From Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent at the Guardian:
It has been asked of [Archbishop Rowan] Williams, time and again, how he arrived at the decision not to invite the excluded yet omnipresent Robinson and his answers have been typically Rowanesque: "The problem we faced within the Anglican communion [was] that bishops gathering for Lambeth represent not only their diocese but their participation in the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians. Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable, that is the reason for questioning their participation."
How to describe the logic (or lack thereof) in the phrase that I bolded? Bishop Robinson's presence is questionable because certain people (bishops?) question his presence. However, certain other people (bishops?) question his lack of presence or exclusion. I hear over and over that the ABC is a brilliant man, but he seems to have placed himself on the horns of a dilemma here. Ouch!
"He puts the cant into Canterbury," grumbles one Anglican. How I wish I knew the identity of the "one Anglican" who said that.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Whose Sacrifice?
From Jim Naughton at The Lead:
A touching, revealing moment at the press conference just now. The bishops have been talking for several days now about sacrifice. “What are you willing to sacrifice” to keep the communion together?” The clear implication is that Western churches must sacrifice their desire to include gay Christians more fully in the Church.
Katie Sherrod of the Lambeth Witness asked the question I wanted to ask. In sum: who exactly do the bishops think is authorize[d] to negotiate on behalf of gay and lesbian Christians throughout the Communion? The primarily male, exclusively heterosexual delegations from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada?
The people who are being asked to make a sacrifice are not represented at this conference.
Katherine Ragsdale, also from the Witness, put a finer point on it with her question. It is the essence of Christianity to sacrifice one’s self for others. It is in the inverse of Christianity to ask others to sacrifice themselves for you. The future of the Anglican Communion may rest on the willingness of gay and lesbian Christians to “sacrifice” for it.
And the Communion doesn’t have the good grace to ask them to make that sacrifice directly, preferring to pretend that the Western churches have the moral authority to act as their surrogates.
This is the feudal morality—lords making decisions for their vassals.
At least Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana had the good grace to say that he recognized that gay people had been disenfranchised, and to say that this presented a moral dilemma for him.
I've been saying it over and over, ad nauseam, that Jesus calls us, his followers, those of us who claim membership in the kingdom of God here on earth, to sacrifice ourselves, to take up our crosses and, in some cases, even to lay down our lives, as we seek to follow him and serve our brothers and sisters.
He never, ever calls us to lay crosses on the shoulders of others or to sacrifice others, no matter how righteous we believe a cause to be. It's all well and good to speak of sacrifice, but of whose sacrifice do we speak?
I'm pleased that Bishop Charles Jenkins, my bishop, recognizes that gay folks have been disenfranchised, which presents a moral dilemma for him.
Thanks to Katie Sherrod and Katherine Ragsdale for asking the right questions, and thank you, Jim Naughton, for this report.
A touching, revealing moment at the press conference just now. The bishops have been talking for several days now about sacrifice. “What are you willing to sacrifice” to keep the communion together?” The clear implication is that Western churches must sacrifice their desire to include gay Christians more fully in the Church.
Katie Sherrod of the Lambeth Witness asked the question I wanted to ask. In sum: who exactly do the bishops think is authorize[d] to negotiate on behalf of gay and lesbian Christians throughout the Communion? The primarily male, exclusively heterosexual delegations from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada?
The people who are being asked to make a sacrifice are not represented at this conference.
Katherine Ragsdale, also from the Witness, put a finer point on it with her question. It is the essence of Christianity to sacrifice one’s self for others. It is in the inverse of Christianity to ask others to sacrifice themselves for you. The future of the Anglican Communion may rest on the willingness of gay and lesbian Christians to “sacrifice” for it.
And the Communion doesn’t have the good grace to ask them to make that sacrifice directly, preferring to pretend that the Western churches have the moral authority to act as their surrogates.
This is the feudal morality—lords making decisions for their vassals.
At least Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana had the good grace to say that he recognized that gay people had been disenfranchised, and to say that this presented a moral dilemma for him.
I've been saying it over and over, ad nauseam, that Jesus calls us, his followers, those of us who claim membership in the kingdom of God here on earth, to sacrifice ourselves, to take up our crosses and, in some cases, even to lay down our lives, as we seek to follow him and serve our brothers and sisters.
He never, ever calls us to lay crosses on the shoulders of others or to sacrifice others, no matter how righteous we believe a cause to be. It's all well and good to speak of sacrifice, but of whose sacrifice do we speak?
I'm pleased that Bishop Charles Jenkins, my bishop, recognizes that gay folks have been disenfranchised, which presents a moral dilemma for him.
Thanks to Katie Sherrod and Katherine Ragsdale for asking the right questions, and thank you, Jim Naughton, for this report.
Public Service Announcement
If you use Internet Explorer as your browser on your PC, and you use Sitememter as a counter, you may not be able to access sites on Blogger at this time. You may want to try either removing SiteMeter or switching to Firefox as your browser.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Thought For The Day (Non-Serious, I Think)
Perhaps the bishops at Lambeth would find it easier to come together in agreement about an Anglican Covenant by including the old club custom of the blackball.
Queen's Bloomers Bring In $9000 At Auction
LONDON - Her majesty would not be amused. A pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers, with a 50-inch waist, were snapped up for $9,000 by a Canadian buyer at a central England auction Wednesday.
Auctioneer Charles Hanson said Queen Victoria's underpants belonged to "a very big lady of quite small stature with a very wide girth." She was said to be 5 feet (1.52 meters) tall.
....
The royal drawers belonged to a family in western England whose ancestor was a lady-in-waiting for the queen.
I'd call that a bloomin' windfall for the seller.
The subject line of the email from Phil stated, "Old Queen's crotchless panties bring $9000". I decided against using that for my headline.
From Yahoo News.
Shall I Ban Lapin For This?
Alas! He's another one of my suppliers of material. I think I need him too much to ban him.
Click on the picture for a better view.
From MadPriest...
OCICBW... got attacked by a particularly vicious troll last night. It was so bad I had to close down the comments overnight.
He seems to have got his revenge by reporting me as a spam blog to Blogger and they have blocked my blog. I have asked for reinstatement but it's taking up to a week to sort out at the moment.
Would you please notify people of this on your blog and tell them to put it on their blogs. I don't want them thinking I've done a runner or been disappeared by the Church Police.
Jonathan
UPDATE: To all bloggers: the best way to help is to copy Jonathan's email and post it on your own blog.
UPDATE 2: A good laugh is always in order. Padre Mickey posted the same email, but he added a picture with a caption that is priceless.
He seems to have got his revenge by reporting me as a spam blog to Blogger and they have blocked my blog. I have asked for reinstatement but it's taking up to a week to sort out at the moment.
Would you please notify people of this on your blog and tell them to put it on their blogs. I don't want them thinking I've done a runner or been disappeared by the Church Police.
Jonathan
UPDATE: To all bloggers: the best way to help is to copy Jonathan's email and post it on your own blog.
UPDATE 2: A good laugh is always in order. Padre Mickey posted the same email, but he added a picture with a caption that is priceless.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Let Me Know
Tell me in the comments. In what way are you now interesting? I'm dying to know.
Doug sent me such a load of Maxine cartoons that you'll end up hating either me, or Maxine, or Doug - probably Doug.
More Good News
From TPM Muckraker:
The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.
From the order:
"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate."
and that. . .
"Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date."
Yes! Thanks be to God for the courts. Let's pray the House Judiciary Committee wins future rounds. The folks who worked for the Cheney/Bush maladministration are not above the law.
The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.
From the order:
"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate."
and that. . .
"Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date."
Yes! Thanks be to God for the courts. Let's pray the House Judiciary Committee wins future rounds. The folks who worked for the Cheney/Bush maladministration are not above the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)