General Convention embraces evolution

In other General Convention news, it's worth noting that Resolution A129 passed. Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further, Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge. Read the explanation here. And another thank you to jc for creating an appropriate bumper sticker in such a timely manner! Alternate link for comments

The UN Millennium Campaign

One of the outcomes of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church this past week was that the convention affirmed the UN Millennium Development Goals. These goals have been championed by Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation, the group that hosted the U2Charist I attended last week . You can read Bishop Curry's sermon at that event here. Presiding Bishop Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori was on record as supporting these goals in her candidate interview... The Presiding Bishop has an ability to call this whole church to claim the wonderful richnesses of God's creations, the gifts of all human beings, whatever color they are, whatever language they speak, whatever country they live in, to build that reign of God. The next Presiding Bishop has an ability to hold out the vision of the Millennium Development Goals as a concrete image of what Isaiah's dream looks like. What it means to feed people--to feed the one third of the world's population who don't have enough to eat every day, to insure that girls and boys around the world have access to education, that mothers have adequate prenatal health care so that healthy children are born, that there's clean water, that there is adequate sanitation, that there are structures put in place to promote ongoing productive development around the globe. To be that kind of energy and engine in making those Millennium Development Goals come to reality. I think that's the centerpiece of what the next Presiding Bishop has to call us to. These are the Millennium Development Goals 1. Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. 2. Achieve universal primary education. 3. Promote gender equality and empower women. 4. Reduce child mortality. 5. Improve maternal health. 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. 7. Ensure environmental sustainability. 8. Develop a global partnership for development. I've added a Millenium Developement Campaign banner to the sidebar at Faithful Ohio. They come with different celebrities on them--the one I chose has Jane Goodall. Click here to get a banner for your own web site or blog. Alternate link for comments

New bumper stickers

I have been asking Demetrius to put the little "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" sticker on our car, but he never quite got around to it. Now that convention is over, the timing feels a bit odd, since in the end the convention agreed to the continued moratorium on the consecration of "any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." So I asked him to make these... Alternate link for comments

How General Convention ended: acknowledging the hurt

This is a part of one of my posts at Faithful Ohio. Click here to read the whole post, and to share words of compassion, empathy, and support for those who have been hurt by this resolution. By the time I left for work this morning, most of the comments about the turn of events at the end of the General Convention had been "head" comments rather than "heart" comments. This morning I saw a comment in response to last night's post and it conveyed mixed feelings, but had a "maybe this is for the best" approach. Throughout the day today, I noticed that there was a fair amount of argument at Father Jake Stops the World and An Inch at a Time about whether or not the resolution calling upon... Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion. ...was a good thing or a bad thing, and if it was reason to feel demoralized. Okay, that pushes one of my major buttons. Of course there can be rational, logical arguments made both in favor of and against the resolution. But it raises my hackles when anyone tries to tell anyone else how they "should" feel about something. 'Cause I've had people do that to me, and a really don't like it. I really don't want to get into the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the resolution, or what kind of sense it made strategically, or the importance of maintaining ties with the Anglican Communion. The truth is that real people have been hurt by the decision. I believe that they must be permitted to speak their pain, and we need to hear them. To my gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters in Christ, I still don't know what to say, except to tell you that I am grieving with you. Alternate link for comments

A woman's place

Thank you, jc, for creating this bumper sticker I suggested earlier today. Click here for a photo gallery of Katharine Jefferts Schori at General Convention. And click here for all the recent news stories from the Episcopal News Service. Alternate link for comments

ECUSA Presiding Bishop: It's a girl!

Idea for title shamelessly stolen from this blog. Apparently there are some who have their panties (er, briefs? boxers?) in a wad about the Episcopal Church electing a woman to lead the church in the U.S. Bishop Election Upsets Episcopal Diocese (really, this is just *sad*) Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, read a short statement from the floor of the Episcopal General Convention, asking Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to put the diocese under the oversight of another Anglican leader. Here's an article from the Episcopal News Service about the new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Prior to ordination, she was a visiting assistant professor in the Oregon State University Department of Religious Studies; a visiting scientist at the Oregon State University Department of Oceanography; and an oceanographer with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle. She is also an active, instrument-rated pilot, who has logged more than 500 flight-hours. More about the new Presiding Bishop, and other news about the General Convention here. Alternate link for comments

How to really protect marriage

At least this move to throw a bone to the Republican base is being recognized for what it is, as can be seen in this headline from Yahoo News, as well as the overall tone of the article: US Republican majority uses symbols to woo its base "This fundamental institution is under threat," Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said of traditional marriage. "Activist courts are usurping the power to define this social institution. And if marriage is redefined for anyone, it is redefined for everyone. The threat is real." Yes, Bill. Be afraid! Be very afraid! After all, as I've already noted, "activist judges were instrumental in changing the definition of marriage back in 1967, and now people of different "races" can freely intermarry. Our numbers are growing--admittedly somewhat slowly--but I think we're making real progress on our ultimate goal of world domination. We've started innocuously enough...quietly challenging people's preconceptions that normal couples must be color-matched. Oh, and of course having the cutest dang kids you've ever seen. But, slowly, gradually, we are changing the face of America to a gorgeous deep, golden tan! Bwahahaha! Perhaps I've said too much... On a more serious note, the sad thing about the current Republican party's idea of "marriage protection" is that it obscures the real threats to marriage and family in this country. As Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance and member of Clergy for Fairness wrote in a recent op-ed on this issue: We cannot tolerate discrimination being written into the Constitution. So, for those people who want to protect marriage, let me offer a few suggestions: start by raising the public's consciousness of the dignity and importance of women in our still deeply patriarchal society; increase the minimum wage and offer tax breaks to the working poor so that spouses can see each other for quality lengths of time, rather than briefly passing on their way to two jobs; encourage family planning; start a plan to deal with domestic violence; and work to cover mental health care in medical insurance policies so serious emotional difficulties can be prevented from tearing marriages apart. These are real world actions to deal with the real world problem of protecting marriage. All Americans who value the institution of marriage should unite on the above-listed goals to truly strengthen our communities and our country. Freedom and equality are prerequisites for religious liberty to flourish in our nation. Yet, too often they are cast aside to advance one group's view of the world. The Constitution is not a party platform, but rather a liberating document that provides all Americans guaranteed rights and freedoms. Those of us who value religious pluralism must send a unified message that freedom and equality go hand in hand with religious liberty. Congress has no business legislating one religiously-based view of marriage. In the interest of religious liberty, faith communities and houses of worship must be allowed to wrestle with the issue of marriage themselves. Of course, I think most of us know that the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment is not about protecting marriage in any real sense. It is so obviously "red meat for the base" that headlines like the one I included above seem to be the norm. The most honest response I've seen on this issue to date comes from the woman who answers the phone for Senator Martinez (R-FL)--as reported in a post at Americablog: "The Senator is not interested in protecting marriage but in protecting the definition of marriage."