Settling in to the vacation routine ... which is to organize ourselves not to HAVE a routine! So while blogging on this site will therefore be sporadic between now and Labor Day I don't plan to get organized enough to disappear altogether.
We're off to the Hollywood Bowl tonight ... one of my FAVORITE summer things to do ... and tonight is "The Grand Tour: Paris"... our next-best-thing as an actual trip to Paris wasn't in the budget this year. So in a minute my attention will turn to putting together a picnic supper in sync with the music du jour (already picked out the wine -- a Chardonnay we like called "French Cat") but first here are a few "bits & pieces" that caught my attention whien I was getting caught up in blogland:
Thanks to Elizabeth Kaeton for her wonderful tribute to Rob DeWolfe over at Telling Secrets. What a true joy true friends are and what a blessing to be invited in to share that joy!
Douglas Hunter blogged in on our recent foray into "Lights, Camera, Action" and the documentary he's shooting over at The Hunter's Hodgepodge. "Film at Eleven" as they say ... and in this case, they really mean it!
Looks like I took a few hits in the comments over at The Huffington Post for my remarks about Kucinich's chances for the White House. Sure I'd like to see a president in favor of marriage equality, getting out of Iraq NOW and universal non-profit health care. But political realities -- whether we like them or not -- are political realities (in presidential AND ecclesial politics!) And Dennis Kucinich DOES have as much chance calling Bekins in January to move into 1600 Pennsylvania as I do calling a cab to take me over there for tea -- EVEN now that Rove is heading out to pasture.
Over at "Walking With Integrity" Louie Crew stepped up to respond to the Bay Windows op-ed a week-or-so ago which questioned (in light of the announcement that Lambda Legal was giving one of its "Liberty Awards" to an Episcopal priest ... me ...) why anybody would work within an oppressive system as messed up as the church is. Good question, actually. And Louie had some VERY good answers. Thank, Dr. Crew!
I loved the piece on marriage in the Victorian era ... posted over at Anglicans Online and then shared on Walking With Integrity. Here's the take-away-quote: If the Victorians — bless them — could carry on together, worshipping at one another's churches when travelling, sharing pulpits, maintaining collegial relationships and even attending Lambeth Conferences despite a clear and pronounced difference in theological understanding about sexual relationships, it's a strange curiosity that in our time we have grown more rigid and uncompromising.
Amen, Anglicans Online ... AMEN!
Finally, over at Titusonenine (I know, I know ... "moth to the flame" alert!) are all over the Presiding Bishop for this interview which includes her SHOCKINGLY un-Christian call to reconciliation and leads the commenters into slamming her CONTINUED insistance that supporting the MDGs is a means to live out Our Lord's proclamation of "The Year of the Lord's Favor." What on earth is this church coming to under the leadership of a seemingly unflappable proponent of the core Christian values of our baptismal covenant! Titusoneniners name it "to hell in a handbasket" but I'm sticking with the PB on this one: (to quote from her interview)
“We’ve learned to live with differences before and so I’m hopeful,” Jefferts Schori said.
So on that hopeful note, I'm off to play some Eidth Piaf as we pack a Paris-esque Picnic. Happy Tuesday, everybody!
Listening to Piaf as I type - hope you have a wonderful evening!
Susan, are you equating the differences between whether or not it is fit for a widow to marry her husband's brother with differences over whether or not a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is sinful or not?
In reading the comments on Titusonline it seems that the posters are not slamming the concept of reconciliation; they are noting that our Presiding Bishop seems to be more worried about reconciliation to man's ideas instead of God's word. Then there's the idea that if she really wanted to show some reconcilation, she could drop the lawsuits and recognize that people have a right to keep the property that they and their predecessors bought and paid for instead of trying to occupy it and take it.
ron ... and if the those hell-bent on schism would like to return the property they are attempting to steal from The Episcopal Church I'm sure an end to the lawsuits would be forthcoming.
Fred, the theft that is going on here is being committed by TEC, not by the parishes. Nobody ever gave a dime to pay for the purchase, development and maintenance of a parish's church thinking or intending that it belonged to TEC.
Consider how our parishes are organized. We have pastors and vestries. The pastors have command over the spiritual life of the parish, teaching doctrine, guiding spiritual development, developing ministries, etc., etc. As it should be. But the pastor has no command over the property; the real and financial assets are under the control of the vestry.
Our episcopal model builds our church on bishops. Their authority is spiritual, not temporal. The attempt of the National church to take parish properties from them is theft, pure and simple, in my view.
Post a Comment