cp has posted links to recordings from the Bishop candidate meetings in Rapid City (the other side of the state from Sioux Falls).Go to my posts here and here, scroll down into the comments, and you'll find several links, as well as some encouragement to pray. Grateful to cp for the work and contribution!The election is this Saturday, May 9th.Our parish delegates and several parishioners who had attended a walkabout met yesterday to compare notes.None of us are willing to vote for Dunn. His answers have not been deep or have been theologically troubling - and questions about membership losses and uncanonical practice in his congregation have not been answered.Tarrant - he was our front runner going into the walkabouts, and some of our delegates still have him #1. But he "fell a few notches" among some of our other folks, when he seemed overwhelmed by controversial issues. Even one of my more "progressive" members said of him, "I'm struggling with some of these issues - but I'm not running for bishop." There are questions about his ability to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church" in the tough national church meetings as well as locally.Floberg definitely rose in our parish delegation's rankings and is the front runner for some. He has the most developed and clear theology of the four, he is able to state his positions on hard issues, and he has an established track record of work at the national church level. His ability to raise up vocations and youth ministry on the Standing Rock Reservation impressed some of my parishioners, in particular one who grew up on a Reservation.Stebinger also came up in our estimation. His written responses seemed a bit formal and distant, but in person more of his warmth and humanity came up. It impresses several of our folks that he has grown a congregation in a diocese marked by decline. Also his statement of building consensus rather than jumping rashly into controversial decisions has appeal. Although he made an effort to explain his daughter's ordination issues during informal conversation, his failure to hit this head on in his public answers still does not sit well with some of our delegates.Several of my delegates have significant life experience in government, non-profits and academia. They expressed several concerns about gaps in the process that make an informed decision difficult:- The candidates are not asked to put forward a coherent statement of priorities for the Diocese. Something like, "What would be your primary investments of time and energy upon arrival as Bishop?"
- It would be helpful to have some sense of who nominated or endorsed the candidates, and to see references.
South Dakota is a big state, and even with 5 stops spread well, it was hard for many churches to get folks out to hear the candidates.So the Diocese has provided a DVD, and frequent commenter cp has it up on You Tube.It was a three hour event, so there are about 14 YouTube videos to watch.Kudos to the Diocese, the film guy from St. Paul's, Brookings (blogger Archer of the Forest's parish) and cp.
I've blogged several times about the Biblical sin of usury, by which lenders overwhelm borrowers and keep them in debt with excessive interest or tricks of the trade.On Thursday, the House of Representatives, with President Obama's support, approved a bill to curb some lenders' predatory tactics. The Senate still needs to pass it into law.The bill would stop a disgusting practice called "double cycle billing", by which credit card companies factor your last month's balance (the one on which you already paid) in with your current billing cycle's daily average balance to jack your finance charge way high (check your credit card - many of the major ones are doing this to you.) Because South Dakota is home to some significant lending institutions, Rep. Stephaine Herseth-Sandlin (D) voted against the bill. She cited concerns about how restricted credit might hurt the struggling economy and threaten jobs in South Dakota's lending industry.President Obama has criticized the credit card industry for using hidden fees and other tricks as profit centers. There are both "liberal" and "conservative" critiques of the these practices, as Jay Hancock points out in the Baltimore Sun:The liberal case for credit-card reform is well known: Greedy banks victimize card users with high interest rates and outrageous fees; Congress must crack down to make the system fair.
Here is the less-known, conservative argument: Credit card complexity prevents users from making rational decisions about borrowing and spending, thus hurting the economy; Congress must intervene to make the system understandable.
There is a very good piece on Madison, SD blog Madville Times. As I say in the title of this post, this isn't just a South Dakota story. Indian culture was destroyed before South Dakota was a state, by policies formulated in Washington, DC.History here can tie anyone's ideology in knots. The destruction of the Native culture involved too much government in some instances, and not enough government in others (Custer was at one time deployed to keep gold miners from encroaching on Tribal lands - a mission to which the government did not commit enough resources to succeed). Entrepreneurial freedom violated Indian land and big government ultimately stole it. Christian missionaries were part of the cultural destruction but also one of the few voices of resistance to White brutality. Journalists were a mixed bag - some sold papers with false stories of "savagery" while some tried to expose the fear mongering.And for those of us in the White culture, the great conundrum is that this bleeding wound was opened by our efforts to "fix" things and build a better world.
A Lakota woman was awarded $600,000 in damages under the Fr. Laramie treaty of 1868.The treaty grants compensation of damages suffered by Native Americans at the hands of White "bad men."South Dakota's missionary Episcopal bishop, William Hobart Hare, noted the damage done to Christian efforts by the abuse inflicted on the L/Dakota people by Whites, including those who broke treaties to mine gold on lands sacred to the Tribes.The history of this region is marred by treaty breaking - words put on paper and then betrayed. So it is good to see the victim in this case prevail.The Government and Tribal authorities remain dug in over the Black Hills, land sacred to the Tribes and taken from them in violation of treaties. U.S. courts have affirmed the Tribal claims in various cases, but will only award monetary damages - the Tribes continue to ask for return of the land.
