Dr. James Cone, who is a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, appeared on Bill Moyers Journal this past Friday evening. I did not watch program, but Jane from Acts of Hope posted a link to the video on the PBS website at her "other blog" and urged any and all to watch. I heartily second her recommendation. The program is 30 minutes long.
I saw the interview online last night, and it was excellent. Dr. Cone's words are a reminder to us here in the US of the interlocking history of black and white in our country. Readers from other countries may gain insight to issues which are - as both Moyers and Cone say - not so much part our history, but part of our DNA.
Here's a description of the program from the PBS website:
With the noose and the lynching tree entering the national discussion in the wake of recent news events, Bill Moyers interviews theologian James Cone about how these powerful images relate to the symbol of the cross and how they signify both tragedy and triumph.
In the comments at Jane's place, I said this:
Wow! That was powerful. The power of the powerless. You can't kill the spirit. The oppressors can't win.
Thanks for the link, Jane. I would not have wanted to miss that.
You won't want to miss it either.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Letter To Canadian Clergy From Bishop Ingham
Louie Crew, Deputy from the Diocese of Newark, posted this memorandum from Bishop Michael Ingham to the clergy of the Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia, Canada, on the House of Bishops/Deputies Listserv website. I believe that the memorandum is worthy of being posted in its entirety, as a model of pastoral guidance from a bishop to the priests who serve under him.
Shared with the permission of Bishop Michael Ingham.
Best wishes.
Louie Crew
Deputy from the Diocese of Newark
Here begins the memorandum:
Diocese of New Westminster
Anglican Church of Canada
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham, Bishop
Memorandum
To: All Diocesan Clergy
From: Bishop Michael Ingham
Date: November 23, 2007
Subject: Individuals and Groups Leaving the Anglican Church of Canada
Dear Friends in Christ:
By now you will have heard the announcement from Burlington, Ontario, by the Essentials Network of a formal separation from the Canadian Church. You may well be asked about it this on Sunday and for some time to come, so I thought I would offer you my own preliminary reflections on what should be our principal responses.
First, this development, while not unexpected (the signs have been there for several years, see below) is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians. Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for 'safety' from ecclesiastical oppression.
Second, Anglicans in this country do not want to see their church at war with itself. The prospect of costly and bitter litigation will rightly be regarded as a waste of the church's precious resources given for mission. Further, our efforts at evangelism and outreach will be hampered by the media's coverage of our organization in conflict. People searching for a spiritual home will be wary of involving themselves in a place of turmoil. Sadly, these consequences will be increased by the Network's announcement.
Third, it has been the cry of every breakaway group that "we haven't left them - they've left us." Apart from the tiredness of the cliché, it is an attempt to avoid responsibility for personal choices. Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith. We have recognized the difficult place in which those of minority opinion find themselves (and there are several minorities, not just one) and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support. The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not, therefore, a conservative breakaway. It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the Body of Christ.
Fourth, the Network blames the church for its own decisions. Let us remember a brief chronology. It was ten years ago in 1997 that we first heard the term 'global south.' This was from the Kuala Lumpur meeting of certain bishops prior to the Lambeth Conference the following year. They issued the "Second Trumpet From the South" stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.
We saw the development in North America of groups called the "Anglican Mission in America" and the "American Anglican Council" and the irregular and provocative consecrations, in Singapore in 2000 and Denver in 2001, of 'missionary' bishops to serve in the United States against the wishes of the Episcopal Church. During this time, congregations in the US and Canada were being urged by these groups to withhold financial contributions from the church.
Thus the seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same-sex blessings were authorized in New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire. The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.
Lastly, I think we need to respond to the Network's announcement in several ways.
1.
Pray for the unity of Christians, for a spirit of charity towards those with whom we may disagree, and for God's forgiveness of our mutual failure to honour the prayer of Christ in St. John's Gospel "that they may be one."
2.
Give particular support to those conservative and traditional Christians who remain with their church and grieve the departure of friends.
3.
Teach our members about the genius of Anglicanism and its balance of Scripture, reason and tradition within the boundaries of common prayer.
4.
Emphasize in our preaching and leadership the centrality of mission and its priority over ecclesiastical politics.
5.
Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization - e.g. the 'heartless conservative' or the 'unbiblical liberal.'
6.
Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot.
7.
Press forward in ministry and evangelism at the local level.
8.
Deepen our study and immersion in Scripture. Place ourselves under the authority of the Christ it reveals. Avoid both an empty relativism and a harsh literalism.
9.
Encourage both local media and the non-churchgoing public to understand the deeper roots of this development.
10.
Take the 'long view' - i.e. remember the consistent triumph of the Gospel over the historic fragmentation of the church, and the persistence of faith through the failures of human discipleship.
Please remember our diocesan and national leaders in your prayers too. And above all, let's get on with the normal work of being the church.
Kindest regards,
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham
Bishop
Shared with the permission of Bishop Michael Ingham.
Best wishes.
Louie Crew
Deputy from the Diocese of Newark
Here begins the memorandum:
Diocese of New Westminster
Anglican Church of Canada
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham, Bishop
Memorandum
To: All Diocesan Clergy
From: Bishop Michael Ingham
Date: November 23, 2007
Subject: Individuals and Groups Leaving the Anglican Church of Canada
Dear Friends in Christ:
By now you will have heard the announcement from Burlington, Ontario, by the Essentials Network of a formal separation from the Canadian Church. You may well be asked about it this on Sunday and for some time to come, so I thought I would offer you my own preliminary reflections on what should be our principal responses.
First, this development, while not unexpected (the signs have been there for several years, see below) is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians. Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for 'safety' from ecclesiastical oppression.
Second, Anglicans in this country do not want to see their church at war with itself. The prospect of costly and bitter litigation will rightly be regarded as a waste of the church's precious resources given for mission. Further, our efforts at evangelism and outreach will be hampered by the media's coverage of our organization in conflict. People searching for a spiritual home will be wary of involving themselves in a place of turmoil. Sadly, these consequences will be increased by the Network's announcement.
Third, it has been the cry of every breakaway group that "we haven't left them - they've left us." Apart from the tiredness of the cliché, it is an attempt to avoid responsibility for personal choices. Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith. We have recognized the difficult place in which those of minority opinion find themselves (and there are several minorities, not just one) and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support. The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not, therefore, a conservative breakaway. It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the Body of Christ.
Fourth, the Network blames the church for its own decisions. Let us remember a brief chronology. It was ten years ago in 1997 that we first heard the term 'global south.' This was from the Kuala Lumpur meeting of certain bishops prior to the Lambeth Conference the following year. They issued the "Second Trumpet From the South" stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.
We saw the development in North America of groups called the "Anglican Mission in America" and the "American Anglican Council" and the irregular and provocative consecrations, in Singapore in 2000 and Denver in 2001, of 'missionary' bishops to serve in the United States against the wishes of the Episcopal Church. During this time, congregations in the US and Canada were being urged by these groups to withhold financial contributions from the church.
Thus the seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same-sex blessings were authorized in New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire. The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.
Lastly, I think we need to respond to the Network's announcement in several ways.
1.
Pray for the unity of Christians, for a spirit of charity towards those with whom we may disagree, and for God's forgiveness of our mutual failure to honour the prayer of Christ in St. John's Gospel "that they may be one."
2.
Give particular support to those conservative and traditional Christians who remain with their church and grieve the departure of friends.
3.
Teach our members about the genius of Anglicanism and its balance of Scripture, reason and tradition within the boundaries of common prayer.
4.
Emphasize in our preaching and leadership the centrality of mission and its priority over ecclesiastical politics.
5.
Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization - e.g. the 'heartless conservative' or the 'unbiblical liberal.'
6.
Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot.
7.
Press forward in ministry and evangelism at the local level.
8.
Deepen our study and immersion in Scripture. Place ourselves under the authority of the Christ it reveals. Avoid both an empty relativism and a harsh literalism.
9.
Encourage both local media and the non-churchgoing public to understand the deeper roots of this development.
10.
Take the 'long view' - i.e. remember the consistent triumph of the Gospel over the historic fragmentation of the church, and the persistence of faith through the failures of human discipleship.
Please remember our diocesan and national leaders in your prayers too. And above all, let's get on with the normal work of being the church.
Kindest regards,
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham
Bishop
Bark In His Bite
From CBS News:
A pit bull that likes to get a lot of bark in its bite could end up costing its owner $3,100.
This summer, Tyler Port allowed his dog, Rossman, to run loose in a park. The dog apparently had a habit of chewing bark off trees, and Port was cited for failure to keep the dog under control.
The city of Altoona wants Port to pay for replacing three honey locust trees that may die from the loss of bark.
Port says that his dog was "infatuated" with the trees and rubbed against them and hung by his teeth from the branches. He says the children enjoyed watching the spectacle.
Any idiotic owner of a pit bull, who lets his dog run loose in a park around children, should be in big trouble simply for that.
A pit bull that likes to get a lot of bark in its bite could end up costing its owner $3,100.
This summer, Tyler Port allowed his dog, Rossman, to run loose in a park. The dog apparently had a habit of chewing bark off trees, and Port was cited for failure to keep the dog under control.
The city of Altoona wants Port to pay for replacing three honey locust trees that may die from the loss of bark.
Port says that his dog was "infatuated" with the trees and rubbed against them and hung by his teeth from the branches. He says the children enjoyed watching the spectacle.
Any idiotic owner of a pit bull, who lets his dog run loose in a park around children, should be in big trouble simply for that.
Conservatives To Respond To Dr. Tutu
From the Church Times:
ARCHBISHOP Desmond Tutu’s declared view of an exclusive and homophobic Anglican Communion, which is obsessed with sexuality, will be challenged by conservative Christian voices in a BBC Radio 4 programme, From Calvary to Lambeth, to be broadcast on Tuesday.
Michael Buerk interviewed Dr Tutu in Cape Town, and invited responses to key extracts from the interview from a range of conservative figures, including Lord Carey; the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan; Stephen Green, the director of Christian Voice; Ann Widdecombe MP; and Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream.
The "range of conservative figures" is the same cast of characters who seem to be called upon time after time to express the "conservative" view.
Ann Widdecombe, he explains, “thinks Tutu is blurring all the edges . . . between the sinner and the sin, between orientation and action — above all, between right and wrong”; and that “Tutu’s idea of what Christ is about is too simple by half.” Bishop Duncan “appears to think Tutu, now 76, has lost it — if he ever had it”, says Mr Buerk.
Duncan thinks Archbishop Tutu "has lost it - if he ever had it". What crudeness! What arrogance by Duncan! That's one of the talking points on their side - Tutu is a senile old man. How sad. How low.
Tutu's idea of "what Christ is about" is right out of the Gospels. Oh, Lord, give me that kind of senility. Let me radiate your love in the the barmy manner of Archbishop Tutu.
From Calvary to Lambeth is broadcast on [BBC] Radio 4 on Tuesday 27 November at 8 p.m., and repeated on Sunday 2 December at 5 p.m. [GMT]
ARCHBISHOP Desmond Tutu’s declared view of an exclusive and homophobic Anglican Communion, which is obsessed with sexuality, will be challenged by conservative Christian voices in a BBC Radio 4 programme, From Calvary to Lambeth, to be broadcast on Tuesday.
Michael Buerk interviewed Dr Tutu in Cape Town, and invited responses to key extracts from the interview from a range of conservative figures, including Lord Carey; the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan; Stephen Green, the director of Christian Voice; Ann Widdecombe MP; and Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream.
The "range of conservative figures" is the same cast of characters who seem to be called upon time after time to express the "conservative" view.
Ann Widdecombe, he explains, “thinks Tutu is blurring all the edges . . . between the sinner and the sin, between orientation and action — above all, between right and wrong”; and that “Tutu’s idea of what Christ is about is too simple by half.” Bishop Duncan “appears to think Tutu, now 76, has lost it — if he ever had it”, says Mr Buerk.
Duncan thinks Archbishop Tutu "has lost it - if he ever had it". What crudeness! What arrogance by Duncan! That's one of the talking points on their side - Tutu is a senile old man. How sad. How low.
Tutu's idea of "what Christ is about" is right out of the Gospels. Oh, Lord, give me that kind of senility. Let me radiate your love in the the barmy manner of Archbishop Tutu.
From Calvary to Lambeth is broadcast on [BBC] Radio 4 on Tuesday 27 November at 8 p.m., and repeated on Sunday 2 December at 5 p.m. [GMT]
"Disappeared" In The Phillipines
From the website of the United Methodist Church:
"I keep on telling my members in my church that my intention is not to make you very good Episcopalians; I would like you to become very good Christians first," said the Rev. Rex Reyes, an Episcopal priest and member of the National Council on Churches in the Philippines.
Reyes was on the writing team that documented killings of more than 800 civilians and the "disappearances" of another 200 in a 2007 report to members of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
"Christianity is not just a social club," he said. "It is a movement primarily of people who are concerned that everybody should have abundant life. And clearly in our experience, the reason the National Council of Churches in the Philippines is howling is that its people are howling."
Under the leadership of the United Methodist Church "wave after wave" of Christians from the United States have visited different areas in the Philippines to talk to grieving families and neighbors and document the stories of those who have been killed or have "disappeared".
Reyes can't understand why governments continue to treat their people harshly. Ferdinand Marcos ruled like a despot for 20 years. The priest spoke before Congress this year detailing human right violations by the leadership in the Philippines.
Reyes said the Scriptural teaching that all people are created in God's image is "not an empty statement for Christians. Christian people ought to be bothered when people are getting killed," he said.
He also reminds that there is power in prayers. "We ask that the Philippines not be forgotten. Pray for not just us but all people who are suffering," he urged.
As Fr. Reyes asks, let us speak out and pray for the people of the Philippines and, especially for the safety of those, like Fr. Reyes, who work to shed light on the injustices committed there, that they may not join the ranks of those killed or "disappeared".
Update: Thanks to Dennis at Psychology, Dogs, Politics and Wine for the link to the article.
"I keep on telling my members in my church that my intention is not to make you very good Episcopalians; I would like you to become very good Christians first," said the Rev. Rex Reyes, an Episcopal priest and member of the National Council on Churches in the Philippines.
Reyes was on the writing team that documented killings of more than 800 civilians and the "disappearances" of another 200 in a 2007 report to members of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
"Christianity is not just a social club," he said. "It is a movement primarily of people who are concerned that everybody should have abundant life. And clearly in our experience, the reason the National Council of Churches in the Philippines is howling is that its people are howling."
Under the leadership of the United Methodist Church "wave after wave" of Christians from the United States have visited different areas in the Philippines to talk to grieving families and neighbors and document the stories of those who have been killed or have "disappeared".
Reyes can't understand why governments continue to treat their people harshly. Ferdinand Marcos ruled like a despot for 20 years. The priest spoke before Congress this year detailing human right violations by the leadership in the Philippines.
Reyes said the Scriptural teaching that all people are created in God's image is "not an empty statement for Christians. Christian people ought to be bothered when people are getting killed," he said.
He also reminds that there is power in prayers. "We ask that the Philippines not be forgotten. Pray for not just us but all people who are suffering," he urged.
As Fr. Reyes asks, let us speak out and pray for the people of the Philippines and, especially for the safety of those, like Fr. Reyes, who work to shed light on the injustices committed there, that they may not join the ranks of those killed or "disappeared".
Update: Thanks to Dennis at Psychology, Dogs, Politics and Wine for the link to the article.
Uncounted Brain Injuries Among Veterans
Jan at Yearning For God has a post on the uncounted numbers of brain injuries in veterans who return from service in Iraq.
Jan says, "That article (and the post) are making me cry and pray, which I should be doing everyday for the wounded veterans and those who have died." Yes. I should be doing that every day, too.
For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Jan says, "That article (and the post) are making me cry and pray, which I should be doing everyday for the wounded veterans and those who have died." Yes. I should be doing that every day, too.
For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Socksuality
From the The Rev. Canon Tim Smart in the Montreal Anglican.
From washer to dryer to folding, I'm sure we've all experienced the missing sock, the lone sock, only one of a pair.
For many of us, the remedy has been to put the lonely sock quietly away in the dresser drawer and forgot about it; claiming that singleness is now its true vocation.
But for a significant minority, the answer has been not to consign the single sock to the everlasting darkness of the drawer, but to mix their socks: gray with black, brown with beige, blue with navy blue. We now call such people Hetero-socksuals – people who wear different kinds of socks at the same time.
....
Most of us have been reared in a culture and a religion which has blessed homo-socksuality as the norm. The idea of people wearing different kinds of socks at the same time has sounded perverse and unbiblical.
In the past, hetero-socksuals had to be discreet. They wore long pants to cover their different socks. They avoided crossing their legs while seated and rarely wore shorts in public.
Please go read the rest of the piece at the site, as I may have already quoted too much. Here is a glossary to help you to better understand the article.
Glossary of Terms:
Homo-socksuals: those who wear the same-socks
Hetero-socksuals: those who wear different kinds of socks
Bi-socksuals: those who will wear same socks, or different socks
A-socksual: those who wear no socks at all.
Thanks to Ann for the tip.
From washer to dryer to folding, I'm sure we've all experienced the missing sock, the lone sock, only one of a pair.
For many of us, the remedy has been to put the lonely sock quietly away in the dresser drawer and forgot about it; claiming that singleness is now its true vocation.
But for a significant minority, the answer has been not to consign the single sock to the everlasting darkness of the drawer, but to mix their socks: gray with black, brown with beige, blue with navy blue. We now call such people Hetero-socksuals – people who wear different kinds of socks at the same time.
....
Most of us have been reared in a culture and a religion which has blessed homo-socksuality as the norm. The idea of people wearing different kinds of socks at the same time has sounded perverse and unbiblical.
In the past, hetero-socksuals had to be discreet. They wore long pants to cover their different socks. They avoided crossing their legs while seated and rarely wore shorts in public.
Please go read the rest of the piece at the site, as I may have already quoted too much. Here is a glossary to help you to better understand the article.
Glossary of Terms:
Homo-socksuals: those who wear the same-socks
Hetero-socksuals: those who wear different kinds of socks
Bi-socksuals: those who will wear same socks, or different socks
A-socksual: those who wear no socks at all.
Thanks to Ann for the tip.
A Gift From Mike In Texas
Mike in Texas, this makes my Thanksgiving holiday complete, with a ROTFLMAO moment. Can I groove or what?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! SOME Texans are good people.
Note: If the screen appears blank, move your mouse over the center of the screen, and the start arrow will appear.
Feast Days Of Two Early Martyrs
Padre Mickey has two wonderful posts on early martyrs of the church, St. Clement of Rome and St. Cecilia. He's posted a lovely icon for each saint.
The paintings here are Saint Cecilia by Guido Reni, 1606[1] and Saint Clement by Tiepolo.
Images from Wiki here and here.
THE RECIPE - Oyster Dressing
1 large onion, chopped
1 1/2 cups celery, diced
4 tablespoons butter
10 slices of white bread cut into cubes (stale bread is fine)
4 tablespoons parsley, chopped
Salt and pepper to taste
5 or 6 dashes of Tabasco
Chopped, cooked giblets (if desired)
2 dozen oysters, chopped (not easy, they slip and slide)
Oyster liquor
1 cup turkey stock (or 1 can chicken broth)
2 eggs beaten lightly
Brown onions and celery in butter. Add the bread, parsley, seasonings, giblets, oysters, oyster liquor, and stock. Mix and heat thoroughly, add the beaten eggs and mix well.
Yields enough for a 10 pound turkey.
When we're not having turkey, I cook the dish as a casserole, and it's quite good that way, too, although missing the turkey flavor. Sprinkle bread crumbs on top, and bake at 350 degrees for about 45 minutes. Sometimes, I add chopped pecans.
1 1/2 cups celery, diced
4 tablespoons butter
10 slices of white bread cut into cubes (stale bread is fine)
4 tablespoons parsley, chopped
Salt and pepper to taste
5 or 6 dashes of Tabasco
Chopped, cooked giblets (if desired)
2 dozen oysters, chopped (not easy, they slip and slide)
Oyster liquor
1 cup turkey stock (or 1 can chicken broth)
2 eggs beaten lightly
Brown onions and celery in butter. Add the bread, parsley, seasonings, giblets, oysters, oyster liquor, and stock. Mix and heat thoroughly, add the beaten eggs and mix well.
Yields enough for a 10 pound turkey.
When we're not having turkey, I cook the dish as a casserole, and it's quite good that way, too, although missing the turkey flavor. Sprinkle bread crumbs on top, and bake at 350 degrees for about 45 minutes. Sometimes, I add chopped pecans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)