WHAT FUN!

My son and his children are vacationing in Galveston, Texas. Their hotel has a webcam in the lobby, and there they are soon after their arrival as I captured them in a screen shot.



Big Sister and Not-So-Little Brother.



Daddy on the phone talking to guess who? Moi, of course, as we coordinate.



The kids again. Big Sister on the phone this time, with moi again.

WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND - SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL?

Thinking Anglicans posted the full text of the amendment which will be offered by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the draft legislation which will permit women to become bishops in the Church of England. Read it over there to see what you make of it. I'm not a member of the Church of England, and it's up to the members of Synod to decide whether the amendment will be passed. As far as I can make out from the wording of the amendment, and I'm the first to admit that I'm not good at deciphering such language, the amendment seems to offer a separate, but not quite equal, status for women bishops.

The commentary to the language of the amendment at TA is instructive.

Dear old Solomon in all his glory could not split the proverbial baby in two any better than this.

Of course all you have is a divided baby but then it is easier to maintain the pretense of unity, even when certain folks refuse to be ministered to or receive communion from certain other folks who apparently have “the same legal rights” if not the same standing as God’s ministers.

Falderal.
....

What provision is there for those who cannot accept the ministry of male bishops? Come on - fair's fair.
....

As someone noted years ago, this is totally equitable: the rich are as prohibited from sleeping under bridges as are the poor. Will a parish in a male-led diocese be allowed to request episcopal function from a female bishop?
....

I suggest that ‘co-ordinate’ bishops carry their mitres under their arms, and single bishops can put them on their heads.

And noting that Pluralist posted the final comment which I quoted, you may want to check out his blog post titled Two for Tea, which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this post.

UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian.

Note: Both Andrew and Adrian (Pluralist) are English.

SEND IN THE NAVY!

 

A dead Gulf menhaden floats in oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak in Bay Jimmy on Sunday. Matthew Hinton - Times Picayune.

From NOLA:

Two senators wrote a letter to President Barack Obama on Sunday arguing it's time to bring in the Navy to attack the 2-month-old scourge of oil menacing the Gulf of Mexico.

Coming from Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the letter argues the Navy could focus and speed up the crisis response, which is currently managed by a unified command that includes several agencies and companies.

"For the long term," wrote Nelson, "you really need a military command-and-control structure where orders are given and things get immediately implemented."

And I say, "Send them in!" I've mentioned to Grandpère that we need the Navy down here to take charge. The senators surely channeled my thoughts. I'm quite grateful for the efforts of folks from all over the world to mitigate the damage from BP's oil gusher and clean-up the Gulf Coast and the Gulf waters. They work hard under difficult conditions, and they, and all of us, deserve better than the mess of disorganization under which the workers function. When "a unified command that includes several agencies and companies" is in charge, there will be questions about which agency or company is in charge of particular tasks and, when something goes wrong, which group has the authority to try to fix the situation. And let's not forget the opportunity to pass the buck.

I've seen comments around and about that those of us on or near the Gulf are strident, that we whine and complain. The oil gusher story goes on far too long, and people lose interest. What about Haiti? I don't read much about Haiti any more, and many there still live in desperate conditions. And the US Gulf Coast and Haiti face the hurricane season.

From Frank Rich in the New York Times:

PRESIDENT Obama is not known for wild pronouncements, so it was startling to hear him liken the gulf oil spill to 9/11. Alas, this bold analogy, made in an interview with Roger Simon of Politico, proved a misleading trailer for the main event. In the president’s prime-time address a few days later, there was still talk of war, but the ammunition was sanded down to bullet points: “a clean energy future,” “a long-term gulf coast restoration plan” and, that most dreaded of perennials, “a national commission.” Such generic placeholders, unanimated by details or deadlines, are Washingtonese for “The buck stops elsewhere.”
....

The president had it right the first time — this is a 9/11 crisis — and only action will do. The sole sentence that really counted on Tuesday night was his prediction that “in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well.” He will be judged on whether that’s true. The sole event that mattered last week was his jawboning of BP for a $20 billion down payment of blood money — to be overseen, appropriately enough, by Kenneth Feinberg of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

Rich's entire column is worth a read, as he goes on to assess the Obama presidency, not just to do with the oil gusher, but what else needs to happen on the presidential front.

Just so you'll know, this whining, complaining, ungrateful inhabitant of the Gulf Coast region has no plans to shut up.

BISHOP ALAN ON "MITREGATE"

From Bishop Alan's Blog:

This bizarre story indicates that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was seriously told, as a guest, that she could have a Mitre in Southwark Cathedral, but not on her head. Forrest Gump’s mum used to say, stoopid is as stoopid does, and the whole mentality of such a request, if it was ever made, is profoundly stoopid. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy. It bears the fingerprints of blind officialdom rather than the Archbishop himself.
....

As a bishop I learn that, loaded with creative potential and myth as my job can be, when all is said and done I am just a driver of the Lord’s Number 49 bus, and the more I can rememeber it’s his bus not mine, saints preserve me, the less likely I am to get too far up myself. This makes me easier to live with, and learning it daily is worth a day of anybody’s wages…

Bishop Alan's final paragraph is a cautionary word for us all. We're not all bishops, but if we claim to be Christians, we must remain ever mindful to whom we belong.

Please read his entire post.

JESUS AND MO

Click on the strip for the larger view.


From Jesus and Mo

Lisa had it first. She blames Ann for getting her hooked on Jesus and Mo. I blame Ann, too.

STORY OF THE DAY

A lot of people think he's kind of
formless, but it's only because they keep
hoping he'll look like something they
recognize before they get too anxious


From StoryPeople.

A GOOD WORD FROM IRELAND

From the Irish Times

THE CATHOLIC Bishops have come out strongly against the civil partnership legislation currently before the Dáil.

In a statement at the conclusion of their summer meeting in Maynooth last night, they appealed to members of the Oireachtas to read their Why Marriage Matters document, published last March.

They asked “in particular’’ that politicians “consider in conscience” a quoted excerpt from that document before voting on the Bill.”

The relevant excerpt reads: “Oireachtas Éireann is about to pass legislation that seeks to give same-sex relationships a standing which will be as similar as possible to marriage.
....

“This is not compatible with seeing the family based on marriage as the necessary basis of the social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and State. Nor does it ‘guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded.’ (Art 41.3.1, Bunreacht na hÉireann)”

The Roman Catholic bishops are once again attempting to influence legislation granting rights to same-sex partners, this time in the the Irish Dáil, in the name of protecting the institution of marriage.

Stephen Neill, a priest in the Church of Ireland, who blogs at Paddy Anglican says:

As a married man and a father I really don’t understand this argument. I don’t see the prospect of same sex couples being afforded the right to register their partnerships and seek legal protection for their rights therein as any threat to my marriage! Without getting into the minutiae of biblical interpretation it does seem to paint God into a very narrow corner with little room left for the generosity of Grace. On the contrary the Bill does not provide legal recognition for same-sex couples who are co-parenting children. Children in these families are seriously disadvantaged by being ignored in the proposed legislation.

I recall the same argument regarding the threat of same sex unions to Christian marriage being used when my good friend Bishop Gene Robinson (an openly gay man in a long term monogamous relationship) was consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire, and he quite validly pointed out that Brittney Spears heterosexual behaviour was far more undermining of the institution of marriage than his own exclusive and committed same sex relationship with his partner of many years.

Speaking from the vantage point of of 49 years in an opposite-sex marriage, in no way do I see my marriage threatened by same-sex partnerships or by same-sex marriage. It seems to me that all of society benefits when two people of whatever sex wish to pledge to a loving, faithful relationship. Would that those in heterosexual relationships set a better example in fidelity.

Backtracking a bit, the bishops say:

“The Civil Partnership Bill will not permit adoption by same-sex couples. In most other respects, including tax and social welfare purposes, same-sex civil partnerships will be regarded as being equal to marriage.

To which Stephen responds:

The bishops and others will argue ‘but what about same sex parents’?
Nobody answers this question better than Spencer Burke, a contemporary American theologian who in his ‘A heretics guide to eternity’ comments: ‘If you’re a child, is it better to live in a home with a single dad-or even two dads-who really love you than with a mum and a dad who abuse you? Really, what’s more important: that your family “fits” or that it functions?’

Spencer Burke and Stephen are right, of course.

A PRACTICAL LESSON FROM THE BIBLE

A teenage boy had just passed his driving test and inquired of his father as to when they could discuss his use of the car.

His father said he'd make a deal with his son: 'You bring your grades up from a C to a B average, study your Bible a little, and get your hair cut. Then we'll talk about the car.'

The boy thought about that for a moment, decided he'd settle for the offer, and they agreed on it.

After about six weeks his father said, 'Son, you've brought your grades up and I've observed that you have been studying your Bible, but I'm disappointed you haven't had your hair cut.

The boy said, 'You know, Dad, I've been thinking about that, and I've noticed in my studies of the Bible that Samson had long hair, John the Baptist had long hair, Moses had long hair...and there's even strong evidence that Jesus had long hair.'

To this his father replied, 'Did you also notice they walked everywhere they went?'

Doug is at it again. Don't blame me.

CANON KEARON MEETS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Mary Frances Schjonberg reports at Episcopal Life Online on Canon Kenneth Kearon's statement and responses to questions submitted by members of the Episcopal Church Executive Council at their meeting in Maryland.

Kearon claimed that the communion's ecumenical dialogues "are at the point of collapse" and said that the last meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, of which Jefferts Schori is an elected member, "was probably the worst meeting I have experienced."

"The viability of our meetings are at stake," he added.

Is it the fault of the Episcopal Church? Will the meetings spring back to life if Bishop Katharine removes herself from the Standing Committee, which I fervantly pray she will not, if she has been requested to do so?

At the beginning of the session with Kearon, Jefferts Schori asked the council to vote on his request that the session be closed to all but council members. His request was decisively rejected by a show of hands.

Excellent. A victory for transparency.

He [Kearon] then began by saying that the "problem of increased and growing diversity in the Anglican Communion has been an issue for many years" and added that by the 1990s leaders in the communion began to name "the diversity of opinions in the communion and diversity in general as a problem and sought some mechanisms to address it."

To embrace the "growing diversity" would be unthinkable, then?

Kearon said during his statement that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has limited authority beyond the ability to call meetings of certain communion bodies, make some appointments and "occasionally articulate the mind of the communion."

"Everywhere I go, everyone wants him to act as a sort of an Anglican pope as long as he does what [they] want him to do," Kearon added.

I imagine that the ABC as Anglican pope is the last thing many of us in TEC want to see, although there are exceptions.

During his remarks, Kearon also said that he has asked whether it "constitutes an intervention and is therefore a breach of the third moratoria" if a communion province has among its bishops one who is exercising ministry in another province without that province's permission.

"That question has not been addressed by any of the instruments of communion so I and the archbishop don't have guidance on that particular question," he said.

Later in the discussion, Hollingsworth said that he was puzzled about how the communion could declare a moratorium on interventions and then say it cannot determine what constitutes an intervention.

"I can pretty easily define what an intervention is," said Hollingsworth, in terms of a Southern Cone bishop who has established congregations in the Diocese of Ohio and exercise his episcopal ministry without Hollingsworth's permission. (My emphasis)

If a bishop from the Southern Cone or any other province set up shop in a diocese of the Church of England without permission of the local bishop, would the Archbishop of Canterbury recognize the action as an intervention and a breach of the third moratorium?

Backing up a bit:

The secretary general's visit was initiated by member Bruce Garner of Atlanta, Georgia, who suggested to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that she invite Kearon, who was vacationing in North America, to the meeting.

Garner told ENS afterwards that he had "never witnessed so much obfuscation in such a short period of time" in his entire life.

"We were polite," he said, "but we asked him questions he could not or would not provide answers to."

The description brings to mind Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, in his recent testimony during a Congressional hearing.

Nicholas Knisely at The Lead posted the entire report from the Executive Council meeting.

FROM BISHOP ANN TOTTENHAM

Mark Harris at Preludium quotes Bishop Ann Tottenham, retired Suffragan Bishop of Toronto who presently serves part-time as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Niagara:

For the record, I celebrated and preached at Southwark Cathedral on November 9, 2009 [sic - correct year is 2002] with the permission of the Powers-That-Be in the C.of E. in the presence of the Diocesan Bishop and fully vested including mitre. It was a public service to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the ordination of women to the priesthood in the C. of E. The only restriction place on me was that I was not to "perform an episcopal function". As I was not planning either a confirmation or an ordination this was not a big deal, though the whole process was aggravating. To my mind this makes the insult offered to the Presiding Bishop even more gratuitous. +Ann

So. Have the rules for women bishops wearing their symbols of office when preaching and presiding in the Church of England changed since 2009 2002? Otherwise, as Bishop Ann says in her comment, our Presiding Bishop was gratuitously (and quite rudely, in my opinion) singled out.