Pluralist Speaks: The Real Archbishop of Anglicanism

Pluralist Speaks: The Real Archbishop of Anglicanism

I was so upset that ABC Rowan had reduced sexual orientation to life-style choice I forgot to think through the larger argument he is making against innovation as he innovates a history for the AC that never was! Thanks Pluralist!

Following ABC's logic I guess St. Paul only really needed to write one letter and just send copies to each church.  I mean why waste parchment as if the local church could have concerns the global church hadn't already settled.  Also,  I wonder if St. Peter waited until everybody got the "roof-top vision memo" to change what the church said about what is clean or unclean.

ABC makes more than one category error in giving to the global church an authority that is not already operating in the local church.  I've asked this before and I'm asking it again. What are either of the historic creeds for if not to define that which we hold in common, so that in proclamation any part of the church can be said to represent all?  After that, why would a bishop from the other side of the planet even want to weigh in on obviously local church concerns?  Do the polygamists in Africa realize the local-trumps-global authority they already enjoy?  Does ABC Rowan realize that he is describing as historic an ecclesiology that never was?

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future

ABC Rowan doesn't surprise me. Especially when he says in section 2 para 9 "It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences." This is not the same argument he gave when he was Bishop of Wales.
For too long the stand against full inclusion of GLBT persons in the sacramental life of the church has relied on equating sexual orientation to "life-style choice."
Isn't it the Church that is making the prior and more complicating choice by baptizing infants, long before they are able understand who they are as sexual creatures and then work from that understanding as grounds for their own life-style choices?
Maybe Rome could help here by returning to the practice of what my Southern Baptist forebearers long called "believers baptism." Maybe TEC should redefine confirmation as a coming out party. Or maybe we're doing exactly what Jesus calls us to do. Risk our institutional life while Rowan tries to preserve his fiction of a singular AC. I'm blaming it all on Constantine.

Shared via AddThis

Dr. Broun's Medicine

I don’t enjoy having to do things this way but in the case of my US congressional representation I must do this.  I am sharing with anybody inclined to read my blog my disappointment  in his  so called representation.  Check his web page (if you must) and look especially at his Survey.  

Follow he link and you will find yourself being asked ONE question.  

Here it is, “As the illegal immigration debate resurfaces, I’d like to know if you think the 12+ million illegal immigrants currently in the USA should be granted amnesty and citizenship.”  Check Yes or No.  

Some survey.  

Jesus and the Money Changers

Temple practices that hooked the poor on high interest credit and drove them into debt were the target of Jesus' anger. I knew that his cleansing wasn't simply a reaction to monied interests too close to the Holy of Holies. It makes more sense to understand his tirade as giving Sabbath a "fighting chance." Rev. Thistlewaite's development of this idea is an excellent interpretation that should never be avoided when preaching this Gospel.

A Formula for Fun-damn-mentalisn*

In an excellent critique of Gov. Palin's stumble following Charlie Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine, James Fallows provides the basic formula for the current crop of hard right conservatives and religious right believers in America. Episcopalians would call this the three-legged-stool of fundamentalism.

1. Ignorance
   
2. Lack of curiosity
   
3. "Decisiveness"
   

Palin's and Bush's "ignorances" are equal to each other and analogous to those of any "believer" who doesn't know how the collection of writings called the Bible came together, for instance.  In both political and religious veins the result is a fallacy of "unitary" authority.  Loyalty, sincerity and zeal replace wisdom and knowledge as first requirements for membership.  One rises to ceremonial leadership by exposing their own emptiness. (Don't forget who really pulls the strings.)

It takes about one second of inspection to recognize fundamentalism's lack of curiosity.  It has all kinds of expressions .  One is the striking similarity between fundies disdain for an "educated clergy" and the folksiness of Bush and Palin.  

Check here and click on the FAQ link (you'll need a flash player) to marvel at what Palin's church's Masters Commission graduates call a curriculum.   NO Greek, NO Hebrew, NO documentary hypothesis, NO historic criticism, NO multiple translations, NO church history.  Yet from this training are sent men into their version of ordained leadership. I can't find any evidence that women graduates are allowed the same authority status.  Apparently, study is not meant to cultivate or even allow curiosity but to limit it to a pre-ordained simplification that is repeated in a one size fits all mantra.  In this world Palin's folksiness becomes MC Crew with spray paint and laptops.  

Fallow's three part formula becomes a three cornered web as "Decisiveness" describes the balancing between real experience and doctrine.  It is an imitation of resolve which "doesn't blink."  It answers back before the questions are finished with a mantra or a snicker.  It maintains the ignorance so important to daily management in a world that once expected and in some more liberal circles still expects knowledge and wisdom of its leaders.  Decisiveness asserts itself before all the answers are in, holding at bay the curiosity that is so cumbersome and even dangerous to the unitary character of authority.  In the end both fundies and conservatives have to keep repeating themselves whether what they are saying is true or makes any sense at all. 

Jesus was a Community Organizer

The recent events orchestrated in St. Paul, MN to mock Barack Obama's pre-law school work in Chicago's Southside to help unemployed steel workers to find jobs, to set up childcare for poor families so they can work, or to find healthcare for the uninsured were offensive to many of my fellow Athenians, especially those who have performed similar acts of community service here in one of Georgia's poorest counties. 

Why the snide and cynical remarks from Mayor Giuliani and Govenor Palin?  Except to lower the bar for themselves and those who would vote for their candidate, there is no good reason.  Rovian scoffing that turns shrill from the lips of Governor Palin and just plain disingenuous when Giuliani asks "what's that?" has lost its currency along with the US dollar.  It will not work for much longer to keep acting like the world is too bad to be helped by the good done by teachers, coaches, "Y" directors, social workers of all stripes, legal services providers, pregnancy counselors, drug counselors, CASA workers, visitation supervisors. 

Saying that "Jesus was a community organizer" makes no claims to Obama being a Messiah or the One as those same cynics have tried to box him and his supporters.  (The Charlton Heston image was ironic at best if not plain offensive.)  Instead, the reminder of the work of the first century rabbi  properly recognizes and claims for many voters the very hope that gets us to do things like vote in the first place.  

Plus, trying to get most voters to laugh at Obama's excellent resume and its emergent hope is a failure at framing.  It fails because of who has been chosen to deliver the remarks, so far they've all claimed to be followers of the very one whose "community organizing" is world renowned.  It fails because the facts -- both those that confirm the quality of Obama's work along with those that confirm how well protected from their individual failings the speakers have been -- can be checked too easily.  Finally it fails because Obama actually was a community organizer and too many voters know how good a thing that has been.

Worshipping the Constitution

This was tucked into W's news while in China for the Olympics.  

The president worshipped at a Beijing church and declared China has nothing to fear from expressions of faith. Later, he met with Chinese leaders and again voiced concern about the jailing of dissidents and religious activists, aides reported.

"As you know, I feel very strongly about religion," he told President Hu Jintao in a meeting at the Zhongnanhai government compound while reporters were present.

Whether or not the "current occupant" feels “strongly about religion” is irrelevant to his being in China.  It is not his job to advocate for religion even where the practice of religion suffers the kind of establishment unique to China.

If there is any creed the President should be indicating it is the one he has twice pledged in his inaugurations:  

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing about religion but a whole lot about freedom all bound up in the one word, "constitution."   Bush's remarks do not make any sense except that, like China, under this administration we have drifted into our own version of the establishment of religion.   

Religion doesn't require presidential endorsement to be freely exercised.  Instead, whether in China or at home W should be professing his love for the Constitution.