Today all I could remember was the way
your body held the ocean of my self &
for a moment there was only one us in
all creation
From StoryPeople.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
MATT "GETS" THE SYNOD VOTE
Five quick notes prefaced by some requests:
Requests: Please Read The Resolution. Do exegesis; not isogesis. Please resist the temptation to read your wishes and desires into the text.
1. The motion does not "affirm" the ACNA.
2. The motion does not "affirm" that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.
3. The motion "affirms" a "desire" . Translation: Ohhh, how sweet that you want to be my boyfriend. I "affirm" your desire.
4. The motion does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of "those who formed" the ACNA.
5. The motion does not affirm the desire of "those who formed the ACNA" to remain in "the Anglican Communion", but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican "family". Arguably, anyone who prays with a prayerbook and wears a robe of some kind could be considered a member of the "Anglican Family".
Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm "gets it". I'd like to have responded at his website, but I am banned as a troll for a comment which I did not believe was offensive. Sarah Hey thought differently. I won't link to his post for the same reason.
I'd also have liked to comment to the very poignant post by Matt on the experience of his family moving out of their home. However the situation came about that the family had to move, I wished to express my sympathy at his site, but I could not.
Requests: Please Read The Resolution. Do exegesis; not isogesis. Please resist the temptation to read your wishes and desires into the text.
1. The motion does not "affirm" the ACNA.
2. The motion does not "affirm" that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.
3. The motion "affirms" a "desire" . Translation: Ohhh, how sweet that you want to be my boyfriend. I "affirm" your desire.
4. The motion does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of "those who formed" the ACNA.
5. The motion does not affirm the desire of "those who formed the ACNA" to remain in "the Anglican Communion", but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican "family". Arguably, anyone who prays with a prayerbook and wears a robe of some kind could be considered a member of the "Anglican Family".
Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm "gets it". I'd like to have responded at his website, but I am banned as a troll for a comment which I did not believe was offensive. Sarah Hey thought differently. I won't link to his post for the same reason.
I'd also have liked to comment to the very poignant post by Matt on the experience of his family moving out of their home. However the situation came about that the family had to move, I wished to express my sympathy at his site, but I could not.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
THEY HAVE NO SHAME!
A marijuana bust along the U.S.-Mexico border revealed 30 pounds of the drug stuffed into framed pictures of Jesus Christ, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said Wednesday.
"This is not the first time we have seen smugglers attempt to use religious figures and articles of faith to further their criminal enterprise," said William Molaski, port director of the agency's office in El Paso, Texas, in a statement.
"What some might find offensive or sacrilegious has unfortunately become a standard operating procedure for drug smugglers. This would include using religious symbols, children and senior citizens in their attempts to defeat the CBP inspection process."
I didn't do it! I didn't inhale, either!
From CNN.
Don't blame me. Blame Doug.
CATHY'S PROPHETIC COMMENT
In the comments to my post with the video of Lorna Ashworth's interview...
Cathy said...
I swear to God, Lorna Ashworth bats for the other team. Without knowing it yet, obviously.
Maybe now she knows - or not.
Cathy said...
I swear to God, Lorna Ashworth bats for the other team. Without knowing it yet, obviously.
Maybe now she knows - or not.
A WORD FROM OUR FRIEND PAUL THE BB
Paul and Bill are headed back to New Mexico. A series of unfortunate events, having to do with delayed flights for one reason or another, would have led them to miss two or more days of their tour in Turkey. They therefore decided to cancel their trip. I am heartbroken for them. Paul is a good sport, and sounded as well as could be expected on the phone. In fact, he was cheering me up. You'd have thought my trip was interrupted. :-(
Fortunately, they purchased trip cancellation insurance, so they shouldn't be out too much money.
When Paul arrives home, he will, very likely, find his home in great disarray, because his large family of children (his various and sundry stuffed animals) will not be expecting him home, and they will not have had time to put the place back in order.
Safe travels back to Albuquerque, Paul and Bill.
Fortunately, they purchased trip cancellation insurance, so they shouldn't be out too much money.
When Paul arrives home, he will, very likely, find his home in great disarray, because his large family of children (his various and sundry stuffed animals) will not be expecting him home, and they will not have had time to put the place back in order.
Safe travels back to Albuquerque, Paul and Bill.
SYNOD DEFEATS LORNA ASHWORTH'S MOTION
From John B. Chilton at The Lead:
The Church of England General Synod has voted to recognize that members of ACNA wish to be remain in the Anglican family. The vote displaced the language of the original motion that would have "express[ed] the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The private member's motion that failed was:
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) moved as an amendment that passed:
Another amendment to the amendment failed. (It would have merged the original motion with Bristol's amendment.)
The debate made it clear that ACNA was not a part of the Anglican Communion. If ACNA wishes to be a part of the Anglican Communion there are procedures for that, procedures ACNA is not interested in following. And, the Archbishop of ACNA's answer to the question "is the ABC Anglican?" is no, and "the cost of his office."
Jim Naughton in the comments says:
I agree with Jim. Of course, I could be wrong. ;-)
UPDATE: ACNA's version of what took place at Synod:
No mention at all that Mrs Ashworth's motion did not pass.
The Church of England General Synod has voted to recognize that members of ACNA wish to be remain in the Anglican family. The vote displaced the language of the original motion that would have "express[ed] the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The private member's motion that failed was:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
The Bishop of Bristol (the Rt Revd Mike Hill) moved as an amendment that passed:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
Another amendment passed adding "aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada" after the words "That this Synod."
Another amendment to the amendment failed. (It would have merged the original motion with Bristol's amendment.)
The debate made it clear that ACNA was not a part of the Anglican Communion. If ACNA wishes to be a part of the Anglican Communion there are procedures for that, procedures ACNA is not interested in following. And, the Archbishop of ACNA's answer to the question "is the ABC Anglican?" is no, and "the cost of his office."
Jim Naughton in the comments says:
Hill of beans? Or is "hill" too strong a word?
I agree with Jim. Of course, I could be wrong. ;-)
UPDATE: ACNA's version of what took place at Synod:
It is very encouraging that the synod recognizes and affirms our desire to remain within the Anglican family.” said Archbishop Duncan.
A private member’s motion, put forward by Mrs. Ashworth, and subsequently amended by the Synod, states that “this synod…recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family.” The motion passed by a resounding 309 – 69 margin (with seven abstentions).
No mention at all that Mrs Ashworth's motion did not pass.
NELSON MANDELA - 20 YEARS AGO TODAY
From David@Montreal:
TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY!
TWENTY YEARS AGO ALREADY!
NELSON stepped out of Robin Island prison and the hope and possibilities still leave me speechless with tears.
Who would have ever thought we'd all see twenty years of the anniversary I think there's a lesson about hope and persistence here.
Thanks for the reminder, David.
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Nelson Mandela
Photo from Wiki.
UPDATE: Please see the lovely picture of Nelson Mandela with Archbishop Desmond Tutu and read Elizabeth's beautiful post at Telling Secrets.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
HAITI"S DEATH TOLL REACHES 230,000
From the AP:
Haiti's government has raised the death toll for the Jan. 12 earthquake to 230,000 from 212,000 and says more bodies remain uncounted.
The government initially estimated 150,000 dead on Jan. 24, apparently from bodies being recovered in the rubble of collapsed buildings in Port-au-Prince, the capital that was near the epicenter.
Communications Minister Marie-Laurence Jocelyn Lassegue said Tuesday the government now counts 230,000 deaths.
But she says the new figure is not definitive. She says it does not include bodies buried by private funeral homes in private cemeteries or the dead buried by their own families.
From Mark Harris:
RAMA
Jer. 31:15 Ainsi dit l'Éternel: Une voix a été ouïe à Rama, une lamentation, des pleurs amers, Rachel pleurant ses fils, refusant d'être consolée au sujet de ses fils, parce qu'ils ne sont pas.
It appears that somewhere deep below Carrefour,
near Port au Prince
the North American and Caribbean plates
moved after two centuries of tense engagement.
Six miles up, at four fifty-three in the afternoon,
January 12th, Rachel began anew to weep for her children.
The sun was blotted from the sky
and the dust rose
and the night came
with agony in the buildings
and anguish in the streets.
It was day and night, the first day.
Rachel's people,
They are no more,
All have gone down,
Down with the presidential palace,
Down with the churchly palace,
Down with the all the places of block and mortar,
Down to death.
Read the rest of the poem at Preludium.
Haiti's government has raised the death toll for the Jan. 12 earthquake to 230,000 from 212,000 and says more bodies remain uncounted.
The government initially estimated 150,000 dead on Jan. 24, apparently from bodies being recovered in the rubble of collapsed buildings in Port-au-Prince, the capital that was near the epicenter.
Communications Minister Marie-Laurence Jocelyn Lassegue said Tuesday the government now counts 230,000 deaths.
But she says the new figure is not definitive. She says it does not include bodies buried by private funeral homes in private cemeteries or the dead buried by their own families.
From Mark Harris:
RAMA
Jer. 31:15 Ainsi dit l'Éternel: Une voix a été ouïe à Rama, une lamentation, des pleurs amers, Rachel pleurant ses fils, refusant d'être consolée au sujet de ses fils, parce qu'ils ne sont pas.
It appears that somewhere deep below Carrefour,
near Port au Prince
the North American and Caribbean plates
moved after two centuries of tense engagement.
Six miles up, at four fifty-three in the afternoon,
January 12th, Rachel began anew to weep for her children.
The sun was blotted from the sky
and the dust rose
and the night came
with agony in the buildings
and anguish in the streets.
It was day and night, the first day.
Rachel's people,
They are no more,
All have gone down,
Down with the presidential palace,
Down with the churchly palace,
Down with the all the places of block and mortar,
Down to death.
Read the rest of the poem at Preludium.
LADIES AND GENTELMEN, I GIVE YOU LORNA ASHWORTH
The motion proposed to General Synod by Lorna Ashworth reads:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
The ACNA motion amendment by The Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Mike Hill reads:
Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011”.
We shall see.
H/T to Ruth Gledhill for the video.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S SPEECH AT GENERAL SYNOD
When Grandpère saw the printed version of the ABC's speech on the kitchen counter, he asked me what it was. When he had read a little and flipped through the pages, he said, "The speech was that long!" When I nodded, he said, "Well, I wouldn't listen."
I find that I must take breaks in reading the speech because I become exasperated and angry. Reading in fits and starts is not ideal, but I fear that's my way with most of the ABC's speeches and writings.
The ABC puts me off near the beginning of his address by referencing the law which would permit assisted suicide in the same breath as the law which would disallow the church from discriminating against LGTB persons. That's a scare tactic. Plus, the ABC chooses not to speak or write concisely or with clarity. Many words to say very little and obfuscation seem to be his way.
On the equality law in the UK:
The Church of England community has by no means settled upon limits, my dear sir. I hear many different views expressed. Your notion of limits entails a good many partnered gay clergy being allowed to serve in the church only by remaining in the closet, which somehow seems not quite right to me.
Women bishops in the Church of England:
Why is the opposition to women bishops not bigotry? Why should bigotry be given a hearing?
The ordination of gay bishops:
As Ann Fontaine said in the comments at The Lead:
On restraint:
Tobias Haller asks a question in the comments to the same post at The Lead:
And then the ABC is onward and upward with the folderol that the Covenant will be the solution to the problems in the Anglican Communion. I don't believe that the Covenant is the solution, but I lean more and more toward the opinion that the Episcopal Church should consider quite seriously whether we can, in good conscience, sign on to the Covenant to keep our place at the table in the Anglican Communion, because I believe our presence seems ever more necessary with each day that passes. If the Episcopal Church is to be "distanced" to the outer ring of the AC, then perhaps it's best that rather than taking the initiative in distancing ourselves, we let the distancing be done to us.
"Three-dimensionality" is the ABC's buzz word, seeing from all sides, which is all well and good so long as "three-dimensionality" does not lead to paralysis.
On Uganda:
On the other hand, this from the The Lead:
Well, I'm sure that members of the Ugandan church do good work, but DAMMIT! if we can live with the Ugandan church and their support for draconian laws to punish LGTB persons, they should be able to live with us, although we have an openly gay bishop, or two, or three serving in our church.
Mine is not an exhaustive or measured critique of the speech, but rather a personal response to certain passages in the speech at a time when my emotions run high, and I probably shouldn't be writing. Some might say that my quotes are taken out of context. Read or listen to the entire address and decide for yourself.
For a more measured response see Tobias Haller's post. I'm sure others will follow.
I find that I must take breaks in reading the speech because I become exasperated and angry. Reading in fits and starts is not ideal, but I fear that's my way with most of the ABC's speeches and writings.
The ABC puts me off near the beginning of his address by referencing the law which would permit assisted suicide in the same breath as the law which would disallow the church from discriminating against LGTB persons. That's a scare tactic. Plus, the ABC chooses not to speak or write concisely or with clarity. Many words to say very little and obfuscation seem to be his way.
On the equality law in the UK:
One is that we all in fact recognise that communities and organisations have a certain liberty to define what belonging to them might entail; those who belong have to some extent chosen to live with the limits that a community has settled upon, even if they want to argue with those limits or seek to shift them.
The Church of England community has by no means settled upon limits, my dear sir. I hear many different views expressed. Your notion of limits entails a good many partnered gay clergy being allowed to serve in the church only by remaining in the closet, which somehow seems not quite right to me.
Women bishops in the Church of England:
And for both many women in the debate and most if not all traditionalists, there is a strong feeling that the Church overall is not listening to how they are defining for themselves the position they occupy, the standards to which they hold themselves accountable.
Why is the opposition to women bishops not bigotry? Why should bigotry be given a hearing?
The ordination of gay bishops:
The freedom claimed, for example, by the Episcopal Church to ordain a partnered homosexual bishop is, simply as a matter of fact, something that has a devastating impact on the freedom of, say, the Malaysian Christian to proclaim the faith without being cast as an enemy of public morality and risking both credibility and personal safety.
As Ann Fontaine said in the comments at The Lead:
I wonder why he never thinks of gay/lesbian/transgender Anglicans and others in Malaysia who actually suffer death not just threats.
On restraint:
Sometimes that may entail restraint – as I believe it does and should in the context of the Communion – though that restraint is empty and even oppressive if it then refuses to engage with those who have accepted restraint for the sake of fellowship.
Tobias Haller asks a question in the comments to the same post at The Lead:
Why is "restraint" always posed as restraint from action rather than as restraint from reaction?
And then the ABC is onward and upward with the folderol that the Covenant will be the solution to the problems in the Anglican Communion. I don't believe that the Covenant is the solution, but I lean more and more toward the opinion that the Episcopal Church should consider quite seriously whether we can, in good conscience, sign on to the Covenant to keep our place at the table in the Anglican Communion, because I believe our presence seems ever more necessary with each day that passes. If the Episcopal Church is to be "distanced" to the outer ring of the AC, then perhaps it's best that rather than taking the initiative in distancing ourselves, we let the distancing be done to us.
"Three-dimensionality" is the ABC's buzz word, seeing from all sides, which is all well and good so long as "three-dimensionality" does not lead to paralysis.
On Uganda:
And then I think of a telephone conversation in December with the Archbishop of Uganda, discussing what was being done by Ugandan Anglicans in the devastated north of the country – in the rehabilitation of child soldiers and the continuing, intensely demanding work with all victims of trauma in that appalling situation, work that no-one else is doing or is trusted to do; and the ongoing work of care for those with HIV, where the Uganda Church was in the forefront of African responses to that crisis. Three-dimensionality in a church that has been caricatured as passionately homophobic and obsessed with narrow Biblicism.
On the other hand, this from the The Lead:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Church of Uganda associates itself with the concerns expressed in the Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009. However, instead of a completely new Bill, the Church recommends a Bill that amends the Penal Code Act (Cap.120) addressing loopholes, in particular:
* protecting the vulnerabilities of the boy child;
* proportionality in sentencing;
* and, ensuring that sexual orientation is excluded as a protected human right.
Well, I'm sure that members of the Ugandan church do good work, but DAMMIT! if we can live with the Ugandan church and their support for draconian laws to punish LGTB persons, they should be able to live with us, although we have an openly gay bishop, or two, or three serving in our church.
Mine is not an exhaustive or measured critique of the speech, but rather a personal response to certain passages in the speech at a time when my emotions run high, and I probably shouldn't be writing. Some might say that my quotes are taken out of context. Read or listen to the entire address and decide for yourself.
For a more measured response see Tobias Haller's post. I'm sure others will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)