I just came across a two interesting polls over at Christianity Today (CT) - their online site. The e-mail updates and information CT sends out regularly include links to the article and a poll. Source.

The First (most recent poll):
Do you sometimes avoid the label "evangelical?"

Yes, because I want to be simply a Christian. - 17%
Yes, because the word suggests I have political/social beliefs I disagree with. - 31%
Yes (other) - 9%
No, I embrace all the connotations of "evangelical." - 9%
No, it's a very useful term that describes my faith well. - 23%
No (other) - 8%
I'm not a born-again Christian. - 2%

Total Votes: 651

The Second:
Which candidate do you support?

Hillary Clinton - 5%
John McCain - 46%
Barack Obama - 25%
Ron Paul - 15%
Other - 8%

Total Votes: 2288

Paul Brill

"Davis had decided his path in the first year of medical school, but he told his mother and father that he planned to be a surgeon. His father was never churched, but he was a devout believer. An engineer, he taught his children that the purpose of life was to discover God from the inside out. The old man loved science, especially physics. The language of God was not Aramaic, or Latin, or Hebrew, or Arabic, he used to say, usually with the dismissive wave at a church or a Bible. The language of God, he'd say, is mathematics. When we reconcile the randomness of the universe with the precision of its rules, when we can see no contradiction in the chaos of nature and the equations of natural law, then we will understand his hows and whys."

(Kevin Guilfoile, Cast of Shadows, p. 139)

The franchise continues...

Star Trek: Of Gods and Men

Star Trek: Phase II (New Voyages)

You know, I think she simply can't help herself. It's like an addiction to a drug. There needs to be an intervention before she completely destroys her reputation. Her insistence that she will remain in the race even when it seems most people "in the know" have concluded that she will not win the nomination points to the fact that this really is not about what is best for the country or what is best for the Democratic Party, but about her inability to accept that she will not be the first woman to have a real chance at the White House. I feel for her (and that is saying a lot). She can't let go, but if she doesn't even her role as a Senator will be irreparably compromised.

From The Catholic Herold (Britian)

Williams faces historic choice, says Vatican cardinal
By Anna Arco, 6 May 2008

A Vatican cardinal has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".

He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

I agree - it is time to decide, but the decision will be Anglican. Yes, I think we are and I want to be part of the ancient Church exemplified in Rome and Constantinople rather than Protestant, but that does not mean we have to become Roman or Orthodox. We are Anglican, part of the ancient Church but different in our expression of that Faith once delivered to the saints. Just ask Anglican-Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics which side of the divide Anglicanism rests! You will get an earful!

Via: Titusonenine

A new Evangelical Manifesto has just been released. It is an attempt by several American-Evangelical leaders to clarify what the term "Evangelical" actually means.

The Steering Committee comprised:
Timothy George - Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Os Guinness - Author/Social Critic

John Huffman - Pastor, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA Chair, Christianity Today International

Rich Mouw - President, Fuller Theological Seminary

Jesse Miranda - Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Vanguard University

David Neff - Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today Media Group

Richard Ohman - Businessman

Larry Ross - President, A. Larry Ross Communications

Dallas Willard - Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California Author

Other signers of the manifesto include Jim Willis of Sojourners.

Not surprisingly, other prominent Evangelicals leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Gary Bauer of American Values, and Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, have not signed on. IMHO, these are the Culture War groups of the Religious Right that have by degree moved from being Evangelical to being more Fundamentalist - or at least have been so compromised by seeking after political gain that they truly represent a shrinking, although still active and influential, group of people.

There has been a return to the early Church Fathers by many on the Evangelical and Fundamentalist side of the American Church Universal. This is a very good thing, I think, but what do they take away from the early Fathers’ writings? In their perception and interpretation, what are they really saying?

There is this organization I came across a number of years ago. I've watched it grow over the last few years. Their emphasis on fostering a Christian Worldview is a good thing, I think. I've been teaching about the significance of "worldview" since the mid-1980's. We Americans have very limited understanding of the concept of worldview and the effects of culture on the way we understand just about everything - truth, meaning, current events, etc.

This group, Worldview Weekend, strives to teach Christians about the "Christian Worldview." When I originally heard about this group I was encouraged. "Finally," I thought, "an Evangelical Christian organization was taking seriously the concept of "worldview." But, I became suspicious when I took their "Worldview Test" to determine what my worldview actually was. I came out as a "Secular Humanist." I don't think so. Really, me, a secular humanist?

The problem begins when we think about what they consider to be a true "Christian Worldview!" What are they saying? How do they take, interpret, and apply the writings of the early Church Fathers - Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Ambrose, Tertullian, or Chrysostom.

I know the audience for this website and organization. I know the way these people think. While I'm glad they are referencing such luminary Christian thinkers, it bothers me that they use these thinkers for their own purposes. (Yes, yes, I know we all tend to do this, but this is a different kind of animal – its more propaganda than honest use of the Fathers’ teaching, I think.) The whole "worldview" of the early Christian Fathers does not fit within the "worldview" of this or like organizations and their members. My impression is that these groups selectively quote and use the early Church Fathers' writings when it suits their purposes, but I know that they will reject the basic premises of what these Christian thinkers espouse as Christian truth and praxis in so many other areas. I don't think they go to the Father's to learn, but to find justifications to their already determined perspectives. What doesn't fit, even if is essential to understanding the Fathers' purposes or premises, they simply ignore. It’s like proof-texting with the Bible.

It gives them an air of authority and understanding, but for those who do comprehend the overarching thinking of the early Church Fathers (and I'm not suggesting that I do, but I know enough to understand that they and American-Fundamentalists are not on the same page) - it just doesn't jibe. American-Fundamentalism and segments of Evangelicalism find language in the early Church Fathers' writings and interpret it according to the 21st Century, modernist, imperialist, American-Christian "worldview," not according to the actual "worldview" of the early Church Fathers. Many do this with the writings of C.S. Lewis, also. The language may sound similar, but the understanding of meaning and intent of that language is very different in too many circumstances. It makes me wonder whether they really do understand "worldview," but rather use the term to advance a particular sectarian mindset and agenda. My goodness, do they think Origin would really agree with their theological, social, or political agendas?

Anyway, go to this article on Worldview Weekend's website written by Steve Camp, the Contemporary Christian entertainer popular back in the day, entitled: Your Weekly Dose of Gospel... beware of the subtlety of spiritual treason

You may agree with him. You may not. I do agree with parts of what he says, but I'm certainly not with him. As he says, there are elements of truth in all heresy (even his own). But, I really don't think he rightly applies the teachings of the early Church Fathers. He uses them for his own purposes, incorrectly. My goodness, again, when he calls the Roman Catholic Church a demonic "angel of light," does he not know how the Church Fathers ordered themselves?

I was reading some recent e-mail updates from the Religious Right Culture War groups. This particular article comes from Concerned Women for America (CWA).

In the ongoing Culture War, misinformation, defamation, mischaracterization, bearing false witness, and all that are fair game in order to achieve the end goal. The means by which the end goal is achieved no longer matters, just so the end is achieved. This may be considered acceptable behavior in the secular world these days, but it should never be acceptable within the Christian Church. Within Christianity, the means are everything. There may certainly be an end goal to achieve, but the way the struggle is conducted is everything for the Christian. When we descend into the same methods as the "world," our witness is shot, the cause of Christ is defamed, and our eternal souls are corrupted. That is exactly what the Religious Right Culture War organizations do - they engage in these methods to attempt to achieve their goals. And, the world looks on and stays as far away from the church as they can.

So, a latest round of attack concerns the "Day of Silence" (DOS) sponsored by Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN). As stated on the website, here is the purpose of DOS,

"The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools... Hundreds of thousands of students came together on April 25 to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior."

Frankly, sadly, it cracks me up to read the author of the following article use words like "disruption" and "freethinking." I lived over half my life in American-Evangelicalism. I'm glad I did; there is a lot of good within the tradition. However, the Religious Right groups are something different and I know how they think. They know what they are doing. Just like Karl Rove and the means he devises to win elections, these people calculate ways of winning and imposing their narrow perspective (theologically, culturally, politically), and it has nothing to do with freethinking. Their use of "spin" and propaganda is amazing.

I have no problem with people stating their views and attempting to persuade others of the rightness of their cause. The freedoms we enjoy in this country demand such activity. However, as Christians we are to be above board in all that we do and say and avoid being so influenced by our culture that we end up lying to win. That is what too many people who are a part of the Religious Right are doing, and it is wrong. It is defaming the cause of Christ and destroying our witness.

One more thing: read the comments made over at the Onenewsnow.com website where I first found out about the article. The idolatry expressed concerning the USA through unabated nationalism is too much. I love the US, but as a Christian whether this nation-state exists or not is irrelevant. The Religious Right has made an idol out of the USA.

Here is the article concerning DOS from CWA:

Enough with the 'gay' stuff!
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 5/5/2008 1:40:00 PM

On April 25, adult homosexual activists with the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) held their annual "Day of Silence" (DOS) propaganda push. During DOS, teachers and students in roughly 3,000 middle schools, high schools and colleges across the country are cynically used as culture war pawns in an effort to legitimize conventionally immoral, objectively deviant and demonstrably high-risk sexual behaviors.

Kids and teachers are encouraged on DOS to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak in class as a show of support to students who self-identify as "GLBT" (No, GLBT has nothing to do with bacon, lettuce and tomato; it's liberalese for "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender").

DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of sexually confused students who consider themselves "GLBT." Naturally, where there is actual bullying, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, those responsible should be firmly disciplined. However, the reality is that DOS has very little to do with "bullying" and has everything to do with pro-homosexual, anti-Christian indoctrination.

Consider that during DOS, many kids who hold time-honored traditional values relative to sexual morality (i.e., that human sexuality is a gift from God to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage) are frequently and ironically tagged as "hateful," "bigoted," and "homophobic." (Who's doing the bullying?)

But this year, something extraordinary happened on the way to the brainwashing. Kids at schools all over the country stood tall and said, "Enough is enough!" Untold thousands of students participated in a peaceful, pro-family counter effort called the "Day of Silence Walkout."

Continue reading "Culture Wars, con't..." »

So, where did I find another prayer from our Book of Common Prayer? On the website for The Beggars Table Church in Kansas.

See for yourself. Again, perception, I think. Does this Church see those who are taking up its very book (the Lex orandi, Lex credendi of us all), reading it, and finding, finding, finding nurture for that which their soul seeks - God. Some people are running to, some people are running from. The keepers of that book - my perception is that leadership is trying to run away from that book and its Tradition. My perception is that so many others not of our tradition, our heritage, are running to it. Finding, but how can they understand without someone telling them? The sense, the feel of the ancient. The connection to that which is sure, tried, and long surviving. That which holds the heritage repudiates it, while those who seek find the heritage in the very thing repudiated.

We live in a mixed-up world.

I am going home to northern Ohio, tomorrow. I have a new nephew. I also have a meeting on Monday with my bishop on the way back to New York. I haven't had a substantive talk with him in, what?, 4 years. Even then, he inherited me so when I use the word "substantive" it is by degree. I look forward to talking to him.

In the mean time, I've been looking at data from the Diocese just for the heck of it. One element of this endeavor is to check the websites of the parishes within the diocese (if they have a website). How can a church not have a website in this-day-in-age? I just don't get it. It's like not having a telephone. But, some don't and I can only hope that their websites are in process!? Frankly, most of them are badly designed and executed, too (doesn’t have to be elaborate, but…). Ugh. What image is presented to the generations that find a church because of websites! What impression does this give of the parish? Anyway… another soapbox.

There are two economies and mentalities in the northern half of Ohio – the dying, heavy-industry, rust-belt economy/mentality and the prospering, high-tech, research economy/mentality. One is growing, one is continuing to decline. How one perceives the “reality” of Northern Ohio depends on within which sub-set one imbibes. The psycho-social and socio-economic “feel” that generally leads people in what they think and how they act can be very different. The way this leads organizations, like the Church, to perceive and conduct themselves is important to consider.

I don't quite know how to say this, but I don't really get the sense that there is much understanding (is that the right word? - perhaps "cognizance" perhaps "knowing") of the distinctions of these two sub-sets of people or the socio-economic mentalities that are associated with the "worlds" of these two groups in Ohio. I don’t get a vibe for forward-looking, prosperous thinking in many communities or the diocese (and I don’t mean the change-change-change and reject the past at all costs way of thinking) This may be very unfair of me and may only prove my own naiveté or ignorance!

Two examples: First, a very large portion of the heavy industry in the northern half of Ohio is gone. A lot of other cooperate entities have gone south. This has been a terrible blow to the economy, the livelihoods of citizens, and their sense of self. The mentality of people has certainly changed. Probably about ten years ago or so, the university system was attempting to put forth a plan to leverage the research and high-tech segments of the economy and to increase access to higher-education (understanding that retraining and an educated workforce are essential to the "new economy"). A state legislator was absolutely opposed to putting any more money into higher-education because what the state needed to do was get jobs for the unemployed. He was convinced that the industries would come streaming back into Ohio because Ohio has an abundance of water, while the Southern or Western states don't – that’s what the money should go towards. (There is some truth to this, of course, but if industries are going to move anywhere else at this point, the place will be oversees, not back to Ohio.) The mind-set of this individual did not see the growing, prosperous future that was already present in the economy or the importance of nurturing it. There are plenty of people with the same “declining” mind-set, and there are organizations that can be shown to have a very similar “collective mind-set."

The second example can be found in Akron, OH. Akron up to about 12 yeas ago was the center of the tire and rubber industry. Most all the major rubber companies and their research centers were based in Akron, despite that most of the manufacturing had gone south. Within a span of around 5 years, all the major tire-rubber corporations save one left Akron (most were bought by foreign companies). All the white-collar and blue-collar jobs were gone. The corporate sponsors of the arts and social organizations were gone. A major part of the tax base, gone. This was a city in decline, obviously. When I left Akron almost six years ago, there were 2,000 high-tech start-up companies within the city-limits alone and all revolving around polymer (rubber) research. The young, motivated, educated individuals were streaming into the city to take up the new jobs. This city was prosperous and forward-looking, obviously. What do we see?

I think that too many people still see Northern Ohio from the perspective of decline, loss of jobs and industry, loss of the glory of what we once were (a mighty industrial center of the world with good paying blue-collar jobs, security, purpose). I think too much of government and too many organizations play to it. Too many people don’t perceive the reality of the other side.

As the Church, are we able to recognize and understand both “realities,” and then rightly discern how to minister properly to both? From which well will we imbibe? If we aren't careful, we can find ourselves so narrowly focused that we lose true perspective.

Two mentalities and two realities. How easy is it not to see or understand the reality of the other side – to not want to?

This really isn’t about economics or social policy, but about perception and how that perception influences the way we conduct ourselves. It is about understanding of the “mind-set” of groups of people and being able to translate what we are and what we do so that those with that “mind-set” will be able to understand. I wonder if this might explain why the Church has such a difficult time attracting the generally younger people who are "prosperously" minded - the present Church and the way it "thinks" and “feels” just doesn't resonate with them.

A telling picture of this can be seen in the websites of parishes, I think. The churches that do attract a lot of more "prosperously" minded (and younger) people are "well done" and "look the part." Too many websites of parishes look as if they were created 10 years ago - a lifetime for website design and utilization (the iPhone to the Western Electric rotary-dial phone). Look at The Landing Place in Columbus, OH; hOME Oxford, England; Ecclesia Church in Houston; Xalt Church, Calgary, CA; Revolution Church , NYC; Jacob's Well Church, Kansas City; Church of the Apostles, Seattle; St. Clement's, Philadelphia. There are so many other good websites, but we all know the old-style, poorly done website. My own parishe’s website is not yet there, but we're working on it.

The primary medium of information and searching these days is the Web. What impression does this primary source give of the place, of the parish? I have to honestly say that if I moved to another city and started looking for a parish to attend, my first impression of most of the websites for the parishes in the Diocese, well, I don’t think I would show up on a Sunday. They simply give the impression that the place isn’t going anywhere or doing anything that I might be interested it. It is judging a book-by-the-cover, I know. Frankly, if a place is hoppin’ it doesn’t matter what the website or building or anything looks like. People go because they perceive something worthwhile is going on, but the first impression is very important. This may not be fair or right, but it is the reality. It is becoming an increasing reality with more and more people.

What can be done? I don’t know. Something as simple as understanding the importance of perception and websites and the psyche of younger people or “prospering” people (which is different than the “wealthy”) might be a good place to start.

Okay, so Low-Church or High-Church, Cassock-alb or Cassock-amise-alb, whatever you druthers concerning what are proper vestments...

How about these vestments of praise!???

Steven Cobert coined the term "truthiness" when his TV show, The Cobert Report, launched on Comedy Central. "Steven Cobert believed America to be split between two camps whose philosophies could never reconcile - those who 'think with their head' and those who 'know with their heart,' he explained, was the quality of a thing feeling true without any evidence suggesting it actually was." (Click on truthiness above for the wiki that gives some good examples.)

"Thus by the time Cobert took to the airwaves, by the time James Frey landed in trouble, the rift between the actual and the artificial had already become a topic of wide discussion. For many on the left, it was Bush himself who stood as the clear cause of it. A born-again Christian who credits unquestioning faith with saving him from delinquency, Bush is notoriously, even proudly uncurious about the world. Online, many bloggers highlighted this detachment by branding themselves of 'the reality-based community.' This was a reference to an infamous and revealing interview that an unnamed Bush aide had once given to the journalist Ron Suskind. According to the aide, opponents of Bush were part of 'what we call the reality-based community' - a label not meant to be complimentary, because to the aide, 'discernible reality' was a stock of faltering value. The United States was 'an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,' the official told Suskind. 'And while you're studying the reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.'" [True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society, by Farhad Manjoo, pp.191-192]

I wrote in a blog post a while back (among several) that I do not want Empire! There is no need for this country to be an empire! Why should we be? What do we gain from being such a thing? Certainly not security.

I contend that there are those who have made the United States of America an idol. American has become their god and they worship at the foot of this nation-state. Their sense of self-worth and purpose is embedded in the "success" of this nation-state and comes from imposing their way of thinking - religiously, politically, culturally - on all others. Their hubris blinds them to "reality" and establishes a fantastical idea of the world and their place in it - "feeling" over "discernible reality ." They would rather have goose-bumps than truth.

I am certainly thankful for the freedoms we have in the U.S., for the opportunities available to those who work hard (at least in the past), for our Constitutional form of government, and for the good that we as a people have done in the past (recognizing the harm that we have also caused), but as a Christian I believe that this is only a nation-state that will wax and wane, be virtuous and corrupt, and will ultimately survive as a worthwhile society only when we put aside our self-interest and work against arrogant-pride and the vainglory of empire.

Speaking of traditional church architecture (see below), here are some photos I took of St. Paul's Church in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn. St. Paul's is the parish in which I serve. I, for one, love the architecture (Upjohn and Cram).

Click here to see some photos I took during Lent (you'll notice the purple coverings).

There is a constant stream of people coming in to look at the church whenever the doors are open. It is a fixture in the neighborhood - a traditionally working-class Roman Catholic neighborhood that is gentrifying with bunches of young, yuppy types with strollers. At times, we have "stroller-jams" before and after services. I often hear people describe St. Paul's as "the English Church."

Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

You think some "conservative" Anglicans are down on The Episcopal Church. You think some American-Evangelicals are down on Anglicanism, period. Well, consider how this Fundamentalist website views The Episcopal Church, the Church of England, and Anglicanism.

Let me be like the Religious Right websites when they warn you to click on a link at your own risk.

Clink on this link at your own risk!

A foretaste of glory divine:

" The Episcopalian Religion is straight out of the pits of hell. They teach that performing the seven sacraments are absolutely essential to go to heaven. This is the same damnable heresy which Roman Catholicism teaches."

Interesting results from a study on church architecture and the "unchurched,"

"Stetzer suggested that the unchurched may prefer the more aesthetically pleasing look of the Gothic cathedral because it speaks to a connectedness to the past. Young unchurched people were particularly drawn to the Gothic look. Those between the ages of 25 to 34 used an average of 58.9 of their preference points on the more ornate church exterior. Those over the age of 70 only used an average of 32.9 of their 100 preference points on that particular church exterior.

"I don’t like modern churches, they seem cold," said one survey respondent who chose the Gothic design. "I like the smell of candles burning, stained-glass windows, [and] an intimacy that’s transcendent."

More than half of the unchurched indicated the design of a church building would impact their enjoyment of a visit to church. Twenty-two percent said the design of the church would strongly impact their enjoyment of the visit and 32 percent indicated it would have some impact. More than a third said it would have no impact whatsoever on their visit.

Stetzer noted that despite these survey results, most of the churches that look like a cathedral are in decline. Just because someone has a preference for the aesthetically pleasing, Gothic churches doesn’t mean they’ll visit the church if that’s the only connection point they have to the congregation, he said.

It is a small study and I don't think we can made concluding or definitive statements because of it, but it does add to the continuing body of evidence and the realization that things are a-changin', and not in the direction that certain people want things to go. Read the whole article here.

Hat-tip: Titus19

I just want to repeat a portion of the C.S. Lewis quote below. I think it needs repeating:

"Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude the question, 'What on earth is he up to now?' will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, 'I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks."

A quote from the book, "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society," by Farhad Manjoo:

"It's important to remember that the death penalty advocates and opponents in Ross and Lepper's study didn't know that they were interpreting information in a skewed way. Indeed, Ross says, each of us thinks that on any given subject our views are essentially objective, the product of a dispassionate, realistic accounting of the world. This is naive realism, though, because we are incapable of recognizing the biases that operate upon us. Think of the Dartmouth and Princeton football fans I told you about earlier. When they looked at identical film clips of a game, each side 'saw' a different reality. They did not know - and really, could not know - that their perception of the event didn't match the reality of it because, for them, the perception was indistinguishable from its reality. How they 'saw' the game was how it really was.

"What's dangerous about this naïveté is that it spins out into our appraisals of other people. We're jarred and offended when other people don't agree with what, to us, is so brilliantly clear. 'If we think we see the world the way it is,' Ross explains, 'then we think that reasonable people ought to agree with us. And to the extent that people disagree with us, we conclude that they are not reasonable - they're biased'... 'If we let you look at other people's responses, we find that exactly to the extent that the other person disagrees with you, you think they're biased. You think their opinion reflects biases rather than rational consideration.'" (p. 152)

Riding the subway this morning, I had a feeling of dread thinking about the verdict coming this morning concerning the Shawn Bell trial. I'm worried about the outcome.

Update: The verdict is in and all three policemen were acquitted. What happens, now?

This morning I debated wearing clericals at the last minute before I left for work. Friday's are "business casual" at CPG, and frankly I didn't want to wear anything around my neck. Sitting on the subway, I wish I had.

There were a couple black people sitting around me, and I wanted to ask them what they thought would happen this afternoon. I wanted to know what they were thinking and feeling about all this. I didn't because I am a "white-boy asking stupid questions," someone intruding upon personal space. There comes a point when a person just doesn't want to try to explain a lifetime of experience to someone they know they will never see again - especially someone they think cannot understand to begin with.

Wearing a collar, well, there is still an identification with something more than someone who just can't understand and who won't do anything anyway. (Don't laugh.) With a collar, there is a generally understood justification for asking such questions. People still recognize a "something more than self-interest" - a concern that goes beyond the individual, beyond race, beyond being worried about my own lily-white behind.

The other thing is that the collar still gets a priest into places a "regular/normal" person can't go. The collar still gives me an entré into people's lives (strangers) that I can't enter otherwise (and of course the opposite can be true, too). There is still, remarkably, a respect for the collar. It's also becoming a curiosity.

Anyway, I wish I would have gone with my instincts and worn clericals. My soul is heavy, right now. There are no easy answers, and too many people will be terribly grieved this day. Was the judge right in his decision? Hindsight will tell us, but right now it doesn't make a difference. People are functioning on emotion and not rational thought. Tomorrow and the days ahead, hopefully we will be rational.