...to like this post. Apparently, UNC's basketball players have become fans of the pedicure. Makes sense. I wonder what Shavlik Randolph would think.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
You don't have to like Sports...
...to like this post. Apparently, UNC's basketball players have become fans of the pedicure. Makes sense. I wonder what Shavlik Randolph would think.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
I got an email from my grandfather, a person I admire perhaps more than anyone else I know, saying that he had been daydreaming about the two of us being back in Virginia, spending the day crabbing off of the neighbor's pier. I dropped the net in the water one time, and we watched as it very slowly drifted away with the tide (one did not swim in Chisman Creek in the summer time, unless one enjoyed getting stung by jellyfish). Grandpa's email said that he thinks I could hang on to the net by now. If I wasn't homesick already...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Long post, several subjects.
Not long ago, I posted my assessment of the state of the debate over all things homosexual in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. BC predicted that the Primates' meeting in Tanzania would not go well. Good call. I stand by what I said in that post, but I think my reaction to the communique is well summed up by my EDS seminarian friend Weird Bird In Love's post, and not just because she favorably quoted my blog. The Episcopal Church is in an odd place, as a colonial power that does not cherish the pain caused by that heritage, and as a newfound minority in global conversation. So how do we respond to a "cease and desist" from the primates?
I think that the content of the Communique is a slap in the face to the Episcopal Church. Yesterday a lesbian classmate of mine explained to non-Anglicans what has been going on in the Communion lately. As she spoke, I could see her lip quivering, and couldn't help but think of the abandonment she must be feeling, and would further feel if our church accepted the ultimatum we've been given. "Schism" is a frightening word to use. Parting ways over differences in opinion is hardly a reflection of the unity God calls us to. This of course must be conditioned with knowledge that the Anglican Communion is itself a breakaway group, but schism is still terrifying. It's an end to a major mandate for dialogue, and it jeopardizes the opportunity for mutual learning and mutual ministry that a global communion provides. That said, maybe it's time. That said, it's not as if there is consensus in our church about this issue. The communique further polarizes that conversation, as well. Basically, I'm angry about it, and while there are many things in the history of our church that I would apologize for, trying to treat gay people fairly is not going to be one of them.
Late edit (2/23): Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, has put out a very good statement.
--------------------------------------------------
Deep breath. Moving on to other subjects.
The 10 o'clock news on a local channel here reported that the Anglican Communion is considering reunification with the Roman Catholic Church. Not sure where that came from, but the resulting adrenaline rush filled me with the power to lift three popemobiles.
My thesis is currently in the hands of my advisor, folks. It's written, and I think it's pretty decent. At 86 pages, it's the longest thing I've written by a good amount, and though the process of writing it has been psychological hell for me, it's a nice feeling to have it done. Trepidation remains, though, as I have been thus far unable to predict the reactions of my advisor.
Lotus, a live album recorded by Santana in 1973, is my current musical indulgence. It reflects a serious engagement in the jazz-rock fusion Miles Davis was creating at the time, and it pleases me greatly. Many people do not like Miles' fusion work, and I have mocked them for that as only a drunken pompous music snob can do. Those people would not like Lotus very much.
K and I saw "Breach" last night. It's a solid spy movie that breaks away from the ploys of violence and torture that we in the "Arranging your lamp..." household have a hard time stomaching. I read the article about torture in "24" in the current New Yorker in bed the other night, which was a mistake. Anyway, having that as a frame of reference made me especially appreciative of the psychological focus of "Breach."
This post is brought to you by ESPN, which is showing an NBA game and a Big XII game instead of State-Carolina tonight, and Fox Sports Net, which is carrying what must be a very important hockey game.
Friday, February 09, 2007
A 2 Post Day
This sucks. What makes less sense than denying the Holocaust? Attacking Elie Wiesel to in some way prove your point.
Purple shirts, funny hats, and gay people too...
Big Country's post generates this one, which will pretty much harmonize with his sentiments. Katharine Jefferts Schori (Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA) went to my school and has served on numerous committees and boards here as the Bishop of Nevada, so I've bumped into her once or twice, but not really talked to her. See, she's generally surrounded by a sycophantic mob of seminarians and faculty hoping to touch the hem of her garment or be granted some cushy national church position. I can't compete with that.
Anyway, a while ago she did a 10 questions sort of spot for the New York Times magazine, in which she implied that the Episcopal Church is losing membership in part due to the fact that our highly-educated adherents understand the pitfalls of overpopulation more clearly than our less-informed Mormon and Catholic brethren. Clearly, she didn't mean it to sound so elitist or condescending, but she said what she said. She caught the appropriate crap for that in the following week's letters to the editor (I'd link to these things, but it's old enough that the NYT wants you to pay for it now), but the point here is that she makes me a little nervous when she tackles a sensitive issue. I think she's done well on the homosexuality debate, but then again, I'm on her side.
I whole-heartedly agree with the Presiding Bishop on striving for equality for everyone in the church, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc.. Anyone who reads this blog knows that about me, but there it is, just to be clear. As a student at a seminary in Berkeley who hails from the South, I often find myself defending the region's conservative tendencies to West Coast cosmopolitan types, several of whom are good friends of mine. It's hard for many of them to really ingest the idea that Southern conservatives are not necessarily mean or ignorant, but are generally good people doing what they and their community believe is right. It's also hard for them to grasp that liberals are not as rare in the South as they would think.
To my mind, the chief issue behind the homosexuality debate, at least on the global Anglican scale, is Scriptural Authority. US Episcopal theologians, advocating the majority view in our church, have argued that when the Bible is unclear on an issue (or simply does not address it), we must prayerfully turn to tradition and reason for guidance. Here in the US, that has in general led to a progressively minded church which ordains women, has begun ordaining practicing homosexuals, and perhaps most radically of all, revises its liturgies on a fairly regular basis (England still relies on the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer; we use one from 1979, with a new one in the works).
For those in the Anglican Communion who see Scripture as a broader authority, the actions of our church are difficult to accept. I think Scripture is ambivalent toward homosexuality, but it's easy enough to understand the conservative viewpoint. It's the difference in the sort of authority we ascribe to the Bible that really makes this issue difficult and painful, though. The Episcopal Church's aforementioned response to the global criticism leveled in the 2004 Windsor Report (.pdf files available here), a document entitled "To Set Our Hope On Christ" (.pdf) was viewed as condescending. Many conservative Anglicans felt that the ECUSA was saying, "We're cutting edge; you're not. Some day you'll understand this. Until then, trust us." I think they're right. That is what we're saying. Some day they will understand this. At the same time, I can hardly blame them for being put off by our tone. That's why this is going to be so hard.
Anyway, a while ago she did a 10 questions sort of spot for the New York Times magazine, in which she implied that the Episcopal Church is losing membership in part due to the fact that our highly-educated adherents understand the pitfalls of overpopulation more clearly than our less-informed Mormon and Catholic brethren. Clearly, she didn't mean it to sound so elitist or condescending, but she said what she said. She caught the appropriate crap for that in the following week's letters to the editor (I'd link to these things, but it's old enough that the NYT wants you to pay for it now), but the point here is that she makes me a little nervous when she tackles a sensitive issue. I think she's done well on the homosexuality debate, but then again, I'm on her side.
I whole-heartedly agree with the Presiding Bishop on striving for equality for everyone in the church, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc.. Anyone who reads this blog knows that about me, but there it is, just to be clear. As a student at a seminary in Berkeley who hails from the South, I often find myself defending the region's conservative tendencies to West Coast cosmopolitan types, several of whom are good friends of mine. It's hard for many of them to really ingest the idea that Southern conservatives are not necessarily mean or ignorant, but are generally good people doing what they and their community believe is right. It's also hard for them to grasp that liberals are not as rare in the South as they would think.
To my mind, the chief issue behind the homosexuality debate, at least on the global Anglican scale, is Scriptural Authority. US Episcopal theologians, advocating the majority view in our church, have argued that when the Bible is unclear on an issue (or simply does not address it), we must prayerfully turn to tradition and reason for guidance. Here in the US, that has in general led to a progressively minded church which ordains women, has begun ordaining practicing homosexuals, and perhaps most radically of all, revises its liturgies on a fairly regular basis (England still relies on the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer; we use one from 1979, with a new one in the works).
For those in the Anglican Communion who see Scripture as a broader authority, the actions of our church are difficult to accept. I think Scripture is ambivalent toward homosexuality, but it's easy enough to understand the conservative viewpoint. It's the difference in the sort of authority we ascribe to the Bible that really makes this issue difficult and painful, though. The Episcopal Church's aforementioned response to the global criticism leveled in the 2004 Windsor Report (.pdf files available here), a document entitled "To Set Our Hope On Christ" (.pdf) was viewed as condescending. Many conservative Anglicans felt that the ECUSA was saying, "We're cutting edge; you're not. Some day you'll understand this. Until then, trust us." I think they're right. That is what we're saying. Some day they will understand this. At the same time, I can hardly blame them for being put off by our tone. That's why this is going to be so hard.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Sports
I'm not sure that I could reliably distinguish between Herm Edwards and Tony Dungy if they weren't always shown wearing their team's apparel.
I did not realize that Barry Bonds used to demand multiple lockers in the Giants locker room. I cannot imagine that the money generated by ticket sales at AT&T Park this season will offset the colossal bore that will be the repetitive media hype about asterisks, integrity, and a batting helmet so big that it apparently does not fit in one locker. My official response to all things Barry from here on out: yawn.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome was outed today for knocking boots with his campaign manager's wife. He apologized like a man who felt bad about nailing his friend's wife and then not telling him about it.
Rather than talk about how I no longer care a tiny bit about the Super Bowl (but will still watch) because it's been analyzed beyond all reason, I will simply say that the NFL's relationship with its fans could be improved upon.
What does watching this clip do to you? Does that blow your mind? That really happened! I was seven years old, watching the game at my grandparents' house, wearing a Redskins sweatshirt and happy as hell. I spent the next several seasons arguing that the 'Skins should always just go deep, since it always seemed to work.
I did not realize that Barry Bonds used to demand multiple lockers in the Giants locker room. I cannot imagine that the money generated by ticket sales at AT&T Park this season will offset the colossal bore that will be the repetitive media hype about asterisks, integrity, and a batting helmet so big that it apparently does not fit in one locker. My official response to all things Barry from here on out: yawn.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome was outed today for knocking boots with his campaign manager's wife. He apologized like a man who felt bad about nailing his friend's wife and then not telling him about it.
Rather than talk about how I no longer care a tiny bit about the Super Bowl (but will still watch) because it's been analyzed beyond all reason, I will simply say that the NFL's relationship with its fans could be improved upon.
What does watching this clip do to you? Does that blow your mind? That really happened! I was seven years old, watching the game at my grandparents' house, wearing a Redskins sweatshirt and happy as hell. I spent the next several seasons arguing that the 'Skins should always just go deep, since it always seemed to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
