What the heck happened?

I mean, I haven't been living on a deserted island for the past 10 years, but what the heck happened to the Original American Idol?

You know. The All American Goody-Two-Shoes? (and they were White Bucks, as I recall).

The guy you thought of right after someone said, "Apple Pie, Motherhood and Chevrolet."

The guy who crooned "April Love" and "Love Letters in the Sand" in the late 1950s while all the teen aged girls swooned and fainted.

Him. Pat Boone.

Father of the one-hit single Debby Boone. You know, the one who made us all groan every time she sang, "You Light Up My Life." (Just mentioning that song makes me queasy.)

There I was, at the Atlanta Bread Company Friday afternoon, eating my Southwestern Salmon Salad and Ice Tea for lunch, minding my own beeswax and reading the Special Edition, Spring, 2009 issue of "The Intelligence Report," published by The Southern Poverty Law Center.

I turned to page four and was reading through "Intelligence Briefs: Hate in the Mainstream" - which is a collection of quotes compiled from media accounts, web pages and a group called "Media Matters for America"a website that monitors the Far Right.

I cringed but was not surprised to read this:

"Well, I think probably there'll be ham hocks and turnip greens"

That was from G. Gordon Liddy, commenting during the November 4 broadcast of his Radio America program on what sort of food would be served in an Obama-run Concentration Camp.

Or, this from Michael Savage, on the November 18 edition of his syndicated radio show "The Savage Nation," predicting what Obama's election as president would bring:

""[T]here's gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government."

And, this just flat out disgusted me:

"Viva Viagra. Well - after all, who's gonna father the next generation of illegals to come swarming across the border in their effort to reconquer the Southwest?"

That was Jim Quinn, on the November 18 edition of his syndicated radio show, "The War Room With Quinn & Rose," reacting to Mexico City's plans to distribute erectile-dysfunction drugs to elderly men (No word if they're going to distribute condoms and birth-control pills to women of childbearing age.)

But, this . . .this caused my jaw to drop, right there in the Atlanta Bread Company, right in front of God and everybody, including all the (half dressed) giddy high school senior girls, fresh from having their 'mani-pedi's' who were 'doing lunch' before getting all gussied up for Prom Night:

"What troubles me so deeply...is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai [India] and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists."

What the what?

Pat Boone? Said that?

Yup. Apparently he said it in a December 6 commentary on the right wing WorldNetDaily website, comparing mass murderers to gay rights activists who are seeking to reverse California's Proposition 8, passed in November, outlawing same-sex marriage.

I sat there, shaking my head in disbelief. And anyway, what the heck is a 'homegrown sexual jihadist'? And how in the precious name of the Risen Lord has that got anything to do with jihadists in Mumbai?

Okay, okay. I've known for a while that the Squeaky-Clean All American Boy had become a "Christian singer" - and, I thought it was pretty funny a few years back when he came on the American Music Awards to promote his album "In A Metal Mood: No More Mr. Nice Guy." He appeared with Alice Cooper and was dressed all in leather and wore a dog collar.

I thought it was even funnier when the Christian Right didn't see the humor and fired him from a TV show he did for the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Well, funny in that sad sort of way when bigots show their true colors.

The stunt did boost the sales of the album up the pop charts - the first time in 35 years he had a hit song. Ah, the price of success! Fame and fortune don't come cheap, that's for sure.

Okay, I do remember reading about his support for The Shrub. I also remember that he called the Theory of Evolution 'absurd', 'nonsensical' and 'bankrupt false religion'.

I guess I missed the memo when he wrote an editorial for WorldNetDaily in the form of a fairy tale where a young Prince Charming was seduced by a dwarf, got AIDS, and then overdosed. Well, he meant it as a 'cautionary tale' about the moral decay of our American culture.

Had I read that in advance, it might have given me a bit of a heads-up, eh?

So, here's my question: How does this happen?

How does a fresh-faced teenage heartthrob become a right wing hatemonger?

Anybody got a clue?

It's an easy (if not cheap) shot to say that the man is so desperate for attention that he'll hang out with Alice Cooper and sing the theme song for the Ozzy Osborne 'reality show'.

Being a spokesman for the Religious Right is not a bad gig - an easy way to extend your already overspent 15 minutes of fame - for a rapidly-aging-but-still-sorta handsome, former teenage heart-throb.

It's another easy (if not cheap) shot to quote Shakespeare and say, "Methinks the man doth protest too much."

Well, easy or cheap, it's not such a big stretch to connect the dots. I have no doubt that, after his death, we'll read some biography somewhere by one of his former lovers, who kept silence out of respect and love for the man.

It's just very hard for me to reconcile someone who professes a Christian faith on the one hand, and and spews inflammatory hate-speech soundbites like 'homegrown sexual jihadists' on the other, without being very curious about what is really going on under all that flare and protest.

Then again, there just might be something in the air out there in Orange County, CA, which is home for nationally known centers of religious worship, such as Crystal Cathedral, Saddleback Church, and Calvary Chapel.

Please keep up the prayers as we await the decision from the California Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.

You can learn more about the Memorial Day Weekend Prayer Vigil here, and light a candle and say a prayer in my Prayer Room here.

Probably wouldn't hurt to light a candle for Mr. Boone, too. Poor man seems to have been in the dark waaaayyy too long.

Keeping the faith

Over at Susan Russell's blog, An Inch At A Time, the news is that The California Supreme Court today announced that it will issue a written opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078.)

On Tuesday at 10 a.m., the opinion will be available on the California Courts Web site at this link.

The court is considering the briefings by the filing parties, which had been held in January and oral arguments held in March on the following issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Susan offers three very good suggestions about what you can do while we wait.

I would humbly like to suggest another: Prayer.

Pray, in fact, without ceasing.

Light a candle. Keep it burning all week end. Whenever you look at it, remember to say a prayer.

This is the weekend for more than back yard barbecues or a weekend at the Beach or The Shore. This is the weekend when we remember those who died for the cause of freedom.

Our freedom. Yours and mine.

Our civil rights - and yes, including our constitutional right to marry, which is being denied to us.

People - good people, men and women over the centuries - gave their lives for the cause and ideal of freedom.

Prayers of thanksgiving are always pleasing to God, but there couldn't be a more appropriate time than now to offer prayers of gratitude and prayers of hope that the idea, the cause of "liberty and justice for all" - not some, ALL - will prevail.

I'm keeping a Vigil of Prayer this weekend.

You may visit my prayer room here, light a candle and say a prayer.

Please join me in keeping the faith in the ideals that make this nation great.

Truth and Reconciliation

Two separate but related controversies have been swirling in the news this week: (1) whether to close the military prison at GITMO (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) and (2) whether to release, or not to release, those series of photographs depicting Americans engaged in torture.

Both are complicated and complex questions, which makes them all the more compelling.

President Obama, clearly not pleased by yesterday's Congressional denial of the funding necessary to close of GITMO, often found himself in the unimaginable (well, at least to me) position of sharing a split screen on almost every television news station I saw, with former VP Dick Cheney. Both were arguing their positions vigorously and forcefully about American acts of torture.

Cheney, of course, argued the Party Line: torture is justified as a matter of national security. He trotted out 9/11 again, which is always the starting point for the argument from the Right in defense of torture. . . and illegal wire tapping. . . and the Patriot Act. . . and the misinterpretation of the executive powers written in the Constitution of these United States of America.

The man had an epiphany, see, while he was in a bunker under the White House, on 9/11. He is a man on a mission to keep America and future generations of Americans safe from future attacks. And, he argues, boldface and without an ounce of shame, his own terrorist version of 'by any means necessary'.

Let's be clear: Cheney is all about preserving his 'legacy'. Why, exactly, escapes me. I should think he'd just want to slink out the back door and thank God that he will be dead when the history books that judge him harshly will be printed.

I mean - is that all the Right has to offer as a means to peace? Torture as our best defense and the erosion of our Constitutional Rights? Oh wait. It's not peace they want. It's security.

I've always found security - in any form - to be a highly seductive illusion. This has never been more true in the aftermath of dealing with my brother's recent diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. At age 55.

Despite all our best efforts to the contrary, there are no promises or guarantees of security. Not in this life.

Obama, on the other hand, acknowledged the complexity of the situation with the system, maintained that he intends to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility by January, 2010, and announced five categories of prisoners that will be used to determine what to do with the 240 men still being held there.

He also absolutely blistered the previous administration's policies on torture. He cited Pentagon numbers that show one in seven of the 534 detainees already released from the prison have returned to the battlefield. He used that as evidence that the Bush administration's approach to prosecuting the detainees didn't work.

"The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents," Obama said. "In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place."

"Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country," he said.

The president rejected the idea of an independent commission that would investigate the whole range of national security issues under the Bush administration.

"I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an independent commission," he said. But "our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability," he said.

That's where I respectfully disagree.

And this is where I make the connection to my belief that we need to release the photographs depicting Americans engaged in torture.

They need to be release.

Now.

They are going to come out sooner or later. We have enough excellent, well connected journalists who will soon find a way to have access to them. It would be much better for the government to release them than to have them splashed over the front pages of the New York Times and spilling into our living rooms from our television sets.

Further, I think the release of these pictures should be the impetus for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Yes, I know. There has been a great deal of criticism about the 'success' of the original South African model, which is probably best summed up by South African Manon Nicole Terrell who wrote:

"No serious examination was made of the system that gave rise to some of the most horrific, racist social engineering of modern times. Instead, there was a concentration on a proportion of the individual victims who came forward and on their immediate torturers, killers and persecutors."

I think that's a cogent criticism, but it doesn't mean that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission doesn't have merit. It simply means that the process is not complete without 'true repentance and amendment of life'.

It means that an important component which ought to be built into a TRC process needs to be a systemic analysis of the reason for and context out of which the problem arose.

Some have argued that we should simply 'forgive and forget' - to apologize (even if half-heartedly) and then move on as if nothing ever happened. Indeed, I have had it said to me just this week, that Christians are 'supposed to forgive', instantly and without reservation; and that, because I wasn't able to do that, I was called a 'hypocrite.'

Forgiveness and reconciliation, when authentic, are part of a process which can not - must not - be coerced or demanded or confined to a time line. And, it starts with telling the truth - or, at least, creating a space in which the truth is allowed to emerge. If there is not truth, there can be no forgiveness, and without forgiveness there can be no reconciliation.

Even with all of that, when forgiveness and reconciliation have been, by no small miracle, achieved, the process is not complete without a systemic analysis, including an analysis of the dynamic of power - the way it is used and the way it is abused.

Analysis leads to 'true repentance and amendment of life'. It means that while we must forgive, but we must never forget.

I want the full story of Americans involved in torture. I want 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.'

I do not want future generations of Americans to discover the horrific evidence of crimes done in the name of this country - the way we are still doing, for example, as we look at evidence from slavery, or from the forced removal of American Indians, or the encampment of Asian Americans during the Second World War, or any other such national atrocity.

I do not believe that the horror of this contemporary torture will ever leave completely us until we shine the complete light of truth on it.

Records of torture, in whatever form, need to come to light because history teaches us that unless it does, it is all too easy to destroy the evidence of its very existence. Witnesses die and memories fade.

I believe that truth, even when it is tough and brutal, is always to be preferred over covert attempts to hide that truth. Some people have already seen the pictures. Instead of allowing them to leak, bit by bit, into the American imagination, release them and own up to our culpability and responsibility.

I suspect that, once the pictures are released, once a TRC is established and the truth emerges and lessons are learned, the question of the closing of GITMO will be a question which finds its own answer - a problem which finds its own solution.

So this, then: First truth, followed by genuine repentance, then reconciliation, then systemic analysis which will lead us to true amendment of our lives.

Actually, if recent personal experience is any indicator, we really have no choice but to embrace this process.

We won't be out of the woods, but we will have found a path.

A little inspiration from Mark Twain

I've been thinking about this for a while, but I'm just now putting thoughts to paper . . . or, urm . . .whatever.

For years and years and years and years (almost 35 now), the folks in Integrity have rested the arguments for full inclusion of LGBT people on the radical Biblical notion of 'justice'.

For the past decade or so, the folks on the Right - oh, their names have been Legion: EURRR (Episcopalians United for Renewal. . .Oh, I can't remember now), FiFNA (Forward in Faith North America), The AAC (American Anglican Council), etc. have rested their counter arguments with anything they can, but mainly it's been the twin horns of the thoroughly un-Anglican idea of Sola Scriptura and the unfortunate Anglican history of Schism.

So, fast forward to General Convention, July 5-18, 2009 in Anaheim, CA. The baptismal water is already starting to bubble, pop and hiss, and the steam is starting to rise.

As I noted in an earlier post, 27% of all 110 diocese in TEC and 37% of her members are directly affected by the issue of Marriage Equality in the 15 states which have some form of legal parity for LGBT people.

Appropriately so, the folks on the Left have added to the call for justice, now urging pastoral care for our sisters and brothers of God's Rainbow Tribe, including our straight allies.

But, there's a wee problem: The threat that 'the Anglican Sky is falling' and we're all doomed to schism well, just hasn't happened. Yes, I know. Some have left and others have left but they really don't want to so they make up interesting names and titles and claim to be THE Anglican presence in the dioceses they've left.

And, obviously, in the face of the progress we've made in 15 states thus far, with a New England sweep and more victories being predicted in the North East Corridor, the old 'Sola Scriptura' argument hasn't gotten them their desired results (if it ever did).

So, the new re-framing of the argument from the Right - at least as I have been listening and reading through the rising steam of anxiety on HOB/D - include these two points: (are you ready?)

(1) polygamy

(2) canonically forced participation in blessing LGBT covenants.

Yup. I am not making this up.

The argument given for polygamy had to do with an embarrassing display of ignorance about what it means to be bisexual and what it means to be a transgender person. I won't offer an example of their argument because (1) you can figure it out and (2) well, it's embarrassing.

The argument based on canonically forced participation goes something like this:

"Let me go a step further. Let's say that the canons are amended to allow the use of the existing marriage service for same-sex couples (one of the resolutions proposed to the next GC.) If the bishop of a Diocese were to give a pastoral directive to his or her clergy that they may not perform same-sex blessings, this pastoral directive would be illegal. How can a bishop take away authority that the national canons give to a priest?"

Oh, what's that smell, you ask? That would be the acrid odor of anxiety.

And, the arguments we should use against those two positions? Are you kidding me?

Well, our brother, Tobias Haller, BSG, has made some wonderful cogent points on his blog, In A Godward Direction. If you haven't read his book "Reasonable and Holy", please do.

However, I'm no Tobias Haller. I'm just not that bright or learned. For my money, laughter would be a good place to start.

To that end, I offer the following. Now, as preface, some of you know that, when I get really upset and angry, I can have a real potty mouth. I'm neither upset nor angry. I mean, not unless there's a serious argument on the horizon from the Right that would cause some real concern.

Seeing none, I think the only counter argument can be found if one were of a mind to head on over to YouTube and google: The GayClic Collab Against Homophobia.

This being a family blog and all, I won't put a direct link to it, but you'll understand it when you see the video.

The fact that young people have put this together gives me great hope. One of our young Integrity volunteers has already found the music and put it on his iPod and promises to play it for us whenever these arguments come to the floor of General Convention. And, I have no doubt that they will.

We may not make the progress we hope for at General Convention, but at least we'll be able to tolerate the insanity and thinly veiled homophobia and resulting high-drama anxiety with a wee bit of levity.

I don't expect any singing from the Right side of the aisle.

I take Mark Twain at his word.

The Natal Feast of one, Mark Harris.

In case you don't get 'round the Internet much, you may not know that one of the very important stops to make in the Anglican neighborhood is Mark Harris' place, Preludium.

Always intelligent and thoughtful and frequently provocative and witty, Mark is a gift of and to the church.

Happy Birthday, Mark. I hope you do something FABULOUS on this day of your natal feast. You deserve it! (I see that you also share this day with former Deputy Cantrell, of the former Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Does God have a sense of humor or what? Let's all pop by his place and say 'Happy Birthday', to him, too. Happy Birthday, Chris!)

May you stay forever young!

Five Ways to Misery. . .

. . . . effective strategies for a miserable life.

A friend sent this to me yesterday afternoon.

It's perfect. Absolutely perfect.

I think we should send this to every bishop and deputy to General Convention as mandatory viewing before we all get to Anaheim.

Maybe then we'd laugh at ourselves and actually accomplish stuff. You know. Like, justice.

Disbursing the Cloud of B033: A message from Susan Russell, President of IntegrityUSA

"The courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it"

As we move toward General Convention 2009 and look beyond to the mission and ministry we have the capacity to accomplish in the Episcopal Church, it becomes increasingly clear that undoing the damage done by B033 is a primary objective.

This discriminatory resolution—passed in an emotional vortex under the shadow of the threats to exclude American bishops from the 2008 Lambeth Conference—continues to have a chilling effect.

Its influence is much wider than those dioceses seeking new episcopal leadership and those LGBT baptized who are called to the episcopate.

It is a dark cloud hanging over all aspects of our mission and ministry as it focuses our attention on excluding a percentage of the baptized from a percentage of the sacraments rather than calling ALL members of the Body of Christ fully into the work and witness of the Gospel.

It is time for it to go. There are many strong leaders working long and hard to make that happen and—in the end—I am confident that we will move beyond B033 in Anaheim. But it won’t happen unless we make it happen.

Our challenge in 2009 is less about organized resistance and more about generalized anxiety. And the tipping point—I am convinced—will be persuading bishops who want to do the right thing but are afraid to do it now, to move out of what Henri Nouwen called “the house of fear” and into the house of love—and inclusion.

Here’s a page out of the history books to make my point. It is the story of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s meeting with 1930’s labor and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph—a meeting where Randolph spoke eloquently about his thoughts and dreams for the end of discrimination and the full inclusion of ALL Americans into their rights and responsibilities as American citizens.

At the end of it Roosevelt said to him, "You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. And as President of the United States I do have the capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit."

Roosevelt concluded, "But there is one thing I would ask of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is that you go out and make me do it."

Our job is to go to Anaheim and make our bishops do what they know they need to do—and that work starts NOW. Many of our bishops “couldn’t agree with us more” — and what they are waiting for is for us to go out and make them do it.

They are waiting for the groundswell of advocacy they cannot ignore from their diocese telling them the cost of justice delayed is too high to pay—that the mission and ministry of this church is too important to continue to be held hostage by the bias and bigotry of those who would exclude the LGBT baptized from the full and equal claim the church has been promising them since 1976.

It starts by talking not just to your bishop but to your deputies. It starts by getting your friends and allies to do the same. It starts by building a broad ranging coalition of folks across this church who will make their voices heard and give their bishops what they need to do the right thing. Watch the “Marching to Anaheim” video here. Give to the Anaheim Appeal here. Talk to your bishops and deputies.

And most of all, pray for the renewal and mission of the Episcopal Church.

Teach us in all things to seek first God's honor and glory. Guide us to perceive what is right, and grant us both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"I have called you friends"

The odd and wonderful thing about memories is that, with some of them, you never know you have them until they surface suddenly, without any announcement or advanced notice.

Earlier this morning, I was preparing to say something 'pithy' about Sunday's gospel (which, of course, we all remember being John 15:9-17) for the Wednesday morning, 7 AM Healing Eucharist (Thirty minutes, easy in, easy out, with an additional 10 minutes or so of prayers for healing and laying on of hands, and followed by Breakfast at Angies).

I read these words of Jesus, "You are my friends . . ." and ". . .I have called you friends . . ." and suddenly, from out of nowhere, I had this memory.

As children growing up in an immigrant family, watching the television was a Very Big Deal. It was considered an extravagance, tantamount to having the theater come right into your living room, which we couldn't have, in a million years, afforded.

The television - black and white with lots of snow, and 'rabbit ears' on top - was prima facia evidence of at least a little piece of the realization of The Great American Dream.

Even so, there, every Sunday night thanks to Ed Sullivan, Big Name Stars appeared in our very living room: Ethel Merman, Carol Burnett, Steve and Edie, Julie Andrews, Milton Berle, George Burns and Gracie Allen, Red Skelton, Topo Gigio and, of course, Elvis "The Pelvis" Pressley and The Beatles.

The whole family would gather 'round the set and, after the show ended, we prolonged the entertainment by putting on some impromptu talent shows for our parents - and, truth be told, each other.

I remember my brother, John, being four or five years old, and singing a spot on impersonation of Bobby Darin's "Mack the Knife", including the finger snapping, smart-aleck head bob, and the whole hip-leg motion thing.

Mind you, I don't remember much of Bobby Darin singing this, but I remember my then very little brother (he had been very sickly as a child and so was really small and frail at that time) raising howls of delighted laughter and vigorous applause from us all.

But, it is Ethel Merman singing Cole Porter's 'Friendship' from the film adaptation of the Broadway Musical "Anything Goes" which came flooding back to me this morning.

My siblings and I LOVED to reenact this scene. We took turns being "Ethel" (I mean, who hasn't, really?) in the different verses, from the oldest to the youngest. So, the first verse belonged to me, then next to Madeline, then John, then Diana.

I can see us now, in that small living room in that impossibly small tenement apartment above my Grandparent's apartment, our arms around each other's necks in a goofy, awkward embrace which challenged our balance, standing (or, trying to) in front of the coffee table (does anyone use those anymore?), singing to my parents who sat in rapt attention on the couch.

No performer ever had a better audience.

The ending, however, belonged to us all as we sang the final verse:

"It's friendship, friendship, just the perfect blendship.
When other friendship have been forgit, ours will still be it.
Yada, yada, yada dum, dum, dum.
Cha, cha, cha.
Wow, wow, wow.
Ding, ding, ding"

And then came the grand finale of the evening - in our best Ethel Merman -

"Good evening, friends" we would sing, arms wide open, taking a long, deep bow, and then up to blowing kisses to the 'audience'.

I remember the time when my siblings were my best friends. In those magical moments every Sunday night, we could not imagine how our lives would change, how the world would change, or where life would take us.

I sang that song, then, as a lark.

As my brother's mind begins to succumb to the ravages of Alzheimer's Disease, I am aware that I sing it now as prayer.

And, it brings me peace.

Obama at Notre Dame

I'm just catching up with President Obama's controversial visit to Notre Dame.

A reported seventy (70) of four hundred and fifty (450) Roman Catholic bishops criticized the presence of President Obama at a Notre Dame graduation and they denied the value of his speech.

This was, of course, before they had a chance to hear it. Why bother when you are already secure that the knowledge you possess is 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God'?

Sr. Joan Chittister says it was their loss and Notre Dame's gain. She called the President's address a "face-up-to-the-life-you-have-just-inherited" speech, saying,

"It was a call not only to this year's graduates but to all of those who have preceded them intent more on winning than on working things out."

"It was a call to adults to stop acting like sophomores in the name of faith. It was a cry to those on both sides of every issue to refuse to suppress complexity in a global, interfaith world. It was an attempt to move beyond force, beyond the denunciation of those who are just as committed to resolving problems as we are without making outlaws of those for whom the issue cannot wait for long-term answers.

It was, most of all, a very Catholic speech."

Imagine that!

To my ears, that is the best of what Anglicanism is all about - or, at least, what I once thought it was all about.

A few more words from Sr. Joan:

"Obama asked graduates to see themselves as responsible for the global good as well as for their own success. He challenged them to go beyond the commitment to personal advantage to global good. He taught them that the zero-sum game, the notion that for me to win everyone else must lose, only means that everyone else will lose, and I, too, eventually. How can anyone in that audience who just went through an economic meltdown driven by greed which eventually brought the entire country down, doubt the value of those words, of that kind of commitment to a pro-life agenda.

He asked them, as an article of faith, to recognize the value of self-doubt that leads us to forego our own self-righteousness and inspires us to learn to listen to the wisdom of those around us.

He called them not to revel in the grandeur of their degrees from an isolated perspective but to remain open to the rest of the world. He called them to live their ideals but to resist the attempt to force them onto others.

He taught them to gain their hope from what has already been done in the past, what we as a people have already worked through and achieved, already overcome as a people together like the oppression of a king, the disregard for civil rights, the exploitation of laborers, the enslavement of a people, the struggle for animal rights, the recognition of women's equality, the movement beyond racism. It was, indeed, a very Catholic speech."

Gee, that sounds like a list of resolutions from any one of the five General Conventions I've attended over the past few years. Are we sure the President isn't an Episcopalian?

Then again, perhaps that is what all religion, at its heart, is all about - seeking the heart and mind of Jesus.

NCR (National Catholic Reporter) journalist, Heidi Schlumpf, reported that the President was interrupted three times during his speech.

"The third interruption, again from the seats near the press box where parents and guests were seated, came, somewhat ironically, as Obama was saying, "Your generation must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity: diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family."

His speech closed with a story--on this, the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education--about the Civil Rights Commission, which included former ND president Father Ted Hesburgh (who received almost as much applause as Obama). As the story goes, the group had difficulty finding a hotel or restaurant that would serve the black and white members of the commission together. So Father Ted flew the group to the university's retreat house in Wisconsin, where they hammered out what would eventually become the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs," Obama said. "And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin , they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history."

Obama implored the graduates to remember that lesson. "Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fisherman," he said. "If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union."

Somebody give the President an "Amen."

You can watch the entire speech on YouTube (in four parts) here.

Four Lessons and A Gem

Four Yellow Post-it Notes to self:

(1) Don't write off the capabilities of your adversaries - when the chips are down - to find the deep well of Christian compassion within and partner with you in prayer.

(2) The net effect of a 'bully on Viagra' and a 'bully with OCD' are the same - except the former rarely lies to himself and the later often does.

(3) Never trust a prayer request to anyone who honestly admits to madness but fancies himself a victim, for your trust will be betrayed, your private thoughts published and your heart will be broken.

(4) Try to remember: Never say never.

And this little gem from a blog across the pond:

"Just because something is understandable doesn't make it excusable."

For real

Well, for starters, I grew up in the 60s, which gives me, I suspect, a peculiar take on reality. Then again, it is said that if you remember the 60's, you weren't really there.

So, it should probably come as no surprise for the reader to learn that interactions and relationships in cyberspace often confound me. I mean, who are you talking to, really? Especially when one is allowed to speak from a 'persona' or to weigh in on a any given subject and be known, simply, as 'Anonymous'

And, who do others think they are talking to? Really?

I love the term 'real time'- as if time spent in cyberspace is not. Well, it once was you see, but that was then and this is now. So, does that mean that what anyone said then, when they first wrote on someone's wall or left a comment on someone's blog, even if just 10 minutes ago, is no longer 'real'?

Of course not. I mean, get real!

But, then again, some people actually spend large quantities of time pasting (or reading) captions of their projections of what cats might be saying about a particular subject or situation.

It is different, in 'real' conversations. One can say and do something and, a few minutes or hours later, regret what was said and apologize. It's much, much more difficult to write something and then take it back or even apologize. There's something much more permanent about the written word that lends something to the reality that's not there in 'real time'.

I think the ability to say hurtful things about a person in public and then deny the opportunity for that person to explain or others to join the conversation lends itself to an unreality of sorts. And, if you've already got a problem with reality, well . . . it's not exactly a pretty picture.

I've been thinking a great deal about 'reality' over the past few days. Ever since I learned that my brother has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease.

He's fifty-five. That's 55. Years. Young.

I am - we all are - in a word, devastated.

This is a devastating disease. As memories of our childhood antics come cascading back to my present reality from the inner recesses of my brain, I find myself weeping.

Then again, I just went into another room, intent on getting something and, when I got there, completely forgot what it was I was after. And, I wept. Well, I wept after an almost paralyzing fear seized my heart.

Oh God, oh God, I thought. Is this what it feels like? To put on your shoes and forget how to tie the laces? To pick up the morning paper, and forget how to read it? To live only in your memories because your brain will not allow the firing mechanism to remember what you thought of just 10 minutes prior - or have known since you were six years old?

What is 'real time' anyway?

Some of you who read this blog already know about my brother's diagnosis and have very kindly written to me, offline, or called on the phone to express your love and support and promises of prayer.

You simply can not know how much that means to me.

Some of you are strangers. We've never met. We are 'friends', but we are, for all intents and purposes, strangers. At least, that's how we would have described ourselves just a few years ago.

But the definition of 'friends' on blogs and FaceBook has changed the reality of our understanding of what it means to be a friend.

Even so, I am relying on the reality of your promises of prayer. I take them with absolute seriousness. I cling to them, if one can cling to a vaporous substance not emitted in 'real time'.

In my weakest moments, I sometimes gasp for them like a woman drowning in the devastating knowledge that the reality of her relationship with her brother is changing.

Because his reality is changing - will forever be changed.

For real. In real time.

And yet, I must say, this feels completely surreal.

I always suspected, being a child of the 60's, that the meaning of reality would always haunt me and confound me. Now, however, the loss of the ability to be haunted by or search for reality and truth terrifies me.

I'll be writing more and more about this, I suspect. Writing is one way for me to deal with reality. Or, my perception of reality. And, as it has been said, 'perception is reality and reality is truth.'

My thought about that for today is this: I am suddenly aware that spending one's hours of reality gluing captions on cats makes complete sense.

That may be one blog were I spend more time these days - to escape reality in order to accept it.

"No greater love"

Easter VI - John 15:1-6
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
(the Rev’d Dr.) Elizabeth Kaeton
rector and pastor

Well, there’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that I’ve been battling allergies all week which has left my voice fairly raspy, which can often and easily lead to an annoying, hacking cough, which can leave what I have to say difficult to discern.

The good news is, because of all that, this will be a shorter sermon than usual. Let’s just say that there will be just a slight disturbance this morning in the balance between Word and Sacrament. We’ll try to make it up next week – or, not as the case may be.

Today’s gospel passage is often used as an illustration of sacrificial love. Jesus is clearing speaking of the sacrifice of his life on the hard wood of the cross, which many a preacher (myself included) has used to demonstrate the nobility inherent in the sacrifice of people like soldiers or fire fighters or police who are often in situations where they place their own life in peril to save the lives or homes or loved ones of perfect strangers.

There is, undoubtedly, great nobility in those professions. There is even greater inspiration in stories of ‘accidental heroes’ – you know, heroic efforts by innocent bystanders who come upon a situation of great danger and respond, more by instinct, to run into a burning house or dive into frigid lake to rescue a perfect stranger.

While those are magnificent illustrations of sacrificial love, this is not going to be a sermon about that kind of nobility. I want to talk this morning about the nobility of knowing when not to help – about those situations when, to intervene is exactly the opposite of what is necessary or required in that particular situation.

As I was searching my files for an illustrative story, I came upon this story of ‘The Moth and The Cocoon.’ It goes like this: A man found a cocoon of an emperor moth. He took it home, so that he could watch the moth come out of the cocoon. One day, a small opening appeared, and he sat still, watching for several hours, as the moth struggled to force its body through the little hole. Then, it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could and it could go no farther. It seemed to be stuck. Then the man, in his kindness, decided to help the moth.

So, he took a pair of scissors, and snipped off the remaining bit of the cocoon. The moth then emerged easily. But, it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings. The man continued to watch the moth because he expected, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time. Neither happened! In fact, the little moth spent the rest of its life, crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.

What the man, in his kindness and haste, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle, required for the moth to get through the tiny opening, were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the moth, into its wings, so it would be ready for flight, once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon. Freedom and flight would only come after the struggle. By depriving the moth of a struggle, the man deprived the moth of health.

Now, am I saying that if, given the opportunity, we should not try to help someone in distress? By no means! I am concerned, however, that some people take the message of this particular gospel passage and apply it to their own lives – or worse, the lives of others – in the wrong way.

Some people, for example, practice what I call, “sacrificial parenting.” They are so hell-bent on not being their parents that their children literally want for nothing. They never learn how to work to earn that something special that ‘all the other kids have.’ They don’t ever have to defend themselves on the playground or the playing field because their parents advocate for them on the sidelines. Indeed, they don’t have to think at all.

One of our granddaughters is playing girl’s softball this year, and her parents report that it is absolutely appalling to see some of the other parents yelling at the refs about a call, or arguing with the coach to get their kid up at bat when that’s not what’s called for at that point in the game. God forbid, their child should learn that life is sometimes not fair!

My point is this: Sometimes, struggles are exactly what we need in our life. If we were allowed to go through our life without any obstacles, it would cripple us. We would not be as strong as what we could have been.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to allow another person to struggle a bit before offering to help. Sometimes, the best help we can offer is not to rush to help. To stand back a bit to wait and watch to see if the person can work it out him/her self; and if they can’t work it out, to offer the least amount of intervention so as not to diminish that person’s sense of accomplishment or heighten the lesson that person needs to learn.

Years ago, I had this insight as I watched a new mom on the playground with her young son who was just learning to walk. She had his fat little fingers wrapped around one of her fingers as he toddled his steps. She would work her finger out of his grasp and then hold her hands back as he toddled and then wobbled and then crashed. He would cry and whimper as his mother brushed him off and got him up again, only to repeat the scenario.

At one moment, when the mother pulled her hands away, she had her arms out like this – and I thought – she looks just like Jesus on the cross. And it came to me that that’s exactly what God in Christ did – spread out his arms on the hard wood of the cross, offering us the free gift of grace, not that we might be perfect and never fall into sin, but rather, that we might learn to walk the path of liberation offered to us by Jesus.

Sometimes, the greatest sacrifice we can make for another is to simply let them live their lives – to let them fall and rise on their own steam; to risk failure in the name of love and to find a measure of success for themselves by the grace of God.

You know, sort of the same way I’ve made it through this sermon. Amen.

Texting God

Ship of Fools recently held a very interesting competition.

The competition was for re-writing the Lord's Prayer for the mobile phone, using just 160 characters or less. It was judged for Ship of Fools by the Churches' Broadcasting Conference. The task itself was not easy. The traditional version of the Lord's Prayer is 372 characters long, so whittling it down to 160 characters meant cutting the prayer by more than half but without losing anything important.

Third Place: Rev. Stephen E. Moore, Bellevue, Washington, USA (WOO HOO!! Go Vicar of all Bellevue!). Here's what he wrote:

God@heaven.org, You rule, up and down. We need grub and a break. Will pass it on. Keep us focused. You totally rule, long term. Amen.

Second place: Steve Seymour, Bristol, England:

r pa in evan, respect 2 u, may u rain ear as in evan. giv us r needs, 4giv rsin as we 4giv r nmes. resq us from the evil 1. 4 ur always the most xlent dude. yo

THE WINNER – out of a strong field of over 100 entries, Matthew Campbell, a history student at York University, came up with the winning entry, which is...

In 1st place: Matthew Campbell, York, England

dad@hvn,ur spshl.we want wot u want&urth2b like hvn.giv us food&4giv r sins lyk we 4giv uvaz.don't test us!save us!bcos we kno ur boss,ur tuf&ur cool 4 eva!ok?

Because, if you can't laugh. . . .

. . .then you'll spend the next 3-5 years weeping.

THE ECONOMY IS SO BAD . . . .

1. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.

2. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

3. CEOs are now playing miniature golf.

4. Hot Wheels and Matchbox cars are now trading higher than GM.

5. Obama met with three small businesses to discuss the Stimulus Package: GE, Pfizer and Citigroup.

6. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "Finish your plate. Do you know how many kids are starving in the U.S. ?" And people in Africa are donating money to Americans.

7. People in Beverly Hills are firing their nannies and learning their children's names.

8. The most highly-paid job listed on Monster.com is jury duty.

9. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.

10. Millions of investors are turning away from the advice of investment guru Jim Cramer of CNBC and asking Kramer from "Seinfeld" for his investment recommendations.

11. Motel Six won't leave the light on.

12. The Mafia is laying off judges.

(hat tip to Doug)

New from 'Ship of Fools'.

The Church of England has announced that following its introduction of special swine flu prayers, new clergy vestments are now available in case of a further outbreak of the deadly virus.

The discreet vestments (see left) make it possible for church life to go on absolutely as normal. Each clergy suit is hermetically sealed to provide 8 hours of total biological protection from parishioners, visitors, Alpha group leaders, the organist, fellow clergy and other noxious hazards.

"I don't know why the Archbishop hasn't issued them before now – they would have been a life saver during after-church coffee," said Revd Ian Fluenza, who donned his new vestments as soon as he received them, and is said to be sleeping in them.

The vestments, which are in liturgical orange, are intended for use at the Service of Commemoration for the Loss of a Mexican Holiday, and other new Church of England liturgies.

Thanks to Ship of Fools.

NY Times: Is My Marriage Gay?

Note: I'll start with a confession: The journey of recovery from my own sexism has taken longer than the healing of my internalized homophobia. I continue to work on my own gender-bias, which is much harder work because the prejudices are so subtle.

The courageous work being done by the transsexual community has really forced me to confront my own 'stuff' about gender - in some positive and some negative ways. For example, I still find myself getting really angry at many 'drag queens' - who mock society's image of women even as they embrace it for themselves - and then, in the light of day, can and do invoke all the rights and benefits of male privilege.

I suspect this is why transsexuals, as a group, continue to be maligned among some LGBT people as well as the heterosexual community. They make us uncomfortable. They challenge us to change traditional understandings of gender, relationships, why, even marriage! To wit:

May 12, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Is My Marriage Gay?
By JENNIFER FINNEY BOYLAN

Belgrade Lakes, Me.

AS many Americans know, last week Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a law that made this state the fifth in the nation to legalize gay marriage. It’s worth pointing out, however, that there were some legal same-sex marriages in Maine already, just as there probably are in all 50 states. These are marriages in which at least one member of the couple has changed genders since the wedding.

I’m in such a marriage myself and, quite frankly, my spouse and I forget most of the time that there is anything particularly unique about our family, even if we are — what is the phrase? — “differently married.”

Deirdre Finney and I were wed in 1988 at the National Cathedral in Washington. In 2000, I started the long and complex process of changing from male to female. Deedie stood by me, deciding that her life was better with me than without me. Maybe she was crazy for doing so; lots of people have generously offered her this unsolicited opinion over the years. But what she would tell you, were you to ask, is that the things that she loved in me have mostly remained the same, and that our marriage, in the end, is about a lot more than what genders we are, or were.

Deirdre is far from the only spouse to find herself in this situation; each week we hear from wives and husbands going through similar experiences together. Reliable statistics on transgendered people always prove elusive, but just judging from my e-mail, it seems as if there are a whole lot more transsexuals — and people who love them — in New England than say, Republicans. Or Yankees fans.

I’ve been legally female since 2002, although the definition of what makes someone “legally” male or female is part of what makes this issue so unwieldy. How do we define legal gender? By chromosomes? By genitalia? By spirit? By whether one asks directions when lost?

We accept as a basic truth the idea that everyone has the right to marry somebody. Just as fundamental is the belief that no couple should be divorced against their will.

For our part, Deirdre and I remain legally married, even though we’re both legally female. If we had divorced last month, before Governor Baldacci’s signature, I would have been allowed on the following day to marry a man only. There are states, however, that do not recognize sex changes. If I were to attempt to remarry in Ohio, for instance, I would be allowed to wed a woman only.

Gender involves a lot of gray area. And efforts to legislate a binary truth upon the wide spectrum of gender have proven only how elusive sexual identity can be. The case of J’noel Gardiner, in Kansas, provides a telling example. Ms. Gardiner, a postoperative transsexual woman, married her husband, Marshall Gardiner, in 1998. When he died in 1999, she was denied her half of his $2.5 million estate by the Kansas Supreme Court on the ground that her marriage was invalid. Thus in Kansas, any transgendered person who is anatomically female is now allowed to marry only another woman.

Similar rulings have left couples in similar situations in Florida, Ohio and Texas. A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal.

A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country’s gender laws as they pertain to marriage: “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

Legal scholars can (and have) devoted themselves to the ultimately frustrating task of defining “male” and “female” as entities fixed and unmoving. A better use of their time, however, might be to focus on accepting the elusiveness of gender — and to celebrate it. Whether a marriage like mine is a same-sex marriage or some other kind is hardly the point. What matters is that my spouse and I love each other, and that our legal union has been a good thing — for us, for our children and for our community.

It’s my hope that people who are reluctant to embrace same-sex marriage will see that it has been with us, albeit in this one unusual circumstance, for years. Can we have a future in which we are more concerned with the love a family has than with the sometimes unanswerable questions of gender and identity? As of last week, it no longer seems so unthinkable. As we say in Maine, you can get there from here.

Jennifer Finney Boylan is a professor of English at Colby College and the author of the memoir “I’m Looking Through You: Growing Up Haunted.”

Jamaican Soundbites: One conference - not 'one love'

The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Jamaica has come to a dramatic end. ENS reports on it here.

I'll let you read the whole thing. Here are some telling soundbites:

Rowan Williams: "The other day we were giving quite intense attention to the situation in the Holy Land and in that discussion I thought there are echoes of language we hear nearer home," Williams said. "Well, thank God, our divisions and our fears are not as deep and as poisonous as those between communities in the Holy Land, but I think you may see why some of the same language occasionally awakes echoes."

He then asked: Who are the people who bear the deepest cost in the Anglican Communion?

"There are some who would say that in this conflict the credibility of Christianity itself is at stake," Williams said.

For some gays and lesbians, Christian credibility has been shattered by a sense of rejection and scapegoating, he continued. They cannot commend the Christianity they love and believe in because they are caught up in a community where scapegoating and rejection is ingrained, he said.

Others feel the decisions made elsewhere in the world have undermined their witness which, Williams said, prevents them from commending the Christianity they long to share with ease and confidence with their neighbors.

"Deep costs; different costs. How can they come together so that they can recognize the cost that the other bears and recognize the deep seriousness about Jesus and his gospel?"

Ian Douglas: the Episcopal Church's clerical representative, said he found Williams' use of the Holy Land metaphor particularly powerful because it put into stark reality how the communion's difficulties measure up to other conflicts,

Bishop Catherine S. Roskam, bishop suffragan in the Diocese of New York, expressed appreciation for Williams' gracefulness. "He has an extraordinary ability to speak to the different points of view," she said. "As for the rest, I will have to reflect on it further." (none too shabby yourself, bish)

As Bishop Ikechi Nwachukwu Nwosu of the Church of Nigeria made his way out of the chapel, he slowed down when asked for his thoughts, but didn't stop. He shook his head and said: "Anything anyone is doing without an eye on success isn't worth doing." Nwosu was apparently referring to a distinction that Williams made between "glorious failure" in which one must face one's own failing and try again, and "miserable failure" in which one convinces oneself that failure hasn't happened.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori focused on Williams' reminder that the ACC had done a great bit of planning for common mission in theological and development work, and how Anglicans can better partner to accomplish that mission.

I'm still not sure what the heck happened - it feels a bit like what we experienced at the last day of General Convention when B033 was introduced. There was no way B033 was 'an accident'. Someone in some back room somewhere had been working on that sucker for days. I think the same thing happened with the Anglican Covenant in Jamaica. I'm just not sure who voted for what.

I'll say this much: I continue to be amazed that those on the right and those on the left are in complete agreement for very, very different reasons - The Anglican Covenant, in its present form is absolutely useless.

To continue to work for it now is to follow a recipe for mediocrity.

Jamaican Conspiracy Theories?

Two seemingly unrelated but significantly reflective news stories have lead me on a circuitous route to other related stories and ended up in an insight about a universal truth.

The above picture was snapped by Colin Coward, CofE priest and director of Changing Attitude in UK. Colin is in Jamaica following the developments of the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Oh, should I mention he's gay? He is. Quite openly so. Which is what got him in trouble for taking this photo.

Did I say 'trouble'? Actually, it got him bullied. Here are his words:

"Following the 8.30 press briefing, at which Canon Chris Sugden from Anglican Mainstream was not present. After the meeting I wandered downstairs to the swimming pool. Across the breakfast room I saw Canon Sugden with the Bishop Nwosu, Dr Okorie and Stanley Isaacs from South East Asia (the latter three ACC delegates. Also with them were Philip Asher and Julian Dobbs. I thought the group was worth a photograph because Canon Sugden had engaged in conversations similar to this at the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam.

Having taken the photograph, I returned to the press room. Bishop Nwosu and Dr Okorie suddenly burst into the room and immediately challenged me. The bishop demanded that I gave him my camera. I had no right to take his photograph without his permission, he said. Calmly, I said no, I am not giving you my camera. He was seething with anger, looming over me, jabbing his finger at me. He was intimidating and very frightening. I understood how Nigerian bishops can so successfully and easily intimidate their own people.

I asked him whether this was the way a bishop should speak to another priest in the Anglican Communion. He continued with his demands that I give him my camera. I asked him if he was angry because I am a gay man. Yes, he said.

For one last time, he asked me, more appropriately, let me have that camera please. I responded firmly and calmly, no (though I felt anything but calm inside). You will see the consequences, he said as he finally gave up and left the room."

My, my, my!

I am reminded of the time during Lambeth 1998 when Richard Kirker, then Director of LGCM UK (Lesbian Gay Christian Movement), was assaulted by Nigerian Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma who tried to exorcise him.

Yes, way. I was there and saw it all happen with my very eyes. You can listen to a recording of it on Louie Crew's website. here.

So, we know that Nigerian Bishops believe that LGBT people are 'satanic', but what would rile this bishop about that photo in the context of the ACC meeting?

Colin raises some interesting questions:

Why was he so angry at having his picture taken in that context. What does he have to hide? Well, I can guess, and normally, the conservative strategy is to hire rooms in an adjoining hotel and hold meetings away from the public gaze.

I suspect the bishop's anger had a little something to do with this: Defeat for Archbishop as Covenant Draft is rejected.

Religious Intelligence (the blog of ultra conservative priest, George Conger) is reporting that:

"The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) will not endorse the Anglican Covenant, and has voted to send it back to committee for further review. The vote comes as a major defeat for the Archbishop of Canterbury who had championed the covenant as the one way to keep the Anglican Communion from splitting. However the defeat was self-inflicted, as Dr Rowan Williams’ ambiguous intervention in the closing moments of the debate led to the loss."

There follow some very interesting observations by Bishop Nwosu and Archdeacon Okorie. You know. Two of the blokes pictured in the 'huddle' above.

Delegates from the Church of Nigeria stated they were perplexed by Dr Williams’ actions. “All of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contributions were positive” up until the last moment of the meeting, Bishop Ikechi Nwosu of Nigeria said.

Nigerian Archdeacon Abraham Okorie said there was a “satanic” spirit of confusion in the air. He noted it was hypocritical of the ACC to make a great noise of using African ways of decision making in addressing the covenant, but then resorting to slippery parliamentary tricks to thwart the will of the meeting.

Dr Williams was a “very weak leader,” Bishop Ikechi Nwosu of Nigeria observed. “Of course we pray for him, but couldn’t he be courageous for once?”

Did you catch that? Okorie said there was a "Satanic spirit of confusion in the air".

Uuu-huh. Verrryyy interesting. (says Arte Johnson as the little German solider whilst dragging on a cigarette and hiding behind the bushes on that old TV show 'Laugh In')

There are some other interesting conservative analysis of "WTF" happened in Jamaica, including this one.

Over at Episcopal Cafe the headline reads "Confusion reigns as ACC delays Covenant release."

Apparently, one person's 'confusion' is another person's 'satanic spirit'. Which probably translates as "it's all the fault of LGBT people".

The Pluralist, Adrian Worsfold, comes to our rescue with "How it was done." I was still confused by the end of it, but it was fascinating reading.

Canon Chris Smudgeon (the big white bloke in the picture above) wrote an interesting piece for "Anglican Mainstream". He makes this comment on the Covenant debate held on the final day of the of the ACC-14 meeting in Jamaica:

“When it came to the covenant, Africans lined up to argue, along with others, that without section 4, which deals with issues of discipline, the covenant was meaningless."

Which is to say that the Anglican Covenant is not a covenant but a contract - one that was conceived as a way to punish and humiliate The Episcopal Church for our actions at General Convention 2003 and 2006.

More insidiously, the Covenant is not really a Covenant at all, not really a relational document freely subscribed to by all Anglicans as a statement of shared identity, but the preface to a penal code whose intent is not that different than the one in Deuteronomy.

Which, believe it or not, brings me back to the topic of bullies.

MadPriest has a wonderful new logo for the Bullies on Viagra. Check it out here, then put on your best kevlar vest and asbestos sneakers and check out the link.

Poor Greg has dug himself into another hole. The man is predictably funny, in a sad sort of way. When he hits bottom, he never fails to dig even deeper.

Remember when he posted a picture of an African American drag queen in a purple shirt at a Gay Pride Parade and insisted that it was Bishop Barbara Harris? It took him DAYS to admit that he was wrong. Poor baby.

Long, sad story short: Greg was outraged by a story about Bishop Gene in which +Gene reports a serious threat on his life. Greg says it's BS because HE, the Mighty He, can't find an "authentic" report of it anywhere - just in 'gay' papers like this one. And, this one.

But, uh oh, one of his own located a story in the Burlington press here and, oops, another one here.

Greg still refutes the claim, along with a few of his followers, because +Gene is not named in the story. And, even if it DOES turn out to be 'truth', they have comforted themselves with the fact that the only reason +Gene did it was to grandstand and draw attention to himself.

Last time I checked in Our Big Man had a call into the Burlington, VT police department and was awaiting a return phone call.

Hey, Greg! Here's a tip: Don't hold your breath, pal. You're just not that important, much less a credentialed journalist.

I think there is a universal truth in the stories out of Jamaica and Africa, the US and UK. Bullies are not interested in 'truth'. They are interested in power. Their own power. Even if - check that, especially if - it means someone is humiliated or punished or 'disciplined' for behaving in a way that the bully doesn't like.

Or, steals the spotlight from.

Here's what I think: I think the only 'conspiring' in Jamaica was done by The Holy Spirit, who does not seem at all pleased with duplicity, ignorance or bullies.

I think the evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.

Allergies!

They're baaaaaccccckkkkkk!

The ithcy eyes.

The stuffy nose.

The wheezy cough.

The feeling like you're seeing everything, walking every step and processing every thought through 'Saran Wrap' (thin plastic used to wrap food).

The waking up several times in the middle of the night because your mouth and tongue are as dry as cotton and you need water. (This is not to be confused with waking up in the middle of the night before you starting taking Zyrtec-D twice a day because you were all stuffed up, wheezing, and couldn't breathe. Either way, sleep deprivation.)

The high cost of allergy medicine (A small, 1/2 inch bottle of Patenol eye drops = $30. A week's supply of Zyrtec-D = $15.00 for which you have to show your driver's license and sign a statement that you won't use it to make Crystal Meth. Then, you must be willing to be seriously annoyed when you open each individually wrapped pill, which is encased in a 1-inch piece of cardboard and covered with hard plastic.)

This too (please, God) shall pass, but until it does, life is pretty miserable, and I am not a pleasant person to be around.

I suppose, rather than prayers for me, I ought to ask you to pray for my family, staff and friends. Just don't anybody say the words "environment" or "green" to me for the next week or so, and nobody gets hurt.

Happy Mother's Day!

If you've been around the internet, you've no doubt already seen this.

If you've ever been a parent, you'll no doubt recognize the dynamic between the two siblings in this video.

If you've never been a parent, but you've been a sibling, you'll see yourself in one of the siblings.

If you've never been a sibling, call your mother immediately and thank her.

If you don't understand, you will after you watch this video.

Happy Mother's Day!

PS - Check out this Mother's Day Tribute: "Yes She Can" in today's NY Times. Six female artists were asked for portraits of their mothers. These artists were also asked to describe one thing that their mothers can do - that they themselves can't.

Not a bad exercise on this day to honor all mothers everywhere - even if you can't draw. Just think of one thing your mother can (or could) do that you, yourself, can not. Then, say a little prayer of thanksgiving for the unique woman who gave you birth.