South Carolina Update

As happened in Pittsburgh, the schism of an Episcopal Church diocese and the claims of the resulting parties have made it difficult to know how to identify the parties. For a time, Pittsburgh saw two groups calling themselves the “Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.” In South Carolina, litigation has actually focused on diocesan names and seal, and the continuing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is being prevented by a South Carolina court from using its proper name. In what follows, I will refer to the group continuing in The Episcopal Church, the group that is having to call itself “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina,” as the “continuing diocese.” I will refer to the breakaway group, the ex-Episcopalians calling their body the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina” as the “breakaway diocese.”

On March 28, 2013, the South Carolina continuing diocese filed responses and counterclaims to the South Carolina lawsuit initiated by the breakaway diocese. (The 84-page filing, dated March 27, can be found here.) In a March 29 post, the continuing diocese reported on the new filing on its Web site.

The latest legal move in the South Carolina saga is reported today by The Post and Courier of Charleston. The story notes Bishop Charles vonRosenberg’s apology for filing on Maundy Thursday, an action dictated by court deadline. The breakaway diocese is said to be withholding comment until after Holy Week.

The latest filing begins by answering the charges of the breakaway diocese, denying everything not explicitly admitted by the continuing diocese. This takes up the better part of 50 pages. There follows 18 additional defenses. Included in this litany are claims that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs have knowingly misrepresented the facts, that the plaintiffs have breached their fiduciary duties, etc. (A dictionary is helpful when reading these defenses. Certainly, I was unfamiliar with terms such as estoppel and laches.)

Beginning on page 56, the continuing diocese makes counterclaims and asserts that it is entitled to monetary damages, accounting of assets, and declaratory and injunctive relief. In particular, the court is asked to enter judgment:

1. Ordering that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
2. In favor of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff on all claims in the Complaint;
3. In favor of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff on all counterclaims asserted herein;
4. Awarding to Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff actual, consequential, special, and punitive damages as determined by the Court and allowed by law;
5. Awarding to Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff injunctive relief as the Court determines is warranted and as is allowed by law; and
6. Awarding to Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff such other and further relief as the
   Court may determine is just, proper, and equitable.

A PEP Address and Readings on Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a topic of great interest in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh just now. Like people elsewhere in the country, we have been mesmerized by the not always edifying conversation that took place this week at the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, we have begun our own formal dialogue on sexuality in the diocese. (See “A Day of Dialogue.”)

The next meeting of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh will feature a talk on homosexuality by the Rev. Dr. Moni McIntyre. The title for her presentation is “The Usual Suspects: Homosexuality, Ordaining Gay Clergy, and Blessing Same-sex Unions.” A poster for the April 29 meeting can be seen here.

I was a bit surprised when Moni said that she would use the paper on homosexuality by the Rev. Dr. Harold T. Lewis as her point of departure. At first, I had no idea what she was talking about, but I eventually realized that she was referring to a talk given by the now retired rector of Calvary Church in conjunction with the 2002 annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

I didn’t immediately know where to find Harold’s paper, but recalled where he delivered it. The convention staged a “debate” on homosexuality between Harold and the Very Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore, who was, at the time, the Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. The event was not really a debate; the two presenters simply gave their separate addresses without any interaction with one another. It was all very civilized.

The paper from the local evangelical seminary dean, “Homosexuality and the Great Commandment” begins with an attack on a paper from the Episcopal Diocese of New York, “Let the Reader Understand.” That piece of scholarship was itself an answer to the notorious Resolution I.10, the statement on homosexuality adopted at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. When “Homosexuality and the Great Commandment” moves away from scripture and its interpretation, as it does about half way through, it begins to seem arbitrary and—in 2013 anyway—quite dated.

Harold’s paper, “Human Sexuality and Its Challenge to the Church in the Twenty-first Century,” on the other hand, seems completely up-to-date in 2013. He deals directly with the important issues cited in the subtitle of Moni’s address: homosexuality, ordaining gay clergy, and blessing same-sex unions. Of necessity, the paper deals with hermeneutics along the way.

Whether or not you can attend the April 29 PEP meeting, I commend both “Homosexuality and the Great Commandment” and “Human Sexuality and Its Challenge to the Church in the Twenty-first Century” to your attention. I especially recommend your reading the latter, as it makes a clear and concise case for greater inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church. The link in the previous paragraph is to a reformatted and corrected version of the paper that was done with the help of the author. The only other version of Harold’s paper that I know of on the Web is hard to read and contains errors.

A Day of Dialogue

Today, I attended the first structured conversation on sexuality issues that Pittsburgh’s Bishop Dorsey McConnell wrote about to the Diocese of Pittsburgh last month. The purpose of such conversations is given in the bishop’s letter:

The reason for this dialogue, as a practical matter, is to help inform my decision as your bishop on how the diocese should approach two issues current in the Church: the blessing of same-sex relationships and the ordination of partnered gay or lesbian persons. An equally important purpose is for us to come together as a diocese in constructive conversation to find and follow continuing paths to healing and reconciliation.

It still is not clear what informing the bishop’s decisions means, but I can certainly say now what that dialogue looks like.

Today’s event took place at St. Stephen’s, Wilkinsburg. Twelve people were invited to participate in discussion scheduled for 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM. Bob Stains and Mary Jacksteit from the Public Conversations Project of Watertown, Massachusetts, outside consultants engaged to help design the process, acted as facilitators. Coffee, bagels, and other refreshments were available beginning at 9 o’clock. Lunch was provided at 11:45 AM.

My report on today’s activities will be circumspect, as we were asked to agree to a set of ground rules at the outset. Among the ground rules, many of which were unsurprising (only one person will speak at a time), was this:

We’ll maintain confidentiality, meaning that in describing the dialogue later we will not attribute ideas or statements to particular people or repeat personal stories.

As it happened, no one objected to being identified as a participant, but, for various reasons, it probably is best not to get too deeply into what was said. My main objective here is to suggest to participants in future sessions just what they are signing up to.

Our group was to consist of six “progressives” and six “conservatives.” The committee appointed by the bishop selected the people for the event, and I have no special insight into how that was done, but the classification seemed reasonable. Unfortunately, one of the conservatives was unable to attend—at the last minute, I assume—so the group was not balanced as intended.

Ground rules were discussed with the entire group. Bob Stains explained that we were seeking community in the dioceses, which depends on relationships. Relationships are built through conversation. Thus, we were entering into conversation.

For the rest of the morning, participants were broken into two groups, which met in different rooms. The progressives met with Bob, and the conservatives met with Mary. Of course, I can only report on what happened in my group. We began with an exercise on stereotyping and went on to talk about how saying certain things might be detrimental to conversation. It was not clear to me just how helpful this session was, though it gave me insights into the progressive participants. In any case, it got people talking, which seemed to relax people to some degree.

The afternoon session focused more on the matters at issue—the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of people in such unions. I should note that both homosexuals and clergy were well represented overall, and this was no doubt useful. It may not be true of future conversations.

Again, we broke into two groups, but, this time, the groups were to consist of three progressives and three conservatives. Lacking one of the latter, my group only had five participants. We were each asked to tell briefly—all answers today were limited to either two or three minutes—an experience that contributed to our coming to our present position. We were then asked to explain what was at the heart of our convictions on the two issues. Finally, we were asked about an experience where we were torn between different values. We were then given time to probe more deeply into what people had said. This did indeed lead to clarifications of certain stated positions, if not necessarily a full understanding of them.

We were then left alone for a time to consider this question for reflection:

What could happen in the diocese over the next year that might enable moving forward together as the body of Christ?

I think this was supposed to be a harder question than it was. I believe that parishes that want to bless same-sex unions should be free to do so and that being in a stable, same-sex relationship should not be a bar to ordination. I was encouraged that no one, at least in my group, was uncomfortable with that position. Interestingly, someone said that conservatives who stayed with The Episcopal Church in 2008 knew that such was inevitable. There was even a suggestion, in my group, anyway, that all this conversation might be overkill.

Finally, we were asked what we wanted to communicate to the bishop. The emphasis was on local (parish) option, and suggestions were offered that collectively might be characterized as ways to improve communication within the diocese.

At this point, the two groups joined, and we concluded as we began, with prayer.

Was the day useful? I think so. I certainly came away feeling less anxious about our diocese and less wary of certain individuals. I got to know other people and people I already knew better. (I knew most of the participants already.) I cannot say that my experience will be mirrored in that of others, but I encourage other people in the diocese to sign up for participating in the dialogue when given the opportunity.

The Public Conversations Project people will be on hand for the session next month, but, after that, it is intended that local people will act as facilitators. The hope is that 500 or more Pittsburgh Episcopalians will have participated by the time the project ends. (It is not clear when that will be.) In any case, I hope the dialogue will be useful to the bishop, to those who participate directly, and, indirectly, to everyone else in the diocese.

Not Ready for Prime Time?

The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, did a radio interview last week. It is generally conceded that he softened his stand against gay marriage in the interview, though probably only enough to anger traditionalists and frustrate proponents of marriage equity. (Examples of each response can be found here and here.)

Iain Dale, who conducted the interview, has excerpted what Welby said about gay marriage and posted it on his Web site. I think it must be admitted that what the archbishop said was rather garbled. For example, in response to a question about how he reconciles Jesus’ message of inclusion with the church’s attitude toward gay marriage, Welby said

I think that the problem with the gay marriage proposals is that they don’t actually include people equally, it’s called equal marriage, but the proposals in the Bill don’t do that. I think that where there is … I mean I know plenty of gay couples whose relationships are an example to plenty of other people and that’s something that’s very important, I’m not saying that gay relationships are in some way … you know that the love that there is is less than the love there is between straight couples, that would be a completely absurd thing to say. And civil partnership is a pretty … I understand why people want that to be strengthened and made more dignified, somehow more honourable in a good way. It’s not the same as marriage …

Of course, Welby never answered the question, though he raised others. (What is the inequality in the proposed equal marriage legislation? What does he think about civil partnerships?) Admittedly, Rowan Williams was often incomprehensible, but he did tend to talk in complete sentences.

Welby’s response to another question included this:

The historic teaching of the church around the world, and this is where I remember that I’ve got 80 million people round the world who are Anglicans, not just the one million in this country, has been that marriage in the traditional sense is between a man and woman for life.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

This statement raises rather more serious questions as to whether the new Archbishop of Canterbury is quite up to speed. First, he should recognize that he is not the archbishop of the Anglican Communion. He is an archbishop of the Church of England and has authority only in that church. What he has with regard to the Anglican Communion is influence, not power, and, after the disastrous tenure of his predecessor, his office likely has even less of that than formerly.

A more serious mistake is his citing of the 80 million and 1 million figures. I was unable to find reliable information regarding the number of Anglicans in the world, but some number between 75 and 80 million is usually cited. (Mark Harris took a stab at unpacking the number in a 2008 post. It surely is not “correct” now and wasn’t even in 2008, but the numbers are likely in the right ballpark.) Conventionally, the number of members of the Church of England is given as 25 million. (Mark uses this figure.) Everyone knows this number is a fiction, a product of the entire population’s being counted, at least by default, as members of England’s established church. Welby’s 1 million figure is closer to the number of people attending Church of England services each Sunday. This figure comes nearer to stating the real number of Anglicans in England, though it is a bit of an under-count. The problem, of course, is that the mythical 25 million figure makes the largest contribution to the 80 million figure. In other words, if Welby thinks there are 1 million Anglicans in England, there surely are no more than 56 million Anglicans worldwide. Being generous, let’s say there are 4 million actual Anglicans in England. This would make—again, generously speaking—59 million Anglicans everywhere.

In other words, what Justin Welby had to say about marriage equity was simply an incoherent, ill-informed mess. I hope we may expect more clear thinking from him in the future.

Thoughts on the New Pope

So, the Roman Catholics have a new Pope. News reports suggest that Pope Francis may have a go at cleaning up the mess in the Vatican. He may encourage a new interest in the poor and downtrodden. He seems to have no interest in having his church engage in a meaningful way with the important moral issues of the twenty-first century. If Francis has any sense (or ethics), he will keep his nose out of Anglican affairs.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has wished Pope Francis well: “We wish Pope Francis every blessing in the enormous responsibilities that he has assumed on behalf of Roman Catholics around the world” (See Anglican Communion News Service story here.) He went on to say, “His election is also of great significance to Christians everywhere, not least among Anglicans. We have long since recognised—and often reaffirmed—that our churches hold a special place for one another.”

One can question that last statement, of course, at least as far as it was intended to suggest anything like mutual affection. Under Rowan Williams, the Roman Church was like a disapproving parent, with Rowan the prodigal son pleading to return to that parent’s good graces. To the Roman Church, however, Anglicans are just heretics to be either assimilated or left to their own damnation.

Let’s hope that, after his initial welcome, the new Archbishop of Canterbury will pay little attention to the new Pope.

A Disappointing Mesasage

The bishops of The Episcopal Church met for their spring retreat March 8–12, 2013. Daily reports of their activities have been posted on the Episcopal News Service Web site. (See posts here, here, here, here, here, and here.) Reports of the meeting have not been riveting. I was hoping for a newsworthy message from the bishops at retreat’s end. Although the bishops did offer a message to the church, it has turned out to be unremarkable.

Yesterday, the Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs issued “House of Bishops offers a word to the church: Godly leadership in the face of violence.” The letter from the bishops notes that the theme of the retreat was “Godly Leadership in the Midst of Loss.” Losses mentioned included those caused by Hurricane Sandy, the earthquake in Haiti, illness, and violence against Native Americans. Much of the letter, however, concerns gun violence.

It is gratifying that our bishops are concerned about gun violence, though it is not surprising, since particular bishops have already spoken out against it and advocated for more restrictive gun legislation. What is discouraging is that this is the best our bishops could do in terms of taking a stand:

As bishops of The Episcopal Church we embody a wide variety of experiences and perspectives with respect to firearms.  Many among us are hunters and sport-shooters, former members of the military and law-enforcement officers.  We respect and honor that we are not of one mind regarding matters related to gun legislation.  Yet we are convinced that there needs to be a new conversation in the United States that challenges gun violence. 

That’s it; we should talk! I wonder how many bishops receive contributions from the National Rifle Association.

I was even more disappointed by an obvious source of loss that the bishops seemingly ignored—the loss visited on the church by Bishops Duncan, Iker, Schofield, and others, and especially the chaos in South Carolina engineered by Mark Lawrence and his supporters. Of course, I do not know that Mark Lawrence’s exploits and the damage he is continuing to cause were not discussed, but the public reports from the retreat show no evidence that they were. Do our bishops have ideas about how to deal with such losses or, more importantly, how to head them off? Are they incapable of facing the problem, believe that nothing is to be done, or are satisfied with how conflicts have played out in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, and now South Carolina?

It costs Episcopalians a lot of money to send bishops off to semi-annual retreats. Are we really getting our money’s worth? Would more useful work get done if we limited retreats for bishops and occasionally had a gathering of the House of Deputies between General Conventions?

The Episcopal Diocese Strikes Back

I thought it unfortunate that, after the schism in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, the breakaway group led by former Episcopal bishop Mark Lawrence was first into court. Lawrence and his supporters filed suit January 4, 2013, in a state court “to protect the Diocese’s real and personal property and that of its parishes.” (See Episcopal News Service story here.)

The first party to court, of course, gets to frame the issues, and the Lawrence parties made corporate law arguments about registered trademarks and corporate registrations, rather than arguments about church polity. Moreover, they have prevailed in the early round of litigation, having managed to get the court even to prevent those who did not leave The Episcopal Church from calling themselves the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

What Episcopalians consider the real Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, which temporarily has to style itself The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, now has a provisional bishop, namely the Rt. Rev. Charles G. vonRosenberg. Today, Bishop vonRosenberg filed suit in U.S. District Court against “[t]he Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence and John Does numbers 1-10, being fictitious defendants whose names presently are unknown to Plaintiff and will be added by amendment when ascertained.” (The complaint can be found here. The Episcopal Church itself is not now a plaintiff in the litigation.) The counterstrike by Bishop vonRosenberg is being brought under the Trademark Act of 1946 as amended.

A story on the complaint on the Episcopal Web site explains

Having renounced The Episcopal Church, Bishop Lawrence is no longer authorized to use the diocese’s name and seal. By doing so, he is engaging in false advertising, misleading and confusing worshippers and donors in violation of federal trademark law under the Lanham Act, the complaint says. It asks the court to stop Bishop Lawrence from continuing to falsely claim that he is associated with the Diocese of South Carolina, which is a recognized sub-unit of The Episcopal Church. …

Under the First Amendment, the designated authorities in a hierarchical church have the authority to determine how church controversies are resolved, not civil courts. The complaint cites two United States Supreme Court decisions: Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevic (1979) and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012).

Litigation now proceeds on two fronts. Ostensibly, the issues being argued in the state and federal courts are similar, but it is clear that Lawrence has an edge in the South Carolina courts, and vonRosenberg has an advantage in the federal courts. The battlefield has been leveled.

Update, 3/6/2013. The Post and Courier, a Charleston newspaper, has a story about the lawsuit today.

Update, 3/9/2013. The above post contains a link to the 21-page complaint. The complaint, along with accompanying exhibits is not available. The 273-page PDF file can be found here.

Haiku for Today

I have written a number of poems in haiku form. (See “Haiku Meditations on the Church Year,” “More Haiku,” “Columbia Homecoming,” and “Meta-haiku.”) I like the challenge of making a point in only 17 syllables. Yesterday, I was thinking about today’s retirement of Pope Benedict XVI and wrote this somewhat ironic haiku for the occasion.

Papal Retirement

Benedict retires,
And another takes his job,
Just like you or me.

Note: This poem is also available on my Web site here.

Another Shrinking Container

I was running out of ketchup the other day, so I picked up a bottle while I was at the super market. When I got home, I discovered that the bottle I bought was slightly different from my last bottle. It didn’t take long to notice that not only was the shape of the bottle different, but that it contained 2 ounces less ketchup. Alas, this is not unusual. Rather than raising the price of a product, the price will be kept the same, but the container will hold less product. Since the container has to be modified anyway—the reduced product quantity must be changed—the container often receives a major new design. The casual consumer will be struck by the new container and may not even notice that he or she is buying less.

Thus was I lured by Heinz into buying the new 38-ounce ketchup bottle thinking I was buying the same quantity I had purchased last time, namely 40 ounces. In the picture below, you can see the old 40-ounce bottle on the left and the new 38-ounce bottle on the right. (Click on the pictures for larger images.) The new bottle has a more pleasing shape, but it is harder to hold than the 40-ounce bottle. It also has a larger label printed on an attractive textured paper. Notice that the “40 OZ SIZE” neck band has been replaced with a “HEINZ 57 VARIETIES” neck band. There is no need to advertise the reduced container size.

Only at the bottom of the label do we learn that the new bottle contains less ketchup.

 

Heinz was the culprit this time, but I’m sure all readers can cite a product that experienced similar shrinkage.

 

“Episcopal” vs. “Episcopalian”

I recently put a note on my Facebook page referring readers to a Grammarist blog post on the words “preventive” and “preventative.” I had thought of writing such a post myself, but I decided I couldn’t do a better job than had already been done.

In response to my Facebook remark, however, a friend recommend that I write about the words “Episcopal” and “Episcopalian.” Such a post is probably not needed for Episcopalians themselves, but I have seen reporters making such mistakes as referring to members of an Episcopal Church parish as “Episcopals.” That is pretty jarring.

A quick Google search finds many Web pages that offer a straightforward rule to follow: “Episcopal” is an adjective, and “Episcopalian” is a noun. This works most of the time. We speak of an Episcopal church, an Episcopal bishop, or an episcopal election. Moreover, we speak of a gathering of Episcopalians.

The root meaning of “episcopal” is “relating to a bishop.” Thus, an episcopal election is an election of a person to be a bishop and an episcopal church would be a church in which bishops play a significant role in governance. The word is capitalized when it relates to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (The Episcopal Church) or, possibly, to a similarly named church (e.g., the Scottish Episcopal Church). Thus, at least in the United States, an Episcopal bishop is a bishop of The Episcopal Church. (If you think about it too much, “Episcopal bishop” seems redundant, but, of course, it really isn’t.) Occasionally, the word “episcopally” shows up, as in the phrase “episcopally led.” I cannot imagine a proper use of “episcopal,” capitalized or not, as a noun.

“Episcopalian,” on the other hand, is almost always a noun, usually meaning “one who is a member of The Episcopal Church” In its lowercase form, the word can refer to someone who favors an episcopal form of church governance. “Episcopalian” can also be an adjective, however. A singer who is an Episcopalian might be called an Episcopalian soprano, though, depending on context, she could be an Episcopal soprano. She could not be an episcopal soprano unless she is a bishop. “Episcopalian” as an adjective is more likely to be used in speech. A meeting of Episcopalian laypeople might be described as an Episcopalian gathering, since, in speech, we cannot distinguish between “Episcopal gathering” and “episcopal gathering,” the latter being a meeting of bishops, something quite different.

A Challenge to Organist/Composers

As many of my friends know, I am a big fan of the Great Vigil of Easter. (See “An Easter Vigil Memoir” on my Web site.) The Easter Vigil, which takes place on the evening before Easter Sunday, is the liturgical highlight of the church year. In the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of The Episcopal Church, the service includes between two and nine Old Testament readings recounting God’s dealings with his people. (The service itself can be found here. The prayer book offers some explanatory notes, which can be found here.) A rubric concerning the Old Testament readings says, in part

After each Lesson, the Psalm or Canticle listed, or some other suitable psalm, canticle, or hymn may be sung. A period of  silence may be kept; and the Collect provided, or some other suitable Collect, may be said.

When I was a member of the worship commission at my church, I always argued for more, rather than fewer readings, ideally, for all nine of them. In fact, I think we never included more than four. The service is long in any case, and each additional reading would seem to add an additional psalm, canticle, or hymn, in addition to a collect and period of silence. The length of the service expands quickly as scripture readings are multiplied.

At a minimum, a period of silence and a collect seem essential. Some music, as well, enriches the service, but adding, say, a hymn after each reading, is very time-consuming and, possibly, even mood-shattering. It would be nice to have the option of adding music that covers necessary movement, acts as a reflection on the reading, and contributes only a little to the overall length of the service.

The nine readings carry the following titles:

1. The story of Creation
2. The Flood
3. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac
4. Israel’s deliverance at the Red Sea
5. God’s Presence in a renewed Israel
6. Salvation offered freely to all
7. A new heart and a new spirit
8. The valley of dry bones
9. The gathering of God’s people

There is a lot of drama here, and it would be possible to write brief organ meditations to punctuate the periods after the readings and before the collect and the silence. Such brief interludes could be used after each reading or only after some of them, with psalms, hymns, or canticles used after others.

So, here is my challenge to organist/composers: Compose a suite of nine brief interludes for the Easter Vigil, each of which is inspired by and constitutes a meditation on one of the nine readings. As far as I know, no one has ever done this. Such a suite would encourage churches to include more readings in their Vigils, as the musical interludes would not contribute over much to the length of the service.

Any takers?

Understanding the Links

No doubt, most people reading this blog pay little attention to the text and graphics to the right of actual posts. I thought it might be helpful, however, to point out what’s in that right column, as visitors who have been ignoring it may find some of it interesting.
 

About Me

 A sentence about me, with links to more information kept by Blogger.

No Anglican Covenant

 I am the founder of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, which opposes adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant. Clicking on the No Anglican Covenant logo takes you to the home page of the Coalition. Clicking on the link below the logo takes you to the Farrago Gift Shop. Here, you can find merchandise with the No Anglican Covenant logo or with one of my curve-stitch designs.

Christian Diversity

The Christian Diversity logo was devised by the Rev. Bosco Peters. Clicking on the logo takes you to my own essay on Christian diversity.

Recent Posts

Titles of the most recent posts.

Popular Posts

Titles of the most viewed posts in the last month. “Viewed,” of course, may not be the same as “read.”

Follow by E-mail

Enter your e-mail address to receive posts by e-mail.

Subscribe To

Select an RSS feed of posts or comments.

Church-related Posts Only

Click on the link to receive e-mail notification of church-related posts. This is for the convenience of those interested in my posts as an Episcopalian but not necessarily in other posts, such as those on political topics.

Links

Here are links to to various pages, specifically

• Blog Home: The home page of this blog.
• Blog Table of Contents: A table of contents of posts on this blog. The TOC is maintained on the Site Map page of my Web site (see next entry). The TOC includes dates, titles with links, and brief descriptions of the posts. I do my best to keep the TOC up-to-date. Both the TOC and the Blogger search box in the toolbar at the top of blog pages can be useful in finding specific content on this blog.
• Lionel Deimel’s Weg Site: The home page of my Web site.
• Lionel Deimel on Facebook: My Facebook page.
• Lionel Deimel on Twitter: My Twitter page.
• St. Paul’s Epistle: My unauthorized comments about my local church, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Mt. Lebanon, Pa.
• Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh on Facebook. The Facebook page of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a group that advocates for diversity in the Pittsburgh diocese and strong connections to The Episcopal Church.
• Pittsburgh Update: A blog on which posts are made each Monday of news items of interest to Pittsburgh Episcopalians. The blog is a project of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. Posts are mostly about hot-button issues in the Anglican world and about property disputes within The Episcopal Church.
• Our Pittsburgh Diocese: A blog created for discussion as the diocese was beginning to search for its first diocesan bishop after the departure of Robert Duncan. It was never very active and is dormant now.
• No Anglican Covenant: Another link to the No Anglican Covenant Coalition’s Web site.
• Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Blog: The blog of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
• No Anglican Covenant Coalition on Facebook. The Facebook page of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.
• Contact Me: The Contact page on my Web site.

Blog Archive

Links to posts arranged by year and month.

Followers

Join the blog through Google Friend Connect or view followers.

Persons of the Trinity

I suggested in my recent post “God and Gender/Sex,” that conservatives do not like referring to the persons of the Trinity as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” presumably because they see it as a non-traditional, gender-neutral rendering of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Ghost).”

In church today, we sang the Great Litany, which begins

O God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth,
Have mercy upon us.

 O God the Son, Redeemer of the world,
Have mercy upon us.

 O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful,
Have mercy upon us.

 O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, one God,
Have mercy upon us.

On the printed copies of the Great Litany from which the choir was singing, an introduction stated that the Litany can be traced back to Cranmer’s first prayer book. In fact, it can be traced back to 1544, five years before the first English Book of Common Prayer. It began (with archaic spelling cleaned up a bit)

O god, the father of heaven, have mercie upon us miserable synners.

O God the sonne, redemer of the worlde: have mercie upon us myserable synners.
 
O God the sonne, redemer of the worlde: have mercie upon us miserable synners.

O god the holy ghoste, procedyng from the father and the sonne: have mercy upon us myserable synners.
 
O god the holy ghoste, procedyng from the father and the sonne: have mercie upon us miserable synners.
 
O holy, blessed, and glorious trinitie, iii. persons and one God: have mercye upon us myserable synners.

O holy, blessed, and glorious trinitie, thre persons and one god: have mercie upon us miserable synners.

Clearly the “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” formula does not go back that far. In fact, it appears in no English prayer book at all! It does, however, show up in the proposed Book of Common Prayer of 1689, which was never ratified. The Litany in that book begins

O GOD the Father, Creator of heaven and earth : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
O God the Father Creator of heaven and earth : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Holy Ghost, our Sanctifier and Comforter : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
O God the Holy Ghost, our Sanctifier and Comforter : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.
O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

The first American prayer book does not use “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” language, but the 1928 book does. It is identical to the 1979 version, except for punctuation:

O GOD the Father, Creator of heaven and earth;
Have mercy upon us.

O God the Son, Redeemer of the world;
Have mercy upon us.

O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful;
Have mercy upon us.

O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, one God;
Have mercy upon us.

The bottom line is that the “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” formulation, while not used as a standalone locution for the persons of the Trinity, is more than 300 years old and was certainly not devised out of any concern for “inclusive language.”

The Peaceable Kingdom

Episcopal Relief & Development has again published a booklet of Lenten meditations this year. The meditation for Ash Wednesday is from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and it offers what I found to be a startling observation. The scripture on which the meditation is based in Genesis 1:27–31, but Genesis 1:29–30 is what I want to highlight here:

God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”

Jefferts Schori observes, “It’s not often noticed, but all the animals, including human beings, are here intended to be vegetarians.”

Apparently, God’s intended “state of nature” is so peaceful that it lacks not only war, but even the violence attendant to one creature’s eating another. (Plants fare less well.) This notion reappears in the well-known passage, Isaiah 11:6–8, the inspiration for the many paintings titled “The Peaceable Kingdom” (see example above) by Edward Hicks (1780–1849):

The wolf shall live with the lamb,
   the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
   and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze,
   their young shall lie down together;
   and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
   and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.

Less familiar is next verse:

They will not hurt or destroy
   on all my holy mountain;
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
   as the waters cover the sea. 

The same idea reappears in Isaiah 65:25:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
   the lion shall eat straw like the ox;
   but the serpent—its food shall be dust!
They shall not hurt or destroy
   on all my holy mountain, says the Lord.

All this is very poetic, if evolutionarily unlikely. And the “state of nature” in Genesis is simply unhistorical. Nonetheless, one can appreciate the attractiveness of the Isaiah vision to Quaker Hicks.

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?