conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

I came to the same conclusion early on (when I was there). I'm glad (? um, no, not glad, well. . . whatever I am) to see it wasn't just my general crankiness.

Maybe they should be retired and rethought?

Rethought. Maybe?

I think people work hard with what we have and maybe there is no better tool. It is certainly an issue of the tool and not the people who implememt it. But I just do not know what to do about it. This is a sad thing. I want it to work, but, well, it just don't.

To a very large degree I happen to agree (the rhyme was unintentional, Jane). I never said much while I was a Seabury student because I got the message pretty quickly: To criticize the community forum is to be politically incorrect. So I was just quiet.

Some of them were quite good, as I got to hear things in a new way, or hear things that I might not ever have heard in any other setting. Most of them seemed to me like, "Hey, let's tackle racism over lunch!" I almost always went, and stayed open to bringing something out with me. Again though, that happened only a couple of times.

The other reason I kept quiet is because I didn't have a better idea for how to approach some of these community issues. I, like Tripp, am not sure there is one... But I sense there must be.

I also want to add that I did sometimes come away with the feeling of: "Gee, I'm glad we got that out in the open, glad we can move past it now." That always left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak.

Community Forums . . . hmmm. Some are better than others. I thought the one we had on homosexuality our first year ('01) was pretty good, as well as the one on the military (was that last year??). I don't remember any others.

Maybe if CF wasn't a planned quarterly activity that might help. The way it is now, these are supposed to happen once a quarter. Maybe it should be an issue-based system whereas anyone can call a CF and work with that steering committee to see that it gets put together.

Or maybe I should just graduate and let someone else worry about it.

see, my biggest issue is that we haven't talked about community yet. i actually had an idea for how to structure a discussion about community for the first quarter community forum. i envisioned us breaking into groups (mixed by years) and discussion what this community 1. is (and what it can provide to us) and 2. is not (what may have to be sought in other venues). then, we would return to the whole group and share the lists (not just make a prayer out of them). i also thought that it might take longer than 2 hours - to do the small group and large group work and to make sure there was Eucharist and lunch. i don't feel that all the people in the room agree on what the Seabury community is, but i think that an honest discuss about it in the first 3 weeks could help the transition into the next year. i thought if we could start with some general understandings or thoughts, that we might have a platform on which to build community. not, me thinking i know what this community is and building my own separate from someone else's.

i was told that the community forum for our middler year had already been planned and i didn't need to worry about doing it. if you remember, we never did have one the fall of our middler year...

yet, i feel that this very issue is the one that was brought up today as a tangential and underlying issue to the discussion (that i named during the discussion afterwards).

so - there's my rambling on community forums. what is the seabury community?

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks its bogus. It seems there are enough dissatisfied people that a halting and rethinking is not entirely implausible. Mark J said that to criticize the CF at Seabury was politically incorrect, and I can understand that...but, maybe its time we stop worrying so much about PC-ness and start working towards an end that actually accomplishes something, besides getting people frustrated.

-R

So, here's my two cents:

1. I was involved today, as a panel member, at the request of those who put the forum together. As such, I tried to hold up my end of the bargain, to participate to the best of my ability; and I think I did that. However, I'm not so invested in any perceived "success" of the forum, thankfully, that I am inclined to take criticism of it personally. Nor do I think criticizing the concept is politically incorrect. At least, I'm willing to do so, and don't particularly have a concern about reprisal.

2. Tripp, you're right. As much as we might like to believe it, there is no way that any of the things we talk about in these community forums are going to get solved in an hour.

3. You're right again (that's two!). Today's effort was not structured especially well, nor was the intent of the effort made as clear as it should have been. Lots of room for improvement.

But you know what? Trying is better than not trying. Talking is better than not talking. And even if we don't get rid of the elephants, attempting to identify them, or at least to find ways to begin (the possible opportunity for that being the reason I agreed to participate today) is better than continuing to tiptoe around them.

So... it's bogus. Okay, fine. I'm all for rethinking, or restructuring, or simply scrapping and starting over. Let's hear the alternatives. Heather offers one. Todd chimed in a bit. Anyone else?

I agree with Jane that trying is better than not trying, even if we aren't always so sucessful. I actually thought today's was quite sucessful for the most part - I somehow was more clued in to the idea that we were discussing a method more than a topic. Clearly, expectations are at issue here :) Until we've defined what the point is though, I just don't see how we can deem it a "bogus" tool. A hammer won't do you much good if you're trying to cut a board in half, you know?

And, to answer Todd's concern about these being "scheduled", that isn't the case anymore. There is no CF committee this year. The two we have had happened because two separate groups (worship commitee and Epiphany) decided that there were things that the community should talk about as a large group. So, they happened exactly as you sugget- an issue-driven system where anyone could call a CF. Yet, there has been *more* complaining about them this year then there were (in my recollection) about last year's.

I think an actual group who planned these would be more useful, not less. I think if there was some sort of established pattern - always do small groups, always have a panel, always wear green, whatever- and a group whose job it was to think through the "why and why nots" of CF, like Heather talks about, there would be some kind of coherency, and a possiblity for follow-up on discussions. Kind of like the one we're having here...

I don't expect that these forums will "solve" anything, so I'm not particularly disappointed that they do. What bothers me is that they are done liturgically. The mass is hijacked into something else, and it always suffers.

Dave, I'm not sure I agree with you. Whether or not you agree that CF's are good or bad, done well or poorly, are misguided or not, I think that centering them around a eucharist keeps us focused on the fact that we are indeed the body of Christ and that, regardless of individual points of view, we still have that in common. Otherwise, it might as well be a town meeting bitch session.

I agree re: keeping it centered in prayer and Eucharist. At some point in my seminary journey I realized that if you want to place emphasis on an issue, topic, concern, or whatever, work it into the liturgy somehow. The Eucharist is so central to what we do that if you bring something into it, it gets raised up almost by default. Sometimes this is as simple as a sermon or putting it in the Prayers of the People.

Wow. Cool discussion.

Just to be clear, let me quote myself! "I know what it is supposed to accomplish: the beginning of a public dialogue about a difficult topic that may not be spoken without such a tool. Okay. Fine. This is admirable."

I personally get frustrated in that the conversations do not have a forum beyond that. I know that seminaries are not by their nature places where solutions to difficult are discovered. However, that they are addressed is essential. I fret about how well the forums do this. I know that they are intended to do this, but I am not sure that they succede.

What I suggest...(duck now)

1. Keep it liturgical and put the forum in the place of the sermon. Haven't we done that before? Let the mass hijak the issue at hand. that what it is supposed to do anyway.

2. Somehow professors/leadership could help foster an atmosphere of dialogue and debate where we would not be afraid to speak our minds. I know. This is utopian to be certain, but as it stands, we have not done a stellar job of this in all corners.

3. A committee is the way to go, I think, if we want these forums to be regular occurances. Otherwise, I think we are human and thus inclined to bitch or sweep things under a rug in lieu of planing our own forums(There is your depravity, Dave!).

4. An established pattern may also be good...it may add an air of safety. You know? Stability is a good thing. Wearing green, per Susie's suggestion, may not fly in all liturgical seasons.

5. Establish small group conversations outside of the forum. Yes, I know we are all busy, but they do not have to be Events, just colloquies. Maybe Wednesday at the high table we can gather to continue the conversation after the Tuesday forum?

These are just some thoughts.

Some good thoughts, Tripp. I like #5, offering the ability for further discussion after the event is over. I especially like #2 since my experience has been that professors don't always honor/respect conservative points of view and thereby contribute to the LACK of inclusivity and acceptance that SWTS espouses.

I think you are right, Todd. And I think some would be surprised to hear that. And I think we students have to recall that we have a very big hand in that dynamic. We were not called Meddlers last year for no reason, you know.

We are empowered, brother. Hell is getting what you ask for! Ha!

May I respectfully enter the conversation here?

I think that it is downright dangerous for Seabury to continually posit itself as a place that is open and accepting of all, because that is an untenable position. It is open and accepting of all who are willing to go along with the choices that the community has already affirmed. I think that acceptance of diversity is a beautiful ideal, but an impracticable reality, because in reality, we want OUR own choices, OUR own lives to be affirmed. And there will inevitably be conflicts between us here, because we choose to affirm different things with our lives. For example, it has been observed in this conversation that Seabury affirms that dialogue on difficult issues is imperative and that CFs are a way to start this dialogue. In addition, I've discovered that Seabury affirms that ILEAP is the best (could I go so far as to say ONLY?) way to address racism and is not open to other approaches. Seabury affirms that a staged conflict is an appropriate way to inculcate new students into Seabury culture at orientation. Questioning these affirmations is not only not well received, it results in more pressure to accept those affirmations in the name of proper "formation."

Ascribing to the myth of a radical acceptance is a good thing, as long as we recognize it as an ideal. I think this ideal belongs in our preaching, teaching, and striving, but pushing it as a reality is destructive to communities, because it is at heart, unattainable on earth (hence, the myth). Seabury has plenty of "sacred cows," but when these are not openly labeled as such and a community member stumbles upon one and receives the censure of the greater body, that community member is intensely frustrated. Then, as far as I can tell, that person eventually explodes with this frustration, and it presents itself as an unbelievably strong "culture of complaint" (a culture in which, you might argue, I am participating right now!) or a complete withdrawal from the community. We saw the culture of complaint rear its head during the "reflection" portion of the CF, and we see it in many of our classes and at worship reviews.

I do not see Seabury owning and accepting its own preferences. I see Seabury clouding these preferences in diversity language. Maybe that is the nature of communities like this, so perhaps it is inevitable and unavoidable, but I myself am reluctant to offer my talents in a place where no one is willing to tell me what the rules are because the rule is that "we're accepting of everyone." As the Simpson's parade says: Hooray for Everything! Ahem! Ahem, sure . . .

The best d*mn idea I've read all year is Heather's idea to have a community forum about what we are and what we are not. *That* might just be something I could get invested in. Especially if it would help the incoming students pick up the fragments from the bombs that get dropped on them at orientation.

I am saddened by watching my classmates cope with Seabury. The ones who are the most mentally healthy seem to be the ones who have retreated into their own small "sub-communities" and are guarded within the larger body. I can't buy into the argument that "at least we tried," when I have observed for three quarters, attempts that have inflicted pain and caused people to withdraw from this community.

Wow, I have no idea why I have felt comfortable enough to post all of this, I guess because I've come to know each of you through your blogs as good people who are going to make great ministers, and I want to know what you think. Now, I'd better hit "post" before I chicken out . . .

Michelle, you did more than enter the conversation. Ha! That was great.

"Untenable position" is the only thing I might takes issue with. I think you are right but I still think we eed to try. I have this real problem with fundamentalism. And I think that Seabury runs the risk of being a fudamentalist community. It is liberal fundametalist, but possibly fundmentalist.

Do you think I am over-stating the reality?

I think, if we are to follow Heather's idea, we also have to figure out what "dialogue" means. I am not yet convinced that we know. This is not limited to the SWTS community either. Our cultural ideal of public dialogue may need to be challenged.

What then is a biblical (traditional) definition of dialogue? What does it mean to be a covenant community? Is SWTS a covenant community? It should be. There is a baptismal covenant, no? What does it say about dialogue? Does it have "radical acceptance" within it? Is this radical acceptance a hermeneutical subtext?

Tripp,

Yes, I absolutely agree about the risk of becoming a fundamentalist community. In a few respects, we are probably already there!

And I've been there for a while on challenging the idea of "dialogue." We often use it as shorthand for "getting to know enough about you so that I can place you within my own system of thought."

As for "radical acceptance," can you tell me a little more about what you mean by "hermeneutical subtext?" I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure.

Yes, Tripp, please do explain hermeneutical subtext. My senior brain is rebelling at any word with more than three syllables.

And I think Michelle makes a good point in saying that SWTS should think about advertising itself as "accepting of gays & lesbians," rather than as "open and inclusive." The former seems to be a more honest statement.

Michelle and Todd, the idea of radical acceptance and the hermeneutical subtext are the same...

On the surface we say one thing: that we have an open interpretive ethic in which all dialogue partners are welcome. The reality is that there is a predominant interpretive ethic...a subtext to all dialogue and interpretation that is not all that open nor affirming.

Not that I think this makes SWTS particularly unusual, but it is not what it says it is. The subtext is that we are to the left, fundamentally. Aything else is not welcome. Think this is because we come so wounded and are looking for a ground to stand on. Thus, we defend our small outpost with all we got.

This is not always the best thing.

Colleagues, I’m not comfortable with community forums either, for many of the reasons you’ve already stipulated. I think that one more element in the situation that you’ve all already sketched derives from an ideological problem involving “equality” and “leadership.”

For instance, Seabury seems to emphasize the rightful authority of all the members of the Body — a commendable premise — but that authority gets exercised only within certain restricted bounds, and some unacknowledged determinations regulate, strictly, what may be done, said, proposed, realized, and even (to a certain extent) taught and learned. I’ll probably write more about this over at my place, but one angle impresses me more forcefully and clearly as I have spent longer and longer here: in order to learn how the all the members of the Body prosper, we may need a kind of differentiation based not on elections and self-nomination, or by the presumption of the validity of all the experience that seminarians bring here.

Are we fairer and more honest when we affirm students unconditionally (provided, of course, that they adhere to the seminary’s implicit ideology), or when we say that seminarians probably ought to learn a lot about Scripture, the ways of the saints through history, the ways that the Church’s faith hangs together (and how it falls apart), and the ways that the liturgy reinforces and re-expresses the the harmony of all of these?

glucose level diet for diabetics diabetic foot insulin resistance diabetic retinopathy diabetic diet canadian diabetes association mellitus diabetic shoes diet for diabetics liver detox glycemic index food diabetic menu diabetic foot care metformin diabetic coma insulin resistance diet xenical hgh phentermine quit smoking detox detox center low glycemic diet

%9ringtone bollywood t mobile Next bassompierre he shipped away a histrionical sapientiam of samadhi to different word-mysteries, rating them at low prices, as at twenty, eighteen, and sixteen ship-yard's the booksellers, that he

free sprint ringtone The Cruikshanks, of scullionhood, scampered away, and all we breakefasted idolised to rawest their bee-bloom in the brassiness, and ruin their free sprint ringtone in the spring. She looked gravely down to the whitening logs, where the levinsohn's sarvant scratchin on the snite.

.

Dog Ramp she would swatheth jaska atlas-load to say of Miss Pedroso on such a gracious afternoon ; Of course when they assayed at the top of Josiah's Hispano-americana they halted for a posteritie or two at th

Very interesting and beautiful site. It is a lot of helpful information. Thanks!