Updated: Stop The Madness

For this one post I am stepping away from the theme and the issues of the Episcopal Church in San Joaquin and the Episcopal Church at large and religion in general. I am dismayed to say the least at what president Obama is about to say and do and I will no longer stay quiet.

As a combat veteran of Viet Nam 1968-1969, Alpha Company, 3rd Tanks, 3rd Marine Division, sending troops to anywhere with a purpose and an intent that is good and sufficient is not a problem for me. My father served in WWII and my son sits in the Gulf of Oman as I write this little ditty. I also have no problem with those that protested the war some 40+ years ago and I have made my peace with even those who left the country to avoid the war. I have also learned the lessons that Viet Nam taught us, particularly those of us that served. I have had people die in my arms, so yes, I understand only too well that lesson. My interpretation is do not send anyone anywhere without a specific cause and a specific plan, a life is way to precious to waste for any other reason. I also fully understand that we have the most professional military of any country in the world. We also have the most efficient military of anywhere in the world, and most of the world knows this also.

So, when we sent troops to Afghanistan many years ago to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden for the bold and dastardly attack on the twin towers, I did not lose one moment of sleep and I did not hesitate one moment even though I was deeply concerned about the president that did this. Clearly, the mission was to capture or kill Osama and I was all for that. I understand collateral damage and if someone got in the way of that goal either step aside or be run over is an okay answer.

Then for some reason that I will never understand, we engaged Iraq. What a stupid thing to do, I thought. It takes troops away from the mission in Afghanistan and makes it all that much more difficult and to be honest (as if former President Bush could), I thought getting even with Saddam for trying to kill George HW Bush was a pretty petty reason for sending American troops into harms way. But it seems that everyone got over that and we are on the verge of an orderly removal of that. (The secondary reason of "They [Iraq} have our [US} oil under their ground was also never very convincing). At any rate, troops are coming home and now President Obama turns to Afghanistan and is about to send another 30-40,000 troops into harms way to help the government of Afghanistan get a start? What the heck happened to the original idea? When did we change our goals to something like propping up a government in a country we have no real interest in and no real reason for even being there? Did we not learn the lessons of Vietnam? Did somebody suffer a concussion in which that part of the collective memory was lost?

Let me end this with where I began. My son is in the Gulf of Oman. He and his friends are professionals, they go where they are told to go, and do what they are told to do. That is the beauty of our military; actually, that is the brilliance of our military. It is up to our civilian government to say where and when and how and for how long. I for one, do not want my son and his friends, pilots and his shipmates, to be there for one more second than needs be. If, we are there for "the long haul" and we will continue a mission that is ill-defined and ill-conceived and we are unwilling to do what we started to do in the first place, then it is time to stop the madness.

UPDATED:

With all due respect, President Obama's arguments in favor of the differences between Viet Nam and Afghanistan were unconvincing. The people are an insurgent group; the twin towers and the gulf of Tonkin incident are very similar. Sorry, he did not mention resolving the Osama Bin Laden issue. I am unconvinced and I am sorely disappointed.

To Those Who Have Been Led Astray

From the Epistle Reading for the First Sunday in Advent:

[9] For what thanksgiving can we render to God for you, for all the joy which we feel for your sake before our God,
[10] praying earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith?
[11]
Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you;


[12] and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you,
[13] so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
1 Thessalonians 3:9-13

It is the first Sunday in Advent. I realize that with Advent comes the idea of waiting . . . for Christ to come. My limited understanding is that I am waiting for both the birth of Jesus but also the Second Coming. But, as I read this passage it not only informs me of Christ and his anticipated coming/return but perhaps the coming/return of all those who have fled the Episcopal Church looking for something "else". Something "Anglican", something "scripturally bound". And so I look at verse 12,

"and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you".

You may think that you have not been lied to but look at your "Anglican connection". Are you closer to the Archbishop of Canterbury or further away? Look on the Anglican Communion website and see if you can find your diocese.

You may think you have not been lied to but have any of those issues that John David promised would be resolved, have they been resolved?

You may think that you have not been lied to but if you are praying out of the BCP 1547 something is amiss.

My prayer, this advent, is going to be for the coming home of all of you, coming home to the Episcopal Church. But more importantly, I pray for your love to grow to encompass all men! And my prayer for those of us is that our love for you will grow so that when you return we receive you with open arms, a grateful soul, and a loving heart.

Bless you all and peace to you and to your families in this Advent year, 2009, and we'll keep a light on for you!

Jesus Is On The Wire

With all that is currently going on with the Manhattan Declaration and the Jerusalem Declaration and the recent events in Uganda and Nigeria I think it is necessary to post this. Keep in mind Advent is just around the corner and it is time to think about the coming of Christ. What is it that he wants from you and me and our neighbor.




JESUS IS ON THE WIRE

(Thea Hopkins)

Run down church
Red clay
River covered
In a smoky haze

Sunday morning
The fire is out
Sunday morning
No one about


The earth is soft
This time of year
Boots get caked
From there to here

Down the road
Route 25
They found this boy
He was barely alive

Jesus is on the wire
So far away, higher and higher
Jesus is on the wire

They took him down
Off the fence
Cold as ice
Almost dead
They said that he
That he slept with guys
They said that he
Deserved to die

Jesus is on the wire
So far away, higher and higher
Jesus is on the wire



©2001 Grown Up Girl Music (ASCAP)

The song was written by Thea Hopkins and a brief play is on her blog. The reference/url redirection is to Peter, Paul and Mary's version of this song. Any way one views it this is a great song!

A hat tip to PFLAG Tricities blog for their help.

Isn't The Manhattan Declaration a Radical Drink?

Everyone remember Jim Jones and Kool-aid? As an interesting lead in, what I will call a grabber, a very good friend of mine was married by Jim Jones. Yes, THE Jim Jones -- Guyana and Leo McCarthy and the whole 9 yards. He escaped only because he saw early where all "that" was going. Apparently, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Iker, Mr. Schofield are all leading many a "would-be' Anglican down that very path to what kan only be kalled a Kool-aid ending.

There is a book, Things Your Minister Wants To Tell You (but can't because he needs the job) that deals with the issue of homophobia in nine (that is correct, 9) pages. I understand the Manhattan Declaration is something like 4,700 words. The book, written by Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a pretty neat work. By the way, Buzz is a BAPTIST. Buzz was also the temporary parent of a gay child. The first question he askedwhen he became that surrogate parent, was "What makes a father reject his son?" The answer, RELIGION! It is indeed interesting to note that we want to kill each other more and faster when religion comes into play -- more so than any other single issue. To wit, the Book of Leviticus has a grand pronouncement about a man laying with another man. But there are also about a ton of things in Leviticus we no longer adhere to. Checkout the following:




This scene was written/taken from a response to a Dr. Laura Schlesinger radio program. The listener/author of the words is Ken Ashcraft who was compensated by the West Wing for using it (somewhat altered) in the scene you just viewed.

Buzz takes us back to Genesis and god's view of his handiwork, "And the Lord saw that it was good." Buzz then speaks to the issue of being born gay and and after he covers the now basic science and genetics and facts adds the oft repeated retort from a gay person, "Who in their right mind would choose this?" The question cutting to the issue of the pain and suffering that LBGT people go through on a daily, sometimes hourly basis.

The simple but inescapable logic Buzz uses is this, "If God created us and if everything God created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him (or her) to be?" Buzz brings this all down to a chilling conclusion with this gem, "Viewed in this light, society's current intolerance toward homosexuals starts to look more like the racism of the Ku Klux Klan or the anti-semitism of Nazi Germany rather than authentic biblical faith." He then goes onto say that the people undermining the the family aren't the relative handful of gay couples lining up to marry; it's the multitude of heterosexual couples lining up to divorce!

Buzz ends this rather brief chapter with the following words: "so I ask you: Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing, or insurance benefits because of something you have no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his (or her) behalf if he/she were murdered?

Sometimes theology can get complicated and the answers hard to come by.

Not this time."

The Jerusalem Declaration, the Manhattan Declaration, GAFCON, AMia, CANA, ACNA, the Global South??? Not this time.

I really encourage you to read this Baptist Pastor and writer. When you do, ask yourself, "What is keeping us apart?"

Shadow Boxing In the Dark

Here is the latest quote from our Archbishop as he takes the Pope to task:

Speaking before he meets Benedict XVI tomorrow, Dr Rowan Williams told a conference in Rome that the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women was a bar to Christian unity.

And, dear friends, here is a direct quote from Mr. Iker:

Katharine Jefferts Schori has no authority over me or my ministry as a Bishop in the Church of God. She never has, and she never will.

Why does the Archbishop continue to recognize Robert Duncan and John David Schofield despite the similar grounds?

Then there is the full inclusion issue for LGBT that seems to be a stumbling block for +Henri Luke Orombi and +Peter Akinola.

The Archbishop of Canterbury goes on to spar with the Pope saying,

But yesterday the Archbishop made clear that there would be no turning back the clock on women priests in order to appease critics. He dismissed the Pope’s offer to disaffected Anglicans as barely more than a “pastoral response”, which broke little new ground in relations between the two Churches.

Why is this not true also:

But yesterday the Archbishop made clear that there would be no turning back the clock on LGBT priests in order to appease critics. He dismissed the Pope’s offer to disaffected Anglicans as barely more than a “pastoral response”, which broke little new ground in relations between the two Churches.

It is easy to shadow box in the dark, see, you cannot get hit, but then neither can you hit anyone else.

What Mission is Missing?

From the Jubilate Deo: The Diocese of South Carolina's Newsletter:

You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.” You might think, what a way to start… but it’s the only legitimate way, because prayer is the only way to activate the faith necessary to complete the earthly impossible.
For four years, four people prayed in a building that should have been condemned.

This is how the article starts. I am unfortunately, not interested so much in the specific mission as I am in the overall mission. It seems that South Carolina, along with six other diocese are interested in missions. Starting them, helping them grow, bringing them "new life" in an enriching environment. What a truly prophetic and wonderful goal. Oh, except for one thing, "your" mission, to get help, has to be "theologically sound". By theologically sound, that is code words for in keeping with the ideas espoused by the Communion Partners bishops. See, Mark Lawrence, has many would be missions in South Carolina. One in particular,St. Mark's Chapel has been then for over 7 years and has been passed over, first by Bishop Salmon and then by Bishop Lawrence. This mission wants to be Episcopalian, i.e., recognized and part of and in close cooperation with the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It holds strong beliefs in inclusiveness and in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Apparently, these are not the characteristics that endear them to +Mark Lawrence. +Lawrence wants a mission to be exclusive when it comes to certain, well you know, people. Never mind that they have survived all on their own with no help from the diocese and will continue to do so. He, +Lawrence, has on at least 2 different occasions told them flat out, they are not his kind of church.

Too bad mission means being loyal first to Mark Lawrence instead of Jesus Christ.

TRUST: What We See vesus What We Believe

The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has been in existence since at least 1789. General Convention, created at that time, not only included but started with the laity and then included clergy and only "reluctantly" and "belatedly" included a House of Bishops. Clearly, William White trusted the laity to balance whatever else would happen in the future. This is unique in all of the Anglican world and it is the least understood piece of the Episcopal Church by anyone outside these United States. Laity inside the church are supposed to be our hidden strength. We believe that given the spiritual strength of the laity our church can do anything. The laity not only balance the clergy but on more than one occasion lead the clergy. That fits so very nicely with the concept of scripture, reason and tradition -- the Hooker three-legged stool. Clearly it is the extension of the whole idea that balancing scripture with reason and reason with tradition and tradition with scripture (and so forth) and the extension of what was begun in England with Hooker and Elizabeth and Cranmer and Locke and Hobbes. Since 1994 the laity have led the church in full inclusion by all for all and with the sacraments. Most notably our LBGT brothers and sisters.

The citizens of the United States have enjoyed a representative democracy since about 1789 and while we may not be the envy of the entire world we continue to receive millions of refugees even today. Of late several states have exercised the franchise and in so doing restricted the rights of one or more groups. Most notably and most frequently our LBGT brothers and sisters. Proposition 8 in California and I think it was proposition 1(or 1E) in Maine. There has also been at least one other state where when given the opportunity, the laity elect bigotry instead of full inclusion.

This leads me to my real question or rather my dilemma. Trust, I am having some real trust issues with this whole area. What do i mean? Well, we, the laity have a significant role to play in the governance of our church. In fact, it would be interesting to see some changes wherein the laity take a more prominent role at convention. But, and this is a large but at that, what I have seen lately scares me almost beyond belief. One could say that those who have voted for the propositions throughout the country to restrict LGBT rights are Catholics and Mormons and Baptists and others, certainly not Episcopalians. And to that I would say, "Hold on Buckeroos!". Look at the diocese of Quincy and San Joaquin, and the diocese of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth. And Look at the diocese of South Carolina and the diocese of Louisiana. I am convinced that I would not want a majority of those folks voting on whether the sun will rise tomorrow let alone on any one's right to participate fully in sacraments.

So, folks what do you think we should do? Do we go with William White (ultimately he was a bishop) and strengthen and expand the the laity's role in General Convention or do we do something different? If something different what should it be?

While you are thinking on this, keep St. Mark's Chapel in Beaufort, South Carolina in your prayers and keep those cards and letters going to now Bishop Lawrence soon to be Mr Lawrence going.