Lionel Deimel’s Web Log

September 25, 2010

Political Logos

The Tea Party Movement is very decentralized. Perhaps it can do without a national leader or, for that matter, a national platform. It sorely needs a national logo, however, some symbol that will immediately identify the Tea Party Movement “brand.” I am happy to offer this band of angry Americans a logo free of charge. Certainly, the majority of Americans will immediately recognize that I have captured the essence of the Movement in this arresting emblem:

The Republicans need a little help, too. Well, the Democrats, actually. The Republican (should I say Republic?) Party has just unveiled “A Pledge to America.” The Democrats need to expose this “Pledge” for what it is. Here is my suggested logo to help with that campaign. There is no charge for this one, either.

September 24, 2010

Blog Changes and Features

I want to let everyone know about some recent changes to Lionel Deimel’s Web Log. I also want to point out some features that may not be obvious but may still be of interest.

New Features

I’ve added a link in the sidebar to Pittsburgh Update, a site of which I am the principal author. More on this below.

I suspect that it has not been obvious to some visitors how to get to the page containing only the post you are interested in. For example, if you go to http://blog.deimel.org/, you may discover that you would like to link to the second post (0n your own blog, perhaps), and you need its address (URL). Heretofore, there has been only one reliable, albeit unintuitive, way to do this, namely to click on the time stamp, which appears below the post. On many blogs, on the other hand, one can click on the title of a post to go to the page containing only that post. You can now do that on this blog as well. Clicking on the time stamp also works. The page of an individual post always shows comments and links from elsewhere to that page, though I have found the latter listing to be less than reliable.

Keeping in Touch

At the bottom of the sidebar are links to Atom and RSS syndication. (Certain browsers also display syndication icons.) I won’t try to explain syndication here except to say that syndication allows you to read (or at least be notified of) new material on your favorite Web sites in one convenient place. I recommend Google Reader as a means to read syndication feeds, but I don’t pretend to know much about the alternatives, and I’m not going to try to explain Google Reader, either. Mainly, I want people to know how you can subscribe to this blog’s syndication feed. You’ll have to figure out what to do next on your own.

Many of my readers are Episcopalians. Because I suspected that some of these folks might be less interested in my posts on language, say, than in my posts on the Anglican Communion, readers can sign up to receive e-mail when I publish a church-related post. You can get on the e-mail list by clicking on the link after the Atom and RSS links.

Show Your Colors

Below About Me, at the right of the page, the blog sports my No Anglican Covenant logo. I believe that an Anglican covenant is a bad idea generally, and the draft now before Anglican churches well exemplifies this generalization. I encourage others to display my logo on their Web sites, blogs, or elsewhere where it might have an opportunity to influence Anglican opinion. Clicking on the logo takes you to the post, “No Anglican Covenant,” where I first announced the availability of the logo. That post also links to a larger graphic that should satisfy most needs for a higher-resolution image.

Below the No Anglican Covenant logo is a link to my Farrago Gift Shop. Mostly, the gift shop has clothing and other items with the No Anglican Covenant logo. Here are a few samples:

The gift shop also offers merchandise that feature one of my curve-stitch designs, such as this wall clock:

Admittedly, there isn’t a big market for this sort of thing, but, if you’re reading this, you might be part of the small group that is interested. Take a look.

Enjoy

Well, I’ve probably told you more than your really wanted to know, but, if you got this far, you must have learned something of interest. I hope this post will help you get the most out of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. Happy reading (and commenting)!

September 23, 2010

Life without Electricity

I am writing this at 9:30 PM on a laptop on my deck, bathed in the light of the computer screen and a candle. Although I only lost power for about four hours yesterday due to the thunderstorm—see “High Winds”—and “After the Storm”—power went out early this afternoon, and it has yet to return. I guess this is what it feels like to live in Iraq, except for the explosives and bullets, of course.

I did attend choir rehearsal tonight. This was a tough call, as I feel I am coming down with a sinus infection or some such. I got to church early, however, to do a quick check of my e-mail. To my surprise, singing actually made me feel better. I was breathing better, anyway; my throat is another matter.

I tried lying down in bed, but it has been a warm day, and my bedroom is hot and stuffy. Even on the deck there isn’t much of a breeze, but it is at least cooler. In a few minutes, the full moon will be peeking out from behind the house to provide a bit more light on the deck. Too bad that most of what I want to do (including post this) requires an Internet connection!

Update, 9/24/2010, 7:23 PM: Power returned to my house about 2:30 AM this morning. I’m posting this over the time stamp indicating when it was first written.

More on the Goings On in South Carolina

Dr. Joan Gundersen has posted the first part of an essay titled “What the Diocese of South Carolina May Get Wrong.” The essay deals with the resolutions about to be passed—assuredly they will be passed—by the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

Gundersen points out that all Episcopal Church dioceses have had ample warning of the Title IV changes that take effect in less than a year. No one seems to have raised questions about the validity of those changes until the Anglican Communion Institute posted its recent essay on the subject. (Would I be considered paranoid to suggest that Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Anglican Communion Institute are in cahoots with one another on this matter? See my essay on the South Carolina situation here.)

Gundersen is well qualified to write about what South Carolina is about to do. Not only was she a General Convention deputy from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh who had to vote on the Title IV revisions, but she and chancellor Andy Roman took the lead in rewriting the Pittsburgh canons that deal with the new disciplinary rules of The Episcopal Church. As she mentions in her essay, Gundersen is a member of the diocese’s Committee on Canons.

Gundersen concludes her essay with the following paragraph:

So why is there such a fuss now? Is it really the changes that worry South Carolina, or is it that some are looking for a wedge issue to drive South Carolina further from the rest of the Church and isolate it more? Were some of South Carolina’s leaders following a strategy based on evading one set of disciplinary canons only to find that the loopholes they had counted on were about to be closed? Were South Carolina leaders so asleep at the switch that for five years they didn’t notice a major revision of the canons until the deadline for implementation of the canons drew near? Whatever explanation you pick, it would seem the problem lies more within the Diocese of South Carolina than in Title IV.

In her next installment, Dr. Gundersen plans to deal directly with constitutional questions related to the new Title IV.

After the Storm

I was surprised this morning by a 6:45 AM robocall from Mt. Lebanon warning me that there are many trees and power lines down and many traffic lights out. The call announced that schools are closed today and advised everyone to stay at home.

Yesterday’s storm clearly hit my community harder than most in the area, although neighboring communities were also heavily impacted according the the local news from WDUQ-FM. The radio station put the number of Duquesne Light customers still without power at 13,000. (Duquesne Light is not the only power company in the area. Another 13,000 customers are also without electricity.) According to the Post-Gazette, the storm cut off power to 82,000 households and businesses. Rain seems to have caused little damage; high winds and lightning were responsible for most of the trouble from the storm.

I have food in the house, including cat food, and no pressing reason to go out today except for choir rehearsal tonight. It is not clear whether we will have rehearsal, but I suspect that we will if the church has power. I did see a large tree branch down in front of St. Paul’s yesterday, but there were no power lines nearby.

The branch blocking Syracuse Avenue just down the street that I mention in my last post has, surprisingly, been moved out of the street. It is not gone, however, just moved to the side of the road. (The street is bounded on one side by an undeveloped wooded parcel.) This can be seen in the photo below:

Actually, the tops of two trees seem to have been knocked off by the storm, as can be seen in this photo:

September 22, 2010

High Winds

There was a severe thunderstorm warning for southwestern Pennsylvania this afternoon, and it turned out to be appropriate. Sometime around 4 PM, heavy rains and strong winds hit Mt. Lebanon, the Pittsburgh suburb in which I live. I was writing a blog post (see “S.C. Via Media Group Calls for Investigation”) when the storm hit, and, shortly after the rain began, power failed. My computer and my VOIP telephone service both went down, and, unfortunately, as I had discovered only about an hour earlier, the battery charge on my cell phone was almost gone. I didn’t even have enough power left to call the power company to report the outage.

The storm did not last long. The only physical damage I suffered was to a begonia that fell off a picnic table and lost a good many stems on one side of the pot. When the rain abated, I got into the car, attached the charger to my cell phone, and called Duquesne Light Company . Duquesne Light already knew about the outage in my area. The automated message asked me if I had any more specific information. Since I did not, I hung up. The question caused me to walk around the neighborhood a bit, however, looking for obvious problems with power lines. I didn't find any, but I did discover a large tree branch blocking a street half a block away. I called 911 about this. I was on hold for a minute or two—there were lots of calls today to the county 911 service—and was then told that the branch in question was already on the list of downed trees in the area.

It was clear that the brief storm had done a lot of damage, so it was uncertain just how long power was likely to be out. I was capable of making dinner from items in my refrigerator, but I was reluctant to open it, lest I decrease unnecessarily the time before food began to spoil. I thought I could drive a short distance and find a fast-food restaurant open that could provide an adequate dinner. The closest restaurants were on Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, but all the establishments on the north side of the street were clearly without power. Subway, on the south side, did have power. After being discouraged by traffic in another direction where I thought I might find food, I doubled back to Subway, only to find a long line of people who were, no doubt, in the same situation as I was. Stupidly, I sought greener pastures.

I headed in the direction of another set of restaurants, including another Subway. Everywhere I went, however, traffic lights were out, trees were blocking streets, and restaurants were conspicuously dark. A few intersections had police directing traffic, but it wasn’t clear that such intersections were operating any more efficiently that those without either traffic lights or police. Drivers were treating the latter as four-way stops, and traffic in all directions was moving, albeit somewhat slower than usual.

Not having found the edge of the power outage, I headed for home via a different route, hoping that one of several restaurants I would pass would be open. I became hopeful when, as I drove down Bower Hill Road, I began to see working traffic lights, streetlights, and homes with lights inside. Sure enough, the Italian pizza and hoagie restaurant I thought might have escaped the power outage was indeed open. I decided not to wait to see if Panera’s was also open. (Panera Bread would have given me more attractive food and Internet access.) I had a hoagie and Pepsi Zero and headed home. The Galleria, the mall housing Panera’s, clearly had only emergency lights working.

Remarkably, when I returned home, the power was back on, and I got back to my blog post. On the 11 o’clock news, I learned that Mt. Lebanon was particularly hard hit by the storm, with many areas still without power and trees down everywhere. KDKA-TV reported that Duquesne Light has 23,000 customers without power.

S.C. Via Media Group Calls for Investigation

The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina (EFSC) has written a letter to the Executive Council and to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church asking for an investigation of the “situation in our Diocese.” (The letter is available on the group’s Web site here.) EFSC explains its concerns as follows:

We wish to call to your attention the recent actions and inactions on the part of the diocesan leadership and leaders in parishes and missions within the Diocese of South Carolina, which we believe are accelerating the process of alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from The Episcopal Church.

What follows is a litany of what the Via Media group sees as steps taken and not taken by the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina that are designed to distance the diocese from The Episcopal Church and facilitate the removal of congregations and property from The Episcopal Church. The five-page letter also lists specific matters EFSC wants to see investigated and reproduces the text of a letter sent by an attorney experienced in church property cases to a South Carolina parish explaining what parish leaders need to do if they wish to remove themselves and their church from The Episcopal Church.

The letter comes as the diocese is preparing to hold a special session of the diocesan convention October 15, 2010, to enact changes to the diocese’s constitution and canons. As a Pittsburgh Episcopalian, I see a familiar schismatic objective behind the resolutions to be considered by South Carolina next month. The resolutions are clearly improper and surely are motivated by objectives other than the stated ones.

Where the Church Needs to Go

It is surely the case that the matters that EFSC says the church should investigate should indeed be investigated, though I have a suspicion that EFSC has a pretty good idea of what the broad outlines of the findings will be. In particular, EFSC asks the church to look into

Parishes which, from their Web sites, seem to have taken measures to facilitate their withdrawing from The Episcopal Church.
Actions taken and not taken regarding the departure of St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant.
Property titles and corporate documents, in order to evaluate legal risks to the church that they might represent.

Beyond what EFSC is asking, however, it is time to be thinking about what is required to depose Bishop of South Carolina Mark Lawrence. Although Lawrence does not appear to be a leader of any major schismatic movement outside his own diocese, within his diocese, his actions bring to mind those of deposed bishop Bob Duncan, the former Bishop of Pittsburgh. If Bob Duncan could be said to have abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church,” certainly, by supporting the aforementioned resolutions, Mark Lawrence is likewise guilty and should be subject to deposition.

Mark Lawrence did not create the ugly, secessionist attitude that is widespread in the state of South Carolina. (Given the state’s history, one suspects there is something in the water.) Certainly, the previous bishop, Edward L. Salmon, seemed at least as much a threat to the integrity of The Episcopal Church as the incumbent. It was clear, however, that, when the diocese elected a new bishop, it was seeking one who would be more loyal to an extremist conservative agenda than to The Episcopal Church.

This is perhaps an appropriate time to say something I’ve been waiting to say for a long time, namely, I told you so. In October 2006, when Mark Lawrence was seeking consents for the first time, I wrote “No Consents: A Crucial Test for The Episcopal Church,” arguing that his written opinions made Lawrence an inappropriate choice for an Episcopal bishop. (Via Media USA agreed with me and sent the essay to all bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees.) I later wrote “The Annotated Mark Lawrence,” in which I analyzed questions and answers from Lawrence put forth in support of his attempt to be consecrated bishop. I was not impressed.

In fact, The Episcopal Church passed its “crucial test” and did not consent to Lawrence’s consecration. (He was not denied his victory by “technicalities” and was, in fact, given more time than canonically specified to collect the necessary consents.) Alas, South Carolina re-elected Lawrence in a one-man Episcopal election, and, the second time around, the church did not have the fortitude to reject Lawrence again. It failed that second test and is now paying the price for its collective cowardice.

The Episcopal Church must stop Mark Lawrence and his supporters in his diocese before it has another crisis on its hands like those visited upon San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and Quincy. The church must act before it is too late.

As was the case in the four dioceses that are currently rebuilding after schism, there are many supporters of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. EFSC continues to grow and has, I have been told, more than 700 members. That number may expand even more after today’s letter from that group. These are the people who, one way or another, will be called upon to restore sanity to the diocese.

May God save The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Alas, God is going to need a little help.

September 16, 2010

The Martyrs of Memphis

A couple of days ago, Tobias Haller wrote a post on his blog, In a Godward Direction, called “Witness to the Witnesses.” There, he describes a visit to Memphis, Tennessee, where he took part in the celebration of the life and ministry of the Martyrs of Memphis.

I have, for some reason, always been moved by the story of, as styled in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, “Constance, Nun, and her Companions.” The Episcopal Church celebrates these folks, also known as the Martyrs of Memphis, on September 9. Certainly, it is easier for me to identify with this commemoration than with martyrdoms of many centuries ago. Also, having grown up in New Orleans, another city plagued by yellow fever in its early years, it is easy to relate to the plight of Memphis in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

The yellow fever epidemic of 1878 in Memphis killed more than 5,000 people, among them Episcopal priests and nuns who stayed behind to minister to the sick, even after much of the population had fled in terror.

I have never put much stock in pilgrimages and saints’ relics, but Haller’s description of his Memphis activities, and particularly his visiting the graves of the martyrs and employing the “Memphis Chalice” for communion, was very moving. It caused me to reread information about the self-sacrificing Christians who put service to others ahead of their own safety in that terrible 1878 Memphis summer.

I invite you to read the pages about Constance and her Companions from the 2000 edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which you can find here. James E. Kiefer offers some additional details, as does Wikipedia.

Update: Fr. John-Julian has graciously sent me an excerpt from his recent book Stars in a Dark World: Stories of the Saints and Holy Days of the Liturgy about the Martyrs of Memphis. This account offers more detail than any of the references I cited above. Fr. John-Julian’s 792-page 2009 paperback is available from most of the usual sources. You can also find it here.

September 15, 2010

Saltines

I was staring at a box of saltines the other day and began contemplating the spelling of “saltine.” Of course, we pronounce this word as \sȯl-ˈtēn\, but, if we were to encounter the word without ever having seen it before, we would likely pronounce it \sȯl-ˈtīn\. After all, we describe the point of a fork as a tine (\ˈtīn\).

“Saltine” is one of those English words whose pronunciation simply does not make sense. The word was apparently trademarked by Nabisco, which, no doubt, decided how the word should be pronounced. We’re now stuck with the spelling and pronunciation.

Blissful Ignorance

While driving to Calvary Church to meet a friend Monday, I heard a curious story, “Religious Search Engines Yield Tailored Results,” on All Things Considered. According to the story, “[s]ome Jews, Muslims and Christians are abandoning Yahoo and Google and turning to search engines with results that meet their religious standards.” The story covered three “search engines”—perhaps something of a misnomer—that return results tailored to the sensibilities of conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

SeekFind, one of the sites discussed in the NPR story, claims it is a “Christian Search Engine” and characterizes itself this way on its home page: “The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide

God-honoring, biblically based, and theologically sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format.” I’m not a big fan of self-imposed ignorance, but I thought I’d give SeekFind a try. After hearing the radio story, lots of other people apparently decided to do the same. Last night, SeekFind displayed this advisory in red below the Find button: “Due to extremely high traffic, the SeekFind search index is intermittantly [sic] going down. We are working to resolve this problem as soon as possible. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.”

I did get some results from SeekFind, but it was a frustrating process. Sometimes my searches yielded a completely blank page. Other searches elicited messages such as these:

Out of memory

Unable to open zoom_pageinfo.zdat
Check file permissions and that file exists

Unable to open C:\inetpub\vhosts\seekfind.org\httpdocs\settings.zdat.
Check file permissions and that file exists

This morning, however, the advisory has been taken down, and the Find button seems to be working consistently.

I began, naturally, by looking up my own name. “Lionel Deimel” produced 36 results, none of which were about me. A restricted search for my name on Google produced “about 9,420 results.” (I didn’t bother to actually count.) A Google search for “Thinking Anglicans” yielded almost 26,000 pages, the first of which was the well-known UK site. The corresponding search on SeekFind returned a mere 5 pages, none of which had anything to do with that Web site.

The results returned by SeekFind are simply appalling. A search for the phrase “Episcopal Church” produced only 52 results, mostly from the Web sites of organizations such as Questions Ministries (“239,484 Bible Questions Answered!”), Institute for Creation Research (“Biblical/Accurate/Certain”), Christian Research Institute (“…because Truth matters”), Apologetics Press, and Alpha and Omega Ministries (“defense and confirmation of the gospel”). Neither the Web site of The Episcopal Church nor that of any Episcopal Church congregation or diocese was returned by SeekFind, although I did get a link to an article explaining that “Marilyn Manson was raised in the Episcopal Church.” (The corresponding Google search produced over 8 million results. Again, I skipped counting them all.)

A SeekFind search for “quantum mechanics” produced more information than one for The Episcopal Church: 102 results. The pages cited had such titles such as Creation and Quantum Mechanics, Reasonable Faith: Question 138 - Divine Sovereignty and Quantum Indeterminism, and Who created God? - ChristianAnswers.Net. No results were returned from Web sites devoted to science. An exception seemed to be a site called AllAboutScience.org. Although the information does not appear on this Web site, the site is a project of All About God Ministries, Inc. AllAboutScience.org is really all about religion.

SeekFind clearly does not filter the Web. Instead, it uses an index of approved Web sites from which searches are conducted. This is made clear on its About SeekFind page, which explains that SeekFind is “only indexing websites that are Biblically-based, theologically-sound, and in agreement with our Statement of Faith.” (That Statement of Faith can be found here.)

The usefulness of a site like SeekFind is quite limited, even for the conservative Christian who wants to be isolated from views contrary to his or her own. In any case, SeekFind is in no way a general-purpose search engine. (A Search for “Wendy's” is no help in finding a nearby fast-food restaurant.) The only use I see for this search engine is providing rhetorical assistance to argumentative conservative Christians. The SeekFind view of the world is so narrow, however, that I suspect it is perfectly suited to only a sliver of that population. Moreover, even the serious polemicist needs to know what opponents are saying in order to respond to their positions. SeekFind is useless for that.

SeekFind, I am afraid, is only for the Christian right know-nothing crowd, those folks who know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May God preserve us from such people!

September 12, 2010

Armstrong Numbers

On May 5, 2010, I reported on this blog that I had found the Armstrong whose name has been attached to numbers often called pluperfect digital invariants, or PPDIs. Actually, Michael F. Armstrong found me, based on my discussion of digital invariants on my Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.

A few days ago, I added a new page dedicated to Armstrong numbers to my collection of information on digital invariants.

What is little recognized is that Armstrong defined four different types of Armstrong numbers, which he called Armstrong numbers of the first-, second-, third-, and fourth kind. Of special interest are Armstrong numbers of the third kind. Such a number, n, represented by digits d_m, d_m-₁, …, d₁, is equal to

I have not seen such a definition before by any name. An example of an Armstrong number of the third kind (in base-10) is 3435, since

3435 = 3³ + 4⁴ + 3³ + 5⁵ = 27 + 256 + 27 + 3125 = 3435

You can read about Armstrong numbers and how they relate to other names for digital invariants here, or you can read my entire exposition about digital invariants beginning here.

Update: Almost as soon as I posted this note, I discovered Munchausen numbers, defined by Daan van Berkel in the same way as Armstrong numbers of the third kind. In a brief 2009 paper, he exhibited, inter alia, all the Munchausen numbers, alias Armstrong numbers of the third kind, in bases 2 through 10. (There aren’t many.) Apparently, 3435 is the only nontrivial base-10 Munchausen number. (Note that this result relies on defining 0⁰ to be 1.) Apparently such numbers are also called perfect digit-to-digit invariants, or PDDIs. (See Wikipedia article here.) I will be updating my page about Armstrong numbers to incorporate this additional information as soon as I can.

September 9, 2010

God and the Universe

I was reading today about the conflict in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania involving its controversial bishop, Charles Bennison, who has returned to his post after eluding deposition on a technicality. (The latest Episcopal News Service story about the situation can be found here.) There is now ongoing discussion in Episcopal circles about how we might facilitate the removal of a bishop whose relationship to his or her diocese has become dysfunctional.

My reading led me to thinking about how we choose our bishops, a process we say is influenced by the Holy Spirit. We have maintained this view even though the process sometimes goes awry. (I’m sure that many Pennsylvania Episcopalians have been thinking that their convention made a terrible mistake in choosing Bennison.)

On the other hand, we protest whenever some evangelical preacher suggests that a natural or artificial disaster is the fault of its victims, who are said to have been punished for their iniquities by means of divine intervention. (The instrument of destruction might be an Indian Ocean tsunami or airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center.) We resolutely dispute that God metes out vengeance in such a fashion, even though the Bible speaks frequently of such instances.

We are inclined to attribute good things to heavenly dispensation, but we dismiss the possibility that bad things have an equally metaphysical explanation. Likewise, we pray for the sick to recover but do not blame God when they fail to do so.

We cannot, I think, have it both ways; either God intervenes in worldly affairs and should be credited with doing so, or God does not intervene, and we are pretty much on our own.

At the risk of being accused of heresy, I am inclined to see God as uninvolved in the day-to-day management of the universe. Prayer is probably useful, but not for convincing God to grant our wishes like some genie found in a lamp on the beach. Prayer, I suspect, makes us more sensitive, thoughtful, and less anxious. It does not make us richer, our families healthier, or our enemies either nicer or transformed.

I’m not sure if these thoughts make me a bad Episcopalian. Be assured that I am open to listening to counterarguments for the point of view expressed here. Perhaps I should pray for guidance.

September 8, 2010

Questions and Slogans

Last night, I was reading various Anglican blog posts—both new and old—and the comments they elicited. Most of the posts involved Anglicanism, the Anglican Communion, and the proposed Anglican covenant. I was struck not so much by the diverse views of what we—The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, etc.—should do, but by the underlying views and assumptions of those thoughts. Serious discussions, such as those that will take place at the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church, should seek to clarify those underlying presuppositions before deciding on a course of action. The General Convention (and the bodies that prepare reports for it) are not particularly good about this, partly, I think, out of a misplaced concern that someone, somewhere, somehow, might take offense. (Get over it!)

My reading led me in two directions: I began writing a list of questions to which we should have answers before we ask, for example, what we should do about the proposed Anglican covenant. I was also pulled in a more mischievous direction, where I began writing slogans for The Episcopal Church. The slogans, in part, reflect possible attitudes implicit in the answers to the questions. They also challenge us to decide how we want to represent our church to the world.

I have no definitive answers today and might be hard pressed confidently to answer all the questions for myself. My slogans are serious, whimsical, provocative, and perhaps even mean or angry.

What do you think?

The Questions

What is Anglicanism?
What has it been?
What is it becoming or might be becoming?
What is the Episcopal Church’s view of Anglicanism? (What does this question even mean?)
What is the Anglican Communion?
What has it been?
What is it becoming or might be becoming?
What do we want the Anglican Communion to be?
How important is the Anglican Communion to The Episcopal Church?
What is The Episcopal Church willing to give up to remain a part of the Anglican Communion?
What is the relationship of Anglicanism to the Anglican Communion?
What are the major movements within Anglicanism today?
Where does The Episcopal Church (or Episcopalians) fit into such a classification?
How important is “unity,” and “unity” with whom?
What is the proper relationship between church and society, and how much does that change across societies?
How much influence (and what kind) should one Communion church have over another?
Is the proposed Anglican covenant an instrument of concord, a weapon in the church wars, a roll of the dice, or something else?
Within the Anglican Communion, should The Episcopal Church seek peace or victory for its own point of view?
Is a connection to Canterbury really important, and, if so, why?
Do we believe that leaders within the Anglican communion are acting in good faith?
What are the consequences of the answer to the previous question?

The Slogans

August 28, 2010

Forward Slash

Some words or phrases are completely dispensable. My top nominee for this category is “forward slash,” meaning, of course, slash, that is, the character “/.” The symbol has been around for a long time, but there was no excuse to call it a “forward slash” until the backslash (“\”) was invented some 40 years ago.

The backslash might have remained an obscure, little-known character were it not for its use in DOS and Windows to separate directory names. Traditionally, the slash itself was a bit obscure, being used only for fractions (e.g., 3/5), some abbreviations (e.g., c/o), and in a few other ways (e.g., and/or). The DOS/Windows convention was much like similar conventions for Unix and the World Wide Web, except that a slash, rather than a backslash is used there. Ordinary computer users, recognizing the similarities in, say, “C:\Windows\Documents and Settings\Deimel” and “http://www.deimel.org/poetry,” can easily get confused as to which symbol is used in which context.

What got me to thinking about these two symbols is that my local NPR station, in giving URLs over the air, reads “/” as “forward slash.” I suspect they think that, in some people’s minds, the backslash has become the “usual” slash, and the use of “forward slash” will shake these people up a bit and decrease the likelihood that they will use a backslash within a URL. Or maybe not. All I know is that adding two extra syllables per slash in a long URL is redundant and annoying. One also sees “forward slash” in print, of course, and I have to ask why, analogously to “backslash,” it isn’t written as “forwardslash.”

Do we need “forward slash” as a synonym for “slash”? Surely not. As it is, a slash can be called a solidus, slant, or virgule, in addition to about half a dozen other names. Let’s dump “forward slash” for good.

August 24, 2010

Big Truck

I visited my son and daughter-in-law in Ithaca, N.Y., this past weekend. On the way home, I saw an amazing site at a rest stop on I-79. The vehicle below was parked in the truck area:

The driver wasn’t in the cab, and I didn’t see him (or her) anywhere. The truck didn’t look like it was ready to leave the rest stop; the front end of the depressed center section was on the ground. Anyway, here is the view from the rear:

Count ’em—this rig has 19 axles! The cargo must be very heavy to justify this kind of transport. The cargo had a white cover and didn’t seem excessively large. It must have been excessively dense. Sorry that I didn’t think of photographing the cargo up close. The carrier was Miller Transfer.

August 16, 2010

Unhappiness in Pennsylvania

Bishop Charles Bennison returns to his episcopal duties in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania today after the overturning of his conviction, on a technicality, for conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. (See Episcopal News Service story here.) There have been calls for the bishop to resign for the good of the diocese—see stories by Episcopal News Service and VirtueOnline—but this is not expected to happen.

The diocese’s Standing Committee, which, in the past, has clashed with Bennison, has seemed resigned to the bishop’s return. It issued a rather bland statement August 8, 2010, at a meeting of the diocese at Philadelphia Cathedral. (See “Pennsylvania Episcopalians to Gather.”) Perhaps the gloves are coming off, however. A friend in the Diocese of Pennsylvania tells me that the standing committee sent a letter via e-mail to Episcopalians in the diocese this morning.

The contents of the letter are reproduced below. See, especially, the final two paragraphs. The letter appears on the diocesan Web site here.

An Open Letter to the People of the Diocese of Pennsylvania
From the Standing Committee of the Diocese

August 16, 2010

Let us pray for the Church:

Gracious God, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it, where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.
The Book of Common Prayer, page 816

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

We write to share our thoughts in response to Bishop Bennison's publicly stated intention to return and resume his responsibilities as Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. We are grateful for the counsel that many of you have offered. We listened with care to the words spoken by many of you at our Cathedral this past Sunday and are grateful for your prayers. We write to you with humility and conviction.

We grieve the pain endured by the victim of abuse, and by her family; our prayers are with her and with all who suffer.

We are committed to nurturing and supporting the Mission of the Church and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the last two+ years, the leadership and congregations of this Diocese have adopted procedures and practices that stress transparency, openness, and shared responsibilities in the administration of the Diocese and in our lives together as a Christian community.

In particular, we lift up the good work that has begun by the members of this Diocese and are committed to their continuation. We call upon Bishop Bennison to honor these and other new relationships and the work that has begun over these past two+ years.
The strong pastoral support to the people of the Diocese by Bishops Bartlett, Lee and Michel through visitations, the ordination process and the care and nurturing of individuals
The Consultation teams that are working with parishes in distress led by Bishop Allen Bartlett
The Mission Strategy Planning Commission established by Convention 2009
The newly developed diaconate program
The strong youth program and the development of City Camp at St. James the Less
The major review of the diocesan canons by the Constitution and Canons Committee
The financial controls and transparency
The regularly held meetings of the Council of Deans and the Cathedral Chapter
The shared leadership by so many more members of this Diocese
In the last two+ years, the elected and appointed leaders of this Diocese have been nurturing open working relationships within the diocesan bodies of which they are a part - e.g., on Diocesan Council, the Committee for Finance & Property, etc. - and among and between those bodies. We have, in effect, been weaving a broad web of relationships; building trust and sharing responsibilities so that we may work as one body in Christ. We shall continue and nurture this fragile web, and we invite all in this Diocese to participate - through your congregation, your deanery, and in the councils of the Church.

We recognize our differing perspectives and experiences as a source of blessing and opportunity, not of weakness. We are committed to continuing our good work and relationships together, to clarifying our vision and mission, supporting the weak and vulnerable among us, and seeking new ways to proclaim the love of God and the Good News of Jesus Christ.

We are committed to ensuring the spiritual, emotional and physical safety of all within this Diocese and all whom we seek to serve in the name of Christ. We are committed to serving the weak and most vulnerable in our midst, those who are oppressed, and the children and youth of our Diocese.

We do not believe that Bishop Bennison has the trust of the clergy and lay leaders necessary for him to be an effective pastor and leader of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, nor that he can regain or rebuild the trust that he has lost or broken.

We believe that it would be in the best interest of the Diocese that Bishop Bennison not resume his exercise of authority here.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania:
Mr. Christopher Hart; Ms. Jo Ann Jones, The Reverend Ledlie Laughlin (Member of the Executive Committee); The Reverend Glenn Matis (President of the Standing Committee and member of the Executive Committee), Mr. Norman McCausland; Ms. Arlene McGurk (Secretary of the Standing Committee and member of the Executive Committee); The Reverend Isaac Miller; The Reverend D. Joy Segal; and Ms. D-L. Wormley
The Reverend Samuel Adu-Andoh is in Ghana and was unable to sign the statement.

August 9, 2010

Losing the “E”

What is the name of the evangelical Anglican seminary in Ambridge, Pennsylvania? No, this is not the first line of a joke. The seminary in question used to be known as Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. Many of its graduates and leaders are now members of the Anglican Church in North America or other schismatic groups, and the word “Episcopal” in the seminary name apparently has become an embarrassment.

For quite some time, “Episcopal” has been downplayed in Trinity’s name, which has lately been styled Trinity School for Ministry, in most contexts.

An article titled “Name dropping: Episcopal School weighing name change” in the November 15, 2003, issue of WORLD included this paragraph:

“We would just drop the word Episcopal from our name,” the Rev. Peter Moore, dean and president, told WORLD. Nothing is final, but such talk underscores the potential realignment in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) following the consecration of gay Bishop Gene Robinson.

Three years later (November 2006), a fund-raising letter from then dean and president Paul F. M. Zahl contained this explanation:

We feel as if we are wandering a little in the Wilderness just now. We are having to put on our ruby slippers, but unlike Dorothy, we have not yet clicked ’em together. We are not yet back home! We have been called out, like Abraham, not knowing exactly where we will end up. We can no longer identify with the Episcopal Church—because of its wild swing over into ersatz Christianity—but we also identify with the historic Anglican expression of Christianity.

As recently as December 2006 (and probably more recently), the home page of Trinity’s Web site at http://tesm.edu carried “Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry” in its page title. More recently, on the Web and in Trinity publications, “Episcopal” has appeared less and less frequently in the seminary’s name.

Trinity publishes a magazine called Seed and Harvest. The March–April 2008 issue carried this return address (on the last page of the PDF file):

Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
311 Eleventh Street • Ambridge, PA 15003
phone: 724-266-3838 or 1-800-874-8754
fax: 724-266-4617 • www.tesm.edu

(I have no idea why “for” is rendered in italic, by the way.) The next issue, that of May–June 2008, offered this return address:

Trinity School for Ministry
311 Eleventh Street • Ambridge, PA 15003
phone: 724-266-3838 or 1-800-874-8754
fax: 724-266-4617 • www.tesm.edu

The issue also sported “Trinity School for Ministry” below the magazine’s title on the cover. These conventions were adhered to in subsequent issues through that of November–December 2008. The January–February 2009 issue, however, showed this return address:

Trinity School for Ministry
311 Eleventh Street • Ambridge, PA 15003
phone: 724-266-3838 or 1-800-874-8754
fax: 724-266-4617 • www.tsm.edu

The Trinity Web site was now located at http://tsm.edu, not http://tesm.edu. Moreover, all e-mail addresses in Seed and Harvest were now shown as being in the tsm.edu, not the tesm.edu, domain.

A year and a half later, there is no Web site at http://tesm.edu. The domain is registered to “South America Missionary Society - USA,” and the

administrative contact is “Trinity School for Ministry.” The current Trinity Web site can be found only at http://tsm.edu. Ironically, that domain is registered to “Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry,” although the administrative contact is “Trinity School for Ministry.” The e-mail contacts for both registrations are the same, support@tsm.edu. The word “Episcopal” does not appear on the home page of the seminary anymore.

So what is the official name of Trinity Seminary? I assume it is still “Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry,” since that’s how it is listed with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. (There is no listing for “Trinity School for Ministry.”) Trinity does not want to acknowledge The Episcopal Church, however, “because of its wild swing over into ersatz Christianity.” Well, fine, but The Episcopal Church should not recognize Trinity School for Ministry as an acceptable seminary to train Episcopal Church clergy.

It is time for Trinity to click its ruby slippers together to transport the seminary to Kansas or Oz or wherever its board—which includes the likes of Alison Barfoot, Geoff Chapman, Bob Duncan, Mark Lawrence, and John Rodgers—thinks it belongs.

August 6, 2010

Pennsylvania Episcopalians to Gather

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania has sent e-mail to members of the diocese inviting them to Philadelphia Cathedral Sunday afternoon for a “a time of open conversation and an opportunity to share our thoughts and feelings” in light of the recent court ruling in favor of Bishop Charles Bennison. The agenda includes Evening Prayer and refreshments afterward.

According to the e-mail message (available on the diocesan Web site here), Bishop Bennison will return to the diocese on August 16, but has asked Assisting Bishop Rodney Michel “to continue for a time.” “Initially Bishop Bennison will meet with diocesan leaders as we enter a new stage in our relationship together.”

The Standing Committee continues:

Surely our responses to the decision of the Court vary broadly; from fear, anger, hurt, and profound disappointment, to relief and joy, to bewilderment and curiosity. If we have learned anything in recent years, it is that we must not allow these differing feelings and reactions divide us. Each of us is a member of the body of Christ, each of us striving to be faithful in the best way we know how. Let us be careful to honor one another. This is not the time to withdraw and go our separate ways; this is the time to come together, to recommit ourselves to our baptismal vows and to our common life, to offer our unique gifts and resources, to provide a beacon of hope, and together be agents of God’s justice and mercy in this Diocese of Pennsylvania.

No doubt, the Standing Committee is planning how it can make the best of what is clearly a bad situation. In light of Bishop Bennison’s past actions and his conflicts within his diocese, Episcopalians should pray that Bishop Bennison is led to resign his see. Pennsylvania Episcopalians should demand it.

August 5, 2010

Proposition 8 Overturned

Because I was busily preparing for a meeting of the diocese’s Committee on Canons yesterday afternoon, I had little time to explore or revel in the U.S. District Court decision invalidating California’s Proposition 8. Today, however, I have at least looked at the decision (you can do so here) and am pleased with what I see. Alas, the opinion is 138 pages long, so it may take me a while to get around to reading it all. The last few pages, however, are especially noteworthy. Here is a sample from page 135 (137 of the PDF file):

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court, I think, is right on the money. Thank God for the U.S. Constitution.

August 3, 2010

Rule and Ultimate Standard of Faith

I have been surprised that Anglican liberals have generally expressed few problems with the Sections 1–3 of the proposed Anglican covenant, while expressing nearly universal dislike of Section 4. The action taken by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia exemplifies this phenomenon. Sections 1–3 deserve more scrutiny, however, before it’s too late.

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a greater skepticism regarding provisions that seem, on the face of it, comparatively innocent. (See, for example, Paul Bagshaw’s somewhat quirky analysis here.) In what follows, I want to raise a concern that should be obvious to all, but, due to the familiarity of the wording in the covenant draft, is likely to be missed.

Before doing so, however, let me say something about the structure of the draft and its significance. The covenant begins with an Introduction that, we are told, must be printed with what follows but is not actually a part of the covenant. I have been perplexed by this characterization and have suspected some hidden agenda behind it. I still do, but I have concluded that the Introduction is incoherent to the point of being of no consequence. I applaud Paul Bagshaw for trying to make sense of it. (See his comments here.) Sections 1–3 of the covenant draft set out the propositions around which future (or continuing) arguments within the Communion will center. Because of this, it is important to be completely comfortable with all of it, both now and forever (into the foreseeable future, at any rate). Finally, Section 4 sets out how Communion churches will fight over disputes involving the text of Sections 1–3.

I now call your attention to §1.1.3: “[Each Church affirms:] the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith [4].” The corresponding footnote cites the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886/1888. The Quadrilateral is widely known and accepted, making its “sides” obvious propositions for incorporation into a covenant. There are problems, however:

The Quadrilateral was never intended to define Anglicanism, although it is often thought of as fulfilling that function.
The Episcopal Church has relegated the Quadrilateral to the Historical Documents section of the prayer book. It does not now articulate official church doctrine.
The wording of §1.1.3 is taken from the resolution of the 1888 Lambeth Conference. It has never been voted on by The Episcopal Church.

The Chicago version of the Quadrilateral, incorporated in the resolution passed by The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops in 1886, said the following: “[We account t]he Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God.” I consider this statement to be rather too broad and to invite serious questions about what it really means. On the other hand, I love the beautifully Anglican characterization of the Scriptures “as containing all things necessary for salvation.” This formulation says just enough, but not too much.

The covenant draft, however, says too much. Consistent with Resolution 11 of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, §1.1.3 describes Scripture “as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” What does that mean? What could it mean? It appears to say that, of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, Scripture always trumps the other two. And yet, Anglicans eat pork, play football, and seem unconcerned that John places the Last Supper on a different day than do Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We do not seem to treat the Old and New Testament as being “the rule and ultimate standard of faith.”

I don’t doubt

that many Anglicans read the 1888 Lambeth formulation with an understanding that allows them conscientiously to eat pork, play football, and lose no sleep concocting bizarre sequences of events that allow John’s account of the Last Supper and those of the other evangelists simultaneously to be historically “true.” There are those, however, who will take “rule and ultimate standard of faith” as sanction to elevate particular verses to the status of ultimate, incontrovertible doctrine. I predict that, among such verses, will be Romans 1:26–27.

In other words, §1.1.3 entails Communion approval for and invitation to prooftexting or worse. Arguably, approval of the proposed covenant would represent the adoption by the Anglican Communion of sola scriptura and a rejection of the Hooker trio of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as sources of authority in Anglicanism. Mischief will result.

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop