The IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R^TM) is going around the blogs I read, so I thought I'd give it a go.

IPIP-NEO Narrative Report

EXTRAVERSION - 54: Friendliness 75, Gregariousness 36, Assertiveness 79, Activity Level 93, Excitement-Seeking 5, Cheerfulness 25. An Average score on Extraversion indicates neither a subdued loner nor a jovial chatterbox You enjoy time with others but also time alone.

AGREEABLENESS - 82: Trust 75, Morality 85, Altruism 77, Cooperation 82, Modesty 60, Sympathy 47. A high level of Agreeableness indicates a strong interest in others' needs and well-being You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative.

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS - 57: Self-Efficacy 62, Orderliness 6, Dutifulness 69, Achievement-Striving 78, Self-Discipline 71, Cautiousness 71. An average score on Conscientiousness means you are reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled.

NEUROTICISM - 77: Anxiety 93, Anger 84, Depression 60, Self-Consciousness 23, Immoderation 19, Vulnerability 99. A high Score on Neuroticism indicates that you are easily upset, even by what most people consider the normal demands of living People consider you to be sensitive and emotional.

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE - 55: Imagination 2, Artistic Interests 88, Emotionality 52, Adventurousness 23, Intellect 84, Liberalism 67. An average score on Openness to Experience, indicates that you enjoy tradition but are willing to try new things Your thinking is neither simple nor complex To others you appear to be a well-educated person but not an intellectual.

'Alexandra', is an art teacher from in the English Midlands. Her discovery of the male form as a major subject for her work came by accident when one of her male students offered to model for her. Usually she paints males clothed, but allows the sensuality of the figure to show through. Her paintings are characterized by intense contrasts and colors; the backgrounds tend to be filled with detail, emphasizing the mood of the subjects. I find this understated image far more intriguing than 'in your face' nudity. (Hotel Tijuana, 2003, Oil on canvas, 39 x 31 inches )

It vaguely reminds me of Cézanne's Jeune homme à la tête de mort (Boy with skull), which I once saw at a Barnes Foundation special exhibition at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris in November 1993.

CAMRA, the Canberra Academy of Music and Related Arts, a community music society that that performa in our parish church at St. Philip's. Many of our parish members also are members of CAMRA and my singing teacher, Pat Forbes and her husband, Colin, are its musical directors.

On 17th and 18th September 2005, CAMRA will combine with St. Philip's to perform, Ordo Virtutum by Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) in English translation, to coincide with Hildegard's feast day.

It is a mystical morality play, set to music, about the Virtues, the Soul and the Devil. Arguably, it is the earliest morality play ever written. Hildegard von Bingen was a German abbess who was an extraordinary visionary, poet, scholar and composer. She exercised a wide influence, numbering emperors, kings, prelates and saints among her correspondents. She stands out as a model for the role and influence of women for all time.

I will not be singing in Ordo Virtutum. My first ever outing as a choir member will be in CAMRA's performance of Handel's Messiah on 9 and 11 December. After a quick run-through of the bass part of the Hallelujah Chorus, Pat and Colin reckon that my baritone voice will manage the bass parts of the choruses (they're scored for soprano, alto, tenor and bass).

It will be great fun. So I've dragged out and begun studying a battered copy of the Schirmers's full score of The Messiah that I bought (new) for $1.75, thirty five years ago. They're still going for as little $US2.00 on Abebooks and $US7.50 on Amazon

Thinking Anglicans, helpfully draws attention to this article (19 August) on civil partnerships by the Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester.

Concerning committed same-sex partnerships, Bishop Selby says that if the the Church, "cannot speak hopefully about what are clearly signs of commitment and responsibility, perhaps it would have been better to say nothing." Quite so. In a few weeks I will attend the Synod of my diocese, the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn. The agenda papers will arrive soon. I fervently hope that there will be nothing on the notice paper about sex, sexuality, marriage, etc. If a discussion on one of these comes up, depending on how the discussion goes, I may be tempted to use the Standing Orders to move, "that Synod proceed to the next item of business". Bishop Selby writes:

Those responsible for crafting [the CofE Bishops'statement] worked long and hard, endeavouring to accommodate the widest range of opinions. But the opinions they sought to accommodate were chiefly those of the House of Bishops. More than once I asked that we might involve some who were considering entering a civil partnership, clergy and lay, in the preparation of the statement.

Had we done so, we would have acted on the encouragement given by the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay people, and would have heard the views of others affected. At the very least, we would then know what their reaction would be to what we were proposing to say.

My suggestion was rejected on the grounds that, as the proposed document represented no change in the Church's teaching, there was no need to consult in that way. At the level of words on the page, it may be true that it represents no change in the Church's stance on homosexual relationships. The document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality (Church House Publishing, 1991), reiterating the main points of its teaching, and in particular making its well-known distinction between the responsibility of lay Christians who are gay and that of those who are ordained.

However, contexts affect meanings profoundly, and, even if the document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality, it is specifically produced to take account of the new Civil Partnerships Act. That Act has the purpose of enabling people of the same gender to order many of the practical and financial aspects of their life together along lines that follow automatically for those who are married.

The fact that the bishops deem it necessary to respond to that new context by reiterating (as they see it) the teaching of Issues is itself a message that was bound to be heard negatively by those affected, and has been. The message being sent is that entry into a civil partnership will arouse the suspicion that the teaching of Issues is being contravened, and those who decide on that course must be ready to give assurances that it is not. This will not only affect those who are gay, but will also lead many who are not gay and who choose to share their lives to refrain from exercising their rights under the Act, for fear of the interpretation that would be put on their doing so.

Those who put this statement together are certainly not seeking to be oppressive or to add to people's burdens: there are plenty of sentences in the document that show how much struggle went into putting it together, and I believe that in many, if not most, dioceses, it will be interpreted with gentleness and compassion.

Yet this pastoral sensitivity runs up against the dominant force that drives the bishops' response to the social reality of the increased public recognition of lesbian and gay relationships, and to the availability of civil partnerships in particular: what they fear is that marriages, and the institution of marriage, are somehow threatened by this development.

I find this fear difficult to understand, since nobody has ever been prepared to tell me that their own marriage was threatened by the public recognition of gay relationships. My experience of lesbian and gay friends in relation to my own marriage is only of support and insight. There is room, surely, for a much more hopeful response.

It should be a source not of fear, but of delight, that many who do not aspire to matrimony, or to whose circumstances it is inappropriate, wish none the less to order their lives by means of as many of the aspects of the married state as are made available to them.

Is it not a vindication of all that has been revealed to us about the contribution of marriage to human flourishing that, often in the face of sustained public and ecclesiastical disapproval, and the presence of some very destructive lifestyles within the "gay scene", many gay and lesbian people have aspired to order their lives in the kind of faithfulness and responsibility that civil partnerships involve?

I am aware that the decisions of such Christians represent a challenge to our received understanding, and I am personally committed to continuing to sustain respectful conversation about the biblical and interpretative issues involved. But we must surely find ways of continuing that conversation, however difficult it is, without at the same time making such a grudging and fearful response to those who have made conscientious decisions in relation to their lives, and believe that they are best ordered within the new context of civil partnership.

[. . .] I dare to hope that bishops will find better ways of relating to such couples than seeking assurances, and I believe many of us will. But, sorry as I am to need to say so, the words we have uttered on this topic will not help either bishops or those to whom they minister. For the desire of people to enter civil partnerships, and the willingness of the Government to make that possible, represent something far more hopeful than this document makes it appear.

Sustaining the Church's doctrine of marriage is a challenging task at this time, almost entirely for reasons that have (if we are honest) little to do with homosexuality. If our difficulty as Church with particular life-choices means that we cannot speak hopefully about what are clearly signs of commitment and responsibility, perhaps it would have been better to say nothing.

Accordingly to a somewhat overwrought story in The Telegraph (8 August), a number of gay British clergy are to defy the bishops over 'no-sex' unions, some saying that they had no intention of assuring their bishops that they will be sexually abstinent when they "marry" their partners. "One said he was 'furious' with the way homosexual clergy were being treated and gay rights activists predicted a widespread revolt."

(The bishops' guidance said that clergy could enter into partnerships but only if they first assured their bishops that they would abide by Church teaching that sex should be confined to heterosexual marriage. It also told clergy that they should not offer formal services of blessing to couples who had been through a civil partnership ceremony. The bishops argued that the new law would not introduce gay marriage because it did not presuppose sexual relations.)

One clergyman, the Rev Stephen Coles, the vicar of St Thomas in Finsbury Park, north London, and a member of General Synod, is quoted as saying, "If a bishop asks me if I am having sex I will say, it's none of your business. Frankly, it is a breach of my human rights for him even to ask."

Another article in The Telegraph mentions an Anglican clergyman who continues in a 30-year same-sex partnership. The civil partnerships issue, and the bishops' statement, has provoked him into public defiance.

The Revd David Page, vicar of St Barnabas in Clapham Junction, south London, said he and Howard will "marry" sometime next year, the 30th anniversary of their first meeting. He said he wanted to "legitimise" his relationship and have it formally recognised by society as well as to provide legal rights for his partner in areas such as pensions.

"Is it going to be quiet and private or is it going to mushroom into something that loads of people want to come to? We have to sort that out between us," he said. But how would he react if the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, asked him for a reassurance that the couple would remain chaste?

"I am not prepared to give any assurances to anybody about what the nature of that relationship is. I shall want to tell him of my plans. I'm sure we will have a conversation. But he will know that I won't give him that assurance."

I'm usually mild-mannered, but the need for this discussion makes me angry. My ministry has been circumscribed because I refuse to answer bedroom questions. Why must the church insist in knowing what happens my bedroom?

Of course I oppose violence, abuse and exploitation. Of course unfaithfulness, promiscuity and lack of love do not meet God's best. But offensive questions and simple verbal assurances do nothing to prevent such sins, so why bother?

Do not church leaders trust God the Holy Spirit to direct through their consciences men and women devoted to Christ? Is not that sharp sword, the Word of God, able to act on the conscience to convict us and direct us to what is right? Is not the working out of salvation, "in fear and trembling" the duty of every Christian? I cannot abrogate my duty of conscience in order to answer questions about my private behavior that are entirely irrelevant to my vocation, fitness and ability.

Yesterday evening, James and I attended a joyous celebration to mark to completion of a building extension for our former parish. The service was wonderful and the hospitality superb. We were welcomed by so many of our friends. The parish is growing apace, which is exciting. Yet there was still a small twinge of pain from last year.

Several people gave short talks about the parish's story and vision. Of them, a good friend of ours, said that she praised God for the great diversity of people in the parish: "young and old, rich and poor, simple and clever, from various faith backgrounds, and a rich array of ethnic backgrounds -- all there to praise God and looking to encourage one-another in living out their faith authentically." But queer-and-straight wasn't in the pattern of diversity; the space for us had been too small to live out our faith authentically.

Our Bishop, George Browning, was there. He spoke from the Sunday readings, which included Genesis 45, the reunion of Joseph with his brothers. Joseph was not content until all the brothers were together, including Benjamin, the youngest. Thus Bishop George said that the church is not complete until all the tribes are gathered. +George praised and encouraged the parish for gathering many tribes. But it hurt that my 'tribe' was not being gathered and could not serve.

Yet, James and I love the people and love the place. We'll keep going back.

A few extracts from an interview between the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, and Frank Lockwood of the Lexington Herald-Leader (13 Aug). Bishop Griswold was in Berea for ECUSA's international youth convention, "where he was welcomed enthusiastically":

I see my ministry as one of connecting pieces, reminding people of a variety of points of view, that they don't have a corner on God's truth. God's truth has many dimensions. The Anglican tradition has always . . . been a tradition in which widely divergent points of view have been held together not by one point of view capitulating to another but by common prayer focusing, beyond opinions, on the person of Christ.

Q: What will it take to heal the divisions in the Anglican Communion?
A: Well, I think I see the healing already taking place. There is the public rhetoric, and then there is the actual reality. . . . There are all these webs of relationships across the communion that are strong and doing good work. And certainly none of the provinces of the Anglican Communion are monochromatic. You may have angry words coming from a particular place, and yet on the ground, the relationships between bishops here and bishops there are quite strong and very positive. I think it's a question of mutual respect, time, and reliance upon the Holy Spirit, who can do amazing things in overcoming divisions.

Q: Here in Kentucky,members of three Episcopal churches have voted to leave the denomination. They said that the church has departed from historic Christianity. What would you say to these people?
A: We all claim the authority of scripture. The ancient creeds, the doctrine of the trinity, the nature of Christ -- all these things are not up for negotiation. . . . I would say if sexuality becomes the ground on which division occurs, then it means that sex is more important than the doctrine of the holy trinity and the divinity of Christ, which is a very sorry situation to find oneself in. Isn't it ironic that people can overlook Jesus' words about divorce and remarriage and claim biblical orthodoxy and become hysterical over a reference in the letter to the Romans about homosexual behavior? The Bible, of course, didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation. It only understood it as a behavior. Clearly, the biblical writers presumed that everyone was naturally heterosexual.

Q: What would you want people in Kentucky to know about the Episcopal church?
A: The Episcopal Church is a questioning community. . . . It's confident that Christ is at its center, and that gives it the courage to look at things that are difficult. It also is a church which has lived with open-ended questions. It doesn't need to reduce things to absolutes. We can deal with shades of gray, we can deal with paradox and ambiguity without feeling that we are being unfaithful.

The 3 Variable Funny Test by Jason Bateman at OkCupid says that my stye of humour is that of the " Prankster" (whatever that means) -- 19% dark, 30% spontaneous, 26% vulgar. I've never thought of myself as a prankster but I like some of the description:

your humor style: CLEAN | COMPLEX | LIGHT

Your humor has an intellectual, even conceptual slant to it. [Yes -- but I don't mind terrible puns, either, and things that are are really absurd.] You're not pretentious [Hope not!], but you're not into what some would call 'low humor' either [True]. You'll laugh at a good dirty joke [Only if it's really funny, not just smutty.], but you definitely prefer something clever to something moist [That's for sure].

You probably like well-thought-out pranks and/or spoofs [Not really] and it's highly likely you've tried one of these things yourself [Nope]. In a lot of ways, yours is the most entertaining type of humor because it's smart without being mean-spirited. [I hope so.]

Thanks to a link on Bending the rule, I've just seen a review of Wounded prophet: a portrait of Henri J M Nouwen, by Michael Ford (London: Darton Longman and Todd, 1999)

BBC producer Michael Ford met Nouwen while interviewing him for a TV program and later took a leave of absence to write this book. Ford says it is not intended as a full-scale biography. Nevertheless, he succeeds brilliantly in shedding light on Nouwen's inner life, particularly his angst regarding his homosexuality.

I had not the least idea that Nouwen was gay. The book of his that I first read was Reaching out, which I bought in Scotland shortly after it was first published in 1975. Nouwen described this book as "closer to me than anything I have written" that "tries to articulate my most personal thought and feelings about being a Christian." He talks about three movements: from Loneliness to Solitude, from Hostility to Hospitality, and from Illusion to Prayer.

. . . Ford is at his best when he probes Nouwen's emotional turmoil and describes his consuming need for affection, intimacy, and friendship. Nouwen wanted to be the center of attention. He had a network of friends around the world and often called them in the middle of the night to talk about his loneliness. He yearned for intimacy, but felt constrained by his commitment to the celibate priesthood.

Nouwen frequently expressed his need to be physically held. Once, after he gave a speech, an obviously distraught Nouwen returned home and asked one of his friends to simply hold him. "He just clung to me fiercely, and I hugged him tight in return," the friend recalled.

. . . Ford says it is impossible to "understand the complexity and anguish of the man" without considering his homosexual orientation, something he was aware of from the time he was a boy, but started to come to grips with only in his final years.

At Menninger, he wrestled with his homosexual leanings, which he regarded as a disability, a cross to bear. While Nouwen was at Harvard, he was hard on gay students, telling them that homosexuality was an evil state of being. In time, he became friends with many homosexuals and was under increasing pressure to go public. Other friends, however, advised him to keep his secret, saying he would lose all credibility as a famous Catholic writer if people knew he was gay.

Before he died in 1996, Nouwen was becoming more vocal in his support of gay men and women, saying they had a "unique vocation in the Christian community." Ford speculates that had Nouwen lived, his next major book might have been a study of homosexuality. Nouwen was troubled by the possibility that people would reject him if they knew about his sexual orientation. "This took an enormous emotional, spiritual and physical toll on his life and may have contributed to his early death," Ford says. There is no indication in the book that Nouwen was anything but celibate.

Other writers generally have avoided the question of Nouwen's sexual orientation. To his credit, Ford has given us a fuller picture of Nouwen and demonstrated the depth of Nouwen's anguish about his sexuality and issues of intimacy in general.

Yet another book I think I should read!

Yes, Virginia, it does snow in Canberra (though not often). Icy cold Antarctic air today brought snow showers to Canberra and good falls on the nearby mountains as low as 600 meters. For the the first time I had to walk from my office to the car park through falling snow. Overnight temperatures are well below freezing.

IDN38200 - ACT ROAD WEATHER ALERT
BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY - CANBERRA METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE
Issued at 1451 on Wednesday the 10th of August 2005: Motorists are advised of snow on elevated roads within the ACT today and
tonight.

Perhaps this picture of a certain much respected Australian sportsman bears out the words of Australian punk rocker turned jazz crooner Ignatius Jones,

"Clothes . . . are clothes.

. . . Fashion is a Mistake."

(Ignatius Jones. True hip: instant style for the modern desperado Ringwood: McPhee Gribble, 1990, p.29)

But as I loathe obligatory uniformity and conformity in clothing, I say that the certain much respected spunky Australian sportsman ought be able to enjoy wearing (or not wearing) what he pleases, black finger nails and all, without silly conclusions being drawn as to his sexuality, his fashion sense, taste or any other such rubbish.

As Iggy Jones says (p.107)

[O]ne of the most fundamental rules of Hip is that: Public Opinion Is Vulgar; Conventional Wisdom Is A Contradiction In Terms -- You Have Better Things To Do. . . . Public Opinion, or Herd Mentality, sucks for One Big Reason: it is a substitute for thinking. All that the Pseudo-Hip have done is replace the mentality of the Large Herd with that of a smaller, much groovier get-down far-out Herd. They are still Lemmings.

That's where Mr Thorpe wins out; he thinks (though perhaps not when he chose these clothes) and says interesting things.

Recently I quoted "Love is the answer" a piece by Giles Fraser in The Guardian of 29 July, in which he comments on the Church of England's response to the introduction under British law of civil unions for same sex couples. Now in "Why you need love and more" in the Church Times (5 August), Mr Fraser is dismayed that the Bishops' statement fails to mention love at all.

"All you need is love," sang the Beatles. It's a great song, but is it true? What they need in Niger is food; what they need in Palestine is justice. For such as these, the Beatles' love is a luxury affordable only by the comfortably off.

This might be why there is an increasing reluctance to use the word "love" in theological debate. Speaking up for love is like speaking up for good things and attacking bad things: so axiomatic as to be effectively contentless. Apparently, love is for teen magazines, not for serious-minded theologians. It's a wishy-washy concept that goes down well as a piece of engaging rhetoric, but easily falls apart under scrutiny.

Furthermore, love has been so hijacked by Hollywood that it has come to mean little more than sexually charged emotional intensity. It's true: we live in a culture that has been submerged by bucketloads of the most damaging and morally illiterate sentimentality.

All this said, it still shocked me that a lengthy statement from the House of Bishops on civil partnerships did not include the word love at all -- not once. What is at the heart of the debate about gay partnerships is the reality of two people in love. Many of us believe that gay couples ought to have the same opportunities to express that love -- both physically and in the context of the legal institutions that help cement faithful relationships -- as straight couples.

The Bishops discuss sex in their statement. But, by refusing to mention love, they divorce sex from the context of loving relatedness in such a way that it is bound to be seen as morally inadequate. The love that dares not speak its name isn't sex; it's love itself.

Partly, I blame Anders Nygren and his wrong-headed book Agape and Eros (English translation 1932, 1939). Following that book, Christians commonly trot out a simplistic distinction between a love that is selfless and caring -- agape -- and that which is apparently self-seeking and appetitive -- eros. It's a false distinction that allows erotic love to be conveniently ignored or condemned. The love of God is passionate, personal, and, in the person of Jesus, physical. God's love is both agape and eros.

During a wedding I conducted on Saturday, the best man read those familiar words: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Corinthians 13.1, RSV). What better comment could there be on the House of Bishops' statement?

The Sudanese community in Australia has been deeply saddened by the death of Sudan's First Vice President and the President of the Government of Southern Sudan, Dr John Garang de Mabior, whose funeral was yesterday.

James and I visited our former Parish, St. George's, for the Saturday evening service as we had been invited to dinner with some friends afterwards. St. George's has a large congregation of Sudanese, and were gathered for a prayer to remember Dr Garang and their homeland. They spoke of cautious optimism that the newly found peace will contine.

These words are by Safi Hareer Representative of the Sudanese Darfurian Union in Australia

Dr. John Garang: words of grief and gratitude

Dr Garang, you have left before you had a chance to tie the boat carrying our dreams of peace to its proper dock, It is sad and difficult to believe this bas happened. Your departure is indeed a great loss and we, the Darfurians, are here wondering why it happened this way.

Saturday, July 30th 2005, was a day of full of activities and dreams for all we Sudanese, and for all those who loved you and your vision. Some were busy preparing to welcome you as the beloved son, others had come from far away to Rombek,; all were hoping to witness the birth of a free Sudan and to honour the first national Sudanese hero. Instead of joy and new beginnings, we heard news we did not want to believe.

Dr Garang, we are talking to you today, listening to your speeches from our archives, and starting to learn from you again; just as our queen mother, Rebecca, advised us to do on your behalf. Yes it will take us time to fully understand the contents of the theory you left behind, but believe us, you found the formula. Congratulations, Doctor, and thank you forgiving us your vision. The rest is up to us, we will follow in your footsteps and carry your ideas to fruition -- but it would be better if you were here to supervise our steps.

We are left at a crossroads and don't know which is the right path to take: Darfur here, Eastern Sudan there, and only 21 days since Navasha was implemented. Yet the peace is spreading to cast its shade on our faces. We are here on behalf of all Sudanese, and Darfurians in particular, to repeat your own words to our brothers and sisters in the South: "Sudan is free now, everybody can go and do what he or she wants to do to connect with friends and relatives, the war is over and it is a time for justice." These words are a passport in our hands to the fulfilment of our dreams.

And to our queen mother, Rebecca -- we have suffered an enormous loss, gone is a great leader and unique philosopher; but if our loss is great, yours will always remain greater. Our hearts are with you and all your family in this time of awful sadness.

Thank you Dr. John Garang, and farewell, we will miss you.

Dr Granang is succeded by Salva Kiir. The Economist comments:

Mr Kiir says his movement remains wedded to the peace agreement, as does President Bashir. On Wednesday, Mr Kiir had meetings with America's special envoy to Sudan, Roger Winter, and South Africa's foreign minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, at which he also pledged to strive for peace in the western region of Darfur, where government-backed Arab militiamen have been terrorising black Africans for more than two years.

But Mr Kiir takes over at a delicate time. A new constitution is still being negotiated for the south. And he will need all his skills to manage the SPLM, which currently has no constitution, since Mr Garang had recently dissolved its leadership council and its quasi-parliament, the National Liberation Council.

Is Mr Kiir up to the task? Like Mr Garang, he is a Dinka, from southern Sudan's largest ethnic group, and is widely respected by southerners as a military commander in the bush. On the other hand, he has taken little part in the negotiations, and his relatively low profile means he may lack the charisma to cajole everyone into line as Mr Garang did. He is also a little known to the international donors now risking billions of dollars to try to rebuild Sudan. Everyone involved knows that if he slips up, the hyenas -- from within his own ranks, let alone those in Khartoum -- are waiting to pounce.

My internet friend Christopher, of Bending the rule has written the following protest. I agree with it so completely that I could have said it myself. So I hope Christopher will allow me the liberty of quoting him in full, with a heart-felt "Amen"

Either Or Sucks

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I'm perplexed. I must admit. Why is it that in the Episcopal Church, too much of our attention is given the Spong(e)s and the Virtues? And I don't mean sea critters and faith, hope, and love.

Why is it we continue to speak of "two sides"? When we speak as such, we set ourselves up on "higher" ground that hides that 1) we struggle, or 2) we have points-of-view, or 3) our thinking is contexted, not objective, or 4) we too are sinners occasioning schism by our lack of charity, or 5) we are not neutral, and our "neutrality" is no guarantor of not sinning against another during a critical juncture in our life together. We may hold it together by our "neutrality" and scandalize another to the loss of his or her faith. No, we have more than two sides, supposedly the genius of our tradition, and many of us are multifaceted.

Take myself. I tend toward a seamless, consistent life ethic with a pastoral bent. I recognize that we make hard choices in life, and sometimes we have to weigh options without clear knowledge of which is best or we have to valuate which option among many, all unappealing, is the better option under the circumstances. I also know that if we come to discover we've made a choice that harms others or ourselves or our relationship with G-d, the G-d I know and worship in Jesus Christ offers us ample opportunity to turn and begin again. Mine is a faith willing to admit to being mistaken. Being able to admit to being mistaken frees us to live, as James Alison, OP makes so abundantly clear in his writings.

So, honestly, my wrestling with any ethical issue involves a whole lot more than simple dismissal or retreat from new insights. I love Holy Scripture. I've probably read the Bible more times than most Episcopalians. I read more Tradition than most do in a lifetime. My reason may be my greatest downfall, but only if logic is the only test of Reason. I look for principles, virtues, values that undergird passages, texts, thoughts as well as consider literal meanings. How do these play out, how do they treat others as myself, does this open or close the Good News to the sister or brother anxiously standing before me?

I do know that we cannot go wrong by speaking kindly, praying for one another, eating together, or remaining silent if we cannot say anything at all nice, to quote my great grandmother. And even when I disagree with someone, as I put it to a commenter a few posts back, "here we tend to keep it kindly".

Regardless of my wrestling with an ethical issue, theologically I'm fairly conservative. I can say the creeds without crossing my fingers, I'm hesitant to mess with the liturgy without careful attention to what we're saying and drawing upon the works of our ancestors in the faith to keep us honest, I'm probably most akin to Moltmann and Lossky and Williams and Underhill, but being a good Anglican Christian, you'll probably never be able to pin me in or down because my deepest conservatism affirms that no matter what we say about G-d (and our creeds are apophatic in nature, excluding rather more certain conclusions than saying G-d "is" ), our saying always will be limited, so please be careful not to take the Lord's name in vain in marching off as to battle. As Joe S. put it so nicely, we have sign- not hitching posts. And the greatest of these is love.

But it seems that doesn't matter in our current media and self-presentations in our infighting. And I've grown just as weary of "two sides" as I have of "reappraisers" and "reasserters". Why? Because I'm automatically lumped into one side merely because I happen to be gay and because I happen to think that doing gay can be okay and fine and holy within the confines of monogamous commitment. Huh?

As if I came to that conclusion without some serious work and a lot of painful wrestling that moved beyond dichotomies in search of conversations and integrations and syntheses that honor my sexuality and my faith. That seeks to take seriously the love of G-d I have met in Jesus Christ, but have met too little within the confines of the Church.

I guess I just wish we could stop attaching one's conclusion on a particular ethical issue {Ahem. Homosexuality.} to how we line up on the theological spectrum to ask deeper questions of our faith and tradition beyond the obvious that we're doing something different. Especially, in a tradition that claims the Reformation as part of its tradition. Break with tradition is also a part of our tradition.

I find myself equally dissatisfied with the "don't rock the boat", "throw the baby out with the bathwater", and the "tradition never changes" responses. I want a little more engagement beyond the pro-gay unions = heterodox, anti-gay unions = orthodox; pro-gay unions = just, anti-gay unions = unjust. Is that honestly the best we can offer? If gay unions are acceptable, surely it is because they are orthodox, they somehow correct our vision or clarify what we understand to be most True?

And if we're something like pro-gay unions and orthodox, but wanting to keep it together, we've still taken a side on the multifaceted Body we call the Episcopal Church, USA

(The same goes for the Anglican Church of Australia.)

The question becomes not are there sides, or have we taken one, but is there charity, do we love? Are we going to continue regardless of the side we've taken to pour ourselves out for the life of the world?

So, I pray that regardless, we might still join one another at the Table, sinners all around, partake of the Blessed Sacrament, and above all else, love one another with upbuilding words and embrace. But perhaps we are beyond change?

Your brother in Christ,
*Christopher

In the Church Times of 5 August, the Rt Revd Derek Rawcliffe, former Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway, reviews six books on Christianity and sexuality. Two of the books reviwed interest me. Of Face to face: Gay and lesbian clergy on holiness and life together, by Jeffrey Heskins (SCM Press), Bishop Rawcliffe says:

The Lambeth 1998 resolution on gay relationships says that the bishops commit themselves "to listen to the experience of homosexual people". They have not done so, says Jeffrey Heskins in Face to face. In the production of the Windsor report, how many gays were listened to? Many people have had their views of gay people changed when they have come to know individuals personally. Heskins himself is straight and married; so he is not parti pris.

The book "refuses to play the game of winners and losers": it lets gays and lesbians speak, and does not claim to have the final word. Heskins took the opportunity to do this when he spoke to a gay and lesbian clergy meeting, at which I was present, and asked members to offer themselves for interviews in which they could tell him their stories.

The book uses these stories to make a number of points. First, we must listen to gays and lesbians in small groups or face-to-face encounters rather than in big conferences. The way to holy living involves serving God openly and honestly. He recognises that gays emerging from imposed celibacy or enforced loneliness feel liberated. But they become a challenge to those parts of the Church which cannot accept them.

So often, said some, bishops just ignore gay priests, which leaves them "in a lonely and dark place". Anger and calls for repentance do not make for holy living. Repentance means a change of mind, which might lead one to view such relationships more sympathetically.

Publishers SCM Canterbury have an interview with the Revd Jeffrey Heskins about his book. He says, "I would like to hear something that tells me that generous listening has taken place instead of the same old voices trotting out the same old platitudes which is boring Joe Public to tears. You have to listen with the ears of God if you want to speak the word of God -- that's Dietrich Bonhoeffer, not me; and it makes a lot of sense." Heskins contributed a "service of affirmation and blessing" for homosexual couples, used in his church in south London to Courage to love (Darton, Longman and & Todd) a controversial collection of prayers published in March 2002.

Bishop Ratcliffe also reviews The right true end of love: sexuality and the contemporary church, by Stephen R. White (Columba).

In The right true end of love (quotation from John Donne), Stephen White, Dean of Killaloe, shows how ideas of God's impassibility, and the adoption of Greek dualism by the early Church, led to a cruel and inhuman form of Christian ethics. He deals with the difficulties of appeals to scripture -- "because God says so". Scripture is not always clear; it is often used selectively, and interpretation has often changed. All this has led to a negative approach to the enjoyment of our bodies and sexuality.

What alternative does he propose? Our ethics must spring from our doctrine, and therefore from the creativity and love that God is. Then we can see sex as being for more than procreation, and can begin to argue for equality of homosexual and heterosexual loving. Eros and agape may both be ways of giving and receiving love, and of growing into holiness.

White says that the chaotic fudged resolution on women priests by the Church of England is now being copied on the question of homosexuality. Other provinces, more honestly, will accept only a resolution that is completely negative. The Church must either fully accept or fully reject homosexuals: it is the only logical way forward. The book explores ways in which the Church can go beyond toleration, and say "Yes" to homosexuals, healing instead of inflicting guilt. It must not be a Church that "knows" and "dispenses", but one that recognises the provisionality of its teaching, and is capable of living with difference.

Here is an announcement of White's book from the Church of Ireland Press Office.

Daffodils are my favourite flower. I love their yellows and golds, bringing an early message of spring. But the Canberra climate confuses them. Thanks to James' plantings, there are dozens of brave blooms in our courtyard. But they struggle in the overnight frost that signals another day of bright winter sunshine.



Dear God,
We celebrate spring's returning and the rejuvenation of the natural world. Let us be moved by this vast and gentle insistence that goodness shall return, that warmth and life shall succeed, and help us to understand our place within this miracle. Let us see that as a bird now builds its nest, bravely, with bits and pieces, so we must build human faith. It is our simple duty; it is the highest art; it is our natural and vital role within the miracle of spring: the creation of faith. Amen.
-- Michael Leunig. A common prayer, HarperCollinsReligious, 1990.

In an earlier post on Google Earth I commented on the great detail that can now be seen in photography from satellites -- and I am sure the Western military alliance has access to very much higher detail that Google Earth! Potentially, then, every human being on the Earth can be observed, at least while outdoors. There are echoes of this in this poem from poem from The New Republic (8 August)

Distribution
by Victoria Chang

It might be anything: cowries, eggs, pigs, hoes.
In Bangalore, they use dry fruit, in Iceland,

dried fish--a horse shoe for one fish, a pair
of woman's shoes for three, casket of butter for

one-hundred twenty. The paper dollar on my desk
has value because we think it does.

The antelope against the barren hills is running
across the field because we think it is.

Satellites hang in space to spy on the French man
tilling his field, the Russian man filling jam jars

with florets of fruit, the Chinese man opening
his palm of starfish. A science experiment gone

according to plan, the laboratory--us. The problem:
one earth, one football field, one home

in the suburbs, too many of us. What if there is not
enough grass to trample, and the rain never cleans

the streets, just pushes things around, like a broom
sweeping in a room with no door?

In its latest State of the Blogosphere report Part 1, Technorati says that one new blog is created 'every second'. It now tracks more than 14.4m blogs, up from 7.8m in March, and the number of blogs is doubling every five months. Part 2 of Technorati's report says that the number of new posts is currently at about 900,000 per day, but fluctates as attention-catching events come and go.

In the face of such competion, I am honoured, gentle reader, that you favour me by reading my poor offerings.

It also says to me how important it is that this be something I want to do for its own sake, whether it is read by thousands or just one -- me. That's also why I decided to make it "Not so much a blog as a scrapbook." No, it's not just the "Life of Brian!"

June Norton McKinlay née Hitchcock daughter of William and Judith sister of Nanette wife of John mother of Brian, Robin, Pauline and Noella Ann grandmother of Karen, Tracy and Victoria born: 31 May 1922 died: 2 August 2004 picture taken at her debutante ball in the 1930s

Giles Fraser in The Guardian (29 July) is always quotable.

Love is the answer: Anglican clergy should be allowed to bless gay couples

"Civil partnerships are not a form of marriage," the bishops of the Church of England have just asserted, nervously. Yeah, right. Imagine the scene: in front of a registrar and two witnesses, the happy couple will make binding commitments to each other, surrounded by their nearest and dearest. Tears will be shed, hands will be joined. And then off to the reception for a few glasses of pink champagne, followed by a lifetime of faithful love, companionship and sexual intimacy. Is this marriage? Who cares what bishops think? They don't have a veto on our use of the word.

The bishops present themselves as the great defenders of marriage (though I have yet to understand how a gay couple getting hitched is a threat to my marriage). In reality, most are plain terrified of gay sex claiming a greater degree of moral validity and social acceptability. Many bishops want the image of homosexuality confined to public toilets -- so much easier to condemn. Consequently, clergy have been forbidden from blessing civil partnerships. We can bless battleships, and cats and dogs at the pet service: just not gay couples wanting to commit to a lifelong relationship.

The church may think of itself as the last bastion of family values and married life, but it was not always thus. The early church often held a dim view of marriage, believing it to be a distinctly second-best arrangement for those not gifted with continency. Jerome sarcastically suggested that only men who were too afraid to sleep on their own ought to marry. Christians were to be the virgin brides of Christ.

Jesus himself was single and celibate -- his greatest love being, apparently, a man -- the mysteriously named "disciple whom Jesus loved". And even St Paul offers the reflection: "It is good for a man not to marry." This isn't a common text at wedding services. But there again, it's surprisingly difficult to find suitable texts. Many opt for the wedding at Cana of Galilee, on the assumption that because Jesus once went to a wedding, he must have been keen on them.

Yes, the writers of the New Testament did offer ad hominem support for marriage, but didn't provide a comprehensive theology of marriage for the simple reason that most didn't believe the world was going to be around long enough for that to matter. Hence St Paul's advice: if you are married already, fine -- but don't make plans if you are not.

It's precisely this sense that the world is about to end that gives the New Testament its moral genius. It concentrates the mind on what's important. And their answer wasn't the institution of marriage -- it was love. Whether within a marriage or in a civil partnership, it surely matters not: love and all its commitments, that's what counts. And when present, that's what will make a civil partnership holy.