Thursday, February 25, 2010
PLEASE PRAY...
...for my cousin Marie Lynn who passed away a few days ago and whom I mistakenly called Marylynn in a previous post. We never used her name, because she used a nickname always, always, always. Thanks be to God that Marie Lynn rests in peace and will rise in glory. She had many troubles in her life, including a painful last illness, but she nearly always had a smile on her face. I'm sure she's smiling now that she is released from her suffering. Pray for Marie Lynn's two sons, her sister, her daughter-in-law, her two grandchildren, and all who love her. I'm off to her funeral in New Orleans now.
STORY OF THE DAY - LITTLE HOUSE
This used to be a mean monster until he
got sick one winter with the flu & stayed
in bed & watched too much Little House
on the Prairie & now the littlest thing &
he starts to cry.
Love this one, too.
From StoryPeople.
got sick one winter with the flu & stayed
in bed & watched too much Little House
on the Prairie & now the littlest thing &
he starts to cry.
Love this one, too.
From StoryPeople.
A GIFT OF HARMONY - ALLELUIA!
Two Sundays ago, we sang "Alleluia No. 1", No. 178, from the 1982 hymnal for Communion, one of the final "Alleluia!" hymns before Lent. The beginning words are, "Alleluia, alleluia, give thanks to the risen Lord...." At the end of the second-to-last verse, a woman in the congregation, who was visiting that morning, soared into harmony with her lovely voice. Folks sitting in front of her looked around to see where the sounds came from, because no one who is not in the choir sits toward the rear of the church and sings with a voice like hers. At the end of the last verse our visitor soared once again into the stratosphere with her beautiful voice. What a gift!
Once the service was over, I went over to welcome the woman and thank her for the wonderful and serendipitous offering. She hugged me and thanked me for being so welcoming of her gift to our service. Several members of the congregation thanked her. Is there anyone who would not have welcomed the woman and thanked her? She's originally from the US, but she lives in London now.
The lyrics and an extract from the music are here.
Once the service was over, I went over to welcome the woman and thank her for the wonderful and serendipitous offering. She hugged me and thanked me for being so welcoming of her gift to our service. Several members of the congregation thanked her. Is there anyone who would not have welcomed the woman and thanked her? She's originally from the US, but she lives in London now.
The lyrics and an extract from the music are here.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
THE DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA MOVES FORWARD (OR NOT) ON SAME-SEX BLESSINGS
Whereas, the Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston stated in his pastoral address to the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia:
“I do regret that, in this address, some important matters in our common life will seem to be slighted while others are omitted, such as the several topics arising from the debate on sexuality. But I look for us to address these issues thoroughly in regional forums in 2010. It is unfortunate that some of the weightiest deliberations that come before us cannot be adequately and justly dealt with in the very short time allowed by Annual Council....”
All of the resolutions which passed and the entire text of Bishop Johnston's address to the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia on moving forward (or not moving forward) on same-sex blessings may be found at the diocesan website.
Below are the resolutions which address the matter of same-sex blessings. My first question is whether the same standards apply in deciding whether a blessing is given to a same-sex couple as would apply for a heterosexual couple.
Resolved, the 215th Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia recognizes that:
1. Our clergy and people remain divided over the wisdom and theology of blessing same gender relationships, as well as how much weight to give to the views of others in the Anglican Communion about these issues, particularly to views from those with whom we are in mission partnership;
True, surely.
2. The growing differences between Christian and Civil understanding of marriage and relationships create immediate pastoral issues for our clergy and congregations;
True. As states move forward to approve same-sex partnerships and same-sex marriages, immediate pastoral issues will arise.
3. There are numerous same-gender couples in our diocese engaged in long-term monogamous relationships who have engaged in productive and vital ministries for the proclamation of the Gospel. Many of these couples strongly desire the church’s blessing of their relationships;
True again. And why is it so difficult to decide that ALL faithful, monogamous couples have a right to equal treatment in the matter of blessings?
4. These issues deserve to be collectively addressed in an orderly, careful, and deliberate way assisted by appropriate legal and canonical experts; and
"[O]rderly, careful", yes, but not with long delays. Equality delayed is equality denied.
Recommends that:
1. Our Bishop is asked to empanel a group of clergy and lay people, including attorneys admitted to practice in Virginia and recognized experts on canon law, as well as knowledgeable clergy and lay representatives of a variety of theological perspectives on the issue of blessing same-gender relationships.
Form a committee. That's one way to delay making controversial decisions. Not to decide is to decide against blessings for same-sex couples for the present and the immediate future.
2. Such panel shall recommend consistent standards to be written into diocesan canons so that, if services of blessing same-gender unions are authorized, our clergy and people have a clearly understood and enforceable set of rules to guide the application of clergy discretion in providing pastoral care to same-gender couples seeking such blessings.
I expect that the standards are for the protection of clergy who don't want to preside at same-sex blessings. Who would want a clergy person to preside over their wedding if that person did not want to be there? A downer, surely.
3. In formulating these recommendations, the following issues may be addressed (based in part on General Convention Canon I.1.18 and I.1.19):
(a) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right, as a matter of theological principle, to decline to conduct any such service, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action;
Are clergy presently forced to conduct blessing ceremonies? I don't think so. Why must the matter be taken up?
(b) Whether individual members of the clergy have the right to decline to conduct such a service for a particular same gender couple, without adverse disciplinary consequences or personnel action, similar to the current rule for clergy asked to conduct weddings;
Same answer as above.
(c) The age, capacity and degree of kinship, if any, of the parties;
Other than following the civil laws, are these matters under consideration for blessings of heterosexual couples?
(d) The effect of prior marriages or unions blessed by a licensed clergy person or registered with civil authorities, the responsibility to any former spouse or partner in such union, and responsibility to minor children of any prior marriage or union;
Same as above.
(e) The appropriateness of advance medical screening, if any;
Same as above.
(f) The effect of any legal union or marriage entered into between the parties in another jurisdiction;
Yes, the question should be settled for the sake of the couples who were married or granted a civil-partnership in another state.
(g) The appropriate role of the Bishop for advanced review of any proposed blessing of a specific same-gender couple;
Does the bishop do an advanced review of blessings for couples of the opposite sex?
(h) Review of financial arrangements to protect the parties in the absence of state law presumptions governing married couples, presumptions intended to protect the weaker party from potential exploitation, oppression, or improvident action by the other party in the relationship;
I'd be quite surprised if such reviews are required of heterosexual couples.
(i) Other factors listed in the General Convention canons for marriage, Canons I.1.18 and I.1.19, including the baptismal status of the parties, the commitment to life-long union, the voluntariness of consent, the absence of coercion, fraud, mistake of identity of the other party;
Apply the same rules as for heterosexual couples.
(j) The minimum time line between notification of the clergy of a desire to obtain such a blessing and the performance of the ceremony;
Same as above.
(k) The number of witnesses and the record-keeping requirements for the clergy and any congregation involved;
Same as above
(l) Any requirement for written affirmation by the couple that the commitment is to a life-long union;
Same as above.
(m) Any statement of the theological basis for the union to which the partners are to subscribe;
Same as above.
(n) Provision to address possible dissolution of a blessed same-gender relationship, including the considerations of factors enumerated in Canon I.1.19 to address marriages which are in distress or which have been terminated by a civil court, as well as the circumstances, if any, under which another same-gender relationship may be blessed where both partners to an earlier such relationship remain living;
Yes, provision would need to be made for this eventuality.
(o) The restriction in the General Convention canon on marriage in the church to heterosexual couples;
I thought the resolutions were about blessings.
(p) Whether any blessing service for same-gender union may be used in lieu of marriage for heterosexual couples under any circumstances, and if so, what those circumstances are;
I wonder how this resolution will play out.
(q) How these might apply to all members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans-gendered community;
Will the blessings apply to ALL in a big tent kinda way?
(r) Any other factor deemed important by the panel.
Whoa! Will the panel meet the deadline with the "Any other factor" in the resolution?
3. If the Bishop appoints such a panel, the panel shall strive to deliver its report (including proposed canonical language) to the Executive Board by All Saints Day, 2010, in time for careful and orderly consideration of its recommendations by the 216th Annual Council of the Diocese. The panel is not to opine on whether the blessings of same-gender unions should be authorized, but it is to set forth its canonical recommendations to govern blessing such relationships if such services of blessing are authorized.
No opining, ya hear!
4. The consideration of any authorization for Virginia clergy to enter same gender unions should be deferred until after consideration of the preceding process.
Wait, wait, wait. Stay in your sacrificial place.
Are these resolutions the Virginia diocese's attempt at separate but equal? Separate is never equal. Seems to me that the panel could save themselves a lot of time if the members decided to apply the same rules across the board for same-sex and opposite-sex couples whenever possible. Of course, there will be a few exceptions. As to the wording of the liturgy, slight changes in the blessing, such as instead of saying "this man and this woman", say "this man and this man" or "this woman and this woman" and - voila! - problem solved. To me, certain of the resolutions are unnecessary and, in some instances, demeaning to same-sex couples.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
STORY OF THE DAY - BOX FOR THE FUTURE
this is a dress-up box for the future &
it's filled with stuff like courage & love &
play because they're the only things that
are any use at all when you get Right
down to it.
From StoryPeople.
it's filled with stuff like courage & love &
play because they're the only things that
are any use at all when you get Right
down to it.
From StoryPeople.
"IT'S DISCRIMINATION...."
From the Times:
Above is a letter submitted by leading scholars, bishops, and clergy in support of an amendment to the Equality Bill pending before the English Parliament to permit ministers of religious bodies who so choose to officiate at civil partnerships between same-sex persons. No minister or rabbi would be forced to register civil partnerships between persons of the same sex. The list of those who signed the letter may be found at the Times link.
The relationship between the state and the Church of England is puzzling to me, and I believe that both church and state would be the better for disestablishment. On the matter of clergy performing civil duties such as marriages and civil partnerships, in my opinion, clergy would be well advised to work to remove themselves from the marriage/civil partnership business, thus opting out of performing the duties of the civil authorities. If a couple - same sex or opposite sex - wants a blessing on their pledge to commit themselves to fidelity to one another after a civil ceremony, then it would fall to the church community to decide whether to perform a blessing ceremony.
However, in the case of the English law, it's not fair that clergy are permitted to register marriages between persons of the opposite sex and forbidden to register civil partnerships between same-sex persons, so the amendment seems like a good thing.
Again from the Times:
What a surprise! And doesn't your heart bleed for the intolerable "pressure on the C of E to follow suit". "It is a feeble argument." Indeed!
H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead for the links to the articles.
Sir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.
In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.
The amendment will be re-presented by Lord Alli on March 2. We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.
Above is a letter submitted by leading scholars, bishops, and clergy in support of an amendment to the Equality Bill pending before the English Parliament to permit ministers of religious bodies who so choose to officiate at civil partnerships between same-sex persons. No minister or rabbi would be forced to register civil partnerships between persons of the same sex. The list of those who signed the letter may be found at the Times link.
The relationship between the state and the Church of England is puzzling to me, and I believe that both church and state would be the better for disestablishment. On the matter of clergy performing civil duties such as marriages and civil partnerships, in my opinion, clergy would be well advised to work to remove themselves from the marriage/civil partnership business, thus opting out of performing the duties of the civil authorities. If a couple - same sex or opposite sex - wants a blessing on their pledge to commit themselves to fidelity to one another after a civil ceremony, then it would fall to the church community to decide whether to perform a blessing ceremony.
However, in the case of the English law, it's not fair that clergy are permitted to register marriages between persons of the opposite sex and forbidden to register civil partnerships between same-sex persons, so the amendment seems like a good thing.
Again from the Times:
The Church of England has so far resisted change, arguing that if some religious groups are allowed to hold civil partnerships then the pressure on the C of E to follow suit will become intolerable. It is a feeble argument. No one is arguing that any church should be forced to conduct a civil partnership. But willing churches should not be precluded from doing so.
What a surprise! And doesn't your heart bleed for the intolerable "pressure on the C of E to follow suit". "It is a feeble argument." Indeed!
H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead for the links to the articles.
Monday, February 22, 2010
MENTAL CHECKUP
It's that time of year for us to take our annual senior citizen test.
Exercise of the brain is as important as exercise of the muscles. As we grow older, it's important to keep mentally alert. If you don't use it, you lose it! Below is a very private way to gauge how your memory compares to the last test. Some may think it is too easy, but the ones with memory problems may have some difficulty. Take the test presented here to determine if you're losing it or not. The spaces below are so you don't see the answers until you've made your answer.
OK, relax, clear your mind, and begin
Question 1. What do you put in a toaster?
Answer: 'bread.'
If you said 'toast' give up now and do something else. Try not to hurt yourself. If you said, bread, go to Question 2.
Question 2. Say 'silk' five times. Now spell 'silk.' What do cows drink?
Answer: Cows drink water.
If you said 'milk,' don't attempt the next question. Your brain is over-stressed and may even overheat. Content yourself with reading a more appropriate literature such as Sports Illustrated. However, if you said 'water', proceed to question 3.
Question 3. If a red house is made from red bricks and a blue house is made from blue bricks and a pink house is made from pink bricks and a black house is made from black bricks, what is a green house made from?
Answer: Greenhouses are made from glass. If you said 'green bricks,' why are you still reading these??? If you said 'glass,' go on to Question 4.
Question 4. It's twenty-five years ago, and a plane is flying at 20,000 feet over Germany (If you will recall, Germany at the time was politically divided into West Germany and East Germany ). Anyway, during the flight, three engines fail. The pilot, realizing that the last remaining engine is also failing, decides on a crash landing procedure. Unfortunately the engine fails before he can do so and the plane fatally crashes smack in the middle of "no man's land" between East Germany and West Germany. The question: Where would you bury the survivors? East Germany, West Germany, or no man's land'?
Answer: You don't bury survivors.
If you said ANYTHING else, you're a dunce and you must stop. If you said, 'You don't bury survivors', proceed to the next question.
Question 5. (To be answered without using a calculator): You are driving a bus from London to Milford Haven in Wales.
In London, 17 people get on the bus.
In Reading, 6 people get off the bus and 9 people get on.
In Swindon, 2 people get off and 4 get on.
In Cardiff, 11 people get off and 16 people get on.
In Swansea, 3 people get off and 5 people get on.
In Carmarthen, 6 people get off and 3 get on.
You then arrive at Milford Haven.
Without scrolling back to review, how old is the bus driver?
Answer: Oh, for crying out loud! Don't you remember your own age? It was YOU driving the bus!!
If you pass this along to your friends, pray they do better than you.
P.S.: 95% of people fail most of the questions!!
From Paul (A.), with no thanks from me.
Exercise of the brain is as important as exercise of the muscles. As we grow older, it's important to keep mentally alert. If you don't use it, you lose it! Below is a very private way to gauge how your memory compares to the last test. Some may think it is too easy, but the ones with memory problems may have some difficulty. Take the test presented here to determine if you're losing it or not. The spaces below are so you don't see the answers until you've made your answer.
OK, relax, clear your mind, and begin
Question 1. What do you put in a toaster?
Answer: 'bread.'
If you said 'toast' give up now and do something else. Try not to hurt yourself. If you said, bread, go to Question 2.
Question 2. Say 'silk' five times. Now spell 'silk.' What do cows drink?
Answer: Cows drink water.
If you said 'milk,' don't attempt the next question. Your brain is over-stressed and may even overheat. Content yourself with reading a more appropriate literature such as Sports Illustrated. However, if you said 'water', proceed to question 3.
Question 3. If a red house is made from red bricks and a blue house is made from blue bricks and a pink house is made from pink bricks and a black house is made from black bricks, what is a green house made from?
Answer: Greenhouses are made from glass. If you said 'green bricks,' why are you still reading these??? If you said 'glass,' go on to Question 4.
Question 4. It's twenty-five years ago, and a plane is flying at 20,000 feet over Germany (If you will recall, Germany at the time was politically divided into West Germany and East Germany ). Anyway, during the flight, three engines fail. The pilot, realizing that the last remaining engine is also failing, decides on a crash landing procedure. Unfortunately the engine fails before he can do so and the plane fatally crashes smack in the middle of "no man's land" between East Germany and West Germany. The question: Where would you bury the survivors? East Germany, West Germany, or no man's land'?
Answer: You don't bury survivors.
If you said ANYTHING else, you're a dunce and you must stop. If you said, 'You don't bury survivors', proceed to the next question.
Question 5. (To be answered without using a calculator): You are driving a bus from London to Milford Haven in Wales.
In London, 17 people get on the bus.
In Reading, 6 people get off the bus and 9 people get on.
In Swindon, 2 people get off and 4 get on.
In Cardiff, 11 people get off and 16 people get on.
In Swansea, 3 people get off and 5 people get on.
In Carmarthen, 6 people get off and 3 get on.
You then arrive at Milford Haven.
Without scrolling back to review, how old is the bus driver?
Answer: Oh, for crying out loud! Don't you remember your own age? It was YOU driving the bus!!
If you pass this along to your friends, pray they do better than you.
P.S.: 95% of people fail most of the questions!!
From Paul (A.), with no thanks from me.
PLEASE PRAY
Cathy said...
Mimi, this is nowt to do with your Lenten reflections, but could I please post a prayer request here? ... I have an interview tomorrow first thing for a six-month contract where I work (I am currently freelance). I wouldn't mind people's prayers for it, is the thing.
May the Lord be with you, Cathy.
Mimi, this is nowt to do with your Lenten reflections, but could I please post a prayer request here? ... I have an interview tomorrow first thing for a six-month contract where I work (I am currently freelance). I wouldn't mind people's prayers for it, is the thing.
May the Lord be with you, Cathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)