Salt

Staying Connected as Foreign Policy

In the news we are witnessing the failed policies of both Israel and the United States in regard to the Palestinians, the North Koreans and the Iranians.    As Juan Cole notes:

Unless Israel and its patron summon the wisdom to take the long view and hammer out an agreement that will give the Palestinians a viable state, rather than simply trying to smash them into submission, the world's most dangerous conflict will continue to rage, with dangerous consequences for all.

In both cases, Israel and the US have cut themselves off from any kind of conversation with their enemies over the last 5 years.  In Israel's case they are engaging in collective punishment, which is inhumane and... a really stupid way to create peace.

The logic by the states in power is:  force the partners [or terrorists] to stop [terrorizing] by not engaging.  Engagement is confused with appeasement.  Thus, engagement is held to be its own incentive.  Unfortunately, such a view obscures the implicit engagements, say the historic, the subconscious or the economic, between the different parties.  Part of this is tactical - for when you don't engage, you can avoid making any real decisions.  Of course, one reason people don't engage is a fear of losing local elections - and example of a lack of leadership.  Strong leadership [making the decison to set realistic incentives after continued conversations] is seen as weakness.  Ironically, the "strong" leadership exhibited [invading the Gaza strip and destroying the Palestinian infrastructure, making ultimatums and veiled threats against Iran and N. Korea], just heightens the anxiety in their partners [enemies].  The partners [be it in Palestine, Iran or North Korea] then decide that the only way they can protect themselves is by becoming even more radicalized, for there is no visible incentive for them to soften their rhetoric.  Israeli brutality or American stubborness are bad examples to set for their future partners.

Direct engagement should not be a condition.   Direct talks with NK and Iran, or even merely allowing Hamas to conduct its business of policing the state and providing services, would have resulted in more open Koreans, less obnoxious Iranians and a more stable Palestine.  As it is, we've lost the few openings we've had:  we've called all of them names, we've made ricitulous ultimatums tinged with serious threats.  Alas, they may decide to call our bluff, and we may find ourselves having to make a choice between revealing the incompetence of our own policy, or hiding it through military action.

Not a good choice.

Rabbinical Council bans Smoking

A better idea than shellfish.

Although I would probably sneak a Cuban once in a while.

Our own Lambeth

Lets have our own Lambeth.

We don't need an English Lambeth.

We can have it somewhere else.

Someplace tropical and idyllic, like the Maldives.

We can have our own "pope" who's only power is to choose the people on the committee who will select the caterer.  He can be the Archbishop of the Maldives.

Or we can have it in Canterbury MD.

And we can invite whoever we want.  The casual English.  The friendly Nigerians.  We can even invite Orthodox Bishops and RCs who have a bit of extra time.   Invite some AME Zion bishops also.  Lutherans. 

We will make no doctrine.  We will comment upon the state of the world.  If necessary, we will predict Jesus' imminent return or repeat that the Kingdom is very near.  It always is. 

Theological conversation will be kept to a minimum, unless there is copious amounts of whiskey.

All we would do is talk, gather, dance and eat. 

We'd tell each other stories about the power of the spirit.  We'd share hats.  We'd make hats for those denominations that didn't let their bishops have nice hats.

And the first order of business?

Disestablishment of the Church of England.

A Reply to Dr. Harding

I wasn't at General Convention.  But I offer a few thoughts.

The real issue is not sexuality.  Nor is it only about authority.  My impression is that we are reacting to a world that is rapidly changing, "global," a consequence of late capitalism.  Do I love the changes?  Not really.  But gay people are simply the current object of our general anxiety.   

Those of us on the progressive side might remember that for all the conservative things our bishops say, the economic liberation of women will continue breaking up the traditional patriarchy of our faith.   Remember, also, that trying to force the institution to change won't matter if we aren't trying to relate to congregations on the ground. 

The reasserters still have not demonstrated that they have a clear understanding of sexual behavior within marriage.  What do we do with the problem, for example, of the "strap on" when a woman takes the male role during sex? 

Progressives must also remember that, for plenty of people in the rest of the world, our little escapades into Iraq are connected to our sexual libertinism.   

But here is a quick commentary to Dr. Harding's thoughts on General Convention, which are being widely praised. [update:  here is a commentary from Leaning Toward Justice]  Via

1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.

Obviously, it is worthy to explore the nature of desire or attraction.  I am skeptical, however, that God has much to do with romance, and it is precisely the practical experience of pastors with gay people that led to the reconsideration of the church’s ethics.   The fruits of the spirit, however, are explained in scripture.

2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.

Obviously there are men and women.  One does not need to be religious or a Christian to assert such.   This fact is not necessarily the primary aspect of being a Christian, who is clothed in Christ rather than gender or ethnicity. 

3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.

I’m not sure if anyone was saying this, but goodie for them.  Twice as many possibilities.  But you are hitched once. 

4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.

If we were to inquire into the phenomenon, what would we find?  Perhaps homosexuality might be God’s way of healing people who have been abused?  Perhaps it is one way of resisting the fusion between a mother and son?   It might be interesting.  But it is probably useless.   It does remind me, a bit, of Schockley.

5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.

Actually, no.  The spirit merely revealed that homosexuals are in our midst and included in God’s plan.  God reveals our desires and reveals that they may be good.  He may or may not put them there.  This is profoundly disturbing to those of us who witness these revelations.  It is as if we are in the midst of an earthquake.

6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Only time will tell, but it is possible.

7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.

There is nothing special about bisexual or transgendered people that make them fit for ordination.  If a church calls them out to be priests, then that is the best evidence we have for their fitness.   Churches make mistakes, but this is also evinced with the number of talentless straight, white, male clergy.

8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.

Unfortunately, this is a philosophically troubling statement.  Most epistemologists would want to be careful about what we consider “certain” and when talking about the supernatural, we are on intrinsically difficult ground.  In the public sphere, certainty gets in the way of the greater virtue, humility.   

Second, to talk of “authoritative readings” requires that there be, first, an “authority.”  Alas, we have not decided who that authority will be.  Nigerian bishops?  Why?  The Archbishop of Canterbury?  I vote for the tallest bishop with the most guns or the most organized wife.  Or the one who can “pop and lock” like Michael Jackson.  Jesus - then by bishop - would be the most logical authority, but I don't think there is any agreement on what Jesus' orienting hermeneutic was [although I have my suspicions...]

Sisk Speaks

My bishop, Mark Sisk, writes an excellent letter.  Note a few things you will never find in a reasserting essay.  First, he acknowledges he might be wrong.  He also points out that hatred of homosexuals is wrong also.  Here it is....

Dear People of the Episcopal Diocese of New York,

I write these reflections following our recent General Convention in Columbus, Ohio.  This was an exceptionally important Convention for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the Reflection, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on our work.  It seemed, therefore, worthy of some extended commentary.

The Convention itself did three things: (1) it elected a new Presiding Bishop; (2) it wrestled with the requests of the Windsor report and associated requests from The Anglican Consultative Counsel and the Primates of the Anglican Communion, and (3) everything else.

Everything else

The third of these achievements “everything else” is easily over-looked in all the energy over the first two, but this third was extraordinarily important.  Found here is a new focus on our faithful participation in the Millennium Development Goals (something this Diocese has been working on for some years),  a commitment to our continuing focus on youth and young adult ministries (again something quite familiar here in New York), and a renewed attempt to help this Nation wrestle, in a constructive way, with the burden of the sin of slavery (once again something that the Diocese of New York took the initiative on in presenting before General Convention – it having been dropped in 2003). We approved interim Eucharistic sharing with the United Methodist Church. There were as well a plethora of liturgical measures considered, including the adoption of The Revised Common Lectionary (though a proposal to begin preparation for a new revision of The Book of Common Prayer was rejected – happily from my personal view). A number of additional commemorations for Lesser Feasts and Fasts were moved forward or authorized, notably including Thurgood Marshall. As an indication of the actual importance of these items, as appropriate, they each found an appropriate place in the National Church budget for the next triennium.

 

The Election of the XXVI Presiding Bishop

The second major achievement of the Convention was the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori from among a strong field of well qualified nominees.  Though much attention in the popular press has been devoted to the fact that Bishop Jefferts Schori will be the first woman to serve as Presiding Bishop and the first woman Primate in the Anglican Communion, it needs to be said that she was nominated and elected based upon her capacities for that demanding office.  She brings to it a brilliant mind, a centered personality, and her gifts as an evocative speaker.  I believe that our Church will pleased with this election.

more...

Ulysses Grant: Our Greatest President

As some of you may have noted, I have been reading his memoirs for the longest time.  They are simply brilliant, and ... they make me proud to be an American. 

I don't say "proud to be an American" very often, unless I'm in some country bar in NYC, listening to Hank Williams, Patsy Cline or Merle Haggard.

What we should honor and remember by honoring Ulysses Grant is that his vision of racial justice was the will of the American people-- all its people -- and that the following hundred years of segregation was an illegitimate betrayal of that democratic will. In that, Grant was the true founder and implementor of the modern American nation of equal rights and if the flowering of that nation was delayed for a century with his departure from office, that's all the more reason to remember his original vision and courage-- and defy those who try to bury that memory.

Read it all.

No Way I'm Saving That Guy

All right. I realize I am supposed to be all-merciful, universally loving, the Light and the Way and everything, but even a divine avatar of the Supreme Being's loving grace has His limits. I know I've said many times that there is always room for one more—even the lowliest—at the table of the Lord, but even so, there is just no freaking way I'm redeeming this S.O.B.

I don't want to name names, but his initials are Gus Feigert, owner-operator of Fei   gert Automotive down on Seybold Road, by the gas station. There, I said it. And you know what? I don't care. I'm glad I said his name. If he's going to suffer damnation for all eternity—which, I assure you, he most certainly is—then I don't see how much more damage revealing his identity during his brief time on Earth is going to cause the bastard in the long run.

The guy is a jerk.

read Jesus' commentary from the Onion