[Be aware, I’ve got to proof read the following.  Don’t have time at the
moment.]

When I entered the Episcopal Church, I came because I
was interested in investigating a liturgical and sacramental form of
Christianity.  I have to admit, and this is a bit simple, that I was
intrigued by the word “Episcopalian.”  I suppose that may be one reason
why I chose an Episcopal church over a Lutheran church. Conveniently,
there was a large Episcopal church down the street from my new apartment
I rented upon moving to Akron.  So, I attended.  I knew nothing at the
time of “Anglicanism.”  What kept me in that parish and this
Church was not simply liturgical worship or sacramental Christianity,
but the ethos and history and form of power within the Anglican system
and form of Christianity.  I was captured by Anglicanism, and the Church
that was the Anglican Church in the U.S. was and still is, at this
point anyway, the Episcopal Church.  Would I have stayed in the
Episcopal Church if it were not “Anglican?” I don’t know, frankly, but
the history and Tradition of Anglicanism is what keeps me in this Church
(and a vow I made, of course).

As I did some reading on the
history of the Episcopal Church I realized the unique position
Anglicanism plays within greater Christianity – there are
Charismatic-Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics and “Latitudinarians,”
there are Arminians and Calvinists, conservatives and moderates and
liberals, there are “High church” people and “Low church” people and
“Broad church” people, Protestants and Catholics… there are all kinds
of people who historically have argued and fought for their particular
party, piety, or theology, but who have remained together around the
common worship of the Church to Almighty God.  This “Via Media” form
provides a wonderful counter example to the way the World, and frankly
much of Christianity, conducts itself.  We stayed together!

I
recognized early on that there were forces afoot within the Episcopal
Church that wished to subjugate this via media and force Anglicanism to
bend to particular theological and pietistic beliefs.  Yet, we were
staying together, until 2006 when an action of a bishop in the American
Church, which at the time was not at all political but the actions of
the people of a diocese electing a trusted priest to be their new
bishop, caused everything to change. The election became very political;
suddenly the reactionaries (liberal and conservative) had a cause to
rally around and a straw with which to break the camel’s proverbial
back.

Coming out of American-Evangelicalism during its political
and social ascendancy, I am convinced that among a growing number of
“conservative” Episcopalians was a determination to remake U.S.
Anglicanism into their image of “correct Christianity.”  This group of
Episcopalians were not acting like traditional Anglican-Evangelicals,
but more like American-Evangelical Religious-Right activists who were
determined to force their particular view-points and beliefs upon the
whole Church to the exclusion of another other traditionally Anglican
form, particularity of the Broad Church/Laditudinarian form.  Again,
coming out of American-Evangelicalism, I saw the same attitudes and
tactics of the pseudo-conservative, politicized Religious Right movement
and the goals of such groups as the Institute of Religion and
Democracy.  This wasn’t “Anglican,” but was and is very “American.”

Now,
I will assert that much of the reaction of many conservative
Episcopalians was and is due to the hubris and authoritarianism of
“liberal” Episcopalians who have aped the worst of the cultural
Identity-Politics and Political-Correctness juggernaut. I have seen the
oh-so-welcoming and inclusive liberals act in dramatically hypocritical
ways that are shockingly exclusive and demeaning to people who don’t
jump on their bandwagon. I am truly saddened that so many pseudo-liberal
minded Episcopalians cannot countenance the inclusion of conservative
minded Episcopalians, and their actions are one of the primary reasons
for the more draconian conservative counter-actions. 

Most true
conservative and true liberal Episcopalians do not mind at all the
differences existing within the same Church, but the
fundamentalist-conservatives and fundamentalist-liberals cannot accept
traditional Anglican diversity, so they will rather accept the
destruction of the Church than to enter into any kind of compromise or
willingness to co-exist – the very foundation of Anglicanism. This is
the attitude of the “leadership,” however.  The extremes have been
allowed to occupy the center of Episcopal and Anglican life for too
long. 

Thus, the war between to extremist groups in the U.S. has
been exported all over the world in their attempts to gain allies and
to eject the “other” from the Anglican Communion. Purity is the war cry,
for both the pseudo-liberal and pseudo-conservative agitators. This war
has its origins, of course, in the U.S. Culture Wars, and we have taken
up the same “weapons of war” used by the non-Christians in our own very
“Christian” battles.  Too bad, because our “weapons” should not be
theirs, but because they are we no longer have any kind of credible
alternative to the brutish and destructive way of engaging the “other”
with different beliefs or understands from our won without desiring
their destruction or complete subjugation.

Well, I thing a lot of
this dualism and rejection of compromise and new found authoritarianism
comes from a certain Spirit of the Age, a zeitgeist, that this more
generational than time-based. The “Spirit of a Generation” might be a
more accurate way of describing this attitude and determination to act
in such was that are profoundly unchristian.  While not all Baby Boomers
have been duped by this secular “spirit,” the “Spirit” does permeate
the thinking and behavior of that generation.  Looking in, the actions
and attitudes of, say, Bishop Bruno and Bishop Duncan are the same.  The
way that Bishop Iker and Bishop Chane think are the same – perhaps
opposite sides of the spectrum, but still the way they think is the
same.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether expressed in a
“conservative” or “liberal” form. This generation is very
fundamentalistic.  It is “our way” or no way.  We will remake the world
in our image and anyone that gets in our way must be eliminated –
figuratively or actually.

While every generation will have both
positive and negative attributes, the problems this Church, American
Christianity in general, and the Anglican Communion are going through in
our time will never be solved until this generation is out of power. 
Period. 

The next generation of leaders will face their own
proclivities, but there is something peculiar about the Baby Boomer
generation.  We are no reaping the whirlwind of their generational
spirit, and it is proving to be not very good.  Of course, not all that
this generation has done is bad.  Change in many spheres of life and
culture needed to occur, but when a generation determines to untether
itself from the lessons and wisdom of the past and believes that they
are uniquely predestined to usher in a new world order, well, the world
is in trouble.

So, the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism in the
U.S. and much of the world will just have to wait this out.  There is no
way under currently leadership that a Godly solution will be found.  It
just isn’t going to happen.  There is too much pride, arrogance, and
bitterness for the Anglican Way to triumph.  Anglicanism will continue,
but it will take a while before we can begin rebuilding trust and
God-centered fellowship.  It will be another 25 years before the
Episcopal Church will be able to begin rebuilding.  We will be a very
small Church at that point, because the current leadership will not
change.  That may be defeatist, but human nature is a sinful nature and
short of divine intervention, well, I pray for divine intervention.

I
am very hopeful for the Church, for Anglicanism, for Christianity in
this country, but I realize that we too often get in God’s will being
accomplished.  His Church will survive!  Anglicanism is wonderfully
situated to meet emerging generations in their spiritual quest, but not
the way it is being conducted right now.  We wait.  We wait for the time
when we can rebuild.  Until then, we lift up the name of Jesus Christ,
we preach Christ crucified and resurrected and ascended, we engage the
Sacraments, and we worship together in the ancient Anglican form around
the common alter, the Scriptures, and the Prayer Book. 

I was listening to an NPR report this morning concerning changing attitudes among younger women and the “hook-up” culture. “Hook-up,” while meaning a variety of things depending on context, means in this context, basically, “one-night stands,” sexually speaking.
I heard again this statistic – younger people are putting off marriage until much later, men in particular are on average postponing marriage until age 28 or after. One of the people interviewed in the piece described the taking on by women of men’s attitudes toward sex, commitment, relationships, and “love.” So, hooking-up is becoming more commonplace and extending longer not only among younger men, but now among women. This causes me to think of a number of things:
1. I know of several secular studies that have been issued results over the last several years that all suggest that a primary indicator of whether a marriage will fail is if the couple lived together before they were married. If they lived together, they were far more likely to get divorced.
2. I’m saddened, frankly, that women are taking on the more beastial attitudes and actions that have long been the domain of men. Rather than the more stabilizing and civilization contribution the “woman’s way of knowing,” they are giving into the superficiality and non-committal attitudes of men (and we know where this has led with regard to single-mom households and the increased poverty rates among single-mom homes). Is this really what the women’s movement was all about?
3. What the consequences of this are going to be for society, for children’s development, and for the individual, interpersonal relationships of those caught up in a culture of “hooking-up?”
Now, there is always the tendency in the present moment to project into the future the consequences of present actions and attitudes, but the projections are based only on current understanding of things. So, projecting forward with our current eyes of understanding, it might well look bleak. Yet, for those for whom this is the developmental situation and condition of their lives, what the outcomes for a good, stable, fulfilled life will be is really unknown. Perhaps, in the transitional scheme of things, they will actually end up in better places than we are now. Who knows… It is disturbing to me, however.
I would rather see less “hooking-up” and more “committing-up!” I fear that the end result will be a lot more loneliness, anxiety, fear, and the losing of the ability to bond. Just look at what the “hook-up” culture has done to much of the gay sub-culture.

So, I have been referred to as “Rev. Griffith” more and more lately. I perfectly understand this when coming from non-Catholic church folks because they refer to their clergy in that way. But, for Episcopalians to continue to refer to clergy as “Rev. so-and-so” just shouldn’t be (see point 3 below). It is a failure of education somewhere along the line (well, there are certain other reasons that if mentioned may cause be to be labeled sexist, but never mind – see point 5 below).
Because terminology used for various clergy levels and positions, when dealing with our hyper-individualize culture, is all over the place, The Church Pension Group (CPG) has a handy “Always and Never” sheet for employees. Here are some of the rules:
1. NEVER say, “Are you an Episcopal?”
2. ALWAYS say, “Are you an Episcopalian?”
3.NEVER, NEVER, NEVER call an ordained “Reverend.” The word “the” should always go before “Reverend.” In writing, the full and correct use is “the Reverend” or “The Reverend,” depending on usage and/or the place in a sentence.
4. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER call an ordained person “a clergy.” You might say one of the following: “He/She is a clergyperson.” “He/She is ordained.” “He/She is a member of the clergy.”
5. ALWAYS ask ordained women if they want to be called Mother, Mrs., Ms., Dean, Bishop, or another title. She just might tell you that she prefers that you use her name.
6. ALWAYS ask ordained men if they want to be called Father, Mister, Dean, or Bishop, or another title. He just might tell you that he prefers that you use his name.
There are a few more…
So, this is an older and briefer list. We received an 8 page list of proper names, titles, and the hierarchical title protocol – for example, ecclesiastical rank (titles) always take precedence over military rank (titles).
Now, concerning “The Rev.” or “Rev. so-and-so,” in the Episcopal/Anglican Church, “The Rev.” is not a title, but is an adjective. “The Rev.” is a descriptive describing something about the clergyperson – he/she is kind of like revered. So, you probably wouldn’t call me “Boy Bob,” even though I am a boy.
(If any recent people that have interacted with me read this and think that I’m referring specifically to you, please don’t. This has simple been a noticeable trend I’ve noticed over the last few years.) Call me Bob or Mr. Bob or Fr. Bob, but not Rev. Bob.

Luiz Coelho, a guy I’ve come to know through the Internet & Facebook (which doesn’t really let me know him well, but gives me a good beginning to know him) was a Stewart at this past summer’s Lambeth Conference. I’ve come to appreciate his writing and greatly respect his heart’s good desire for God and the Church.
He wrote a piece on Episcopal Cafe about young people and traditional liturgy, and I don’t know how I missed it. It is very well done and I think another indication or piece of evidence of where younger people are these days concerning their desire for liturgical and sacred music forms. It also suggests, again, the incredible opportunity Anglicanism in all its Tradition is strategically situated to appeal to and minister to young people (particularly unchurched young people).
Here is the link to the Episcopal Cafe piece, but I reprint it below in full because one never knows when these blog things go away.
Yes, young people do like traditional liturgy, by Luiz Caelho. Click below to read the whole thing.
Excerpts:

…many young Anglicans are attracted to traditional liturgical forms because they offer stability. We have been born in a fast-paced world, and in a short period of time have seen the rise and fall of countries, regimes, technologies, musical styles, fashion trends and even Church movements. At the same time, most of the cultural norms our mothers and fathers fought to liberalize do not apply to us anymore, and only God knows how they are going to be within some years. The world is freer, and it is changing so fast that sometimes it seems to be in a free-fall. The Church, to many of us, is the last glimpse of stability that exists in this post-modern society, and the certainty that its language has managed to be the same for all these years is a key factor for two reasons (among several):…
I understand, however, that all of that was a response to the plea of a previous generation which was suffocated by the evil side of traditionalism, and needed to foster changes in a world that did not want to look forward. Forty years later, however, we are still caught by some of the same questions: “How to attract youth? How to create liturgies that are meaningful to newer generations? How to reinvigorate the Church?” My response to that would be that we went too far in some reforms (mostly liturgical ones) and maybe restoring some of the icons we as a Church broke, allied with the empowerment of youth in the life of the Church would be a great start in attempting to attract some people of my age.
Let me end with a final and curious note. Lambeth stewards were awarded with the possibility of organizing a special mass for us and staff people at the Canterbury Cathedral’s crypt. With such an astonishing location and so many liturgical resources, we did our best. Most of us had the opportunity of doing something, whether it was reading a lesson, an intercession, serving as an acolyte, playing the organ or joining the choir. We rehearsed for one week “If ye love me” by Tallis (which was our Communion hymn), celebrant and servers wore a lovely set of silky red vestments and clouds of incense filled that sacred space, as it has been, is now and will be forever.
It was the only service with incense during the Conference, by the way.

Continue reading →

I’ve been on vacation, and a nice vacation it is. Tomorrow, I go home. I happen to be vacationing with three other priests and a couple lay people who are quite interested in churchy things, so we often talk about the state of the Church, our shared belief that there is little hope of salvaging traditional Anglicanism from the change-obsessed “reformers” (aka hyper “liberals”) or the fundamentalist tendencies of the reactionaries who are ready to launch into schism (aka reactionary “conservatives”).
One conversation got around to the our American cultural tendency to hyper-individualize everything, even if we do it in a group (thus our propensity to continually divide – Protestant denominationalism). So, whole groups of self-identified “Anglicans” gather together and declare that they, the individuals who have grouped together, can determine who is and who is not the true, real, honest-to-goodness, God-fearing Anglicans regardless of the realities of what makes one an Anglican. One is Anglican because one is in communion with the See of Canterbury! A Church is Anglican because the See of Canterbury recognizes that Church as being part of the Anglican Communion. You can’t be Roman Catholic without Rome! We can’t be Anglican without Canterbury. Your group may worship in the style of Anglican tradition, may use Anglican prayer books, or may say that it is in communion with Canterbury as far as your group is concerned – but it don’t make ya an Anglican.
Now, I can also argue another perspective quite easily – if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it sounds like a duck, then it is a duck…
Here is an example from the Anglican Catholic Church, a “Continuing Anglican” denomination, taken from the Affirmation of St. Louis:

The Continuation of Communion with Canterbury –
We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion. [Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]
WHEREFORE, with a firm trust in Divine Providence, and before Almighty God and all the company of heaven, we solemnly affirm, covenant and declare that we, lawful and faithful members of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, shall now and hereafter continue and be the unified continuing Anglican Church in North America, in true and valid succession thereto.

They can declare all they want, but it doesn’t make it so. They can affirm their “continued relations of communion,” but Canterbury does not recognize them – it is a dysfunctional, deluded, one-way relationship. But then, they contrive a new way of being Anglican, declaring that the See of Canterbury is no longer to be considered part of the Anglican Communion. This is ridiculous. Under what authority do they make such declarations? Their own, and that’s it – very American, very Protestant, very self-indulgent.
There you go – just make a declaration and it becomes true. “I’m a black, straight, woman and all of you must, must, must believe me so to be! If you don’t, then I declare that you are no longer part of the human race.”
I also recognize that a similar argument can be made by Rome concerning the whole of Anglicanism, but that is for another time and is far more complex.
Really, I think the salvaging of this Church won’t happen until this present generation has retired. The salvaging of the Anglican Communion won’t happen until this generation of leaders, generally and with exceptions, are gone. Recognize the good they did, but recognize also that the times have passed them by. As a 20-something, black, gay, fellow seminarian and Ohioan repeatedly said of this generation of leadership, “I wish they would all just retire so that we can get back to being the Church!” (I added all the personal descriptors because to those now in power who indulge in identity-politics, these kinds of personal characteristics – young, black, gay – add automatic legitimacy to anything he says and make all the difference – cynical I know, but I continue to find it to be the truth.)

I ran down through Red Hook and into Brooklyn Heights yesterday to see the new art instillation of the “waterfalls” in the East River. In a rather stark part of the dock & warehouse areas of the Brooklyn Port Authority by the air-intake tower for the Battery tunnel, I was able to get an up-close-and-personal experience of one of the water falls. The wind was blowing and the spray from the waterfall (which fell from a superstructure of steel scaffolding) came back upon the ground and pavement.
I was hot from running (and because it was just hot and humid) so initially I thought the spray felt good, but then… Where was this water coming from? Well, it was being pumped out of the East River. Then, of course, I got as far from the spray as I could. Luckily, not much of the falling water got on me – after all, who wants water from the East River socking you to the bone? Not me! (At least it doesn’t stink any more!)
I did experience a glimpse of tourist hell – a mini-van full of a family from Florida quickly drove up to the air-intake tower and the very close waterfall, pulled out their little digital camera, took a shot, and sped off. Now, they can go home and tell their friends that they saw the famous waterfalls. I suppose it is too much to ask that they at least get out of the van – I mean, with the high cost of gasoline and all. I’m being a twit, I know.
Down close to the Brooklyn Bridge there is a small park (the beginnings of a much larger park that will run the perimeter of the Brooklyn-East River shoreline) where people can get a very good view of the falls. I was able to see for of the installations. I don’t think they have the same impact as did the Gates in Central Park, but they are kind of interesting. The next thing I need to do is take my camera so that I can get some pictures so that I can make a banner for my blog so that I can show my friends that I actually saw the famous falls. At least I will walk to the site of the photos. I’m being a twit, I just know it.

I’ve posted this on my different venues, so some may find it a repeat.
Here are a couple questions that revolve around younger people – I suppose Gen Y types (teens to mid-twenties). I truly do want to hear what others thing about this, because our notions of these things will affect the future of the Church and how it is conducted (what we do and whether what we do meets the honest needs of future generations – remember, we could “get it,” but if we don’t others will):
Unlike myself and others who deal with the constant CHANGE out of necessity but have not grown up in the midst of this cultural phenomena and do not intuitively consider it the norm, the younger generation(s) do consider unrelenting change to be the intuitive-norm. It just is – just like texting just is.
1.) In an intuitively experienced world where the norm is constant change, perpetuated by the fluidity of knowledge, the speed and immediacy of communications, and in a post-modern milieu of inconsequential meta-narrative, in this kind of world is the desire for something constant becoming a whelming inner-need (whether recognized or not) within/among younger people?
2.) Is the culturally-experienced-notion-of-change spurring within us a desire for that which is tried, stable, and hearkens to something unchangeable that can be held onto for a sense of security or stability?
3.) Could this be a reason why generationally, younger folks seek out spiritual experiences that encourage and exemplify tradition, mystery, and ancientness? (Obviously knowing that not all people seek out these kinds of things, but demographically this does seem to hold true for this generation.)
4.) Could this be a sign for us as a Church to not be so quick to depend on the Baby-Boomer-generational-need to remake everything and perpetuate a constant change away from the ancient, the staid, the traditional rendering of things?
Remember, as much as Baby-Boomers rebelled against the 1950’s “Leave It To Beaver” kind of life-experience, they still benefited from the positive aspects of growing up within that kind of world. The later generations were removed more and more from those positive aspects until now we don’t know how to slow-down, be quiet, or experience a sense of serenity because of this inbred cultural compulsion to constant and every speedier change.
In a society where nothing is very stable, a seeking for and a need for something that is stable can become an incredible need for our own wellbeing. “Be still and know that I am God,” becomes in the currently-normal-life something that just may not be possible for too many people, and yet people desire to know that which is True (contra post-modernism), tried, mysterious, and stable.
5.) What is the role of the Church in all this?
I think that we have under the leadership of the Baby-boomer generation perpetuated much needed change, but the goal is not unrelenting change. I think for some the goal, whether recognized or not, has become constant change. I think we can only maintain this for so long before we sense the excess and negative results of this kind of existence. I think the younger generations are beginning to understand this, if only through a sense that “something just isn’t quite right.”
Right now, for the sake of the younger generations that may well be overwhelmed with the phenomena of unrelenting change in all areas of life, we need to stop for a bit, step-back, and evaluate what we have wrought. If we can get out of a Baby-boomer inspired anti-establishmentarianism and rebellion against that which is traditional or tries to be constant, we might see that things do need to and will change, but there also needs to be something that ties us back and secures us as we move forward in the same way that a tether holds an astronaut to the spaceship. In the exploration of space, the astronaut always comes back to the ship. Change without the benefit of wisdom born of patience, experience, and humility will not in the long run accomplish the desired effect.
6.) Could there be more to the Gen Y affinity for Rite I language, for churches that look gothic-esque (“looks like a church”), for traditional liturgies and rituals – something other than a normal and dismissive explanation of, “oh, they’re just rebelling against their parents’ way of doing things?”
7.) Could there be building within this generation an intuitive sense that unrelenting change is not benefiting the soul-of-man as some would like to believe, and that for them they see in the institution of the Church that thing which still understands and values (at least some do) and maintains a sense of the unchangable, the very True, the tether that keeps them from spinning off into “death” of whatever form?

Here is the lengthy message Bishop Pierre Whalon distributed to his convocation, Episcopal Churches throughout Europe, concerning our Anglican and Episcopalian problems of the last few years and the U.S. House of BIshops statements from last month.
This is about 9 pages long, but is well done and gives a good overview of, well, everything.
___
The Feast of John Keble, 2007
Dear sisters and brothers of the Convocation,
In the swirl of meetings and statements that have characterized this period in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, it seems good to try to take stock of the situation at present. As you know, the House of Bishops met from March 16 to 21. We had before us a draft Covenant for the provinces of the Communion. We also have a disagreement between the American Bishops and the Primates’ Meeting, as expressed in our reply to their Communiqué.
We are our past…
The present crisis has its roots well into the past, of course. One could begin the story of the missionaries of the nineteenth century, who courageously evangelized people around the world. However, they did so not in the context of the local culture, but their own. They taught the Faith as if it were unchanging and unchangeable, not only in its doctrine but also in its moral teaching. As Roland Allen pointed out in his classic book, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, the missionaries changed their supposedly fixed morality from support of slavery to opposition to slavery. And it changed again, when birth control was allowed.
Until the mid-twentieth century, almost all the bishops in the Third World were Anglo-Saxons. When finally local Christians began taking charge of their churches, their Anglican moral heritage was already ambiguous, not only with the hangover of colonialist hypocrisy itself, but with uncertainty about the foundation of moral teaching.
My predecessor here in Europe, Bishop Stephen Bayne, led in calling together an Anglican Congress in Toronto in 1963. The Congress endorsed a manifesto written by Michael Ramsey then Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other seventeen primates of the day, significantly entitled “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.” As Bishop Bayne remarked at the time, “Some will have to cease thinking of the Church as a memorial association for a deceased clergyman called Christ.” Indeed. The new energy for mission that this manifesto unleashed led to the doubling of the numbers of the Communion within forty years, from forty million to eighty, and growing from eighteen provinces to the thirty-eight we have today.
As time has gone on, the extraordinary growth of the Communion is the cause of some chaos, as the First World culture in which the missionaries encased the Gospel has itself continued to evolve, while the Third World has progressively sought to “inculturate” the Good News. In other words, they have begun to re-think the Faith in terms of their own local cultures, which are not by any means homogeneous. Among other issues to face has been the ambiguity of moral teaching, apparently immutable unless “the whites” decide to change it.

Continue reading →

I like this cartoon.

From the CartoonChurch webiste

I am ambivilent about Pink, but I’ve kind of watched her and listen to hear over the last few years and I must say that I think there is something there. I’ve heard her speak – I think there is an authenticity to her. She’s smart, and not just smart at marketing herself.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a ragging liberal, by a long shot, although… While I do not necessarily agree with some of what she sings, I do agree with the questions she asks and what we, and I me we because we are the ones who elected this man and his government, should be focusing on as a people – particularly those of us who claim Christ.
Anyway, here is a video entitled “Dear Mr. President:”

via: Elizabeth Kaeton’s weblog Telling Secrets