Uncharitable Semi Rant

Like half of America, I have a Facebook account. Also like most of those on Facebook, I use it to keep track of extended family and old college chums. It's a nice way to mark milestones in acquaintances' lives. I don't anything of real significance there and it doesn't link to any vital or financial information. Hack my Facebook account and you can see the exact same pictures you could see before you hacked my account.

Today I received something from Facebook that surprised me no end. A group I joined back in the dawn of time was spamming my email account with banal Facebook messages. I thought I joined them as a mailing list, although it is possible that I joined them on Facebook when I first signed up.

Here's the rant. Why on earth would someone resurrect a group that had been dead and buried for over two years? We all lost interest more than two years ago (one of the glories of most social media is you can look at the dates on messages). Until Monday, the last message on the group was from early 2009. Most of the messages were from early 2008.

The same people who spammed the group into banal oblivion and howled down any real meaningful discussion back in 2007-2008 were spamming each other again. It's very much like those zombies movies where you think the good guys have killed all the zombies, they've buried them for good and a skeletal hand reaches up from the ground and grabs a foot.

Let the dead stay dead, I say. If you miss the old crowd so much, why not start a new group? Then you can spam each other as much as you like.

Me, I quit the group, again. And set Gmail to mark all the messages received as spam. I'm also exploring ways to set my Facebook settings to 'dull', 'bland' or 'unexciting'.

I thought as much

The Anglican Church of Canada has gone to the dogs.

Episcopalians Today

I have not written much about what is going on in the wonderful world of Anglicanism. Part of it is due to inertia. Long posts require thought, which is too much like work. Part of it is apathy. But mostly it's because I think I've already said what I wanted to say. The problems of the modern Episcopal Church are intrinsic to the organisation itself. They are pretty obvious. And there does not seem to be the will to reform the church in such a way as to assure its continued existence.

In short, the Episcopal Church has lost its collective will to live. If Timmy refuses to grab the rope, then Lassie can not pull him from the well.

For Rowan Williams

In re: The Anglican Communion

Here's a song for ya...

A Helpful Comparison

BabyBlue has a posted a lovely video of the beginning of the installation of Robert Duncan as Archbishop. I have been busy lately and have not been paying ACNA much attention, so I thought I'd see what was going on at their nuptial convention.

For those who aren't up to speed on Anglican splinter groups, ACNA is the Anglican Church in North America and is the amalgamation of an astonishing number of American Anglican fragments.

There is a PDF of the agenda here. What struck me was how little time was spent on side issues. In the space of four days they wrote a constitution and canons, debated the same, amended the same, installed a primate and still met for worship thirteen times (four eucharists), or slightly more than three times a day.

By way of contrast, the Episcopal Church is meeting for its 2009 General Convention in Anahaeim in July. It will last eleven days. There is a eucharist ten times for corporate worship, or slightly less than once per day.

Now the Episcopal Church is about seven times bigger than ACNA (ASA vs ASA). But it's been around for over two centuries. What's left to discuss that requires eleven packed days of meetings? One hundred dioceses are sending 800 lay delegates and 300 bishops to Anaheim. The dioceses are paying for these persons to come into close proximity to the Magic Kingdom.
If the diocese is very frugal, lodging would cost about $550 per person, airfare (including taxes and fees) comes to around $600 per person (Atlanta to LA and return). Throw in a $20 per day per diem for food and incidentals ($220 per person) and each diocese has to pony up $1370 per delegate. That's a cost of $1,500,000 to the dioceses for having a delegation! Some dioceses (Los Angeles for example) will pay a lot less, some will pay a lot more (Hawaii, Europe, Haiti or Bethlehem).

None of this includes the national church's budgeted amount of $5,883,779 (2009 alone, there were other amounts allocated in 2007 and 2008) to rent the facilities and put on the affair.

The delegates are certainly not going to be slackers. There is no time set aside for them to zip off and see Mickey Mouse. But a quick glance at the agenda and resolutions discussed shows very little substance. There is going to be a great deal of discussion about discussions.

Is anyone else struck by how sclerotic the General Convention appears? Were I in charge, it would have two hundred delegates (one lay, one bishop per diocese) and last three days. All of the committee appointments and meetings would be done in the three years leading up to it, on the delegates dime and therefore likely online.

But then again, were I in charge, the Episcopal Church would only have about twenty dioceses.

Leaving aside theology, which is the big issue, the other major reason why the Episcopal Church has floundered so badly is that it is a Jurassic organization in the Age of Information. It has too many heads and sub heads, too much middle management and too little authority.

One of the reasons why the Presiding Bishop has been able to dictate church discipline is that the organization with the actual authority, the General Convention, is too large and meets too infrequently.

I used to say that the Episcopal Church needed its own Inquisition. Now I'm afraid what it really needs is its own Reformation.

Positive versus Negative

Two conventions are about to get underway: The Episcopal Church's (TEC) 2009 General Convention and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) very first convention. Despite my recent bet, I'm not one to predict the future, but I think it's safe to say that after the two conventions, Anglicanism in America will be even more divergent.

TEC's General Convention is set to consider a plethora of changes, many of which have to do with church discipline and with gay rites. I do not know what resolutions will be adopted, but given the past history, by the end of convention TEC will have moved further to the left.

As for ACNA, they are trying to achieve cohesion. There have been a fair amount of criticism of the new constitution. The authors of it apparently believe that bishops need more authority and the laity less. This is based upon some of their experience in TEC of course.

I think the main problem with ACNA is too many of its members define themselves as former Episcopalians. They need to get over that. That and the acronym sounds like a teenage skin condition.

Several things have done in the Episcopal Church. First and foremost is the inability of the leadership, whether bishops, members of Standing Committees, priests or delegate to the General Convention, to be willing to defend the faith as received. This has resulted in heretical and apostate bishops and priests, the gelding of any evangelism efforts, a break down in discipline and a loss of awareness as to what is really important (it isn't property).

The results of that has been a redefinition of what being an Episcopalian is from a positive thing (what we are and what we believe) to a negative thing (what we are not and what we don't believe). This has brought on a decline in membership. Negativity is not very attractive, and it's no accident that most new members come from other denominations instead of from the unchurched.

The ugly side of Canada has been, for me, their love of defining themselves by who they are not ("We are not the United States"). The ugly side of the Episcopal Church often begins with a similar statement ("We are not fundamentalists", "We are not papists", "We are not Baptists" and so on). Currently, the ugly side of ACNA is "We are not Episcopalians".

I'm hopeful that the ACNA in convention will produce not only a constitution, but a positive sense of what being an Anglican in North America means. I have much less confidence about the General Convention in Anaheim producing a positive meaning for being an Episcopalian.

Kingston Reflection

Here's to our lord of Canterbury,
whose word no one relies on.
Who never said a foolish thing,
and who never did a wise one.

Original here.

Timeo Episcopos Et Dona Ferentes

Well the big Anglican gabfest in Jamaica has concluded. The bottom appears to be that there will be no meaningful Covenant for now. So we continue to not know what being an Anglican is. This pretty much guarantees that the Anglican Communion will split, with the Global South going one way and the dying North going another.

The architect of all this muddle is of course our beloved Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. He does not want a split, but if there is to be one he will be on the side of stagnation and stasis.

Rowan Williams is an intelligent man, but he is not a wise one.

Question

Here's a thought experiment:

If everyone who did not believe the creeds left the Episcopal Church, how many would be left? What about the Anglican Church of Canada? Or the Church of England?

And more to the point, would a greater percentage of the laity be left or of the clergy?

Just how many Christians are left in those churches?

And of those who are not Christians, how many know that they are not Christians?

Birthday

I was saving this one for my birthday, which is in a couple of weeks, but instead I think I'll post it today, in honour of the newly created Anglican Province here in North America. It certainly seems to have set some folks' teeth on edge.



It probably seems odd to post a techno/goth music vid to mark a religious event, but the words to the song are moderately apropos.

For a more reasoned essay, check this out.

Bloggy Goodness

Anglican Beach Party (The only blog whose name I wish I had thought of first) is on a roll. First a kewl song and now a nifty MDG graphic.

Video Reflection on the Diocese of New Westminster

Virginia and the Prediction Biz

Judge Bellows has handed down yet another decision in the Episcopal vs Anglican suit over in Virginia. The Episcopalians got their clock cleaned yet again and all that remains is a sixth decision in October. That means that its that time of year when losing litigants thoughts turn to appeals.

Some Virginia based gurus have indicated that the case would likely go straight to the Virginia Supreme Court. From there the only possible appeal would be to the US Supreme Court. Either court could send the case back down for more hearings, review or revision.

As far as predicting the future, my crystal ball has been wonky of late. I can say that the burden of persuasion is on the appellant when a decision is appealed. But appellants do win from time to time. Regardless of what Judge Bellows decides in October, the smart money is on the case being appealed. So it seems entirely likely the Virginia Supremes will get this case. Regardless of what they decide, both sides have the wherewithall to appeal to the US Supreme Court. But that is where it gets tricky.

There are only a few cases that the US Supreme Court must hear. The vast majority of cases they do hear are ones they decide to hear, that is they are discretionary. As near as I can tell this suit presents no issues that would require a hearing by the Supremes. Further, as far as discretionary suits go, they generally only like to select cases where the US Circuit Courts of Appeals have split. That is where the lower federal courts disagree.

This case concerns an obscure and unique Virginia law. Unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice, I do not see the Supremes picking it up. Virginia just doesn't have the reputation for shameless injustice that state supreme courts like Florida, New Jersey and California have. The Supremes have already had their big constitutional law case with Heller, so they are guaranteed legal immortality.

That means, unless something goes horribly wrong, one appeal and it's all over.

Of course I may be wrong....

Lambeth Epilogue

I made the mistake of borrowing trouble and speculating that the fix would be in at Lambeth should anything be resolved. I also predicted that nothing would be resolved.

I was wrong on the former and right on the latter. Happily, the indaba groups and the reflections process were on the up and up. Sadly, that meant that they were meaningless and ineffective.

Lord Dorwin

Easily my favourite Isaac Asimov quote:

“But then,” interposed Sutt, “how would Mayor Hardin account for Lord Dorwin's assurances of Empire support? They seemed” he shrugged “Well, they seemed satisfactory.”

Hardin threw himself back in the chair. “You know, that's the most interesting part of the whole business. I admit that I thought his Lordship a most consummate donkey when I first met him – but it turned out that he is an accomplished diplomat and a most clever man. I took the liberty of recording all his statements.”

There was a flurry, and Pirenne opened his mouth in horror.

“What of it?” demanded Hardin. “I realize it was a gross breach of hospitality and a thing no so-called gentleman would ever do. Also that if his Lordship had caught on things might have been unpleasant; but he didn't and I have the record and that's that. I took that record, had it copied out, and sent that to Houk for analysis, also.”

Lundin Crast asked, “And where is the analysis?”

“That,” replied Hardin, “is the interesting thing. The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Houk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications—in short all the goo and dribble—he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out. Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damn thing, and said it so that you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire.”

Draw what parallels you will

Lambeth and the Art of Design

I'm no expert on graphic arts, but the Lambeth conference art is fairly lame. Here is the official logo:


Given what has already happened, here is what they should have used:

For St Gene, on the Occasion of his Prospective Martyrdom

He is scheduled to be fatally snubbed on July 22, 2008 around 2 pm GMT.

Snarky comment: Gene, baby, if you would like to deflect the criticism that well nigh all who know you think you are just a tad self-absorbed, you might want to consider having comments on your blog. If nothing else, the flood of 'death threats' will give that ever so hunky Rolf in your 'security detail' something to do.

All the Lambeth Info You Can Stand

and then some. Is the Int3rtoobz wonderful or what?

H/T Titus One Nine

Way To Go!

Lambeth has barely started and they've already managed to irritate the best religious reporter on the Anglican beat. Maybe Ruth Gledhill was just venting, but why on earth would the conference need security in the first place?

H/T Anglican Essentials Canada

Lambeth Reflections- Or Matthew Gets Really Cynical

The final Lambeth communique has been sent.

Let's see. The preselected Indaba groups meet and choose a spokesbishop. This spokesbishop forms with other spokesbishop a mini synod (minisynod). This minisynod will hold four open venting sessions. The rest of its sessions are therefore presumably closed. The minisynod will compose a 'reflections document' to capture the mind of the Lambeth bishops. This document will circulate through the conference by means of the indaba groups. All bishops get to speak, but only the minisynod decides, and only the minisynod has editing privileges.

If the groups are selected honestly and the listening process is genuinely responsive, it could work a treat. But the choke point is the minisynod. If the indaba groups which choose the spokesbishops are gerrymandered, then the process will be corrupt.

Who selects the indaba groups and what are the real criteria? Will the group memberships be published?

The advantage of a parliamentary system is that everything is out in the open. With the new process, there are certain critical chokepoints for information flow and decision making. I realize my opinion matters not at all to those organising the conference, but I have no trust in their good will.


Addendum: Perpetua reminded me that I had a prior post on gerrymandering.