My aunt died suddenly, yesterday. I grew up with these people – my aunt, uncle, and cousin. My parents called early yesterday morning to tell me that around 1:30 am my aunt woke up my uncle complaining that she couldn’t breath. My uncle took her into the living room, where she passed out. He performed CPR on her and called 911. She arrived at the hospital around 25 minutes later – she was put on life-support. It was confirmed later yesterday that she was brain-dead, probably from a blood clot in her lungs. Last year, she successfully fought breast cancer, only to die so suddenly, so quickly, before anyone could say goodbye. I’m sure within the immediate family, all the necessary talking happened last year when the possibility of her death from breast cancer was thick.
Things can change so quickly. I’m flying home today for visit before classes start up again in a couple weeks. I have no idea what is going to be happening this coming week. Life goes on, and part of life is death, and if I truly believe what I claim to believe, then she is better off now then yesterday. For those who love her, however, the struggle in the midst of life, this kind of struggle, is just beginning.
comments? e-mail me

Just a casual observation: Over the past month or so, it seems the dogs on the streets of New York City have determined to follow their own desires, path, ways, rather than those of their owners. Watching people walk their dogs on leashes has become comical because the owners are pulling and cajoling their dogs to go this way or that, and the dogs are steadfastly refusing. This is even more comical when the dogs are large and the owners are slight. To see a person pulling and pulling a dog, calling “here boy, here boy” all the while the dog is sitting down and still and moving not an inch is amusing. Maybe I am more cognizant of all that right now, but it sure does seem to be happening more often. Who knows? Who knew? Who cares? Well, the owners certainly do!
comments? e-mail me

One of the primary accusations from those who oppose homosexuality in the Church (conservatives) of those who advocate for full inclusion (liberals), is that liberals have abandoned scripture, since according to most conservatives scripture could not be clearer that homosexuality is wrong. I simply do not understand why liberals do not challenge the accusation in a more forceful way. There are valid arguments that the five or six verses and portions of scripture used to condemn homosexuals have not been correctly understood by the Church, even if for 2000 years (actually the argument is only several decades old!). Arguments from natural law, the complementary nature between men and women, the purpose of marriage is for the rearing of children, the example from nature, the plumbing, the ‘dysfunction’ of the gay ‘lifestyle’, and so forth are easily countered.
I fear that the liberals do not because they may not consider scripture an important enough source of truth and order to make the rebuttal. If this is true, which I suspect it is, then the conservatives accusation that the liberals have abandoned scripture as authoritative is true. This disturbs me. I know though this instance that I am not a liberal, at least as is being portrayed by self-proclaimed liberals within the Church.
If there is not a valid scriptural basis for inclusion of homosexuals in the full life of the Church and society, even in light of tradition and reason, then the argument for inclusion, from a Christian perspective, is on shaky ground. The positions need to be made from scripture, which is possible.
comments? e-mail me

Well, the deed is done. Gene Robinson has been confirmed the new Bishop of New Hampshire. There is great sadness and anger among so many, despite the increadible joy of others. There is a difference between the two, in many ways.
There are those who truly have an honest theological position against homosexuals serving in the clergy, at least if not celibate. There are those who understand, rightly, that the action that will cause great division and dissension between Anglicans. The Communion will dissolve into – I don’t know what yet. These people are profoundly sad, with anger, too. I feel for them because they honestly don稚 desire harm to anyone.
Then, there are those who are simply furious. While their concern is the purity of the Church, maintenance of theological purity, and demand that the American Church submits to the will of the larger worldwide communion, it all finges on their particular bent of thought and feeling. Many of these people are overwhelmed with political considerations, or maybe how their positions will reign supreme through the political process, since their warnings and attempts at persuasion have failed. They have not been able to persuade the American church (from the perspective of the majority at Convention) that a homosexual is not fit to be priest or bishop, or that homosexuals should not have their unions blessed. This group will reject Anglican comprehensiveness. This group claims the American church has separated itself from communion with the worldwide Anglican Communion by the election of an openly-gay bishop. Their position rests on their demand that the Church submit to its opinions and beliefs, excluding all those who have a legitimate theological positions supporting inclusion of homosexuals in the full life of the church. They claim that their position and theological bent is God’s. It seems this is contrary to the Anglican way.
We just have to wait through this day to see the fallout. At times, I am just amazed that the arguments are so lacking in understanding of history � most recently, the very similar accusations of departing from the faith handed down to us, tradition, and clear biblical teaching when women were ordained priests and then bishops. There are so many examples of this type of thing happening throughout history – groups leaving in self-righteous flurry, and the church continuing. The claim is that God has spoken through Lambeth and the recent Primates meeting in Brazil, and certainly not through General Convention. The Holy Spirit has not spoken through General Convention with the election of a gay bishop because the outcome does not agree with their position, which they know is Godç—´ position.
comments? e-mail me

I ran into a new seminarian this past Friday. I think I saw another one moving in today. I moved to NYC last year on August 17th. It seems so odd that new people are now making their way to General and having some of the very same feelings I had then. I find it very hard to believe a year has transpired. Where did it go?
I remember towards the end of August last year saying to myself, “I will be sitting somewhere thinking how quickly a year passed. This year is going to go far more quickly than I can expect.” So then, here I am, and it has! Yea verily, as Leighton would say, this whole experience will soon be over.
Ashton came with me to Ascension today and stayed for both services. He heard my homily at 9:00 and saw me doin’ the stuff at 11:00. Man were the vestments horribly, horribly hot in this humid whether. He said I did well.
comments? e-mail me

Now, this is an interesting finding! Doctors: Pedophile ‘Cured’ After Surgery
comments? e-mail me

I just read this from The Anglican Digest. I am thinking it may be one of those small items that change a basic perception of things! It was written in 1991 by The Very Rev. George Back, then Dean (and maybe still?) of St. Paul’s Cathedral in Oklahoma City. It was reprinted by The Anglican Digest in light of what we are going through right now.

Conservatives? Liberals?
"I have heard rumors that conflicts between conservatives and liberals are tearing the Church apart. Don't believe it
"Few of these people exist. I have had letters and phone calls from some who claim to be one or the other. As far as I can tell, they are impostors. Of course, I can only judge from their behavior.
"If the Church had many conservatives, the buildings would be packed on Sundays as they keep the Sabbath holy. Our Church would have money since they would tithe 10% of their income. Our Church life would be glorious as they would undertake all the traditional Sunday School, retreat, and holy day obligations. An authentic personal morality would be exemplified in their holy lifestyles.
"If the Church had many liberals, they would be enthusiastically including people all the time. The Church would grow as they reached out to the poor and the isolated in various ministries. Our service ministries would be overwhelmed with volunteers and resources. An authentic social conscience would be exemplified in the compassionate lifestyles.
"Judging only by behavior, the Church has too few religious conservatives and religious liberals. God bless the ones we have; they are doing wonderful work.
"Then where is the problem? There are numerous anti-conservatives and anti-liberals . These are people who compare their particular ideology with other's actual behavior. Their convenient posture enables them to be both righteous and removed at the same time.
"Both know that others need to change their bad habits. The sins, failures, hypocrisy, and mediocrity of these others provide a good reason not to attend worship and not to give money and not to serve energetically and not to love affectionately in the Lord's name.
"Religion is behavior, not theology. To worship God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength is not an idea, it is a practice. To love oneç—´ neighbor as an 'idea' is an illusion. Love must take up space and time; it costs lots of money and much energy.
"Church is a place for religious behavior, where one worships God and serves God's children. It is large enough to include true religious conservatives and true religious liberals, since they only emphasize one or the other aspect of religion.
"The Church will never be at peace until the commitment to God and the Gospel of our Lord take priority over any personal warp to some left or right ideas. People who have a primary commitment to their own opinions and a secondary interest in religion always threaten to destroy the Church.
"What good reason and right opinion do you have to excuse yourself from the costly practice of true religion?" (emphasis mine).

Well said, I think.
comments? e-mail me

Two days until the General Convention and a possible rift, a serious rift, in the worldwide Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality – particularly in the U.S. over the approval by the Convention of the recent election of a new bishop of New Hampshire, who is openly gay and living with a long-time partner. As Barrie said yesterday, “be rest assured, regardless of what you hear, this is not the first gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He is just honest about it.” Or, of the approval of the beginning stages of writing a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions.
As I said yesterday at Ascension, this whole affair is causing me a great deal of distress. I came to the Episcopal Church, really Anglicanism, because there was an allowance for a wide variety of often divergent opinions within the communion, yet everyone stayed together despite the rough and tumble world the allowance caused within the different Church provinces, dioceses, and parishes. The debate and argument brought balance. In my opinion, it brings about better theology and practice. There is less the attitude of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist side of the Church to say, “my way or the highway.” So, now, over this issue, I see the Communion fraying. The conservatives are threatening to leave, to break communion, to cause schism. I understand fully that there are times when we have to draw lines in the sand. What causes me concern, and adds to my distress, is not so much the issue-of-the-day, which is homosexuality today, but the way we are going about dealing with our differences – the process of drawing lines in the sand. I think the conservatives within Anglicanism have been far too influenced by the Evangelical/Fundamentalist churches which have no problem whatsoever in splitting up, making accusation, and attempting to decide who is in and who is out of the Family of God.
So, here is the line in the sand for Anglican conservatives – homosexuality. It was women’s ordination in the ’70’s. It will be something else during the next decade. The issues are not the problem, because there will always be issues, but how the differences of opinion concerning those issues are dealt with is the problem. The way this issue is being dealt with now, worldwide and in this province/country, is not the Anglican way. It is the way of the world and the way of the wayward Church, which thinks that one part can say to another part, “I have no need of you.” Of course, Jesus and Paul said a lot about that, did they not?
comments? e-mail me