There's got to be a pony in here somewhere

I heard some stats this morning on the radio that talked about the overwhelming majority of voting youth who went to Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Most of the talk radio Talking Heads are classic Boomers, not the "Under 30" who voted for Ronald Reagan. The 1980's "Under 30" crowd have now come of age - in fact, Barry Obama is one of us. He was under 30 too when Ronald Reagan was president. Did he actually vote for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? That sort of boggles the mind.

But the so-called "conservative" Radio Talking Heads (RTH) seem to have forgotten that they weren't too thrilled with Ronald Reagan either when he first came to town. In fact, it's been sort amusing to listen to some of them berate John McCain and then wax lyrical about Ronald Reagan. How quickly we've all forgotten what a laughing stock the idea of Ronald Reagan was to the majority of the RTH's of his time (which was basically Larry King All the Time). Like Ronald Reagan last time and John McCain seems to be doing this time, both upset the Establishment apple cart.

Oh there was an "establishment" Republican Party back in the day (in fact, George Bush was picked as the running mate for Reagan to placate those whinny Country Club Republicans and get them to support the ticket - Bush was Reagan's challenger in the primaries and Reagan called him "The Preppy." Bush used to call Reagan's plan that completely overhauled the entire American economic system as we know it now as "Voodoo Economics," remember?). Back in the day we had all these snobby know-it-alls over talking about lofty esoteric principles and using words in Latin and French, but losing elections. In fact, there was actually a "Conservative Party" at one time, which of course, lost elections.

Until Ronald Reagan.

You see, temperamentally, he was not a Republican. He was a Democrat. A populist in a tie. He had cut his teeth on the most cut throat of democratic politics known to humankind - Union Politics. He had been in the thick of the worst of it at some of the most notorious years for Hollywood Unions, the late 1940s and early 1950s. He learned to make deals as well as to stand up to thugs. He could charm and he could slug. He was Irish, for heaven sake - but an Irishman from the Midwest. He could streetfight with the best of them, but still put on a tie for dinner. Those traits we would see in plenty when he got to the White House and would have a vicious slugfest with Tip O'Neil all day (the Speaker of the House, we use to call him Jabba the Tip) and then they might have a few beers together once the sun went down and talk about baseball.

Was that conservative?

Another thing about Ronald Reagan was that he was inspiring. You'd listen to him and it you'd find you suddenly wanted to start clapping your hands and saying out loud "I believe! I believe! I believe!" One of the reasons you'd believe is that he told things they way they really were. He was honest. If he screwed up, he said so. If things went badly, he'd say so. If things could get better, he'd say so. And then he'd say something funny and you'd think, okay - we'll just try again.

There wasn't any of these sort of "loyalty tests." Reagan was running The Big Tent. He was standing by the flaps trying to get in as many as he could - including immigrants. He didn't check to see which side of the Pentagon windows you were on in the 1960s either. If you liked what you heard, you got in. Many of those "former" 60s radicals suddenly switch sides when Reagan came along and they now had kids.

Was that conservative?

And he really loved America. I mean, he really loved America. The rest of the world made fun of him, oh, they certainly did. In my junior year in college I studied theatre in London and oh, how I had to tiptoe around about Reagan. I'd never known Socialists and Real Left Wingers as I knew them in London for they hung about the stages of London's West End and in Stratford. To them, Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist. They hated him more than they hated Margaret Thatcher.

Ronald Reagan loved America as the Immigrant's Dream. He was sure that if more people just came in and tried us out, they'd also fall in love with America too - he was sure of it. His speeches were full of the literary ideas of the American Dream. It was hope. He was speaking to a world that was trapped behind the Iron Curtain - yet those speeches resonated to those who were looking for hope and were not appearing tonight on the West End, but were living in the East End. Or the Eastern Block.

Reagan had his own war on terror, but it was a cold war. He fought it militarily, but he also fought it rhetorically. He made the case that the cause of liberty was one filled with optimism and hope. He could be very firm (he had a temper too). You can just hear him now, if he had to deal with the screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who claim to carry the Reagan Standard today. He'd let them yell for a while, maybe just a little too long, and then there'd be this long pause and then he'd tip his head and say, "Well ...." And he'd call the yappy Talking Head by their first name and then he'd tell us a story.

Here's one of my favorites:

A boy was given a roomful of horse manure for his birthday. Immediately he started digging away and all the while as he digged digged, even with his bare hands, he just kept smiling. Finally, someone asks him, "What are you doing?"

"With all this manure," the boy replies enthusiastically, digging away, "there's got to be a pony in here somewhere."

Perhaps it's best just to see the real thing again. Here's Ronald Reagan at the beginning of his political life:



And here he says farewell at the end:



Listen very carefully. Gosh, I miss him.

No Squishes Please

I am mulling over writing about the upset over what it means to be a true conservative in the current presidential race. As some of you may know, the very first political thing I ever did was volunteer to run the copier at the Reagan/Bush '80 headquarters in Washington in 1980. Volunteering there got me a ticket to the big bash on election night at what is now the Omni Shoreham. It was a night I will never forget. But "talk radio" conservatives are in an uproar regarding McCain's conservative credentials - and while there is plenty to be an uproar about, I am far more concerned about these wacked-out attitudes coming from what appear to be burned-out self-absorbed talk-radio hosts (not you, Fred & Andy). I'm going to write about this later tonight. But what does come to mind, in the meantime, is that these rabid voices have always been around Reagan's shoes and they used to complain that anyone who didn't agree with their rabid-style no prisoners-taken style were "squishes." In fact, at one point they thought Reagan himself was a squish and started a "Let Reagan be Reagan" campaign (see, we haven't forgotten). Well guess what - it's time for the real squishes to get squashed. Stay tuned.

PREVIEW: The #1 way to know the true conservative is if they are cheerful. If they are not cheerful, they are not conservative. No, not really. They may be a lot of things, but they are certainly not a Reagan Conservative. And why are conservatives - the Reagan ones - cheerful?

Because they are grateful.

No matter what happens, the gratitude can never be squashed out of them. They can have bursts of temper - Reagan certainly did. But it never squashes their joy. It bursts out sometimes in the most surprising ways and at the most surprising times. And just what are they so grateful about?

They are grateful that they were lucky enough to be born in America.

Gloucester Cathedral: Location Today for New HP Film

Filming continues at Gloucester Cathedral in England for the next Harry Potter film, Half Blood Prince. Here we see Alan Rickman, whose quintessential portrayal of Prof. Severus Snape will be the center of the sixth film, on location today at Gloucester. Gloucester Cathedral has been the location for other HP films as well, serving as the location for the Hogwarts Castle. Readers of the HP series will know that Hogwarts Castle is the location of a pivotal scene that includes the mysterious professor.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is slated for theatrical release in November.

Ya want fries with that?

Brad Drell, who is one of those who continues to hang in there and slug away (he's been elected a deputy again to General Convention 2009) does not mince words over the attempt to divide the Daughters of the King (one of the great ironies is that the innovators call those who will stand against them the dividers - or worse, the schismatics, as though their own actions have nothing to do with it). Here's an excerpt from Brad Drell's post:

I hope that every member of the Daughters of the King who has perhaps held onto an idea that, come what may in the Episcopal Church, the commitment of this organization to Christ is unflappable, and who could not imagine that anyone in the Episcopal Church would declare war on such a benevolent and spiritually uplifting organization as this. Think again. The first female Presiding Bishop, rather than supporting this organization, is declaring war on it.

Of course, this is not surprising to me. It is an organization that acknowledges the Kingship (read male leadership) of the actual person of Jesus Christ, not some etherial non-sexual Christ. This is incompatible with the Episcopal Church of today.

I had not seriously considered the whispering campaign that could ensue if DOK did not embrace the TEC political agenda (it's not theological). I also did not consider that TEC is now in the business of protecting the "branding" of the Episcopal Church. I've been musing that they are looking at the institution of the Episcopal Church as being like a corporation with franchises, like McDonalds or Burger King. They could no more tolerate Anglicans in their midst then if McDonalds started selling Whoppers. Well, they are selling whoppers all right, but I don't think they got them from Burger King.

Read the rest of Brad's posting here.

Welcome to the Second Annual CafeAnonsBall!

Here we go! The pancakes are flying and the music is on! Welcome to the Second Annual CafeAnonsBall. Once a year we take time out to celebrate and honor all of you who have posted here at the Cafe all year long - but who's names are known only to you and the Lord. Sometimes we take a guess, sometimes you've whispered your name to us over the bar, but many we may never know. Still, we love that you've taken time to stop in, we've enjoyed the conversation - even when it gets rather sparky. So here is a night devoted to you - and the others who have dropped into the Cafe and lurk in the corners where we don't even see your face. We're still glad you drop by and hope you'll toast one another, at least for one night this year.

Here's the BabyBlueCafe JukeBox spinning the Shrove Tuesday hits (it's been a year since we dusted off the JukeBox - might keep it out all year time). Enjoy your stack of pancakes and your mugs of Butterbeer and Chai and forget about throwing the cream pies, at least for tonight. The first song is still dedicated to Jim Naughton - who often can be found at that "other" cafe. We may have our differences, but we'll always have Harry Potter. Now who is that we see out on the dance floor? Is that you, Jim?

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.

Wonder what's happening in the French Quarter tonight? Click here and see for yourself!

Need to know the latest on "Super Tuesday?" We'll be keeping tabs on it tonight, but if you want to see the latest articles, click here. We'll post some stuff as we go along tonight for all the political junkies out there (we see you have all ready got yourselves your own table). If you want to see a Russian-view of Super Tuesday, click here. If you are not sure what "Super Tuesday" is - click here.

Here's a video overview of the events of the last year:



"They run off eckeltricity, do they? Ah yes, I can see the plugs. I collect plugs. And batteries. Got a very large collection of batteries. My wife thinks I'm mad, but there you are."
-- Arthur Weasley, trying to make conversation with the Dursleys (GF4)

Looks like we've got a birthday cake tonight - a very special birthday to Arthur Weasley. What is it that makes Arthur so unusual to his friends and family? If you have any spare plugs and batteries around the house, send them his way. This lady might know where he lives.

What do we know about Arthur Weasley? Time to check the HP Lexicon here.

Walked over to the PolTable and asked what they all knew of the latest on Super Tuesday. Here's what they say:

GA: OBAMA...
IL: OBAMA
OK: CLINTON
AR: CLINTON

CT: MCCAIN
IL: MCCAIN
MA: ROMNEY
NJ: MCCAIN
AR: HUCKABEE
DE: MCCAIN

West Virginia had their little vote too (got a lot of folks in quite an upset) and it went to Huckabee. We've been laying rather low on the politics (though we moved to DC for a reason, but never mind). We're presenting the latest insider info as a public service. Restrooms are in the back.



You know, Huckabee might win Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. Just saying. And with that, another tune:



Time to check the French Quarter in New Orleans again.

Here's a long distance dedication to one of our Anons - he's a school teacher far away in a Middle Eastern (or it a European now?) country and we'd like to send out a special shout out to him while he continues his journey. This one's for you, TL:



Looks like we may need some assistance. The first thing we need to do, though, is stand up.



Got that? Okay everybody, let's try it.






Whenever I hear that last song, I think of the film, Saturday Night Fever, which then reminds me of this bridge.

Okay, so what is a great pancake recipe anyway? How about this one?

Bette's Oceanview Diner, 1807 Fourth St. (between Virginia Street and Hearst Avenue), Berkeley, CA; (510) 644-3230. Open daily for breakfast and lunch.

2 cups all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons sugar
2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 eggs
2 cups buttermilk
1/2 cup milk
1/4 cup unsalted butter, melted
Choice of berries, sliced bananas, raisins or chopped toasted nuts (optional)
Oil for griddle

The ingredients. The baking powder, baking soda and buttermilk work together to make these the lightest pancakes possible. -- Stirring the batter. The batter begins to react the minute the wet ingredients are added. Stir quickly and don't overstir; there should still be lumps in the batter.

Combine the flour, sugar, baking powder, baking soda and salt in a large bowl.

Lightly beat the eggs with the buttermilk, milk and melted butter.

Just before you are ready to make the pancakes, add the liquid ingredients to the dry ingredients all at once, stirring just long enough to blend. The batter should be slightly lumpy. If you want to add fruit or nuts, stir them in now, or you may sprinkle them on the pancakes while they are on the griddle. Heat a lightly oiled griddle or heavy skillet over medium-high heat (375 degrees on an electric griddle). Pour 1/4 cup batter per pancake onto the griddle or skillet, spacing the pancakes apart so they do not run together.

When bubbles appear on the surface of the pancakes and the undersides are lightly browned, turn and cook for about 2 minutes longer, until lightly browned on the bottom.

Serve immediately on warmed plates with the topping of your choice.

BUTTERBEER

Sometimes folks who drop by the Cafe wonder what Butterbeer is. Here's a description:

Very popular drink served cold in bottles or hot by the mug ("foaming tankards of hot butterbeer") at the Three Broomsticks. House-elves can get drunk on butterbeer, but it doesn't have that effect on humans (GF21).

Available at the Hog's Head for two Sickles a bottle (OP16).

How is butterbeer made and what does it taste like? When asked about this by "Bon Appetit" magazine, JKR responded: "I made it up. I imagine it to taste a little bit like less-sickly butterscotch."

Want to make your own Butterbeer? We can't guarantee the magical bits, but we might be able to at least point you in the right direction. Here goes:

Butterbeer Ingredients:

• Root Beer or cream soda

• Butter

• Cream

• Butterscotch (chips, sauce or both!)

How to make it:
Pour the (root beer/cream soda) in a cup, and the butter & butterscotch into a a small bowl. Put the bowl of butter and butterscotch in the microwave and melt it.
Then put the root beer in the microwave, but not for long because you want it to be moderately warm, or it isn't fizzy and good anymore!
Pour some melted butter and butterscotch in the root beer but not too much! Then pour some cream (coffee cream) in. Then stir it all up. It might take a few tries to make it to your liking!

Or, if it's been a particularly tough day, here's another version:

1 cup butterscotch schnapps 7 cups cream soda (almost one 2 liter bottle) Carefully mix just before serving, adding the schnapps to the soda then stirring gently to mix well, or the fizz will dissipate too soon. You can also find butterscotch flavoring near the vanilla flavoring in the baking section of the grocery store, but it is more difficult to find, and actually the flavoring is 35% alcohol where the schnapps is only 15% alcohol by volume, so if you're making large quantities of butterbeer, I recommend just to buy the schnapps. There is not much alcohol content in the butterbeer mixture, just enough to make a house-elf tipsy and to give it the warm, buttery aftertaste to the fizzy cream soda.

Chai

: This is our favorite here at the Cafe. We serve it by the pitcher, with skim milk and served piping hot. Simply the best.

Looks like a group has broken out in song over by the David Blue Memorial Pinball Machine. Who is that singing?



My best friend in high school was "Barry" Obama's lab partner. They went to Punahou, the primo-prep school in Hawaii, founded by the New England missionaries in the 19th century - I went to the local public school. He certainly has done the "Jay Gatbsy" thing and reinvented himself.

Which of course, reminds us all of - you guessed it. Been thinking about what to play from the man who's song inspired the name of the Cafe. And perhaps that is how we shall sign off, just before the California polls close and we head off to Lent.

Again, thank you all - those we know, those we don't know, those we know by name, those we know by pen-name, and of course, all the anons who drop in and drop by. We lift our tankards and our glasses in your honor. And with that, we bid a fine farewell and wish you all peace as we observe a holy Lent. Good night.

On the Menu: Pancakes!

Not sure how to make pancakes? Here's how!



And what's all the fuss about pancakes, anyway? Read all about it here. Here's some info on Shrove Tuesday:

The reason that pancakes are associated with the day preceding Lent is that the 40 days of Lent form a period of liturgical fasting, during which only the plainest foodstuffs may be eaten. Therefore, rich ingredients such as eggs, milk, and sugar are disposed of immediately prior to the commencement of the fast. Pancakes and doughnuts were therefore an efficient way of using up these perishable goods, besides providing a minor celebratory feast prior to the fast itself [2].

The word shrove is a past tense of the English verb "shrive," which means to obtain absolution for one's sins by confessing and doing penance.^[6] Shrove Tuesday gets its name from the shriving (confession) that Anglo-Saxon Christians were expected to receive immediately before Lent.^[7]

Read more here.

Happy Shrove Tuesday: Join us Tonight at the Cafe for the 2nd Annual CafeAnonsBall

Get Ready! Tomorrow is the Second Annual CafeAnonsBall - and everyone is invited!

Yes, Cafe Friends - it's that time again! Tomorrow is Shrove Tuesday and that means we're flipping pancakes (get your griddles and batter ready), serving hot mugs of butterbeer and chai (and maybe a few bottles of Old Ogden's Fire Whiskey) and lots of tunes and other fun things.



We will be celebrating all of our many cafe guests who drop in and pass through. Whether we know your name or not, you are all welcome here! Right here at the BabyBlueCafe!

The Ball begins (if the train gets in) at 8:00 p.m. EST. Pull up a chair, put on your tinfoil hat and beads, and sing the night away. In the meantime, here's a link to the First Annual CafeAnonsBall last February 20, 2007.

Presiding Bishop Targets Daughters of the King: Joins Effort To Overthrow Leadership and Expel Non-Episcopalian Members

Uh oh. Looks like the latest target is now aimed directly at the historical organization, the Order of the Daughters of the King. Read more here.

A handful of "progressive" Episcopal women want to ban Anglicans, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics from the Order and make it an Episcopal Church-only organization. They have targeted the elected president of the Order, Joan Dalrymple, but frankly, I have to wonder if the real target is the national Chaplain, none other than the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida. He's been making peace of late with those parishes and clergy who seek to separate from the Episcopal Church. And now we have Washington-style politics going on, with whispers of financial mismanagement (absurd, you can read their financial statements yourself here - including the audit) as well as an entire shadow website put up online as a "shadow" Order (sound familiar friends?).

At the Daughters of the King Triennial, held in 2006, the delegates voted to interpret the bylaws strictly so that each chapter had one vote. The bylaws do not recognize "Episcopal" and the Order is not an official part of the Episcopal Church. It's like the Alpha Course - it's associated with Episcopal Churches, but is a separate entity. The Triennial voted by an overwhelming majority of 219 to 30 to seat Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican Chapters.

Since the Triennial, a small group formed calling themselves the "Episcopal" Community of the Daughters of the King and they seek to expel from the Order all the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic members. They have recruited bishops from the Episcopal Church to pressure the president of the DOK, continuing the whisper campaign to cast a cloud over her leadership.

And now, if that's not enough, the Presiding Bishop is now casting her autocratic shadow over the move to expel everyone but Episcopalians from the Order, writing the Episcopal Bishops:

My brothers and sisters,

I know there have been questions in many dioceses about the status of leadership in the Daughters of the King. This issue was raised while I was meeting with the bishops of Province IV. Attached is a letter from the bishops of Province IV, expressing concern. I understand that responses have begun, and wanted you to be aware of this. Questions you may have can appropriately be directed to the Daughters in your own diocese, and on their behalf to the national leadership. Given the energy behind this, you may want to share any responses you receive with others on this list, so that all may be suitably informed. I look forward to seeing you all in March.

Shalom, Katharine

Shalom, my foot. Notice that the financial issue (which is without merit, as we can see for ourselves by reading the financial statements that have always been transparent) is just a hook. The real issue is frankly, Umbridgian. Katharine Jefferts Schori says there are now "questions in many dioceses about the status of leadership in the Daughters of the King." Right - it's a progressive Episcopalian attempt at a coup to oust the current leadership and to install leadership that will expel all the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics from the Order.

But what is so strange about this is that none of the correspondence is directed to the Chaplain - their fellow bishop. What's up with that? Is this retaliation against Bishop Howe for his generous treatment of parishes and clergy in the Diocese of Central Florida who are seeking to separate from the Episcopal Church?

In the Diocese of Virginia Bishop Lee has been outstanding. He has been incredibly generous, as he was at the recent Diocesan Council meeting, to bless the efforts of the Daughters of the King in the Diocese of Virginia to have both Anglican and Episcopal Chapters. The leadership is made up of Anglicans and Episcopalians. There is an Anglican chaplain and an Episcopalian chaplain and they work together. And we work together. In fact, this past Diocesan Council was so incredibly good for my own soul to be in a position to pray for the Diocese of Virginia, to be in the chapel there praying, not only for the efforts of the diocese, but for my own heart.

But this campaign that now includes the Presiding Bishop herself is disgraceful. There's no other word for it. It seems to be targeted not only at the leadership that is truly inclusive, but at the chaplain who has been truly generous - John W. Howe.

Simplicity and Global Warming

Back in the 1970s there was a "Back to Nature" movement where people gave up on the modern life and tried to simplify. They would go from one extreme to the other - living on the beach to living in four-story treehouses. The music of choice was John Denver. It was all peace and love and VW buses.

Even earlier, there was a "back to nature" movement called the Arts & Crafts movement (which "incidentally" also occurred around the turn of the century) where again there was a movement in reaction to all the frills and hoopla of the Victorian era and the mode of that day was to simplify and go natural. We got the Bungalow house out of that era, as well as Frank Lloyd Wright and William Morris. It was all about using natural materials and living a simpler lifestyle. Shrine Mont in Virginia was built during that era.

It was clear that these were movements because there was a spiritual and artistic expression of a philosophy of living. They were creative. They were inspiring. They gave people hope.

Now there is a new "movement" and despite the Nobel Prizes and the speeches from bishops and politicians, it's not quite catching on. It's spawning money-making enterprises, that's for sure, but not art. It's not a spiritual movement, it's spokesmen are politicians. It appears to be political, not spiritual - and many believe, scientifically flawed.

And it's based on fear.

Both the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and the global climate change efforts now are based on fear - on a political fear. It's hard to be creative when one thinks the world is coming to an end.

It seems based on the fear that the world is going to melt down, literally, and we've got to stop it. But it also seems curious that most of the leaders who are spinning this whole thing are now Boomers entering their retirement years and they are afraid. Their fear seems to be projected onto this particular issue - climate change as though that's the latest fear-fad, like the nuclear freeze was back in the 80s.

It's a political issue, as even Bishop James Jones recognizes in his recent editorial in the Guardian. But it's a political issue based on fear and it's approached with a nearly fundamentalist-style finger pointing. Repent, or the world is going to explode.

But I just have to wonder if it's a diversion from the real fear, which is the war. Not able to comprehend and control the likelihood that the terrorists will strike at any time (and this goes against the idea that humankind is progressing - you don't send girls with down syndrome into a crowd and blow them up - it's beyond comprehension it's so evil), these fads spring up to give us the security that we can change our environment. Then we get on the fad-bandwagon and pour lots of $$$ to make us feel better and look good, until it just becomes too expensive (as recycling now is, as is a Frank Lloyd Wright chair) and we move on.

Living a life that values simplicity and the spiritual benefits of being good stewards with what God has entrusted to us is a challenge all by itself. Our care for the created world is an expression of our love for Him and for His creation. Our care is based on love, not fear. Is it not time to simplify as an expression of our confidence in His care for us? Perhaps if the politicians - often the very same ones who seem to take the war lightly - stopped preaching fear we might listen.

We may need to be ready to live simply anyway - and not because the world is too hot. Might as well start now.

Whew, it's just the music ...

Bob Dylan Eucharist?

Looks like it's time for U2 to move over. The Methodists now have Dylan. But fortunately, it's just his music.

Tip of the Tinfoil to RWB. From the United Methodist Church of Geneva, Illinois. Guess you'll be with Him when the deal goes down.

LATER:

My Rhapsody Playlist
Let's just say a "Dylan Eucharist" would not be a "U2 Eucharist." Dylan has a thing about sin. And as for the Church, is the Groom still waiting at the altar? This is Jeremiah, not Hallmark. Zing!

Tale of Two Bishops

Bishop Peter James Lee: This litigation became necessary when eleven diocesan congregations chose to leave the Episcopal Church but continue to use the Church’s property to the exclusion of those members who chose to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church .... Defending our heritage and securing our future is expensive. We have spent so far nearly two million dollars on litigation costs as a defendant. We are blessed with dedicated and very effective lawyers, a number of whom are either working pro bono or at discounted rates as a gift to the church. Mike Kerr, our chief financial officer, with the authorization of the Executive Board has obtained a line of credit for the legal fees so we are current in paying them. The interest on the line of credit is being paid by endowment income so that no pledge money from churches or individuals is used for legal fees. At the conclusion of this litigation, we expect to pay off the line of credit by selling undeveloped and unconsecrated property, a process that is already under way. No one likes lawsuits but at the same time, our generation has a stewardship responsibility to protect the property of our churches for Episcopalians in the next 400 years.

-From the Bishop's Pastoral Address, January 25, 2008

Bishop John W. Howe: In all of these situations I am very pleased we have been able to avoid litigation or acrimony. We are very conscious of the fact that we remain brothers and sisters in Christ with those who have felt the need to leave The Episcopal Church. This is a sad time, in many ways, as we part company with folks with whom we have worked and worshipped. But we bid them Godspeed, and I would like to ask all of us to think of this as a time of new beginnings rather than endings.

-From the Bishop's Pastoral Address, January 26, 2008

The P Words

ACI's Christopher Seitz uses a rather unfortunate word to describe the actions of the Presiding Bishop against the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin here, when he wrote of his unhappiness with Bishop Duncan's remarks at the Mere Anglicanism Conference in Charleston. "As for Canterbury’s Advent Letter and the support of CA bishops’ principles at DES," Christopher writes at Kendall Harmon's site, "especially in the light of PB’s overreaching in DSJ, we shall see. A picture of disintegration so total does of course offer justification for what is here being depicted as the best way forward."

Overreaching? What we've learned in what Christopher calls the "PB's overreaching" in San Joaquin is that the PB is weak. All this pontification of power is an illustration of weakness, not strength. The powerful are quiet. That's what keeps them powerful. They don't pontificate, they produce.

I work for a Rainmaker. He is rarely - rarely - in the headlines. But when he passes away, he's quite old now, you will all know who he is. He's very powerful, even at his advanced age. His power has come through decades and decades of relationships and trust, built on the solidity of his counsel and the wisdom of his mind.

We do not see such leadership at 815 - nor, does it seem, currently at Lambeth. The laity are not blind.

The product is the Faith, not the buildings. The buildings drain financial resources, they don't produce it. They are window dressing, advertising, but they are not the product. They are the coffee cup, a china cup no less, but not the coffee.

The People are producers of the product (though we could say that the Executive Producer is Someone Else - no Executive Producer, no product) - they are the ones that go out and - to use the crass terms now being used by 815 "market the mission strategy of the franchise." They live the product and by living the product they advertise. They are mobile, they can go anywhere, and they are flexible. They can dress up and they can dress down. A property just sits - and some of those properties are in vulnerable places, both inside and out.

Remember how the Presiding Bishop keeps reminding us that People can leave, but not the Property? What sort of chilling effect does that have if TEC were a company? That sort of autocratic view is what led to the establishment of labor unions. It's why the Constitution of the United States did the radical thing and said the United States was not Property (and so much of the struggle was over property in fact) but that the United States is "We, the People."

The Church is not a building. It's not even an Institution. The Church is the People, the body of Christ - and it's faith that holds us together, not the manufactured denominational ties. Those are our tribes, our communities - but those are not "the Church." The Church escapes all marketing descriptions - the Church is alive.

Property does not produce faith. That's why they can be turned into saloons.

If we can't produce the product - what are we left with? More meetings do not produce products, unless there is revival.

If there is now competition with the franchise, then 815 must get its mind off protecting their assets (the property) and produce the product or they are going to go out of business. The next step may be for 815 to protect the "intellectual property" of the institution - the Prayer Book. If Anglican franchises are using the Prayer Book as the instrument of their worship, isn't that like Ma's Coffeeshop selling Starbuck's Coffee? Unless, of course, we're all actually in the same franchise after all and there's been a division from within.

My own parish is preparing during Lent to take a season to live without the luxury of property - that is what we're giving up for Lent. We're going to be holding as many of our gatherings as possible - except for worship - out in the community, at Starbucks even. We're beginning 40 Days of Community tomorrow.

In the United States, people are free. We like our pretty coffee cups, but we also like a good cup of coffee. This Lent we're looking for a fine cup of coffee.

For those of us who are finding ourselves thinking about life in community without the pretty buildings, it does cause some to wonder, especially here in the DC area - if we had a terrible terrorist attack where would we be? Those of us who live in the DC area have been warned it is going to happen - we just don't know when.

But we're all ready getting ready. In fact, we're supposed to be ready.

What Church would survive such a thing? The one that is protecting the properties or the one that is producing the product? Pass me the duct tape.

Lambeth appears to be marketed as a "San Francisco-style Be In" - but what will that to do produce the product? How will we flourish? It's not revival. It's designed to protect the property - china will be served, but where do you get a good cup of coffee? Tea anyone?

Consider this. One major terrorism crisis and the entire summer is shut down. We're going through a major presidential election - don't think for a minute that the terrorists have forgotten. A transfer of power is a very vulnerable time for a nation - even one as powerful as the U.S. We've been warned. We may not be listening right now, but we've been warned.

I sometimes wonder if in this crisis - both the one facing the United States and the one facing the Anglican Communion - we may have lost sight with what the Lord may be doing in our midst. It's not about the properties - we saw how quickly some magnificent properties could be destroyed in a few blinks of the eye - it's about the people who fill those properties.

Are we ready?

If Lambeth is about revival, about filling men and women with the fire of faith in Jesus Christ, they couldn't keep the doors from being busted down with excitement. But that is not the case and the Archbishop of Canterbury has made that quite clear. It's a meeting. A "Be In." Pass the china cups.

What will we need most in the months and years ahead? How do we recognize our own weakness, our own vulnerabilities and not hide our weakness with pontificating statements of power? If we turn to the Scriptures we see challenging clues. Jesus Himself is the epitome of power, and yet He he took the path of weakness and triumphed.

How did He do that?

We see examples of this on the cross. He was vulnerable, He was forgiving, and He was honest.

We see his vulnerability in His suffering. He doesn't hide it - He can't hide it. He could have followed John the Baptist and suffered and died in secret. But the sufferings of Jesus was in plain sight. His weakness was seen by all. But even the Roman Centurion standing nearby was struck by His witness. "Surely this man was the Son of God," he exclaims.

We see His forgiveness. On the cross no less, He forgives those who torture and kill Him, pleading with His Father to forgive them, that we don't know what we're doing. That means He does not issue blame, but takes the blame. Just sit there for a while and think about that.

He takes the blame - though He is in fact, blameless. In that moment, in His amazing actions of redemption - He takes the blame. He takes responsibility. He takes authority. By taking the blame Himself and His Father accepting it, He becomes very powerful. Who has the authority to do that, to take the blame and have it accepted?

That is a power not of this world.

He was honest. He didn't tell things to people that they wanted to hear and so He was hanging on the cross. He had times when He could have cajoled Judas or made deals with Pilate. But He didn't. He remained honest, forthright, truthful, and transparent. And that made Him powerful, so powerful that the religious and civil authorities needed to see Him crucified in public thinking that would silence everyone else.

And they were so wrong.

It seems counter-intuitive to follow the path that Jesus took to the cross in these times of crisis in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion - and perhaps even in the United States. We do not need more meetings, except if those meetings are filled with the power of the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with faith in Jesus Christ, to set our hearts on fire with love for Him and for His people - for those in the Church and those brokenhearted and lost. We are bound together not by china cups and pretty buildings, but by the amazing work of Jesus Christ who transforms us from the inside out and sets us free. Hallelujah. The joy of the Lord is our strength.

If Lambeth was about joy, if Lambeth was about the fire of the Gospel to change lives and fill our hearts with hope, that it was about suffering, about transparency, about forgiveness, about truth, and even about taking the blame - it would be a powerful meeting indeed.

Diocese of San Joaquin Standing Committee Writes a Letter

BB NOTE: And what a letter it is.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin make a strong case that the Presiding Bishop has stepped far out of her canonical bounds and frankly, appears to be sliding into autocracy, not a good sign. And as we see in the correction made to the Anglican Communion website, there is only one Diocese of San Joaquin and it's bishop is still Jon David. Marketing and campaign strategies do not make good law - canon or otherwise, and some canons are not more equal than others. Her incredible missteps with the Diocese of San Joaquin's Standing Committee either means she is getting inept advice (and perhaps it's time for David Booth Beers to spend more time with family) or she is in way over her head. After all, she's never actually even run a Vestry meeting. How can she run 815?

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Office of the Presiding Bishop
The Episcopal Church Center
New York City, New York
pboffice@episcopalchurch.org

Friday, February 01, 2008

We have received your letter dated January 25 in which you state that you do not recognize us individually as members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. We find your statements, published by ENS on the internet and read in Hanford prior to most of us receiving the actual letter, to be unhelpful. While you may hold any personal opinion you wish as an individual, the office of Presiding Bishop does not have the legal, canonical or moral authority to proclaim for the Episcopal Church non-recognition of duly elected members of a diocesan Standing Committee. Without having any canonical or constitutional authority to refuse to recognize us, we cannot accept your opinion as changing our status as the canonical Standing Committee of the Diocese.

We regret that you have based your “understanding” on conjecture and misinformation. Since you do not provide any evidence of specific acts of the Standing Committee, nor proof of any wrong doing, we are unable to comment in detail on acts or events you may have relied upon to form your “understanding”. We regret you didn’t attempt to confirm your understanding with the President of our Standing Committee when you called him on January 9^th, or on any other occasion.

You cite Canon I.17.8 as setting a standard of duty for anyone in elected position in The Episcopal Church, however neither this canon nor any other canon gives the office of Presiding Bishop [or any other person] sole privilege to interpret what constitutes a failure to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of any office. If the interpretation of failure to “well and faithfully perform the duties” of office is open to anyone, a cursory look at your performance in office would be cause for a great number of Episcopalians to find that you “have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as” Presiding Bishop. To name just a few of your canonical violations:

• Ordination of the Bishop of Virginia without the specific written consents from a majority of Standing Committees as required in Canon III.11.4.b;
• Your intentional withholding [from May ’07 to January ‘08] of notification and failure to bring before the House of Bishop’s meeting in September 2007 the abandonment of communion finding of the Title IV review committee against Bishop Cox as required in Canon IV.9.2;
• Your stated intent to delay consideration of the abandonment of communion finding of the Title IV review committee against Bishop Duncan past the March 2008 meeting of the House of Bishop’s [including your intentional withholding of notification from December 16, ’07 to January 15, ‘08] again in violation of the requirements of Canon IV.9.2.
• Establishing a missionary congregation in Bakersfield and appointing a priest who is not canonically resident to be under the supervision of Canon Moore and under your authority in violation of Canon I.13.2b and Canon III.9.6

With this evidence of your willful disobedience to the requirements of Canon, many Episcopalians could, using your own words, state they “do not recognize you as” the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. And of course, in the spirit of reconciliation, we would encourage you to be aware a “future declaration of adherence to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and a reaffirmation of the Declaration of Conformity, will once again make you eligible for election to office in the Episcopal Church.”

We regret the decisions you have made to misuse the Canons of The Episcopal Church. We acknowledge your personal opinion of our status as members of the Standing Committee for the Diocese of San Joaquin. In accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, we ARE the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of San Joaquin in the event the House of Bishops should choose to depose Bishop John-David Schofield. Any attempt on your part, or on the part of any other person, to circumvent or replace the Standing Committee as the Ecclesiastical Authority will be a violation of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

J. Snell
M. McClenaghan
R. Eaton
K. Robinson
T. Wright
R. James

The Point

George Conger has an update on the new wave of Episcopalians separating from TEC. But I do take issue with one of his opinions.

It is not correct to say, as George Conger writes, that “conservatives have been divided on what tactical programme to purse.” That is not correct. What we are seeing is the realignment and that is happening both inside and out. There are some who are working outside the TEC structures and others who are working on the inside. But the relationships continue between both those on the inside and outside.

We do need to remember that in the best efforts for change, change comes from both the outside and the inside. We have Allies and we have the French Resistance. We have George Washington crossing the Delaware and we have John Adams in London.

What we must understand is that the relationships are strong between the laity and the clergy - we’ve all known each other for years, whether we’re are Episcopalian or Anglican or somewhere in between. These friendships continue, we go over to each others houses, we hang out at conferences, we don’t ask for ID cards. It’s the “faith” that binds us together, not the structure.

That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

Matt Kennedy Liveblogging from Mere Anglicanism Conference: Bishop Duncan speaks of the "New Settlement"

BB NOTE: Matt Kennedy is live-blogging from the Mere Anglicanism Conference in Charleston, including the extraordinary remarks from the moderator of Common Cause, the Bishop of Pittsburgh. Its important to read the whole thing, but here's a highlight on the "New Settlement." From here:

What I want to suggest about what has gone wrong is this: you all remember the Elizabethan settlement. We say that Mere Anglicanism and Mere Christianity are actually he flowering of that settlement.

And what has happened is that that consensus has disintegrated. The substance of the settlement, not the idea itself, has disintegrated. A new consensus has to emerge and we are a long way from that.

The systems that characterized the Elizabethan settlement, there were three:

1. Anglicanism was agreed to be under the Word. Are we there now? No. We use these words sometimes but they no longer have the same meaning. The settlement was that the church was to be under the Word.

2. The second thing that was true is that the Settlement: was under the prayerbook. We don’t have that anymore. There is nothing in terms of our prayer that is common. There is nothing that might lead us to believe that what we pray is really what we believe. We no longer pray the same things so we no longer believe the same things. The book has collapsed. The book was our magisterium. We did not have a Roman Magisterium. We had a book. It was our articulation of doctrine. It was the theological construct in which we prayed. But just like the word that we believed judged us rather that us it, the book has collapsed.

Third: the Settlement exchanged an international leader for a local leader (pope to king). All this took place under British systems. Theses systems were remarkable. Even after the collapse of the Empire everyone was still under the systems. Who calls the primates together? Who gives the mandate to the ACC and who appoints the General Secretary? The consensus that had existed that was the settlement and the settlement worked in a system.

The system has worked, the settlement has worked for 400 years, but the agreement that authority rests in the bible, in the prayerbook and the English church system…all of that is collapsing

What I am suggesting is that sustaining a Mere Anglicanism that is catholic, evangelical, pentecostal, and reason, is not working under the old settlement.

The Elizabethan Settlement produced two great streams that are engaged in mortal combat.

The first stream is white, western, and progressive, used to the system. The settlement created the modern world, in fact, and it is white, it is western, and it believes in progress.

It actually also produced the Global South: Brown, southern, and traditional. Most of us would identify with that second stream today. That is new.

How that great consensus that produced an Anglicanism that was truly conducive to the maintenance of Mere Anglicanism is an incredible thing. But these two realities, these two parts of Anglicanism, western progressive and southern traditional, again vast oversimplifications, these two worlds, are no longer coexisting under the settlement. For Mere Anglicanism to survive a new settlement is required.

The bad news is that the old consensus is in horrendous disintegration. This is somewhat familiar

Between the Christian consensus about what it was to be an American and the multicultural consensus that has emerged in the last 30 years, the change came about through a massive disintegration. US history in a way familiar to us all, the journey from one consensus…from colony, to nation…cost blood and incredible ways of rethinking and destruction to this very church, so much that it did not come back to life until 20 years after the revolution.

The Reformation moves from the catholic consensus about England to a Protestant one before the same century is over. Henry is divorced and becomes the supreme head of the church. Cranmer, Fisher, Latimer, Ridley are martyred

And ultimately a settlement is found. But everything disintegrated in between.

The Church is not the same. It moves from consensus to disintegration to consensus again. And if the good news is true that God works all things together for the good, and if we do not trust that we are in real trouble.

And of course, you know how the story ends, we know that God is in charge and that he wins.

What does all this mean?

The disintegration means that a new consensus is on the way.

Read the whole thing here. Thanks, Matt.