Cardinals

Returning from the supermarket this morning, I heard a bird chirping as I got out of the car. The sound seemed to be coming from a nearby leafless tree. It took me a few moments to identify the male cardinal sitting on one of the highest branches. I soon realized that the call of the cardinal was being answered by an unseen cardinal among the evergreens on the other side of the street. I listened for several minutes to the call-and-response chirping of these two cardinals.

Happily, I had my phone handy, and I was able to record a piece of this avian dialogue. I apologize that this recording is not in stereo, so you won’t be able to get the antiphonal effect that I was able to experience. I also apologize for the clicks you will hear in my recording; this is my first field recording of bird sounds, and I’m not yet good at it.

You should be able to play my recording below. If this doesn’t work in your browser, try this link.

Some Initial Thoughts on the TREC Study Paper on Governance and Administration

The Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church has issued its second study paper. This one is titled “TREC Study Paper on Reforms to Church Wide Governance and Administration.” (For convenience, I will refer to the paper as RCGA.) I read through the paper today and thought it useful to offer some initial impressions.

I have my own views on how we run our General Convention, and I find the recommendations of the task force to be reasonable, even though they are presented without much justification. I must admit to my eyes having glazed over as I read the section on administration. I may have more to say about that later. (Or not.)

The view of the General Convention that undergirds RCGA’s recommendations is that the convention is too big, too long, too specialized, too unwieldy, and insufficiently focused. In the paper, these assumptions are largely implicit, and there is no attempt to justify how implementing its recommendations will correct the implied deficiencies.

The recommendations can be summarized as follows:

1. Limit the range of legislation and establish legislative priorities.
2. Add a focus to General Convention as a “Missionary Convocation” by including non-deputies and adding workshops, network meetings, etc.
3. Reduce diocesan deputations to three laypersons, three clergy, and a maximum of three alternates; and exclude retired bishops from voting in the House of Bishops.
4. Limit “the legislative function” to seven days.
5. Empower a legislative committee to meet 90 days prior to the convention to winnow resolutions, assign resolutions to legislative committees, and to decide what resolutions will be allowed in the 90 days before convention.
6. Reduce the number of legislative committees.
7. Allow legislative committees to kill resolutions.
8. Reduce the assessment on dioceses to something closer to 10% and “develop a sensible means of holding dioceses accountable for paying their assessments.”
9. Allow legislative committees to hold virtual meetings beginning 90 days before the convention to accomplish preliminary work, and allow “the church public” to participate in this work.

My own experience with General Conventions—I have attended General Convention, though never as a deputy—has left me frustrated with the legislative process. Important resolutions sometimes get short shrift, while inessential ones seem to be debated interminably. Recommendation (1) is clearly intended to facilitate doing a better job of setting legislative priorities. It is not clear, however, that the suggested changes will sufficiently improve legislative efficiency to avoid having the fourth recommendation be counterproductive. It simply takes a certain amount of calendar time to perfect legislation and give it a fair hearing.

Reducing the size of deputations will save money for dioceses, though it doesn’t clearly reduce the cost to the general church of staging a General Convention. Moreover, having fewer deputies means that there are fewer people to do the necessary committee work.

Whether wise or not, it was clear that there was going to be a recommendation to decrease the number of convention deputies. At least in some diocese, recommendation (3) will have the effect of decreasing the diversity of deputations. (Whether deputations are diverse is highly dependent on the election procedures for electing deputies.) It is not at all clear that there is any benefit to be gained by limiting the number of alternates. There is some slight administrative overhead to having more alternates, of course, but dioceses send at least some alternates without subsidizing their attendance.

Limiting the number of alternates to three is curious. Should diocese designate two clergy and one lay deputy as alternates? Two lay and one clergy? Three alternates of the same order? If we want to decrease the size of the House of Deputies, I suggest that deputations consist of two clergy and four laypeople. Clergy have more than enough influence; they make up half the House of Deputies and all of the House of Bishops. Let dioceses decide how many alternates they want to send.

The matter of retired bishops voting has frequently been raised, but no action has been taken. It probably is time to take away their votes, which seldom affect outcomes anyway.

Recommendation (5) seems helpful, as long as the committee cannot simply kill legislation its members do not like.

Recommendation (6) is more specific than I have suggested in the above list. RCGA suggests combining the constitution and canons committees, for example. The recommendation does not eliminate fundamental tasks, but it may reduce administrative overhead, which is positive.

The actual wording of recommendation (7) is this: “Expressly permit legislative committees to let resolutions die in committee.” I assume there is some ambiguity about the power in question. Actually, I am inclined to think that legislative committees have too much power already. If a committee receives resolutions that take very different positions on a subject—dealing with the church’s response to the Windsor Report or Anglican Covenant come immediately to mind—a committee can bias the work of the convention by bringing forth one resolution or another. I am not at all convinced that the will of the 2012 General Convention was to duck a decision on the Anglican Covenant because the church was so divided as to its desirability. The convention passed the cowardly Resolution B005 because that is what a committee brought forth, and insufficient time was available in the House of Deputies to adequately debate the resolution. (See recommendation (1).)

Resolution (8) is not a simple matter. The general church could ask for less money from dioceses if all dioceses actually contributed to its upkeep. Dioceses that fail to pay their assessment, except in cases of severe financial hardship, should loose their votes both in the House of Deputies and House of Bishops. Historically, failure to pay any of a diocese’s assessment has resulted from hostility to the general church. That is a different problem entirely.

Recommendation (9) sounds like a good idea, but the technical problems may be difficult, particularly that of allowing all comers as spectators or, in some cases, as participants.

As for recommendation (2), adding a kind of ministry fair to the General Convention, I am skeptical. On the one hand, it would bring more people to the convention—I thought we were trying to reduce the size of it, however—but, at the same time, it would of necessity make it difficult for deputies to attend, as they should be attending to legislative matters. I would rather see such an event completely separate from the General Convention, perhaps held in years in which there is no convention. The main synergy achieved by combining legislation with a ministry fair involves the dual role of exhibits.

Although RCGA offers some interesting suggestions, it is disappointing that it is vague about the motivation for them and fails to make the case that implementing its recommendations will somehow improve the work of the General Convention. It is not obvious that TREC thought deeply about the issues with which it is dealing.


Postscript. What follows may seem petty, but I think my observations suggest deeper problems.

Alert readers may notice that I abbreviated the name of the study paper as “RCGA.” Its full title is “TREC Study Paper on Reforms to Church Wide Governance and Administration.” Why did I not use “RCWGA”? Well, this paper uses “church wide,” though other material from TREC uses “churchwide.” In fact, on the TREC Web site, one can find both “Task Force for Re-imagining the Episcopal Church” and “Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church.” In general, the material from TREC, content aside, seems poorly edited and formatted. Perhaps this is the result of too many cooks spoiling the broth. It might have been useful to identify a general editor for TREC material early on.

Premiere of “Holy Eucharist”

My hymn, “Holy Eucharist” received its first public performance today. My choir at St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, sang it as a communion anthem.

Not only was my hymn being sung for the first time today, but the digital recorder on our new sound system was being used for the first time. I recorded the performance, but the recording is less than ideal. To begin with, we have no easy way to record in stereo, so the recording is monaural. Perhaps more problematic was microphone placement. Two microphones were used on tall stands from which, I think, they picked up too much organ and too little choir. Perhaps, with experience, I will make a better recording in the future. In any case, you can get some idea of how the hymn sounds when performed as intended.

Information about my hymn is available on my Web site. You can hear my recording here. I will eventually put a link to the recording on the page about the hymn at Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.

Comments (and interest in using the hymn in your own church) are appreciated.

A Few Problems with the Pastoral Guidance from Church of England Bishops

Quite a bit of commentary has appeared in response to the pastoral guidance regarding same-sex marriage from the Church of England’s House of bishops. (See Thinking Anglicans posts here and earlier. Note that that guidance was necessitated by the fact that same-sex marriages will be legal in England next month, even though the Church of England does not approve of them.) Reactions to the pastoral guidance have been largely negative, though occasionally apologetic. A Web petition has even been created urging the bishops to withdraw their statement.

It is hardly necessary for me to attempt a complete analysis of what I view as an unfortunate statement that has been well assayed by others. I do wish to make a few observations, however, pointing out some of the less obvious problems with the episcopal directive. Let me begin by calling attention to this sentence:

However we are all in agreement that the Christian understanding and doctrine of marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman remains unchanged.

This is an arrogant assertion.What the bishops really mean is that the official doctrine of the Church of England has not changed. Other equally Christian men and women—including many in the Church of England and, one suspects, even in the House of Bishops—have a different understanding of marriage.

Probably, the most worrisome statement in the pastoral guidance is this one:

We have already committed ourselves to a process of facilitated conversations across the whole Church of England in the light of the Pilling Report. These conversations will involve ecumenical and interfaith partners and particularly the wider Anglican Communion to whom we rejoice to be bound by our inheritance of faith and mutual affection.

Both the Pilling Report and the statement from the College of Bishops of January 27 anticipate a sexuality conversation throughout the Anglican Communion. (Note, for the record, that the House of Bishops is a more restricted group than the College of Bishops.) The Pilling Report even contains an entire section entitled “The obligations of belonging to the Anglican Communion,” which reflects the viewpoint of the Windsor Report and of former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The general sense of this section is that all Communion churches must move together on matters of doctrine and can only differ on inessential matters, and then only with permission of the Communion. The College of Bishops statement says

We accept the recommendation of the Pilling Report that the subject of sexuality, with its history of deeply entrenched views, would best be addressed by facilitated conversations, ecumenically, across the Anglican Communion and at national and diocesan level and that this should continue to involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture. These conversations should set the discussion of sexuality within the wider context of human flourishing.

All this is distressing for at least three reasons. First, we seem to be seeing an attempt by the Church of England to drag other churches—my concern is with The Episcopal Church, of course—into yet another unnecessary and resource-draining process. As it is, our church is still recovering from the havoc wreaked by our sister churches and the former feckless Archbishop of Canterbury in the wake of the completely legitimate actions by the Dioceses of New Westminster and New Hampshire.

Second, the notion that no Communion church can evolve without the permission of all the other churches, many of which exist in radically different societies, is ludicrous and an affront to the workings of the Holy Spirit. It is as if the Industrial Revolution were not allowed to proceed in England until machines could be made available in America, South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Progress in England would have to wait until China could progress in lockstep. Were that the case, we would all be eating gruel by candlelight. Anyone who has studied the diffusion of innovation knows that progress simply doesn’t happen when everyone everywhere is required to buy into it. To punish early adopters is to leave us all benighted.

Third, and most significant, is the implication that the institutional church is more important than God’s people. The Church of England seems even to think that the Anglican Communion is more important than itself. The English bishops are terrified that actions they might take regarding same-sex marriage will lead to a fracture of the Communion, and they are willing to sacrifice LGBT people and the respect of the English population generally to avoid that risk. To this, I can only ask the non-rhetorical question: What would Jesus do?

Moving on, we find this passage:

The Book of Common Prayer introduces the Solemnisation of Matrimony by saying, ‘Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee…’

This paragraph is meant to illustrate the church’s current teaching on marriage. I have always found the analogy between holy matrimony and the relation of Christ to his Church to be problematic. To be sure, the love between husband and wife— something that, at some level, we understand—can be used to suggest the love of Christ for his Church—something that is, well, mystical. On the other hand, I don’t think that marriage universally signifies anything in particular. For much of history, not even love between the parties could be assumed. (Marriages were often more about family alliances and property until fairly recently.) More perniciously, the analogy has been used to invest in marriage more significance than it deserves. A divorce is not the equivalent of Christ’s abandoning his church. More importantly, for the present circumstances, the standard description of matrimony subtly works against the notion of equal marriage. The analogy is really patriarchal—the husband is the analogue of Christ, and the wife is the analogue of the Church. The wife is to subject herself to the husband, and the Church is to subject herself to Christ. When the “husband” and “wife” are of the same sex, the analogy breaks down, as Christ and the Church are quite different in nature. The unjustified over-theologization of marriage, therefore, makes it difficult for the theologically oriented to accept same-sex marriage. The average English subject doesn’t give a fig about this, of course.

Finally, there is this:

The Lambeth Conference of 1998  said ‘in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage’ (resolution1.10 [sic]) This remains the declared position of the Anglican Communion.

This remains the declared the position of a particular collection of Anglican bishops more than a decade and a half ago who had no power to impose their views on their respective churches. Resolution I.10 was passed under very peculiar circumstances and has no legal standing in either England or the U.S. This statement is a smokescreen used as an excuse to justify inaction.

For a more general criticism of the bishop’s guidance, I recommend reading the press release from the LBG&TI Anglican Coalition.

PEP Meeting Focuses on Leadership Formation

The next program from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh will focus on leadership formation, one of Bishop McConnell’s three priorities. The Rev. Dr. William J. Pugliese will speak. The title of his talk is “Leadership Formation: How Did We Get into the Mess We Are In and How Do We Get Out.” Bill is a member of the Strategic Task Force Committee, which is considering, among other things, the matter of leadership formation. I’m not sure I understand the nature of “the mess we are in,” but I’m looking forward to what Bill might have to say on the subject.

The meeting will be held next Monday, February 24, at the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Squirrel Hill, 5700 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15217. It begins at 7 PM. A flyer with details of the program can be found here. Come on Monday and invite your friends.

Three Messages about Anti-gay Legislation

Last week, the Anglican universe saw a number of statements addressing the treatment of homosexual persons. The spate of commentary came in the wake of President Goodluck Jonathan’s signing into law a repressive anti-homosexual bill in Nigeria on January 13.

On January 27, Religion News Service ran a commentary, “The church’s role in, and against, homophobia across Africa.” The author is the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, President of the House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church’s General Convention. Jennings’ essay is not what you might expect, not simply a denunciation of the rampant homophobia in Nigeria and elsewhere. Rather than merely condemning the growing persecution of sexual minorities in Africa, she examines its causes, identifies its supporters, and suggests what Christians might do about it.

As an Episcopalian whose church has so often been vilified by African bishops, I was gratified to read what Jennings had to say about Anglicans elsewhere:

Many Christian leaders around the world, regrettably, have been largely unwilling to criticize Christian leaders in Africa who cheered the passage of these punitive laws.

The Anglican primates of Uganda and Nigeria enthusiastically support anti-gay legislation in their countries. I, like them, am a member of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide body of more than 80 million Christians. I am troubled and saddened that fellow Anglicans could support legislation that fails to recognize that every human being is created in the image of God.

Why do we not hear such criticism more often when it is so clearly justified? As long as our church is a member of the Anglican Communion—so often promoted as a significantly large, worldwide body of Christians—we diminish our own church when we fail to dissociate it from the outrageous behavior of our sister churches.

Western missionaries come in for much of the blame for African homophobia in “The church’s role”:

Along with the Bible, Western missionaries also bequeathed to Africans a literal understanding of how to read it. Today, that literalism continues to encourage fundamentalist interpretation of difficult passages like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

And there is this long-overdue charge that many have been waiting to hear from church leaders:

The voices of strident homophobic leaders in Africa have been amplified by large infusions of money from American right-wing culture warriors such as Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has bankrolled homophobia on both sides of the Atlantic and helped make common cause between right-wing American Anglican splinter groups and the Anglican churches of Nigeria and Uganda.

Jennings admits that Western Christians are limited in what they can do to counter homophobia in Nigeria, Uganda, and elsewhere, but she does have some helpful suggestions:

We can, however, stand in solidarity with progressive Africans and support their efforts to teach new ways of interpreting the Bible and understanding sexuality. When we see human rights abuses, we can speak out. And most of all, we can acknowledge with humility that we bear our share of the responsibility for this tragic legacy of empire and insist on repudiating contemporary efforts to expand its reach.

Jennings’ essay makes one proud to be an Episcopalian.

Alas, the letter written by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York January 29 does not make one equally proud to be an Anglican. We are told that the letter was written to “all Primates of the Anglican Communion, and to the Presidents of Nigeria and Uganda.” There had been increasing pressure to take a stand against legislation advancing in Nigeria and Uganda, particularly directed toward Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Welby is not only the nominal head of the Anglican Communion but also the senior bishop of the Church of England. (The Queen is the nominal head of the church.) The English population is increasingly accepting of gays and likely to be upset by persecution in its former colonies.

The archbishops’ letter begins badly:

In recent days, questions have been asked about the Church of England's attitude to new legislation in several countries that penalises people with same-sex attraction.

The phrase “same-sex attraction” is one favored by conservatives who consider homosexuality sinful and, for many, an affliction to be cured. To speak of “homosexuality,” on the other hand, might suggest an orientation, that is, a fundamental aspect of personality that is immutable or nearly so.

Although the letter ostensibly is going to be about the official view of the Church of England—the co-authorship of Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who, unlike Welby, holds no special position in the Anglican Communion, contributes to that impression—the letter expresses the personal views of neither letter writer. Instead, the bulk of the letter is a quotation from the communiqué issued at the end of the primates’ meeting that took place in February 2005 in Northern Ireland. The implication is that the Church of England follows the lead of the Anglican primates, who, in fact have authority over neither the Church of England nor any other member of the Communion.

The passage quoted by the archbishops is all about pastoral care for all:

…we wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by Him and deserving the best we can give—pastoral care and friendship.

This, of course, says nothing explicitly about the legislation in question. Nor do the concluding paragraphs:

We hope that the pastoral care and friendship that the Communiqué described is accepted and acted upon in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We call upon the leaders of churches in such places to demonstrate the love of Christ and the affirmation of which the Dromantine communiqué speaks.

If any criticism is intended here, it is for the readers to infer (or not). The writers have not articulated any particular moral outrage. Moreover, one has to suspect that Sentamu’s co-authorship—Sentamu is a native of Uganda—is intended to soften the message, which becomes nothing more than a friendly reminder to be nice. (Niceness, I suggest, is the bane of Anglicanism.)

As for Welby’s involvement with this letter, it must be said that he apparently feels torn by competing loyalties. As the chief cleric in the Church of England, one might expect him to condemn the developments in Nigeria and Uganda and perhaps even to accept some responsibility for the colonialism cited by Jennings. On the other hand, recent Archbishops of Canterbury have avoided criticizing the behavior of Communion churches in the questionable name of unity. Welby, who has a reputation as reconciler, apparently intends to continue this dysfunctional tradition.

The day ofter the Welby-Sentamu letter, i.e., on January 30, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church Katharine Jefferts Schori weighed in with a statement. Her brief message is clearly identified as a church position:

The Episcopal Church has been clear about our expectation that every member of the LGBT community is entitled to the same respect and dignity as any other member of the human family. Our advocacy for oppressed minorities has been vocal and sustained.

There is no hiding behind six-year-old communiqués here. Without actually naming names or, as did Jennings, articulating underlying causes, the presiding bishop gets directly to what she sees as the presenting problem:

The current attempts to criminalize LGBT persons and their supporters are the latest in a series, each stage of which has been condemned by this Church, as well as many other religious communities and nations.

Nowhere does Jefferts Schori invoke the Anglican Communion. Her concern is instead for the human community and for her church’s understanding of God’s will for his children:

Our advocacy work continues to build support for the full human rights and dignity of all persons, irrespective of gender, race, national origin, creed, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability or inability. To do less is effectively to repudiate our membership in the human community. No one of God’s children is worth less or more than another; none is to be discriminated against because of the way in which she or he has been created.

Obviously, a different view of the nature of homosexuality underlies this statement. She concludes:

Our common task is to build a society of justice for all, without which there will never be peace on earth. Episcopalians claim that our part in God’s mission is to love God fully, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means all our neighbors. 

As I suspect many Episcopalians are at this time, I am proud of the courage and honesty of my church leaders. Also like many Episcopalians, I have been disappointed yet again at the conspicuous lack of courage and honesty shown by Archbishops of Canterbury.

There is, I suppose, some point to being in the Anglican Communion. Looking to the Communion for courageous Christian witness, however, is a fool’s errand.

PEP Writes to the Archbishop

As reported this morning by Mark Harris on his blog, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) wrote to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby last week. PEP’s primary concern was the appointment of ACNA priest Tory Baucum as one of the Six Preachers of Canterbury Cathedral.

The tradition of Six Preachers was established by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer in the sixteenth century. I could find little information about the collection of posts on the Web, but Wikipedia does offer a brief article. It is unclear whether any of the Six Preachers over the years have been other than English clerics.

In the letter, PEP complains that the appointment of Baucum enhances the dubious claim of ACNA to be Anglican and is accepting of the interference of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) in the affairs of The Episcopal Church:

Our primary concern is not Dr. Baucum’s personal talents or accomplishments but his associations. He is in the rather odd position of claiming to be a priest of two churches, the schismatic Anglican Church of North America and the transgressive Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). The former has established itself largely by poaching souls and real estate from The Episcopal Church and continues to be involved in property litigation with The Episcopal Church, a matter of apparent indifference to Canterbury. The Church of Nigeria, on the other hand, has proven equally predatory regarding our own church and has flouted longstanding Anglican tradition regarding boundary crossings. Moreover, this honor bestowed on a putative Nigerian priest comes at a time when Anglican leaders in Nigeria are applauding the advent of a new law persecuting homosexuals and advocates for human rights.

PEP’s letter asks Welby to withdraw the appointment or, at the very least, to make it clear that it is a strictly personal one. PEP also asked the archbishop to speak out against the recently enacted anti-homosexual law in Nigeria.

The full text of the letter is included in Mark Harris’s post. A PDF copy of the letter can be found here.

A Thought about the George Washington Bridge Scandal

CLICK ON GRAPHIC FOR A LARGER IMAGE.

Making Friends with the New Kitties

Eve (Evening Light), three years ago

Facebook friends know that my Bombay cat, Eve, died in the early morning hours of December 16, 2013. The day before, I received e-mail from the Cat Clinic and Hospital, where I have always taken my cats for veterinary services. The message indicated that two male kittens were in need of adoption. (See picture below.) It was apparent that death was imminent for Eve. I spent a couple of hours holding her, but it was obvious that there was little I could do for her.

Under normal circumstances, I would not have begun the usually lengthy process of finding a new cat after one of my cats died. Eve was my only cat, however, and the message from the Cat Clinic held out the possibility of finding new feline companionship without experiencing too much emotional trauma. In fact, the e-mail seemed like a timely gift from heaven. Besides, the kittens looked very cute. Then again, what kittens don’t look cute?

Picture from the Cat Clinic e-mail message

At first, I thought of asking to adopt just one of the kittens, but a friend asked why I didn’t declare my interest in both of them. So I did that. A few days later, I got to spend a little time with Charlie and Linus, and it was agreed that I would indeed adopt them. Since I was going to be away for a day or two around Christmas, I arranged to pick up the kittens on December 27. It seems hard to believe that I have lived with Charlie and Linus for less than two weeks!

When I first visited the kittens, it was obvious that Charlie was the more outgoing. I got to hold them both, but Linus was clearly not enthusiastic about the experience. So, when I got the kittens home, I was eager to bond with my new pets. I was pleased when Charlie was first willing to sit on my lap, something Linus has yet to do. In fact, for quite a few days, I could not even touch Linus.  He came nearer and nearer, but every time I moved my hand toward him, he ran off. Two days ago, for the first time, he allowed me to pet him, and we have made more progress on that front yesterday.

Charlie discovers Video Catnip

Charlie, on the other hand, is now not only willing to sit on my lap; he is often difficult to coax off my lap. He has also taken to trying to eat my food when I’m having meals. This has caused me to get out the water-filled spray bottle. He has also become fascinated with my computer screen, and he has been sitting in front of the monitor and following the mouse pointer. I am reluctant to spray him when he is doing this for obvious reasons. I assume we’ll work out these conflicts eventually.

Two days ago, to divert Charlie, I got out my Video Catnip DVD, which contains scenes of birds, squirrels, and chipmunks. Charlie was quickly hooked. He watched the television from the floor and soon was climbing the desk below the screen in order to get closer to the action. (See photo above.)

Both to give Charlie a better vantage point and to protect the furniture and equipment, I positioned my Kik Step in front of the screen and put Charlie on it. The result can be seen in the video below.

Yesterday, Linus also watched Video Catnip for a few minutes. Charlie, meanwhile, has shown increased interest in what’s on the TV screen, even if it isn’t Video Catnip.

Linus continues to be a bit wary of me, but he is allowing me to pet him from time to time. We’re not quite fast friends yet, but we’re moving in that direction.

Linus (above) and Charlie on cat tree

The other day, I was giving myself a much needed manicure, and I dropped my cuticle knife on the floor. I was finished with the knife but not the manicure, so I didn’t pick it up right away. When I finally did look for it, it was nowhere to be found. It might have gotten lost in the chair or fallen on the black rug, where a small implement with a black handle might be hard to find. Look as I might, however, I could find it nowhere. It was impossible for it to have gone far, yet it simply wasn’t there. A few days later, however, I spotted Linus on the pedestal of the chair I had been sitting on. He was playing with a small, black object with a metal end. Guess what it was! How he sneaked off with the cuticle knife without my noticing, I have no idea.

I’m getting used to the new kitties’ schedule. Periods of sleep under my bed alternate with frantic, but often amusing, activity. Last night, for example, Charlie discovered a large red grape on the floor. (I wasn’t aware that I had dropped a grape, but Charlie found it somewhere.) He began batting it around the floor. Then Linus joined the fun, and I had the privilege of being a spectator at a feline soccer match.

The cat tree has become a favorite place to play, though not to rest. The two kittens often play king of the mountain, with each one trying to knock the other off the top level. More often, they slap at each other from different levels. Both cats have enjoyed the toy I attached to the tree with an elastic cord.The photo above shows the kitties in a rare moment of wakeful repose.

The adventure continues.

Grumpy Tuesday

I’m was not really in a bad mood yesterday, but it did seem to be the day to write about little irritations not requiring extended philippics. On the blog on which I write about my church, I complained about the new automatic door opener that seldom works and the unfortunate lighting used for the two evening Christmas Eve services. I then turned to an issue of wider interest, which I am only getting around to explaining fully today.

Ever since the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh unveiled its new Web site after the departure of the followers of Bob Duncan, that Web site has carried this banner:

 

The second line of text (“of The Episcopal Church in the United States”) was important, since both the continuing diocese and the organization formed by those who left the diocese claimed to be the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” Nonetheless, the exact wording has always seemed strange, as the official name of the church is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America or, alternatively, The Episcopal Church.

A slight digression is necessary here. When the church’s constitution was approved in 1789, the name of the church was not established in the constitution proper, but only in the heading, which read “The Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” The Preamble of the church’s constitution, which was first proposed in 1967, establishes “The Episcopal Church” as an alternative name for the church. The article “the” seems never to have been considered an integral part of the long name of the church, but, both officially and unofficially, the article has been rendered both as part of and not part of the short name. On the title page of the 1979 prayer book, for example, the name of the church is clearly construed to be “The Episcopal Church.” More often than not, Episcopal News Service has written about “the Episcopal Church,” though it went through a brief period of insisting on “The Episcopal Church.

All of this is to say, that “The” on the second line of the Web site banner is probably what it needs to be. What, then, is “in the United States”? “The Episcopal Church in the United States” is not an official name of the church. If “in the United States” is simply a description, it would seem to be both redundant and inappropriate—redundant because, although there are other Anglican churches with “Episcopal Church” in their names, “The Episcopal Church” is unique; inappropriate because The Episcopal Church has outposts in other countries (e.g., Haiti).  One might quibble about “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America,” but, like it or not, it is the legal name of the church.

I suspect that “of The Episcopal Church in the United States,” which was formulated immediately after the October 2008 split in the diocese, was meant to mirror the language of the stipulation that resulted from the lawsuit that Calvary Church initiated against diocesan leaders, including Bishop Robert Duncan. The stipulation refers to “the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America,” which is close to, but not quite, what ended up on the Web site. The stipulation wording raises the same sort of questions mentioned above. Although Episcopalians generally viewed the stipulation as unambiguous, Duncan and his attorneys argued otherwise. I never have understood why Walter DeForest, who handled the litigation for Calvary, did not use an official name of the church (preferably “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America”).

It is time, I think, to change the banner on the Web Site. I would like to see “of The Episcopal Church,” “a diocese of The Episcopal Church,” or some such replacing the second line of the existing banner.

Below the banner I have been discussing, the diocesan Web site now displays this graphic:

 

The words “Public Gospel/Missional Communities/Leadership Formation” have recently replaced “Vibrant Episcopal Communities United in Christ.” I don’t know where the former wording came from, but it graced the Web site no later than December 2008. As a slogan for an Episcopal diocese, it is rather generic. (“Wounded Episcopal Communities United in Opposition to Bob Duncan” might have been more specific and honest, but that would have had limited public relations value or usefulness as an aspirational statement.)

Whatever one might say about “Vibrant Episcopal Communities United in Christ,” it reads like a slogan (or motto, if that sounds better to you), and it was positioned where such an element was appropriate.

What then of “Public Gospel/Missional Communities/Leadership Formation”? These are the three priorities articulated by Bishop McConnell in his address to the diocesan convention on November 2, 2013. Whatever the merits of these priorities, they are priorities, not a slogan. To the casual visitor to the Web site, they appear to be a laundry list, though it is not clear of what. In particular, although “Missional Communities” might, in some sense, describe the diocese—we used to use “Vibrant Episcopal Communities” after all—neither “Public Gospel” nor “Leadership Formation” does. The former is obscure, and the latter seems to refer to internal concerns not necessarily of interest to the casual Web visitor. An additional problem is that the only mention on the site of the bishop’s priorities is in his convention address. There is no independent explication of those priorities, as one might expect from the prominence of them on the Web site. Most visitors, however curious, will not know to look at the bishop’s address for more information.

If a slogan is to be on the diocesan Web site, I really don’t know what it should be. “Struggling Churches Seeking to Recover from Schism and Theft of Property” might be an honest description of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, but it suffers from what I take to be obvious deficiencies. For the time being, perhaps we should revert to “Vibrant Episcopal Communities United in Christ.”

Well, perhaps not all my musings about “little irritations” have turned out to be as brief as intended. Sorry about that.

Merry Christmas?

As every good Episcopalian knows, Christmas does not end on December 25; it begins on that date. Christmas continues through January 5. Epiphany, the following liturgical season, begins on January 6. Most of what secular society thinks of as the Christmas season is, liturgically, at any rate, Advent. Advent is a time of preparation for the Incarnation, but, in the population imagination, it might be designated the Shopping season.

Prior to December 25 of this year, I mostly refrained from wishing people “Merry Christmas,” though I did reciprocate if someone wished me the same. (I considered telling strangers “Blessed Advent” but concluded that people would simply find that weird.) Since Christmas is now here, I’ve decided that I should begin wishing “Merry Christmas” to people with whom I interact.

I must report that this is not going well. In doing Christmas shopping (i.e., post-Shopping-season shopping), I have wished a number of sales clerks “Merry Christmas.” So far, I have elicited three different reactions. The first person I greeted responded to “Merry Christmas” with “Happy New Year,” which is something of a non sequitur. Others simply ignored me. And the woman at Dairy Queen  closed her drive-up window before I could say anything at all.

Well, Merry Christmas!

A Bizarre Parkway Experience

I was driving toward Pittsburgh on the Parkway East a few miles from the Squirrel Hill Tunnel the other day and saw flashing lights ahead of me. As I approached them, three flatbed PennDOT trucks carrying large illuminated signboards pulled away from the shoulder and positioned themselves parallel to one another, each in one of the three traffic lanes. The signs, which are usually used to display arrows, each showed a horizontal row of yellow lights. Two police cars pulled in behind the trucks.

I was driving in the center lane and found myself directly behind the police car in my lane. I kept back a few car lengths, and the cars in the lanes to my left and right kept a bit farther back. I had been traveling 55 MPH or so but suddenly found myself is a strange procession moving at about 5 MPH. What, I thought, was going on? Traffic was backing up behind me. I have no idea how far.

We proceeded at the same slow pace. I saw no accident or construction that might provide an explanation for what was happening. About a mile down the road, all the vehicles in front of me pulled off to the shoulder, and traffic resumed its accustomed pace. On the roadway to my left, however, I could see vehicles that had likewise slowed outbound traffic to a crawl. They, too, seemed to be pulling off the road. As I resumed normal speed, although I didn’t know how many cars were backed up behind me, I could see that the outbound lanes were jam-packed.

There seemed to be no purpose to the delay I had just experienced. Was it akin to the bizarre lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that may have been some sort of political retribution?  Who knows?

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, 2013

I wrote the poem below in 2002 and added it to my Web site, along with a description of its origin. I’ve posted it occasionally at this time of year. Merry Christmas to all, in spite of everything.

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas
by Lionel Deimel

 

The jingle bells are back,

Ringing jingle-jangle ding-dong-ding

On the street corners and at the mall,

Where the giant Damoclean snowflakes

Hang menacingly from the store ceilings

Over the heads of the make-up consultants,

Displaying their perfect faces, Santa Claus hats,

And belligerent helpfulness.

The colored outdoor lights are back,

Contending with high-pressure, sodium streetlamps

To banish night and veil the pallid twinkle of the stars,

Letting the phosphor-white icicles,

Dripping electrically from the eaves,

Highlight the unnatural landscape

Of rotund, glow-from-within snowmen

And teams of gene-damaged reindeer.

The entertainments are back—

The last-minute, Oscar-hopeful blockbusters

Playing beside cheap trifles luring the momentarily vulnerable;

Pick-up-choir, stumbling-through-the-notes Messiahs

Competing with earnest Amahls and Peanuts Specials;

The cute-but-clumsy, tiny ballerinas tripping through Nutcrackers

Sorely in need of crowd control;

And the latest made-for-TV, hanky-wrenching, feel-good melodrama.

The emotions are back,

With love-thy-neighbor, brotherhood-of-man yearnings

Schizophrenically vying with loathing for the driver ahead,

As we pursue our private quests

For perfect love-showing, obligation-meeting, or indifference-disguising gifts,

Our anticipating the giving-terror, receiving-embarrassment,

The disappointing joy, and the exhilarating letdown assuring us at last

That Christmas is upon us.

    

Lessons and Carols at St. Andrew’s

I read the third lesson at A Service of Nine Lessons and Carols yesterday at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, in Highland Park. I read Isaiah 9:2, 6–7 from the Authorized Version.

The passage is very familiar (“For unto us a child is born,” etc.). I had trouble with verse 7, however. In the Authorized Version, the verse reads as follows:

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

The first sentence is clearly a run-on sentence. It took a friend to point out that it is a sentence with one too few verbs. Until I realized that, I spent untold time trying to figure out the grammatical structure of the sentence in order to figure out how to read it.

More modern translations render the verse much more sensibly. For example, the New Revised Standard Version offers this version of verse 7:

His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onwards and for evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

The New International Version translates the verse this way:

Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

My solution to the reading problem was simply to read verse 7 as if it actually made sense. This seems to have work just fine.

The service, by the way, was glorious. The St. Andrew’s choirs performed to their usual high standards. Yesterday was the first time I had attended a service in the church with its newly installed floor, and I was impressed. Aisles are quarry tile, and hardwood is below the pews. (The center aisle has smaller tiles in two colors bordering the central tiles—a nice touch.) The result is a sound that envelops the listener.

Back Together

Earlier this year, I took an on-line songwriting course. I’ve only just gotten around to revising and posting the song I wrote as my last assignment, “Back Together.” Warning: it involves adult themes. (That’s to get you to read and listen to it.) You can find the song on my Web site here.

St. David’s Update

The Rev. Kris McInnes

From time to time, people ask me how St. David’s, Peters Township, is doing. The diocese does not always give us updates, not even when there are significant deployment changes. We are likely to get even less news next year, for which there are significant cuts to the diocesan communications budget.

St. David’s, whose congregation left the Episcopal diocese for the Anglican diocese and then returned the property with but a skeleton congregation, seems to be doing pretty well. St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, which had been helping St. David’s in its efforts to become a healthy, mainstream Episcopal parish, today held a reception for the Rev. Kris McInnes, who is shedding most of his duties at St. Paul’s to become the sole priest-in-charge at St. David’s at the start of the new year.

The changes for St. David’s and for St. Paul’s were explained in an e-mail notice sent to St. Paul’s parishioners on November 22:

In May of 2012 we entered into a companion relationship with St. David’s Episcopal Church in Peters Township. When the property and a remnant of the congregation returned to the Episcopal Church, St. Paul’s agreed to a two-year relationship in which Kris and I would serve as Priests-in-Charge of St. David’s to work with its members to help heal and rebuild the parish. In exchange for our help, the Diocese agreed to provide funding during those two years for half of the cost of an Assistant Rector for St. Paul’s, thus allowing us to call the Rev. Michelle Boomgaard on a full time basis rather than a half time basis.

Rebuilding has gone well at St. David’s, due in large part to the hard work and commitment of Kris along with the members of the congregation. In 18 months St. David’s has grown to the point that it is larger than the average parish in the Diocese, and is well on its way to self-sustainability. Therefore, the Bishop and I, in consultation with Kris, have decided that effective January 1, 2014, Kris will become the sole Priest-in-Charge at St. David’s on an almost full time basis. He will continue a limited role at St. Paul’s as Assisting Priest, helping with occasional 6 pm and 8 am services and some pastoral care. Michelle will become our Associate Rector. The funds that the Diocese has been providing to help with her compensation will be redirected to St. David’s to help them provide Kris’ compensation.

This is a significant moment in the life of the Diocese, St. Paul’s, and St. David’s. We can be justly proud of our contributions to bringing St. David’s back to health and vitality. We can also be proud of having nurtured Kris in his journey from Curate to Assistant Rector to Associate Rector and now Priest-in-Charge. We will miss having Kris with us as much as we would like, but we can feel good about our contribution to the larger Church. We are very fortunate to have the services of Michelle who has become such an integral part of St. Paul’s over the past 18 months.

Kris will be preaching and celebrating at the 8:45 and 10:45 a.m. services on December 8. Please join us for what will likely be Kris’ final appearance at our main Sunday morning services. There will be a special reception in Kris’ honor between the two services. Please also consider making a contribution toward Kris’ St. David’s Discretionary Fund. Discretionary Funds are used by clergy to assist people in need in the parish and the community. You may write a check to St. Paul’s Episcopal Church with “Kris” noted in the memo line.

Lou Hays+
Rector

The December 2013 newsletter of St. David’s includes a letter from Kris explaining the coming changes and reviewing the progress made by the parish:

You may not have heard that as of January 1, I will become the sole Priest in Charge at St. David’s and take on a very limited role at St. Paul’s as a pastoral assistant. This will make me full-time at St. David’s. I am so very happy to be able to make this move and I am confident it is where God is calling me to be.

When I started helping out at St. David’s I had some mixed feelings about coming home to the parish where I grew up. At the same time, I knew that St. Paul’s was in the best position to help the continuing parish of St. David’s and I welcomed the opportunity to help rebuild. In the year and a half since, we have seen tremendous growth and vitality return to St. David’s and I have found myself falling in love with this place and this community all over again in new and exciting ways.

Last year at this time the congregation was half the size it is now and there was tremendous uncertainty surrounding the future of our life together. Now, a year later, we are are stronger and more confident in our identity and mission.

A year ago, almost all of our Lay Eucharistic Ministers, Lectors, and Altar Guild members were volunteers from St. Paul’s. Today we have a corps of about a dozen parishioners who fill these roles (and we are always looking for more who would like to join in). A year ago, the community garden was just an idea and today we look back on a harvest totaling almost 600 lbs of fresh, organically raised produce. Add to this the wonderful Acolytes that serve at the altar each week and the ever growing praise band and choir and we have a recipe for a bright future together.

There are such wonderful, loving people who call St. David’s home and I look forward to inviting many more members of the community to come and join the great worship and mission we have here. I couldn’t ask for a better group of people with which to share in the work.

With Love,
Fr. Kris

St. David’s is not yet self-supporting, but it is well on its way to becoming a stable parish. The diocese and the clergy and laypeople of St. Paul’s have been important in bringing St. David’s this far. A significant factor in the success of this enterprise has also been the small cadre of parishioners who chose to return with the physical plant to The Episcopal Church.


Not every property that has been returned to the diocese has benefited from the availability of a priest who is a son of the parish. I suspect that Kris’s connection to St. David’s was critical to the progress made there. Moreover, as Lou Hays implied, Kris has matured as a priest since he first came to St. Paul’s. There was reason to have doubts about the young priest in dreadlocks when he first came to St. Paul’s. His early sermons seemed to be informed more by the Internet Movie Database than by serious biblical scholarship or theological reflection. His farewell sermon today at St. Paul’s dispelled any residual doubts as to whether St. David’s was being left in good hands, however.


We should all be grateful for the ministry of the Rev. Kris McInnes and wish him well in his new position.

More Mispronunciations

A few years ago, I wrote a post titled “Trying Too Hard.” It was all about over-scrupulous (but misguided) pronunciation. For example, I noted that some people say skoo-wul for the single-syllable word “school.”

Tonight, I watched (via Comcast On Demand) the live production of The Sound of Music that was broadcast on NBC two nights ago. I caught two words pronounced incorrectly: “mittens” and “kittens.” These words should not be pronounced as mit-tens and kit-tens. Look it up.

Duncan Speaks Again

Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church of North America has again offered his views on developments in another church. (See also “Thoughts on the Duncan Statement,” in which I analyzed Duncan’s pronouncement about Bishop Dorsey McConnell’s recent pastoral letter.)

This time, the target of the archbishop’s displeasure is the Church of England, in particular, the recently released Pilling Report. That report endorses blessing same-sex unions and recommends church-wide facilitated conversations on human sexuality. It does not recommend any change in doctrine, but it does not rule out future change. Duncan, however, does. His attitude toward doctrine is quite conspicuous in his latest pronouncement (emphasis added):

The Church must not waiver from its received teaching. Scripture and the catholic consensus must be treated as givens, the attitude of the signatories not withstanding. Those who would re-construct the received moral order in the 21st century to respond to a culture bent on self-actualization, rather than dying to self, will do no better than those who—quite unsuccessfully but with much damage—in the 20th century sought to re-define the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ.

Conservatives have never quite gotten over Bishops Pike and Spong.

It was arrogant of the archbishop to comment on developments in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, though he at least has a connection, however troubled, to our diocese. Duncan has less of a connection to the Church of England, despite his attempts to assume the mantle of Anglicanism.

The two recent statements from Archbishop Duncan have many elements in common. They begin with positive statements—this part is quite abbreviated in the Pittsburgh statement—and follow up with his criticism, which suggests great disappointment on his part. That criticism emphasizes the need to avoid change and to engage in self-sacrifice. (Duncan seems to have a Puritan’s aversion to joy.) The statements conclude with a commitment to pray for all those benighted people who don’t understand the will of God the way he does. This last element is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Southern expression “bless their hearts.”

I’m sure Archbishop Duncan is doing God’s will as best as he understands it.

Bless his heart.

Tunnel vs. Tunnels

Pittsburgh has three twin-bore vehicular tunnels. Two of these are now being rehabilitated, and the third was recently refurbished. Each carries its name on its portals. I began thinking about those names when I saw the newly rebuilt portals of what Pittsburghers generally refer to as the Liberty Tubes. Over the twin bores on both the north and south side of Mt. Washington are the words, incised in large capital letters, “LIBERTY TUNNELS.” (Liberty Tunnels has always been the official name of the bores.)

What is curious is that the names of the other tunnels are the “Fort Pitt Tunnel” and “Squirrel Hill Tunnel.” Worldwide, paired tunnels are generally given singular names. Why is “Liberty Tunnels” (or “Liberty Tubes”) plural? I have no idea.

Where Were You?

I wrote a song back in 2002 called “Where Were You?” I know a whole lot more about songwriting now than I did them—this may not be saying a lot—so I decided to clean up the song a bit. I changed the lyrics slightly and greatly improved the tune. The song is something of a romantic lament written in a woman’s voice. You can see the music here, listen to the tune here, and read about the song here.