![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
bb
We also have our main homepage at BabyBlueCafe.org
Also, we have a few other blogs that are devoted to particular topics. Our Harry Potter blog is called Shell Cottage and you can find it here.
Our Bob Dylan blog is called All Along the Watchtower and you can find it here.
Finally we want to wish Bob Dylan a happy birthday because, well, it's his birthday! Happy Birthday, Bob!
- Location:Home
- Mood:
cheerful - Music:Bob Dylan, of course
You can read the latest at Diocese of Virginia Annual Council
Richmond, VA
Dear friends,
If I were to tell you what was one of the more memorable moments at the Virginia Annual Council was, it was the moment when the Council delegates took a vote on an amendment proposed by Dan Van Ness, Delegate, Truro. Following what now seems like a Virginia tradition, the Resolution Committee took seven of the original resolutions and compiled them into one big resolution called R-17. Here is how the final resolution begins as I have it:
Whereas, We in the Diocese of Virginia, members of the Anglican Communion, united in Christ, called to live out our witness, are "gathered in the spirit" and moved by thanksgiving for the many gifts that mark our life together now, and over the last 400 years; and
Whereas, The Lambeth Conference and Windsor Report have called us to acknowledge and respond with compassion and understanding to the pain and suffering of those who, because of their sexual orientation, endure marginalization and rejection; and ...
Here is where Dan Van Ness rose and offered an amendment that clarified what the Windsor Report actually said, rather than only half of what it said. The Windsor Report called us not only to show compassion and understanding to those who suffer because of their sexual orientation, it also called us to affirm that sexual expression is confined in the marriage between one man and one woman (this is a paraphrase of Dan's amendment - I think I was so darn tired I can't even read my own handwriting!). But those who have read the Windsor Report know that the authors made it clear that marriage and sexual expression is between one man and one woman. If this wasn't so, there wouldn't be the call for regret and repentance. If this wasn't so, the Episcopal Church would not have had its seat removed in the council of the Anglican Communion. To allude to only part and not the whole of the report is very dangerous, especially in these times. This amendment would clarify what the Windsor Report actually calls us to do - compassion to those that suffer as well as commitment to the fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman.
Dan's amendment was defeated, 274 against the amendment and 169 in favor. By defeating the amendment on marriage, the Diocesan Council embraced only a section of the Windsor Report that suited the majority of the delegates of the Annual Council of the Diocese of Virginia. It was a stunning insight into the diocese - that the majority of Council could not agree with the Windsor Report's call to affirm the traditional definition of marriage. Not a happy moment and a vote to ponder. How serious do we take this Windsor Report and the fabric of the communion torn by the actions of the Episcopal Church? Now we are taking out the bits that are uncomfortable, the bits that cause us trouble, and retaining the bits we like, the bits that make us think we're unified when in fact, we are not.
Other highlights from Council:
My resolution on prayer and fasting did pass with an endorsement from the Resolutions Committee. The next step then is to mobilize this season for prayer. Perhaps we should have 169 Days of Prayer.
I convened the annual President's Breakfast this morning, one of the last things I was responsible to do as President of Region VII. We had a great turnout and it was very interesting meeting with this wide variety of people from all over the diocese. A few of the regions have been addressing the issues facing the Episcopal Church in different ways which was very good to hear. We had a good time of sharing and I led a short devotion on John 5, the blind man at the pool of Bethesda. Jesus asks a question, gets right to the point which we don't always get at church councils. "Do you want to get well?" Jesus asks straight away. The blind man does not answer "yes" or "no," but assumes that the only way he can get healed is through the waters in the pool but he hasn't been able to get near it in 38 years. Jesus straight away asks him "Do you want to get well? He then gives the blind man instructions: get up, pick up your mat, and walk. Those are questions we can ask ourselves. Do we want to be healed? Are we prepared to get up, pick up our mat, and walk? In these interesting days, that story has fascinating implications - but the question does stand before us. Do we want to be healed? Do we know we can? Are we will to stand up, get our things together, and go forward?
Another highlight of the Council was that John Keith, former member of Truro, was elected to the Standing Committee. He is one of the most honest and truthful people I know and I respect him very much. It is good to see him elected to a place of authority and influence at a time such as this. That he would be willing to serve in these uncertain tells you a lot about who he is. I ask that you remember John in your prayers.
Bishop James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, was an extraordinary speaker and I know that he had a direct influence in defusing the "punitive" tone that many in the Council arrived with - you can see it in the resolutions that were submitted - before Council and then after Council began. They contrasted deeply with Bishop Jones' call to be graceful in truth and truthful in grace - a very wise word for us all. His teaching centered on Jesus himself - not some euphemism of Christ or a Gnostic Christ - he spoke of the personal relationship with Jesus and how we know him - in the Word, in the Sacraments, and in our ministry amongst the Poor. It was very challenging and it caused me to reflect that I am not aware of a bishop like Bishop James Jones in the Episcopal Church - a solid evangelical with a social conscience. If only voices like his existed in the leadership of the Episcopal Church - but they do not. They come visit from time to time but the Episcopal Church as an institution continues to drift further and further away from the English tradition of Jones-style evangelicals. The American version seems to have left long ago - perhaps as early as John Wesley, perhaps a little later. But I realized as I listened to James Jones that I could not imagine an equivalent to him in the United States. If we have them - they are rarely bishops - bishops who teach challenging theology, encourage examination of our social conscience and witness, and exhort a personal relationship with the Risen Lord Jesus. He was winsome, funny, challenging, and honest. It is why I want to be an Anglican, but also why I am feeling further and further estranged from the Episcopal Church in the United States. Where are our James Joneses?
Another blessing of being away this weekend was the time spent with brothers and sisters in the Network, the Coalition and new friends along the way. The vote on the Marriage Amendment shows us the division in the Diocese of Virginia. I believe that vote - 274-169 - is a clear illustration of the divide. One of the joys of gathering at Council is the opportunity to encourage and be encouraged by the 169. They represent parishes and missions all over the diocese and reminds each of that we are not alone and why we need to continue to stand firm, express the grace we've received from Jesus with one another, and press on without giving up. Last night I went out to dinner at the Penny Lane Pub with a few friends and we broke bread together, told stories of our journeys, dreamed of the future, and enjoyed the gift of friendship. We wondered where we will be this time next year, how will we get there, and will we be there together. We prayed we would stand together.
Now is the time to pray and fast for the leaders of our church as we go into a period of shaking, of testing, of proofing, of growing, of depending on the Lord like we may never done before. I cannot tell you what the future holds, but as I write to you tonight I pray that whatever happens we may do it together truthfully and gracefully whatever path God puts us on, wherever He may lead.
Thank you for your prayers for this Council. If you haven't had the opportunity to read it all ready, I encourage you to read the incredible letter that the Falls Church wrote to Bishop Lee. You can read John Yates' letter to his parish as well as the Falls Church Vestry letter to Bishop Lee on their website at: http://www.thefallschurch.org/templ
I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge—because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
Blessings and peace,
Mary
Diocesan Council 2006
You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"
Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
Dylan, 1965
Annual Council, Diocese of Virginia
Richmond, VA
Dear Friends,
We learned today why the Standing Committee was on the agenda to have two formal reports and one hearing - something I had never seen before. This morning Bishop Peter James Lee called for a Bishop Coadjutor. A Bishop Coadjutor is elected by the Council of the Diocese of Virginia and will be Bishop Lee's successor as the Diocesan Bishop of Virginia. The plan is to elect the bishop at next year's Annual Council (January 2007) and that the Bishop Coadjutor would serve until Bishop Lee's retirement, no later than 2010.
This morning there was a call for new resolutions and along with a couple of Courtesy Resolutions, there were new resolutions that were rather troubling. One was called "An Anglican Precedent for Finding the Way Forward on the Issue of Profound Theological Difference," which basically said that now that a precedent was made when Gene Robinson was elected bishop, then we should continue in the same tradition as the reception of women bishops. The resolution stated that it was based on the language of the Windsor Report, but I brought a copy of the Windsor Report with me and it actually says the exact opposite. Because Gene Robinson's election did not follow the path of the reception of women bishops, it was - to quote the Windsor Report - the actions were not accepted by the worldwide Anglican Communion but actually threatened to "tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level." Not a happy resolution.
On that note, another resolution that was offered this morning and voted to proceed to the Resolutions Committee was a resolution entitled "On Elected Leadership of the Diocese of Virginia." It compelled that anyone who did not welcome the bishop for Episcopal Visitations, or did not provide unrestricted financial support to the operational budget of the Diocese would not be eligible to serve in leadership offices of the Diocese of Virginia. The resolution does not clarify exactly who would be the one - or ones - who get to decide who's "in" and who's "out." It is a very divisive resolution, but it made it to the Resolutions Committee.
Russ Palmore of the "Bishop's Special Committee" gave a short update on the progress of that committee (Hugo Blankingship, John Yates, and Tom Yates serve along with Russ, Andrew Merrow, and Carolyn Parkinson). It was one of the "realer" moments of the whole council.
Another big surprise is that Region VII - my region - has a new dean. Randall Prior of St. Andrew's, Burke, replaces Stuart Schadt of Trinity Manassas. That was a big surprise.
A highlight has been James Jones', the Bishop of Liverpool who is the guest preacher at Council. He spoke at Truro not too long and he's been very effective here at Council and casting a more compassionate tone to the proceedings, but it will be interesting to see if tomorrow - when the resolutions actually hit the floor - to see if that tone continues.
This afternoon I went to the Resolutions Hearing and testified in favor of one resolution (my own, R-6 "Call to Prayer and Fasting" and against what became R-15, the resolution accepting non-celibate homosexuals as bishops in the line that women are now bishops (which, as I mentioned earlier, is in opposition to what the Windsor Report actually says.). The hearings were surprisingly low-key and the fears that we might end up going overtime were unfounded. Each of the resolutions now before Council were debated and the turnout was very high (standing room only). But it went rather smoothly and without the acrimonious comments that can sometimes appear.
Another highlight of the day was Ronda Royalty's address to Council. I am going to try to get a copy of it and post it at my blog (it also has copies of these letters from the Virginia Annual Council - just go to: http://maryailes.livejournal.com/ . It was excellent! Instead of providing a laundry list of all the accomplishments of the Executive Board, Ronda, the Vice President of the Executive Board, highlighted the most important events and then spoke to the question of whom are we clinging to? Is it Jesus to whom we cling - or are we clinging, holding on to other things, good things even, instead of Jesus himself? It was a powerful moment - you could hear a pin drop as everyone appears to be listening and not resulting papers, coughing, or walking back out to the lobby. The delegates stayed and listened carefully. Her words are worth pondering and I'll ask her for a copy so you can read them for yourself.
Tonight for dinner a small group gathered back the Penny Lane Pub. We processed through the day, offered insights to one another, encouraged one another, and began to prepare for the final day of Council - to hear the report on the calling of the Bishop Coadjutor, to hear the results of the Resolutions Committee, to finish voting for the Standing Committee (John Keith, formally of Truro and now at St. Mary's Arlington, remains a candidate), and to vote on the resolutions. It will be an intense day and I appreciate your prayers for our team very much!
I wish I could tell you more, but I am so very tired tonight I just have to get some sleep. Tomorrow morning I am the convener of the Presidents' Breakfast, a gathering of the all the lay presidents of the diocese. Please pray for that time - we meet first thing at 7:00 a.m. Others will be meeting elsewhere to prepare for the day, so please pray for them as well. Then the day's Council opens at 9:00 a.m.
Again, feel free to check: http://maryailes.livejournal.com/ for a blog version of this e-mail. I am sorry I am not as peppy as usual, it's been an exhausting day. Tomorrow at the Presidents' Breakfast I plan to do a short devotion from John 5. Jesus asks the blind man who has sat by the Pool of Bethesda for thirty-eight years "Do you want to be well?" It's a fascinating question - very direct and to the point. The blind man assumes that the only way he could be healed is to be put in the pool, but he never gets the chance. He assumes that's the only way it's done. But that didn't actually answer the question: Do you want to be healed? It is an interesting question to ask ourselves. Are we looking in the right place to see Jesus, to know His love and His healing? Do we really want Him to heal us? If so, will we get up, pick up our mats, and walk?
Thank you so much for your prayers and for the very kind e-mails you've been sending to me which I am sharing with others here. It is just wonderful to think of you all and to know you are praying and that the Lord is at work. God bless you - I will report once again after the closing of the Council on Saturday.
In Christ's abiding love,
Mary Ailes
President, Region VII, Diocese of Virginia
Vestry, Truro, Fairfax
Annual Council, Diocese of Virginia
Richmond, VA
Dear friends,
Greetings to you from the capitol of Virginia, Richmond. Ronda Royalty, Meghan Graham and I arrived in the city around 6:00 p.m. and after checking in, headed straight to the Penny Lane Pub for a dinner gathering of the Truro Delegation. It was fantastic! For some reason, Jim Oakes had entrusted me with the responsibility of securing a restaurant for our first evening here at Council and so I saw there was an English pub that seemed to serve real pub food. It was risky (would it be small, dark, and smokey?). But it turned out to be delightful - the staff at the pub were just incredible. The owner greeted us at the door (we had run into Martyn, Angela, and Rachel Minns in the hotel lobby and they joined us for the trek to the pub). "Father!" the pub owner bellowed in his native Liverpool accent to Martyn "you do not have a reservation!" I knew we did, but he was winking. He knew there were fifteen people waiting in the restaurant and we felt like we were old timers before we were even through the door.
We walked into the restaurant, as authentic an English pub as I have ever seen in America, and were greeted by what grew to be twenty members of the Truro delegation. I ordered Fish & Chips and we were off with a bang. We encouraged each other, prayed together, and began to prepare ourselves for the next two days in what could be a historic Council.
It sure doesn't feel like business as usual. For one thing, this is the first council in years where we are not meeting in Reston, but back down here in Richmond. My first council twelve years ago was down here in Richmond and that feels like a lifetime ago.
This is my last official responsibility as President of Region VII in the Diocese of Virginia. Last Thursday I oversaw an election in our Region where we elected stellar candidates from Christ the Redeemer, Church of the Apostles, St. Andrew's, and Church of the Word. Robin Adams was elected to serve as the Region VII representative to the Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia. It's quite dramatic change from this time last year when he was the center of great debate in Council on whether his church was going to be welcomed as a parish in the Diocese. It was odd - here was a mission church that wanted to join the diocese and was great opposition from those who are now so upset that even one mission leaves the diocese. Now Robin returns as a member of the Executive Board, thanks to the members of Region VII Council who came out last Thursday and supported him. God bless you all!
Another blessing is that we elected a Youth Delegate this year. It's Region VII's turn to elect a young person who has seat, voice, and vote at Council. We elected 16 year old Kevin Gilroy of Truro and he is here and fully participating in this process. I am very interested to hear from him what he witnesses and what he learns in this process. There is a certain sense that attending any sort of council - legislature or church council - is like watching sausage being made. It's not pretty but it has to be done if you want a good sausage.
How will the sausages come out of this council? Too soon to tell. There are some really interesting resolutions up before this Council and you can read them at thediocese.net - several "loyalty oaths" to the bishop which are quite distressing. There's a great resolution from the wardens of friendly churches in Virginia, including Truro and the Falls Church and many many others. It's R-5 and is called "Affirming the Commitment of the Diocese of Virginia to Remain in the Anglican Communion" and I commend it to you. See all the signatures after it - it's very heartening to see such a group come together.
I also have one submitted (R-6, Call to Prayer and Fasting) and I ask your prayers for that resolution. It will be interesting to see how it's received.
Another fine resolution is R-11, submitted by Paul Julienne of Truro, Andrew Merrow of St Mary's Arlington, and Susan Eaves of St. Thomas, Richmond - a very eclectic group! It's called "Affirming our continuing solidarity in Christ" and it is also very very good. You may also want to keep an eye on what happens to that resolution.
R-8, R-9, and R-10 are quite troubling for many reasons and are seen as compelling loyalty oaths. The signatures on those resolutions also are worth reviewing, they include at least two General Convention deputies, a regional Dean (from Region VII no less - which shows you how divided we have been) and the President of the Standing Committee. You may want to watch what happens to those resolutions.
On Saturday morning, I am the convener of the annual Regional Presidents' Breakfast. This will be a gathering of all the lay presidents in the diocese and I am hoping to do a short devotion. Please pray for my time to prepare that devotion. We will also be hearing from the chair of the Stewardship Committee, so that could be interesting as well.
We will elect new members to the Standing Committee and Ronda Royalty and John Keith are both nominated to serve (both are on my e-mail list). My prayers go with them both. So you may also want to keep them in prayer. Tomorrow afternoon Ronda, as the Vice President of the Executive Board (and the regional rep from Region VII) will make a speech on the floor of the Council. PLEASE PRAY FOR HER - she will have the full attention of the entire Council. Her speech is scheduled to be at around 1:45 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
I have brought my iPod to Richmond and created a special playlist just for Council. "You feel like letting go, hold on, think you've had too much, hang on ..." the song is now playing as I type this to you. I have felt that way many times, especially since General Convention. I ask myself from time to time, "Why are you doing this? Why not take up a new hobby or something?" Why do we press on and not give up? How many times I have thrown up my hands and said "that's it, how much longer can I keep doing this?"
Tonight I was thinking of Diane Knippers. I went to my first Diocesan Council because Diane asked me too. I had no idea what was going on or what I could do. But I tried to watch her and learn from her. I am thinking of her and I asking even now, what would Diane do? How would she handle this situation? What I remember best was her fabulous sense of humor - she could find just the right words to bring perspective back to the moment. So I guess I am here - as so many are here - carrying on the work she started. We will see this weekend just how much we learned from her. It's still hard to believe she's gone - but her life, her witness lives on and I hope that whatever happens over the next two days, it will honor her memory.
Why are we here? We have the privilege to witness the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel. We are challenged to think through what we believe, and we are challenged to turn our hope and security to Jesus himself. There's just no other way to do this but to surrender to Him and trust Him and let go.
I have no idea what is going to transpire over the next 48 hours. I am concerned that on the schedule there is a hearing being held by the Standing Committee - something I have never seen on the schedule before. No one seems to know why they are doing this - the President of the Standing Committee (who led the charge against Church of the Word last year and affirmed Bishop Lee's decision to defrock Phil Ashey of South Riding Church) will be making a report tomorrow morning, hold hearings in the afternoon, and then make another report on Saturday morning. I've never seen that before and it's unclear why.
We have also two more missions applying for parish status and both are friendly churches. Please pray for them as well - Church of Our Redeemer, Aldie and Church of the spirit, Kingstowne. There is also going to be hearings on both these churches (for the second year in a row - all previous years the votes were by acclamation). That vote should happen on Saturday.
Friday afternoon will also be hearing on Resolutions. That could be very interesting, as delegates and others debate the merits of the resolutions before the Resolutions Committee. That will be at 2:45 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Please pray for that time - it could be somewhat unpleasant.
Thank you so much for your prayers! I will be writing to you again tomorrow evening and try as best as I can to give you an update of where we are. I saw Bishop Lee right after I arrived this evening and greeted him. "Hi Mair," he said and he greeted Ronda as well - but it was not an easy greeting. Please pray for discernment, a winsome witness, abundant kindness, but also courage to stand up when necessary and to stay silent when prudent. Pray for our team, that we will walk together in fellowship, affection, and faithfulness - not only to one another, but most especially to the Lord who reached out and transformed our lives. He's still working and He sees things we cannot see. I thank God that He is author of hope - and I pray tonight that I will place my hope in Him.
In Christ's abiding love,
Mary Ailes
President, Region VII, Diocese of Virginia
Vestry, Truro Church, Fairfax
PS - I have not sent one of these in a while and as we all know, e-mails come and go. Please feel free to pass this on and if this has been sent to you and you use to receive these e-mails or if you want to receive them, please just let me know. Thank you!
When I took his Hamlet class I listened carefully to his theories and pondered them. But one time there was one of his theories - argued completely from the text - that I disagreed with. With great trepidation, I raised my hand and told him I did not agree. You could feel the air suck out of the room (or was it just me?). I felt like Neville Longbottom in Potions. But I pressed on and began to make my case for a complete opposite point of view from the professor. He stared me down as I spoke (one can only imagine what the Soviets felt like when he stared them down too) but I kept going, using the text and plunged on. Finally, I finished my point. There was silence. Would I be ridiculed? Would he just respond in silence and pretend I don't exist? Would me fellow classmates speak to me? Would I ever come back to class? He continued to stare at me with his dark eyes.
And then he jumped up, with great enthusiasm, and cried out "Well done!" He lifted the book up in the air and said very loudly "That's what I'm looking for! Those are excellent points, argued from the text. I will now have to consider why you may be wrong," he said, "but this is what I'm looking for! Excellent!" I nearly collapsed.
It is okay to disagree, arguing from the text, the canon. But if we're going to carry on these conversations, don't we need to read what each of us has actually written? I have a book that just arrived from England that are academic essays on Harry Potter that slam Jo Rowling for being bourgeois and a closet traditionalist, that she shows women and girls in terrible stereotype and that she's a threat to liberal society for her backward traditional views of morality. Really! I am going to make myself read this book - and then figure out what may be true and what may be false. All ready it is clear that the writers are not citing the canon and text, but reading into the text their own bias, rather than allowing the text to speak - including the mysteries.
That's what makes this so much fun, isn't it? We all bring our biases, our ideas, our views to our reading. The challenge is to see if the text, the canon can stand up to our theories. But it's not necessary to attack each other because we disagree, is it?
I do agree, that because Barb has shown leadership in fandom, that it would be very helpful to younger readers to see kindness and respect shown amongst the adults who are writing about Harry Potter. I would hope, Barb (and believe me, I may have to do this myself by the time I'm done reading this academic anthology sitting here on my desk) that we can show graciousness and good will towards those with whom we disagree, if only as an example to younger readers on how it can be done.
What would Dumbledore do?
Thank you so much for listening,
Mary Ailes
ZoeRose
Author, "Why the New York Times Should Restore Harry Potter to the Best Seller List," from the "Plot Thickens."
“For Mr. Whistler’s own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.”
John Ruskin, 1877
This famous quote is from the 19th century art critic John Ruskin, who was stating his personal opinion of James Whistler's contributions to the Grovesnor Gallery, an alternative showing to the Royal Academy. Whistler responded to Ruskin's remarks by suing him for libel. What followed was a historic two-day trial that put art appreciation on the stand. Whistler won, but Ruskin was required to only pay him one pound.
The aftereffects of the trial, though, were substantial. It revealed a huge split in the criticism of art. What Whistler did was inject the artist into the art and by defending his paintings, he won the right to tell the public what the art means. In other words, he changed the way art was appreciated up to that time - the artist was very present in the art and as Ridgeback writes, it is his interpretation of it that matters. John Ruskin can go home.
Our topic here is "Two Degrees of Separation." The question though for me is that if JK Rowling comments on her work - does that constitute canon? Whistler would say yes. What the artist says matters the most in the interpretation of the work. Whistler in fact might say it's 1st Degree. But I disagree. I believe the work stands for itself and the artist's interpretation is a 3rd Degree. The artist view carries a greater weight when understanding the work (why else do I check JKRowling.com so much?) - perhaps more than most other critics. But I believe that if the work is superior, the artist is in subjection to the work, not over the work. Art is more than just communication on a human scale, but can be the doorway to a larger world, the Undiscovered Country, what lies behind the veil.
Now Harry Potter may not become such art - it's too soon to tell. Tolkien does seem to be heading into that world, what we call a masterpiece, though he certainly has his critics amongst the higher schooled. But I do believe that great art, the masterpiece, ultimately must stand on its own, with the artist in the shadows. The two-degree rule is a brilliant way of judging the work - if the argument cannot be made from the text alone (even with conflicting arguments which is when it really gets fun) - than I think its either an indication of the weakness in the text or laziness on the part of the critic to examine the text carefully. That is not always simple to discern. The argument could be made that Tolkien was unappreciated by the critics for so long not because of the weakness of the text, but because of the laziness of the critics. Ultimately, it wasn't Tolkien who made the case for his work - it was the work itself.
The "Two Degrees" rule does call into question the role of the critic and the role of literary criticism. It is an excellent way of examining critical review of the work (as well as fan fiction) by how well they stick to this rule. If they inject their own opinion without citing the text sufficiently, then it seems that the literary criticism or the fan fiction is more about the egos of the critic and the fan than it is about their own work - in other words, we will follow Whistler and Ruskin into the courtroom. When we reach that point, it becomes virtually impossible to actually discuss the text because the conflict is now centered onto the personal opinions of the critic or the fan than on the actual work. The artist becomes first degree. This is what happened, I think, between Ruskin and Whistler. Then art - be it a painting, a poem, or prose - suffers because it becomes indistiguishable from the artist or the critic, a conflict we live with today.
Just ask Bob Dylan.
ZR
To join in the forum discussion of the book, go to: http://plotthickens.mugglenet.com/
Here's what Amazon says about the book: The Plot Thickens... Harry Potter Investigated
Have you got your wits about you?
JK Rowling challenged her fans to use their wits, and now her fans have responded. She's dribbled clues through her interviews, website, and of course the books. Where are the hints and how should we interpret them?
If you're tired of chewing on your quill alone, pondering the possibilities, then join 53 fans from 10 countries, as they investigate cauldronfuls of sly clues, shedding new light on the mysteries hiding within JK Rowling’s pages. Her bubbling brew of characters is becoming thick with suspects:
* What's up with Aunt Petunia?
* Is Gilderoy permanently disabled?
* Is Percy really a git?
* Where is Gran Longbottom’s allegiance?
* How does time travel work?
* Is there still something odd with Mad-Eye?
* Whose side is Snape on?
Through the magic of the Internet community, our authors have been brought together from the Mighty MuggleNet "Chamber of Secrets" and "New Clues" forums to discuss the clues and hints in the Harry Potter septology. Transfigured from Internet posters to new authors, they have written The Plot Thickens...Harry Potter Investigated by Fans for Fans brimming with new thoughts and theories on what may be one of the best-loved literary epics of all time. Just like Wizarding World Press's Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter this new book can be a great starting point for those fans who wish to examine the series in depth.
As the plot begins to truly thicken, these author-sleuths have conjured a collection of discussions, character analyses, and theories that will hook up your fireplace flue to the busiest Brain Room outside of the Department of Mysteries. Read fascinating scrolls that delve below the surface of over 60 topics, and peer ahead to what is yet to come. Share in the bouts of speculation. Investigate with your fellow fans as they weave together the threads of this mystery...worry with them over what tragedies still await our beloved Harry.
Wizarding World Press invites you to come, join our discussion, as from one fan to another we respond to JK Rowling's challenge by using our wits to decipher this great mystery. Here is a unique, fun book, and a unique opportunity to experience the magic.
Note: Major spoilers included! Do not read this unless you have read all five Harry Potter books. The Plot Thickens...Harry Potter Investigated by Fans for Fans is a collection of articles by international authors--it is not the Ultimate Unofficial Guide to Book 5.
Here's the article from Reason magazine, November 2001:
REASON * November 2001
The Free-Floating Bob Dylan
The wonderfully inauthentic art of America's most vital singer-songwriter
By Brian Doherty
Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, by Howard Sounes, New York: Grove Press, 527 pages, $27.50
Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez Fariña and Richard Fariña, by David Hajdu, New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux, 328 pages, $25
Bob Dylan turned 60 in May, and his first album of new material in four years, "Love and Theft", came out in September. Those events, along with the recent release of the biographies Down the Highway and Positively 4th Street, have occasioned the most recent wave of ink spilled on the former Mr. Robert Zimmerman of Hibbing, Minnesota. His position in America's cultural landscape seems as rock-solid and over-large as Mt. Rushmore: He is widely acknowledged as the greatest songwriter of his generation, a man who irrevocably changed the popular song, a successful singer who is the constant butt of (undeserved) jokes about guys who just can't carry a tune.
Too much Dylan commentary gets trapped in Significance -- in documenting his importance in terms of his "influence," as if his worth is to be measured in the careers of Roger McGuinn, Barry McGuire, the Band, and a plethora of singer-songwriters with virtues widely understood as "Dylanesque." That is, a way with a colorful phrase, a "social conscience," or an unusual singing style.
Dylan has certainly been influential, and not always for the best. His seemingly effortless brilliance has a don't-try-this-at-home quality that has escaped emulators both great and small. Indeed, the more closely someone tries to ape Dylan, the more likely he or she is to sound ridiculous. (As Barry McGuire famously, ludicrously sang in the Dylan-inflected '60s hit, "Eve of Destruction," "Think of all the hate there is in red China/Then take a look around at Selma, Alabama.../Blood so hot, feels like coagulatin'/Handful of senators won't pass legislation.") The same held true for Dylan himself: The less he directly emulated early influence Woody Guthrie or Guthrie manqués such as Ramblin' Jack Elliott, the better he became.
What makes Dylan worth our continuing attention is not that he has clearly influenced other major artists, or that he "invented" folk rock, was the voice of his generation, ended the Vietnam War, moved to Woodstock, sang with Joan Baez, turned the Beatles onto pot, merged the Beats with a beat, or made the world safe for Loudon Wainwright III (and every other would-be "new Dylan"). What makes Dylan worth thinking about is that he has been -- and remains -- unprecedentedly great at what he does: writing songs and performing them.
Over a career that spans five decades, Dylan has written a huge body of wonderful songs with rich, fresh language, a vast emotional range, and an appreciation for and understanding of the totality of human experience. He has blended these with exhilarating melodies and musical backings. He has been absurd, tender, vengeful, smart, sexy, foolish, mystic, pious, nostalgic, journalistic, and phantasmagorical. He's a master of love songs (from "I Want You" to "Precious Angel"), word-drunk ramblings (from "Desolation Row" to "Idiot Wind"), and hymn-like anthems that sound ancient and necessary right out of the box (from "I Shall Be Released" to "Knockin' on Heaven's Door"). It seems likely that Dylan will be providing insight and pleasure to listeners for as long as digital storage media last.
Yet one thing Dylan has never been is "authentic," the prime value of the late '50s and early '60s folk-music milieu from which he arose. Both Down the Highway and Positively 4th Street provide valuable insight into how Bob Dylan violated the codes of his folk-scene background, which restricted performers to politically and culturally imposed limits thought to be more "real" than the "plastic" American culture exemplified not only by Eisenhower's America but by then-burgeoning rock 'n' roll. Dylan became the most successful product of the folk movement precisely by daring to be more than what its repressive version of identity politics allowed. Every step of the way, his career throws into question the usefulness of politicized restrictions on freewheeling cultural production and identity formation. Though it is rarely acknowledged, even or perhaps especially by his champions, Dylan's status as an American cultural icon is a reflection of his brilliance at continuous self-fashioning, not his "authenticity."
An Opportunistic Folkie
Some Dylan diehards scorned journalist Howard Sounes' Down the Highway for being a more gossipy tome than the mighty poet deserved. Gossipy it is; no other Dylan bio will tell you how he stole fellow Greenwich Village folkie Liam Clancy's lass while Clancy was playing at being a wandering troubadour in the early '60s. Still, Sounes has done the reporter's job well: He interviewed dozens of people (many missed by previous Dylan biographers) and dredged up many previously unknown tales. Very much because Sounes does not try to assess Dylan the artist (it isn't even clear if he finds Dylan's music all that interesting), this is the most satisfying Dylan biography yet, an entertaining set of anecdotes and memories of a fascinating, if ultimately unknowable, man. Down the Highway is thankfully unmarred by shoddy and tortured theory or criticism. Sounes is a storyteller, not an archeologist of historical truth. Some of his fresh material (such as his discovery of a secret second Dylan marriage from 1986-92, to backup singer Carolyn Dennis) comes from examining marriage licenses, court records, and business documents. But most of it is gleaned from tales told by Dylan associates, unverifiable in the main, and to be taken more as legend than cold fact. The book is nonetheless delightful for all that.
In Positively 4th Street, David Hajdu (author of an award-winning biography of Billy Strayhorn, one of Duke Ellington's composing partners) spins a dense group biography of Dylan and a trio of his close pals during the early '60s: folk goddess Joan Baez, her recently deceased sister Mimi, and Mimi's husband Richard Fariña, a hipster-hustler best remembered for the popular countercultural student novel Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me (1966). Hajdu nowhere bludgeons the reader with the meaning or larger importance of the story he tells. He trusts that the inherent color of his subjects and his own skill at presenting character through incident will captivate -- and it mostly does. Hajdu clearly sees Richard Fariña as the linchpin. He has even complained (lamely) that he didn't want his book coming out amid the hype surrounding Dylan's 60th birthday; his is not just another Dylan book. (I suspect Hajdu wanted to write a straight Fariña bio, but that linking him to Dylan was the only way he could sell his proposal.)
While he resolutely shows-not-tells, Hajdu unconvincingly implies that Fariña's early blatherings about poetry-with-a-beat were key to Dylan's artistic renaissance circa 1964-66, when Dylan grew beyond folk and became a true cultural giant. Complaints from other early Dylan associates that Dylan ripped them off and sucked them dry have been proven absurd by time. While Dylan doubtlessly copped a song or two or some vocal mannerisms from, say, folkie Dave Van Ronk, Van Ronk has had decades to prove himself Dylan's equal and failed. But any fantasy of influence and promise can be projected on Fariña, since he died before his long-term creative powers could be fairly judged. In a bizarre, almost unbelievable, turn of events, Fariña was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1966, on the very day his novel was released. That event ends Positively 4th Street, and in his last sentence, Hajdu reveals that Fariña's next project was to be a memoir of his days with the Baez sisters and Dylan. It's as if Hajdu has creepily adopted Fariña's goals as his own.
Hajdu glorifies Fariña (who seems merely self-aggrandizing and opportunistic to those more immune to his charms), makes Joan Baez look about as ridiculous as possible, and shows Dylan escaping her folkie-leftist orbit to become an artist of greater power and breadth than that scene could accommodate. The key to Dylan's escape from Baez's world, as cruel as it was to his erstwhile lover and early career booster, was his inauthenticity: Dylan jumped situations and styles opportunistically or by chance.
Falling in love with Congress of Racial Equality volunteer Suze Rotolo led him to write his early social conscience/protest hits. He was dragged to Southern civil rights events by folk elder Theodore Bikel, not his strong desire for social justice. As Sounes relates it, Dylan himself told people that he wrote the anti-war anthem "Masters of War" merely because he thought it would sell.
What did authenticity mean to the folkies with whom Dylan passed his younger days? As Hajdu explains it, the folk aesthetic in the '50s was "styled as largely antithetical to the times...[It] posed challenges to Eisenhower-era conservatism...put a premium on naturalness and authenticity during a boom in man-made materials, especially plastic...celebrat[ed] the past rather than the 'new' and 'improved'...it was small in scale...when American society, with its new supermarkets, V-8 engines, and suburban sprawl, appeared to be physically ballooning. Folk music was down to earth when jet travel and space exploration were emerging."
Echoes of this complaint against the unprecedented wealth and opportunities of postwar America sound through the Beats (whose style Dylan pinched in some of his mid-'60s work); intellectuals such as Paul Goodman, whose classic Growing Up Absurd (1960) argued that the "system" in the '50s gave young men no meaningful, authentic choices for life, leading the intelligent and spirited to rebellion; and J.D. Salinger's massively popular The Catcher in the Rye (1951), whose protagonist Holden Caulfield, the patron saint of disaffected, whiny kids everywhere, tellingly directs his harshest contempt at "phonies." Far from merely an era of bland conformity, it seems one couldn't swing an Organization Man in the '50s without whacking some sort of far-out rebel.
Hajdu's explanation of the folk authenticity ethos is evocative, and certainly as good as or better than anything the folkies themselves could have come up with. Folk authenticity was an ill-defined quality you claimed to possess, one that dripped virtue and decency, and that your enemies lacked. Yet the insistence on it was a self-deluding exercise at best. The usually white, usually well-off college kids who championed folk were not the rural, mountain, poor, and often black folk who had actually developed and kept this music alive. By pretending that singing those songs meant absorbing the values that their original guardians exemplified, the folk revivalists were faking it, becoming something that they were not.
But their values still seemed to them "real" somehow. They resolutely sided with nature vs. artifice, cotton vs. rayon, wood vs. plastic. They were opposed to what they saw as the commercial and intellectual values of the dominant culture. While rock 'n' roll in the '50s may have scared many mainstream Americans, to folkies it was just one more plastic, inauthentic product of the Commercial Machine. The Pete Seegers and Joan Baezes of the folk world sought to replace such crass, moneymaking music with songs that reflected what they saw as the struggle and dignity of the common man.
It's easy to laugh at the folkies now, to find their music effete and dull and to find absurd their dream of building a proletarian social consciousness by playing precious British love ballads and songs about miners' travails. But within their own circumscribed world, who can fault them? They had a music and style they loved and wanted to preserve. As Joan Baez buddy (and son of Masterpiece Theater's Alaistair Cooke) John Cooke told Hajdu, "One of the things that made [folk] music different and better than whatever everybody else was listening to was the fact that everybody else wasn't listening to it....It was anticommercial music."
Alas for snobs like Cooke, folk music became a full-on cultural explosion by 1963. Joan Baez became a major pop star; folk was the subject of a weekly ABC TV show Hootenanny and used as a general-purpose cultural signifier in everything from pinball machines to candy bars. Folk may never have lived up to its implied politico-cultural promise to re-authenticate a plastic American middle-class "death culture," but its insistence on authenticity remains a cornerstone of self-consciously cool subcultures, ranging from punk's disdain for "posers" to hip-hop's concern for "keepin' it real."
Going Electric
By any definition, authenticity is something Bob Dylan lacked, even before he adopted his stage name in 1960. Born in 1941, he has warped and changed year by year, evincing no solid core other than an ability to write great songs. He was a small-town, middle-class kid from Hibbing, Minnesota, who loved Little Richard more than anything. He went off to a hip college scene at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and, as insecure new college kids are wont to do, shed his past. He fell in with a crowd of hard-left folkie types and became consumed by the Woody Guthrie myth -- not through the man's actual music but through Bound for Glory, his autobiography about life on the road.
Though he fancied himself a vagabond, Dylan traveled the country only a little bit -- one trip to Colorado and back to Minneapolis, with occasional visits to another left-leaning college town, Madison, Wisconsin. According to stories Sounes dug up, he burgled records from benefactors along the way and lied madly to create a phony legend about himself. He eventually tracked down his hero Guthrie in New York. Guthrie was dying, his voice uncharacteristically slurred by late-stage Huntington's Disease. Guthrie's wife complains that Dylan, thinking he was tapping into Guthrie's essential style, began emulating some of the verbal tics brought on by his illness.
Dylan was well-known for pinching techniques and songs wholesale from others during his early days. Indeed, his genius is intertwined with his ability to both pick up and shed new influences and styles over time. As one Hibbing friend told Sounes, Dylan "had it calculated all the way....Each step, how he was gonna do it, and how you get to be a star." Even while he was the young king of the Greenwich Village folk scene, Dylan violated "authentic" folk codes, first by writing his own songs in a folk or protest mode, and then by returning to his real, hidden roots -- the rhythms and electricity of rock 'n' roll. Dylan's live debut with a full electric band happened at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965. A legend has bloomed around it: When he performed three songs with an electrified rock band, hidebound folkies booed en masse, shocked and appalled that Dylan dared to challenge folk's limits.
The reality is that he'd already released Bringing It All Back Home, which included a whole side of electric rock. At the time of the Newport show, his rock classic "Like A Rolling Stone" had been released as a single the week before and would in three weeks hit number 2 on the charts. It's unlikely most of the audience was shocked or angered by anything other than a bad sound system. Still, there's no question that folk reactionaries such as Pete Seeger and Alan Lomax were appalled by Dylan's performance. Seeger still maintains that if he'd had an ax that day, he'd have cut the electric cable to shut Dylan up.
Dylan has carefully played to the myth of the overwhelming boo, once noting in his best hipster-bitch mode that "I can't put anybody down for coming and booing. After all, they paid to get in....Lots of whole families had driven down from Vermont, lots of nurses and their patients, and, well, like they just came to hear some relaxing hoedowns, you know, maybe an Indian polka or two. And then just when everything's going all right, here I come on, and the whole place turns into a beer factory."
Musical Chameleon
More than his folk comrades, Dylan recognized that authenticity -- at least the folkies' restrictive version of it -- is likely to lead to artistic stagnation and irrelevance. "He not busy being born is busy dying," Dylan sang. Yet even as he was leaving the folk world's values behind, Dylan couldn't even manage to be an authentic apostate. Through most of "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)," which appears on the acoustic side of Bringing It All Back Home, he seems to be channeling Paul Goodman. Dylan trowels on disturbing visions of the emptiness of modern life, spitting at standard authority figures and the lie of commerce, at "toy guns that spark/flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark/It's easy to see without looking too far that not much is really sacred."
Like Goodman, Dylan tried to lay bare the supposed spiritual emptiness of consumerism and middle-class life. So even as he was selling out by going electric, Dylan failed at being authentically inauthentic. Or to put it differently: He was a contradictory human being, with no allegiance to entrapping cultural codes. He had everything he needed, he was an artist, and as he exited the folk world, he didn't look back.
For the most part he still hasn't. In every step of his career, Dylan's vitality as a singer and writer has come from creating new personae and new voices. A generic Dylan imitation is something every drunken wag at a party thinks he can nail. But listen in a row to vocal performances ranging from "Mr. Tambourine Man" (1965) to "Lay Lady Lay" (1969) to "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1979) to "Things Have Changed" (2000). You'll hear an immensely skilled vocalist who can sing with marvelous expressiveness in a wide variety of styles and tones. While rock performers such as David Bowie and Neil Young get more play out of being "musical chameleons," it is equally true of Dylan, who has invented fresh ways for a rock band to sound on almost every one of his albums since the mid-'60s. It's rare that a song from one would not sound out of place on another. On tour, he reinvents his own oldies every time he plays them, radically altering the tempo, tone, and arrangements.
Dylan's singularity as an artist comes from his penchant for -- perhaps even his commitment to -- constant reinvention of the self. As one might challenge Holden Caulfield, what does it mean to be a phony if constant change is what the individual personality chooses? We are all nothing more than what we are -- existence precedes essence, as Jean-Paul Sartre, another hip intellectual who loomed large in Dylan's early days, said. Thus, authenticity becomes a slippery idea indeed. Perhaps endless carping about who is more "real" could be settled in the manner of Bishop Berkeley, by the debaters bashing themselves against rocks.
What adds piquant pleasure to watching Dylan is that in most cases his shape-shifting seems calculated to annoy and enrage his current audience. And yet these turnarounds -- from folk to rock in 1965, from rock to country in 1969, from secular sybarite to fundamentalist Christian in 1979 -- have almost always ended up working out well both for Dylan's art and his pocketbook. (The turn to born-again believer only worked at first. His Slow Train Coming LP, on which Dylan consigned non-believers to Hell in no uncertain terms, was a big seller and earned Dylan his first Grammy, for the single "Gotta Serve Somebody." However, once the novelty wore off, his relentless preaching murdered his commercial prospects for over a decade. As Sounes accurately notes, "Electricity had annoyed folk purists, but religion bothered everybody.")
Dylan's life has been a series of inauthentic moves. It was fake for young rocker Dylan to become a folkie, fake for folkie Dylan to become a rocker, fake for rocker Dylan to become a country squire, fake for protest Dylan to become a poet of amphetamine-driven Beat wordplay and internalized reflections on romance, fake for superstar Dylan to become a vagabond minstrel with his 1975-76 Rolling Thunder tour, fake for secular Jew Dylan to become a vengeance-spouting born-again Christian, fake for that born-again Christian to return to secular pop and tour with the Grateful Dead, fake for rock star Dylan to return to acoustic folk-blues roots in the early '90s, and fake for a washed-up zombie to release one of the most vital records of his career, Time Out of Mind (1997), after knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door with a heart infection.
Because of this, attempts to lay bare the "real" Bob Dylan inevitably feel strangely insubstantial. You can't touch this Dylan guy. He's not there, he's gone, as Dylan once sang of himself. Then again, he's easy to find: This summer, for instance, he toured state fairs across much of the U.S., at last the ramblin', gamblin' man he pretended to be as a clean-cut kid hanging in Greenwich Village 40 years ago. Dylan knew all along, if often only instinctively, that nothing fresh, new, or startling comes from being "authentic." It comes from change, growth, evolution, electricity, and "selling out" to the wide world that exists beyond any blinkered, limited conception of proper culture.
Brian Doherty (bdoherty@reason.com) is an associate editor of REASON.
THE GUARDIAN
Jeez. The Goat will be my stepmother
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor
Ros Taylor couldn't get her hands on Prince Harry's diary. So she made it up instead.
Thursday February 10, 2005
Big bash coming up. What am I going to wear?
Asked Wills if he was going to wear the leopard costume again. He said no, crotch a bit too defined, Granny wouldn't like it. We had a bit of a laugh about the crown jewels. Always sets him off on one.
Seriously, will have to be careful this time. Pa will go totally apeshit if I wear the Japanese soldier costume with the Hara-kiri fake blood pouch in the belt. Might have to save it for Weasel's Pink Bits party in May.
Chelsy just texted from Durbs. Wants to know if she's invited. Jesus, not bloody likely. She told me I was a wuss after Pa sent me to weed his parsnips at Highgrove. Said it was pointless going to Sandhurst. And she can't keep her mouth shut. Now everyone knows I call Camilla the Goat behind her back. Wills is right, I should dump her when I get the chance. Feckhead told me the other day her father's a friend of Robert Mugarby. Don't see the problem, myself, but might be a good excuse.
Just realised the Goat will be my stepmother. Jeez.
Had another thought. Might see if I can get a goat mask for Jizza's party next week. No one'll know what it really means, just my little joke. Texted the Bokster to see what he thought, and he says he'll come as a horse.
Bollocks. Fancy dress shop is out of goats.
I have got it. I have ab-so-effing-lutely got it. I'm going to go to the wedding as Mummy. How much of a tribute is that? I mean, it's what she would have wanted. To be there in spirit. Told Wills, he gasped a bit and ran out of the room making funny noises. Might even be able to raid her old dressing room at Ken Palace. Blonde wig, bit of mascara - this is going to be a bloody knockout.
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 2, 2005; Page B01
RICHMOND, Feb. 1 -- A bill before the Virginia Senate has alarmed the Episcopal Church and other mainline Protestant denominations that are deeply torn over the ordination of gay ministers and the blessing of same-sex marriages because, they say, the measure would give local congregations unprecedented powers to break away from their national denominations.
Several major church groups on Tuesday urged lawmakers to reject the bill, which they said would entangle state government in church politics.
The bill, now on the Senate floor, would allow congregants to vote to leave their denominations and keep their church buildings and land, unless a legally binding document such as a deed specified otherwise.
Many denominations have long had rules that prevent dissenting congregations from leaving the parent church and taking their land, buildings and other property with them. Since 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous other courts have upheld those rules in all but a few exceptional circumstances.
As a result, relatively few of the Episcopal congregations in Virginia and other states that vehemently object to the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire have simply left the Episcopal Church USA. Instead, most have formed a network of disenchanted parishes that some call a church within a church, and they have tried to muster international pressure on the U.S. Episcopal hierarchy from the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Opponents of Senate Bill 1305, sponsored by Sen. William C. Mims (R-Loudoun), said it would be an unconstitutional intrusion of the government into that dispute.
"It puts us in the middle of that argument, and I think it's very inappropriate that we be there," said Sen. Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News), who said he plans to vote against the bill Wednesday.
Mims, a lawyer whose practice includes settling real estate matters on behalf of church groups, said his bill is designed to distance government from church disputes. Without it, he said, courts are forced to look to church doctrine to resolve arguments over congregational property.
"Those church members who have donated their money to build the church or expand the church or maintain it would probably be surprised to find that an authority hundreds of miles away could take that from them," he said. "If in fact that could happen, it needs to be clearly stated in the deed or trust agreement."
Mims said the bill was not meant to target the Episcopal denomination or get involved in its internecine conflict. Though the laity in his own Episcopal congregation in Ashburn has discussed the issue, Mims said, there have been no official moves to split with the church.
He said the congregation, which objected to New Hampshire's gay bishop and has joined the opposition Network of Anglican Communion Parishes, did not request that he introduce the bill.
The Rev. Clancy Nixon, vicar of Church of the Holy Spirit, Mims's congregation, said he supports the measure.
"They say it's about states interfering with internal church matters. I think that's baloney. It's all about property," Nixon said. "I think the bill is a good idea because it's a basic justice issue. In most cases, the local people bought the property, they paid for it and they maintain it, and now they're being told that in the event of a dispute, they can't keep it."
L. Martin Nussbaum, a Roman Catholic lawyer in Colorado who has served as general counsel to more than 30 religious institutions and denominations, called the Virginia bill "a rare example of a legislative attempt to rejigger the polity, or governance, of a church."
Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and others -- as well as Episcopalians -- have raised questions about the bill. At a news conference Tuesday at Richmond's historic St. Paul's Episcopal Church, clergy lined up to oppose it.
Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer of the United Methodist Church said she is concerned it could promote schisms in churches by allowing a simple majority concerned about any doctrinal or social issue to vote to leave and take property.
Although Episcopal Church officials did not learn of the bill until the middle of last week, delegates to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia's annual convention in Reston over the weekend passed a resolution opposing it, said Russell V. Palmore, the chancellor, or lawyer, of the diocese.
"It came up on such short notice, it's been difficult to develop any type of coordinated effort, but I can tell you based on my conversations with other denominations that we are all against it," he said.
Cooperman reported from Washington.
This post is part of a “blogburst” coordinated by Joseph Alexander Norland at Israpundit, to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz.
The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how.
As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.
After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victim was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice, and Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the “Auschwitz-Birkenau complex”). The green light for mass annihilation was given at the Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v
The Wannsee Conference formalized “the final solution” - the plan to transport Europe’s Jews to eastern labour and death camps. Ever efficient and bureaucratic, the Nazi kept a record of the meeting, which were discovered in 1947 in the files of the German Foreign Office. The record represents a summary made by Adolf Eichmann at the time, even though they are sometime referred to as “minutes”.
Several of the Conference participants survived the war to be convicted at Nuremberg. One notorious participant, Adolf Eichmann, was tried and convicted in Jerusalem, and executed in 1962 in Ramlah prison.
The mass gassings of Europe’s took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival, sometimes as many as 12,000 in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour or “medical” experimentation before they were murdered or allowed to die. All were subject to brutal treatment.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v
In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka. Adding the toll of these and other camps, as well as the mass executions and the starvation im the Ghettos, six million Jews, men, women, the elderly and children lost their lives as a consequence of the Nazi atrocities.
Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, sixty years ago, after most of the prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found in Auschwitz about 7,600 survivors, but not all could be saved.
For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.
There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.
If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the complicity we are witnessing, knowing where it inevitably leads.
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/757
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 27, 2005
Virginia Episcopalians, who at 89,000 make up the country's largest Episcopal diocese, will meet tomorrow and Saturday in Reston to discuss finances and whether the denomination needs to stop ordaining homosexual clergy.
Things are looking up a bit for the Diocese of Virginia this year, as contributions, also known as pledges, are up 5 percent from last year, when a financial boycott by conservatives caused a $860,000 drop in the 2004 diocesan budget.
Thus, this year's budget, which delegates will vote on, is $4.05 million, up $160,374 from last year's $3.89 million budget. One cost-saving measure will be $40,000 from the salary of Assistant Bishop Frank Gray, who will retire July 1. As the bishop will do some part-time work, there are no immediate plans to replace him.
However, several of the diocese's largest -- and most conservative parishes -- are withholding contributions to the diocese because of the Episcopal Church's decision in August 2003 to ordain a homosexual bishop.
A majority of the Diocese of Virginia's delegates agreed with that vote when it was taken at the church's General Convention.
"The decisions that will be made in the next couple of months will determine the direction for the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion," said the Rev. Tom Herrick, vicar of Christ the Redeemer Church in Centreville. "The gravity of these decisions call for seeking God's wisdom, discernment of God's will, and the courage to follow it."
Three of the 19 resolutions up for vote deal with how Episcopalians should give to their diocese. Two recommend either forcing parishes to tithe their earnings or return to their pre-2003 giving levels.
This same issue arose at last year's diocesan convention, resulting in the formation of a diocesan "task force on giving." After several months of hearings, it recommended Dec. 15 that the Diocese of Virginia rely on voluntary, not forced giving.
The 979 clergy and laity attending the diocesan meeting, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, also will elect deputies and alternates to the 2006 Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, the 2.2-million-member denomination's decision-making body.
Also among the 19 resolutions, the diocese council will consider six on the "Windsor Report," a document issued in October by a task force set up by the archbishop of Canterbury, head of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.
The report sought to resolve the Anglican Communion's crisis over authority and homosexuality, by criticizing blessings of same-sex unions in U.S. and Canadian churches and the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man living with a male lover.
To date, U.S. Episcopal bishops have expressed only "regret" for the "pain, hurt and damage" caused by the consecration, according to a Jan. 13 statement.
One church has taken the meeting especially to heart, calling for a 21-day churchwide fast for its 300 members. The parish-wide fast for Christ the Redeemer Church ended Sunday.
"We'd like to see true repentance, not just 'regret' for the church's actions," Mr. Herrick said.
A report also will be given about the findings of a "reconciliation commission," set up last year to work out differences between liberal and conservative Virginia Episcopalians.
The commission's chairman, the Rev. Andrew Merrow, did not return calls asking for comment.
The Rev. Richard Crocker, associate rector at Truro Church in Fairfax, noted that Diocesan Bishop Peter Lee "is trying to keep everyone at the table" in a diocese split between liberals and conservatives.
This has been appreciated widely, Mr. Crocker said, adding, "but it's a temporary peace because the fundamental differences still exist."
"There are not many people happy with this holding position," he said.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Welcome to "The Tonight Show." As you know, it's been a tough 24 hours for those of us who are fans of Johnny Carson. I was thinking about what I could say about Johnny Carson, and I kept trying to search for something new that hadn't been said before. After a couple hours, I realized that was impossible. Maybe that was the greatest thing about Johnny, imagine getting to the end of your life and there's no compliment that you haven't been paid. Johnny had that special quality of grace, charm and dignity in the public arena. He was an incredibly polite man and when you were invited into his house, this show, you knew you were an honored guest. Before he became host of "the Tonight Show", he was the host of a show called "Who Do You Trust?" which was the perfect title for show starring Johnny Carson. Because the truth is, we trusted Johnny. We trusted him to make us laugh, to entertain us, to speak for us with what was a truly an American voice.
Johnny hosted this show for 30 years…Think about that, these days some NBC shows don't last 30 days. What made Johnny such a unique talent was that for 30 years he was hip, but smart enough not to be so hip that next year he was out of style. That was a fine, almost impossible, line to walk and no one did it better than Johnny Carson. Johnny never went out of style. As a comedian he taught me that it was okay to be known for doing political humor, but never making the mistake of thinking you're a political commentator. It's okay to satirize the society we live in, just don't start believing you're a social commentator.
You know, people say this country is divided now, these people forget the 60s and early 70s. There were almost daily marches, there were race riots, there were assassinations, there were anti-war demonstrations all the time. We witnessed the most drastic cultural change in American history. But, throughout it all, no matter what the state of the world, it seemed to get its sanity back every night at 11:30. Johnny was a constant in our lives and every night he made us feel okay about it.
As good as Johnny was with celebrities and politicians, he was at his best with ordinary folks. Because they didn't treat him as Johnny Carson, "the king of Late Night", they treated him as Johnny Carson from Norfolk, Nebraska. There was always a moment when he would ask, "Do you ever watch my show?" And the person would always say something like " No, I don't stay up late unless there's something worthwhile to do." Well Johnny loved that, he would laugh and laugh and he thought that was the greatest thing in the world.
As a performer I don't think I ever wanted to impress anyone more than Johnny Carson. He had that effect on comedians. When he gave you that wave, or the wink, or the call over to the desk. Nothing before or since has had as profound an effect on me as that one little gesture. In the mid-80s I started working as a guest host for Johnny. And it's strange, after all these years, I still feel like a guest in his house… Because he built this place, everyone who does this for a living owes it to him. Johnny was the best, plain and simple. The best way to sum it up is, you had to be there. If you were fortunate to be watching during Johnny's 30-year run, consider yourself lucky, cause you're not going to see the likes of him ever again.
Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul
25th January, A.D. 2005
TO ALL THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION NETWORK: Beloved in the Lord,
It has been one year since the chartering of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, now commonly called the Anglican Communion Network. What a year it has been!
I write as Moderator with a word of encouragement. I know these are exceedingly anxious times. Remember, no matter what the appearances, “[He] has overcome the world,” (Jn 16.33) and his word to us is that we are to “Be of good cheer.” Jesus spoke these words to the first followers, just as He speaks them to us. To be sure…their challenges were no less daunting than ours.
That the entire and undiminished Christian Faith has been passed to us has to do with their unflinching stand. We can do no less in our day.
So much has happened in one year. Be encouraged. One layman in the Diocese of Pittsburgh is raising $100,000 to insure the work of the Convocations. His efforts are a challenge to laity of the nine other Network dioceses. We have only just begun to receive word of commitments from parish and diocesan budgets and the news is very good. So far just nine congregations have pledged $155,436 to the Network’s 2005 budget, most of which will be matched by a 1:2 challenge grant from the American Anglican Council. Having said this, another million dollars in commitments is urgently needed from Network parishes and dioceses. Please, vestries and diocesan councils, act now.
This letter brings word that Mr. Wicks Stephens, formerly chief operating officer of Trinity School in Ambridge (and a litigator licensed before the California bar), has accepted full-time appointment as Development Director and Legal Advisor for the Network. (The funding of this position was provided by a special and far-sighted gift of one Virginia parish, dollars additional to the budget figures above.) Alongside of our Network Canon for Operations, Larry Crowell, and new staffing for the Ministry Development Program (the tested ordinations program pioneered by the AAC) the Network’s Pittsburgh office is gaining significance, structure and stability. The AAC (from its new Atlanta office) continues to fund and provide services as Network secretariat, providing for public relations, communications, educational, accounting and secretarial needs.
Anglican Relief and Development has soared beyond our wildest hopes. Announced at Michaelmas (September, 2004), we have thus far funded 13 development projects in 9 nations totaling $460,000. We are targeting an additional $550,000 in grants for the next 6 months, in addition to our best guess of something like $250,000 of tsunami relief enabled by our one-time South Asia appeal in Christmastide. Blessing upon blessing, we have also been notified by the Reformed Episcopal Church that they will consider action to make ARDF their relief and development arm as well.
Extraordinary talent has come forward as the Network’s needs have developed. Six convocational deans – serving the vast areas of our country (including some 200 congregations and 300 clergy) that are in non-Network dioceses – have devoted much of their energies to what has become the creative engine of the Anglican Communion Network. The deans are John Guernsey (Mid-Atlantic & Convenor), Bill Murdoch (New England), Jim McCaslin (Southeastern), Ron McCrary (Mid-Continental), Bill Thompson (Western), and Bill Ilgenfritz (Forward-in-Faith[acting]). A Cabinet system has also emerged – alongside of the faithful weekly efforts of the Steering Committee – whose members are, in addition to the Moderator, Ed Salmon (Bishops), Martyn Minns (International Partnership), Kendall Harmon (Strategic Engagement), John Guernsey (Deans), Larry Crowell (Operations) and David Anderson (Network Secretary). Mary Hays convenes a church-planting task force, with Tom Herrick as church-plant staff. Sharon Stockdale Steinmiller presides over 15 missionary organizations that have come together as Anglican Global Mission Partners.
Committed to “gathering the Anglican diaspora” from our chartering, I am privileged as Moderator to convene and chair a roundtable which brings together orthodox forces inside the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada, as well as significant numbers of those who have moved outside. Included, at this point, in this roundtable are the Network, the AAC, Forward in Faith, the Anglican Mission in America, the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Anglican Province of America, the Network in Canada, the Federation in Canada, and the Anglican Communion in Canada. We are all one river – flowing at this point in different channels – whose source and end are together.
With this letter I am also able to announce “Hope and a Future,” a first-ever national Network conference. On November 10, 11, and 12, 2005, we intend to gather 2000-3000 souls in Pittsburgh to worship, to learn, to hear from our national and global leaders and partners, and to share our resolve to be agents of a renewed Biblical and missionary Anglicanism.
The upcoming Primates meeting in Ireland will have much to say (either in speaking or not speaking) about the future of Biblical, missionary Anglicanism in North America and around the globe. Pray mightily. Consider fasting through much of this season between now and Holy Week. Whatever emerges from Ireland, do not lose hope. God would not – for no purpose -- have given all the blessing to the Anglican Communion Network that this letter describes. He does not waste His resources. And He is faithful even when we are not (I Tim 2.13). Besides, Jesus has overcome the world, so we really can be of good cheer.
Humbly and faithfully in Christ,
+ Bob Pittsburgh
Moderator, Anglican Communion Network
Bishop of Pittsburgh
To the Standing Committee, Executive Board, Deans and Presidents:
Follows and important announcement from Bishop Lee. You are among the first to receive this letter. You may receive it again through another automated e-mail process but I wanted to ensure you received it directly. This announcement also is being sent to Members of Council will be posted to the diocesan Web site. Please keep the Bishop and his family in your prayers.
Patrick N. Getlein
Secretary of the Diocese
1-800-DIOCESE x30
January 25, 2005
Feast of the Conversion
To the Leadership of the Diocese of Virginia
Dear Friends,
As a result of a heart catheterization procedure yesterday, I learned that three arteries to my heart are significantly blocked.
My surgeon has advised me to reduce my activities immediately, so I will miss the 210th Annual Council. I will enter the hospital on Friday for outpatient, pre-operative tests. Then, on Monday, January 31, I will undergo triple by-pass open heart surgery. I expect to be in the hospital for up to five days and the recuperation period will be six to eight weeks.
In consultation with the President of the Standing Committee, I will be on leave until April 1, 2005.
The 210th Annual Council meeting this weekend will be the first I have missed in twenty years. Bishop Jones will preside. I am so thankful for the leadership of Bishop Jones and Bishop Gray, the diocesan staff and the support and prayers of our people. No one is indispensable, and I am confident you will find the ministry of the diocesan staff to support fully your ministry in my absence. The diocesan staff will keep you informed of my progress. I welcome your prayers and trust God’s loving care for our diocese and for me.
Faithfully yours,
Peter James Lee
