Thursday, September 06, 2007
New BabyBlueOnline Podcast: A Dramatic Reading
The latest BabyBlue Podcast is now up. It features a dramatic reading of the open letter penned by the former Bishop of Newark to the current Archbishop of Canterbury. Don't forget to pick up your Happy Meal.
You can click on the player above or go to iTunes and download it to your iPod or computer. The iTunes Podcast is called BabyBlueOnline. You can also click here.
NOTE: To download the latest version of QuickTime, click here. To read the original text of the letter, click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
So there ... Rowan!
Well, BB, this is most interesting. In fact, I've spent my entire allotment of blog time this morning just reading the letter and all the comments. (I wait to listen to things until later in the day when I won't wake people up.)
So many Bible verses came to mind, but I guess Bishop Spong wouldn't countenance any of them.
There was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes.
There is a way that seems right unto man, but its end is distruction.
Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.
Sacntify them in truth; Thy word is truth.
Choose this day whom you shall serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
And, for those who think the sin of Sodom was a lack of hosptality to the strangers who visited Lot:
"In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities surrounding them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as they did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 7
You may remember that Jude is about contending for "the faith once offered for all." A short little book - only 25 verses. Often overlooked. Talks about apostates and their doom. I highly recommend reading it.
The final verses: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear - hating even the clothing stained by corruption with flesh" make reference to Levetical law regarding (13:48-52) fabric that has been contaminated. Be mindful - there is a danger to the rescuer here!
Good guidelines for so many people we must deal with. The way to be safe with that third group is to remember "I know whom I have believed!"
It is so sad to see the loss of civility in our Church. We have lost it on all sides and the conversation has devolved into sin. I would ask who ever is responsible for this recording if they think they would show this with pride to our Lord Jesus Christ? Where is charity and mercy? Jesus weeps because of the caustic lengths we are willing to go to in order to break the body of Christ.
--a humble country parson
Humble?
Okay, here we go:
Satire (from Latin satura, not from the Greek mythological figure satyr[1]) is a literary genre, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement.[2] It is used in graphic arts and performing arts as well. Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner.
Satire is to be distinguished from parody, which sticks to the form of the piece being mocked. The similarity to comedy is that "in satire, irony is militant"[3].
Satire usually has a definite target, which may be a person or group of people, an idea or attitude, an institution or a social practice. It is found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, and media such as song lyrics. Often the target is examined by being held up for ridicule, typically in the hope of shaming it into reform. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm. Also, parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are devices frequently used in satirical speech and writing – but it is strictly a misuse of the word to describe as "satire" works without an ironic (or sarcastic) undercurrent of mock-approval. Satirical writing or drama often professes to approve values that are the diametric opposite of what the satirist actually wishes to promote.
From Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
Wet blankets are welcome, naturally, but are often quite soggy. Just step up by the hearth and hang it up to dry. We have an extra chair at our table.
We were wondering, as well, here at this table, about the humble modifier. But, well, some are blessed. We, alas, are not so lucky. Pass the Fire Whiskey. It's on the house.
bb
Babyblue I think you are confused. It would be satire if you wrote it. This is sarcasm and it is as helpful as this "personal" letter from Spong. If he wanted it to be personal, he would not have released it. The point is, that both sides are sinking into sin, fighting and getting mean, rather than trying to seek the Spirit. If we have points to make, than let us make them. But let us also know that our LORD died for all of us, and calls us to live differently and treat each other differently than the ways of the world. The two sides are becoming like the prostitutes before King Solomon and there are voices on both sides that only seem to want the baby to be torn in two. We all stand in need of repentance. I love the Church and I would rather be wrapped in a wet blanket of sadness than burn with the fire of supremacy.
I wont trouble you again with my thoughts...clearly I am in the wrong place.
--humble country parson
You may want to read the text of Bishop Spong's letter over at StandFirm. I'm not sure where you stand in this crisis, humble, but it would seem to me that one way to look at this crisis is to see two extremes fighting with one another. That is naive. There does seem to be air of supremacy (interesting word, humble) by those who think that the fence is a lovely place to sit. The Episcopal Church is in this mess because so many of us spent so long on the fence. We sniff and think, oh thank God I'm not like them. I would never stoop so low to actually make a decision. I will just preserve the institution and let those silly people fight with one another.
Bishop Lee actually tried that. For years he's appealed to the mythical center aisle - and many of us believed him, that such an aisle actually existed. As long as the center keeps coughing up the dough to keep the institution running, let someone else deal with the day to day operations.
Read Bishop Spong's letter. Yes, he's throwing a tantrum - but the point of view he is articulating is accurate. The whole idea of "conversation" - of staying in conversation is a ruse. Those of us who sat on the fence for so long took those promises at face value. But what Spong reveals here is that those "conversations" are ways to keep both conservatives and moderates quiet. If one holds an orthodox view of scripture and speaks out against it, then the fence sitters get upset because their fence is in danger of getting knocked down.
And some are like the bird below this post, just sitting on his branch lamenting the past.
Satire is not everyone's cup of tea, I'll grant you that. I spent decades watching Monty Python (or listening to my brother do impressions of Python) and I didn't get it. I read Jonathon Swift and was shocked. But I guess there comes a time, when satire may stir up fence sitters in ways that nothing else can. It did with this fence sitter.
For a long time I have wondered why Bishop Lee appointed the most liberal progressive priest in Region 7 to be dean when I was president. I think he did it for the same reason you are speaking to , humble. He thought we'd knock each other out. It's a tactic politicians use all the time. Draw attention to those who are out in the field and then make deals with others whose hands are still clean. Then everyone else can point to those "extreme elements" and say, "thank God I'm not like them."
You are always welcome here, humble. But we're not going to baby you. We will offer you pancakes this morning for breakfast.
We love the Church too. I remember years ago working on a house for Habitat for Humanity in Baltimore. It had to be completely rebuilt on the inside and the back wall of the house (it was a row house) had to be completely torn down if the house was going to be safe and inhabitable. As I was cleaning muck out of the century old fireplace and turning up my nose, one of the other workers next to me saw my displeasure and said, "sometimes you have to tear parts of the house down to save it."
Turning up our nose because it gets dirt on our hands will not save the house. The Church is not a baby. Whining - whether one is Bishop Spong or Humble or BabyBlue - is not going to fix anything.
But in order to fix anything, we have to admit the Church is in crisis. And that is what is going on here.
Otherwise, we can join Mr. Bird below on his branch and sing Feelings.
bb
HCP, you can't just redefine words to support your case - it just isn't honest or convincing. Of course satire can make use of that which it is satirizing- (think Bushisms).
And it shocks me that a parson could be so judgmental and Biblically ignorant as to think chiding Spong for being a rude, self-absorbed brat is some how unbiblical.
Scripture says we are to reprove, rebuke and exhort - but it's not a style guide, and for you to imply that criticism involving humor is therefore sinful is to replace the Bible's teachings with your own tastes and sinful speculations that others are being 'mean'.
Compared to what John the Baptist, Paul or Stephen might say to Spong, this mild by comparison.
"I love the Church"
Do you really love the Church, or an administrative body that used to be the church? Have you ever really given the matter any thought of what constitutes the Church?
Of course we all love Spong- we'd rejoice at his repentance, and we'd witness to him. But he's really not a follower of the Christian religion and he's not above criticism. Your giving him a pass isn't love.
BB,
I, for one, thought your reading was hysterical. I needed that levity after the shock of reading the printed version at SF.
As an aside, I don't think Spong minds being reviled, but I think he could not stand being laughed at. If we, as the orthodox, could, in unison, just laugh at the man, we might do the AC a world a good.
Selah
Python! The majority of my favorite sketches can be described as 'Kafka lite' - person X gets enmeshed in person Y's insane idiotic system and is bewildered. Person Y becomes livid /abusive/complacently stupid towards person X and doesn't see the problems with his own system (ex. fresh fruit defense, dirty fork, matress/teachest).
IOW, it's kind of like the interaction between Spong and Rowan, with Spong as the indignant maniac and Rowan as the guy who walks into it.
"Kafka lite" - that's excellent!
bb
Post a Comment