I am at the point where I can notice things going on around me once again. I’m about over the not-really-but-almost panicky feeling (mild anxiety) one gets when everything is unfamiliar and takes twice the time to accomplish and you have to rush to catch the train or subway or a parking space where the car doesn’t have to be moved for another 5 days!
There is this rather large woman I’ve seen walking her dog the last four days straight. She always wears black, and although it looks like the same clothing I certainly hope it is not. I said hello to her yesterday morning while I marched to the subway – sweating. She grunted I think – perhaps attempting to say something, then clearing her throat as I marched on. The funny thing is, her dog matches her. He is a very chocolaty colored lab (I think) and very over weight. They both lumber along down the street as he does his business. Now, I’ve seen men and their dogs and marvel at how they truly do look alike, but this is the first time I’ve seen such a striking resemblance between a woman and her dog.
Walking home from the subway this evening – a bit cooler than the last few days – I saw a thin-ish, artsy kind-of-guy coming out of his apartment just ahead of me. He had a ponytail and loose tank-top, and he reminded me of my friend John. (I was John’s best man and because I am pathetically lazy at keeping-up with friends I want to stay in contact with, I haven’t spoken to John in a very long time.) Anyway, this man had a bundle of laundry on his shoulder and his young son in tow. This happens 1,000 times a moment, I’m sure, but I was privileged to see it: as the man walked between parked cars heading for the other side of the street with his son quickly trailing behind, his son reached for his shirt to grab hold of him. He tried a couple times before finely getting a fistful of shirt to hung onto. Halfway across the street, the man reached down and took hold of his son’s hand, effortlessly, quickly, instinctively. No words passed between them, just the deep familiarity of son and father. For me, today, it was simply a very touching moment in time – something done so unthinkingly to be so common and yet so touching.
I’ve been in my current neighborhood, Park Slope in Brooklyn, for a month now. I say ‘current’ because this is just another in a string of places I’ve had to live and will be living for over a year and a half. Being ‘homeless’ for over a year has taken its toll, but I can’t claim that moniker – while it is true that I have been living out of boxes because I haven’t had a place of my own, the reality is that I have stayed in some very nice places. On the Close for two months after graduation, Llewellyn Park in West Orange, NJ for 10 months, to name two, and now in Park Slope.
It’s the same with being Cherokee – I am and can claim the designation, but I will not because I have not lived as one, I have not had the hardships, I do not have the awareness, and it would be very hypocritical and unjust of me to try to claim such an identity. Come November, Lord willing, I will finally be in my own place at St. Andrew’s House in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, where a SINGLE FLOOR apartment of a newly renovated brownstone is going for something like $1.6 million.
In this neighborhood, Park Slope, I live in an incredible townhouse on 6th Ave. owned by a couple from St. Paul’s. They are letting me stay here rent-free (except for next week, when I need to move all my stuff once again into the rectory while the rector is on vacation, which he took at this time because he knew I needed a place to stay and felt sorry for me). They are great, but I’m tired of it all. The neighborhood is great – just two blocks from Prospect Park with lots of great restaurants and interesting people to watch. I just want to be in a place I can honestly hand my hat, but I feel a bit guilty when I complain because I see around me those who are truly homeless and without resources. I have been provided for, God has been gracious with me.
Reform of the Reform
I came across a website/blog dedicated to a “reform of the reform” within Roman Catholicism called “The New Liturgical Movement“. It seems interesting and confirms what I’ve been hearing on many fronts that there is a renewed interest, particularly among younger laity and clergy within the Church of Rome (and within Anglicanism), to re-examine much of the Liturgical Renewal Movement and return to some of the more traditional rituals and piety – the disciple, splendor and beauty of worship rendered unto a glorious and mysterious God.
Considering that I’m now serving as Curate in a “non-fussy, Rite I, Anglo-Catholic” parish (the legacy of the Oxford Movement) with increasing numbers of young people, I think they may be onto something! Of course, we in “High Church” Anglicanism have known this for some time now! 🙂 (To be honest, I’m a relative new-comer, but I’m being trained well!)
I came across this particular website/blog via “Dappled Things” – a blog/website by a Gen-X Roman priest. I’ve been visiting his blog periodically for a while now – interesting guy.
Here is a couple paragraphs of a post on “The New Liturgical Movement” blog:
Two titles relating to the revival of Ritual in Anglican Britain
The scenario faced by the figures of the Oxford Movement presents a remarkable parallel, liturgically speaking, in the case of the Catholic Church today.
We face a variety of variants, with some parishes being liturgically more traditional (in Anglican parlance, “High” or “AngloCatholic”) and then some being more “low” in nature — that is, less traditional, less elaborate in its ceremonial, less ornamented generally. Of course, there is also the matter of theology. In the case of Anglicanism of course, these distinctions were far more hard and fast; in Catholicism, by contrast, it really comes down to what is legitimate liberty and what is simply dissent as compared to Catholic orthodoxy. That is a big difference of course.
Still, the liturgical parallels are interesting. Those Catholics with a keen sense of the need to “reform the reform” or preserve the classical liturgical forms face opposition and a “liturgically low” mentality from a number of quarters, be they some bishops, priests, or laity.
As such, I think it can be interesting to study the approach, trials and tribulations (not to mention the successes) of the likes of the Oxford Movement and Anglican Ritualists, as well as the Cambridge Camden Society who sought to restore an architecture suited toward Catholic liturgics.
In that vein, I wanted to share a couple of interesting titles with you.
The books he recommends are:
+ Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain 1830-1910 by Prof. Nigel Yates.
+ A Church As It Should Be edited by Christopher Webster and John Elliott
FrJake Comments
Fr. Jake comments about this new breed of people who refer to themselves as “conservatives,” yet hardly demonstrate the traditional definition of “conservative” by their actions. He references and posts a short essay by Teresa Mathes, wife of the Bishop of San Diego, who writes of her own experience being raised by true Episcopalian conservatives. She, too, suggests that what we see going on within our Church is not really traditional Anglican conservatism.
Islamic Imperialism
An interesting review of a new book entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at the University of London.
Click here to read the review.
On the other hand…
Read the previous post first. Ultimately, for me the issue and/or question deals with Christian mission and witness…
On the other hand, here is another quote from the Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) essay:
Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.†One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.†The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance—you might call it harassment—than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft†coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree with this! I cannot help but believe that those who do have a considered opposition to gay marriage have a right to make their points of view known. This is not an issue, for me, of an attempt to deny someone their right of free speech. I uphold the right of people in their work-place or in the public-arena to advocate for their position. But, this does not mean that their speech will be consequence free. What I appose is the misuse of data or the spinning of information disingenuously or dishonestly to support or promote one’s position. As difficult, frustrating, and repugnant as it may be, I do support the right of even white supremacists, for example, to advocate their position.
The problem I see, and I know this from experience, is that if the culture-war, politicized Religious Right groups like FoF have their way, they will not allow such a wide berth for the freedom of speech. They would ban books from libraries that portrayed positively gay relationships. They’ve already championed this position in libraries across the country, and in some places have won the removal of books. They would not defend the right of gay advocates to present their positions equally alongside anti-gay positions. They would not allow this kind of free speech because they believe that advocating such positions is contrary to the will of God, plain and simply.
In addition, I am in opposition to the way the FoF and like groups are dealing with the issue of homosexuality in our culture because of the impact it has on a predominately post-Christian populace. The data they use to support their positions can fairly easily be disproved. The spin they place on other people’s/groups’ studies to support their positions can be easily repudiated. This type of twisting of information and the bearing of false witness against a whole class of people will only bring reproach and disgrace to all of Christianity and the cause of Christ. Advocate your position, but do it honestly and forthrightly! If we are to love our neighbor, how else can be proceed?
Consistency, principle, and our speaking to the culture
I read an essay this morning from Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) concerning the effect a marriage between ‘Adam and Steve’ will have on society. The essay comments on Catholic Charities pulling out of adoption and foster care placement in Massachusetts because state law forbids state-sanctioned organizations from discriminating against a list of people groups, and same-sex orientation is on the list.
Because Catholic Charities will no longer provide such services as a result of their determination that homosexuals are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and cannot provide a good environment for raising children, FoF says that this is a perfect example of the damage same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws covering homosexuals will have on society. It is a broad accusation. I think it is more spin than anything, and I don’t agree.
Here is an excerpt from the essay:
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?”
You can read the entire essay here.
Realize, the Massachusetts courts or legislature did not forbid Catholic Charities from functioning in the state; they simply said that discrimination will not be tolerated among those entities that the state oversees.
Are the politicized Religious-Right organizations, like FoF, willing to be consistent in the application of their beliefs and with the ‘stuff’ they use to justify their beliefs? From my experience and observation, no they will not.
I agree, with reservations, with Lieutenant Gov. Kerry Healey, Republican candidate for governor in the coming fall elections, who said, “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state, and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important.†(Quoted in Focus on the Family Citizen, from the Boston Globe, March 2)
The solution in a democratic society, of course, is to petition the state for relief, which Catholic Charities has done. The state has not acted as of yet, but Catholic Charities realizes it must live within a democratic system and if it cannot support or function under the laws of the state then it must cease operations. They are willing to pay the price under this system of governance and laws. I actually do respect Catholic Charities’ decision – they are taking a principled stand regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I absolutely do not accept FoF’s spin on the situation. It is a shame all the way around, but the fault does not rest with homosexuals, as FoF claims.
FoF and other culture-war religious organizations say that they, as religious institutions, are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that they do not have to obey amendments or laws – national or state – that conflict with their beliefs. In this insistence, because they have a theoretical belief or biblical interpretive structure that claims homosexuals to be ‘intrinsically disordered,’ sinful and naturally dangerous to children, they claim the right to disobey laws and constitutions without consequence. So, on the pretext of religious freedom they claim the right to discriminate against homosexual families. (Of course, they would demand that homosexuals cannot have ‘families’ to begin with.)
Will they be consistent on the pretext of religious freedom, then, to demand that the Christian Identity Movement or the World Church of the Creator (the white supremacist group), have the same constitutional right to discriminate against Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or anyone who is not a white “Arian?” No, they will not. If they did, then what effect would non-discrimination laws have at all?
They claim that such a question is inappropriate because being homosexual is of a whole different order than an ethnic or racial identity. Homosexuality is purely and only a choice of behavior – heterosexual people who engage in same-gender sex acts. It is not the same as an unchangeable characteristic like ethnicity or race, they demand. The evidence is mounting against such a belief and homosexuals know it to be untrue of them selves, but it does not matter. The Religious Right groups are not interested in what reliable, verifiable, or appropriate-to-the-question studies show to be objectively true when the results differ from their already determined subjective ‘truth,’ or what personal experience witnesses to. They also readily misuse studies to attempt to prove their point – the Spitzer study is an example where they claim Spitzer’s study proves that a homosexual orientation can be change into a heterosexual one. (Go here for a decent overview of the Spitzer controversy.)
This leads to my next question concerning consistency – the use, interpretation, and application of ‘studies’ and the assertion of ‘facts.’
Are groups like FoF willing to be consistent in the use of a set of criteria to judge the reliability, verifiability, or appropriateness of any particular study that is claimed to address the question at hand? No, they are not. They reject out-of-hand any study that does not presumably support their already determined positions. They will not be consistent in reviewing studies that may disagree with their conclusions.
These are generalizations, of course, and I do believe that there are people who can have a principled stand on these issues, but groups like FoF tend not to. And, there are liberal groups that tend to do the very same thing concerning their own issues and presuppositions. All of this, however, only harms the claims of Christ’s Church as it attempts to engage the prevailing culture. If it is too easy to disprove the claims of Christians by generally accepted sources, how can the Church have any credibility when it does attempt to appropriately speak to the culture on important issues?
Practical Orthodoxy
From The Very Rev. Alan Jones’ book, Common Prayer on Common Ground, on Anglican orthodoxy:
“Salvation isn’t the ultimate reward fro believing abstract doctrines. Salvation is experienced through grace as our lives are ‘converted,’ and conversion is an ongoing process. Doctrine is practical. It has to do with practice, with what the tradition calls ‘the experimental knowledge of God.’
“To be truly orthodox, doctrine must have an impact on the moral life. I remember some years ago a man screaming at the philosopher Jacob Needleman that to be a Christian you had to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Needleman took the wind out of the young man’s sails and said, ‘Yes, you do. Now tell me, what does it mean? Tell me what difference it makes!’ The young man had nothing to say. An elderly retired priest angrily thundered at me: ‘Do you believe in the homoousian?’ (this is the doctrine that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father). I said, ‘Yes, I do, but the more important question is why don’t you love me?”
Hot, it is!
This morning at 7:00 am when I left to catch the subway, it was 84 degrees Fahrenheit and the humidity was high. I know it is much hotter in other places and the humidity is worse, too, but I’m not there nor would I want to live there. The equatorial regions of the planet may be spectacular in places, but I’m sure the people already living in those areas don’t need one more person’s body-heat adding to the already stifling conditions.
Last night when I went to get something to eat, I was surprised to see so few people on the street – so strange for an otherwise beautiful evening. I guess people just stayed indoors, and they were smart to do so. Today, there is an expectation that the actual temperature will reach 104 degrees. That’s hot, no matter where you are.
Mars
Is this true????
MARS; A SPECTACULAR SIGHT !
Mars – The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!
This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter’s gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again.
The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power magnification
Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10.pm. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.
By the end of August when the two planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That’s pretty convenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month.
NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN
No religious preference…
A new study from the American Sociological Association reports on the dramatic rise in the population reporting “no religious preference” over the past decade or so. One primary reason, they posit, is the rise in the intertwining of religion and politics – people simply are turned off by it all and end up disengaging in organized religion or not becoming involved in the first place. Most of this group considering themselves “spiritual” (even believing in a traditional Christianity) rather than being “religious” and part of a Christian church.
Once again, I have been saying for a long time that I believe a reason for the demise of the U.S. mainline denominations, our own Episcopal Church included, is the intertwining of liberal politics and liberal theology. Each ‘system’ – political or theological – on its own has an integrity and strength and each can contribute to the understanding of the other, but when one is equated with the other both fail to live up to their potential. “Theo-politics†just doesn’t cut it, and in my opinion is an affront to the cause of the Gospel. The same can be said for conservatism, and the same dynamic is being witnessed even now.
Since the 1980’s another whole segment of American Christianity has become increasingly political and polarizing. This time, the politicized Religious Right has succeeded in enmeshing conservative politics and conservative theology within American Evangelicalism (and somewhat within Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc). I believe we will witness soon an exodus from American Evangelical denominations that have aligned themselves too closely with conservative political causes. Where these people will go, I have no idea. Perhaps to the increasing numbers of Americans who claim “no religious preference?â€
Here is a paragraph from the study report:
Hout and Fischer maintain that one important reason for this change in religion preference is political. Specifically, their study found a link between having no religion and rejecting clerical activism, which supports their hypothesis that during the 1990s, having a religious identity increasingly became seen as an endorsement of conservative views. Hout and Fischer found that many liberal and moderate Americans felt that religion became distressingly politicized in the 1990s. As to the role of secularization (i.e., skepticism), the researchers did not find this to be a cause of the increase in “no religion,” because most “no religion” responders maintain religious faith, a belief in God, and a belief in life after death.