A TRIP WAY BACK DOWN MEMORY LANE

The tune was running through Lapin's head, and now it's running through mine.

MR CATOLICK HAS A BLOG

Check it out.

Besides his brilliant videos, Mr CatOLick posts cartoons, and writes blog posts. Below is a cartoon from his blog.



The guys are English, but the humor translates to this side of the big pond.

UPDATE: SCG at Wake Up and Live makes the videos with Bishop Yellow Belly and Ms Young Person. I mistakenly attributed them to Mr CatOLick.

AND THAT'S JUST THE INTRODUCTION!

From Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church in the UK:

When I debated the Covenant with Gregory Cameron in March he said nobody had disputed Sections 1-3, so they were acceptable. My take is that nobody debated them because they are not the sharp edge.

On my reading, the wording is poorly put together, and full of conservative evangelical stances which fly in the face of mainstream theological scholarship.

The Introduction centres round a string of biblical texts interpreted in a ‘conservative evangelical’ manner which no reputable biblical scholar would approve of. Just to take the first example, ‘God has called us into communion in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1.9).’ If you read the biblical text, it doesn’t mention you, me, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any Anglican. It was the Christian congregation at Corinth about 50 AD who were being called. The subsequent biblical references get no better: the only biblical scholars who would approve of the way these texts are used are the ones who repudiate mainstream scholarship in the interests of what some people call ‘literalist’ readings (i.e. readings interpreted according to a tradition that fantasises about taking the words literally).

Intro 3. ‘We humbly recognize that this calling and gift of communion entails responsibilities for our common life’…
Well, is it a gift or is it a calling? If it is a gift we’ve got it. If it is a calling we haven’t. Perhaps it was a gift, subsequently messed up? Yet church historians are quite clear that Christianity was a diverse movement from the start. In the New Testament ‘communion’ is about gathering together for the Eucharist, not international institutions to which local churches belong.

Intro 4. ‘In the providence of God, which holds sway even over our divisions caused by sin’. Are all divisions caused by sin? For example, are differences of opinion about gays and lesbians necessarily sinful? Isn’t this presupposing that all Christians ought to hold exactly the same opinions?

Intro 4. ‘We recognise the wonder, beauty and challenge of maintaining communion in this family of churches, and the need for mutual commitment and discipline as a witness to God’s promise in a world and time of instability, conflict, and fragmentation.’

Maintaining communion is not the same as maintaining unity, unless you define communion as unity; and if so, this is a very unbiblical account of communion. I haven’t come across anyone who thinks maintaining communion is wonderful or beautiful. The language of God’s promises, here and elsewhere, needs to be challenged: on what grounds can we claim that God has promised what, and to whom? Once again we are being invited to accept an anti-intellectual conservative evangelical interpretation of the Bible.

Intro 5. ‘To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified.’

... Pompous cant. this text contradicts itself. The covenant is ‘not intended to change the character’ of Anglicanism, but it is intended to reaffirm and intensify the bonds of affection. Reaffirm okay, but intensify means change.

Intro 6. ‘We are a people who live, learn, and pray by and with the Scriptures as God’s Word.’ Another bit of conservative evangelical pompous cant. Sounds as though you can’t be an Anglican unless you spend a good chunk of your time reading the Bible and praying about it. I guess most Anglicans don’t. Want to exclude them? More importantly, what about ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?’

So. The Anglican Covenant is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and the scholarship behind the Scripture citations is poor.

And that's just the introduction!

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

THE BLONDE GUY

A blonde guy was about two hours from San Diego on the freeweay when he was flagged down by a man whose truck had broken down. The man walked up to the car and asked, "Are you going to San Diego?"

"Sure," answered the blonde guy, "do you need a lift?"

"No - I have to fix my truck. My problem is I've got two chimpanzees in the back which have to be taken to the San Diego Zoo. They're a bit stressed already so I don't want to keep them on the road all day. Could you possibly take them to the zoo for me? I'll give you $250 for your trouble."

"No problem!" said the blonde guy. So the two chimpanzees were ushered into the back seat of the guy's car and carefully strapped into their seat belts, and off they went.

Five hours later, the truck driver was driving through the heart of San Diego when suddenly he was horrified! There was the blonde guy walking down the street and holding hands with the two chimps, much to the amusement of a big crowd. With a screech of brakes he pulled off the road and ran over to the guy.

"What the hell are you doing here?" he demanded, "I gave you $250 to take these chimpanzees to the zoo!"

"Yes, I know you did," said the blonde guy," but we had money left over so now we're going to Sea World."

Don't blame me. Blame Doug.

UPDATE: Doug, the artist, (not Doug, the above) sent me the video below. He says, "Something for your Blonde Guy post. Both girls and boys can sing this song, provided they were born with golden hair (or spent a few hours and a lot of money with Michael)." Michael is Doug's partner.

NOT GONE FISHIN'

Perhaps I should follow the example of Penny at One Cannot Have Too Large a Party, who says she's "Gone Fishin'", except I don't fish. I'm not much in the mood for blogging at the moment, but if I say I'm taking time off, a matter will arise about which I feel I must speak my 2 cents. I've backed off twice from my blog in a rather formal way and was back blogging (but embarrassed) within a very short time.

Yet, I am blogging less, lately. For four years, with interruptions mainly for travel, I've been at my post on a daily basis. The best I can say now is that I will probably blog less, perhaps much less, and if I miss a day, or two, or three, don't worry about me. I am fine, just a little jaded with the news of the world, of politics, and of the church. I hope to be reading more - books and magazines - which hobby was once the love of my life, along with movies, which I hope to have more time to view.

And I'll probably see you around the internet from time to time.

HANGING BASKET

Call it Redneck, or Cajun, or whatever. The basket made me laugh out loud. I want one.

Don't blame me. Blame Doug.

Update From the comments at Facebook:

XXXXX says you'd have to make sure you didn't overwater "lest your cup runneth over"!

Of course, I asked XXXXX to leave the stage.

STORY OF THE DAY - ATTACK DOG

My aunt had a poodle she dressed in
little red sweaters with little dangly ball
things & I don't think it was any wonder
that dog was so vicious.

From StoryPeople.

YOU CAN'T COME IN

From the Guardian:

It was meant to be a dating website exclusively for the use of "beautiful men and women", where members ruthlessly selected and excluded those who did not match their definitions of good looks.

But last month when BeautifulPeople.com was attacked by a computer virus, some claim standards slipped and around 30,000 new members gained admittance. Now, in a move which has made those rejected "apoplectic" with rage, they have been unceremoniously booted off at a financial cost of more than $100,000 (£62,000) to the site's operators.

The virus was quickly named Shrek – after the animated film about how looks should not matter – as it attacked the software used to screen potential members. A helpline has now been set up with counsellors on hand to help the distressed rejects from the site.

The website is more honest about the ruthlessness of standards of beauty that apply in everyday life, but to see the policy spelled out in plain language is shocking.

"We got suspicious when tens of thousands of new members were accepted over a six-week period, many of whom were no oil painting," Hodge told the Guardian.

A good many of us are no oil paintings. But then again, figures in oil paintings, including some of the most famous paintings in the world, such as the Mona Lisa, may well portray people who would not be considered sufficiently beautiful for the website. As I read the article, I started off laughing, but then I became quite sad that we place such emphasis on outward appearance in our relationships.

According to the website, Norwegian women and Swedish men have the greatest chance of being accepted. British men have the least chance, and Irish men are not far behind.

1 Samuel 16:7

But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.’

Thanks to Cathy for the link.

IT GETS BETTER - THE CHICAGO CUBS

H/T to Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin who says:

It’s worth noting that Cubs’ co-owner Laura Ricketts is an out Lesbian. Your Chicago Cubs are now the second major league baseball team (and, I believe, the second major league sports team overall) to produce a video. San Francisco Giants released theirs three weeks ago. Boston Red Sox have also announced that they will release a video soon.

Take the It Gets Better Pledge.

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA - LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Canon Alan Perry, a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada at his blog Insert Cathchy Blog Title Here:

The Governance Working Group of the Anglican Church of Canada has released its report on the legal and constitutional implications of the proposed Anglican Covenant, as requested by the General Synod. In addition to the report, there is also an executive summary.

Definitional Concerns lists no fewer than nine key terms in the proposed Covenant that are left undefined. This is a concern because, as the report states, “the Covenant is more than a statement of belief or intention; it is a legal document.” Exactly. And as a legal document it requires clarity of definition. For without clarity, the report says, it is “difficult to know the full nature and extent of the obligations which would be undertaken by adopting the Covenant.” That being the case, it is difficult to understand how any Synod can responsibly vote to adopt the Covenant.

Under the rubric of Procedural Concerns, the report discusses seven difficulties with the dispute-settling process in the proposed Covenant. For example, the report raises concerns about the vagueness of the process in section 4.2. (See my comments in this vein here.) It also notes that the process fails to guarantee the principles of Natural Justice. I have also analysed this issue in two parts here and here. Furthermore, there is no right or mechanism to appeal a decision of the Standing Committee.

Even if you don't read the entire report, do have a look at the executive summary. It's well worth taking the time, because, as I see it, the document has implications beyond the Anglican Church of Canada.

Lionel Deimel, of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in the US, also comments on the Canadian church report.

Today, however, the Anglican Church of Canada released a document that, although it does not draw the obvious conclusion that the Covenant should be rejected because it is incompetently written, most definitely establishes that it is incompetently written. One cannot, in fact, read “Legal and Constitutional Issues Presented to the Canadian Church by the Proposed Anglican Covenant” without concluding that the text of the Covenant is a train wreck.

Lionel notes from a story in Episcopal News Service that the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church received a report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, which will not be published until later because, as council member Rosalie Ballantine said, “We’re reluctant to have it out there” because some people may assume that decisions have already been made."

In the interest of transparency, I'd hope that the Executive Council will rethink withholding the report, unless there are very serious reasons for doing so. The decision in favor of secrecy following on the heels of the Anglican Church of Canada's quick release of their document invites unfavorable comparison.

As Jim Naughton says at The Lead, "Conversely, the Anglican Church of Canada, which apparently regards its members as adults, has released its report...along with an executive summary...."

Transparency is the best policy, except for the gravest of reasons, and what people may assume does have the ring of gravity sufficient for withholding release of the document until a later time.