Good for Benedict!

I have never been a fan of Pope Benedict XVI. Before he was elected, I considered the election of Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger as the next Pope my worst nightmare. He had already interfered in Anglican affairs, a practice he did not abandon once he became the supreme authority in the Roman Catholic Church. Benedict has been a reactionary, and his successor will likely be in the same mold.

I must applaud Benedict, however, for stepping down from the papacy because he feels he does not have the strength to carry on. His decision is a good one for him and for his church. We should hope that this courageous action—a radical action in its context—sets a precedent for his successors.

Lifetime appointments are intended to insulate office holders from undue influence, but they become dysfunctional if retirement based on reduced competency is prohibited or severely discouraged. Federal judges, and particularly Supreme Court justices, have lifetime tenure, but they sensibly retire when interest in their job flags or they believe themselves incapable of performing adequately. This is a good practice.

Even the Roman Catholic Church exhibits some suspicion of advanced age. The convocation that will elect the next pope limits the electorate to cardinals no older than 80 years. In light of Benedict’s retirement decision, perhaps the next pope will be younger and more vigorous, and perhaps he, too, will consider retirement rather than working, however poorly, to his dying day.

If Not “Pro-choice,” Then What?

I learned today from the radio program On the Media that Planned Parenthood has decided to drop the term “pro-choice,” but the organization seems not to have devised a replacement for the label.

I have written previously about how “pro-choice” lacks the power of “pro-life,” and Planned Parenthood has apparently come to the same conclusion. On hearing the On the Media piece, I immediately thought that “pro-freedom” would be a good alternative. Conservatives love “freedom,” so they would find this term more compelling.

A quick Google search revealed that I am not the first to propose the “pro-freedom” description. Katie Roiphe proposes it in the essay “Good Riddance, ‘Pro-Choice’” at Slate. She writes

“Freedom” is at least a more expansive word than “choice,” with glimmers of promise, of possibility, of amber waves of grain; it has a patriotic undertone that might appeal to those confused people who do believe in at least a limited right to abortion but won’t call themselves “pro-choice,” because “choice” seems to belong to a pampered elite.

I recommend her essay and won’t try to recapitulate her ideas here.

Whatever the deficiencies of “pro-choice,” it is firmly associated with choices in a particular context. Any neologism that isn’t explicit as to context will need some time to become established; “Pro-choice” will be hard to displace.

For whatever it’s worth, I’ll suggest one other possible choice—“pro-woman.” This may actually be a more honest term and counters the pro-life position, which might be characterized as pro-baby and anti-woman.

Does Barnes & Noble Have Its Nook Support Together?

 I used to own a Nook Color tablet. It was not my favorite piece of technology, but the price was right and I really liked reading books and magazines on it. I purchased several pieces of software for the device and a few books. Additionally, because I was a subscriber to the print editions of Time and The New Yorker, I had free subscriptions to these magazines on my Nook. I found myself throwing away the paper magazines and reading the electronic versions.

I was using my Nook one day as I waited for my car to be serviced. Somehow—I never did figure out what happened—I apparently left the device in the waiting room and never saw it again. I’m sure someone picked it up and used it, as some small purchases were made using my Barnes & Noble account. It was only later, when I was in a Barnes & Noble store considering the purchase of a Nook HD+, that I was told that I could cancel my subscriptions and de-certify—I think that was the word that was used—my Nook Color. I did, in fact, buy a Nook HD+ and was delighted that I was able to load all the books and software I had purchased on the new device.

At this point, however, I hit a snag. To obtain a free magazine subscription on the Nook based on being a print subscriber, one signs up for a paid electronic subscription, which begins with a free two-week trial period. During that time, one needs to follow a link to a Web page that requests name, address, and print subscription number. I followed that procedure for both Time and The New Yorker. When I did so, however, in each case, I received this message:

Sorry

Your Print Subscription Account information has already been used to activate a discount for another NOOK subscription.

Each active print subscription is entitled to receive a discount on one NOOK subscription. If you believe that your account information has been applied incorrectly to another account, please contact us at:

authorizations@barnesandnoble.com

The prior subscriptions, of course, were those on my Nook Color, which had been cancelled. What I really wanted to do was to transfer my subscriptions from one device to another. Simple, no? Barnes & Noble must need to do this all the time.

At this point, I began working with Barnes & Noble’s Nook support people trying to resolve my problem over the telephone. This went on for a while, which led me to send the following e-mail message to bnmanagementdigital@book.com, which will stand in for a narrative of what happened next:

I am writing to you about a problem I have been trying to resolve for weeks. I have written to authorizations@barnesandnoble.com, made untold calls to Nook support, and have been repeatedly promised that my problem would be resolved within 72 hours. That last promise was made to me four days ago. I was just told that the issue is still open, which probably means that no one has paid it any serious attention yet.

Everything you need to know should be in your records associated with my account ([e-mail address 1]). I will give you a quick description of the problem, however.

I previously owned a Nook Color. My B&N account associated with that device was [e-mail address 2]. Because I am a print subscriber to both The New Yorker and Time Magazine, I had free subscriptions to those magazines on my Nook Color. Being able to read my magazine subscriptions on my Nook was my favorite use of the device. Unfortunately, my Nook Color was stolen. We cancelled the subscriptions and decertified the device.

In December, I purchased a Nook HD+ to replace my Nook Color. I was delighted that I was able to retrieve the books and applications I had purchased for my Nook Color for use on my Nook HD+. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get my free subscriptions to The New Yorker or Time Magazine. I was told by Nook support repeatedly to cancel my subscriptions and re-subscribe, which I have done repeatedly. Every time, when I tried to obtain my free subscription, I received the message (in red lettering) “Sorry. Your Print Subscription Account information has already been used to activate a discount for another Nook subscription.” (You can see a screen shot of this message at [URL removed].)

All I want to do, of course, is to transfer the subscriptions I had to my new tablet. It is clear that my Time and New Yorker subscription numbers are incorrectly flagged as being associated with an active subscription. When the subscriptions were cancelled, those flags should have been cleared.

By the way, even though I have signed up for the trial subscriptions, I am not receiving copies of either magazine on my Nook HD+. [This turned out to be an unrelated issue that was easily solved.]

It was suggested that I call the publishers to get new subscription numbers, something I did not expect the publishers to do. In fact, I did call Time. I was told that if I had a generic Android tablet or an iPad, Time could have helped me. I was also told that B&N is completely responsible for Nook subscriptions and Time had no way to make any adjustments. I assume I would have received a similar message from The New Yorker.

As if the frustration of not receiving what I am paying for were not enough, dealing with Nook support on the telephone has been maddening. For one thing, I have had to explain my plight repeatedly. Often, the details have not been understood. After speaking to a second-level support person on Saturday, I was again told that I would hear from B&N within 72 hours. When this did not happen, I called back today, asking immediately for a second-level support person, as I was told I should do. Trying to get past the person who answered my call was a bit like trying to get a visa to visit the U.S. from Yemen. I gave my e-mail address; then I was asked for my mailing address. When I was asked for the last four digits of my Social Security number, I had had enough and insisted about being put through. The person I then talked to put me on hold. After five minutes or so, the call was disconnected. I called back, went through the same sort of gatekeeping, and was finally told that the matter was still under consideration, and there was no higher-level person I could talk to. I was, however, given your e-mail address.

I really don’t care about your fixing your defective subscription software. Work on that later. All I want now is my free subscriptions to my magazines. Work around the software and give me my subscriptions. An apology would also be appreciated.

Failing resolution of my problem, I plan to write about my experience on my blog and elsewhere and perhaps request a refund for my Nook HD+. As a computer consultant, I am frequently asked about computer hardware. Perhaps you might be able imagine what I am inclined to say about buying a Nook.

Please, please, end my frustration and resolve my problem quickly.

Thanks for your help.

Best regards,
Lionel Deimel

One might have thought that such a letter would light a fire under someone who could fix the problem.Wrong! Several more weeks of frustrating telephone calls were in my future. I spoke to second-level support people and supervisors of second-level support people. No one could personally resolve the issue or tell me how to do so.

Several aspects of Nook support were particularly irritating. More than once, my call was placed on hold and was disconnected before anyone got back to me. When I tried to give my telephone number on a subsequent call so I could be called back if I got disconnected—this is common practice in many tech support shops—I was told that the Nook support people cannot make outside calls. When I tried to illustrate my problem with a screen shot, I was told that Nook support people cannot view external Web sites, either. Twice, after being told the standard tale that Barnes & Noble would get back to me within 72 hours, I received this e-mail  from bnmanagementdigital@book.com:

Dear Lionel Deimel,

Thank you for contacting us. 

We are happy to work with you, and your reference number for today’s contact is Service Request # [number removed].

Based on our discussion and the action we agreed upon, we feel that this issue was resolved.  However, if you feel that you need further assistance, we invite you to chat with one of our agents by clicking on this link:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nookchat

Our Chat Team is available Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM ET, Saturday and Sunday 9:00 AM to 11:00 PM ET.  If you do decide to get in touch with us, just make sure you have your Service Request Number handy for the fastest service.  
We also encourage you to use our Chat Team for any assistance you may require in the future.

Your satisfaction is our #1 priority and we look forward to your next visit!

Sincerely,
[various signatures]

A couple of thing are notable about these messages. First, except for the greeting, the messages are complete boilerplate. They declare: “Based on our discussion and the action we agreed upon, we feel that this issue was resolved.” The messages don’t identify the issue or the resolution. Moreover, “we” didn’t agree on anything. Nothing was different following these messages; I still didn’t have my free subscriptions. I didn’t seriously believe that using chat, rather than a telephone, would be any more helpful, but, whenever I followed the link for Nook chat, I received various error messages. (Give it a try yourself.)

Twice, a second-level Nook support person promised resolution, which seemingly had to come from software people. One of these offered me a $10 gift card for my trouble. I appreciated the gift card, but the problem remained unsolved. Finally, someone else promised a resolution in 72 hours. Four or five days later, I had received no e-mail from Barnes & Noble, but, when I tried to sign up for my free subscriptions, I actually got them. By this time, I had disputed the charges on my credit card bill for my paid Barnes & Noble subscriptions. That matter has not yet been resolved.

I cannot believe that I am the only person to have lost a Nook and wanted to transfer subscriptions to a new device. Barnes & Noble, however, seems to have had no clue as to how to handle such an issue. I am unimpressed.

Resolution 1 Again

In two recent posts, “God and Gender/Sex” and “Seeing the Future Clearly,” I mentioned Resolution 1 that was passed by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh at its 2002 annual convention. That resolution was a kind of first shot in the war for the diocese, an ecclesiastical conflict whose end still is not in sight. It is because of its importance that I mention Resolution 1 yet again. In particular, I direct your attention to an Episcopal News Service story of November 5, 2002, “‘Firewall’ Resolution Passes in Pittsburgh.” After the vote was taken, a group of people who opposed the resolution were allowed to “demonstrate”—this was a respectful  affair, as befitting Episcopalians, of course—at the front of St. David’s, Peters Township, the church where the convention was held.

Opposition to Resolution 1 was organized under the acronym TORO, Those Opposed to Resolution One. The demonstration was the final public act of TORO, which would later morph into Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. TORO’s spokesperson at the convention was the rector of Church of the Redeemer, Squirrel Hill, the Rev. Cynthia Bronson-Sweigart. I was proud to stand with Cynthia and others as she read a statement from TORO. Here is how ENS reported her statement:

‘We are in profound pain over the positions stated in this resolution and concerned about the consequences its adoption will have on the already fragile common life of this diocese,’ the statement said. ‘We believe this unyielding document further divides our people, rendering some of us invisible. Some priests and parishes will bear allegiance to the dictates of this document and the diocese, and some will bear allegiance to the dictates of the national church. In a diocese where the fabric of unity is increasingly threadbare, passage of this resolution creates a tear which is almost impossible to mend.’

That statement was prescient.

Calvary Wonderland

I just added a new poem to Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. The words were sung to the tune of “Winter Wonderland,” and they were inspired by a cold snap at a summer camp. A detailed explanation can be found on my Web site, but I reproduce the poem below.

Calvary Wonderland

by the Deimels

Sleigh bells ring; are you listenin’?

In the lane, snow is glistenin’—

A beautiful sight;

We’re happy tonight,

Campin’ in a Calvary wonderland.

Gone away are the bluebirds;

Have to stay are some new birds;

They sing a cold song

As we shiver along,

Campin’ in a Calvary wonderland.

In the KYBO we can build a snowman

And pretend that he is Father John;

He’ll say, “Are you warm” and we’ll say, “No, man”;

How d’ya turn the silly heater on?”

When it snows, ain’t it thrillin’,

Though your nose gets a chillin’?

We’ll frolic and play

The Episcopal way,

Campin’ in a Calvary wonderland.

In the morning you can be a Penguin

Even if you don’t go in the pool;

From the Rec to the Hen House to the cabins,

Everyone in camp is really cool!

Later on, we’ll retire

By the old campfire;

We’ll face unafraid

Frostbite and first-aid,

Campin’ in a Calvary wonderland.

?

I’ve been sorting through old papers and occasionally uncovering hidden treasures and curiosities. Today, I ran into a page that came off my printer that has this heading:

?
by Lionel E. Deimel

What follows is the beginning of a poem, but the poem ends in the middle of a stanza and trails off into handwritten notes. When I discovered this piece of paper, my eyes went first to the poem itself, not to the title or author’s name. I asked myself, “What is this?” Then I asked, with incredulity, “Did I write this?” I don’t remember writing the poem, which is unlike any of my other poems.

The piece is perhaps worth finishing, but the problem is that I have no idea where I wanted to go with it. Here is the part of the poem I apparently found reasonably satisfactory:

?

by Lionel E. Deimel

While I was walking down the road
I met a maiden fair,
With eyes cast down and visage drear,
And tattered ribbons in her hair.

“What ho, fair lass, is life amiss?
“What hath befallen thee?”
“Methinks I must not tell, good sir.
“Forsooth, I am undone,” said she.

She hurried past but said no more,
So I my trip resumed

Can anyone suggest how this poem should continue? What do you suppose I was trying to say?

Unity vs. Justice

I have watched with great interest the attempt in the Church of England to remove the present bar to female bishops. Last November, the General Synod turned back legislation that would have allowed for women bishops while making it possible for those opposed to women bishop (or women clergy generally) to isolate themselves from bishops who have had any truck with women clergy. (See my earlier posts “Thoughts on the Struggle to Allow Women Bishops in England,” “Church of England Rejects Women Bishops Legislation,” and “Further Thoughts on the Church of England’s Failure to Authorize Women Bishops.”)

I had mixed feelings about the legislation offered in November. Although it provided for women to enter the episcopate, it would have made women second-class bishops, possibly forever. Women in the Church of England were, predictably, torn between getting half a loaf now or, at least for the present, getting no loaf at all. The proper thing to do, I think now and thought then, is to adopt a so-called single clause measure that simply states that both men and women are eligible to be made bishops.

As I write this, discussions are taking place that are intended to lead to a proposal for new legislation providing for women bishops. It is unclear what will come of this, but a single clause measure might be proposed.

Women in the Church (WATCH) has published an insightful essay on the women bishops question on its Web site. It is by the Rev. Canon Jane Charman, and I recommend reading the whole piece. What Canon Charman has to say has implications for the way churches conduct their business generally. She writes

Within the Church of England defending the rights of some individuals and groups to discriminate against women currently has a high priority and is connected in many minds with upholding freedom and diversity. By contrast witnessing to the equal dignity and worth of women in society has a low priority. It is not a moral imperative for us. Opponents of women’s ministry have worked hard to alter our perceptions in this way, to present gender discrimination as a respectable alternative position within the life of the Church and themselves as victims of intolerance. This reversal of values seems perverse and incomprehensible, even morally repugnant, to those outside the Church.

Charman admits that she voted in favor of the measure before the General Synod last year but now regrets that vote. Only a single clause measure, she declares, is acceptable. She concludes

Standing out against gender discrimination is not a task for another day, it is a task for today, and it is urgent. It is far and away more important than giving a few women the opportunity to become bishops, vital though that is for the Church and greatly though we long for it to happen. The challenge for the Church of England is not ‘to find a formula by which discrimination can be tolerated so that the Church can have women bishops’. It is to ‘find a way of modelling in our common life the values we proclaim’. If we cannot grasp this nettle we will sacrifice our privileged position as the spiritual guardian of our national life and fatally undermine our ability to preach the gospel in our generation.

These are strong but inspiring words. Like the Church of England, The Episcopal Church often seems to value unity (or peace) above truth and justice. We have seen this in our painfully slow steps toward a general adoption of same-sex blessings and in our failure to reject definitively the Anglican Covenant.

It is to be hoped that the Church of England may yet surprise and inspire us all by simply declaring that women can be bishops and leaving it to opponents of the change to choose their own personal response thereto.

Seeing the Future Clearly

A discussion with a friend of my post of two days ago, “God and Gender/Sex,” led me to recount the early days of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP). In the process of illustrating my narrative,  I retrieved from the PEP archive the original version of Resolution 1, which was submitted for consideration at Pittsburgh’s 2002 annual convention. Rereading that document, I realized that it did not use the term “inclusive language,” as I had said, but it did address “gender-neutral titles.” I have now revised that original post.

The formation of PEP grew out of the effort to derail Resolution 1, but PEP was not actually formed until early in 2003. By the fall of that year, however, the organization was vigorously opposing the plans of Bishop Robert Duncan. In the further support of my storytelling, I read the press release I had written for PEP in the wake of the 2003 annual convention.

In consulting these two documents, I was struck by two realizations. First, PEP had a clear idea of where Bob Duncan was taking the diocese, despite his repeated assurances that he would not leave The Episcopal Church. He did so, of course, five years later, taking with him as many people and assets of the diocese as he could manage. Second, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina were more or less on the same track. Both dioceses would change their constitutions to remove unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church, and both dioceses would attempt to circumvent the Dennis Canon. South Carolina took longer to pull the trigger on schism, but its leaders learned from the experiences of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and Quincy, and they played their legal cards more carefully.

I offer here a sample of what I wrote in that November 8, 2003, press release, but I encourage readers to read the entire document:

The convention did not heed the warnings of those present who argued that the first change was illegal and negated a precondition for being a diocese of the Episcopal Church, namely, “unqualified accession” to rules and decisions of the national church. Proponents were also heedless of admonitions that voting for the amendment would be contrary to the vows taken by every ordained person, though they did succeed in assuring that votes of individual members of the clergy would not be recorded. Support by Bishop Duncan belied his promise, repeated the day before, that he would not leave the Episcopal Church. Diocesan Vice Chancellor Robert Devlin advanced the novel theory that the Episcopal Church is a confederacy of dioceses. According to him, the Pittsburgh diocese never acceded to the authority of the national church. Dr. Joan Gundersen, a historian of the church, however, raising a point of order, exhibited the 1865 minutes of the House of Bishops in which such accession was certified. Nonetheless, the schismatic amendment was passed by a vote by orders (clergy and laity voting separately) after approximately 20 minutes of discussion.

...

PEP believes that submission to the authority of the ECUSA is the glue that connects the dioceses of the church and makes a national church a reality. Dioceses are the creatures of the ECUSA, rather than the reverse. It is through the national church that the diocese is recognized as a component of the Anglican Communion. In a hierarchical institution such as the Episcopal Church, it is through the relationship of the diocese to the national church that all legitimacy, authority, responsibility and benefits flow.

PEP saw clearly where the diocese was going in 2003, but it received little help from the general church in heading off the coming schism. After the disasters in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and Quincy, one might have thought that the church leadership would be more aggressive about trying to head off what might prove to be an even bigger tragedy in South Carolina. (The Diocese of South Carolina has its own Via Media USA group, Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, whose vision of the future was no less clear than that of PEP.)  Of course, you would be wrong in thinking that. The Episcopal Church not only failed to take action before the Diocese of South Carolina implemented its plan to leave the church, but it also failed to file suit before the breakaway group did so. The calamity in South Carolina will haunt The Episcopal Church for a long, long time.

Gun Registration

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

—The Associated Press

When I heard about LaPierre’s interview, I immediately thought about how we register vehicles and drivers. True, such registration facilitates certain actions by the government, but most reasonable people would argue that any “freedom” we surrender through registration is more than offset by the advantages gained through government action. Of course, the NRA cares nothing about benefits to the community but only about the individual unfettered by external constraints. The NRA’s ideal citizen is a paranoid sociopath.

These thoughts led me to create a graphic that I posted on Facebook. That graphic was widely shared—apparently many people share my view of the NRA position—so I thought it was worth posting here as well. You can click on the image for a larger view. Feel free to use it, unchanged except for size, for any non-commercial purpose.

God and Gender/Sex

So-called inclusive language has long been an issue within The Episcopal Church. Although it is a topic of indifference to many, others are passionately devoted or opposed to purging liturgical material of “unnecessary” gender references.

The issue of inclusive language is really two issues. The less incendiary matter is the one raised by twentieth-century feminists about language generally. No longer is a sentence like “Everyone ate his meal” socially acceptable when the diners may be either male or female. Non-inclusive liturgical references of this sort are disappearing, but only gradually. What many would consider sexist references are not to be found in the Rite II Holy Eucharist in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Nevertheless, the phrase “all men” appears in the Rite I versions of Daily Morning and Evening Prayer, occurs three times in the Rite I Holy Eucharist, and appears in the Form Two version of The Reconciliation of a Penitent. (It also occurs in the Historical Documents section of the prayer book, but those occurrences are, well, historical.) I suspect that such occurrences will not make it into the next prayer book whenever it makes its appearance.

A good deal of effort went into scrubbing The Hymnal 1982 of sexist language, but the effort was less than thoroughgoing, and the results are mixed. For example “Rise up, O men of God!” has become “Rise up, ye saints of God!” (#551). This works at one level, though I’m sure some consider the revised hymn wimpier than the original. Other changes are a less likely to be lamented. In “Stand up, stand up, for Jesus” (#561),  “ye that are men now serve him” has become “ye that are his now serve him,” which actually makes more sense. “God rest you merry, Gentlemen” (#105) was, sensibly, left alone. (Do read the Wikipedia entry for this popular carol, which provides useful clarification of the song’s first line.) But, inexplicably, “He who would valiant be” (# 565) is unchanged from The Hymnal of 1940. (Actually, if one substitutes feminine for masculine pronouns and substitutes “they” for “men,” the hymn becomes a kind of muscular feminist Christian hymn. Making the text gender-inclusive, however, might be hard.)

The inclusive-language crowd is well on its way to winning the battle to assure that men and women are treated as having equal standing in liturgical materials of The Episcopal Church. This is the direction in which the language is going, and the church is hardly in a position to buck the trend, even if Episcopalians wanted to do so.

The second type of inclusive language—the term doesn’t really fit well—has to do with the persons of the Trinity. This is where people can get very worked up, particularly conservatives, who seldom like any departure from the traditional. This area is a minefield, even for those who are neither far-right conservatives nor radical feminists.

Most Christians are probably willing to concede that God is not, in any usual sense, either male or female, that is, God does not really have a sex. Yet we traditionally refer to God as Father—as did Jesus—and refer to God as “him.” (Even the traditional usage is problematic when we think deeply about it. God has a son, but who is that son’s mother? If the Son and Father always existed, maybe “Son” is an unhelpful designation. I have more to say about this below.) If we take the sexless thing seriously, then, following the usual linguistic rules, we should refer to God as “It.” That’s never going to catch on, however, as it is too impersonal to capture our conception of God.

Liberal Episcopalians reluctant to attribute maleness to God, frequently make personal substitutions in the liturgy, saying, for instance, “It is right to give God thanks and praise” instead of “It is right to give him thanks and praise.” Coming in response to the celebrant’s “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God,” the repetition of “God” seems stilted. When the substitution appears in a printed liturgy, it is, as I read the canons, anyway, a canonical violation, and the sort of thing that encourages other local liturgy changes, which undermines the very notion of common prayer. These sorts of “problems” are already being eliminated from newer liturgies. For example, Enriching Our Worship 1, published in 1997, in many cases renders the aforementioned line as “It is right to give our thanks and praise,” which is a rather clever dodge. Cleverness takes us only so far. In fact, this post was inspired by what I read on a blog today: “God is working God’s purpose out.” This is not only not idiomatic, but the strange locution even suggests that the second “God” has a different referent than the first.

Conservatives are not just upset over pronouns. They resist all but the traditional characterizations of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Ghost). Referring to the Trinity as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer drives some people crazy, though I personally don’t understand why. Maintenance of  traditional language was one of the issues cited in Resolution 1, passed in Pittsburgh in 2002, that declared to the General Convention what the diocese would not tolerate. Traditional understanding of the Trinity—the original wording decried “[l]iturgies that substitute gender-neutral titles for the persons of the Holy Trinity”—got equal billing with the blessing of same-sex unions. (You can read the ENS story on Resolution 1 here and the complete resolution here.) Presumably, conservatives get hot under the collar when the Holy Spirit is referred to as “she,” which has become commonplace in some circles.

In the end, I am dubious about the prospects for or the usefulness of “inclusive language” respecting the Trinity. The nominal maleness of God has thousands of years of tradition behind it. Even “god”—in contrast to “goddess”—is construed as male, as are “Lord” and “Father.” I have heard God referred to as “Mother” or “Parent,” but both seem forced and inconsistent with God’s apparent relationship to Jesus.

Interestingly, there seems not to have been any movement to challenge the maleness of Jesus. But if the Son is an eternal member of the Trinity, does it make any more sense to construe that Son as male than it does to so construe God? Is the Son truly male, or did the Son, as Jesus, take on a male body as a temporary expedient? There is less tradition providing ammunition in the fight over the “sex” of the Holy Spirit, but, as in the case of God, sex or gender simply seem to be inappropriate categories.

The reality is that much of our language about God is metaphor, and, if we understand that—if we understand that our metaphor labels an underlying reality without truly explicating it—then the words we use are merely a convenience. It is helpful if our metaphors exhibit as much consistency as possible, but only to spare ourselves unnecessary cognitive dissonance. Liberals need to exhibit greater humility, and conservatives need exhibit greater tolerance regarding the way we speak about God. Honest conversation, rather than holy warfare might increase the wisdom and understanding of all concerned.


Update, 2/5/2013: I have corrected several typographical errors in the above essay. Also, I discovered, contrary to what I wrote, that the version of Resolution 1 originally submitted for consideration at the 2003 diocesan convention did not use the phrase “inclusive language.” Instead, it spoke of “gender-neutral titles.” I have corrected the reference and added a link to that original submission. Initially, the resolution was referred to as the “South Carolina Resolution,” as it was adapted from a resolution the Diocese of South Carolina adopted at its convention earlier that same year.

Changes to Lionel Deimel’s Farrago

Due to a serious computer problem, I have not been able to perform substantial updates to my Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago for some time. I have now begun maintaining the site from another computer. Problems have been fixed and content has been updated. Most notably, some introductory pages have been rewritten, poems that previously were available only on this blog have been added to the Poetry section, and the search function and table of contents have been replaced.

If you are unfamiliar with my Web site, I invite you to visit and look around. True to its name, it is rather eclectic, consisting of the following sections:

• Biography: Résumé, etc., and a description of consulting services I can perform
• Church Resources: Liturgical materials, commentary on church politics, and poems on spiritual and ecclesiastical topics
• Commentary: Essays on topics both trivial and important
• Computer Science: A random, incomplete collections of papers on computer science and software engineering
• Fiction: Stories (a rather short section of the Web site)
• Language Notes: Observations about American English
• Poetry: Poems on a variety of subjects
• Recreational Math: Amusing material from obscure corners of the world of mathematics

There is also a search page, contact page, site map, and a link to the Farrago Gift Shop.

A few specific items deserve special note. In the Computer Science, I have a helpful article on converting number from one base to another. “Conversion of Number Representations” clarifies some often confusing issues. My presentation on digital invariants is perhaps the most complete presentation on the subject on the Web, though I don’t claim that the topic is on the cutting edge of mathematics. (Did you know that

371 = 3³ + 7³ + 1³   ?

I believe that my pages on curve-stitch designs may be interesting even to those who are not mathematically inclined, since they contain a lot of pretty pictures.

Finally, I’d like to put in a good word for the Poetry section of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. My verse is probably out of the mainstream of modern poetry, but that may be a good thing. I would especially like to direct your attention to my “Hooker hymn,” “Authorities,” which I believe fills an empty niche in Anglican hymnody that needs to be occupied.

Comments and suggestions related to Lionel Deimel’s Farrago are always welcome.

More on Christian Diversity

The Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity has had me thinking about what praying for diversity is all about. I have been asked, for example, “Do you really want Christians not to agree with one another?” Well, not exactly. The Rev. Bosco Peters, who thought up the idea for this week, put his essential insight this way:

The Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity prays that we realise that agreeing to disagree will be the only way forward.

Conflict over doctrine, often doctrine that, in retrospect, is anything but central to the gospel, has bitterly divided Christians over the centuries, has even inspired wars. In our own day, the status of homosexuals in the church and society has been an issue that has seriously divided the Anglican Communion. I feel confident, however, that, in the twenty-second century, homosexuals will no longer be a special group we argue about; they will simply be people like the rest of us (including women, of course), who will routinely marry and be ordained without any special notice. Moreover, the historical arguments within the church about homosexuals will be seen as ignorant and trivial. Agreeing to disagree about homosexuality now—tolerating our present diversity—will get us through our present uncomfortable divisions.

This is not to say that tolerating diversity always leads to an eventual consensus. It does, I think, lead to perspective and, in many cases, to a common view. (One is hard-pressed to find Christian defenders of slavery today.) But there appears to be an inexhaustible source of disagreements among Christians, and, as old debates die down, new ones are born.

There is, however, a positive aspect of diversity. The willingness to articulate unorthodox, even heretical, ideas within the church is necessary for the kind of dialectic that leads to new insights, and, ultimately, to new consensus within the church. Abolitionists within and outside the church, were needed to challenge the orthodoxy of the acceptability of slavery in order to bring the church to a new missional understanding that enslaving our fellow human beings is fundamentally wrong.

We therefore should be praying for a tolerance of diversity to prevent unnecessary and damaging disunity within the church, but we should also be praying that our comfortable but mistaken beliefs will be challenged by those willing to oppose the current orthodoxy.

The forgoing is really an introduction to things I have written over the years which were informed by my work with Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh involving trying to prevent the schism that eventually befell my diocese. This will, I hope, contribute to the commemoration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity.

The first of these compositions is a collect for unity, written in October 2004:

Creator of the universe, who made us different from one another in myriad ways we can see and in more ways we shall never know, yet made us all in your image; fill our hearts with your love and our minds with your wisdom, that we may truly become brothers and sisters of your only Son, our Savior Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

More information about this collect can be found on my Web site here.

Next is a poem about Christian unity written even earlier, in September 2002:

Christian Unity

Around the table gathered, we

Are one in sweet community,

For Christ has ransomed one and all

Who answer to his loving call.

  

We worship God in many ways;

We celebrate on different days;

But Jesus is the guiding star

For Christians near and Christians far.

 

God’s plan for us is seldom clear;

We may a different drummer hear;

Yet, if we study and we pray,

The kingdom will be ours some day.

 

So let us vow to never fight

About who’s wrong and who is right

Concerning truths we cannot know

That turn our Christian friend to foe.

 

And let our worship fit our needs;

Let us unite in Christian deeds;

May we God’s love and mercy show

To those who don’t the Savior know.

More information about this poem is available here.

Finally, there is another poem on the unity in diversity theme, which I wrote in April 2011:

That They All May Be One

“That they all may be one,” they say he said,

But what of us when thus we pray?

Are not our bonds of wine and bread

Sufficient for the Church today?

Must Christians understand as one

The mysteries of God above?

Or should we learn from God the Son

That unity derives from love?

More information about this poem can be found here.


Postscript. It seems only fitting that I should include another poem of mine in this little essay that is actually titled “Diversity.” The poem—a limerick, really—is not about theological diversity, but its subject is not unrelated to ecclesiastical concerns. This poem was written in July 2000 and was tweaked a bit a few years later. More information can be found here. Consider this comic relief.

Diversity

There once was a priest of St. Mary’s

Who blessed all the dykes and the fairies.

When I asked, “Is that right?”

He said, “Don’t be uptight.

“God gave us a preference that varies!”

Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity

The Rev. Bosco Peters, an Anglican priest in Christchurch, New Zealand, writes the Liturgy blog. Bosco has declared, unilaterally it seems, the Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity. The week (octave, really) begins today, Sunday, January 27, 2013, and ends next Sunday, February 3, 2013. He writes on his blog

This week acknowledges and is honest about our diversity. In the Northern Hemisphere, Christians have just concluded a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. In the Southern Hemisphere, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity happens in the Easter Season. Christians cannot even agree when to pray for unity! Let us be honest about our extreme diversity of beliefs. Let us be honest about our enmity—Christian against Christian. Let us be honest about our disagreements. Let us be honest about the diversity of our actions—from some really good stuff, to quite a bit of downright evil. Let us be honest about getting some things right, and quite a bit wrong.

Christian unity is a lovely idea,, but Bosco wisely recognizes that, to many Anglicans, unity means uniformity. Thus, he concluded, we must celebrate Christian diversity explicitly. Bosco is on to something important, and I plan to celebrate the Week of Prayer for Christian Diversity as best I can.

I have adopted Bosco’s badge celebrating Christian diversity. I have reproduced it below, and it now graces every page of my blog. I encourage other bloggers to adopt Bosco’s badge as well.

“That they all may be one” does not mean—should not mean—“that they all may agree.” There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, but that faith is not a large set of propositions on which all Christians must agree. Let us each proclaim and live out the gospel as we understand it and love our Christian brothers and sisters, even when their understanding of the gospel differs from our own.

Spiking Down the Pages

Many years ago, my aunt gave me a railroad spike. I don’t know the history of the spike, but it is a used one. After it was pulled up, someone had it bronzed, so it doesn’t rust. I have long used this 12 ounce, 6½ inch artifact as a paperweight.

The other day, I was writing in my notebook and having a hard time keeping the book open to the page I was using. The spike was nearby, and I though it might be just the thing to weigh down the page, so that it did not turn on me. As I was putting the spike down, the thought occurred to me to place its head between the left and right pages. It worked perfectly, almost as if the spike had been made for the purpose! (Click on the photo for a larger view.)

Second Inauguration

I wrote a poem for Barack Obama’s first inauguration. That poem, “Hail Barack Obama,” was perhaps overly optimistic in tone. Four years later, we face President Obama’s second inauguration more soberly, but we must hope that he can help us bring about a better America.

I could hardly help writing a second poem for an Obama second inauguration. That poem—or perhaps only a first draft of it—is below. I began writing it yesterday, the day on which Mr. Obama took the official oath. I finished the poem today as the President was just beginning his inauguration speech.
 

Second Inauguration

by Lionel Deimel

Once again, Barack Obama,
Hunter of the dread Osama,
Author of Obamacare,
And bane of every billionaire,
Lifts a hand and swears an oath,
And to our Union pledges troth.

Thus begins a second term
In which, perforce, he must be firm
When steering through the rocky shoals
Where Congress often smashes goals—
Progressive measures have no chance
When retrograde ideas advance.

The President must deal with debt,
With war and peace and terror threat;
He must confront the climate’s warming
And how the power grid’s performing:
Guns and jobs and immigration
All will vex Obama’s nation.

Barack Obama, President,
For four more years the resident
In the highest seat of power,
Goes forward from this hour;
Hope abides, and prayers ascend
That change our future may attend.

A Contribution to the Gun Discussion

Following the Sandy Hook massacre, everyone seems to be talking about what to do about guns. With President Obama having made his own proposals yesterday, the discussion will only intensify.

Also yesterday, I left a comment on Facebook about gun ownership that I thought needed to be said. It quickly became a mere drop in the wide and fast-moving Facebook river. I decided, however, that the thought required a bit more prominence, so I offer an expanded version of it here.

Many people have suggested that the government ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or other weapons or accessories. This seems like a commonsense idea, but it is often met with the objection that there is already an unacceptable quantity of such material in the hands of citizens. This is a serious objection.
 
The proper response to the objection is to make possession of certain materials illegal without grandfathering current owners. In other words, ban not only the sale of, say, assault weapons, but also make possession of them illegal, giving their current owners a reasonable period during which their weapons must be surrendered to or purchased by the government. This, of course, constitutes “taking people’s guns away.” something no one seems to have the courage to suggest might be right and proper. The NRA knows this and is trying to convince us all that “taking people’s guns away” is simply unthinkable. In fact, it is not.

Some additional thoughts—

The NRA says that if people are forced to surrender their guns, only criminals will have guns. That might be an improvement. Admittedly, it is not a good thing that criminals have guns. It is a much greater problem, at least in public perception, that crazy people have guns.
 
Apropos of crazy people, I am skeptical of the provision of the law just passed in New York that requires therapists to report threats of gun violence made by their patients. This seems like a good idea, but will be problematic in practice. New York therapists may lose a lot of sleep in the future trying to balance their professional and legal responsibilities and their potential personal liabilities. Therapists are not and should not be expected to be clairvoyant.

There is no silver bullet to fix the crazy mass murderer problem. What we can do is to take steps to improve the mental health of the population generally. This will involve treating mental illness like other illness. It will require removing barriers to obtaining (or obtaining adequate) mental health services and campaigning to remove the stigma often associated with psychological abnormalities.

On Expanding the First Amendment

Trends can be hard to spot, sometimes even if you’re caught up in them. Having someone name an ongoing phenomenon of which you have been only subliminally aware, however, can be an epiphany.

I had such an epiphany while reading an article published by Political Research Associates. “The New Religious Freedom Argument: Gay Marriage in the 2012 Election” by Amy L. Stone points out that the religious Right is trying to expand the notion of freedom of religion beyond what is normally thought to be guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The argument recently advanced by Roman Catholic bishops in support of exempting church-related institutions from provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was perplexing to me. It was not at all clear why requiring, for example, Catholic hospitals to provide reproductive services to their employees impinged on the rights of management by requiring them to support something of which they disapprove.

The government regulates commerce at many levels. In particular, it has long specified certain terms of employment through such legislation as minimum wage laws. The requirements of the ACA are no different in principle. If a Catholic hospital is required by law to provide no-cost contraception to female employees, how is it complicit in facilitating what the Catholic Church considers a sin? It is simply complying with a law passed democratically to which all employers in the country are subject. If a church-related employer is complicit in sin by providing contraception mandated by the ACA, is it any less complicit if an employee uses her wages to buy birth control pills herself? But the church has not argued that such an employee should not be allowed to buy the pill because it would compromise the church? Of course not; to do so would be ridiculous. It would make employment look more like slavery!

Amy Stone’s paper demystifies the Catholic Church’s argument and those of the likes of Hobby Lobby, a private “Christian” company that is objecting to the ACA requirement to provide reproductive health services to its employees as a restriction on the owners’ freedom of religion. (Hobby Lobby is suing the government over the requirement.) In such cases, the proponents argue that they have a constitutional right to live life in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Although “The New Religious Freedom Argument” focuses on marriage equality, Stone’s larger message is about how the religious Right is pursuing its agenda. She writes, “The Right’s new focus on religious freedom tries to reach a broad audience by using civil rights style language rather than morality to make its claim.” Thus, Hobby Lobby CEO David Green is not arguing that the burden of complying with the ACA should be lifted because complying with the law—and therefore the law itself— facilitates immoral behavior. Instead, he is claiming that religious freedom extends beyond freedom of belief and worship to—Stone quotes Matthew Wilson, associate professor of political science at Southern Methodist University here—“the ability to live a life of faith in the world, to act socially, economically, politically, etc. in concert with one’s convictions, without fear of being coerced by government into violating the tenets of faith.”

Moral arguments are unavailing when targeted at people who do not share the underlying belief of those making the argument. By using the rhetoric of civil rights, however, the Right seeks to appeal to a broader constituency concerned about fairness and civil liberties. The hope is that people of good will who are not religious extremists will buy the specious argument that “freedom of religion” should allow everyone to behave in accord with his or her own religious beliefs without concern for others. The religious Right is exhibiting the same attitudes we saw in the opposition to the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, albeit with additional religious dress—“this is my business, and I should be able to run it any way I like, including serving whites only.”

If this expanded view of “freedom of religion” is embraced by a gullible nation—I suspect, or at least hope, that it will not be—it will result in an American society even more contentious and fragmented than it is already. It will not expand liberty, though it may provide more freedom to the wealthy at the expense of the non-wealthy, as if we need more of that in 2013.

It is easy to see what Stone calls the new religious freedom argument as nothing more than a power grab. It is that, of course, particularly on the part of right-wing media agitators. Those people, however, have encouraged the bewildering phenomenon of Christian paranoia. Although, by any practical measure, the United States is the most Christian (or, if you like, Christian-friendly) country in the world, Christians on the right have been convinced that they and their beliefs are under attack. The craziest of the crazies are even planning armed insurrection in defense of their “rights.” God help us.

Some sanity has recently been brought to the matter of religious freedom from, of all places, Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday on four cases from the United Kingdom of alleged persecution of Christians. Two cases involved wearing a cross at work, and two cases involved a refusal to perform one’s job when doing so involves serving gay people. The court found in favor of a plaintiff in only one case, that of one Nadia Eweida, an airline employee who wanted to wear a cross on a necklace along with her airline uniform. (The court’s 53-page opinion can be read here.)

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, summarized what the court did and how a democratic society should rationally deal with matters of religious practice. America should pay careful attention to his commonsense wisdom, which suggests what the response should be to the likes of the Roman Catholic Bishops and the CEO of Hobby Lobby. Copson’s statement, except for its British spelling and punctuation, could easily be the opinion of a wise American. He wrote

The European Court applied exactly the same tests and measures that we have been advocating for years. They asked the question “Will this manifestation of a person’s religion interfere with the rights of others?” In three out of the four cases they found it would and rightly dismissed them.

These cases have been repeatedly lost in court after court and have wasted an enormous amount of time just as they have generated a huge amount of unnecessarily divisive feeling amongst the public. The victim narrative that lies behind them, whipped up by the political Christian lobby groups that organise them and the socially conservative media that report them, has no basis in reality. The widespread misreporting of these cases under the guise of “Christian persecution” when they are anything but has undermined the chance of the public to get a really clear understanding of what the issues engaged by these cases really are.

What they describe as discrimination and marginalisation of Christians is in fact the proper upholding of human rights and equalities law and principles – principles which protect all people against unfair treatment – and we are pleased that the court has recognised this. All reasonable people will agree that there is scope in a secular democracy for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs when that accommodation does not affect the rights and freedoms of others. But if believers try to invoke their beliefs as a defence for treating other people badly – denying them a service because they are gay or claiming a right to preach at them in a professional context – the law is right to prevent them. It’s not persecution of Christians; it’s the maintenance of a civilised society for all.

Days for Baptisms

Holy Baptism is especially appropriate at the Easter Vigil, on the Day of Pentecost, on All Saints’ Day or the Sunday after All Saints’ Day, and on the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord (the First Sunday after the Epiphany). It is recommended that, as far as possible, Baptisms be reserved for these occasions or when a bishop is present.

— BCP, p. 312

This past Sunday was the First Sunday after the Epiphany, and my church did indeed perform a baptism at the service I attended. Baptisms show up on our worship schedule unpredictably, however. The rector of St. Paul’s does not feel especially constrained by the paragraph above, which begins the Additional Directions that follow the Holy Baptism liturgy in the Episcopal Church prayer book. I have complained about our failure to restrict the times we celebrate Holy Baptism, but I haven’t been given much of a hearing.

The most common reason for holding baptisms at times other than those suggested in the prayer book is the convenience of the family. In this busy age, it may indeed be difficult to assemble all the friends and family who want to be present for a baptism, especially if some are coming from out of town. My rector is hardly the only priest to succumb to the entreaties of the candidate or the candidate’s relatives. On the other hand, I have always suspected that my rector does not take “as far as possible” very seriously and is more interested in receiving another soul into the household of God than in applying at least a little pressure to schedule a baptism on one of the “especially appropriate” occasions.

I confess that my argument for following the Additional Directions more conscientiously has been primarily as a prayer book wonk. We should be honoring our tradition, even if that tradition may not technically qualify as ancient. I have avoided the argument that going to church and finding Holy Baptism substituted for The Holy Eucharist Rite Two makes me feel like a victim of a bait-and-switch ploy

At Sunday’s service, another reason for restricting the times when our church celebrates baptism occurred to me. Additional Directions suggests that a candle may be given “to the newly baptized or to a godparent.” My church does this, and I do think the candle well serves as a reminder of an important spiritual event. My rector sometimes suggests, when presenting the candle, that it might be lit on the anniversary of one’s baptism. He has suggested that the anniversary be honored on the same date every year, say, on February 3. However, with so many dates to remember—birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, and the like—a personal baptism date is likely to be forgotten.

My epiphany was that, although one might not easily remember having been baptized on February 3 in some year in the distant past, it would be easier to remember having been baptized on, say, the Day of Pentecost. If the baptized person regularly attends a liturgical church and is aware of the church calendar, remembering one’s baptismal day becomes significantly more probable, perhaps even an anniversary that will be anticipated in the days leading up to Pentecost or one of the other feasts of the church. One might even be inclined to rummage around in some little used drawer to find that baptismal candle.

This is another, and perhaps better, reason to take the prayer book direction seriously. I might even try out the argument on my rector.

Air Force Women

An NPR news story about an Article 32 hearing at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland was part of the news summary today at the beginning of All Things Considered. The subject of the hearing is the behavior of Technical Sergeant Jaime Rodriguez, an Air Force recruiter accused of sex crimes  The item was reported by Eileen Pace of Texas Public Radio. (The report updates a story you can read or hear on the TPR Web site.)

I had just returned home after running a few errands and was rather casually listening to the radio, but my ears perked up when I heard this sentence from Pace: “In three days of testimony, four female airmen and the Navy enlistee nervously offered graphic details to the court about the former recruiter.”

Four female airmen? Really? I can’t decide if this locution is sexist or simply clumsy. It is assuredly jarring to someone unused to it. The obvious female equivalent of airmen is airwomen, of course, though this sounds strange to the American ear, and perhaps no one here uses the word. The U.S. Air Force seems to use the term airmen, but not airwomem. A search of the Air Force Web site finds instances of the first word but not the second. There are several references to female Airmen. (Airmen is always capitalized.)

Sometime in the past, female Airmen may have seemed devoid of irony, but not today. I wonder if females in our Air Force object to this term now (or will in the future). Interestingly, the Air Force in Australia (and perhaps in other countries) avoids oxymoronicity—if that isn’t a real word, it should be—by the use of the lowercased airwomen. (See an instance here.)

Do you think that female Airmen is acceptable in 2013 America? If not, what alternative would you like to see? Would Air Force women work?

Patti Page RIP

I was saddened today to learn that singer Patti Page died on New Year’s Day. She was 85, having been born Clara Ann Fowler in Claremore, Oklahoma, in 1927.

Over the years, Patti Page sold more than a hundred million records, but she did not always get a lot of respect from music critics. In fact, she was an accomplished singer whose repertoire (and fans) spanned genres. She began as a country singer but is probably best know for her pop hits. Her voice was sure, and she always retained a certain country twang.

Of her well-known songs, “Tennessee Waltz,” “Old Cape Cod,” and “Allegheny Moon.” are my favorites. I am fond of her occasional use of overdubbing, allowing her to act as her own backup singers. (A good example of this technique can be heard in her original recording of “Old Cape Cod.”) “Doggie in the Window” is unforgettable, but a bit cute for my taste.

I own only one Patti Page album, the 1956 In the Land of Hi-Fi (see photo). It is perhaps out of the mainstream of her oeuvre, but it is a prized element of my record collection. My mother bought the album for me along with several other discs to build up my meager LP collection shortly after I got my first phonograph capable of playing LPs.

In the Land of Hi-Fi includes songs by Cole Porter, George and Ira Gershwin, Rodgers and Hart, and others. The jazz arrangements on the album are by Pete Rugolo, who also conducts an orchestra of 23 musicians. I have a hard time picking favorite tracks from this album, but I will mention a few favorites: “Love for Sale,” “The Thrill is Gone,” and “Taking a Chance on Love.” This is the album that convinced me that Patti Page was a singer to be taken seriously.

Patti Page was to receive a Grammy for lifetime achievement in February. Unfortunately, the award will be posthumous. I will miss her.


Additional Links:

Patti Page entry on Wikipedia
Discography (Wikipedia)
Official Web site

Café au Lait

I generally began taking my coffee black when I became concerned about cholesterol. Of course, this meant that I no longer was brewing the dark roast coffee and chicory with scalded milk that I grew up drinking in New Orleans. Tonight, I decided to make myself a cup of café au lait. I put what seemed like an outrageous amount of coffee and chicory in my coffeemaker, scalded some milk, and used real sugar, rather than Equal. Ah, yummy. Too bad I didn’t have any beignets!

Whither Sandy Hook Elementary?

This morning, NPR reported that Sandy Hook Elementary will be closed for months and may never reopen. I already knew that surviving faculty and students were being shuffled off to a nearby mothballed school and wondered if that was absolutely necessary. On reflection, I realized that Sandy Hook is a crime scene and a building scarred by blood and bullets. Police (and Newtown residents) want to learn all the details they can about Friday’s massacre, and the building surely needs to be cleaned up before it can be re-occupied.

Sandy Hook Elementary School

I am distressed, though, by the thought that the school might never re-open. In recent years, Americans have shown an inclination to abandon sites of tragedies and turn them into memorials. This is an easy path to take when there has been substantial destruction at a site, such as in the cases of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center in New York. After the shooting at the Aurora, Colorado, cinema, there were calls to close the Century Aurora 16 permanently . (The theater is being renovated, however, and is scheduled to reopen soon.) The Columbine High School library, where 13 students died, was demolished and turned into a memorial, though the school remains open. After a small child fell from an observation platform at the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium and was mauled by African painted dogs below, there were calls to close the exhibit and send the surviving dogs to another zoo. It was decided instead to remove the viewing area from which the boy fell “out of respect for the community and for the Derkosh family [that of the boy who fell].”

Will Sandy Hook Elementary School be demolished and turned into a memorial “out of respect for the community and the families of the victims”? I sincerely hope not. It is a substantial facility and community asset, and its loss would be unfortunate. (See photo above.) That is not to say that no memorial should be erected to acknowledge the Newtown tragedy, but we need to keep matters in perspective. Not every awful event deserves to have acres of real estate devoted to its memory or to have associated structures forever removed from public view.

Are we becoming a nation of extravagant monuments? Do we need—and can we afford—all these memorials? I don’t doubt that many family members of Newtown victims will never want to enter (or even see) Sandy Hook Elementary again. Some may choose to move to another town. But do the rest of us have such refined sensitivities that we never again want to see or use Sandy Hook Elementary?

Memorials have their place, but so many recent ones have been costly, both to construct and in lost opportunity costs represented by land and structures taken out of normal productive use. At least some of that money that might be poured into memorials could be used to relieve other instances of human suffering or to memoralize significant events that have not benefited from our current passion for monuments. (The Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire still awaits a memorial.)

Sometimes an appropriate memorial is just a brass plaque by the side of the road.

For Gwen

My friend Gwendollynn Santiago was ordained to the priesthood yesterday at Pittsburgh’s Trinity Cathedral. Charles Hamill, Terence Johnston, John Schaeffer, and Todd Schmidtetter were ordained at the same service, the first ordination presided over by our new bishop, Dorsey McConnell. (I took my camera to the service but decided to let Andy Muhl document the event with his much better equipment. You can see his photos here. The photo below is courtesy of Andy.)

As I have often done, I wrote a poem in honor of Gwen’s ordination. (My other ordination poems can be read here, here, here, and here.) These poems often reflect the troubled context of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Gwen’s poem, reproduced below, is no exception. I pray that my next such poem need make no allusions to what the recently retired Harold Lewis called “the recent unpleasantness.”

For Gwen

by Lionel Deimel

A priesting in our diocese
Is now a time of joy
Devoid of worries for those things
A bishop would destroy.

Each priest can now be healer,
Evangelist and friend,
A comforter and confidant
On whom one can depend.

The troubles of a broken world
That lately filled the news
We’ll contemplate another day
And file into our pews,

For Gwen today becomes a priest
Who’ll help mend what’s been rent,
She’ll do her work with grace and love,
Enlarging God’s big tent.

New priests with bishop: (L to R) the Rev. Charles Brent Wagner Hamill,
the Rev. Gwendollynn Gettemy Santiago, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey W.M. McConnell,
the Rev. Terence Lee Johnston, the Rev. Todd Thomas Schmidtetter,
and the Rev. John Robert Schaeffer

Right to Work

Michigan just passed a right-to-work law, and, by way of providing background, NPR ran a brief story this morning about the origin of the term “right to work.” It was pointed out that the term does not have an obvious and precise meaning and that liberals do not have a catchy, alternative for it. Like “right to life,” however, “right to work” is catchy and has a positive ring to it. President Obama’s “right to work for less money” doesn’t quite fly as a slogan or as a description (as in “right-to-work-for-less-money law).

The story got me thinking and inspired me to post the graphic below on Facebook. (Click on it for a bigger image.) “Right to exploit” may not be the perfect alternative to “right to work,” but I think it’s in the right neighborhood.

TSM and The Episcopal Church

Many would argue that Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) has played a critical role in undermining The Episcopal Church. (The official name of the seminary remains Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, but “Episcopal” has lately disappeared from all publications.) Ostensibly, the seminary was founded to advance the evangelical cause within an increasingly liberal Episcopal Church. Arguably, it was successful in doing that, at least up to a point. Many of the school’s graduates have now left The Episcopal Church for the Anglican Church in North America or other ultraconservative denominations. Thus, Trinity and its alumni (and alumnae) are engaged in decreasing the influence of evangelicals in The Episcopal Church.

I don’t intend to document the trajectory of TSM here or to justify my belief that it should no longer be considered a seminary appropriate for the education of Episcopal clergy. Instead, I am writing this modest essay in response to my having just browsed through the Fall 2012 issue of TSM’s magazine Seed & Harvest. (The issue has not yet been posted on-line, so I cannot link to it here.)

An article titled “The Year in Review” can be found on page 11. It begins by mentioning the addition of three new faculty members at TSM. Two of the three are ordained, but neither is an Episcopalian. (I can verify Episcopal clergy on-line but have no sure way of identifying Episcopalian laypeople.) The story later notes that, last summer, “we had the opportunity to participate in three major denominational conventions,” namely, the Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), The Episcopal Church’s General Convention, and the Convocation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). I can attest that TSM was represented at the General Convention, but I think it more significant that TSM had a presence at the ACNA gathering—ACNA was formed largely by congregations “liberated” from The Episcopal Church, ably assisted by TSM faculty and graduates—and the NALC Convocation. (NALC split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, with which The Episcopal Church is in full communion.) In reality, although TSM serves many churches, it is most conspicuously the principal seminary for ACNA.

Page 14 for Seed & Harvest lists TSM’s Board of Trustees and Faculty. (This information is also available on the TSM Web site.) Sixteen faculty members are listed, 10 of whom are ordained. Only three are Episcopalian; Dean and President Justyn Terry is not among them. Of the 25 trustees, I could identify only two Episcopal clergy, one of whom, the Rt. Rev. Greg Brewer, is bishop of the very conservative Diocese of Central Florida. The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence is also on the board, but, of course, he is no longer an Episcopalian. Most of the remaining names, both of clergy and laypeople, are known to me to be ACNA members, including chairman Wicks Stephens, Robert Duncan, and Alison Barfoot. Geoffrey Chapman (of infamous Chapman Letter fame) is among the retiring trustees.

It must be admitted that TSM is working hard to to achieve acceptance among Episcopalians. The seminary is physically within the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and it has not only had a presence at diocesan conventions, but has also provided food for receptions. Moreover, I don’t mean to suggest that all the school’s graduates remaining in The Episcopal Church—many are in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh—are members of a fifth column. I believe it is time to admit, however, that TSM has lost any legitimacy it may have had to be considered an Episcopal seminary.


Postscript. I can offer an earlier post on my blog to suggest the nature of TSM’s influence and that of its supporters. As I suggested earlier, I do not intend to be offering the definitive case against the school here.

“Jingle Bells” Misunderstood

When I was a young child, I was under the mistaken impression that there were two distinct songs, “Jingle Bells” and “Dashing Through the Snow,” that were sometimes sung together. The two melodies seemed too different to be part of the same composition. Somehow, I overlooked the relatedness of the words associated with those melodies, which might have disabused me of my misunderstanding. I don’t remember when I realized that “Jingle Bells” and “Dashing Through the Snow” were really parts of the same song, a song that includes a chorus.

By the way, some interesting facts about “Jingle Bells” can be found on Wikipedia.

Do any readers share my childhood misunderstanding?