These are a few of my favorite things...

I have been thinking a lot lately about some of the worst sermons I have ever heard. Maybe its because the only station that comes in on our alarm clock is the "Victory Radio Network" (where the truth comes in waves). Our son has just figured out how to use the sleep and snooze buttons and loves to stand there, turning it on and off (not bad for 13 months). So, while I am folding the laundry, I find myself listening bits and pieces of what my husband like to refer to as the "false teaching." Most of it is too cheesy for my Episcopalian brain (and fairly unsentimental personality) to tolerate. Most of it is also just junk. And as I listen to it, I am reminded of the worst sermons I have heard over the years (all of which were given in the hallowed pulpits of Episcopal churches).

Worst Children's Sermon: When I was looking around for a place to do my internship (whilst in seminary), I happened upon this little gem in one of the most coveted placements. The preacher (the rector, by the way) began holding up a drawer and pulling stuff out of it - it's his "junk drawer". He went on to talk about how the church is like God's junk drawer, with all sorts of different things he can use to get his job done. (It happened to be "Homecoming Sunday" where they were showing off all their programs - it took up three rooms - thus God's junk drawer.) When it came to the interactive part, he asked the kids "Where do you find God?" And this beautiful little girl, probably about 5 years old, all dressed in a ruffly and lacy dress, raised her hand and said, "In our hearts." The church practically melted. But apparently that wasn't what the preacher was thinking about - "No," he said (she looked crushed). He continued (and I quote, because I will never forget this - it echoes in my head from time to time) "In the church. God opens up the roof of the church, looks inside and says, 'hello, my people - my junk drawer." Nice. Just like Toastmasters taught ya - always wrap it up with your main point, cuz people are too stupid to think for themselves. Especially little 5 year olds who think God is in their hearts. Sheesh...


Most Unprepared Sermon: This little gem made both me and my mom laugh uncontrollably in the pews. The preacher stood before the congregation, took a dramatic pause, exhaled, and then said, "There's not enough quiet in the world these days (insert various examples of noise). Let's sit in quiet for the next few moments. Amen"

Worst Easter Sermon: My first position was an assistant for someone who was a self-proclaimed gnostic (another beaut by him was all about being a gnostic). I don't think he believed in much. I could probably fill twenty pages with the crap he preached, but this one was pretty good. Even a parishioner of mine asked me afterwards, "Do you think he really should have preached that on Easter?" I should probably add that his daughter was someone who literally saw and talked to dead people. For the first five minutes, he talked about resurrection and life after death, not bad. But then he decided to describe life after death. His daughter, you see, has talked to people on the other side and told him what it was like. We were with people we loved, even our favorite pets. We lived in beautiful houses, had well-manicured lawns (I am not kidding) and never lacked for anything. We drove our fantasy cars and had the perfect job for us - the one God wanted us to have in life. And we did it well, too. (I am not kidding). So, don't worry about hating your job or what you drive or where you live or if you are starving because in the next life you will get everything you ever wanted. Because that's Jesus' promise to us on this Easter day, when he rose from the dead to give us eternal life. I should also add that I was sitting in the celebrant's chair, which faces the congregation. Needless to say, I was glad I had worked on my poker face the day before.

Worst Baptismal Sermon: Same guy as above- probably all I need to say. The week before, he had read an article about water crystals. You see, these scienticians, er, I mean, scientists, had done an experiment where they grew water crystals. To some of these, they played classical music - to others they played horrible rock music (like ACDC or something). To others they said "I love you" and to others still they yelled obscenities at them over and over. It seems that the crystals that were indulged with love and classical music grew into the most magnificent formations - perfect and symmetrical. The others grew deformed and some were even stunted from growing. You see, that's what happens when we are baptised. We have water poured over us, and we have the living water of Baptism within us. If we listen to rock music or are the receiver of recurrent obscenities, that living water will become deformed within us. But if we hear that we are loved and listen to classical music, then we're okay. It's science. It has to be right. When I looked over at the soon-to-be-baptized-baby's parents' faces, which were white, and whose mouths were hanging wide open. That's right. It's up to you, folks, whether you screw up this kids living water or not. Good luck!

Worst All Saints Sermon: The guy stood in the pulpit and read the hymn "I sing a song of the saints of God." Said Amen, then sat down.

I know there are more, but I am tired and you are probably tired of reading these.

What are your favorites? Any good ones out there? I know there are worse ones. There have to be!

Proper 28, Year C - Sunday, November 18, 2007

I preached this sermon this morning. (I write for the ear, so if you can't figure out the long rambling, completely grammatically incorrect sentences, try saying them out loud.) Seemed to speak to the masses. Honestly, I was preaching it to myself, but isn't that usually the case?

There are times, when I am standing in front of a huge stack of dishes or staring at the unbelievable pile of laundry in the basement that I find myself totally unable to move, immobilized by the overwhelming task at hand.

I start to panic, thinking about ALL the THINGS I have to do, how there’s never enough time, and in the split second before I start making my lists or plowing into the work I am motionless, not knowing even where to start.

Paul warns us this morning to steer clear of idleness, or disorder, as the Greek would say. But we don’t have to be warned. We already know that being idle is bad – the message is all around us. That is why we busy ourselves doing things, working hard, cramming in exercise and sleep and maybe time for ourselves when there is nothing else to do or no one else to demand from us.

To be idle is to stop moving and in our fast-paced world those who stop or go too slow in the wrong lane are tailgated and bullied out of the way. And so, while we scurry around keeping from being idle or are pushed out of the way if we’re not fast enough we watch as parts of our lives lay seedless because while we do … do … do, what we are … (apart from that doing) is eroding before our eyes.

The problem is that those things which are demanded of us from the outside are often very important – vital, even and rarely can be put on hold. Those things that are demanded of us from the inside – from our very depths – they are easier, for some reason, to push aside. They are drowned out by all the other noise around us and by all the work we HAVE to do. Our inner needs are easier to overlook and neglect, and the still small voice that is God, the still urging that freezes us just before we rush into doing more STUFF – that spirit that moves with in us to keep from being idle – gets neglected. And that’s why we’re tired and stressed, worn thin and too darn BUSY.

There will always be too much to do. There will always be more need than we can ever satiate. There will always be potential that is not realized. There will always be a great vastness that we can never fully fill. And the temptation will either be to freeze, unsure of what to do or where to begin. Or to push our needs aside and go back to the mindless minutia that soothes us into believing that when we do stuff, we are accomplishing great things.

Either temptation – to freeze or to put aside our needs – is dangerous because they both lead to idleness. Don’t be fooled into believing that business is the opposite of idleness. Business only covers up our spiritual and internal laziness. Doing stuff – getting things done – is rewarding because we have a product; we can see the results. But the work of the soul, the hard work of the spirit, that is much harder to pinpoint concretely. Those results take time, are slow to reveal themselves, and don’t have much value in the world. And so we put it off, in favor of getting something done.

The other problem is that nurturing ourselves, the person God created so long ago, and nurturing our relationship with God is a demanding and overwhelming task, especially if we haven’t done it in a while.

I read a story about a monk who went to his monsignor in despair because he was so far behind in his prayers that he was afraid he would never catch up. The monsignor replied with this story:

A man had a plot of land that had become a wilderness of thistles and thorns. He decided to cultivate it and said to his son: “Go and clear that ground." But when the son went to clear it, he saw that the thistles and thorns had multiplied. He thought, “It is going to take FOREVER to clear and weed all this" so instead of doing anything he lay on the ground and went to sleep. He did this day after day. When his father found him doing nothing, the son explained his discouragement. The father replied, "Son, if you had cleared each day the area on which you slept, your work would have advanced slowly and you would not have lost heart."

It is easy to become disheartened, to be overwhelmed, but we are called to cultivate our weedy and thorny selves, and our thorny and thistle-y world all the same.

Sometimes I leave those dishes in the sink and watch TV and for an hour. I get lost in some show and forget about the dishes. But when I get up again and walk back in the kitchen, there they are waiting to be cleaned. And the same is true of ourselves and our relationship with God. We might avoid it for a while, but the need remains, and God calls us back, begs us to relationship with him, and demands that we grow. And such growth can be scary because while we are digging around in the dirt and pulling up weeds, we might discover things we have hidden or forgotten about for a long time. We might have to admit that we have be negligent, that we have been sleeping, instead of pulling up the weeds and tending the land.

But we need not be afraid.

First of all, God already knows everything – the things we try to hide, the fact that we haven’t prayed as often as we should. God sees everything inside us and he loves us just the same. In fact he loves us because of what we are – those things we have done and those things we have left undone – and he loves who he has created us to be.

Secondly, if we are willing to put our trust in Him he will not let us down. When we trust our busy hands to him and give our idle hearts over to him, He will quiet our hands and strengthen our hearts to do the hard work he calls us to do. The hard work of the soul, of the spirit - loving God, loving our neighbor, and, yes, even loving ourselves. When we trust in him, he helps us to follow the sometimes crooked and rocky path, rather than the one that is straight and easy. He encourages us to get our hands dirty pulling out the weeds that would choke our fertile ground.

He tells us to cast our nets fearlessly into seas that seem to be without fish – those seemingly empty places – the empty pews, the empty purses, the empty hearts and relationships. And when we are willing to cast our nets in places that seem without gain, he gives us the miracle that fills them to the point of bursting. He lets us believe that they will be filled and they are.

If we trust in God, we can take those moments of paralysis and turn them into graceful pauses, where we recognize that still small voice telling us to slow down and focus on what’s important. Not the dishes or the laundry, or that phone call you need to return, or the person whom you can never seem to please, but the One who only wants You, the real you, the one He created and knew even before you were born.

Then we can shift from being ‘mere busybodies’ (as Paul writes) and to live into his will for us; to become that which he created so long ago. Then we can get out of the rut of idleness and live out God’s will for this world – helping those in need, spreading the Gospel without fear, boldly loving as He loves us – one still small moment at a time. Amen.

On the Subject of Dangerous Books and Movies

Or, "My Encounter with the Satanic Bible and A Plot to Kill God"

Years ago, I served as chaplain at a boarding school. One of the staff members called me, having confiscated a copy of The Satanic Bible from one of the students. The staff member, a retired drill sergeant, was very concerned; as a young priest in his first call, I remember a thrill of fear and excitement: my first confrontation with the Evil One! Had we uncovered a coven of practicing Satanists in our midst? I imagined finding myself in a student’s dorm room, chanting, “THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!” while the student projectile-vomited pea soup at me.

I was somewhat disappointed when the drill sergeant handed me a dog-eared paperback. I had pictured something leather-bound (or bound with something worse), covered with ancient sigils, not a mass-market paperback published by Avon. Opening the book was cause for further disappointment. Instead of ancient rituals in an archaic language (Nicol Williamson in Excalibur comes to mind), there are simply instructions on how to be self-centered and self-involved; how to get ahead by stepping on people. It was a frappe of Ayn Rand, Machiavelli, Tyler Durden (minus the wit) and Donald Trump—with, of course, the requisite goatee and upside-down star tattoos. (Also throw in a smattering of Wicca and a lot of pre-Christian symbolism).

Is the Satanic Bible a “Dangerous Book” for boys and girls? Just how dangerous is it to write or read a book that advocates worship of the enemy of all humanity?

There is another book that has been referred my way by concerned parents: The Golden Compass. It is, apparently, a book about killing God—or at least, about challenging an oppressive fictional religious institution. Soon, it will be a movie about killing God—a movie that will be marketed towards children—along with its own line of action figures. Good thing, too, because my brother and I shot up all our Star Wars figures with a BB-gun about 20 years ago.

Did I miss something? Didn’t we already try to kill God a couple thousand years ago? How did that work out for us again? Didn’t God show us that He is willing to take the worst we can throw at him, and still He comes back at us with love and forgiveness?

There will likely be an uproar about The Golden Compass. Christian groups will protest; people will be offended. Somebody will undoubtedly shout, “WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??” Pat Robertson will organize a Prayer Sunday to reduce ticket sales. The actors involved will be seen as suffering for the cause of secular humanism. Bill O’Reilly will have a field day in between harassment suits. Stand Firm will have a “humorous” article comparing the movie to the Episcopal Church.

All the while, the Christian community will continue to show the rest of the world that it has no confidence in God. We fear that the Satanic Bible will corrupt our youth. We fear that young children, having seen a movie about killing God will go out and actually “try this at home.” We fear that the Gospel message itself is so unappealing that we must actually try to stifle the “competition.” All the while, we are diverted and distracted from preaching the Gospel, because we are so focused on showing everyone else what is wrong with them.

We become so distracted by the sins of others that we miss the true “Dangerous Books” in our midst: The Left Behind series (an utterly non-Biblical account of how Kirk Cameron Saves Christmas, with comic book and movie spinoffs). The Purpose-Driven Life—a really good idea rendered completely unreadable by its host of advertisements and plugs for other Purpose-Driven Products. (If I just buy this Purpose-Driven Bible Reference Card and these Purpose-Driven fuzzy dice for my car, I will be SAVED!!!)

(Yes I have read the books).

We miss the most dangerous, most truly Satanic idea of all—an idea that has derailed the church militant for centuries: we can bring about the coming of the kingdom ourselves, on our own terms, and in our own time. And when (not if, but when) we do so, we ourselves will claim a place at Jesus’ right and left hands. In short, the Most Dangerous Idea is that we are more important—and more effective—than Jesus.

Let the world make its movies about killing God. Let the world publish its Satanic Bibles. We can spend our time reading, studying, and preaching a truly dangerous book—a book that challenges the powers of this world: the Bible.

If we Christians actually ever focused on this dangerous book, we might actually understand what Christ wants us to be about.

When is the Yellow Pages not the Yellow Pages?

When it's the OYP Group.

There is a new scam in town. Relatively new, that is. It targets churches and small businesses.

Here is how it works:

A company called "the OYP Group" or "the Real Yellow Pages" gets your church name from a database and enters you (without contacting you or without your consent) into their business directory. It is a "complementary listing" that is good for one year. This is not the phone book and it is not the local yellow pages, although the representatives deliberately attempt to mislead you into thinking that they are. This company is based in Canada and has several dummy addresses in the United States (usually New York). The OYP group currently has hundreds of complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau in just about every state.

At the end of that free year, a person (with poor command of the English language) calls and identifies themselves as being with the Yellow Pages. They ask if you would like to renew your listing in the Yellow Pages. At this point you either say yes or no. Regardless of what you say, your church is now in the next step: invoices.

Your church receives a series of invoices for a two-year listing in this company's "yellow pages." Inquiries made by you are met with evasive language and statements such as "You signed an oral contract."

The next step involves calls from the company. They are legitimate-sounding calls that try to get you to pay the bogus invoice. If the invoice is not paid, your church moves to the next step.

Your church will begin to receive calls from an "Independent Collections Agency" or an "Independent Legal Department." In reality, this person is calling as part of the OYP group--it is an internal call, and there are likely no true lawyers involved. The person will be very understanding, and offer to reduce your invoice and promise not to hurt your church's credit if you pay now. But the offer is only good for that day. If the invoice is not paid, your church moves on to the next step.

(At which point the church has probably already contacted an attorney and reported this scam to the Better Business Bureau. The BBB typically advises that these invoices not be paid, and there has not yet been a recorded case of a business' credit rating suffering from not paying a bogus invoice. The attorney will likely direct the company to direct all further correspondence to him/her).

You will be called regarding the invoice again. The caller will claim to be acting "on your behalf." They will refuse to answer any questions regarding what organization they are with. The caller will tell you that you are not being recorded, but will later hint that you are. As the call goes on, the caller becomes more and more aggressive and will constantly interrupt; the caller will ignore any directives to communicate with your attorney. The caller will attempt to do anything and everything to keep you on the phone. The caller makes threats about your business' credit rating and in some cases, will make other kinds of threats as well. The best thing to do is hang up. (Some people say you can really freak them out by telling them the call is being traced).

As you can guess, our church was contacted by these people. We have been on the "Do Not Call" list for several years. We made no agreements with them. They have wasted a great deal of time (mostly theirs, but some of ours as well) trying to collect on a bogus invoice. Why do these people continue? They must earn enough money from other people to justify continuing the scam.

Why churches? I think it's because churches tend to have higher staff turnover and do not tend to have many safeguards in place--especially when offices are staffed by volunteers or secretaries without much training or experience. Church staff are more likely to be friendly and open to conversation when answering the phone as well.

Why am I posting this? This summary is a mishmash of my own experience and those of numerous colleagues in several denominations, as well as a few news reports. Obviously, it makes sense to agree to nothing over the phone as a rule. There must, however, be enough people who have succumbed to this aggressive scam. Otherwise, why would they continue?

Well, here's my message to the OYP group staff:

When ripping people off stops working out for you, come by a church and do something meaningful with your life.

Calling Lloyd Bentsen!

Bob Duncan:

I read Martin Luther. I studied Martin Luther. Martin Luther was a favorite of mine. Bishop, you're no Martin Luther.

Living in Two Worlds

So, I envisioned myself as this super-intelligent blogger speaking out about all the various political and religious ideas of the day (and I tried...once), rather than someone who constantly talks about the achievements of her children or post recipes for some kind of healthy and hearty bread or whines about the various minutia of my day...

But then I realized I should probably just be myself and talk about my life. So, my posts will probably be more self-indulgent than the other two, but oh well...that's very American, right?

And, as you can see, right now, my life is about juggling my vocation as a priest and my vocation as a mom. Two things I never really had aspirations to be, and can drive me crazy just about every hour of the day. Yet, two things I love doing more than anything else.

I find myself complaining about this pull - between work and family, priesthood and motherhood - because some days it is just so maddening. Like today, for example. We loaded up the car and went to work. For the first two hours of the day, I chased the baby around (who is walking pretty aptly these days), cut up various food for him to eat for lunch, shoved down a sandwich for me, and played in the nursery with him as I checked my email. I attempted to have a meeting with one of my wardens, but that was interrupted by the baby's gleeful screaming as he proceeded to take all the pamphlets for the Free Clinic out of the cabinet and scatter them all over the floor. So, we left the meeting and retired to "our" office, where baby decided to take the push pins (They were on the cork board that was originally on the outside of my door but the double sided-tape failed and it fell to the ground, where some kind soul decided to slip it under my door for a baby to play with.) and shove them in his mouth. Of course, I was busy writing thank you notes for the volunteers that helped with the fund-raising dinner we had the previous Saturday, so I didn't notice until he screamed in pain. So, I asked him to show me what he had in his mouth, and he removed the now bloody push pins from his mouth and, through teary eyes, held them up for me to examine. I am such a bad mom. After he had started crying for the fifth time (and tried to pull the pen from my hand for the twentieth time), I realized he was probably tired, so I closed the black-out curtains in the office, turned out the light and plopped down in the rocking chair. And we both fell asleep.

As he slept in the pack n play, I tried to proof and edit the bulletin for this week - our first Baptism since we arrived (and since the hiring of our most excellent parish administrator) in the pitch black. Not easy to see the black keyboard on this silly dell laptop in the pitch black. I found myself daydreaming about what a great invention it would be to have glow-in-the-dark keys for those late-night, in-the-dark moments on our various keyboards. Maybe that will be the million dollar idea people keep telling me I should have. I made one phone call (whispering in the hallway, so not as to wake the baby), which ended up being a left message. Sat down to make a list of everything I had to do this week during my quarter-time hours (HA HA), put the pen to the paper, and then baby woke up.

And so it goes. And no matter how tempting it is to complain, I actually love it all. I have always loved being a priest because it is a job that is never boring (sometimes so maddening you want to choke yourself and all your parishioners) - with so many angles. I get to be teacher, public speaker, singer, poet, writer, social activist, fund-raiser, manager, conflict resolver - conflict avoider and creator, too - pastor, friend, enemy, secretary...well, you get the idea. I don't like to be bored, so I know this job is for me.

But, I also have the unfortunate need to also be orderly/organized. I like schedules and lists and calendars. I like things put away in the right place (except for my clothes, which tend to lie on the floor of my closet for weeks at a time). I like to know what I am doing and what I am doing next. And when it was just me, when I was working alone in my office, I could control that all.

But with baby, it is impossible (and not just at work). And there are days when it drives me crazy. When I leave the office and think - what the hell did I do and why did I even come in today? And there are days when I wonder why am I even trying to work and be a mom and take care of our house and..? And if I continue on that path, I will be driven crazy.

Because while I could finish everything I wanted to get done when I was alone - I was still alone. I wasn't watching this amazing child change every day - learn new things, start to say words, laugh and play and look to me for love and approval. I might have been involved in various diocesan committees and task forces. But I didn't have the opportunity to hold my beautiful baby in my arms and think about nothing else in the world. And while I could check off my lists and see all my appointments nicely written in my Episcopal calendar, I was more bored than I knew. I took this job because I wanted to be with my baby (and work with my husband). I didn't want to deal with babies and daycare or working all the time and giving what was left over (if any) to my family. I was tired of suburbia and that constant drive to do more, be more, have more. I wanted to have the best of all worlds. And so, I am working on appreciating my multi-faceted life. And when it gets crazy, I try to remember to grab hold of the horns and just stay on as long as I can.

I am lucky. I can live into the various calls God has handed to me. The call to the priesthood that I knew with every cell in my body was right as all those priests and friends laid their hands on me. The call to motherhood, which has been a slowly refining call, that feels so naturally a part of me. And I am working on loving having it all. Isn't that what we all say we want anyway?

She Blinded Me With ... Science? Or, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate the Gays."

I am a Washington Redskins fan. I have been since I was 8 years old. That right there ought to tell you something about my devotion to a cause. I was there when the heavily-favored Redskins got tromped by the Oakland Raiders in the Superbowl (as a 10-year-old, that was the first true crisis of faith I ever experienced). Through thick and thin, I have backed the ‘Skins—even when the Pats beat them 52-7. Many of my friends feel the same way about their given sports team, be it the Green Bay Packers or the Boston Red Sox--they may be doing well now, but both have had their share of setbacks. (How my wife managed to write her sermon and yell for the Sox at the same time last Saturday night, I’ll never know, but it was a great sermon!)

If only we Americans stood by our moral values as firmly as we do our favorite teams. As a recent report from Christian News Wire tells us, we Yankee sheep are more prone to back the winning horse than the ethical horse.

This opinion piece is a real, well, piece of work: Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children. Normally I wouldn’t give any credence to such a clearly biased opinion piece, but after checking on the source, and reading her other writings, I have concluded that it is only a matter of time before we see this woman on Fox News, being touted by Rick Sanchez as an “expert.” Another in a long line of people who are to scared or stupid to say what they really think, so they take a position they believe to be held by the majority of society.

The author, Dr. Trayce L. Hansen, makes only one point I agree with—at least halfway: “Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions that can't be replicated by the other.” I have never tried breastfeeding my son—I just don’t think my man-boobs are up to it. I’m quite happy to leave that one to my wife.

My wife and I do bring diversity to parenting—but that diversity has less to do with the difference in our gender than it has to do with the difference in our personalities. We problem-solve differently, we come from different families, and we have different backgrounds.

Dr. Hansen tries to separate mother and father based on the type of love each is uniquely capable of showing. A mother’s love is “unconditional-leaning,” while a father’s love is “conditional-leaning.” Dr. Hansen fails to explain these new terms, but I’m guessing that the “conditional” loving father is the type who screams at his kid during soccer games; the type who only remembers to show affection on those rare occasions when his son makes him proud. A mother’s “unconditional-leaning” love, on the other hand, means that she will probably stare at her lap while her husband screams at her son, and later hold him in private, trying to explain that “Dad didn’t really mean to scare/scream at/hit you.” (She also loves her husband so unconditionally that she wouldn’t dare to challenge his parenting decisions.)

Dr. Hansen’s view of parenting is pretty narrow, and it fails to stand up to even the most casual application to the real world. Most halfway-functional fathers deeply love their children, and would take exception to that love being labeled as conditional. Most mothers (at least the ones I have met in the course of 5 years of youth ministry) would also agree that Dr. Hansen’s attempt to categorize parental love is laughable. The vast majority of mothers and fathers love their children, and that love is beyond measure or condition.

So, if Dr. Hansen is unable to describe heterosexual marriage, how can she claim to be an authority on same-sex relationships?

Let’s consider the source: “Dr.” Hansen likes to play on topics that provoke an emotional or hormonal response: Andrea Yates, 9/11, child-molesting priests, gay marriage, and incest. And, yup, she takes the stand that would do a neoconservative proud. Hansen continues to prove that psychology is indeed a soft science. She begins each of her arguments from a supposition she never attempts to back up. Homosexuality is an undesirable choice. The Catholic priesthood harbors a large number of homosexual predators, and there is a conspiracy to force journalists to cover this up with misleading language. Feminists are bad.

Here’s my favorite:

After nearly one year of reflection, most Americans, including President George W. Bush, still see the events of September 11, 2001 in stark, black-and-white terms. This widely shared viewpoint is that America was unjustifiably attacked that day by evil, worldly forces, or as the president declared, by “evil-doers.” This simple—not simplistic—type of thinking is morally and psychologically healthy and lays the foundation for an appropriate response. Unfortunately, the majority’s perspective is not shared by all.

A stark, black-and-white worldview was also shared by the Jihadists who piloted the airplanes on that day. A morally, psychologically healthy worldview, Dr. Hansen? How would you respond to an American soldier in Baghdad who has had to learn the painful lesson that not every Iraqi is your enemy, and not every American is your friend? How would you diagnose someone who has seen the shades of grey in the world?

Dr. Hansen goes on to state that anyone who dissents from the President must logically deny that evil exists in the world:

The answer is that these dissenters, rather than viewing evil as the end result of moral choice and free will, as most Americans do, deny that it even exists.

Pacifism, on the other hand, is “morally and psychologically problematic.” To quote Marge Simpson, “I don’t even know where to begin telling you what’s wrong with that.”

I’ve stopped rambling and come to the point: Dr. Hansen is ill. Perhaps she needs to find a colleague—one who attended a strong university, and not a DeVry-equivalent—and spend some time on the couch. She has chosen her radical right-wing viewpoints not because she believes in them, but because she is siding with the majority. I can just hear Caiaphas singing to Judas, “You’ve backed the right horse!” Dr. Hansen takes specious argument to an art form.

Why am I even bothering to talk about this hack? Because she is exhibiting behavior common to some Americans who wish to claim they are in the majority. Go to msnbc.com and read some of the comments on the “What do You Think?” section. You can find the Trayce Hansen’s of the world there, too. They spout hateful, racist, bigoted messages, and have screen names like, “I_LOVE_AMERICA,” or “GOD_BLESS_OUR_TROOPS.” Implying, of course, if you disagree with their hatemongering, then you must hate America, and you must hope that God does not bless our troops. Dr. Hansen might have found a school willing to sell her a PhD, but it only makes her a slightly more highbrow “AMERICA_RULZ!”

SO, if you read through Dr. Hansen's website, here is her recommendation for being a mature, mentally healthy adult: Hate feminists, gays, and pacifists; Love whatever is popular.

In short, here is Dr. Trayce Hansen’s prescription for psychological health:

Vote Neoconservative!

My attempt at something somewhat intelligent...not really

I have wanted to post something for a while - something thoughtful and intelligent and meaningful. But my days are filled with poopy diapers; drooling, teething, whining; and little sleep. None of which helps me make any kind of sense in my own head let alone in the bloggosphere where at least two other people may read it.

My day today went like this...

Me: "Put it down"
Baby: "Maaaa maaaa ma ma ma, nay nay nay No!"
(I take it out of his hand and turn back to paying the bills)
One minute later...
Me: "What do you have in your mouth"
Baby: (pulling out a dead beetle from his mouth and holding it out for me to see) "Nay Nay Nay...No"

He's learned No, as you can see. Shaking his head, and getting very good at vocalizing the word. He'll go up to the light socket and shake his head. Now, do you think that means he'll stop himself from touching it? Nay nay nay nay No. He's only one. I can't really fault him for it.

So, as I have probably somewhere between 20 and 40 minutes of quiet (naptime for now), I will try to get at least one thing off my chest (start your timers....Now)

I have to admit I haven't read any of the HOB statements. I am trying to reread the Harry Potter series (because the ending just didn't do it for me), but I only get about ten minutes here and there to read anything, and Harry Potter seems far more interesting and satisfying than Episcopal Church stuff right now. I won't add to what the other two have added here - both very thoughtful and intelligent - because I will just sound stupid.

What I have been thinking about is all this crap that has come up again regarding women's ordination (on various conservative blogs they can't even stomach to use the words, instead choosing to refer to "it" as "WO"). Woe is me... I remember people telling me that it was women who had the hardest time with other women being ordained. At first that really surprised me. How could women be so unsupportive of other women - aren't we all in the same struggle together? But then I was something like 11 years old, and didn't really know how evil women can be to each other. The next year I learned very quickly how nasty girls can be in middle school gym class. The biggest critics of me when I was going through the "process" to become ordained (and my first year of ordained life) were women - specifically OLDER women. I listened politely for twenty minutes as one priest lectured me on why I needed to use the title "Mother" (thus my user name) - which I have always hated, but hated that much more after that lovely encounter. I remember one meeting (in a ladies room of all places) where another priest commented on the state of my shoes, and laughing as she left. Of course, she was wearing PENNY LOAFERS (with a penny in them), which went out of style like 20 years ago.

Oh...and stop your watches...the baby is awake. (That has to be a record for shortness.)

See? I told you. I guess I will continue this later...

I have relocated to the dark confines of the baby's room - hoping my mere presence will let him sleep for a few more minutes. A nasty brown stink bugs is buzzing around me. Sounds something like what's happening in the Anglican Communion...but I digress from my previous digression about penny loafers and such.

Okay I was wrong. Baby is awake for good. I will have to try again one of these days.

Pop Quiz, Hotshots!

Ok, so my last post was way too serious. Now for a little lighthearted fun. No disrespect is intended (well, maybe just a little). Here is a pop quiz for all those who have been following the news in ECUSA and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Instructions: View each pair of pictures and answer the questions provided.


1.

Which one of the above is a megalomaniacal evil genius motivated by a lust for power?

And which one is Dr. Evil?

2.

Which of the above pictures depicts two shady individuals plotting the fate of millions?

And which one is Dr. Evil and Number 2?

3.

Which of the above pictures depicts a secretive cabal of villains, cackling over their nefarious schemes?

And which one is Dr. Evil and his henchmen?

4. Extra Credit: In the image below, who is Archbishop Akinola about to give the middle finger to?

a. Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori

b. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams

c. anyone concerned about the human rights of gays in Nigeria

d. The worldwide Anglican Communion

e. You! That's right, you! I don't like you and I'm coming for you next!

Well, as you may have guessed, there is really only one way to fail this pop quiz: if you take it seriously.

Where men are men and sheep are scared

According to a blogger named Greg Griffith, there is finally a place where men can feel free to be men.

(Hint: he's not talking about the local gay bar).

I am normally reluctant to cast stones at another--particularly people like the folks at this blog, as calling them out only inflates their sense of GRAND IMPORTANCE in the world. However, several sources (Including Fr. Jake, the Anglican Scotist) have pointed out some very disturbing comments by commenters, contributors, and the manager of the blog. Forgive me if I’m a little intense, but unlike Mr. Griffith and his friends, I don’t think that threats of violence are a laughing matter. Here it is, in a nutshell:

(original thread is here; it’s a response to some notes from the House of Bishops Meeting and anger at the Presiding Bishop; I’m not fully schooled in blog code yet, so I’ll just reproduce the more violent comments verbatim—boldface emphases are mine. You are welcome, if you can stomach it, to take a gander at the entire thread):

Greg Griffith wrote:
I’m already reaching for my pistol…

Bigjimintx wrote:
P.S. Texas is a “concealed carry” state. No telling who was packing heat in the meeting.

Virg wrote:
“they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!...”
At last…a perfect solution to all this bickering going on in the church. We’ll just kill the sobs.

Frances Scott wrote:
Frankly, Mr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on [the Presiding Bishop].

Greg Griffith wrote:
I won’t criticize those who think the best course is to play the pacifist, but they shouldn’t find fault with those who want to pick up their sword along with their trowel.

Greg then responds to a critic:
The only way you can visit SF and come away thinking “all testosterone blazing,” is to have spent WAY too much time in the extreme, hyper-feminine wing of the Episcopal church. You and Jake’s girls need to get out into the real world more often. You know… experience more diversity.

Greg then responds to the outrage his statements have caused at Fr. Jake’s blog:
While I appreciate your advice about watching our p’s and q’s, I refuse to conform my posts to the delicate sensibilities of Jake and his gals. This will always be a place where men can feel free to be men… the kind of place our church used to be, once upon a time.

It is a common tactic of the self-styled reasserters at Mr. Griffith’s website to use words and phrases that provoke an emotional response: feminist, gay agenda, extreme, Louie Crew, Jack Spong, Bishop Pike, etc. But I don’t think I’ve heard anyone being called a “girl” since my grade school days. (What’s next, Greg? Gonna call me a poopy-pants?) Those tactics have garnered Mr. Griffith a large audience (although the commenters seem to be restricted to the same 7 or 8 people), and he’s welcome to continue to use them (the people and the tactics). If these threats are truly indicative of how their web community feels, then Stand Firm is indeed a place where men are men; and the sheep who follow the website contributors do so out of fear.

There are two possibilities here:
Mr. Griffith was just joking and it was all in good fun. He had no idea that the talk of guns, violence, and misogyny was in the least bit threatening or harmful.
Mr. Griffith knew exactly what he was doing.

Either way, this is yet another example of religion used as a tool for stirring up anger and violence against a minority. (Yes, in the Church, ordained women are a minority, and gays even more so). Maybe I am giving this website too much power, but I think that straight white males (including me) have more than enough power in the church and in the world. (What we need to do about that is going to have to wait for another post, but, in a word, “surrender.”)

Words are powerful, and those with any power must be gracious and noble with their use.

After all, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” However, given the name of his website and his “manly” nature, I think Mr. Griffith would better enjoy Darrell Hammond’s SNL interpretation:

“The Penis Mightier.”

Yep. After all, the name of Greg’s website, “Stand Firm in Faith,” has some obvious allusions to old Priapus and his domain in the Greek pantheon. What Greg espouses is not the pinnacle of being created in God’s image, but its opposite—“manliness” at its basest form—the manliness that keeps women in their place in the kitchen; the manliness that espouses rape; the manliness that makes men into lesser beings.

It doesn’t matter where in the world you live. It’s dangerous to be gay—more dangerous in some areas than others. It is also dangerous to be a woman in many parts of the world (and many parts of our nation). Let’s not heap more verbal or physical violence on them than they already must endure.

Lesbians are frequently gang-raped and murdered in South Africa. The idea is apparently to either “turn” them or kill them. Gays in Nigeria are arrested simply for being what they are.

Oh, and let’s not forget Matthew Shepard. This “church” would be only too happy to tell you where Matthew is spending his life. (This link is not for the faint of heart or the easily angered). Contributors to Stand Firm have said, on numerous occasions, that not only are the gays going to hell, but so is anyone who shelters them. Shame on the fearmongerers!

I hope Mr. Griffith would express his shock and horror at such crimes. However, by his comments (and those he has allowed to remain on their site), he has effectively taken one giant step beyond the mere language of violence. When is it EVER OK, acceptable, even laudable to joke about using guns; when is it ever manly to insult someone by calling them a girl? This is the same language used by those who support the jailing, rape, and murder of gays and lesbians. And Mr. Griffith thinks it’s funny. Just havin’ a little fun.

I wonder what Mr. Griffith’s wife thinks about all this? I wonder what the women who contribute to Mr. Griffith’s blog think about his statements?

Violence + misogyny + self-righteousness + homophobia +humor=?

Apparently that is Mr. Griffith’s definition of a real man, Anglican style.

I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument here; nor am I attacking a “reasserter” view of the Bible; nor am I making any attempt to defend inappropriate tactics used by progressive Christians. I am calling on Mr. Griffith to repent of his words, and of those he has encouraged on his website.

After all, Mr. Griffith, it takes a real man to admit his mistakes.

So what does it mean?

Following the House of Bishops' response to the Primates last week, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates has issued a report making recommendations to the Primates and to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

First is an acknowledgement of the hard work and due diligence of the House of Bishops, and I must agree. Given the diversity of opinions, and the sheer weight of individual agendas, for them to have come to some agreement (though not unanimous) is a blessing. Despite what others may say (such as one blogger who is convinced that the HoB is demon possessed - no link provided on purpose), the HoB is trying to do its best with the difficult situation here in the Episcopal Church.

Second is an outright acceptance of the work. Yes, that's right - read it.

"By their answers to these two questions, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them in the Windsor Report, and on which clarifications were sought by 30th September 2007, and given the necessary assurances sought of them."

The JSC accepts the work that we have done, accepts the moratoria and the apologies that we have made, and commends it all to the Archbishop, to the Primates, and to the whole Communion by extension.

But wait, there's more:

For the first time the JSC acknowledges the hardships placed upon us by the "incursions" of foreign bishops into the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church.

"We feel obliged to note that the House of Bishops makes a point here which needs to be addressed urgently in the life of the Communion. In appealing to the statements of Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church is reminding all Anglicans that we are committed to upholding the principle of local jurisdiction. Not only do the ancient councils of the Church command our respect on this question, but the principle was clearly articulated and defended at the time when the very architecture of the Anglican Communion was forged in the early Lambeth Conferences, as well as being clearly re-iterated and stated in more recent times as tensions have escalated."

But, as though that needed clarification - because obviously it does! - the report goes on to cite several examples where the primates in their own words, and the Windsor Report, clearly calls for the incursions to cease. And as if that wasn't clear enough, the report uses their OWN words against them:

"As a Joint Standing Committee, we do not see how certain primates [read, Moses Tay of South East Asia, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, and Peter Akinola of Nigeria] can in good conscience call upon The Episcopal Church to meet the recommendations of the Windsor Report while they find reasons to exempt themselves from paying regard to them. We recommend that the Archbishop remind them of their own words and undertakings."

Finally, of some interest, is a second call from the Anglican Communion for the current litigations to be suspended. Why?

The answer, my friends, is that the Gospel calls us to reconciliation. Say it with me: rek-uhn-sil-ee-ey-shuhn.

In the original communique from Dar es Salaam, the Primates asked that both parties give "assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

And the JSC writes, "Unless some measure of reassurance and security is given to those congregations, parishes, bishops and dioceses ... there will be no reconciliation either within The Episcopal Church or within the wider Anglican Communion."

Yes, folks. They're talking about putting down the guns, calling a truce - or at least a cease fire - and continuing in the apostles teaching, fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in the prayers. And we can do this without agreeing with one another!

Recently, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburg opened the "Common Cause Council of Bishops" meeting by saying, "Our shortcoming is not 'right Faith.' Our shortcoming is 'right Order' and 'right mission.'" - addressing, of course, a group of people whom he was comfortable agreeing with - other evangelicals.

Of course he's going to say that "right faith" isn't as important as "right order" and "right mission."

But I wonder - what would our current situation have been like if they had taken this approach from the beginning? What if they could deal with the tension of unlike beliefs (not discordant faith), and instead work for "right order" and "right mission"?

I find it hard to accept their words at face value. And I guarantee that the rhetoric will change from this point on. Now that we've conceded and apologized - placing a stand-still on future actions, waiting on the Holy Spirit to bring about a deeper consensus on these issues - they have nothing to fight with us about... unless they change the arguement.

They won't put down their guns. They won't call a cease-fire. They have too much to lose: Bishops have been made (Minns) and power has been grabbed, and they fear losing that.

A Prayer, a Thank-You, and a Question for our GLBT brothers and sisters

The Bishops have done what they can (see the statement here) in New Orleans. Once again, we are asking a much-oppressed group in our midst—within the body of Christ—to wait.

Contrast the patient, faithful participation of the GLBT Episcopalians with the grasping, greedy behavior of Akinola, Iker, Duncan, Ackerman, etc. I think it’s pretty clear where Jesus is in our midst. We (TEC) do not deserve the faithful presence of those who are most demeaned and dishonored in our church.

Thus, a prayer from our BCP for GLBT persons everywhere in the world who have been victims of violence of any type, and for those who have simply been asked, again, to wait:

Look with pity, O heavenly Father, upon the people in this land who live with injustice, terror, disease, and death as their constant companions. Have mercy upon us. Help us to eliminate our cruelty to these our neighbors. Strengthen those who spend their lives establishing equal protection of the law and equal opportunities for all. And grant that every one of us may enjoy a fair portion of the riches of this land; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

(Now I know our little corner of the blog-o-verse isn’t even a blip on anyone’s radar-yet-but I’m hoping some visitors will comment-respectfully, please):

To our GLBT brothers and sisters: thank you for showing God’s grace to the rest of us. My question for you is this: in light of what happened (and didn’t happen) in New Orleans, how are you doing?

Christmas in September? By No Means!

My brothers and I would explode into action at about 5 a.m. on Christmas morning—much to the chagrin of our mother, who had been playing the organ at the midnight service just a few hours ago. We would sneak downstairs (which, in a 100+ -year-old house is not a silent experience), hoping to catch just a peek around the corner into the darkened living room. The first light of dawn would give us glimpses of reflections from wrapping paper and tinsel. Our father would take a great deal of time brushing his teeth and going into the kitchen to make large quantities of freshly-squeezed orange juice (mostly to play up the waiting). We were not allowed to set one foot downstairs until Dad was good and ready. The four of us sat on the stairs for what seemed like hours, and to be honest, those moments of huddling, waiting, guessing, and barely containing our excitement—those moments of wonder at what might be revealed—well, those are my best memories of Christmases past. (I remember the waiting and the closeness with my brothers far better than any of the gifts we received).

For Episcopalians (and Anglicans) around the world, this is also a time of intense waiting and expectation. The House of Bishops will have crafted their response to the Dar Es Salaam communiqué from the Primates (and its “deadline” of September 30) sometime this afternoon. Bloggers from all ends of the spectrum are waiting to see what will be revealed. Many (especially the more homophobic bloggers) are simply waiting to pass yet another judgment upon the Episcopal Church. It brings to mind a child who rushes into a room full of presents, unwrapping without a care, as he already knows what will be revealed—he has become accustomed to receiving everything he demands from overindulgent parents, and he is simply looking to find some way in which they have wronged him yet again.

Shoot, it brings to mind Veruca Salt:

I want the world

I want the whole world

I want to lock it all up in my pocket

It's my bar of chocolate

Give it to meNow!

I want today

I want tomorrow

I want to wear 'em like braids in my hair

And I don't want to share 'em

I want a party with room fulls of laughter

Ten thousand tons of ice cream

And if I don't get the things I am after

I'm going to scream!

Others have taken a more balanced approach (thank you, Fr. Jake, and forgive me for paraphrasing you):

What will follow September 30?
October 1st.
And not much else.

The fate of the Church, and the quality of our days together that will follow, will depend largely on our response to what is revealed (and not as much on the actual content of the revelation). Can we remain committed to staying in relationship? Can we commit to finding a way forward together? Can we commit to discerning God’s will together? Can we do all these things without excluding the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters? Or will we simply mirror the world around us by splintering off into polarized and isolated factions?

Again: the content of the Bishops’ response will be important—but it will not be nearly as earth-shattering (and earth-CHANGING) as the response of a faithful Church. It is most likely that the Bishops will challenge us to offer acceptance and full inclusion to the GLBT faithful; it is also likely that we will be challenged to work with those with whom we disagree. If we can survive the sensationalism of the media that will report on this meeting; if we can survive the spin of the ultra-polarized “Angry-cans,” then we may truly wonder at what has yet to be revealed (on this issue today, and in the years to come). I think, in the end, that what TEC has to say will sound suspiciously like the Gospels. Imagine that!

Pray for our Bishops. Pray for all in relationship with the Episcopal Church. Most importantly, pray for our gay brothers and sisters, whose life in the church will be most affected by the events in the coming years.

In the days to come, I think we will hear that tomorrow does not belong to us.

We will hear that, contrary to what some may say, there are no bad eggs in God’s Church.

In the end, I think those who are actually listening will hear something wonderful.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

OK, so maybe you’re not a Seinfeld fan, but this quote comes from that show’s humorous take on cultural prejudices. In the episode, “The Outing,” Jerry Seinfeld denies rumors that he is gay … “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” As friends and family respond with alarm to the rumors of Jerry’s homosexuality, they all end their shocked statements by saying, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

Why am I bringing this up? Because I think this line needs to be adopted by many of the angry purple shirts who are distressed by the consecration of a gay bishop (and, let’s face it, women’s ordination). The Presiding Bishop has offered to appoint an acceptable bishop to provide alternate primatial oversight for American Bishops. (Apparently some men just can’t stomach dealing with a woman in authority). Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth has responded by saying that any plan that gives ultimate authority to Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori is a “non-starter.” Apparently a woman has no place issuing “unilateral dictates.” (As if any PB ever had that sort of authority!)

Of course, this is nothing new from Fort Worth's pointy hat. One can almost hear +Iker saying, "It's not because she's a woman--not that there's anything wrong with that!" Adding the Seinfeld disclaimer to misogynist sentiments simply gives credence to the fallacy that such sentiments should be mainstream.

If you visit the website for the Diocese of Fort Worth, you can read a detailed view of their position on women’s ordination. The multi-part essay is written by 4 guys. As you can probably guess, they don’t like women’s ordination. Using a generous amount of proof-texting and specious argument, these four men commence a heavily-biased reading of Holy Scripture, Church tradition, and even reason. Yes, the decline in the moral and ethical standards of the church since 1976 is directly due to the ordination of women. So is the decline in membership and stewardship, and just about every other ill that has befallen the Episcopal Church. I wonder how these gentlemen would explain the vast abuses of children by the Catholic Church, which does not ordain women. Blame that on the Philadelphia 11 too? And to what idealized vision of the pre-1976 church are they subscribing? Was it the “church triumphant” before the Philadelphia 11? Were our pre-1976 ethical and moral standards any higher before we started ordaining women? Was +Iker rendered so helpless by the presence of a woman with holy orders that he was powerless to halt their mission to destroy the church? I can’t help but think that +Iker would be better served by singing a little Jimmy Buffet:

“Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame, but I know it’s my own damn fault.”

Here is what part of the article would look like if the authors used Jerry Seinfeld’s line:

“It is reasonable then to hope that women’s ordination may likewise come to be viewed as an experiment that failed, a concept that seemed rational enough at first, but eventually was recognized by more thoughtful generations as hollow and counter-productive—not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Here is what recent statements attributed to Bishop Orama (Nigeria) would sound like:

“Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic, and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Sounds almost ... acceptable, doesn't it?

(Yes, +Orama has denied making this statement, and the reporter involved has retracted, but mere denials are not sufficient. Enough homophobia has come out of ++Akinola’s camp; these statements are consistent with the party line--which, in Nigeria, includes jail for homosexuals. In other words, gays shouldn't be killed, just jailed. Until +Orama can make a statement affirming the rights and dignity of gay men and women, he has not truly retracted anything. It’s like punching someone in the face and saying, “I did not just hit you.” Or worse: “Open-handed hitting doesn’t count!”).

+Iker and other Network bishops have hidden their bigotry behind a reading of Scripture, sacred tradition, and reason—a reading that, surprise, favors men! Behind their stated good intentions lie the actions of angry, straight, male bishops. They are acting like homophobes and misogynists.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Sermon for the Burial of the Dead, Rite I

About 8 years ago, just before I entered Seminary,
my uncle Ben took me aside at a family dinner
and he gave me the best advice anyone has ever given
about being a good preacher:
Ben gave me a very serious look; he fixed me with his gaze.
“Short sermons,” he said, “less than 10 minutes.”
I am going to honor Ben by following his advice today.
I want to talk with you today about faith …
specifically, what Ben’s life and death—
his living and his dying—
can teach us about having faith.
I am glad I knew Ben; glad I loved him as an uncle;
glad even now as I deeply grieve for him,
because, in his living and especially in his dying,
Ben proved that faith and love are at their strongest
when you keep them in spite of hardship.
We are here because we loved Ben
and because we still love him
somewhere in our love and our grief
we are meant to find hope.
I loved Ben.
He was always larger-than-life to me
But I don’t think I really got to know him …
I don’t think I really learned how strong Ben was
nor how loving he could be
until he got sick.
I visited him in the hospital once, at Sloan-Kettering in New York.
It was the first time I had seen Ben as a hospital patient
He was lying in bed, and he was connected
to all kinds of tubes and bags of fluid.
Some of those tubes would be going home with him.
I asked Ben how he was doing.
And Ben, as only he could do,
communicated volumes in just one word:
“Rotten.”

In that one word, I heard pain and frustration,
but I also heard hope, and a little bit of humor.
Ben was never afraid to laugh at himself.
We sat with Ben and after a while he said,
“Do you know what is helping me through this?”
He took out a prayer book, and he read the following prayer:
“Strengthen your servant Benjamin, O God, to do what he has to do
and bear what he has to bear, that, accepting your healing gifts
through the skill of surgeons and nurses,
he may be restored to usefulness in your world with a thankful heart,
through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”
Ben paused, and indicated the tubes and bags to which he was connected …
some of them, to which he would be permanently connected,
and he said, “This is what I have to do, and what I have to bear,
and I have to learn how to have a thankful heart about that.”
Those words really stuck with me,
and I hope they stick with you, too.
Because even though Ben was speaking from pain and frustration,
I believe he was speaking with a heart of faith.
I believe that even in the worst of his suffering,
Ben knew something:
Faith and love are only worth having if you suffer with them.
If faith and love are your companions in hardship
not just in good times,
but in the worst of times,
then faith and love are yours to share with others.
I know that Ben shared his gifts more freely
after he was faced with his own mortality.
I know that what Ben was trying to say from his hospital bed was this:
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me …
he has sent me to bring good news …
And because God’s Spirit was with Ben, it was speaking through him.
Ben’s prayer was answered …
he was restored to great usefulness in the world—greater than ever.
As the years went by, Ben went through
cycles of bad prognoses and miraculous recoveries.
Seeing him at family gatherings was like a slap in the face …
but it was not his appearance, sometimes affected by chemotherapy,
that shocked me.
It was the twinkle in his eye, and the warmth in his smile …
the strength with which he clasped your hand.
(He stopped shaking hands, I noticed … no more casual pleasantries for Ben …
Ben clasped your hand ... he held on to you
as surely as he held on to his life).
Without a word, with one bright-eyed look,
Ben told you the secret of having faith.
“I’m still here. Every day is a gift.”
There could be no greater usefulness in this world
than to spread this good news.
To Ben, faith was something that was not complicated.
Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself.
and most importantly, death is not the end.
If you were going to have belief,
might as well really put it through its paces.
Ben had great days and Ben had rotten days, and lots of days that fell in between
and I believe he learned
to see each of those days as a gift from God.
I know that, through the way he lived his last years,
Ben was trying to say to us:
Try to cultivate this attitude in your life.
When you wake in the morning, try saying,
“I’m still here. Every day is a gift.”
Try it not just when you wake up feeling refreshed,
but also when you wake up exhausted, alone, or afraid.
You will be surprised
at the richness this attitude will bring to your life.
You will be able to see the hand of God
guiding and healing you.
You will begin to understand
that God’s ultimate goal for us
does not lie in this life,
but in eternal fellowship with him.
Suffering and death are not the last words for us;
there is a great family waiting to welcome us
just it has have welcomed Ben.
Ben’s good news to us
is nothing less than the good news of Jesus Christ,
who has given us a garland instead of ashes
the oil of gladness instead of mourning
the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.
Ben understands now what we only understand in part;
his broken heart is healed, and he is free from all suffering;
let your own broken hearts be healed,
and know that you grieve
because you loved so deeply.
I hope you will take every day as a gift—
every moment, whether rich or rotten,
is a chance to love your neighbor and your enemy
a chance to hope in something greater than yourself
a chance to discover what heaven is like.

Its probably a smart idea to wear dark pants

Okay, so, like Malt Viquor's last post, I don't think this has much to do with the crap in the church, but who knows...maybe it all comes back to it in the end.

With the obsession most Americans have with diet and weight loss, it is surprising there are so many fat people around. Not that I am really all that thin...and I (as most people) have undergone my fair share of diet plans. Some of them are just insane.

A few years back when Olestra came out, I was scared out of even trying those potato chips (I even went without eating at one particular party when I realized the only thing there were those kind of chips) because I might find myself with "greasy, oily discharge." I mean, why wouldn't I be afraid? That seriously put me off to any kind of chips for a long time. If you look up "olestra" in wikipedia it describes my chilling fear as "anal leakage". (Shudder)

Now there is Alli (pronounced "ally" like those we join forces with in a war). I first discovered this product when trying to keep my son occupied while I waited for a prescription. The display is very colorful and kept him entertained for almost a minute (nearly a record). During that minute, I found myself reading some the claim - "The pill works by preventing your body from absorbing some of the fat you eat". Sound familiar? I had awful flashbacks to those WOW chips and hurried away, grateful for the distraction my son caused by pulling half of the kits off the shelf.

I forgot all about it until, while watching my favorite pundit, Stephen Colbert, he mentioned it. Once again, such wonderful side-effects as "gas with oily spotting, loose stools, and more frequent stools that may be hard to control." Now, I ask you is it worth it to be skinny if you smell like ass all the time? I recommend you read the "treatment effects" (because "side effects" is too negative??) section listed on the website. It is too funny to believe. I am reminded of the SNL skit that made fun of Jerry Seinfeld, where Adam Sandler says "Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?!"

Quoting: "The excess fat that passes out of your body is not harmful. In fact, you may recognize it as something that looks like the oil on top of a pizza." Okay, I am never eating pizza again. Or the thoughtful, insightful, and helpful advice: "You may not usually get gassy, but it's a possibility when you take Alli. The bathroom is really the best place to go when that happens." (As if someone has never farted in their lives before.) But, by far the best advice by these people (who are trying to sell this product) is (and I am directly quoting from the website) "You may feel an urgent need to go to the bathroom. Until you have a sense of any treatment effects, it's probably a smart idea to wear dark pants, and bring a change of clothes with you to work." I always thought dark pants were slimming, but now I know they also hide skid marks and stool pools. You can learn ANYTHING on the internet.

Okay, so why am I going off about all of this? Because I am constantly amazed at what things we will tolerate (anal leakage) and the things we refuse to tolerate (Billy has two mommies). How many times have I found myself behind an family of obese people in the McDonald's drive-thru, looking at their "Vote YES for Marriage" and "Family Values = 1 Man and 1 Woman" and their American flag decal right next to their Jesus fish and yellow ribbon. Okay, so that happened once - me in my little hybrid and them in their fat-ass Hummer-but it was enough. But seriously, we will expect a pill to make us thin, and we will tolerate pooping our pants with the hope that it might work. And yet, many of those same people, unhappy as they are, find the love between two women or two men disgusting. What happened to us? Why do we place our hope on a pill that causes anal leakage rather than trust in the goodness of those around us? Why do we seek a saviour in a bottle rather than the one that is always with us? I don't know. While I have never been the thinnest person in the world, I will still never eat those damn WOW chips or take Alli. I'd rather be fat...

And now for something a little different...

The man on the left, the one wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Christian Dior gold lame gown over a silk Vera Wang empire-waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a 3-foot beaded peaked House of Whoville hat and the rubyslippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz, believes that the Episcopal Church has injured ecumenical talks because of the election of the first "openly gay" bishop in the Christian Church... did I mention that he looks fabulous?

$5 bargain bin DVD review: The Proposition

“I was a believer, but I came to this … land, and the Garden of Eden dried up.” –Jellon Lamb, bounty hunter (played by John Hurt).

I found this gem sitting in the $5 bargain bin at a Movie Starz. I knew I had picked a winner when the bloodshot-eyed clerk exclaimed, “Dude. That movie is awesome. Dude.” When I went home to shelve this DVD (in alphabetical order, thanks to my well-organized wife), I realized that I own more than my fair share of little-known movies—each with round red stickers that read, “$5.99 – Previously Owned.” If you pull off that sticker, there is another round red sticker that reads, “$7.99 – Previously Owned.” So, almost half of my DVD collection is composed of twice-rejected DVDs.

I can handle that. In fact, I have decided to subject the readers to a series of reviews (through a Christian lens) of all of the twice-rejected, indie DVDs on my bookcase.

I have a notion to start with the Proposition. (2005, Autonomous)

Put as simply as possible, The Proposition is a Western set in Australia. Instead of cowboys, there are Irish range riders. Instead of Indians, there are Aborigines. Screenwriter Nick Cave (more on him below) and Director John Hillcoat spare us all of the clichés that made Saturday Westerns so boring. The Proposition is (like a lot of Cave’s music) laden with Biblical imagery and themes; it is also (like a lot of Cave’s music) chaotic, violent, and beautiful.

“Australia. What fresh hell is this?” muses Captain Stanley, as he takes in the harsh landscape. Actually, Dorothy Parker wrote these words much later than the late 19th century, when this movie is set. Yet, the quote fits perfectly. The entire cast of characters have been cast out of Eden (read: Britain) into a fresh hell. Here, the consequences of the Fall are quite evident. The flies swarm thicker than in a Hieronymus Bosch painting; dirt cakes clothes and hair, and smiles are rare treats. By the end of the movie, no one (who is still alive) has any claim to innocence. But a few might find redemption.

As I mentioned above, Biblical themes abound. The most obvious is Cain and Abel; Charlie Burns (a sweaty, filthy, shirtless Guy Pearce) faces the possibility of killing his brother, Arthur. The youngest brother Mikey, in turn, is a prisoner who is frequently taunted, mocked, and beaten by his captors, yet he remains silent in the face of all their accusations. (I may be drawing the Christ-figure thing too strongly—Mikey spends the majority of the film whimpering, and he actually has very few lines). Mikey’s clothes are torn; he is flogged while tied to a cross (he receives something on the order of 39 lashes). Even Captain Stanley believes Mikey “is not responsible for his actions,” yet he must suffer for his brothers’ sins. Captain Stanley himself is part Satan, part Pilate: his manipulation of Charlie would have done Satan proud. Yet, when the mob comes to demand that Mikey be flogged/crucified, (“Give him to us,” demands the imperious Mr. Fletcher), Stanley plays Pilate to the hilt. (Pilate/Stanley’s wife even has a recurring dream). If there were any water in that arid land, Stanley would have washed his hands of the affair.

Mikey doesn’t have the monopoly on Christ imagery; his brother Charlie is pierced by a spear and spends the rest of the film with a hole in his side. “Holy mother of mercy!” exclaims Sam, “Look who’s raised himself from the dead!” Charlie is also the focus through which redemption becomes a possibility in this fallen land. At the risk of spoiling the plot for you, I won’t say any more on that front.

The Proposition does not pull any punches. The film is violent, brutal, and beautiful, set against a land with the same characteristics. Some have criticized The Proposition for its violence. If you can handle Platoon (which, at 13, I couldn’t), then you can handle The Proposition. In fact, the violence in this movie is so strongly tied to the plot that it does not seem gratuitous. Contrast Mikey’s flogging (which, I’ll elaborate below, is more tragic than violent) with Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ (in which the violence is so gratuitous, it might as well be pornography). The usual Western clichés are turned on their heads; there are no heroic shootouts; only brutal deaths and firearms that misfire, injuring their owners. At one point, Jellon Lamb exclaims, “We are white men, sir! Not beasts!” Yet the whites in the movie are brutal and uncivilized (no matter how much poetry they recite).

I have to give Cave and Hillcoat credit: they never sugarcoat Australia’s history of dealing with its Aboriginal peoples. The Australian natives are slaves at best; at worst, they are hunted and slaughtered. One of the most chilling scenes in the film is a field of freshly-slaughtered Aborigines (men, women, and children). You can hear the white soldiers who killed them drunkenly singing “Rule, Britannia” in the nearby cabin.

The music in The Proposition is very well done—probably because Nick Cave also wrote the screenplay. (Nick Cave’s music just keeps getting better; I strongly encourage you to check out the Lyre of Orpheus). As the soldiers drink and sing, we see the blood on their hands (in most cases, their right hands. Is this possibly a reference to Cave’s song, “Red Right Hand?”) In another scene, young misanthrope Samuel Stote’s haunting rendition of “O, Peggy Gordon” is juxtaposed against Mikey’s flogging. Samuel sings this song once more in the film, and this second rendition is creepy and horrifying. It’s a neat (if shocking) twist.

The two songs above are actually performed by actors in the film. The music Cave performs himself flows more through the background, serving to focus attention on this strange, eerie land. Cave’s music is haunting and melancholy; like Australia’s landscape itself, the soundtrack is somewhat detached from the awful events that transpire in The Proposition. Cave’s voice occasionally supports the soundtrack, whispering the notes as the wind howls through the Australian desert. The opening music (yes, I know I’m going backwards here) sets the stage perfectly: a child singing a hymn. Meanwhile, ancient daguerreotypes appear and disappear. These depict actual settlers, “civilized” Aborigines, and well-dressed governors. As the credits come to a close, there are a few aged, weathered photos of some of the major characters in the film. The last images we see before the movie starts depict the aftermath of the Burns gang’s unspeakable crime.

The best performance (in a film full of excellent performances) comes from Emily Watson (Martha Stanley). She is proper, clean, puritanical, and beautiful (in a land that is anything but). The most touching scenes in the film are the all-too-brief exchanges between Martha and Captain Stanley. Martha clearly loves her husband very deeply; she appears as if she is about to explode with barely-controlled passion at just the right moments in the film. Martha Stanley here brings to mind Watson’s heartbreaking, loving (and occasionally, oddly comic) performance in Breaking the Waves. It’s a shame we don’t see more of her.

Danny Huston (yes, descended from Hollywood royalty) comes in at a close second. Arthur Burns, the “villain” and object of all the fuss, comes in late in the film after he’s been built up. (“He sits up in those melancholy hills … slumbers deep like a kraken,” drones Jellon Lamb. Is Arthur Burns the white whale?) Arthur is wild and brutal, yet he is also well-read and fatherly. Huston’s performance is subtle, never overdoing the near-hour of rumor and buildup that is used to create his character. Arthur Burns is part of the most amusing exchange the film:

Samuel Stote: What’s a misanthrope?
Two Bob: A misanthrope’s a bugger that hates every other bugger.
Samuel Stote: Are we misanthropes?
Arthur Burns: Lord, no! We’re a family!

In The Proposition, no one’s hands are clean. Everyone is Fallen. Yet, loyalty and honor might be found in strange places, and the moviegoer might witness redemption. I leave it to you to find out.

Watch The Proposition if you are in a Blade Runner or Unforgiven kind of mood. This is very much a “guy film” (no pun on Guy Pearce). I wouldn’t take a date (although, if you find a date who will actually call you back after you take her to see it, kudos to you!). In short, The Proposition is definitely not a film for your Youth Group movie night, but it gives a good image of what redemption might look like, if that divine gift came to a fresh hell.