I ended up having to change hosts for my website. I’m slowly getting things in order, but it’s taking time. At some point, I will change the look and feel.
Monthly Archives: August 2006
We forget
I wonder how consistent our national policies are over time, despite the focus of each policy or the party/man in power. Maybe it is the underlying understanding of ourselves as a people, as a nation-state, held strongly by the people in power.
We protected our interests in the ‘banana republics’ when the large fruit companies where threatened by ‘natives’ who were no longer willing to accept exploitation and at times virtual enslavement by their American overlords. We can protect our interests, but the interests being protected during that time and by those leaders where not our national interests, but the economic interests of an oligarchy of companies and their owners. The results proved to be Cuba, dictatorial regimes, communist insurgents, and the like and has resulted in an unstable Central and South America where the perception of the United States is palpably hostile. We did not do what we did for the sake of the people. If we had, the whole region may have been far more prosperous and stable. We continue to pay the price for our arrogance, selfishness, and shortsightedness.
Now, we are protecting our interests in the Middle East. In the guise of spreading democracy or fighting terrorism, we are enforcing our policies and interests without consideration of what may be best for the people there, but rather for our own economic interests, our companies, and the wealthy people who run them. We won’t succeed there, either. We could, but that would mean truly and honestly considering what may be best for the Saudi’s, for the Iraq’s, or for the Iranians for that matter. But, we won’t. We won’t because just like the English did not consider the best interests of the American colonies, but their own, only led to revolution, so too will our policies in the different areas of the world only lead to the present day equivalent to the American revolution against England. Why are so many fighting against the United States? There are a myriad of reasons, but it probably isn’t because they are jealous (although some are), it is because they perceive that we are selfish, arrogant, and only concerned in our own best interests in opposition to their own. For our current leadership, and for many of our citizens, their perception is true.
If we truly want national security – safety for Americans – we must stop and realize that what we like and think best may well not be. I do not believe that all cultures are equal nor do I believe that all forms of government or economic systems are equal. Over the span of history, and despite atrocities, I think Western Civilization is superior. Democracy and free-enterprise has shown to be the best of all flawed systems. But, democracy cannot be imposed – it must be won, and not by an outside force demoliting all contrary options. Corruption free free-enterprise cannot simply be mandated, it must be experienced in a way that shows that the common person can and will benefit.
Our arrogance is our undoing. Our inability to realize the similarities in our policies toward and approach to Central and South American, the ‘banana republics,’ in times past and the negative results of those approaches/policies with what we are doing in the Middle-East, in the ‘oil republics,’ will result in the same kinds of outcomes.
We could truly be a positive force for world improvement and freedom, but we are too busy looking after our own best interests – really the best interests of multi-nationals and their managers, along with an American oligarchy. We honestly fail to realize the national aspirations of other peoples, their desire for their own welfare free from interference from outside forces. We fail to realize that what they actually respect about this thing called the United States is the very thing we are forgetting and leaving behind as we move into these nations with our demands and our military.
We forget why we revolted against the English over 200 years ago. We forget our own heritage, and we do so because it is so inconvenient to the present interests of certain people. We do what we do to our own detriment, because an American empire will only lead to an American disaster.
Words
There are certain words that strike me for some strange reason. I came across one of those words while finishing a short story by Truman Capote. The word? “Akimbo”
A few words that strike me ~
Akimbo:
1. Placed in such a way as to have the hands on the hips and the elbows bowed outward: children standing with arms akimbo.
2. Being in a bent, bowed, or arched position: “There he remained, dead to the world, limbs akimbo, until we left†(Alex Shoumatoff).
[Middle English in kenebowe : in, in; see in1 + kenebowe(kene-, of unknown meaning + bowe, bow, bend; see bow3).]
Vainglory:
1. Boastful, unwarranted pride in one’s accomplishments or qualities.
2. Vain, ostentatious display.
[Middle English vein glory, from Old French vaine gloire, from Latin vna glria, empty pride : vna, feminine of vnus, empty; see vain + glria, glory, pride.]
Vouchsafe
To condescend to grant or bestow (a privilege, for example); deign.
[Middle English vouchen sauf, to warrant as safe : vouchen, to warrant; see vouch + sauf, safe; see safe.]
I find it interesting that I have never encountered this word with the connotation of condescension. Perhaps in the vernacular, but if you look at the word’s origins, a sense of condescension doesn’t seem to be there. Of course, my encounter with the word comes primarily from the Book of Common Prayer and in an ecclesial setting.
Views from my current neighborhood
I am at the point where I can notice things going on around me once again. I’m about over the not-really-but-almost panicky feeling (mild anxiety) one gets when everything is unfamiliar and takes twice the time to accomplish and you have to rush to catch the train or subway or a parking space where the car doesn’t have to be moved for another 5 days!
There is this rather large woman I’ve seen walking her dog the last four days straight. She always wears black, and although it looks like the same clothing I certainly hope it is not. I said hello to her yesterday morning while I marched to the subway – sweating. She grunted I think – perhaps attempting to say something, then clearing her throat as I marched on. The funny thing is, her dog matches her. He is a very chocolaty colored lab (I think) and very over weight. They both lumber along down the street as he does his business. Now, I’ve seen men and their dogs and marvel at how they truly do look alike, but this is the first time I’ve seen such a striking resemblance between a woman and her dog.
Walking home from the subway this evening – a bit cooler than the last few days – I saw a thin-ish, artsy kind-of-guy coming out of his apartment just ahead of me. He had a ponytail and loose tank-top, and he reminded me of my friend John. (I was John’s best man and because I am pathetically lazy at keeping-up with friends I want to stay in contact with, I haven’t spoken to John in a very long time.) Anyway, this man had a bundle of laundry on his shoulder and his young son in tow. This happens 1,000 times a moment, I’m sure, but I was privileged to see it: as the man walked between parked cars heading for the other side of the street with his son quickly trailing behind, his son reached for his shirt to grab hold of him. He tried a couple times before finely getting a fistful of shirt to hung onto. Halfway across the street, the man reached down and took hold of his son’s hand, effortlessly, quickly, instinctively. No words passed between them, just the deep familiarity of son and father. For me, today, it was simply a very touching moment in time – something done so unthinkingly to be so common and yet so touching.
I’ve been in my current neighborhood, Park Slope in Brooklyn, for a month now. I say ‘current’ because this is just another in a string of places I’ve had to live and will be living for over a year and a half. Being ‘homeless’ for over a year has taken its toll, but I can’t claim that moniker – while it is true that I have been living out of boxes because I haven’t had a place of my own, the reality is that I have stayed in some very nice places. On the Close for two months after graduation, Llewellyn Park in West Orange, NJ for 10 months, to name two, and now in Park Slope.
It’s the same with being Cherokee – I am and can claim the designation, but I will not because I have not lived as one, I have not had the hardships, I do not have the awareness, and it would be very hypocritical and unjust of me to try to claim such an identity. Come November, Lord willing, I will finally be in my own place at St. Andrew’s House in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, where a SINGLE FLOOR apartment of a newly renovated brownstone is going for something like $1.6 million.
In this neighborhood, Park Slope, I live in an incredible townhouse on 6th Ave. owned by a couple from St. Paul’s. They are letting me stay here rent-free (except for next week, when I need to move all my stuff once again into the rectory while the rector is on vacation, which he took at this time because he knew I needed a place to stay and felt sorry for me). They are great, but I’m tired of it all. The neighborhood is great – just two blocks from Prospect Park with lots of great restaurants and interesting people to watch. I just want to be in a place I can honestly hand my hat, but I feel a bit guilty when I complain because I see around me those who are truly homeless and without resources. I have been provided for, God has been gracious with me.
Reform of the Reform
I came across a website/blog dedicated to a “reform of the reform” within Roman Catholicism called “The New Liturgical Movement“. It seems interesting and confirms what I’ve been hearing on many fronts that there is a renewed interest, particularly among younger laity and clergy within the Church of Rome (and within Anglicanism), to re-examine much of the Liturgical Renewal Movement and return to some of the more traditional rituals and piety – the disciple, splendor and beauty of worship rendered unto a glorious and mysterious God.
Considering that I’m now serving as Curate in a “non-fussy, Rite I, Anglo-Catholic” parish (the legacy of the Oxford Movement) with increasing numbers of young people, I think they may be onto something! Of course, we in “High Church” Anglicanism have known this for some time now! 🙂 (To be honest, I’m a relative new-comer, but I’m being trained well!)
I came across this particular website/blog via “Dappled Things” – a blog/website by a Gen-X Roman priest. I’ve been visiting his blog periodically for a while now – interesting guy.
Here is a couple paragraphs of a post on “The New Liturgical Movement” blog:
Two titles relating to the revival of Ritual in Anglican Britain
The scenario faced by the figures of the Oxford Movement presents a remarkable parallel, liturgically speaking, in the case of the Catholic Church today.
We face a variety of variants, with some parishes being liturgically more traditional (in Anglican parlance, “High” or “AngloCatholic”) and then some being more “low” in nature — that is, less traditional, less elaborate in its ceremonial, less ornamented generally. Of course, there is also the matter of theology. In the case of Anglicanism of course, these distinctions were far more hard and fast; in Catholicism, by contrast, it really comes down to what is legitimate liberty and what is simply dissent as compared to Catholic orthodoxy. That is a big difference of course.
Still, the liturgical parallels are interesting. Those Catholics with a keen sense of the need to “reform the reform” or preserve the classical liturgical forms face opposition and a “liturgically low” mentality from a number of quarters, be they some bishops, priests, or laity.
As such, I think it can be interesting to study the approach, trials and tribulations (not to mention the successes) of the likes of the Oxford Movement and Anglican Ritualists, as well as the Cambridge Camden Society who sought to restore an architecture suited toward Catholic liturgics.
In that vein, I wanted to share a couple of interesting titles with you.
The books he recommends are:
+ Anglican Ritualism in Victorian Britain 1830-1910 by Prof. Nigel Yates.
+ A Church As It Should Be edited by Christopher Webster and John Elliott
FrJake Comments
Fr. Jake comments about this new breed of people who refer to themselves as “conservatives,” yet hardly demonstrate the traditional definition of “conservative” by their actions. He references and posts a short essay by Teresa Mathes, wife of the Bishop of San Diego, who writes of her own experience being raised by true Episcopalian conservatives. She, too, suggests that what we see going on within our Church is not really traditional Anglican conservatism.
Islamic Imperialism
An interesting review of a new book entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at the University of London.
Click here to read the review.
On the other hand…
Read the previous post first. Ultimately, for me the issue and/or question deals with Christian mission and witness…
On the other hand, here is another quote from the Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) essay:
Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.†One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.†The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance—you might call it harassment—than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft†coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people. (emphasis mine)
I have to agree with this! I cannot help but believe that those who do have a considered opposition to gay marriage have a right to make their points of view known. This is not an issue, for me, of an attempt to deny someone their right of free speech. I uphold the right of people in their work-place or in the public-arena to advocate for their position. But, this does not mean that their speech will be consequence free. What I appose is the misuse of data or the spinning of information disingenuously or dishonestly to support or promote one’s position. As difficult, frustrating, and repugnant as it may be, I do support the right of even white supremacists, for example, to advocate their position.
The problem I see, and I know this from experience, is that if the culture-war, politicized Religious Right groups like FoF have their way, they will not allow such a wide berth for the freedom of speech. They would ban books from libraries that portrayed positively gay relationships. They’ve already championed this position in libraries across the country, and in some places have won the removal of books. They would not defend the right of gay advocates to present their positions equally alongside anti-gay positions. They would not allow this kind of free speech because they believe that advocating such positions is contrary to the will of God, plain and simply.
In addition, I am in opposition to the way the FoF and like groups are dealing with the issue of homosexuality in our culture because of the impact it has on a predominately post-Christian populace. The data they use to support their positions can fairly easily be disproved. The spin they place on other people’s/groups’ studies to support their positions can be easily repudiated. This type of twisting of information and the bearing of false witness against a whole class of people will only bring reproach and disgrace to all of Christianity and the cause of Christ. Advocate your position, but do it honestly and forthrightly! If we are to love our neighbor, how else can be proceed?
Consistency, principle, and our speaking to the culture
I read an essay this morning from Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) concerning the effect a marriage between ‘Adam and Steve’ will have on society. The essay comments on Catholic Charities pulling out of adoption and foster care placement in Massachusetts because state law forbids state-sanctioned organizations from discriminating against a list of people groups, and same-sex orientation is on the list.
Because Catholic Charities will no longer provide such services as a result of their determination that homosexuals are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and cannot provide a good environment for raising children, FoF says that this is a perfect example of the damage same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws covering homosexuals will have on society. It is a broad accusation. I think it is more spin than anything, and I don’t agree.
Here is an excerpt from the essay:
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?”
You can read the entire essay here.
Realize, the Massachusetts courts or legislature did not forbid Catholic Charities from functioning in the state; they simply said that discrimination will not be tolerated among those entities that the state oversees.
Are the politicized Religious-Right organizations, like FoF, willing to be consistent in the application of their beliefs and with the ‘stuff’ they use to justify their beliefs? From my experience and observation, no they will not.
I agree, with reservations, with Lieutenant Gov. Kerry Healey, Republican candidate for governor in the coming fall elections, who said, “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state, and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important.†(Quoted in Focus on the Family Citizen, from the Boston Globe, March 2)
The solution in a democratic society, of course, is to petition the state for relief, which Catholic Charities has done. The state has not acted as of yet, but Catholic Charities realizes it must live within a democratic system and if it cannot support or function under the laws of the state then it must cease operations. They are willing to pay the price under this system of governance and laws. I actually do respect Catholic Charities’ decision – they are taking a principled stand regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I absolutely do not accept FoF’s spin on the situation. It is a shame all the way around, but the fault does not rest with homosexuals, as FoF claims.
FoF and other culture-war religious organizations say that they, as religious institutions, are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that they do not have to obey amendments or laws – national or state – that conflict with their beliefs. In this insistence, because they have a theoretical belief or biblical interpretive structure that claims homosexuals to be ‘intrinsically disordered,’ sinful and naturally dangerous to children, they claim the right to disobey laws and constitutions without consequence. So, on the pretext of religious freedom they claim the right to discriminate against homosexual families. (Of course, they would demand that homosexuals cannot have ‘families’ to begin with.)
Will they be consistent on the pretext of religious freedom, then, to demand that the Christian Identity Movement or the World Church of the Creator (the white supremacist group), have the same constitutional right to discriminate against Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or anyone who is not a white “Arian?” No, they will not. If they did, then what effect would non-discrimination laws have at all?
They claim that such a question is inappropriate because being homosexual is of a whole different order than an ethnic or racial identity. Homosexuality is purely and only a choice of behavior – heterosexual people who engage in same-gender sex acts. It is not the same as an unchangeable characteristic like ethnicity or race, they demand. The evidence is mounting against such a belief and homosexuals know it to be untrue of them selves, but it does not matter. The Religious Right groups are not interested in what reliable, verifiable, or appropriate-to-the-question studies show to be objectively true when the results differ from their already determined subjective ‘truth,’ or what personal experience witnesses to. They also readily misuse studies to attempt to prove their point – the Spitzer study is an example where they claim Spitzer’s study proves that a homosexual orientation can be change into a heterosexual one. (Go here for a decent overview of the Spitzer controversy.)
This leads to my next question concerning consistency – the use, interpretation, and application of ‘studies’ and the assertion of ‘facts.’
Are groups like FoF willing to be consistent in the use of a set of criteria to judge the reliability, verifiability, or appropriateness of any particular study that is claimed to address the question at hand? No, they are not. They reject out-of-hand any study that does not presumably support their already determined positions. They will not be consistent in reviewing studies that may disagree with their conclusions.
These are generalizations, of course, and I do believe that there are people who can have a principled stand on these issues, but groups like FoF tend not to. And, there are liberal groups that tend to do the very same thing concerning their own issues and presuppositions. All of this, however, only harms the claims of Christ’s Church as it attempts to engage the prevailing culture. If it is too easy to disprove the claims of Christians by generally accepted sources, how can the Church have any credibility when it does attempt to appropriately speak to the culture on important issues?
Practical Orthodoxy
From The Very Rev. Alan Jones’ book, Common Prayer on Common Ground, on Anglican orthodoxy:
“Salvation isn’t the ultimate reward fro believing abstract doctrines. Salvation is experienced through grace as our lives are ‘converted,’ and conversion is an ongoing process. Doctrine is practical. It has to do with practice, with what the tradition calls ‘the experimental knowledge of God.’
“To be truly orthodox, doctrine must have an impact on the moral life. I remember some years ago a man screaming at the philosopher Jacob Needleman that to be a Christian you had to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Needleman took the wind out of the young man’s sails and said, ‘Yes, you do. Now tell me, what does it mean? Tell me what difference it makes!’ The young man had nothing to say. An elderly retired priest angrily thundered at me: ‘Do you believe in the homoousian?’ (this is the doctrine that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father). I said, ‘Yes, I do, but the more important question is why don’t you love me?”