In Remembrance - September 11, 2001

I have not forgotten. Once again, I find that I have no words, only thoughts and emotions which I cannot express. I offer these words from The Book of Common Prayer:

I am Resurrection and I am Life, says the Lord.
Whoever has faith in me shall have life,
even though he die.
And everyone who has life,
and has committed himself to me in faith,
shall not die for ever.

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives
and that at the last he will stand upon the earth.
After my awaking, he will raise me up;
and in my body I shall see God.
I myself shall see, and my eyes behold him
who is my friend and not a stranger.

For none of us has life in himself,
and none becomes his own master when he dies.
For if we have life, we are alive in the Lord,
and if we die, we die in the Lord.
So, then, whether we live or die,
we are the Lord's possession.

Happy from now on
are those who die in the Lord!
So it is, says the Spirit,
for they rest from their labors.

BCP - p. 491


Below is the interior of St. Paul's Chapel near the World Trade Center, which I still consider the miracle church. However did the chapel come out relatively unscathed from the destruction all around it? When Grandpère and I were in New York a year or so after September 11, 2001, we attended a brief noonday service at St. Paul's. I was quite moved just to be inside the building which seemed even more hallowed because of its service as a place of rest and refreshment for those who worked at the site of the destruction. On an earlier visit, while the workers were still using the chapel, my sister and I cried as we walked around the perimeter of the fence when the memorials still covered every surface.



This post is mostly recycled from last year. I remember and note the day with deep sadness, but I have few words.

Images from Wiki here and here.

Joe, Joe, Joe!

From TPM:

Last night, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) issued an apology -- "I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks" -- and called the White House after heckling Obama during his nationally televised health care speech.

That's the first time most Americans heard of Congressman Wilson, but it's not, it turns out, the first time Wilson's emotions got the best of him and he was forced to apologize.

Flashback to mid-December 2003, when Essie Mae Washington-Williams came forward with the bombshell that she was the illegitimate daughter of the recently-deceased patriarch of South Carolina politics, Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Rep. Wilson, a former page of Thurmond's, immediately told The State newspaper that he didn't believe Williams. He deemed the revelation "unseemly." And he added that even if she was telling the truth, she should have kept the inconvenient facts to herself:

"It's a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina," Wilson said.

TPM has more.

H/T to Oyster.

Get On Board, Democrats!

From ABC News:

ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.

They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The meeting is scheduled for 4:15 pm ET, in the Cabinet Room.

That would be right about now. Give 'em hell, Mr. President.

H/T to TPM.

Thoughts On The Draft Covenant

I first wrote the words below, with slight editing here, in the comments to Tobias Haller's post The Heterosectual Communion. Tobias' post is an excellent commentary on the statement at the Anglican Communion Institute on the Ridley-Cambridge Covenant Draft. Although my thoughts were first expressed in four different comments, they seem to hang together in a kind of coherent continuity, so I offer them here. Of course, Tobias answered each of my comments with his usual brilliance. I won't quote his responses here. If you'd like to read them, go to his post.

I read the Draft Covenant again. Part I seemed all right. In Part 2, I didn't like the tone of the evangelism section. It had a fundamentalist ring to it. "Repentance", "judgment". It did not sound like the Episcopal Church that I know, even the church in the conservative South.

Part 3 seemed heavily focused on bishops and primates, with a nod to clergy, and the laity nearly squeezed out of notice. In truth, I don't see the church I know signing on to this covenant with conviction.

I suppose those of us in TEC could continue our manner of evangelizing even if we signed on to the covenant, but what about the centralization of power in the primates and bishops? That section of Part 3 is quite disturbing to me. Certain primates and bishops already seem intoxicated by their sense of power, and we are asked to yield more to that small, mostly male group in the covenant. Clergy and laity are pretty much left out of consideration as having much of a voice. As I understand it, the text of the first three parts of the Draft is pretty well fixed.

The laity pay for the operations of the church, yet I get the sense from the Draft that we are to be quiet, give our money, and let the primates and bishops decide the weighty matters that will so much affect lay folks and priests. I'd think that the clergy might be concerned by the small role laid out for them in Part 3.

I understand that we are an episcopal church, and in many ways, I consider that a good and helpful way for a church to function. I see many advantages to that structure over a congregational structure. I accept that TEC is structured with bishops and dioceses, even as I see certain bishops in TEC making mischief and undermining their own church. I don't like it, but I accept it a consequence of our polity.

However, I'm not willing to cede control of TEC to bishops in other countries, for good or for ill. If the bonds of affection and the instruments of communion already in place are not enough to hold us together, then so be it. I'm not willing to give away more.

To speak plainly, I think the covenant is a cockamamie idea, and that we have already wasted far too much money, time, and attention on it that could better be spent elsewhere.

I had a thought. (Always a dangerous undertaking!) Suppose after 49 years of marriage, Grandpère said to me, "Sweetie, I know that we have been joined in the bonds of affection for 49 years, but now we need a covenant that says this, this, and this." If he asked me for a covenant now, wouldn't that be an indication that he believed that our relationship was somehow lacking? Wouldn't he be putting our relationship to the test? Suppose I said, "That is ridiculous and insulting. I won't do it. We've been married for 49 years! What on earth have we been about?" What then?

I know that all analogies fail at some point, but this one comes close to describing how I feel about the covenant in the Anglican Communion. It's setting conditions on an already established relationship.

As I see it, we are in communion if we share Communion at the table of the Lord. Those who choose to stay away from the table are those who are out of communion.

"Status-Quo Anxiety"

James Surowiecki in the New Yorker:

There are times when Americans’ attitude toward health-care reform seems a bit like St. Augustine’s take on chastity: Give it to us, Lord, but not yet.

The article is a one-pager, and it's worth a read.

Lord, I'm ready.

Better Than I Expected

President Obama can give a speech! He's good! As I've been advising him, he should use his bully pulpit more often. He didn't draw the line in the sand that I would have wanted. He didn't say, "I won't sign a bill unless it includes the public option." However, if Congress passed his plan, many folks in the country would be better off. How hard will the president fight to keep the public option in the bill as it passes through the Congressional process? Senior White House advisor, David Axelrod, says the president will fight for it. We shall see.

I'm amazed that we sat back so long and endured abuse by the health insurance companies without screaming bloody murder. What's wrong with us?

What about that clown Joe ("It's a lie!") Wilson (R-SC)? A real class act, that one.

Hitler Rises To Speak...

...on Obama's speech to the school children of the US.



Nicked from MadPriest. For heaven's sake don't get the idea that MP was clever enough to MAKE this video. For the record, a reader named Scott sent it to him.

Read Paul Krugman And Weep

Here's the link to his blog post on the possible backlash if the public option is not included in the bill and the usefulness (or uselessness) of the trigger.

...and this is where I am getting a very bad feeling about the idea of throwing in the towel on the public option — is the politics. Remember, to make reform work we have to have an individual mandate. And everything I see says that there will be a major backlash against the idea of forcing people to buy insurance from the existing companies. That backlash was part of what got Obama the nomination! Having the public option offers a defense against that backlash.

What worries me is not so much that the backlash would stop reform from passing, as that it would store up trouble for the not-too-distant future. Imagine that reform passes, but that premiums shoot up (or even keep rising at the rates of the past decade.) Then you could all too easily have many people blaming Obama et al for forcing them into this increasingly unaffordable system. A trigger might fix this — but the funny thing about such triggers is that they almost never get pulled.

And a great big YES to Krugman's final words:

And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it’s bad. (My emphasis)

And when, pray tell, will Democrats take that stand?

May I Say, "No"?

From Bishop Michael G. Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota:

August 31, 2009

Dear Friends:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you.

In last month's post-General Convention letter, I shared with you the Presiding Bishop's challenging words about crisis. She reminded us: "The word crisis has its origins in the Greek krinein, meaning to judge, separate, or distinguish. A crisis is time for decision-making%u2026."

I've been doing some thinking about the word crisis myself. I recalled a teaching from a Marriage Encounter my wife and I attended many years ago. It seems that the Chinese symbol for "crisis" consists of the joining of two other words, "danger" and "opportunity." Therefore, "Crisis = Danger + Opportunity" is the Chinese formula and understanding of this word. I like this. It reminds us that however dangerous or dreadful a crisis might appear, there is also involved the possibility of opportunity and positive outcomes for growth and change.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has a sense of this opportunity as he concludes his post-General Convention reflections with the statement: "We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage" (Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future, § 26).

We are facing a crisis in which the churches of Anglicanism will soon be at a crossroads of decision as to whether to travel the path of an interdependent communion of churches or to go down the road of an independent federation of churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury and so called "Covenant" process are moving with the former, while General Convention clearly seems to be moving in the latter direction. (Please see my essay "Transitioning Towards Two-Tier Anglicanism" elsewhere is this issue).

This summer I read Phyliss Tickle's popular book "The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why" (Baker Books). She makes the observation that massive transitions in the church happen about every 500 years and that we are in the midst of one such upheaval currently. Basically, Tickle tells us not to despair because history teaches that when these changes take place three results typically occur: 1) a new, more vital Christianity emerges; 2) the formerly dominant expression of Christianity is reconstituted and renewed, and; 3) the Christian faith spreads into new geographic and demographic areas (p. 17).

The coming changes will challenge us at every level. These multi-level crises, with both their dangers and opportunities, are being faced at the global level through the Anglican Communion Covenant process; at the national level by cutting the budget by 14% while retaining an emphasis on serving the poor at home and abroad; in the Diocese of North Dakota by reorganizing for mission and ministry after reducing office and field staff; personal responses are left to the discernment of individuals, hopefully in the context of community.

For me personally, I have called upon a discernment committee to assist me in thinking and praying about where God might be calling in light of all these changing circumstances. (I am grateful to Deacon Zanne Ness, Dean Steve Sellers and Canon Kevin Goodrich OP for serving in this capacity and I invite you to visit with them about our process.) Some background:

As you know, I've enjoyed the opportunity of serving as a part-time assisting bishop in Louisiana the past two years. After Bishop Charles Jenkins announced his resignation, a number of laypeople, deacons and priests of that Diocese approached me about the possibility of being nominated. Initially, I thanked them and shared my reservations about whether God was calling me to serve in that capacity. Then other bishops from around the church with ties to Louisiana began to encourage me to accept nomination.

After the shock of the economic downturn and the realization that some drastic decisions needed to be made to ensure the future viability of the Diocese of North Dakota, I began to ask my immediate and extended family members what they thought about the possibility of my serving as the bishop of Louisiana. To a person they were at least open and some very encouraging. No one said no.

It was at this point that I received an invitation from yet another diocese to enter their search process and began to seriously wonder if God was up to something in terms of a change in my call. My experiences at General Convention and even the recently concluded Diocesan Council meeting have only confirmed my sense that "business as usual" is no longer the order of the day and that God is calling us to a new way of being a church in mission.

At this point, I can say with certainty and with the help of the discernment committee, not that I will be the next bishop of Louisiana, but that I am called to be part of their episcopal election process. I have allowed my name to go forward with the understanding, in the words of one of my former bishops, that "sometimes candidates are to be part of search or election processes not to be called to that post, but rather to assist those issuing the call to discern another candidate."

Therefore, if I am discerned to the final slate of candidates, I will trust the Holy Spirit's call extended through the Louisiana Electing Convention this December. If not elected, I will trust that God is continuing to call me to serve for a season as bishop of North Dakota.

We are in need of a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit if we are to thrive in the dangers and opportunities ahead of us and to resist the momentum of institutional decline. I request your prayers for all our futures. Pray for renewal. Pray for revival. Pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I am,

Yours in Christ,

+Michael

(My emphases)

So. Bishop Smith, a member of the "Magnificent Seven" who recently called on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and subsequently submitted this statement about their visit, is officially a candidate for bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. Upon consultation with his immediate and extended family, Bishop Smith reported, "No one said no". I am not a member of his immediate or extended family, but I am a member of the family of the Diocese of Louisiana, and if anyone asks me, I will say "no" to Bishop Smith as the bishop of my diocese. No one will ask me, and I don't have a vote, but I will express my opinion to the delegates from my area and ask them to vote for another candidate and to vote "no" to the election of Bishop Smith. I'd rather not have a bishop who is teetering on the edge of being part of the Episcopal Church. I'd rather a bishop who is loyal to the Episcopal Church in which he was persuaded that God had called him to the office of bishop, rather than a bishop who may work to undermine the church.

Our retiring bishop, Charles Jenkins, expressed his disagreement with decisions of the national church on more than one occasion, and yet he remained loyal to the church in which he was persuaded that God had called him to the office of bishop.

Thanks to Ormonde for the link to Bishop Smith's letter.

Perfect Time

When I grow up, I want to remember
that I always wanted to be about a
thousand different things & one lifetime
didn't seem nearly enough. When I
grow up, I hope it's at the very end
when it doesn't matter anymore anyway


From StoryPeople.