conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

urggle

Internet is down at home.

Working to fix that.

monday morning weekend recap

I was at a party Saturday afternoon and someone mentioned that I had not blogged something from last week. I thought for a second and realized that he was right...and in general, I have been so hung up on the whole fatherhood thing, and that lately I have only blogged about Willem Defoe.

So, here is a quick recap of the weekend.

Friday I saw Melissa Ferrick. I blogged that. Who knew?!

Saturday morning: scones and sitting around with Robyn and Trish.
I picked up a cake for Laura's graduation/birthday party. Congratulations, Laura! She is 18 and a High School graduate. St Olaf's better watch out!

Saturday afternoon: Trish and I shopped for Laura's gift (a wee teapot and Earl Grey). I like to hang out in our hood. We can sit on one of the streeside benches and eat food from the local middle eastern bakery. It was a beautiful day and trolling around for birthday/graduation gifts was fun.

Saturday evening: Laura's birthday/graduation shin dig. Mmm...grilled goodness. It was a good party. I had forgotten that Trish had painted my toenails, and cought a bunch of well intended humor...I wore sandles. Oops.

After this party, we went to another birthday party for Trish's friend Allison. That too was a good time. But t is sad, late comes earlier and earlier these days. By 11:00 it was time to come home. I recall parties beginning at 11:00. It would seem that those days are gone for me.

Sunday: Church. Brunch at Ann Sathers Restaurant. Restringing my guitar and celtic bouzouki. Read Ben Hur

There you go...the weekend recap! Oh, right...Randall wondered why I did not mention my most recent premarital counseling session. Well, it was fine. Trish and I mentioned some tough stuff that need not be aired here, but it was a good thing for us to do. So, kudos to Randall for reminding me...and for assigning homework. Trish and I have to get our wedding service planned before our next meeting. Urggle. Easier said than done.

argh (wimper)

Willem is here again.

He's is old vampyric self this time...or maybe that demon who has taken up residence in my REM cycle has figured out that the guy, as brilliant as he is an actor, does freak me out a little.

I am in a house...a bunch of us are. It is a resort of some kind. We have been invited to stay and work on our plays or our music or write, whatever our whim is. I am thrilled and start to explore the place.

And then the swimming starts. Everyone else is sitting around the table talking. But I am swimming...up and down, up and down. I am finding that no matter where I go I hit the bottom of the ocean and I cannot come up for air. I panic. And then, in my dream, I wake up. I am lying on a table. There are flourescent lights above me. The table is cold...glass and plastic. Willem, as the vampyre, is looking down at me...or someone who has figured out Willem freaks me a little. He has been keeping me on this slab for years, gnawing away at my soul. He is surprised to see me wake up, so he bends down.

This is when I wake up...

I am beginning to hate this fucking sleep pattern (pardon the french).

So, according to the clock on the computer it is 1:24. I am going to to read a little Ben Hur. Maybe I'll get a glass of milk. I am a little afraid to go back to bed right yet.

Ya have to hate that. Has anyone seen Buffy around?

dreams of things seen and unseen

Okay, so I had a nightmare last night.

For those who did not know: Willem Defoe is a werewolf and spent the majority of the evening staring at me from the door to my bedroom.

Yeah. Could not sleep because he'd be in my dreams. Could not convince myself that there was not a werewolf in my doorway ready to dine on my small intestine.

This morning's coffee is decaf. I will avoid all hot sauce after 9pm. I will go to church with the Baptists today. I will sing all the verses of the hymns and not just the ones I find intriguing. I will go to Sunday School. I will eat a reasonable lunch. I might even exercise this afternoon. Just make Willem go away.

taking a break

Not from blogging, but from the topic below: fatherhood.

I saw a cool singer/songwriter last night. Her name is Melissa Ferrick. Robyn suggested that we go and check her out. It was a free concert at the new Borders that moved into Uptown. At first I thought "Too much like Ani DeFranco..." Then Melissa started playing more of her own thing and it was great. I was impressed. She has a little Ani going on, then there is Ethridge (the other Melissa) and just a little Dar Williams. She was best when she was herself. All in all, a good show.

Trish, Robyn, Tom and Molly were all in attendance. After the concert there was Thai food...Pad Lad Na...mmm...Panang curry...mmm...food.

Tom is in One of the Girls with me. We spoke a little about merchandise. Ha! We have had four gigs. We have made roughtly $130.00 thus far as a band. Merchandise?! Yeah. Well, when there are places like Cafe Press out there, it is tempting. So, if you see someone sportin' a One of the Girls tee-shirt, it is because they spend too much time online and not because we toured the midwest recently.

Though, touring the midwest sounds very good to me.

this is totally random...

So, I think Trish and I found some cool people to sing at our wedding. We are thrilled that Trev and Bont said yes. Wahoo! Right now, we think they will sing "Icecream" by Sarah McLaughlin. There will be others. Trevor and Bontie are getting hitched any day now...in Australia. Woah.

Your love is better than icecream. Indeed.

In unrelated news, I have a bike I just got tuned up and riding it is fun. There is, however, this odd experience to share. I was riding with Robyn down Peterson. There were these kids walking down the sidewalk toward us. I gave them no second thought because I was on the road and they were talking and whatnot. At the very last minute, as I passed them, one of them stepped over, took his yearbook and hit me upside the head...hard. First, I am glad I did not fall. I would have fallen into heavy moving traffic. Second, I am glad that I did not stop. That would have been stupid. Third, I have never been more disappointed in a person before. I wish I had stopped...and baptized his sorry ass...again if necessary.

Brothers and sisters, do what you can to avoid being a stereotype. It is an easy trap.

Lastly, I had a dream last night that I was in Taiwan. The food is great and you get used to the rain. And the maitre'd at that cool place with the coconut drinks speaks Spanish but no English. You need to brush up on your language skills if you want to eat.

another gig?!

You missed the gig last night? Shame! But you have a chance to be redeemed!

Keyhole Theatre Company
invites you to help raise money to remodel our theatre space
& say goodbye (for now) to company member Tom Schorsch,
who is studying at the British American Drama Academy this summer in Oxford, England

Tuesday, June 29, 2004
7 PM - 9 PM
The Four Moon Tavern
1847 W. Roscoe
(at the corner of Roscoe and Wolcott)
NO COVER

A portion of all food and beverage sales from 7 PM to 9 PM benefits Keyhole Theatre Company. So come hungry! Four Moon has really tasty food... Try the sweet potato fries, veggie chili, fish sandwich,
nachos, burgers, hummus plate
and finish it off with
a fudge brownie a la mode.

...did we mention the fine beers and spirits?

the more you eat and drink, the more Keyhole makes

Plus!
live entertainment from
"One of the Girls"
Irish folk music
featuring Tripp Hudgins, Al Schorsch, Tom Schorsch, & Sean Sullivan
Your last chance to see One of the Girls until September!

And a
RAFFLE
$1 per chance or 6 for $5
Win...
*Headshots from Maia Rosenfeld
*Headshots from Jonathan Cohen
*Original glass vases
*Day and Night Beauty gift basket
(with items from Mary Kay Cosmetics, handmade soaps and bubble bath, and more!)
*Theatre Tickets
(Collaboraction, Raven Theatre, New Leaf Theatre, the Side Project and more!)
*More!

RSVP to Keyhole_theatre@yahoo.com so we know how many folks to expect.

priesthood and fatherhood - part two

This is a continuation of some of my mumblings about how the priesthood of all believers is a model for the christian family.

1. As the church is a community of believers gathered for the purpose of witnessing to the presense of Christ in worship and works, the family is an extension of this. The work of the Christian extends beyond Sunday morning. The priesthood of the believer extends beyond Sunday morning. All Christian members of a family are thus priests.

This is not a radical statement. Christian life does not exist solely within the context of a one-hour worahip service on Sunday morning. Christianity is, at the very least, a discipline that shapes the entirety of our lives. Thus, if one suggests that a Christian should exemplify the virtues of sincere compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience (Col. 3:12) on Sunday morning, then it only makes sense that these virttues should define all our relationships.

2. No one person is "uberpriest" as that role belongs to Christ. So, the father, mother or whomever cannot be the "uberpriest."

Christ is the head of the Church (read: mystical body and various incranations), and as such is the head of the family as the family is part of the Church. Thus, no one else can be the head of the family.

3. All communities posess a plethora of gifts and graces found within the individual gifts and graces of the members. This will establish differences, but not a hierarchy.

When we have spoken about authority we have often left out the idea of gifts. Teaching, prophesy, healing, speaking in tongues, discernment...ballancing the checkbook, culinary skill/delight, carpentry...So, I have several questions related to this. Who decides what gifts are to be used? Who decides what is a gift? Are there gifts that are specific to the role of "father" in Ephesians? These are mostly rhetorical. In a Christian community liek a family (Acts "hold all things in common"), all gifts are made welcome. The priesthood of all believers and the Body of Christ inherently welcomes a variety of gifts. To put aside a gift because of the gender of the sourse (a mother good with finances, a father good at cooking) is to allow stereotyping to squelch the Holy Spirit. Roles may very well develop because of these gifts, but they are not based in the roles of father, mother or child for that matter. They are gifts from the Spirit to the family.

4. The conferral of authority is granted by the recognition of the individual call by the gathered community. Thus, the family decides by virtue of its life together in Christ who gets to posess what responsibility and when.

This is where Cliff and Megan had the most challenging questions. Does this mean that the two year old has the same authority in the family as the parent? Um, yes and no. A gift of the spirit might be the wisdom of years. So, a two year old might benefit from the wisdom of her parents (Assuming that there is wisdom...we all know how that is!). But this wisdom can go both ways. The experiences individuals have can bring wisdom that can contribute to a family. As children grow, they can contribute more. The ability to contribute and the degree of authority one weilds has no direct corolation in most group systems. The priesthood of believers suggests strongly that we all serve one another in order to serve Christ by using the gifts that we have. Gender roles do not play into this at all. Again, stereotyping on the basis of gender is problematic within the priesthood of all believers. All good gifts come from God. God distributes those gifts often in unpreictable ways. Creating hierarchies that stifle those gifts is problematic to say the least.

One question raised was how conflict is resolved in a family structure if the structure is flat. Words like consensus come to mind, but that is not entirely the truth. If all members in a family live as if Christ is the head, then the virtues listed above (sincere compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience...see also: Gal 5:22-23; Matt 11:28-29; Eph 4:2; 2 Cor 10:1) serves as guides and measures of how that is done. When one does not live into these virtues, the family can break down. This is called "sin." Sin happens, people. Sometimes it happens and we do not see it before it is too late. Sometimes sin is so rampant that the virtues seem to die and God seems to disappear. Sin is to be expected in any structure. All in the structure can and will sin. Why is the conflict issue even a question? What do any of us do when there is conflict? Certainly, we could go to the father and say "Tell us, O Wise Father, how do we fix this?" But he might reply with "Get away from me, kid, and get me another beer." We are all accountable to the virtues. We must modle them for one another. And we must not hold anyone above sin or reproach in the family. That position belongs to Christ.

Compassion means that one cannot use one's authority in a family blindly. There is incredibel responsibility that comes with compassion. A parents compassion for their child...a child's compassion for a parent all lead to care and servanthood.

Kindness (not the "cult of nice" that Cliff so abhors...this may better be seen as mercy ala Lk 6:33-36 or hesed in Micah 6:8) is a virtue that cultivates connectedness in a family. It is not enough to be nice, but it is the nurturing of connectendness in the family, the Body of Christ, that demonstrates kindness. It is a recognition of our shared priesthood.

Humility is not the false admission of a lack of expertice in order to appear less knowledgable or capable than one really is. It is the ability to name truth. So, a 6 year-old may not be able to drive because it is illegal and she cannot see over the steering wheel. This may take some humility to learn...but it is the truth of it. A parent may not be able to dance, sing, play sports, or even do math (plenty more examples here) as well as their child...thsi too make take humility to understand. It is also possible that a child would have an insight into the family that parent simply does not posess. Maybe a father's contnual absense beacuse of business needs to be highlighted and the child is the one who does this. A parent needs to be humble enough to know when truth is named. Humility is allowing voice to all in the family so the truth can be known.

I could go through all of these virtures, but I want to know what you guys think so far. Do you think that the role of father posesses certain virtues that the role of mothe or child does not? Do you think that a gender is more capable of virtue than another? Do you think conflict and even destruction of family are even avoidable completely? What is the point of bringing up the management of conflict?

heartbreak

Robyn posted this:

Weblog: Southern Baptists No Longer In, Nor Of, World Alliance
Plus: Pulpit preaching proposal purged, the Inquisition's Comfy Chair, and other stories from online sources around the world.
Compiled by Ted Olsen | posted 06/16/2004 12:00 p.m.

Southern Baptists break with global network
Citing "a continual leftward drift" in the Baptist World Alliance, the Southern Baptist Convention yesterday overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the international group.

A Southern Baptist committee said the BWA had taken anti-American stances, had become tolerant of liberal theology, and had wrongly accepted the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, an American group that has been critical of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Those accusations are a mystery to BWA general secretary Denton Lotz. Yes, that's brother-in-law of popular Bible teacher Anne Graham Lotz, Billy's daughter.

"We certainly are not liberal," Lotz says. "We're all conservative evangelicals."

But Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the committee recommending the split, pointed to Baptist World Alliance's inclusion of American Baptist Churches, and that denomination's recent accepting of the membership of Evergreen Baptist Association. That group has two churches that accept practicing homosexuals.

To Patterson, being a member of an organization that has links to such churches, no matter how far removed, is a form of infidelity to Scripture.

"We can no longer afford in this particular day, when the press for 'gay marriage' is on, to be in an alliance of any kind with denominations which support 'gay marriage' in any form or fashion," he said.

Lotz notes that the American Baptist Convention has "a statement that says that homosexuality is inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle."

ABC General Secretary Roy Medley called Patterson's comments "completely outrageous. � To characterize American Baptist Churches USA as being in favor of gay marriage goes beyond the pale. Our policy statement on family life, adopted in 1984, maintains, 'We affirm that God intends marriage to be a monogamous, life-long, one-flesh union of a woman and a man.'"

As you can see, this debate is really nothing like the debates in the global Anglican Communion or the United Methodist Church. Both of those denominations have more hierarchical structures, and their large church bodies carry more weight in individual congregations than in Baptist polity. The Baptist World Alliance has no authority which is more of a fellowship or fraternity, with no authority. And where both sides in the mainline denominations tend to agree that disagreements are between liberals and conservatives (though terms like "orthodox" and "fundamentalist" tend to be used more often in the debates), in the Baptist world there's still a major debate over what makes one a conservative evangelical.

Here are other links.

SBC severs ties with BWA as theological concerns remain (Baptist Press)

SBC votes to cut ties to Baptist World Alliance (Associated Baptist Press)

Southern Baptists leave alliance | Denomination cites unwanted liberal shift in vote to quit world group (The Indianapolis Star)

Southern Baptists vote to leave World Alliance | The Southern Baptist Convention voted yesterday to pull out of the Baptist World Alliance, accusing the worldwide organization of a drift toward liberalism that included growing tolerance of homosexuality, support for women in the clergy and "anti-American" pronouncements (The Washington Post)

Southern Baptists leave Alliance | The Southern Baptist Convention voted yesterday to sever its 99-year relationship with the Baptist World Alliance on the grounds that it includes a Baptist denomination with openly homosexual members (The Washington Times)

Southern Baptists quit World Alliance | The Southern Baptist Convention quit a global federation of Baptist denominations Tuesday as SBC leaders denounced the Baptist World Alliance and other groups for accepting liberal theology (Associated Press)

U.S. Baptists split from world group | The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination, voted on Tuesday to cut its links with the Baptist World Alliance, saying the global group is too liberal on gay rights and other issues (Reuters)

email from the sudan

This is a sad editorial on the ongoing conflict in Sudan. I have been thinking about this region a lot lately as the violence seems to be getting worse and worse. Yesterday, however, was a little more than I can handle. A fellow former student, Fr. Abraham Noon Jeil, actually emailed me. His English was never that good and seems to have actually gotten worse in his year back home, but then again, the man has other things going on. This is the text of the email.

Hi, Tripp,

This is Fr. Abraham from Sudan sending greetings and congretulations to you,
I hope that you have finished your studies succesfully at Seabury, and that
soon and very sson you are going to be ordained in the office of deaconhood,
God willing. I am sure you will do well as a very good priest whenever you
are ordained in God's Church.

I have just come from the south yesterday and will be back to the south next
week, you may know that there is no any internet service in the southern
Sudan, or even a good communication on land, there is no even pure water for
drinking so we always take clean water from the north whenever there are
visitors coming to visit the south,pecially visitors from America or from
Europe. We had visitors to our town of Renk this week, so we took pure water
from Khartoum because water is very expencieve as it is transported by the
traders to sale it in the market. hope you will write to me

God bless Tripp!
Abraham.

All the Sudanese people are now hopping that the peace should be acheived
before the end of this year.

Abraham is a little confused about my denominational allegiance, but we got to know one another in a Eucharistic Theology class at Garret. We both took the sacramental high road. Color us both confused. Pray for peace in Sudan. Pray for fresh water. Pray for the killing to stop.

Continue reading if you want to read a New York Times editorial.

Dare We Call It Genocide? By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF LONG THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER � The Bush administration says it is exploring whether to describe the mass murder and rape in the Darfur region of Sudan as "genocide." I suggest that President Bush invite to the White House a real expert, Magboula Muhammad Khattar, a 24-year-old widow huddled under a tree here.

The world has acquiesced shamefully in the Darfur genocide, perhaps because 320,000 deaths this year (a best-case projection from the U.S. Agency for International Development) seems like one more boring statistic. So listen to Ms. Khattar's story, multiply it by hundreds of thousands, and let's see if we still want to look the other way.

Just a few months ago, Ms. Khattar had a great life. Her sweet personality and lovely appearance earned a hefty bride price of 40 cattle when she was married four years ago to Ali Daoud, a prosperous farmer. The family owned 300 cattle and 50 camels, making them among the wealthiest in their village, Ab-Layha in western Sudan. Ms. Khattar promptly bore two children, the youngest born late last year.

About the same time, though, the Sudanese government resolved to crush a rebellion in Darfur, a region the size of France in western Sudan. Sudan armed and paid a militia of Arab raiders, the Janjaweed, and authorized them to slaughter and drive out members of the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur tribes.

On March 12, Ms. Khattar was performing her predawn Muslim prayers about 4 a.m. when a Sudanese government Antonov aircraft started dropping bombs on Ab-Layha, which is made up of Zaghawa tribespeople. Moments later, more than 1,000 Janjaweed attackers rode into the village on horses and camels, backed by Sudanese government troops in trucks.

"The Janjaweed shouted: `We will not allow blacks here. We will not let Zaghawa here. This land is only for Arabs,' " Ms. Khattar recalled.

Ms. Khattar grabbed her children, and, as shots and flames raged around her, raced for a nearby forest. But her father and mother tried to protect their animals � they were yelling, "Don't take our livestock." They were both shot dead.

The attack was part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that the village would be forever uninhabitable, that the Zaghawa could never live there again. The Janjaweed poisoned wells by stuffing them with the corpses of people and donkeys. They also blew up a dam that supplied water to the farms, destroyed seven hand pumps in the village and burned all the homes and even the village school, the clinic and the mosque.

In separate interviews, I talked to more than a dozen other survivors from Ab-Layha, and they all confirm Ms. Khattar's story. By most accounts, about 100 people were massacred that day in Ab-Layha, and a particular effort was made to exterminate all men and boys, even the very young. Women and girls were sometimes allowed to flee, but the prettiest were kidnapped.

Most of those raped don't want to talk about it. But Zahra Abdel Karim, a 30-year-old woman, told me how in the same attack on Ab-Layha, the Janjaweed shot to death her husband, Adam, and 7-year-old son, Rahshid, as well as three of her brothers. Then they grabbed her 4-year-old son, Rasheed, from her arms and cut his throat.

The Janjaweed took her and her two sisters away on horses and gang-raped them, she said. The troops shot one sister, Kuttuma, and cut the throat of the other, Fatima, and they discussed how to mutilate her. (Sexual humiliation has been part of the Sudanese strategy to drive out the African tribespeople. The Janjaweed routinely add to the stigma by branding or scarring the women they rape.)

"One Janjaweed said: `You belong to me. You are a slave to the Arabs, and this is the sign of a slave,' " she recalled. He slashed her leg with a sword before letting her hobble away, stark naked. Other villagers confirmed that they had found her naked and bleeding, and she showed me the scar on her leg.

By comparison, Ms. Khattar was one of the lucky ones. She lost her parents, her home and all her belongings, but her husband and children were alive, and she had not been raped. Unfortunately, her luck would soon run out.

I'll tell you more of her story on Saturday, because if she and her people aren't victims of genocide, then the word has no meaning.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

priesthood and fatherhood - part one

This is a line of thinking I have been playing with as it has related to our other two conversations (one, two). So, we have authority and servanthood. I want to think about priesthood and fatherhood. I know that this is going to push some folks around, but this is a good line for a baptist to take, I think.

Here are some baptist ways of thinking about it:

The Baptist conception of the ministry is governed by the principle that it is a ministry of a church and not only a ministry of an individual. It is the church which preaches the the Word and celebrates the sacraments, and it is the church which, through pastoral oversight, feeds the flock and ministers to the world. - "The Baptist Doctrine of the Church" approved by the Council of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 1948

We'll worry about that "sacrament" thing later, but I do like it. Here we see a couple of ideas playing around. The responsibility of the church is ministry. It is not placed upon the shoulders of a specific individual per se. "Pastoral oversight" is an administrative function and, ideally, not one of power. Baptist ministers are called and released by their congregations. Whatever authority they have is given to them by the church (read: congregation here). There is nothing in the position that requires specific authorities as prerequisite.

Historically, this is a reaction to inappropriate hierarchies within the priesthood/ekklesia (church). I think that we will all agree that one cannot spoon feed salvation as a priest. It is not the role of the priest to give salvation. That belongs to God. Authority belongs to God. Responsibility belongs to the followers of Christ (Matthew 28 - Great Commission). This is not to lower the priesthood, but to elevate the believer...in accordance with the scriptures.

This is from "The Covenant of the Alliance of Baptists."

Fourth, the servant role of leadership within the church, following the model of our Servant Lord, and to full partnership of all of God's peopel in mission and ministry.

Yeah, well, that about summs it up. Of course, as Baptists, we will have to play in these words differently.

An ordained clergy has always been a part of Baptist structure. Ordination is a formal recognition that God has given a set apart ministry to the church, that he has called people to his service, endowed them with spiritual gifts to bless the church, and, further, that the candidates have taken seriously the divine call by giving evidence of thorough preparation and a holy life. Ordination is an act of the local church (read: congregation - ed.) and is conferred following the recommendation of a council, composed of ordained and lay representatives of other churches, which examines the candidate. - Baptist Distinctives and Diversities, represents six different baptist bodies in the United States ca. 1964

This highlights the position more than the other two confessions might. Still, the conferal of the position is through the congregation. I prefer the language of the preceding two (surprise!), and would suggest that they are "more" baptist and more in line with the notion of Christ Jesus being the head of the church. This is from the same "Distinctives" document. I like this, actually.

Just as Christ is confessed as Lord of the individual believer, so also Baptists recognise him as head of the church. He is head of the churhc in its expression within a local congregation. He ils likewise head of the church in its wider expression which includes all those redeemed by his grace. No vicar, pope, bishop, prophet, elder, minister, priest, council, synod, or convention can usurp the primacy of Christ's authority. Neither may anything or anyone interfere with the directness of that authority to the church. The church therefore never moves with greater sureness, purpose, and victory than when it acknowledges its proper relationship to Jesus Christ. in the imagery of Scripture, we confess that the Body must submit to the head.

And here is where we can start talking about the place of the father in the family and the tension that is established in scripture between the headship of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.

In the next post, I'll get at this mess:

1. As the church is a community of believers gathered for the purpose of witnessing to the presense of Christ in worship and works, the family is an extension of this. The work of the Christian extends beyond Sunday morning. The priesthood of the believer extends beyond Sunday morning. All Christian members of a family are thus priests.

2. No one person is "uberpriest" as that role belongs to Christ. So, the father, mother or whomever cannot be the "uberpriest."

3. All communities posess a plethora of gifts and graces found within the individual gifts and graces of the members. This will establish differences, but not a hierarchy.

4. The conferral of authority is granted by the recognition of the individual call by the gathered community. Thus, the family decides by virtue of its life together in Christ who gets to posess what responsibility and when.

photos

Hey. How's by everyone today?

I worked for the caterer yesterday. Fun. So, I did not blog. I know how upset you all must have been. Hah.

So, go here to see the updated online photo album. I was having trouble with it for a while, but my friend Trev, who has relocated for a time to Australia, fixed it for me. He is a wiz!

salvation by yardsale

So, like, I went to the movies with friends today. We saw "Saved." It is a great film. Go and see it. I will post a lengthy review later.

Then we came home. There was a yardsale. I bought a book. Ben Hur by Lew Wallace for only a buck. I love old hardback books. This edition is from the "World's Greatest Literature" series published in the '30's and '40's, I believe. I am very happy.

people blogging

Lately I have shied away from blogging too much about the people in my life. It is not that I am embarassed by them, but that I am very aware of how public this particular medium can be. There is no need to air my personal laundry on a blog. But I have had quite a week or two and I think that some things are appropriate for sharing now...like a popcicle with two sticks. Mmm...popcicles.

Last Friday...a weeke ago...I graduated. I think most folk picked up on that.

I posted about several things, linked to some pictures. It was all in good fun. The thing is that my emotions about some things run too deep for me to just post them all willy nilly. I posted about "my bishop." That was more silliness than real emotion. I do love the man, but you know. I mentioned in the post that Dad took communion for the first time since 1975. This strikes me as more humorous than monumental or fulfilling on some level. Dad does not have to share my faith to be my dad. No risks in posting that. He doesn'y even own a computer.

It was pointed out to me that I did not mention Mom. Well, there is a reason for that. Mom and I have a bit of history, and her attendance at my graduation was a big deal to me. I really cannot share much of how it felt, but suffice it to say that both of my parents parented me that weekend. You know how some of us go into therapy to try to understand the parenting we received? Well, if you were looking to get parented, know that I was parented to within an inch of my life last weekend. It was glorious, but man was I tired. I still am. Just thinking about it gets me choked up.

Dad kept reminding me to comeplete my thesis (No worries...the anxiety dreams are in full swing, Dad. Ruth Meyers keeps showing up in my dreams.) and commended me on my work and encouraged me to work toward a PhD. He and I share a passion for the obscure. Can you get much more obscure than eucharistic practices of Saharan Africa in the 3rd century, or Calvin's deep love for Chrysostom? Maybe, but I am bad at math. So, I get the eucharist and brother John Calvin.

Mom, well, not to embarass her, but she cried when we got home from the service on Sunday. I had asked her what she thought about my communion bit. I was responsible for making the mojo last Sunday. I intended the question to encourage a response like "You know I love whatever you do." or "You have a good speaking voice." or something equally boring and not revelatory. Instead, Mom started to cry.

See, there is this whole history with my grandmother and her that runs deep. My grandmother, Hig, and I were tight. She died of Altzheimers when I was 24. By the time I was 12 or 13, she was pretty much gone, but the memories of time spent with her when I was small are clear as day. I held my mother and she said "Your grandmother should have been here for this. She would have been so proud."

Holding Mom and thinking of Hig took my breath away. My mother loves me very much. My grandmother did as well. Having Mom remind me of Hig's love of the church was like having Hig here and a perfect moment to share with my mother. I have the children's BCP that my grendmother gave me when I was baptised sitting on my dresser. Hig was Catholic, but chose the ECUSA when she married a Universalist, my grandfather, Gordon. She loved the church and loved the eucharist and loved me. To be reminded of all there in that singular moment was too much for me or Mom.

I am grateful beyond measure for my mother remembering that for me. Sometimes we are incapable of remembering things for ourselves. Ask yourself. Do you think that you have people in your life that make those connections for you when you are too preoccupied with graduating or whatever else? I am glad I do.

I cannot think of a more appropriate tale to tell from graduation weekend. It was a lot of good-byes and reminders of connections, friends and family that encompass my entire life. If you read this blog and I have failed to mention you or how much you mean to me, you have my sincerest appologies.

You all honor me with your presense in my life.

Communion Prayer for Pentecost 2004 (observed)

Lord God, from the beginning You loved us.
Christ Jesus, we were scattered to the hills and You gathered us.
Holy Spirit, on the day You decended to us, You transformed us. For us and through us, You gave birth to the church so that we might continue to proclaim your Gospel as You have required.

Continue to teach our hearts, Lord God, to love You and to proclaim Your love to the heart of the world.

Help us to welcome You, Holy Spirit, as we gather together at Your table in this Holy Memory given to us in scripture and through the witness of all your children. For, the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, �This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.� In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, �This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.� For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord�s death until he comes.

brother ray

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.
Praise God all creatures here below.
Praise God above ye heavenly host...

...for you now have the most badass, kickbutt piano player ever in your midst. Let me tell you brothers and sisters, the angelic choir is rocking today.

Ray Charles: b. 1930, d. 2004

servanthood and fatherhood

Yesterday's rant actually brought forth some decent conversation. Who knew?

This showed up in my email this morning. Just sharing:

Greatness
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important, wonderful. If you want to be recognized, wonderful. If you want to be great, wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's your new definition of greatness. And this morning, the thing that I like about it, by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermo-dynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.

Cliff and others I have read suggest that the trouble in understanding the placement of authority and egalitarianism, difference and not "betters," is a particularly modern difficulty (Did I get this right, Cliff?). I have given myself a little time to sleep on it, and have another way for us to think on it.

What does servanthood looklike when a father serves? Is it in any way different from how a mother serves? Let me suggest that Christian egalitarianism is an equality in servanthood. It is not "we all lead" but that "we all serve."

Ephesians 5:21-33 begins with "Because you fear Christ subordinate yourselves to one another." I know I am repeating myself here, but I am trying to be clear. If this is a prerequisite to the remaining verses, then in what way does a husband submit to his wife?

This is principally where my trouble lies. I do not see how it is possible for a husband to submit to his wife if he is the sole member of a family responsible for the leadership of Chirst. Yes, we know that the husband sins. Yes, we know that a husband must ask for forgiveness. This is consistant with the teaching of Christ found in Matthew and in other places. Where I am not perceiving consistancy is how a husband has the position of knowing what the will of God is and leading his family into that will and his wife has no such authority, or, more bluntly, has no such ability to serve.

Do you see how the logic can run this way? A woman can serve Christ by following her husband. No, he ain't perfect and he will need/seek forgiveness for his sins, but this is the wife's servanthood. The father serves Christ directly. His servanthood directly procedes from Christ. A wife's is derivitive. Now, how does a woman serve Christ directly? I mean, without the mediation of her husband? Can she? Is she unable to serve Christ without the mediation of her husband or is the only way that she may serve Christ through serving her husband?

Of course not, nor do I think Cliff would think so. But, I assume that the traditional line is that she serves Christ through (not by) serving her husband. She cannot serve Christ directly? Without mediation? But you see, how the traditional interpretation has been explained to me suggests the husband serves Christ by serving Christ. He submits (serves?) to Him first and then to his wife. But his submission to his wife is to doll out the will of God. Submission. Submit yourselves to Christ...and to one another. The scripture asks for both...How does a Father's submission to his wife or his children manifest itself without it being some trickle-down theory of The Spirit? I believe that John 3:16 and other "universal" statements of God's desire to save creation suggest a direct servanthood relationship between Chrst and his followers.

I am no more capable of following Christ than my fiancee...or my possible future children. Nor am I less capable. Nor is my foillowing of Christ different because of my gender. I am called to serve Christ and the world. This is direct servanthood to Christ. It is also "indirect" in that I serve Trish and through Trish I serve Christ (We'll deal with the Body of Christ thing later). She too serves me and by doing so serves Christ. This is mutual servanthood. Neither of us have a better handle on the revelation of God to the world or to our relationship than the other. To suggest otherwise would be propoining a gender-based gnosticism or that the revelation of Christ to women is different than the revelation of Christ to men. Nowhere in scripture is this suggested except in the dynamics of family presented in the epistles of Paul as interpreted traditionally.

Am I misunderstanding the traditional interpretation? Does Paul give us something novel here? Is he refining or contradicting? God gives to all equal servanthood except in societal order? So, I assume that, if Paul's epistles are to remain consistant with the remainder of scriptures (Lord knows I want them to be so.), then we must find some way to express an egalitarian servanthood within them.

Because you fear Christ subordinate yourselves to one another, for example?

I know this is circular. That should come as no surprise to regular readers. I am struggling with this whole thing. To suggest that one gender has a different and more accurate understanding of the revelation of God is absurd. I do not believe that Cliff is suggesting that there is such a thing. Yet, this is what the traditional line is proponing...at least as it is communicated.

authority and fatherhood

I am not a husband, father nor in a position of any particular authority in my own home. Occasionally I try to tell the cats to behave, but we know how well cats respond to authority figures. So, I am struggling this morning. Cliff posted this link. I appreciate Cliff's willingness to share this kind of stuff with the rest of us. He wrestles as do we all. It is generous of him.

I skimmed through the table of contents and found a section on husbands. I figured I should take a look since I am gonna be one in September. What I found was frustrating enough that I just had to sit myself down and take a breather.

I am not going to recount the entire section. You should feel free to look for yourself. But I will throw a couple of frustrations to the ether. If any denizen of the internet wishes to reply or correct me, please do.

1. Yes, the Greco-Roman world and the contemporary Judaism saw the family unit as an economic one and one where children were to be raised. The trouble with the author's summary is that he neglects that the father had absolute power, in the modern sense, and could kill his own children (put out his wife, impregnate his slaves etc) as a disciplinary response (or for the heck of it). This ethos was practiced legally in the west well into the 18th century. Now, it presents certain problems to kill one's own kid, and so I assume it was a rare occurance to say the least. But the central idea was one of property. The pater familias owned his family. He did not serve them. This would be a legal definition, so, as we know today, legal definitions are not always descriptive of relationships and are not set up to make people happy, but to maintain order. So, I can assume that our author wants to redefine this model through his reading of the gospel. He cannot suggest that a righteous father, like a Job perhaps, would be witnessing Christ by stoning his son. We have some scripture that speaks about stoning.

2. A father, given a very generous description of "rule," is to rule his household like Christ is the head of the church. We are given all the requisite traits of Christ's rulership. It holds together mostly. I have posted about Timothy and Ephesians before, so I do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, and yet I need to point out one complicating factor in the author's description...the husband and wife both submit equally to Christ. In Christ there is no male nor female, no slave nor free...so, why the legalistic descriptions from Paul? I think it is because Paul himself was still trying to figure out what the heck the deal was. Paul thoughts here are incomplete...I know, color me heretical, but I just do not get how the "both/and" works here without saying that Paul's thinking is incomplete.

3. The role of the father is given a sacredness that is different and positions the mother beneath the role of the father. I understand theologies of difference but what the author suggests is subordination. This is not the same as submission. Now, admittedly, this subordination is enshrouded in care...ala the good samaritan...but where there is trouble is that the father does not, nay, cannot submit to his wife by nature of his position. Since submission and care are so intertwined, the husband cannot receive care from his wife. He cannot receive the grace of Christ from Christ's own hands, the hands of a mother. This is an incomplete notion of Christian egalitarianism where all things, like compassion, are held in common.

4. The use of this psalm as a descriptor of righteous fatherhood is not Christian.

(Psalm 101)
Him who slanders his neighbor secretly
I will destroy.
The man of haughty looks and arrogant heart
I will not endure.
I will look with favor on the faithful in the land,
that they may dwell with me;
he who walks in the way that is blameless
shall minister to me.
No man who practices deceit
shall dwell in my house;
no man who utters lies
shall continue in my presence.

There is no forgiveness in this. There is no compassion nor humility (let he who is without sin cast the first stone) in this interpretation. How does Jesus treat the prostitute or tax collector? He dines with them? How often are we to forgive? Endlessly. What happens if we do not forgive? God cannot, nay, will not forgive us. The Psalms are not prescriptive. They are emotive. So, the above is not a description of how a righteous man behaves. It is a prayer of rage and pride, a gift to God to be transformed into right action: love, forgiveness and jubilee justice.

5. "Christian (and Israelite) teaching of objective moral truth makes a great difference in government and the exercise of authority. The head of the family, as well as the heads of the community, are expected to know what should be happening in people's lives. Their responsibility rests primarily in governing according to a pattern and standard that the Lord provides. Indeed, without a clear understanding of the Lord's teaching, heads are not in a good position to govern. According to Old and New Testament tradition, wisdom played an important part in government. If the head was to govern the family and the nation well, he needed to be wise."

Yes, but not in the way he describes. Submission to God is humble and wise. Submission to God is kind and just. Submission to God does not hold the status quo but manifests the Kingdom here on earth. Finally, this will never be until the Lord comes again in glory. It cannot be complete. No where in the author's description does the husband admit his wrongs and repent of sin and ask the fortgiveness of his family or community. His community and family must hold him to task and be in dialogue with him. The needs are mutual. The Christian family is not a top-down family. It is cruciform. God is central, crucified in the midst of the family, reddming us all. I, as a husband, cannot do Christ's work. Christ does it.

Urggle.

the religious left

"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."

This quote about sums up the divide in American mainline protestantism between left and right. I am sure that if we wanted to, we could do some survey work and see how this plays out along racial lines/class lines. Nevertheless, the article is interesting. Within it, i can feel the pull from the far left polemic. Those of us who sit on the left do need to speak from scrioture and revelation and even (gasp) from orthodoxy. But we do not need to "take back the Bible." This assumes it belongs to anyone.

Religious Left Seeks Center of Political Debate
Conferees Call For Stronger Voice
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A02

More than 350 political liberals of many faiths gathered in Washington yesterday to begin what some pollsters say is a quixotic task: restoring the voice of the religious left in the nation's political debate.

"Progressive religious voices, which historically have fueled so much social change in this country, seem to have been washed out of the public dialogue in recent years," said John D. Podesta, a Roman Catholic who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. Podesta now heads the Center for American Progress, the Democratic think tank that organized the conference to highlight the "proud past" and "promising future" of the religious left.

Speakers celebrated the role of religious liberals in the civil rights movement, protests against the Vietnam War, the nuclear freeze campaign and sanctions against South Africa's former apartheid system. They called for a stronger, more clearly religious voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy and for environmental stewardship, universal health insurance, and efforts to fight poverty at home and abroad.

Yet even as the conference at times took on the enthusiasm of a pep rally, there were sobering reflections on why the religious left lost its prominence after the 1970s and how hard it may be to regain it. At the core of those concerns was a simple set of statistics, reinforced by numerous polls: People who say they are frequent churchgoers vote Republican by a ratio of about 2 to 1.

"All the surveys show that if you ask about either church attendance or attitudes -- how important is religion to you in your daily life? -- you get the same thing: the more religious, the more conservative," Gallup pollster Frank Newport said in an interview. "I certainly remember the days when being religious meant fighting for civil rights and social justice, and it's not that those people aren't still out there. But religious liberals are a small minority today."

Some liberals dispute that conclusion.

"Church attendance is not the only indicator of living out your faith," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a group devoted to "leadership change" in Washington. "The vast majority of people of faith in this country are center to left, politically. But if you only measure religious commitment by butts in the pews, that's what you get."

Conference attendees also blamed the media, saying news reports tend to play up the simple dichotomy between the secular left and the religious right rather than citing the full range of religious views.

"It really bothers me that whenever the media and others talk about people of faith, they talk only about the religious right and don't seem to realize there are people like me, who grew up Baptist and believe in God and have strong religious values, but who want different policy outcomes," said Melody Barnes, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former chief counsel to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

But some of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims at the conference also said they have felt excluded or even disdained by the secular left. The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., senior minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, told the audience in his keynote address that "we have got to find a way not to be embarrassed" to speak about religion with secular progressives.

And there was no lack of hand-wringing among the conferees about what the religious left has done wrong.

"Part of it is our fault. We should take back the Bible, take back the theological principles and not just cede them to the religious right," said the Rev. Susan B. Thistlethwaite, a minister in the United Church of Christ and president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. "It's not good enough to talk in vague terms about values. We can do better than that. We can make the theological arguments."

Historian Taylor Branch said that in the 1970s, the abortion issue split the progressive religious alliance that had formed in the civil rights movement. Since then, the left has done no better than the right in "moving beyond polemics," he said.

"Not many people who call themselves pro-choice actually want to celebrate abortion, and not many of those who call themselves pro-life want to put women in jail for having abortions," he said. "It's more of a show than a debate, with polarizing options that aren't real. Both sides profess that they love children, but you don't really have the two sides doing very much to cooperate to reduce the number of neglected and abandoned and unwanted children, or to care for them."

The Rev. Charles Henderson, a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister who publishes the interfaith quarterly CrossCurrents, said that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the mainline Protestant denominations took for granted that their values would infuse television and the public schools. Evangelicals, who felt shut out of establishment institutions, created their own schools and broadcast outlets. "Then you wake up one day in 1984 and the Christian right is dominant, and you wonder why," he said.

� 2004 The Washington Post Company

tribune article

Liberals may mourn man, but not the Reagan years...

RONALD REAGAN: 1911--2004
Liberals may mourn man, but not the Reagan years

By Mike Dorning and Rudolph Bush
Washington Bureau
Published June 9, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The television at the MLK Community Barber Shop won't be tuned to Ronald Reagan's funeral on Friday. And it doesn't appear that any of the regulars will make the 15-minute subway ride over to the Capitol to pay respects.

The death of the celebrated conservative leader has been received in this inner-city neighborhood of shuttered shop windows and shattered dreams in much the same way that residents here feel Reagan treated the urban poor while he was president: with indifference.

The mid-1980s economic boom that much of the country fondly associates with Reagan passed by Anacostia--a poverty-plagued, mostly African-American community separated by a polluted river from the gleaming white-marble buildings that hold the seats of American political power.

Their feelings about Reagan find strong echoes throughout liberal America, which decries Reagan's policies while expressing sympathy at his death. Though he won powerful majorities--including a 49-state rout in 1984--a substantial segment of the public also strongly disagreed with him on education, the environment, abortion and civil rights, views that now help to complete a fuller portrait of the 40th president.

In Anacostia, people remember the Reagan years for the hard times and the cutbacks in programs for the poor--at a time when AIDS crept through the land unchecked and crack cocaine poured into the inner city.

Personal criticism that was often uttered during his presidency has been muted since his death, as most liberal political leaders set aside policy differences and focus instead on the former movie star's charisma and signature optimism.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry suspended campaign appearances for a week, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lauded Reagan's "special grace, optimism and humor."

Beneath the decorum, though, the struggle between left and right continues in a closely divided, highly polarized country. Much of that division has been fueled by the conflict over policies that Reagan set in motion. And Reagan's legacy remains anathema to supporters of liberal causes.

Ralph Neas, president of the liberal think tank People for the American Way, said that after the mourning for Reagan, more questioning of his policies should and will likely come.

"As people start looking at the real record, we have been candid in saying Ronald Reagan had an absolutely abysmal record in terms of civil rights, the environment and reproductive freedom," Neas said.

That sentiment is not far from the surface on the streets of Anacostia. While Reagan lived in the White House, a surge in homicides gave Washington the label of the nation's "murder capital." A good number of the victims fell in the back alleys and streets of Anacostia, not far from the barber shop.

Remembering hard times

"All this stuff about how it was. It wasn't nice over here," said Thurston Calloway, 31, shouting over the buzz of his hair clippers at the MLK Barber Shop "Those are the toughest times I can remember in my life. Jobs were tough. Money was tough. The only thing that was going was crack."

Over in the shop's salon, women shouted out their approval as Kimberly Young declared she would rather play a DVD on the television than subject her customers to the adulatory television coverage of the funeral.

"Why should I watch it? I don't have nothing nice to say about him," Young said. "He cut housing. He cut the lunch program for our kids."

Even at the peak of his popularity in 1984 Reagan was resoundingly defeated in Washington, D.C., the one of nation's most heavily African-American electorate.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who represents a district on Chicago's South Side, said there was "respect for his family and the fact that he passed, but there's no remorse. Most folks I run into didn't view him as someone who was their friend."

Bev Smith, host of a national call-in show syndicated to black-oriented stations through American Urban Radio Networks, said she spent three hours on Reagan's death on Monday night and not one caller spoke favorably of his presidency.

The view among her callers was that Reagan's treatment of minorities "was neglect, avoidance, lack of concern. . . . It's as if African-Americans didn't exist," Smith said.

Reagan drew criticism from black civil rights leaders from the start of his 1980 presidential campaign, which he kicked off in Philadelphia, Miss., a rural community where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. He did not include a reference to their deaths in his speech but did express support for "state's rights," a loaded phrase for many black Americans who heard Southern governors take up that cause to avoid desegregation and deny voting rights to minorities.

In office, his administration roiled civil rights leaders by backing tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University despite segregationist policies that the school maintained at the time.

His use of the image of a Cadillac-driving "welfare queen" struck many African-Americans as an unfair stereotype. And he again drew criticism for failing to recognize his only black Cabinet member, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce, when he encountered Pierce at a White House reception.

Despite the waves of memories that Reagan was a man who could put aside partisanship for compromise, Neas recalls that he often tried to undermine bipartisanship in the Congress.

Bipartisan opposition

"Time and again huge bipartisan efforts repudiated his agenda," Neas said. "Only when 90 percent of the House and 90 percent of the Senate voted for a bill he didn't agree with would he sign it."

He recalled Reagan's veto of a sanctions bill against South Africa during the last years of apartheid, as well as his anti-abortion agenda.

"History has to look at the real public record," he said.

Official Washington has largely put that discussion on hold. In the MLK Barber Shop in Anacostia, people see less reason for restraint.

"A lot of black people needed those programs. I just think he shunned us, as if we were subhuman," said Gloria Carter, as she sat in the women's salon getting her hair curled.

"You have to care. He didn't care," she added. "His actions speak louder than words."
Copyright � 2004, Chicago Tribune

debates and symbolic logic

Wow. Jennifer has really popped it open this time. She is on a tear, brothers and sisters. If you are interested in thinking through the doctrine of the trinity (and the place of women in the church) as that same doctrine relates to how humanity is in the image of God, then jump on it. In fact, I encourage you to do so. Bring your Biblical concordance.

The debate finds its context within this post about the Trinity and how it is commonly understood. Is the Trinity a comprehendable doctrine? Has it been so muddled that it cannot be engaged by all believers? These are important questions that I think many Christians struggle with. We should struggle with it. This doctrine is what distinguises us from Judaism and Islam. It is also where those same traditions criticise us and suggest that we are not monotheistic because of our triune monotheism. Three does not equal one.

This is one of our struggles as Christians: How we live into Trinitarian thought/doctrine as more than a model of thinking but a witness to truth. There is a logic in the symbol of trinitarian language where God, Jesus and Spirit are all One. This is more than a thinking logic. or a symbolic logic in the philosophical sense. It is a lived logic, a lived and living symbol. It is manifested in the incarnational reality of believers and followers of Christ.

A survey put out by Barna suggests this in regards to the Holy Spirit and how people understand it:

A majority (61%) agree that the Holy Spirit is a symbol of God�s presence or power but is not a living entity. (2001)
Among the segments of the population more likely than others to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit as a living entity are Catholics (73%), non-Christians (68%), and non-whites (68%). (2001)
A majority of all born again Christians reject the existence of the Holy Spirit (52%). (2001)

I am a great fan of "thinking as spritual discipline." Just because it is difficult does not mean we should give up an idea as lost. As suggested by these survey results, the doctrine of the Trinity often suffers this fate. Evangelicals worship only Jesus. More "notional" christians worship only God the Father/Mother/Creator. I would also go so far as to say that Pentacostals worship the Spirit to the neglect of the other members of the Trinity. These are, of course, generalizations, but our focus can be this lopsided.

A friend and professor once said this about the Trinity (paraphrased): This was not some doctrine concocted in committee. It is instead the articulation of a people's experience of God in the midst and practice of worship.

Back to worship, I see! So, here are my questions for you. Let me know what you think. As much as the deabte on Jen's blog is important, I think that the issue of engaging the Trinity in our worship practices is very important. That's an understatement! If we are believers in a Trinitarian monotheism, then we already worship a Trinitarian God. What does that look like in your church? In your personal prayer life?

How do you perceive the Trinity in worship? Do you?
Would you consider using the image of the trinity as a spiritual exercise?
Do you "prefer" a membe of the Trinity? Why?
If you preach, how do you preach this doctrine?

gig!

We have another gig!

Logan Square Celebrates 100 Years of Bloomsday with a Walk to the Centennial Monument

What? Bloomsday celebration with readings from James Joyce's novel Ulysses

When? Wednesday, June 16, 6 pm

Where? Participants will meet at corner of California and Bloomingdale Avenues. Procession will continue along Bloomingdale, then make stops at Humboldt Blvd, Whipple Avenue, Palmer Square and Logan Square's Centennial monument.

Who? Open to all residents, supporters of Logan Square Walks and Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail, walking enthusiasts, and James Joyce admirers.

Logan Square Walks and Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail will cosponsor Logan Square's first Bloomsday celebration to honor of the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday, an international commemoration of James Joyce's epic novel Ulysses, in which Leopold Bloom spends a day walking the streets of Dublin.

The gathering will begin at 6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 16, 2004, at the corner of California and Bloomingdale Avenues. Participants will be welcomed with a brief history of Bloomsday and selected short readings from Ulysses.

Various sites along the route will be designated stopping points for additional readings and/or musical performances, and individuals are welcome to join at their convenience. Anticipated arrival times are as follows:

Humboldt Boulevard and Bloomingdale Avenue: 6:40 pm
Whipple Avenue and Bloomingdale Avenue: 7:10 pm
Palmer Square: 7:40 pm
Logan Square Centennial Monument: 8:10 pm

The final readings of the evening will occur at the Centennial Monument and interested participants will conclude their walk at the Boulevard Caf�, 3137 W. Logan Boulevard, which will feature an evening of live traditional Irish folk music (One of the Girls!).

All are welcome to attend, and readers may volunteer by contacting Christy Prahl at christyprahl@hotmail.com.

wedding page

Hey there. The page is still being tinkered with, but feel free to visit. There is no password now. You can play at leisure.

link

barna, religion, politics

Here is the link to an interesting article about recent sruvey work on religious affiliation and voting patterns.

Evangelicals are just 7% of the national population. However, they receive an inordinate amount of coverage during major elections because of their alleged influence in the political arena. Evangelicals were one of the most prolific supporters of Mr. Bush in the 2000 election: the incumbent received 83% of the votes cast by the group. (In the 1996 election, evangelicals were less impressed with the Republican candidates, giving Bob Dole 76% of their votes.)

In the forthcoming election, an even higher proportion of evangelicals - 86% - expect to cast their ballot for the President. (Only 8% plan to vote for Mr. Kerry.) The only voting blocks of similar consensus in their choice of a candidate are conservative Republicans (94% favoring Mr. Bush), people who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 (88% again supporting the Texan), liberal Democrats (95% in support of Mr. Kerry), and blacks (77% of whom expect to vote for the Democratic nominee). Gay adults, who constitute 4% of the adult population, are the population group most likely to vote (93% expected turnout) but they are comparatively less unanimous in their candidate of preference (67% to 23% in favor of Mr. Kerry).

This is interesting, but there is more informtion floating about...

The bulk of the Christian population is comprised of "Notional" Christians - people who describe themselves as Christian but are neither evangelical nor born again. This segment is 39% of the national population. This group is radically divergent from either the evangelical or non-evangelical born again sectors of the Christian body. They have a below-average likelihood of being registered to vote (77%), are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party (42% versus 27% associated with the Republican Party), and are slightly less likely than other people to vote in November. Only one out of every five describes themselves as "mostly conservative" and a paltry one-out-of-three (34%) approve of Mr. Bush's performance in office. The result is a complete reversal of the expected "Christian" preference for a candidate: a majority of Notionals (52%) plans to support Mr. Kerry, compared to only one-third (32%) who anticipates voting for Mr. Bush.

graduation pictures

Dave posted his pictures. They are great. Here are two...the first is a picture of myself and Trish. The other is me with the Bishop. Some people, including this here bishop, want him to be my bishop. I like Wendel well enough. Actually, I love the guy to death. I am just not completely certain that I need a bishop. Others may disagree. A tight leash is a good thing from time to time. We baptists have no collar and thus need no leash. Hmmm...that is an ecclesial model for you.

It was a fantasic weekend. Seeing Ricgh again...the first time in quite a while, was frigging great. It was nice of him to come to church Sunday and see me in action (I did the communion thing - made the mojo). That was a treat. Another surprise was my father taking communion at the graduation service. That was the first time since 1975, people. Wow.

graduated happiness

The liturgy was loverly.
The sermon, well, nevermind. I am sure he is a bright man with many insights.

Pavlov was right. Not just about the dogs, no, but about habits in general. You see, most Episcopalian know that when the crucifer (she who bears the cross) walks by, you reverence the cross with a bow and turn to face it if it continues past you. This becomes problematic if you are going to conduct a choir of Episcopalians. They give you onlythe backs of their heads. This was too funny for words.

I have most of two degrees. I have all my MDiv and most of my MTS. The thesis will be done soon...I pray so!

Mom is still here. Dad went home yesterday. It was good to have the old man around. It is a little eerie for Trish. I am a lot like my Dad, but I like the old fart. It bodes well in my mind.

Congratulations to Micah. It is a well-deserved break.

Congratulations to Jane and Susie (and many others) as well. They are Seniors at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary! Huzzah!

Well, what shall I write about now that school is over. This thing that has consumed my life for an eternity...long before I ever enrolled at SWTS. I will finish the thesis. I start a chaplain position at a local hospital on September 1. I get hitched to Trish (yay!!) on September 25. I will get ordained in November, I hope. It is an insane life. I am hoping to go see a couple of ordinations this summer, but it is very uncetain. So much to do.

Our U of B chaplain reminds me that these are life-long friendships. Lord, I hope so. Montana anyone? Mississippi? Road Trip!!

Finally, Geoff posted this link. It is a great rant!

Whew.

graduation day

Yep.

By 10:30 today, we will all be done.

Yahoo!!!

an open ember day letter:

You know, with all the various leavetaking at school, Spring Evensong was the hardest. Eveything else has the ring of impermanence. I will write papers again. I will see the vast majority of my seminary friends on a regular basis. Those moving away are gonna be harder to see graduate, but that is an expected loss. Does that make sense? And my happiness for them outweighs my own sense of loss.

Singing Evensong, Spring Evensong (an honor) at that, was harder than I had imagined. I almost lost it on several occasions during the service. Jane, Susie and Micah were there to help officiate. Micah as the lector, and Jane and Susie as two members of our little schola. We so rocked the liturgical world last night. I am sure that the after shock was felt at the National Cathedral.

The trouble is that evensong is not something that Baptists utilize. We may do a Wednesday prayer service, but it is not the same. I will never wear my vestments again. I am considering leaving them at SWTS. I assume I will never sing the prayers from the BCP again. I may be wrong, but it certainly felt like it last night. There was an overwhelming "one last time" feel to the whole thing. Even if I sing evensong again, it will not be for my worshiping community. SWTS has been a worshiping community.

No, I do not want to be Episcopalian. Some people read my love of the liturgy to mean that. I love the liturgy like some people love art or music. It is an art form to me. Being able to participate in it has been an honor I cannot express. But I am not Episcopalian. I am Baptist. My time at SWTS has shown me that. I love being baptist. I do not expect that I will ever ask my baptist church(s) to take on a liturgical expression that is not their own. If I do, it will be a failure as a pastor on my part.

But I sing. It is what I do. It is second nature. Singing the liturgy...well...it just makes sense like breathing makes sense. I do not have to think about my singing when I sing the liturgy. I simply sing. And that use of my voice brings to consciousness my entire body. I know the words of prayer as song. The mass, the prayers at evensong are "song" to me. That goes deeper than the spoken word. I cannot express it. It gathers my full attention, my full participation, my full awareness. It is a gift to me, and that gift stings right now.

So, here is the question again, the thing that has been my focus for these three years of seminary: What is it to be Christian? Is it Evensong? No. It is dunking your kids and holding off on baptising infants? No. It is any liturgical practice we have invented in the past 2000 years? No. Liturgy is a lovely and wondrous thing, but it is not faith. I do not have an answer yet for this question, not one I am satisfied with at least. But I know that this is what "being" is all about. Christian is something I am. It is something I must be. Perhaps for that reason alone, it is impossible to categorize Christian belief. It cannot be quantified or qualified because it is the mystery given flesh.

And the circular-speak continues. Maybe if I just sang it for you...

the 80's

You're a Garbage Pail Kid!! You're dirty, foul,
disgusting, and wrong. But you're still funny
as hell.


What childhood toy from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Thanks to Andi for this.

cleaning

We are still cleaning.

There is much to be done before my mother comes. She is staying with us. Oh. My.

But the place is looking nice!

I am singing Evensong tonight. This is my last sung service at Seabury. You know, leave-taking at SWTS is agonizing. It is so mostly due to the fact that we have a ritual every three minutes about leaving. After this one, I think I will be ready to shout "Let me go already!" Heh. All have been an honor.

More later.

tuesday post: akma and clericalism

I sit here in a clean diningroom. It has been a long time, and appropriately so, since our diningroom was clean and clear of debris. Trish has been working very hard on getting her office painted. Old plaster walls present certain challenges. My office is next, so this wonderful pristine space is only temporary. Alas, it is a sad truth. There is much that needs to be done here in the Austin-Hudgins Lodge of Perpetual Perkiness, but I think I am actually enjoying the process. Who knew? Anyway, this is not why I sat down to post. Really, there may be something a little more substantial.

AKMA is working on something about ordination in the ECUSA. You can go here and read his post. To generalize even further what he explains is a generalization: It is hard to get quality folk in the ordination track because the ECUSA simply does not know how to attract and retain such people.

So, I have been asking myself, as a graduating seminarian, how this plays out in the ABC and if there are any particular differences. I am not sure that there are any real differences, but polity should matter. And, I think, that theological education has everyting to do with it. But then I would, I am still in school...at least for a couple more days.

Before I begin, know that I have just gotten up and have not yet had my coffee. I am just so excited to get to blog about someting without all this other stuff hanging over my head! Anyway...

In my time at North Shore, Doug and Carol, my mentoring pastors, have been very clear about how the church does not pay well. This is a given, and to be honest, I have always known this and have never imagined myself in careers that have a tradition of Big Financial Compensation Packages. And before this I worked in a not-for-profit, and as a professional choral singer. Um, yeah, so I really have never made a lot of money. So, though I understand AKMA's position on this acpect, you can also wonder if intelligent, articulate and talented candidates are not attracted to a great many professions with poor financial compensation packages. I am more inclined to leave that up to the person with the vocation. If there is a financial concern for clergy it is that seminary costs too frigging much. I don't mind a modest income. Seminaries charge too much for their training. So, there is a glitch in the system. I am less inclined to think that the only response to this problem is for churches to pay more.

I think that congregations pay what they can...and what they think a pastor or priest is worth to them. I simply think that in this market economy of ours, we do speak with our wallets. Main-line Christistianity is worth less than it once was. Why it's theological institutions are respoding by asking for more, I am unsure.

AKMA also says that we are overworked. This is also true, but it is true to say that ALL of the education I have had at Seabury and elsewhere has spoken out against this. In my field ed. classes, we are warned about protecting our time, our families and ourselves. Yes, we give our lives to the church (or a congregation), but a faithful servant needs rest, and since we, the overworked, are actually in a position to ask or create working contracts that protect, we should do so. I have been told that many churches are figuring this out. The ecclesia is changing about this one. Maybe I have been given the wrong impression, but my pastors have a very reasonable schedule...one that is on the surface much less demanding of their time than all the lawyers in our congregation.

Finally, AKMA writes about recognition...I know the esteemed professor well enough to know that he is not suggesting celebrity as proper compensation for the priest/pastor. So, I am still a little unclear what he is getting at here. Should someone, a stranger in a grocery line, bow to me just because I am ordained? No. He says as much. So, I am not sure what kind of recognition he is after for those in the priesthood. In the ABC, there is recognition for individual achievement and some respect granted for position and office, but this is minimal. I really do not think that any more is necessary. One receives no more recognition than that in almost any profession except for celebrity professions. So, color me confused.

I guess I really did not talk about the ABC vs the ECUSA...but this time I think that reveals more the commonalities in our professional niches than a writer's carelessness...though I was careless. Pastor and Priest are viewd similarly in most of the congregations I have been affiliated with. The differences in theology there are noticed by only those who care to be in the know. Blah blah blah...

Now, back to my orange juice. I wonder if my coffee is ready.