jeff

Prince Charming He Wasn't

At the end of her introduction to We Two, Gillian Gill writes,

At a distance, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert can look like charming tapestry figures, unicorns among flowering meadows, irrelevant to our modern world. But if we listen to their voices up close, we find to our surprise a forerunner of today's power couple--a husband and wife, each with a different personal agenda, but lovers as well as partners in a great enterprise, both leading meticulously scheduled, constantly monitored, minutely recorded, and carefully screened lives. How very twenty-first century!

It is always dangerous to look at history through the filters of our own time, and yet, that is the only way we can. But even with our own filters, we sometimes see through the filters of earlier historians, especially with access to original documents.

The familiar story of Victoria and Albert's marriage is the great romantic story of the 19th Century. The truth was far more complicated and a great deal less pretty. While reading Gill's book, the words from "Cocktail Counterpoint" from La Cage aux Folles kept coming to mind:

It's appalling to confess:
Our new in-laws are a mess.
She's a prude, he's a prig,
She's a pill, he's a pig,
So zis zis zis for you, Papa.

In ways, they were a well matched couple. Victoria was unable to cope with their children until they reached adulthood. Albert was intimately involved in their children's lives and did his best to be a good parent. Both knew how to maneuver through the subtleties of European politics, even if they weren't always successful. And while they came to define "prude" and "uptight," they decorated their private home with male and female nudes.

This fresco, "Neptune Resigning to Britannia the Empire of the Sea," hangs over the main staircase of Osborne House.

In other ways, they were not. Albert was the younger son of a minor German royal family, and he was very touchy about his position. The Prince Consort had no idea how to deal with the "common people." Victoria, on the other hand, enjoyed being among "the people" and never forgot how important their good opinion was to the monarchy.

In spite of this new look at Victoria and Albert, and others to come, it is unlikely that they will be dislodged from their place in history.

Peace,
Jeff

A Birthday Excursion

As has become the custom of one group of friends for each others' birthdays, we drove off with Rachel for parts unknown. Well, unknown to her. Even when we exited I-95 in Essex, she didn't have a clue. Not until we pulled into the parking lot of the Essex Steam Train. Lisa, Mike, and I hadn't been on the train in years. Rachel never had.


We had to park in the secondary lot where we found a number of classic cars. A local car club outing was taking the same train, so by the time we reached the ticket office, we had a choice of seats in the open car right behind the engine for $3 added fare, or seats in the Parlor Car for $5. We chose the Parlor Car.


During our planning for today, Lisa, Mike and I decided to skip the riverboat combination trip on the Connecticut River, which turned out to be a good choice given the weather today.


After the train ride, we drove into downtown Essex and walked around, stopping in shops here and there as they struck our fancy. Essex is an old river town which managed to preserve managed to preserve many of its historic buildings. We walked down to the river front and watched the Connecticut River Museum's boat set sail.


Next stop was the Saybrook Country Barn to look at the various things they have to offer for the home. Until we started to get hungry and headed off to Westbrook Lobster in Clinton. I wasn't sure what to expect when we pulled into the parking lot, and less so when we walked into the dining room. We were more than pleasantly surprised. The food was excellent. All of us ate entirely too much.

In order to walk off dinner, we went to Ikea in New Haven. Lisa and Mike recently moved into their first house, so there were some things they wanted to check out. Rachel and I both enjoy wandering around the Scandinavian Superstore. We saw a couple of displays set up as small apartments and creatively furnished --one was 277 square feet. I also found a chair that I really like but have no room for in my current apartment. Someday...

Next birthdays? Mike's and Lisa's in July (AFTER I get back from General Convention!).

Peace,
Jeff

Christ Has Died, And Died, And Died...

After weeks of picking it up, putting it down, and picking it up again, I have finally finished Rita Brock's and Rebecca Parker's Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire (http://savingparadise.net/). It was fascinating to read, and it pinpointed some parts of Christian Theology that have always made me uncomfortable.

The authors spent a great deal of time looking at early Christian art and discovered that there were very few images of the crucified Christ during the first 1,000 years or so of Christianity. Images of Paradise and the resurrected Christ dominate Christina art for the first millennium. Not until the late 900's did Christ crucified begin appearing in Christian--primarily western Christian--art. From then on the dying Christ became a primary image.

The first section of Saving Paradise looks at the early Christian imagery and examines the theology, ritual, and teachings of the early church in light of those images. In the second section the authors show the changes in the church and the culture that "killed" Christ and became mired in the crucifixion, eventually exiling Paradise to the next world.

Having read Saving Paradise, I find my subsequent reading on a variety of topics about Christianity/from a Christian perspective colored by Brock's and Parker's work. Or rather, I find my discomfort with and awareness of the "victim/atonement" theology in these other books heightened. I have a feeling that it will take a while for this to settle into my thought process...

As I would expect, response to the book definitely depends on the reader's place in the Christian continuum. You can find a couple of the more thoughtful reviews (to my mind, though I may not agree with them), which I found after finishing the book, by following the links below.

Peace,
Jeff

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/recommendation-and-review-saving-paradise-by-rita-nakashima-brock-and-rebecca-ann-parker

http://www.psr.edu/saving-paradisehow-christianity-traded-love-world-crucifixion-and-empire-review-tat-siong-benny-liew

http://www.theocentric.com/theology/eschatology/saving_paradise.html

The Wearin' O' The Orange

I know. I know. On St. Patrick's Day here in the States everyone is Irish. As time goes by March 17 becomes less and less a religious observance, less and less a celebration of ethnic pride, and more and more an excuse for drinking and acting foolishly--a mid-Lent Mardis Gras, so to speak.

However, not everyone is welcome. ILGO, the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization, is still denied a place in the New York City parade by its organizers, the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH). In order to keep ILGO out, the AOH continues to resort to the argument that the parade is primarily a religious observance, and since lesbians and gays are not welcome by the Roman Catholic Church, and the AOH is an organization primarily of Roman Catholics...

It's enough to make me want to wear orange in protest.

I am not, however, that naive. The color orange carries enormous political, social, and historical baggage in Irish Communities. The Loyal Orange Institution (or Order) is a staunch defender of a Protestant Northern Ireland as a part of Great Britain. Every year they insist on their right to march through Catholic neighborhoods, keeping the generations old bitterness alive.

I could legitimately wear orange. My Irish forebears were Presbyterians from Ballymena, County Antrim, in the north. My great-great-grandfather James Dick Blakley and his brother served in Irish regiments of the British Army. He even wrote a letter to the editor of the Westchester County Reporter (while he was living in Montreal, Quebec) proudly giving a history of the family's military history, including participation in the fight against the rebels during the Uprising of 1798.

But I know better, especially in New York City on St. Patrick's Day...

Peace,
Jeff

Two Thoughts On Yesterday

No, I am not ignoring yesterday's historic events. However, many folks have written more eloquently about it than I possibly could. I do want to leave you with two thoughts.

Yesterday we witnessed the world changing.

Six months from now let us remember how we all felt yesterday during the Inauguration of President Obama.

Peace,
Jeff

Ding Dong The Bells Are Gonna Chime!

While I won't be getting married in the morning, nor any time in the near future, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in Connecticut soon, probably as early as next month. In a case resulting from a suit filed by 8 couples against the state Commissioner for Public Health after being denied marriage licences by Madison town clerk, the state supreme court ruled today "In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."

Many headlines in newspapers around the country and throughout the blogosphere read much like this one from The Boston Globe: "Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage." As a friend of mine pointed out,

The Connecticut Supreme Court did not legalize same-sex marriage but rather said that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because marriage is a fundamental right. Gays and lesbians are a group who have a history of being discriminated against and therefore heightened scrutiny (California went one step further and said strict scrutiny) must be applied to any law which negatively impacts them. The Connecticut Supreme Court based their ruling on equal protection in the Connecticut constitution. Everybody deserves the equal protection of state law.

Essentially the court found that Civil Unions, which Connecticut has had for a couple of years, create a separate and unequal category of citizens.

If you are interested, here are the Supreme Court's decision and the three dissenting opinions:

• SC17716 - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• SC17716 Dissent - Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

How far we have come in the last 25 years since I returned to Connecticut after college and graduate school in the Midwest. Marriage was the last thing on our minds when the Connecticut Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights worked toward passage of civil rights legislation. In fact, it was the issue of marriage that essentially fractured the organization after the passage of the so-called "gay rights bill." A number of members felt that marriage was the next logical step, while others saw marriage as an institution that had long outlived its purpose. While the Coalition fell apart, with a small remainder limping along, other organizations grew out of the fight for full marriage rights for same-sex couples. It became THE issue for a large number of lbgt activists, and for many conservatives, who used it in attempts to solidify their hold over our society.

This decision is a great stride forward for lbtq folks, but the struggle is not over. There is a question on the ballot this year in Connecticut, one required by the state constitution to be put before the people of the state every 20 years:

Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

There is also the issue of clergy acting as agents of the state for conducting civil marriage. Not to mention the ongoing struggle in our religious institutions regarding the blessing of those marriages.

A lot of education, advocacy, and hard work remains, but for today, let us celebrate a tremendous step forward.

Peace,
Jeffri

Viewed Through The Lens Of History

Paul Woodrum posted this on a mail list to which I belong. He has graciously given us permission to share it. It is a response to remarks the Archbishop of Canterbury made in answer to a question at yesterday's press conference after meeting with the bishops of the Episcopal Church. In my opinion it hits the proverbial nail on the head. Thanks, Paul.

1st Century:
"Certainly Gentiles have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place Gentiles may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction.

7th Century:
Certainly followers of Augustine have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about not only the date of Easter, but the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place followers of Rome may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the Celtic tradition of the church lets us move in that direction.

12th Century:
"Certainly Anglo-Saxon people have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place Anglo-Saxon people may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far Norman church tradition lets us move in that direction.

16th Century:
"Certainly recusants and dissenters have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place recusants and dissenters may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the Established Church and Crown lets us move in that direction.

18th Century:
"Certainly colonials have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place colonials may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far Parliament lets us move in that direction.

19th Century:
"Certainly slaves throughout the Empire have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place slaves may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far slave owners let us move in that direction.

1900 - 1960's:
"Certainly African Americans have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place African Americans may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far white American tradition lets us move in that direction.

1970's :
"Certainly women have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place women may hold in offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional patriarchal theology of the church lets us move in that direction.

21st Century:
"Certainly gay and lesbian people have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place gay and lesbian people may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction." (The Most Reverend and Right Honorable Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, 21 September AD 2007, New Orleans, LA, USA)

Of Lambdas, Triangles, And Visibility

I often wear a small gold Lambda earring in my left ear. Most people do not really notice it, or if they do, they do not comment on it. The most recent time anyone asked about it was during General Convention last June. The first incident occurred one late afternoon when I stopped at the Claiming the Blessing booth in the Exhibit Hall to see what they had to offer in terms of literature and, more importantly, to get a bag of the popcorn I had been smelling throughout most of the day at the booth I was staffing just up the way. The young woman volunteering at the booth asked what the significance of of my earring was.

I was a little taken aback. Here I was at the booth of an organization advocating for the blessing of same gender relationships by the Episcopal Church, and the volunteer was asking me about what I thought was a fairly well-known symbol of the lesbian/gay rights movement. So I gave a short impromptu lesson on the history of the early lesbian/gay rights movement and how the Lambda was adopted as a symbol by the Gay Activists Alliance in the early 1970's.

The next day, I had a similar conversation when I stopped by the Thoughtful Christian booth. That incident was less startling to me, because I had no assumptions that the folks staffing the booth should know what the Lambda was.

Earlier this week, eight months later, in the aftermath of the Primates Communique, I found myself thinking that I needed to be more visible as a gay man in the Episcopal Church--the little gold Lambda was not enough. Now, I am not closeted by any means, but it is not a topic of everyday conversation either at the Church Center or at my local parish. However, if the church is going to once again ask its lesbian, gay and bisexual members to bear the burden of the cost of preventing immediate schism in the Anglican Communion, then the church needs to put names and faces to those members--to ME. I dug into the back of my closet (clothes closet, people!) and found the hooded cotton vest that holds my collection of lesbian and gay buttons. I have a number of buttons that contain or are in the shape of a pink triangle. However, I knew exactly which button I wanted--an enamelled black circle with a large pink triangle on it.

I used to wear that button frequently when I was involved in the Connecticut Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights. Then, as now, it was a personal way to be visible. I have worn it for four days now, and I plan to continue wearing it while the Episcopal Church struggles with itself and the Anglican Communion. I know people have seen it, but only one young co-worker asked its significance. So I gave him a short impromptu history lesson on the origins of the pink triangle as an identifying marking on the uniforms of homosexual men in the Nazi concentration camps and its subsequent adoption by various lesbian and gay rights organizations and communities. I did not have to tell him why I was wearing it, because he came up with that answer on his own.

As much as I wear it to educate others, it also educates me in just how uncomfortable and vulnerable being intentionally visible can still make me feel.

Peace,
Jeffri

Rewriting History

While skimming through the Stand Firm (Traditional Anglicanism in America) website—I do that occasionally, because even though I may not agree with these folks, I sometimes learn things from them—I stumbled across “A Timeline of the Path of the Episcopal Church: A New Online ‘Wiki.’” In her January 30th post on the Stand Firm site, Susan Hey writes:

Many Episcopalians ask me and others how they can communicate to Beloved Moderates about the serious challenges facing the Episcopal church. This timeline, developed by Andy Figueroa, is very helpful in chronicling ECUSA's path over the past 40 years, and includes links to original sources.

It is an awesome resource.

Better still, it functions as an online "Wiki", allowing registered users to contribute by editing pages, or submitting more content by creating new pages.

Check out the timeline here. Then print and pass it on to friends! And if you're interested, register to add more helpful content.

(The post and comments can be found at http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1991/.)

So I went to take a look at “Walking Apart” (found at http://hopeanglican.us/walkingapart/tiki-index.php?page=Walking+Apart), and read the introduction, which begins:

Liturgical Innovation and Prayerbook Revision - sowing he seeds of corruption

In 1943, General Convention approved a new lectionary for the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer of the 1928 BCP. It replaced the orginal lectionary published from 1928 until 1942. The 1943 revisions took out many sciptures which taught angainst homosexuality, such as Romans 1:22-27 (For example, see lectionary for Evening Prayer on the Seventh Sunday after Trinity in newer 1928 BCPs.), prophetically setting the stage for the 1960s and 1970s.

None of the references listed in this information section document the 1943 changes in terms of removing readings “which taught angainst [sic] homosexuality.” They do provide a reasonable overview of why many conservatives feel that the current Book of Common prayer is not a true Book of Common Prayer.

Come on, folks, the issue of homosexuality probably was not even on the radar screen for the upper class white men gathered for General Convention 1943. And even if they were aware of the issue, they almost certainly would not have been removing from the lectionary anything that condemned it. So far I have found nothing to back up Andy Figueroa's assertion that passages were removed from the lectionary because they condemned homosexual behavior. I will probably take a trip to the library to see if I can get Bayard Hale Jones' The American Lectionary, published in 1944, through interlibrary loan. Jones was one of the primary authors of the 1943 Lectionary revision. I may also email the Archives of the Episcopal Church and see what they can find for me on the 1943 change.

In the meantime, take a look for yourself.

Peace,
Jeffri

Note: All the web pages referenced in this entry were available as of February 2, 2007. The spelling and grammar of the italicized selections are as I found them on the original sites.