Dancing Circles

When I was in high school I fell in with a small group of kids who liked square dancing. They attended a monthly dance that did what is often called "New England" or "Traditional" Square Dancing. Some of the very basic moves used to be taught in grammar school gym classes. I picked it up quickly and enjoyed dancing. I danced regularly through high school but only occasionally in college and after that.

In my late twenties I was re-introduced to square dancing, but this time it was Western Squares. The Times Squares had come to New Haven to help start a new gay/lesbian Western Square group in Connecticut. I remembered most of the moves easily, and for the first time in my life was doing a kind of dancing I enjoyed with the "right" partners. I was dancing with men! And sometimes I even followed (the "woman's" role). While I rather quickly found out that I prefer New England Squares to Western Squares, that dance in New Haven introduced me to a group of people who did what they called "gender free" Contra Dancing. That meant that anyone could dance any role they wished for any dance. In order to tell who was leading and who was following, the leaders wore armbands. Thus the calls for gender free Contras are "bares and bands" rather than "ladies and gents."

I've been dancing with one chapter or another of the Lavender Country and Folk Dancers (LCFD) ever since. I will occasionally attend a "straight dance" and have to continually remind myself "I am the armband, I am the armband..." throughout the evening.

Over the past few years, there has been some concern about the "next generation" of dancers. Most of the dancers in the LCFD when I joined were about my age, give or take a few years. As time went on we would attract new dancers, most of whom were also about our age. Occasionally, a young person would become involved. We heard that the same thing was happening at many "straight" dances. Would Contra Dances cease as we aged and were eventually no longer able to dance?

Lately, however, there seems to be a lot of interest in Contra Dancing among the college age generation. Some evenings at my local dance, the younger crowd far outnumbers us "old timers." It's wonderful to see.

So imagine my surprise when the Globe and Mail delivered to my hotel room in Vancouver Friday morning had the following article on the front page of the "Life" section. It seems there is a new interest in Contra Dancing amongst the younger generation of our neighbors to the North as well.

The circle turns, and the dance goes on. It is not the same, but then it shouldn't be. So we just join hands and join in.



Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With the Bishops: Another Court Case

Reading Plan Text for April 7: John 7:53 - 8:11

It is pretty clear that this passage about the Woman Taken In Adultery is not original to John. As Burridge points out in the his commentary, it interrupts the flow of the story, and its language is different from the rest of John--more closely resembling Luke. Burridge concludes this introduction to the passage by saying

Perhaps God wants this one in the Bible somewhere, even if we are not sure where! Certainly, the story reflects John's account of Jesus being sent not to condemn the world but to save it; furthermore, it fits John's motif of Jesus being on trial and yet still in control. (p. 110)

While the scribes and the Pharisees are obviously using this woman's situation to try Jesus, they do so by trying to make him the judge in her case. Instead, as has happened before, it is they who stand trial in front of Jesus. Even then, they are put in the position of having to judge themselves.

I sometimes wonder why John makes so much use of trial imagery. Several sources say that the Johannine Community was one in conflict, having been expelled from the local synagogue. Could there have been legal wrangling resulting from the expulsion or separation? There is a temptation to relate apply this train of thought to the court cases going on in several places around the Anglican Communion. However, I don't believe one could make a legitimate connection. And even if you did, I think Jesus would probably say "A plague on both your houses, sell the building and donate the money to the poor."

More likely, John uses the trial settings to provide the Jesus portrayed in this Gospel with opportunities to make logical arguments. "Look at the evidence," John seems to be saying, "and believe. "

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Oh, Them

Reading Plan Text for April 4: John 7:40-52

After Jesus' speech in the last passage, the crowd is again discussing who they think he is. He must be the Messiah. But the Messiah isn't supposed to come from Galilee. Their opinion is divided.

The temple police sent to arrest Jesus return to the priests and the Pharisees without him. Why? Because they, too, have heard Jesus and are as divided in their opinions as the crowd is. The priests and the Pharisees are furious. How can the police have been deceived? None of us believe him! And the mob--those common people--they know nothing!

How many times have we heard religious leaders dismiss the thoughts and opinions of those they don't agree with.

Those people don't really know the Bible/Talmud/Koran/Sacred Writing.
Those people aren't true Christians/Jews/Muslims/Believers.
Those people don't know the truth.
Those people...

How many times have we heard religious leaders dismiss very people they are responsible for and to?

Those people aren't educated.
Those people don't know the law.
Those people don't have any expertise in religious issues.
Those people...

Oh, them. They don't count.

Sometimes someone will speak up, like Nicodemus in this passage. And what happens?

You can't possibly believe that.
Are you really one of us?
Maybe you're one of those people.
Those people...

Oh, them. They don't count

I learned a long time ago that those people often have something valuable to teach us. It is a lesson that I need to be reminded of again, and again, and again. I was reminded of it again here in Vancouver. The chaplain for the conference is an Episcopal priest from the Midwest. However, his manner of prayer appeared to me as Evangelical. I've had run-ins with Evangelicals over and over again who consider me one of those people. Yet there have been Evangelical Christians who have taught me many valuable things, including how to look at some troubling scripture passages. The chaplain here is one of the gentlest, non-judgmental people I've encountered. His prayers have spoken to me and brought some new insights. He has connected me, and other conference participants, with God, Jesus, and the Spirit.

Those people don't think like I do.
Those people don't act like I do.
Those people don't believe like I do.
Those people...

Oh, them. Maybe they have something to teach me.

Peace,
Jeffri

Controversey In Vancouver

Sunday afternoon as we drove to our hotel on the bus from the airport, we passed Harbour Green Park, which sits overlooks Coal Harbour. In the park sits a large sculpture of a church, but, as you can see in the photo below, it's standing on it's head, so to speak. Angie and I found it amusing given that we are in Vancouver for a church-related conference. To me, it symbolized what we sometimes need to do with our churches in order to have new life.


One of the speakers at the conference even had a picture of the sculpture in the opening slide of her presentation. Her daughter had found it on a web site about Vancouver, and Jeunee thought it was a good image to use. She didn't know that the sculpture is only a block from our hotel.

Here's another view:

This morning The Globe and Mail carried a story on page 3. At the top of page 3. It seems that the City of Vancouver will be removing the sculpture from the park because some Christians have called it "blasphemous," and some local residents have complained that it interferes with their view of Coal Harbour. The Vancouver Park Board voted unanimously to remove it from the park.

In the article I also learned the title of the sculpture: Device to Root Out Evil. Look at the pictures again. Does the sculpture bring to mind another fairly common object? Think about the position of the steeple. That's what hit me this afternoon when I was looking at the pictures I took. It looks like a power drill. I'm sure there are all sorts of other things that can be seen in it, but that's what I saw this afternoon.

If nothing else, the sculpture has sparked conversation. And isn't that one of the things art is supposed to do?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Hurry, Hurry, Hurry

Reading Plan Text for April 3: John 7:32-39

I will be with you a little while longer, and then I am going to him who sent me. You will search for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come. (33-34)

When my father was suffering from pancreatic cancer, I don't think any of us really knew how little time we had left together. The doctors diagnosed it late, and they attempted to use a new and experimental chemotherapy. From the diagnosis to death was one month. Four short weeks. The last two days of his life he spent in a drug-induced coma because of the pain. Although I knew the end was near, I left for a business trip. He died that evening, and I came home the next day.

Jesus is telling the crowd, and, more importantly, his disciples, that his time among them is short. Burridge puts it in terms of six months--from the feast of the Tabernacles to the following Passover. Prepare. Make plans. Talk with me.

Talk with me.

I was fortunate. My father and I had healed our relationship about two years earlier, and he and I had a good conversation the last night he was conscious. What had to be said was said, and there was a peace between us.

You will search for me, but you will not find me...

Even now, 15 years later, there are times when I still reach for the phone to ask Dad a question about some project or other I've gotten stuck with. But he's not there. He won't ever be there again. And after 15 years, that can still bring tears to my eyes.

Jesus will not be there, and he won't be ever again. But the crowd, the priests, and the Pharisees do not understand what he is saying, because they are still trying to comprehend the literal sense of his words. For three days he will not be in a place where they can find him. He will come among them again, but also for a short while. Once he is gone, they will never see him again, and they cannot go to where he is--until death.

Prepare. Make plans. Talk with me. There isn't much time. You need to do it now. Time is short. Hurry. Hurry. Hurry.

The good news is that we can still talk to Jesus whenever we want. And the bad news? It is our time that is limited.

Prepare.

Make plans.

Talk with me.

Hurry. Hurry. Hurry.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Where Are You From?

Reading Plan Text for April 2: John 7:19-31

Whenever I travel and meet new people, one of the first questions we ask each other is "Where are you from?" Knowing where someone is from helps us get to know the other person. It gives us some context for further conversation. Of course, it can also lead to snap judgements, like "the Ugly American," or "damn Yankee," or "Left Coaster."

Jesus is known to many of the people in the crowd, and many others who don't know him personally know of him.

Yet we know where this man comes from; but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from. (7:27)

Because they know he is from Nazareth, they "know" he is not the Messiah. Jesus refutes this immediately, and some in the crowd believe him. However, how many simply repeat Nathanael's question:

Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (1:46)

We know where he is from, therefore we know everything we need to know about him.

The geographical "shorthand" is helpful in learning about someone, but it does not let us know the whole person. How many times have we assumed all sorts of things because someone

• Graduated from Episcopal Divinity School
• Graduated from Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
• Is a priest in the Diocese of Newark
• Is a priest in the Diocese of Fort Worth
• Is a member of a parish in San Francisco
• Is a member of a parish in Albany

Didn't we learn anything from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bishops Write About Their Meeting

Updated April 4 - 7:20 a.m. Pacific Time

Here is what the bishops have to say about their March 7-12 meeting at Camp Allen.

Jack Iker of Fort Worth posted this statement about why he wasn't attending the meeting (I've reprinted it here, because I'm not sure how long the link will be good):

A Comment concerning the March 2008 House of Bishops meeting

In recent years, I have increasingly dreaded the thought of attending another meeting of the House of Bishops of TEC, and I will not be participating in the one at Camp Allen in early March. For a traditional anglo-catholic like myself, the HOB meetings have become a toxic environment, and the “spiritual violence” I suffer there is not good for my emotional or spiritual well being. For me, the small-group table discussions are places of hostile confrontation, not support and affirmation.

I am disheartened that I have been unable to secure a future, safe place for this diocese within TEC and am saddened by the fact that the HOB has been unwilling to make adequate provision for us in response to our appeal for alternative primatial oversight.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo IkerBishop of Fort Worth

Note: In the concluding Recommendations of its report on this diocese's appeal, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference said, “The Panel also recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury continue discussions with the Diocese of Fort Worth and with the Episcopal Church with the aim of securing the place of Fort Worth in the Communion.” (paragraph 17d) The report was published Jan. 8, 2007.

Some bishops posted thoughts during the course of the meeting:

• Kee Sloan, Suffragan of Alabama, on March 9
• Christopher Epting, the Presiding Bishop's Deputy for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations, on March 9 and March 12.
• Porter Taylor, Western North Carolina, on March 12.
• Larry Benfield, Arkansas, on March 7, March 9, March 11, and March 12.

Here are reflections written after the meeting:

Province I

• Connecticut - Jim Curry & Laura Ahrens

Province III

• Deleware - Wayne Wright

Province V

• Northern Indiana - Edward Little
• Southern Ohio - Thomas Breidenthal & Kenneth Price, Jr.

Province VIII

• Arizona - Kirk Smith (As usual, one of the first to write to his dioceses as soon as the House of Bishops meetings are done.)

In case you haven't seen them, here are the Episcopal News Service--and other--reports on the March 7-12 meeting:

• March 7 Daily Account (ENS)
• March 8 Daily Account (ENS)
• March 9 Daily Account (ENS)
• March 10 Daily Account (ENS)
• Lambeth Invitation Not Possible for Gene Robinson (March 10) (ENS)
• Bishop Robinson's Address to the House (March 10) (ENS)
• Report from Bishops Ed Little, Bruce Caldwell and Tom Ely to the House of Bishops regarding conversations about Bishop Gene Robinson's participation at the Lambeth Conference (March 10) (From the Diocese of Vermont web site)
• March 11 Daily Account (ENS)
• House of Bishops statement on Schofield, Cox (March 12) (ENS)
• House of Bishops statement on the Lambeth Conference (March 12) (ENS)
• House of Bishops resolution on 'waterboarding' (March 12) (ENS)
• House of Bishops consents to deposition of John-David Schofield, William Cox (March 12) (ENS)

I'll keep a lookout over the next few days to see who else comments.

Peace,
Jeffri