Laura Mellen 1916-2007

My mother died from double pneumonia on Thursday, April 26. The picture above was taken at her 90th birthday party this past December. Here is a link to her obituary. I wrote a good deal of the obit, but it owes its good features to Liz. She found the picture and she composed the last few sentences, including the apt quotation from mother's tribute to her aunt Esther. We were working towards a deadline (which we missed.)

It is fortunate that we were in Binghamton when she was hospitalized -- in fact, we arrived at her room in the nursing home on Wednesday just as she was being taken to the ambulance. We spoke to her and then we got to the emergency room just behind the ambulance.

Liz just wrote this to a group of church friends: "Unlike many who are not quite so blessed, she had her wits about her all the way to the end, and was able to say to a beloved confidant just a couple of days before she went from nursing home--where she'd gone 3 weeks before for 24 hour supervised care--to hospital, that she was not as young as she was, was not herself, did not enjoy being in this weak state unable to function as she liked! and was ready to go. She was trying to say that to us, also, in the Emergency Room at the hospital Wednesday evening. Up until that time, she'd continued in good spirit albeit in a diminished way, to take on whatever was happening, to enjoy people and whatever life was offering. Pretty amazing."

After we spent a couple of hours with her in the emergency room, we went home to let down. (I was still in the third day of recovering from my dental ordeal.) According to what the doctor had told us before we left for the evening, I expected that mother would be admitted for a few days' stay and then return to the nursing home. She was admitted late Wednesday evening and died shortly before 8 a.m. Thursday. The nurse called us just about 7:30 and told us we should get there as fast as we could. By the time I got there, she was gone. Liz and I immediately went into high gear (actually it started with some calls I made on the cell phone on the way to the hospital.) Father Mark Giroux from St. Mark's got there shortly after we did and after we had some prayers, we went on in high gear until we were able to leave for home at about 11 on Friday morning.

To quote Liz again, "We are relieved for her now, and for ourselves as well. It has been a long watch."

April 24

Well, although I am not in any notable pain or discomfort (except when I eat) I am still in recovery mode from my eight extractions yesterday. This morning my dentist told me that the denture I have is expected to replace about 30% of the natural function of teeth. Can that be? Does he mean all but thirty per cent? Oh well, it’s only until December – and in about a month or six weeks I’ll get the implants and have to go without the denture at all for a while.

I have a fairly full plate (of responsibilities – not, alas, of food.)
This evening is my last board meeting at Morningside Gardens. I’m lookingforward to being off the board, but, wonder of wonders, some of the very board members who worked hard to oust me as president are now saying they wished I had run for reelection and they will miss me on the board. Our Annual Meeting is next week, and again it looks like people are lining up to vote on ideological grounds – that is, based on positions that have very little to do with the candidates’ potential to be good board members. But perhaps I’ll be surprised.

Now that my mother has been in the nursing home for three weeks, it is time for a meeting to evaluate her progress and presumably reach the foregone conclusion that it is not safe for her to go home and live alone. At the same time, I have to provide information to determine her eligibility for Chronic Care medicaid. Much of the information requested I have already provided, so I have asked the examiner if she can find it in the computer system. In any case, it is possible that this coming weekend I will be involved in getting a lot of information together.

I'm still working on my comments on Rowan Williams Stuart Larkin Lecture in Toronto last week. meanwhile, I recommend Deirdre Good's comments.

TRIVIA
Last evening I was channel flipping – something I rarely do – and came to National Velvet on TCM. Liz and I watched it - we missed the very beginning - and realized we had never actually watched it, even though our daughter Jane’s cousin Butch Jenkins was in it

April 23 -- Part II

Well, having all those teeth pulled took two hours, but it was not as hard to endure as I thought it might be. Now I have a denture which I have to get used to. Now that the anesthesia has worn off, I am surprised that the discomfort is not more. So I am able to pick up where I left off.

Yesterday Liz and I played a brief visit to the Antiquarian Book Fair held in the Seventh Regiment Armory on Park Avenue. It was the first time I had been on the drill floor since I left the regiment in 1966. (It was actually called the 1st Battalion 107th Infantry then.) Our time at the show was limited – we got there later than we had planned because, (a) after church was a follow up meeting to plan on implementing some of the ideas developed at last Sunday’s all day session and, (b) traffic was snarled because the Greek Independence Day parade was occupying Fifth Avenue. We left after being there only a short time because we were going to a concert by soprano Elizabeth Baber and our friend Ishmael Wallace at the Nicholas Roerich Museum. One of the pieces was a new song cycle of four Pre-Raphaelite poems set by Ishmael. The whole concert was a wonderful experience.

Father Christopher Hofer linked to my draft of an answer to the questions put forth in Executive Council’s study guide on the draft proposed Anglican Covenant. (That’s a complicated sentence – all those prepositonal phrases and links.) Christopher promised to post his own thoughts at a later date. I look forward to them. I know a lot of people want to “just say no” to the covenant and I sympathize, but I also believe it is important for as many of us as possible to participate in the process set out by Executive Council.

My next post will be on Rowan Williams’ recent talk on reading scripture.

April 23

Today is a big day for me. This morning I am going to have eight teeth pulled in preparation for implants. I have no idea how I will feel after the work is done -- whether I will be wiped out or not. As hard as I try, I cannot help feeling somewhat apprehensive.

I had hoped to write something more substantial, but it'll have to wait until I get home.

To your holy Church peace and concord -- from the Good Friday liturgy

I don’t pretend to be a trained theologian, a biblical scholar, or a church historian. I don’t pretend to be an original thinker. However, for the past 50 years I have been a member of St. Mary’s, an Episcopal Church that has stood since 1823 on a site in the historic village of Manhattanville on a street that predates Alexander Hamilton’s rectangular grid plan for the streets and avenues of Manhattan. This past Sunday, Low Sunday, we at St. Mary’s spent a full day in reflecting together on the state and future of our parish. What I have to say in the rest of this post is informed by that experience.

There were three interesting developments on Monday that I want to respond to. One was a talk given by Archbishop Rowan Williams in Toronto on reading the bible. The second was a press conference in which the said archbishop announced he would be meeting with the US House of Bishops in September. The third was a study guide released by Executive Council on the draft Anglican Covenant. The study guide includes 14 questions. I am going to make a stab at answering them here.

N.B.: What follows is admittedly sketchy. For one thing, I am referring to but not quoting the Draft Covenant itself, nor have I provided any links. I expect to flesh this out in coming days.

“The Report of the Covenant Design Group”

(1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?

My immediate answer is that I do not think an Anglican Covenant is necessary nor would it help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion. The closing paragraph of the Report of the Covenant Design Group contains the giveaway statement, “What is to be offered in the Covenant is not the invention of a new way of being Anglican, but a fresh restatement of the faith which we as Anglicans have received.” Of course it’s an invention of a new way of being Anglican. For specifics, see the answers to questions 8, 9, and 10.

“An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant”

(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?

Except for the reference to a “need for mutual discipline,” this section, although it does not reflect historical realities, presents a pretty good statement of where we are now, or at least where we ought to be. If there is to be a covenant at all, this statement should suffice.

“An Anglican Covenant Draft”
1. Preamble

(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?

Perhaps it would be, except that we don't need a covenant of this kind.

2. The Life we Share

(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?

There are several tendentious words and phrases in these six points that should be omitted. For example in the first affirmation, the word “true” is unnecessary.

The second affirmation omits the role of tradition and traditional interpretation. The catholic creeds, for example, do not merely repeat what is set forth in scripture, but are the result of a long process of discernment. The word “uniquely” is tendentious and problematic. The expression “rule and ultimate standard of faith” is susceptible of an interpretation that I thought Richard Hooker had laid to rest for Anglicans long age.

The reference to the elements in the third affirmation is needlessly tendentious.

The references to the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book in the fifth affirmation are tendentious and unhistorical.

For these and perhaps other reasons, these six affirmations do not adequately describe the Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity and confession of faith.”

(5) The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think they should be? Why or why not?

They should not be authoritative because they never have been. Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr. reports in The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary the judgement of Bishop William White who “reported the sentiments of the various members of the House of Bishops at the 1792 convention.” Bishop Seabury “considered that ‘all necessary doctrine should be comprehended in the Liturgy,’” and Bishop White “considered that ‘the doctrines of the Gospel may be expressed more satisfactorily' than they are in the Articles, and that there is no reason to ‘arrogate to them perpetuity.’” White concluded that the church needed to be “more stable and unified in its beliefs and in its reputation” before taking on the Articles or an attmpte to revise them.
But perhaps we could have a new version of Article XIX which explicitly acknowledges that Lambeth and Primates Meetings (and, of course, even General Convention) are as susceptible to error as the “Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch.”

3. Our Commitment to Confession of Faith

(6) Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?

As long as the expression “bishops and synods” is taken to include our General Convention, these commitments are consistent with statements and actions of the Episcopal Church.

4. The Life we Share with Others

(7) Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

I have a feeling that the word “interdependent” is tendentious. The five commitments are on target.

5. Our Unity and Common Life

(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?

In paragraph one, the “central role of bishops as custodians of faith” seems tendentious.
In paragraph two, “described as automonous” should be simply “autonomous.”

The Lambeth Conference does not historically have the function of guarding the faith and unity of the communion. The whole notion of guarding begs the question of guarding against what threat and from whom.

The description of the Primates’ Meeting as working in “doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters” is innovative at best.

The restriction of the Anglican Consultative Council to “ecumenical and mission work” is a blatant power grab by the Primates.

6. Unity of the Communion

(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.

Reading the five commitments together, it is clear that the contemplated resolution of disagreements excludes the best possibility which is “agreeing to disagree.” There is no need for a judicial body to help reach that agreement.

(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?

It appears to me that there are four (or five and possibly six) major areas of concern in the Communion – and that to reach a common mind on all of them will take years.
First, the place of women in the ministry of the church, including Holy Orders.
Second, the matter of human sexuality, including but not limited to the place of LBGT persons in the ministry of the church, including Holy Orders and the blessing of same-sex unions.
Third, the authority and interpretation of scripture, especially in areas of disputed interpretations.
Fourth, the question of overlapping jurisdictions and boundary crossing.
Fifth, which of the four preceding areas of concern are “essential.”
Sixth, how to proceed when there is not agreement on these matters.

Uniformity of opinion is not historically a characteristic of Anglicanism,

7. Our Declaration

(11) Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

No. The shape of the Draft Covenant is inextricably bound up with parts of it the are innovative and, to me at least, unAnglican.

(12) What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?

We would be taking a step in the direction of setting up a world wide church with centralized authority along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church. It would be the end of Anglicanism as we know it.

Concluding Questions:
(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?

No. I have pointed out many new things above. The two most important are the notion that a uniformity of interpretation should replace diversity and that there should be a centralized authority with disciplinary powers.

(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?

It is unAnglican, at least as I perceive Anglicanism. It is a step backwards from a diversity that is as old as 1690 when the Scottish Episcopal Church was differentiated from the Church of Scotland.
Some of the generalities might be helpful

2nd N.B. In the next part, I will deal with the Archbishop of Canterbury's talk on scripture and with his announced visit to TEC's House of Bishops.

Right now, I have to go to Binghamton again to see my mother. Well, I don't actually have to, but I would feel terrible if I didn't.

Emmaus

Rex and I developed an interest in paintings and we had two favorite painters, Michelangelo Merisi who died in 1610 and Jan Vermeer who was born in 1632. When I say they were favorite, I mean that we made an effort to see as many of their paintings as possible. Today, Mimi posted a version of the Supper At Emmaus by Merisi, showing a male waiter (possibly a butler?) In the picture at the right, the server is a woman. Too bad it's a forgery and not by Vermeer. I have seen almost all of the genuine Vermeers, and although I have absolutely no formal training in art, I still have a good eye and I cannot understand how Bredius was able to authenticate this painting as a Vermeer. Of course I have not seen the original, so I mustn't be too judgemental.

At MadPriest's (I won't even dignify his rabbity defacement of the Emmaus by more than mentioning it) there was a rabbity Venus which counterlight spotted as based on a Lotto in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I stopped haunting the Met in1975, so I didn't recognize this 1986 purchase. I note it is a gift of Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, who also gave (with her husband,) this Vermeer,

which was on loan to the Met when Rex was alive) so he saw it. (Liz and I have seen at least two Vermeers that Rex never saw (although he saw some that Liz has not seen, but I digress.)

Several years ago I heard a sermon, I forget who was the preacher but I think I may have heard it at Riverside Church on an Easter afternoon, -- a sermon in which it pointed out that we do not know the genders of the two who were walking to Emmaus so possibly they were a man and wife. In paintings they are always portrayed as two men. Since one has a presumably male name, Cleopas, it is unlikely that they were two women.

I didn't mention in my earlier posts this weekend that during the past week (Holy Week, ) I have been reading Is the Bible True? by David Robert Ord and Robert B. Coote. One of the points the authors make is that the gospels are written largely in what now seems to be trendily called "tensive language," rather than "steno language." Simply put, what this means is that the truth of the stories in the Bible does not depend on whether they are factual but rather on their meaning. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to inquire into "what really happened" as if the story was a description of an event that could have been caught on camera.

I close with the suggestion that the forged Vermeer, because it is a forgery, offers a particular insight into the meaning of the Emmaus story and the knowledge of the Resurrection for us today. We can only tell the story as we have received it and filtered it through our own experience and interpretive biases.

A DIGRESSIVE ADDENDUM

I am writing this at the desk in my mother's apartment and I just looked up and saw a print of another Dutch painting, Rembrandt's 1640 Company of Frans Banning Cocq. The story of this painting and its name (to which I merely allude) goes to illustrate the poiunt I am trying to make.

Still Easter Monday

Today I drove up to Binghamton from New York to see my mother and take care of a few things at her apartment. I came back to the apartment after sitting with her for an hour after her supper. After I did the wash from her final two days here last week, I decided that I just had to let down and I began checking blogs and looking around her apartment.

I picked up a notebook I didn’t recognize and it fell open to this poem.

Easter

On Easter Day, dear Jesus Christ
Arose from out the grave.
He died upon the cross for us
Our sinful souls to save.

And so at Easter Time we go
To Sunday School to learn
About our loving Savior;
To be like Him we yearn.

And e’en when Easter’s over
We try to be like Him,
Because we know he’d have us
Be good and avoid sin.

Laura .... Written at age 12 - March 27, 1929

Easter Monday

Well, I did get to St. Mary’s at 6 AM for a dawn Easter Vigil. There were six of us. We had the new fire in the garden, lit the Paschal Candle, and processed into the church. After the Exsultet, I read the lesson from Exodus and we had two other lessons, read by Jim and Lysander. I found this second vigil more satisfying than the first, and I have decided to say no more here about either of them except that I was inspired and impressed by Miguel's homily.

In my last post, I didn’t mention that I was spiritually sustained in Holy Week by some fine posts by some of my favorite bloggers. The picture at Tobias’ Meditationes Viam Crucis was helpful throughout the week, but especially on Good Friday morning (I was fortunate enough to have listened to the music before I went to Binghamton last Monday.) I also liked Tobias’ poem Anamnesis. Also on Good Friday morning, there was Jonathan’s wonderful FRIDAY. And by the time we got back to New York Friday afternoon, Jonathan had posted It is finished. Jonathan’s series of disturbing contemporay images concluded with Tomb on Saturday morning and the transitional The Harrowing Of Hell on Saturday evening. On Easter Day, Jonathan brought us Resurrection which I saw in the interval between the early morning vigil and our main 10 AM service. I was especially glad for the Edmund Spenser sonnet, “Most glorious Lord of life.” Finally on Easter there is the joyous Dimanche Gras, which I saw after I got home from church the second time (or the third time if I count Saturday night.)

There were other posts from other people that I also found inspiring, helpful, or simply enjoyable, but I am running out of time today so I'll have to leave it here. This morning I am driving back up to Binghamton to see my mother and once again I'll have limited internet access until I get back.

Easter Vigil

Liz and I went to the Easter Vigil at Saint Thomas Church Fifth Avenue. Years ago, Liz’s brother taught at Saint Thomas Choir School, and three of Liz’s nephews went to the school. But that’s not why we went. We went because for us Holy Week was completely wacko and the vigil at St. Thomas started at 5:30 so we would have a relatively early evening.

Last week I wrote “I have no idea how my Holy Week will play out. I don’t want to miss Tenebrae, the Thursday night vigil, or the Good Friday service at St. Mary’s, but what will be will be.” As it happened I missed them all. Liz did get to Tenebrae on Wednesday, but for us the rest was a wash out.

The first half of Holy Week was spent getting my mother into the nursing home. Because she was not coming from the hospital, the procedures were unfamiliar to everyone. When I got to Binghamton late Monday afternoon, I found out that the nursing home had a place for my mother – some papers had to picked up for the doctor to fill out, and then she could be admitted.

Tuesday morning I asked my uncle to pick up the papers and then I delivered them to the doctor’s office. Around noon that day I was told they would not be ready until the next morning. That afternoon I took my mother for a drive. We went to Heart Lake, about thirty miles from her home, where our family has been going since the 1920's. When we got to Binghamton I drove her past the house where she was a teenager and where her grandparents also lived. Then we went past the house where her father grew up and where her grandmother and aunts lived when she was young. She really enjoyed it and said so even the next day.
.
On Wednesday, I arranged for a medivan to take mother to the nursing home and I went to get the papers at the doctor’s office. After a slight delay caused by a flat tire, I got the papers to the nursing home, only to discover that they were not correctly filled out and that the doctor would have to see her. So we went home for lunch, and then to the doctor’s office, and finally back to the nursing home. That was three more medivan rides for my mother. But finally she was admitted mid-afternoon on Wednesday. It was too late for me to drive home safely Wednesday. I went back to the nursing home after her supper and then returned to her apartment and that was when the magnitude of the step we ware taking hit me. Although she is there ostensibly for short term rehab, it seems very unlikely that anyone will consider that it is safe for her to return home.
Tenebrae for me was experiencing the shadows of my mother’s decline.

Thursday morning I left early and returned to New York, getting here shortly after ten in the morning. Liz had an important telephone call at 2 PM and as soon as that was over we got in the car and drove back to Binghamton and went direct to the nursing home. My mother was in good spirits and we did an assessment of what we needed to bring to increase her comfort. We got back to her apartment and made a supper of some leftovers.
That was our Maundy Thursday.

Friday morning Liz put together some things to brighten mother’s room – a picture of her and my father, a couple of plants, some dresser scarves, and a large numeral digital clock.among other things. When we got to the nursing home, we were pleased that she was having lunch in the main dining room rather than on her floor. Liz had the idea of interchanging the bed and a bedside dresser in her room and we set up the things we had brought, and then joined mother for the end of her lunch. When we got her back to the room, she was pleased with the changes. We left her just before two and drove back to New York, getting here about 5 PM. I bought the makings of a very un-Good Friday supper, not a crawfish boil but spaghetti with a meat sauce including sausages. We enjoyed the supper and tumbled into bed fairly early.
That was our Good Friday.

Today we caught up at home. I thought a little about going to the noon service at St. Mary’s today, but I didn’t manage to make that happen. So we went to the Vigil at Saint Thomas which was something of a disappointment. Perhaps it’s just us, but both Liz and I found it strangely unsatisfying. It seemed to be form without substance. If I get a chance, I may say more about that at another time.

I’m going to rush and post this, so I can go to bed (it’s 11 PM) and get up in time to go to the 6 AM service at St. Maty’s.

Palm Sunday

This morning at St. Mary’s, we had our annual procession around the block. I can’t recall when we first did it, but it was sometime in the 1960's and Dick Gary was Priest in Charge. St. Mary’s used to have its annual episcopal visitation at evensong on Palm Sunday. Sometime between his election as coadjutor in 1969 and his enthronement in 1972, Paul Moore made a visitation on Sunday morning, and took part in the procession. We continued to have visitations on Palm Sunday for awhile after that – probably through the 1970s at least – and most of those were in the morning. A number of those visits were by what Cathy Roskam calls rent-a-bishops – that’s easy in Manhattan. These days, the episcopal visitation is at another time. This year, we had Bishop Roskam, as I thought I had noted in another post, but I can't find it now.

In any case, we have processed around the block annually on Palm Sunday for decades now. This time I thought I might sit it out since my legs are bothering me, but Marie Runyon walked it at age 92, so I decided to do it too. For the past few years we have been led by a bagpiper, Tommy Chang. This year Tommy had invited some friends from Bethlehem, PA so our ranks were swelled by about eight Bethlehemites.

Bonnie decided to go to Chicago this week to visit her son Eddie and before she left, she recruited Liz and me as readers in the Passion and Liz to read the Epistle. On Thursday, Liz went to Binghamton for our regular visit with my mother – I had a meeting Thursday evening, and we decided that it was important not to wait because my mother has fallen several times in the past two weeks. After Liz got there, several of the folks involved in my mother’s care, including Liz and me, decided that it was important for my mother to go to rehab and get some physical therapy. The wheels are in motion for that – meanwhile, Liz and I decided that it is not wise to leave my mother alone, so Liz stayed in Binghamton. That meant I had to find a substitute reader. I sent an email to one person Saturday night, but she didn’t check her email when she got home tired from a retreat so of course there was no reply. I got to church 15 minutes early so that I could find someone and when I got there the folks from Bethlehem were in our usual pew, so I sat in front of them. (Digression: Apparently, St. Mary’s was one of the first Episcopal churches to abolish pew rents, sometime in the century before last.) I did find a highly competent substitute, although I was prepared if necessary to read the great Christological hymn in Philippians 2: 5-11 (for the purists, I know the hymn starts at verse 6. And, not by the way, there is not a hint there of the view of the atonement as the propitiation of a psycopathic god.) My part in the Passion narrative was to deny Jesus three times.

It’s been two weeks since I posted anything about the what’s going on in the Episcopal Church.
Two things struck me as informative – Father Jake, among others, points us to an illuminating report by Bishop Pierre Whalon of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe. The rest of Father Jake’s post is also very much worth reading. Second, Jonathan the Mad Priest gives us a good pointer to a BBC interview with Bishop Chane of Washington.

Last week I posted about a memorial dinner for Jane’s father Bronson Dudley and mentioned that Jane’s second cousin Carol was there. Carol is interested in Dudley genealogy and since I am the genealogist in the family she sent me copies of material she had. In the past few months I have been engaged in a discernment process about how I want to spend my time and the material from Carol gave me a push in the genealogy direction. Bronson’s mother was Taney Keplinger from New Orleans. I’ve managed to find Taney’s paternal grandparents. Her mother’s family is another matter since her surname was Jones. I see that there are Keplingers in Thibodaux, a city I learned about while blogging, but I don’t think they are closely related to Taney because she had no brothers as far as I can tell, so that in branch of the family the Keplinger surname has died out.

I don’t know how deep into genealogy I’m going to get – there’s also my work on Pope’s 1728 Dunciad to consider, not to mention the question of whether I want to return to active beta testing.

Monday Liz comes home to go to the dentist and I will immediately drive back up to Binghamton to take care of my mother until a bed opens up so she can go to rehab. So I have no idea how my Holy Week will play out. I don’t want to miss Tenebrae, the Thursday night vigil, or the Good Friday service at St. Mary’s, but what will be will be.

My internet participation will be limited because I am on dialup when I’m there.

Bronson Dudley

This evening we had a memorial dinner for Bronson Dudley, the father of my (step)daughter Jane and the first husband of my wife Liz.

Among those present were Jane and her husband Scott , Liz and I, Bronson's widow Caroline, Jane's second cousin Carol, and other friends and neighbors.

Bronson was an actor and playwright (I am reminded that W. S. Gilbert insisted on being called a dramatist rather than a playwright.) None of his plays hit it big, but he had a successful early career as a dancer on the stage and a late career as a character actor in TV and films. His most memorable film role was Bill in Steve Buscemi's 1996 Trees Lounge. The picture at the right is from that film. Bronson was born January 27, 1920 and died Shrove Tuesday, February 20, 2007. At the request of his widow Caroline, the announcement of his death was delayed.

A little Googling found me this item from Time, dated Monday May 11, 1936 (I was 20 days old) about Bronson's older sister Doris:
In the Manhattan apartment of 30-year-old Pulitzer Prize Dramatist (Men in White) Sidney Kingsley, blonde Actress Doris Dudley (End of Summer), 18-year-old daughter of Radio Theatre Critic Bide Dudley, flounced into the bathroom, shot herself in the breast with a .22 rifle. A suicide note was found. Day after the shooting, which caused only a minor wound, the two renewed announcement of their engagement, said the suicide story was bosh, that the shooting was an accident.

You gotta remember, folks, that one of my hats is as a genealogist (aka family historian), and I just report what I find.

More later

My Goodness!

My goodness! As I have mentioned before, every week to ten days I have to undertake a three hour drive to Binghamton to assist with my mother’s finances and the like. This time it was actually eleven days since I had been there. When we returned eleven days ago, we left an internal light on in the car with the result that the battery was dead when I wanted to set out late Tuesday morning. (Here in Manhattanit's common not to need the car for weeks at a time.) I got off two hours later and arrived at my mother’s just in time to make supper for her. (This time Liz stayed home.) I had decided for once not to take my computer, so I was shut off from the internet tubes from about 10 AM Tuesday to close to 3 PM Wednesday.

As some of you who read this blog know, there was some important news from Navasota, Texas Tuesday, March 20th. I knew nothing of this Tuesday night when I began to write in my notebook:

March 20, 2007
The first night of spring.
I’m writing this at my mother’s. I’ll have to type it in when I get back because for once I didn’t bring my computer.
A lot has happened since I last posted.

The Presiding Bishop declared the election of Mark Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina to be “null and void.” More on that a little further on.

On Friday, March 16th, about a dozen folks participated in the Great Litany and the Supplication, with additional collects, sung in procession opposite the United Nations. Four of us were from St. Mary’s and two from the Episcopal chaplaincy at Columbia University. There were a few people from the Episcopal Church Center at815 Second Avenue which is only a block away. The weather was terrible – it was cold, windy, and sleeting.. I was pressed into service as crucifer. Singing the Litany in procession is an antiwar witness we at St. Mary’s have been doing each Lent since the buildup to the invasion of Iraq four years ago. We’ll do it again this week – the weather promises to be better.

On Sunday, Liz and I were readers at the 10 AM service. I read about the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan – I did not update the text to say

“The manna ceased on the day they ate the produce of the land, and the Israelis no longer had manna; they ate the crops of the land of the Palestinians from that year.”

Liz read 2 Corinthians:

“If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Then on Sunday afternoon, Liz and I marched for peace with thousands of others here in New York. There were about eight of us from St. Mary’s – at least two were there because Liz spoke passionately at our announcement time about the importance of marching – at St. Mary’s announcements come between the blessing and the dismissal.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

So that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I don’t know whether this is a far out interpretation or not, but when I ponder 2 Corinthians 5:21, I think of it as a liberative view of the atonement: God made Jesus to be a sinless sin offering so that we might show forth God’s righteousness. Not so that we might be made right with God – that would be tautological – but so that we, all of us, might become God’s righteousness.

There was a substantial religious contingent in Sunday’s march for peace. We were being God’s righteousness in that place. Of course we weren’t stopping the occupation – we were only bearing witness. But there is more than one way to be the righteousness of God.

It must have been over a week ago that MadPriest said in a comment that those on the other side in the current troubles in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are evil and that they have chosen to follow Satan and they know it. Since I don’t have my computer right now, I can’t check my recollection and find out exactly what he said. I myself be am sure that those who are out to split TEC and the Anglican Communion are under satanic influence (or the influence of the “powers” as William Stringfellow and Walter Wink put it.) I cannot be as certain as MadPriest that they are knowingly following Satan.

The powers were certainly at work in the election of Mark Lawrence and the debacle over consents to his election. The presenting issue for much of the church was whether Fr. Lawrence could unequivocally state that he would not lead South Carolina out of the Episcopal Church. Apparently he got the consents of a majority of the Standing Committees, but not enough of the consents were in the form that our canons have required since 1799. The responsibility for getting sufficient consents from Standing Committees and in the proper form rests with the Standing Committee of the electing diocese, In this case, at the very least, it appears that the Standing Committee of South Carolina fell down on the job. The result is pain for Fr. Lawrence and his family, pain for a lot of others, and a black eye not just for South Carolina but for the Episcopal Church. That’s the powers at work.

And that’s the end of what I wrote out by hand on Tuesday night.

Then on the way home, I tried to formulate my thoughts about the issues the bishops were addressing at Camp Allen. I came up with something like this:

Those who attempt to define progressive Christians as “reappraisers” and themselves as “reasserters” are either self-deluded or disingenuous. Reappraisal is at the heart of the gospel – “You have heard it said ... but I I say....” And it isn’t just Jesus who gets to reappraise, even in scripture. And at the same time, reassertion is also at the heart of the gospel – “on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
TEC (along with other so-called “liberal “ churches) needs to clearly articulate cogent hermeneutical principles to support our assertion and belief that the justice teachings of scripture trump the “texts of terror.” It would also be helpful for the church to openly criticize the common prejudicial translations in Corinthians and Timothy.
In this matter, becoming the righteousness of God means bearing witness and standing up for the full humanity and equality of women and of LGBT people both inside and outside of the church. Women’s rights and LGBT rights are linked – so are violence against women and LBGT people. And both are linked to issues of race and class. I need to explore this topic more – right now I am concerned with what will come out of the meeting of the bishops of TEC.

Those are some of my thoughts from the three hour car trip home.

Then I got home, and when I discovered the statements that had come form the House of Bishops on March 20, I was astounded and happy. A few days ago, Elizabeth Kaeton wrote that the schism has already happened. That was not a new thought -- but it is good way to name a rwal truth. I am pleased that the majority of the bishops of TEC recognize the truth that underlies that thought and have chosen not to engage in the dysfunctional and unAnglican dance the Primates have asked us to join.

Left Forum

On Saturday, March 10, the Religion & Socialism Commission of DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) sponsored a panel at Left Forum 2007. The topic was Progressive Realism: Neo-Conservatism & the American Empire, and the panelists were Gary Dorrien, Rima Vesely-Flad, and Harvey Cox. A few weeks ago I blogged about Gary Dorrien's installation as Reinhold Neibuhr Professor at Union. The afternoon session, and much of my comment, dealt with Dorrien's most recent book, Volume Three of The Making of American Liberal Theology. Dorrien's talk on Saturday at the Left Forum was a return to the topic of his 1993 The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology. Liz reviewed that book in 1995; (Gary Dorrien was pleased to meet Liz for the first time after the Saturday session and he told her how much he liked the review.)

The title of the panel, "Progressive Realism," is a reference to Christian Realism, associated with Reinhold Niebuhr. Some of the early neoconservatives, notably Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus, have Christian Realism roots. The neoconservative movement itself has divergent streams -- there is a "realistic" critique on the right of the foreign policy aims of the present Bush adminstration. There are also progressives who have Christian Realism roots, for example two of the speakers on this panel, Gary Dorrien and Harvey Cox. Dorrien suggests that progressives might be able to find common ground with realists on the right in resisting some of the madness of the current Bush administration.

Rima Vesely-Flad spoke about the prison-industrial complex, the growth of the private prison industry and the problem or reentry and employment for released prisoners, which is her primary focus.

Harvey Cox spoke in particular of the Theocons, term trhats be en around for over a decade and is the subject (and title) of a recent book by Damon Linker. Cox suggested that religious progressives need an alliance with evangelicals on the left. (My notes on that are sketvchy and I can't reconstruct what he said -- but I think he must mean something to the left of Christian Churches Together.)

During the Q&A, someone asked about Chris Hedges' American Fascists, which I mentioned in a recent post. Both Harvey Cox and Gary Dorrien think that Hedges is being alarmist, but they agree the dominionist movement is indeed dangerous and bears watching carefully.

TRIVIA
A.
Gary Dorrien was a student of Harvey Cox (as was Chris Hedges.)
Rima Vesely-Flad is a docotral candidate at Union and Gary Dorrien is her advisor.

B.
Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus were members along with Harvey Cox and others of a CALC (Clergy and Laity Concerned) delegation to visit Vietnam war deserters in Paris and Stockholm in 1968

Lent III

The past few days have been packed full. There was another trip to Binghamton (Liz and I both went this time) and then there was the Left Forum 2007. All of that meant that I was not able to keep up with blogs from early Thursday morning until Sunday afternoon.

I did see that Tobias Haller posted some meditations he delivered at a retreat for the six candidates for the diaconate in this Diocese of New York. I haven’t read them yet, but I have printed them out. The deacons were ordained at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine on Saturday morning while I was at Cooper Union attending the Left Forum.

This morning at St. Mary’s, new Deacon Emily Sieracki, who was jointly sponsored by St. Mary’s and the Episcopal Chaplaincy at Columbia University, served as deacon for the first time. Emily read the Gospel, administered the chalice, and dismissed us. Since I was pressed into service taking up the collection, I did not see whether she prepared the table. She did not lead the prayers of the people, which is a traditional diaconal function not mentioned in the rubrics. Anyway, it was a pleasure to have a deacon at St. Mary’s again. Emily’s parents were there, as were some friends.

Our preacher this morning was our seminarian, Miguel Escobar, who is a senior at Union Theological Seminary and is at the beginning of the discernment process towards ordination. (Miguel was received into the Episcopal Church last spring while in seminary. Since we are very close to Union, over the years we have had a fair number of folks in that position.) I can’t do Miguel's sermon justice so I won’t even try, although I enjoyed and admired it very much.

Announcement

On Friday March 16th at noon, and again the following Friday, we will go down to the Isaiah Wall opposite the UN and will chant the Great Litany in Solemn Procession. St. Mary's has sponsored this every Lent since the US invaded Iraq. These are the only times I have ever seen the Supplication used.

We invite all who can make it to join us.

Names

Names

I recently decided to change my Blogger display name. I chose the name Morningsider when I was considering writing anonymously about my coop, Morningside Gardens. I later decided not to hide my real name when I was writing about the Episcopal Church, and I began signing my posts “Allen Mellen.” Then, since no one else was using the name Allen on the blogs I frequent, I decided that there is no longer any reason to use a pseudonymous nom de blog.

One good reason for anonymity is protect the privacy of others. For example, one of my relatives has a need to enter a MICA (Mental Illness / Chemical Addiction) facility. I have provided some assistance to this person – both moral support and transportation when I am able. Since this person, like many of my relatives, lives in my hometown of Binghamton, New York, I have been able to provide transportation only when I am in Binghamton to help my mother out – about once every week to ten days. Binghamton is 180 miles from New York and it takes three hours to get there – for both safety and sanity reasons I generally stay overnight so as not to have to drive both ways in one day. When I went up two weeks ago I tacked on an extra six hours – we used my car to take my relative for an interview another 125 further on from Binghamton. Fortunately my relative did the driving to the interview and back, so I was relatively fresh – despite all that time in the car -- and was able to drive home safely alone. If I were anonymous, I could tell you the relationship of that person to me, the gender of that person, and so on. But I’m not anonymous and I do feel a responsibility to protect the privacy of my relative.


Grandmère Mimi recently wrote about the possible effect on her in her community if she is outed as a blogger. Since I decided to blog under my own name, I am spared that worry.

It Ain’t Over till It’s Over

Last night, the Executive Council of TEC issued a Letter to the Church.

Here is an extract:

Executive Council recognizes that the requests made by the Primates, directed to the House of Bishops and the Presiding Bishop, raise important and unresolved questions about the polity of the Episcopal Church and its ecclesiology. We have authorized the appointment of a work group to consider the role, responsibilities and potential response of the Executive Council to the issues raised by the Primates. The work group will make a report and recommendations at the June 2007 meeting of the Council.
We wish clearly to affirm that our position as a church is to welcome all persons, particularly those perceived to be the least among us. We wish to reaffirm to our lesbian and gay members that they remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church.
Further, we offer our prayerful affirmation to all who struggle with the issues that concern us: those who are deeply concerned about the future of their Church and its place within the wider Communion, and those who are not reconciled to certain actions of General Convention. We wish to reaffirm that they too remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church

This statement is already being perceived as too weak by some on our side of the aisle (that locution is adapted from Elizabeth Kaeton.) See for example this comment by crucifer at daily episcopalian:

Need I remind any reader here that that's exactly the same statement that any conservative, homophobic member of this church would say? They insist we are "welcome and integral" and "disordered" and "in need of repentance."
For the life of me, tonight I cannot tell the difference between TEC's Executive Council and the Network or AAC.

In a comment at Father Jake’s, I said

I, too, would like to see Executive Council make a stronger statement but I see two problems -- the first and most serious is B033. I don't think Executive Council has the authority to contradict B033, much as I wish they would.
Second, this is really early in the process. We are not quite three weeks into the process of responding to the communique.

Susan Russell points to a "verbatim" from the discussion around the final draft of the Executive Council report-out-letter here. (And may I just say: GO BUTCH GAMARRA!!!!). ( I don’t want to link direct; so go via Susan or daily episcopalian.) I second Susan’s kudos to Butch Naters Gamarra (who was briefly Rector at St. Mary’s in the early 1980s. Another Executive Council member, Winnie Varghese, also spent time at St. Mary’s and is now just up the avenue at Columbia University.)

Now that I’ve read the “verbatim,” I want to downgrade the importance of B033 and emphasize the fact that it is really early in the process. By my count, the communique gave TEC 31 weeks to respond. Executive Council’s letter came at the end of the third week. I am impressed that we have made so much progress.

It’ll be an uphill struggle to persuade moderates that we need a strong response. That struggle is going on now. It has to conducted with patience, love, and determination.

Some thoughts on the "ultimatum"

This morning, Saturday March 3, at Enough About Me Mark suggested that “It might be a good thing to let PB Jefferts Schori know how many of her national flock are displeased about the communique and her handling of its explanation.” and send emails to her.
I think that’s a good idea and I’m going to follow it, even as events move forward -- Executive Council is meeting now and in two weeks the House of Bishops will meet.

Especially since the PB’s webcast this past Wednesday, I have been trying to organize my thoughts and produce a cogent post. Unlike many, I don’t hear ++KJS urging TEC towards an acceptance of what she calls a season of fasting; rather I hear her attempting to be non-directive. But as I said in a comment at the daily episcopalian, she might as well be urging capitulation.

I see this clearly (or maybe I have this distorted view) because not so long ago I myself was trying in a non-directive way to lead an organization as it struggled to make a crucial decision on a question that by its nature was divisive. I feel that I failed the organization, not because of the outcome of the decision, but because in my hands that non-directive style of leadership produced a process that exacerbated rather than ameliorated the divisions. One reason for my failure is that organizationally I was alone. Bishop Katharine is not alone and is not necessarily doomed to failure.

There are deep divisions in TEC and the Anglican Communion – divisions that cannot be ameliorated in the near term. The presenting issue is homosexuality, but I see other and deeper issues – the place of women in the church and ultimately, as +Gene keeps saying, patriarchy.
Tobias, in An Immodest Proposal, says that while no one “has a need or right to be a bishop ... it is unjust to exclude persons or classes of persons without good cause.” That’s of course true, I suggest, however, that such exclusion is more than simply unjust – it is a manifestation of evil. That sounds over the top – but I mean it seriously. The Episcopal Church, as Jim Naughton has documented in Following the Money is under a well funded attack from the right. I tend to think of it as an attack by the “powers,” as delineated by William Stringfellow and Walter Wink. In other terms, I believe it is an attack related to or even part of the “war on America” by “Christian” dominionists –a war that is the subject of the new book by Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the war on America.

Those within and on the fringes of the Episcopal Church who are influenced by dominionism are among those who have made alliances with some of the Primates. (I’m being cautious here – I don’t have any reason to impugn the motives of any specific person in TEC – even those I most disagree with.)

I am convinced that it is important for TEC not to give in to the demands of the Primates to draw back from its commitment to LGBT folk – whatever the costs in terms of the our relations with other Anglicans. In fact TEC’s commitment to LGBT folk needs strengthening; we should make our decision on rites for blessing same sex unions without regard to other Anglican churches. To do otherwise would be to make an idol of the Anglican Communion.

As I contemplate Bishop Katharine’s public statements since Dar es Salaam, I am becoming convinced that she has had it too easy. Her election as Presiding Bishop was only possible because of a great deal of struggle and sacrifice by women (and men) who came before her. She is standing on the shoulders of giants. I remember, for example, the passion and pain in Carter Heyward’s preaching at St. Mary’s in 1973 and 1974 when she told us of her early realization that she would not be allowed to be a priest because she was a girl. And I remember the vilification Carter and the others endured after their ordination to the priesthood on the feast of SS. Mary and Martha in 1974.

Last week, when MadPriest first posted a picture of Bishop Katharine as Neville Chamberlain returning from Munich, I thought he had gone too far. I’m still don’t think it’s fair to ++KJS, but I am convinced that it is based on an accurate assessment of the extreme position among the Primates. I’m impressed that Jonathan the Mad Priest saw that right off. The other day, I discovered the blog of Fr. Christopher Hofer, who was a seminarian at St. Mary’s, and that evening Christopher posted a pastiche that he and his partner Kerry wrote on Pastor Martin Niemoller’s poem “First they came for the communists.” Christopher and Kerry’s version begins “First they came for the gays.” On page 201 of American Fascists, Chris Hedges reminds us that days after Hitler came to power in 1933 he "imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations.” LGBT people make easy targets when the goal is the suppression of dissent and the imposition of authority for authority’s sake. The concentration on homosexuality by certain Primates (and their US allies) should be a danger sign to us and make us want to run as fast as we can in the other direction.

In Future Shock Alvin Toffler wrote “If you don’t have a strategy, you will be permanently reactive and part of someone else’s strategy.” It is time for TEC to be proactive. Marshall, in Brainstorming for Bishops suggests that the bishops of TEC might propose their own draft Covenant and fast from the Lambeth Conference next year. Tobias has put forth An Immodest Proposal. I agree that progressives owe moderates a case that goes beyond the mere assertion “Because it’s right.” I am not willing to suggest that TEC give an inch to the far right in our church. They are playing for keeps and we should play for keeps.

POSTSCRIPT
As I was putting the final touches on this, I discovered that today Tobias posted some thoughts on a meditation from last June by Thomas Bushnell on Acts 11:1-18.
I need to reflect on it, but at first glance my thoughts in this post seem consonant with an approach based on the principles Thomas Bushnell derived from this passage in Acts.

Annual Meeting Resolution

This afternoon St. Mary’s held its 184th Annual Meeting. At the meeting I said:

We are an Episcopal Church, part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Last week the Primates of the Anglican Communion met in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and issued what is in effect an ultimatum to the Episcopal Church – do not ordain any more partnered gay priests to be bishops, and do not authorize any services of blessing for same-sex couples.

Partly because we are in North America, we in the Episcopal Church have led the Anglican Communion in extending full participation to women and girls. (Not so long ago, women could not serve on vestries.) St. Mary’s was situated so as to play a visible part in the struggle for the right of women to be ordained – but there are places today, even in the Episcopal Church, where the ministry of women is not accepted and is treated as unscriptural and even unchristian.

The ministry of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer people is now an issue in the wider church. We at St. Mary’s have played a role in this struggle too – a less visible role. We have enjoyed the ministry of both out and closeted LGBTQ folks in all areas – as priest, deacon, acolyte, crucifer, organist, choir member, usher, warden, vestry member, and ordinary parishioner.

I propose the following motion:

We at St. Mary’s, Manhattanville, call upon our Bishop, the Presiding Bishop, and the House of Bishops not to draw back from the commitment the Episcopal Church has made to LGBTQ people – in particular not to make any pledge in advance about denying ordination to the episcopate on the basis of sexual orientation and not to make any promise not to authorize blessing same-sex unions. All are welcome.After discussion, the motion carried and will be forwarded to the Bishop of New York, Mark Sisk, to Presiding Bishoip Katharine Jefferts Schori, and to the House of Bishops.

In putting this posting together I recalled that at the 131st annual meeting 33 years ago on April 28, 1974, our congregation passed a resolution urging our bishop, Paul Moore, to ordain two of our deacons, Carter Heyward and Emily Hewitt, to the priesthood at the same time as our third deacon, Doug Clark, was being ordained. I had the privilege of conveying that action of the congregation to the bishop. Needless to say, Bishop Paul Moore did not accede to our request. This time we are not asking the bishops to do anything extracanonical.

Bishops

On Friday morning, February 23, 2007, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schorri spoke to the staff at the Episcopal Church Center here in New York. An audio of the talk is available here. My previous post was in response to discussion in the blogs of both the Friday talk and an earlier statement called A Season of Fasting.

Both of these statements were about the recent meeting of Anglican Primates in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and in particular about the communique and its ultimatum to The Episcopal Church. Tobias Haller posted a satirical paraphrase of the communique which is all you need to know except that it is in fact quite clear what nature of the unspecified consequences of non-compliance will be. As Bishop Katharine puts it, compliance means we "are asserting our desire to remain as a full member of the communion" and we will "retain our position in the councils of the Anglican Communion."

In listening to Bishop Katharine’s remarks to the staff at 815, I was paricularly struck by this almost afterthought:

“The reality, I believe, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury will respect whatever the Primates decide, whether or not that accurately reflects the polity of the Anglican Communion.
There was great attention paid to the teaching role of bishops and therefore of primates at this meeting and that this conflict in their minds is about an official teaching of Anglican Communion.
The reality is that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York decide who is in communion with them and that is really all that matters.”

There is a lot of meat here. I was first drawn to transcribe these words by the part about the “teaching role of bishops.” Bishops are seldom, if ever, chosen for their skills as teachers.
In the words of educational philosopher Oscar Hammerstein II,

It's a very ancient saying,
But a true and honest thought,
That if you become a teacher,
By your pupils you'll be taught.

I’m not at all sure that the average bishop is open to being taught by his “pupils.” Yet that is what is called for, surely.

I still have a backlog of posting about two bishops who I have recently heard -- first, the rest of of my post on Gene Robinson and then a post about Catherine Roskam's visit to St. Mary's last week.

Am I Missing Something?

This has been a hectic week for me. Last Sunday morning Bishop Catherine made her first visitation to St. Mary’s. I read the epistle (“I will show you a more excellent way”). Ever since, I have been itching to post – both on this blog and in comments elsewhere. So much to say, on events near and far, and updates due on previous posts And so much happening in my own life that I truly haven’t had the time to keep up with reading the blogs and the statements, let alone write down my own thoughts.

Saturday morning I listened carefully to Bishop Katharine’s talk to the 815 staff. Frankly, I found it hard to see what the fuss was about. I wrote a thoughtful response to a post by Grimakin at Father Jake’s and then I had problems connecting to the internet. Life intervened again and by the time I got back to the computer the thread at Jake’s had moved so far along that I decided to post my thoughts here.

As I said, I listened carefully to Bishop Katharine’s talk to the 815 staff. This is what I did not post at Jake’s:

I found Bishop Katharine's talk helpful.

Unlike Grimalkin, I didn't hear “platitudes delivered in a motherly tone." And I didn't hear a speech to the whole Episcopal Church. I heard a report to the staff at 815, which the entire TEC (not to mention the world) has the privilege of overhearing.

It occurs to me, and I hope no one takes this as snarky, that we are so used to "spin" that we find it hard to interpret a talk that cannot be completely candid -- KJS is, by virtue of her office, constrained from revealing everything that she is personally thinking about this matter.

She said more than once that she didn't know what response the church (TEC) would decide to give to the primates.
She hinted at some of the downside of saying NO and at some of the possible upside of saying YES. Both of these were expressed in terms of effects within the AC and not in terms of effects within TEC. I think it would be helpful if she would also address the upside of saying NO and the downside of saying YES, both on the AC and within TEC. Yet I am heartened that she did not try to preempt the conversation that must now take place within TEC.

In the short term, I am not terribly hopeful. It seems to me that the costs of a either a NO or a YES are very high. And that is the source of much of the anger and depression I have heard this week.

(I apologize for the format of this post – preserving my early drafts and all – but this is a blog after all, not an essay.)

Then I finally read A Season of Fasting. I still couldn’t really put my finger on what others were hearing that I wasn’t hearing. Late Saturday afternoon, ENS sent out a story on KJS’s talk to the staff. In looking at what Mary Frances Schojnberg lifted up in that article, I began to see more clearly what is bothering people. Unless I’m wrong, people are more bothered by what isn’t there than by what is there. But that is precisely what she doesn’t say that I find heartening about her statements.

It would be improper for Bishop Katharine to say to the other Primates “We cannot comply with this request.” She would be pretending to an authority TEC does not give to our Presiding Bishop. But it would be equally improper for her to say to us in TEC “Let’s tell the Primates we cannot comply with this request,” or, God forbid, "Let's give them what they want." At least at this point, that is not her role.

I do not see Bishop Katharine as advocating for either a YES or a NO. And so I remain hopeful about her leadership.

Support Fr. Luis Barrios

Fr. Luis Barrios, an associate priest at St. Mary's, is in need of your prayers, and if possible, your presence.

Here is a release from Not in Our Name.

Fr. Luis Barrios, activist, Episcopal priest and professor, will be in Municipal Court on Tuesday, 8:30AM, February 13, at 100 Centre Street. He is on trial on multiple charges for a September 19 protest at the United Nations. He was arrested along with 16 others (UN16) in a non-violent protest on the day that President Bush was speaking at the UN. Fr. Barrios was the first one arrested and was thrown to the ground by the police.

In a new development, on Saturday night, February 10, Fr. Barrios was arrested again upon leaving an event in the South Bronx. In what appears to be an act of intimidatio n, the New York Police did not reveal the reason for the arrest, but Fr. Barrios was held overnight and not released until Sunday.

Fr. Luis Barrios is an associate professor and chair of the Puerto Rican/Latin American Studies Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He is charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct during the September 19 protest.

During that protest, the UN 16 stated, "We have come to the United Nations today to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. We demand the war on Iraq end immediately. We oppose any attack on Iran. We declare to the world that President George W. Bush has been found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He does not speak for us!"

This picture was taken at a demonstration last May and is from an article by Ethan Vesely-Flad in The Witness last June.

Elegy and Epithalamion - A Reflection on Prime Mates

This picture was taken at the Twelfth Night Party in 1973 at St Mary's Episcopal Church, Manhattanville, on West 126th Street in Manhattan. At that party, the people who find a bean in their cake are designated the King and Queen. This morning after church, I mentioned to my friend Janet that I was going to post this picture today and she said she remembered that party well, but she did not recall the picture. When I described it, she said something to the effect that “that just about sums it all up.”
This picture is laden with significance for me and for people who were at St. Mary’s at that time and even for others. First let me get the personal significance out of the way.

The King and Queen were Rex Slauson and Jane Dudley. Rex is holding a just off the press copy of Women Priests: Yes or No? by Emily Hewitt and Suzanne Hiatt.

Rex was my partner (we called it "lover" then) and had been since November 1958. Rex brought me to the Episcopal Church and to St. Mary's. Five weeks after that party, on February 11,1973, Rex was the intercessor at St. Mary's. (That was 34 years ago today.) The next day Rex had a massive heart attack and he died on the operating table on February 13. Rex was 46 years old.

Jane was 10. Two years later, Jane's mother Liz and I were married at St. Mary's. Our reception was held in the same undercroft where this picture was taken. We celebrated our 32nd wedding anniversary this past Thursday.

Emily Hewitt was one of two women deacons then at St. Mary's. Emily and Carter Heyward (the other one) were two of the Phildelphia 11 who were ordained to the priesthood in July of 1974. Carter, whose book A Priest Forever I mentioned in an earlier post, later became a colleague of Sue Hiatt at EDS. (Liz had been a year behind Sue Hiatt in college.)

Now, 34 years later, Jane is my daughter and has been for 32 years. She was married just before this past New Year.

The St. Mary’s significance is harder to define. Everybody at St. Mary’s at the time knew that Rex and I were partners. I suspect most people there didn't think very much about the fact that we were partners meant that we were gay – or “practicing homosexuals.” But I’m sure a lot of St. Mary’s people were surprised when Liz and I announced our engagement.

In 1973 some St. Mary’s people had trouble with women’s ordination – and I know there were also folks there who had difficulty considering gay behavior acceptable. Around that time, our rector Neale Secor conducted a seminar on homosexuality. I don’t know how many minds were changed or how many people at the time connected the -isms.

Now fast forward. After she graduated from college, Liz had gone to Union Theological Seminary for one semester. Liz went back to Union in the early 1980's and completed her MDiv. She went into ecumenical work and now in her retirement she is chair of the board of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, which was founded by Arlene and Leonard Swidler. Leonard Swidler is still the edtitor of JES today. One reason I did not go to the Urban Caucus in North Carolina last week was that Liz had a Board meeting in Philadelphia on Friday.

As I was researching via Google for this post today, I discovered, first that Arlene and Leonard Swidler were the editors of a 1977 book Women Priests which can be found here. Then I discovered a remarkable and powerful open letter written in September 2004 to Josef Ratzinger by Leonard Swidler. MadPriest might call Swidler’s letter LENNY TELLS OFF the future BENNY. The letter is in response to a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World. I want to lift up one paragraph:

I have to say that you have made the most fundamental mistake possible in writing this letter, namely, that you, a male, write it, telling women what they should and should not be. One of the first things I learned from Arlene decades ago was that, because the essence of being human is the freedom and responsibility of defining oneself, that essence includes women and paramountly so, because for eons they have suffered the oppression of being defined by men.

I submit that everything Leonard Swidler says about men speaking of women applies to straights speaking of LGBTQ people. People have the right to define themselves.

On Friday, Mimi at Wounded Bird asked ”Why is it that GLTB Christians are repeatedly called to defend their desire for full inclusion in the life of the church by their fellow Christians?”
In the comments, Tim Chesterton said “I have read and considered very carefully the arguments of those who believe that the church's traditional interpretation of scripture on this issue needs to be changed. I personally would be a lot more comfortable if I could make myself believe it. But I can't. I'm not convinced.” The whole thread is worth reading.

And on Wednesday, Josh Oxley asked for help because “I cannot in good conscience yet assert homosexual relationships to be the ideal of human sexuality in the eyes of God. I can't deny it, but I still can't assert it. “ Josh goes on to say ”I find it tough to entirely skim over the few mentions in Scripture of homosexual activity as sinful, to throw away a part of Scripture I'd like to entirely forget exists. It does, and I think chalking everything up to "culture" that we don't favor in both Old and New Testaments is a dangerous cop-out.” In the comments MadPriest called him on that word “ideal.” and Josh gave a good answer. Again, the whole thread is worth reading.

As I was thinking out how I might contribute to the thread on Josh’s questions I was reminded of Bishop Gene Robinson’s words last Monday about “us” and “them.” If you have ever experienced being one of “them” I think you have a built in predisposition to understand and empathize with other outsiders. As I didn’t post in response to MadPriest’s Thought for Today, this empathy is why we get upset over things that don’t directly affect us – of course we are indirectly affected by injustice to others (because all isms are connected), much as John Donne, in Meditation XVII, wrote “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”

The Gospel for this year C is Luke. Today we heard the beatitudes and woes from the Sermon on the Plain. Three weeks ago we heard Jesus say, after reading from Isaiah, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” In next week’s psalm we say to God, “O mighty King, lover of justice, you have established equity; you have executed righteousness and justice in Jacob.” I believe the primary message of Jesus is about justice. In today’s epistle we heard in a message to the first century Corinthians,“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.” I believe that the message to twenty first century Christians is “If the Incarnation and Resurrection are not about justice, our faith is futile.”

That accounts for some of the trajectory that has led me to the struggle against injustice based on race, gender, religion, and other isms. But that is not all of the story, for I am still a gay man. So here are some further thoughts. (This is a little rough, but I feel some urgency to get this out today):

A question many gay and lesbian persons ask themselves is “Is there something wrong with me?” I’m 70 years old – when I was a teenager the word “gay” had not yet entered the general vocabulary. I was attracted to other boys and not to girls. The words I knew were “queer” or “fairy” and later “faggot.” At some point I learned the word ”homosexual.” It’s hard to recapture the thoughts of my youth, but anyway...

1. I feel that I am basically acceptable. (Of course I had bad moments but I know now that I was fortunate that as a teenager I had an intact sense of self worth.)
2. The Bible says that certain behavior is not acceptable.
2a. The Bible says that I may not have sex with another male.
2b. The Bible says I may not masturbate.
3. It is not possible for me not to masturbate. I cannot overcome the desire to have sex with another male.
4. Finally, I do have sex with another male. I am fortunate in that I quickly find a life partner. At that point I know for sure that I am acceptable and that I do not have to act contrary to my nature to be acceptable.
5. This leads to an inescapable conclusion – I must reject the biblical teaching the I may not have sex with another male – and indeed the teaching that I may not masturbate.

If I reject those biblical teachings, where does that leave me? It doesn’t help that the text that seems to condemn masturbation is not in the New Testament, because of the New Testament texts that seem to condemn homosexual behavior. So now I have a different problem – a problem of hermeneutics. How should I read and interpret scripture? That’s a big question, but one for another post. MadPriest has a simple answer having to do with the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels, but I have problems with that too – but I repeat, that’s another discussion for another time.

I hope these thoughts are of help to people on the journey towards full acceptance of LGBTQ people without reservation.

Back to St. Mary's Undercroft
This morning our resident punster, Jim White, asked "Why do the Primates make so much ado about a person's prime mate?" With Jim's permission I pass this on.

Unfinished business
Last Monday I promised to get back to my account of Bishop Robinson's talk at Columbia. Mimi just reminded me. And I will.

Hearing Bishop Gene Robinson

I just came back from hearing a talk by Bp. Gene Robinson at Columbia University's St. Paul's Chapel. Before he spoke he asked a few questions to gauge the churchly sophistication of his audience (it was pretty churchy.)

This was my first exposure to +Gene. I was very impressed by what he had to say and the way he said it. I sat in the front row with two friends who I ran into there – Betty Riordan, who has retired from directing the Peace Education program at Teacher’s College, and Dot Savage, retired from communications at the National Council of Churches. Both live in Morningside Gardens and Betty is a member of St. Mary’s. Most of the audience were students. Gene Robinson got his M.Div at General Theological Seminary in 1973, the same year that I, as clerk at St. Mary’s, was writing importuning letters to Bp. Paul Moore, urging him to ordain deacons Carter Heyward and Emily Hewitt to the priesthood. See this post. (He declined, saying his hands were tied, but that’s another story.) One of the points +Gene made forcefully is that “there is an unbelievable connection between homophobia and misogyny.” In fact, as he said and I agree, all the isms are linked – but these two are especially closely related.

+Gene quoted Bishop Stephen Bayne, the first executive officer of the Anglican Communion and the dean of GTS when Gene graduated, “Mission consists of figuring out where God is in the world and joing God there.”(I paraphrase.) He firmly believes that God is doing a new thing. In fact, he thinks we are seeing the beginning of the end of patriarchy.

During the debate in the House of Bishops on consent to his election, one bishop said this was the first time since the civil rights movement in the 1960's that he had seen the church take a stand it was willing to die for. (I didn’t get down which bishop said that.) +Gene returned to the civil rights struggle when he mentioned that during the 1960's, the church stopped concentrating on being pastoral to those opposed to equal rights for blacks and turned to doing the right thing. The problem of being pastoral to the dissenters remained, but the emphasis was different. A similar thing happened with the ordination of women. (But as he did not mention, it took a quarter century.) The process with regard to LGBT people is not there yet.

And afterwards? Well, says +Gene, it won't end until there is no more us and them – until humankind is all us.

I have to stop now because I am going to drive three hours to see my mother tomorrow. More later.

Septuagesima

At the end of today’s service at St. Mary’s we sang His Eye Is On the Sparrow.” I came home wanting to write this post and the first thing I did was look at other blogs – and nearly fell in into this trap. God’s eye is on the sparrow and on me too, but I’ve got to keep my own eye on the task at hand. That’s difficult.

The antiquarian in me mourns the loss of quaint prayer book terms like “Septuagesima.” In the 1979 prayer book, today is called the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. In the calendar of the C of E’s Common Worship, the day is called the Third Sunday before Lent. MadPriest’s sermon on the Gospel for today makes great reading.. (You’ll have to scroll down because I waited too long to link directly to it.)

Today’s Eucharist at St. Mary’s was structured around our customary observance of a Poetry Sunday during Black History Month. We’ve been doing that for probably 15 years now – until today the poetry was in place of the sermon, but today it was interspersed throughout the service – at the introit, in place of a sermon, at the offertory, and before the dismissal, which worked a lot better.

I’m on the hospitality committee for Bishop Catherine Roskam’s visitation in two weeks, but the committee couldn’t meet today because two key players were absent. The day will be complicated by the fact that there will be a concert at 2PM in the church, and we will probably want to serve a real lunch in between instead of the rather pathetic coffee hours we have been having recently.

As you may be able to detect, most of the above was written on Sunday, but I am posting it on Monday. Sigh.

More about Gary Dorrien Day

As I said below, the other day Liz and I attended the Inauguration of Gary Dorrien as Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary. Gary Dorrien’s address in the evening was on his current project and was entitled “Social Ethics in the Making: Theory, Method, History, Transformation.” After a review of the history of the field, he concluded by speaking of one of the challenges facing social ethicists, as well as liberal theologians and progressives in general. First he named several other challenges – for example sexism, heterosexism, and the environment – all important and all urgent, but the one he addressed was racism. He spoke of racism as the American original sin and commented that white ethicists, as well as most other white people, need to interrogate their own racism. In this country, white people live in a world of unexamined (and unearned) white privilege.
I might add, just as white people are privileged over people of color, white males are privileged over females, straight people are privileged over LBGTQ people, prosperous people are privileged over poor people, and on and on. All forms of injustice, discrimination and unearned privilege need to be interrogated and resisted, but I agree that racism is the elephant in the room.

The afternoon and evening at Union was interesting to me for reasons beyond the content of programs. First, I saw several acquaintances – including George and Kathy Todd, Marie Wilson, and Doug Knight from Morningside Gardens. Miguel Angel Escobar, who is a seminarian at St. Mary’s, was one of the banner carriers. Of the five PhD candidates who read from the writings of past professors of social ethics at Union, Chloe Breyer is currently at St. Mary’s and Rima Vesely-Flad sometimes attends (as does her husband Ethan who was also there.) Seth Kasten, reference librarian at Union, mentioned that he had been surprised to discover that I had a blog – he found it during a Google search on Binghamton – whereupon Miguel asked me which blogs I visited so I told him. So now I’m outed as a blogger, at least to a small group. Liz and I had a brief conversation with David Callard, current chair of Union’s board. David was active at St. Mary’s years ago.

Juanita Webster, of DSA’s Religion and Socialism Commission, told me that Gary Dorrien would be on a panel at the Left Forum 2007 in March. I just checked the Left Forum website and the panel is to include Norm Farinelli and Harvey Cox also, so I am looking forward to that.

Gary Dorrien and Liberal Theology

The other day Liz and I attended the Inauguration of Gary Dorrien as Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary. It began in the afternoon with a three hour symposium on Dorrien’s three volume The Making of American Liberal Theology. We dashed home for a quick supper and were back at six for the inaugural ceremony. Gary Dorrien’s address was on his current project and was entitled “Social Ethics in the Making: Theory, Method, History, Transformation.” All in all it was a wonderfully stimulating time.

The best part of the afternoon was Dorrien’s response to William Dean’s presentation “Dorrien the Historian.” Dean challenged both Dorrien’s assertion that “the liberal tradition has experienced a hidden renaissance” in recent decades, which Dean equated with a claim that liberal theology has been “successful,” and Dorrien’s use of a methodological definition of liberal theology rather than a definition based on content. I hope the papers are published, they were certainly worth listening to. A good statement of Dorrien’s thought on the current state of liberal theology can be found here in an article entitled “American Liberal Theology - Crisis, Irony, Decline, Renewal, Ambiguity”in the winter 2006 issue of CrossCurrents. Towards the beginning of that article he states that “the idea of a liberal Christian third way between conservative orthodoxy and secular disbelief retains its original relevance.” A little later he states that “most importantly, [nineteenth century liberal theologians] denied that religious arguments should be settled by appeals to an infallible text or ecclesial authority.” I take the terms “conservative orthodoxy” and “appeals to an infallible text or ecclesial authority” to be roughly synonymous, and to refer both to conservative forms of evangelicalism and to conservative Roman Catholicism.

These days we find a rise in adherents of conservative churches. It’s indisputable that there’s a general decline in at least some liberal churches, including The Episcopal Church. Dorrien comments on the lack of evangelical fervor in much contemporary liberal theology:

Liberal theology has no purpose or integrity as anything but a progressive tradition. Its renewal does not depend on selling out its critical spirit or progressive heritage. Throughout its history, however, liberal theology has made its strongest appeal when it fuses its two heritages with spiritual power. From its Enlightenment/modernist heritage it has emphasized the authority of modern knowledge, affirmed the continuity between reason and revelation, championed the values of humanistic individualism and democracy, and usually distrusted metaphysical reason. From its evangelical heritage it has affirmed a personal transcendent God, the authority of Christian experience, the divinity of Christ, the need of personal redemption, and the importance of Christian missions.

...

To put it bluntly, liberal theology has broken beyond its academic base only when it speaks with spiritual conviction about God's holy and gracious presence, the way of Christ, and the transformative mission of Christianity. That is not how a great deal of liberal theology has spoken over the past generation, to the detriment of liberal theology as a whole. In the past a spiritually vital evangelical liberalism sustained religious communities that supported the entire liberal movement. What would the social gospel movement have been without its gospel-centered preaching and theology? What would the Civil Rights movement have been without its gospel-centered belief in the sacredness of personality and the divine good?

When the social gospelers spoke of the authority of Christian experience, they took for granted their own deep grounding in Bible study, family devotions, personal prayer, and worship. Today the loss of the transcendental, biblical voice in liberal theology is one important reason that much of it gets little notice. Liberals often show more concern about the postmodern status of their perspective than about the relationship of their perspective to gospel faith. But postmodernity is largely an academic phenomenon, a product of the rarefied atmosphere of the academy. Theologians in the tradition of Rauschenbusch, Harkness, and King should have more pressing concerns than trying to convince deconstructionists that theology is a legitimate academic enterprise.

If I understood him correctly, Dorrien’s next project was to focus on a “gospel centered theology of personal spirt.” He has set that aside to produce a much needed work on the field of social ethics. I hope he returns to it.