The trashing of parliamentary procedure

Parliamentary procedure is at its core about democracy at its best: achieving in decent and orderly fashion the will of the majority while fully respecting and protecting the minority (or as one writer put it, "to give the minority a fighting chance.") There is a reason that every democratic voting organization uses a form of parliamentary procedure (in this country, usually Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised), whether it be church, or city council, or stockholders' meeting, or legislature. Those who object to parliamentary procedure, or who abuse it, are almost inevitably those who have no patience for democracy or dissent, or those who simply do not like the result that would be forthcoming when the ayes and nos aren't to their liking.

In our church we have two recent and regrettable examples of antipathy toward parliamentary procedure. The first, of course, is the Presiding Bishop, who has lawlessly decided to ignore the very basics of Robert's and the canons themselves in a whole range of actions where she can't be bothered to follow the rules, or where she worries she might not get the votes necessary to do what she wants. She has, in essence, with the apparent acquiescence of a majority of bishops, turned parliamentary procedure into a sham--something no more meaningful to them than, say, a Book of Common Prayer liturgy. This certainly reflects her anger at, disrespect for, and, some say, hatred of the minority orthodox, who after all have the temerity to do what minorities generally do--object and disagree and attempt to obstruct the majority. And in a sense her suspension of parliamentary procedure (for that is what she has done) is evidence of her own weakness, her inability to reason with those with whom she disagrees, and her intolerance of those who do not see the world exactly as she does. It is a rejection of democracy, since the rules came about by democratic vote, not by fiat. And it is with her, as with Mugabe in Zimbabwe and every other tinhorn dictator who cannot accept the norms of democratic procedure, an unequivocal admission of defeat.

But the Presiding Bishop is not alone. Now comes the sharia-loving Archbishop of Canterbury himself, writing from that cradle of parliamentary democracy, Great Britain. He says that Lambeth will avoid parliamentary procedure. "We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting," he writes, before announcing he is chucking parliamentary procedure for "indaba" meetings--groups that are preselected and designed to preclude any decisions from being made. In short, he is taking from Lambeth any semblance of democracy, because the result might be inconvenient. He wants consensus instead of the bother and unpleasantness of true democratic debate. But as Michael Crichton wrote, "the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled."

Note that the Archbishop doesn't say who are those who have expressed these difficulties. Almost certainly they are not the Majority World bishops, many of whom are from Commonwealth countries that cherish the parliamentary tradition they received from Britain. Rather, the objections undoubtedly come from the same crowd that so loathes parliamentary procedure across the Pond: the Americans and Canadians and their pals. (After all, who loathes things "Western" more than self-loathing Western elites?). The reason they would be pleased with this ditching of parliamentary procedure is because were a vote actually permitted and taken, the Americans would find themselves bounced out of the Communion on their keisters, the Communion's overwhelming opposition to the innovations of the American church reinforced, and a reaffirmation of the Gospel as it is given to us in Holy Scripture. We can't have that now, can we? Little wonder so many orthodox are refusing to play this game.

The left has always found democracy inconvenient (strangely, even when they win), and so by reflex warms to and seeks control by way of inherently non-democratic mechanisms (the courts, international organizations, NGOs, etc.) They are the ones who were apologists for Mussolini and Mao and Stalin, and who today fawn over Iranian mullahs and celebrate Castro and Chavez. That's because deep down they wish they could like their heroes achieve what they want to achieve without the bother of obstreperous "dissenters," as they define anyone who can't see things exactly as they do. After all, they have great and prophetic things to do, and their trains simply must run on time.

The trashing of parliamentary procedure in our church has served to frustrate both purposes of parliamentary law. The Presiding Bishop does it here so to dispatch with her troublesome orthodox minority. And the Archbishop of Canterbury does it in Lambeth so to preclude the majority achieving its ends. In both cases it reflects a profoundly undemocratic instinct that we should all lament, and an abandonment of law that will ultimately hasten the end of both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Good try, Ruth

Ruth Gledhill is the first journalist to put to Gene Robinson the questions he should answer about the in-your-face timing of his civil union and his need for the "legal protections" a civil union purportedly provides someone being threatened. She is the first person to press him about the exact nature of the threats against him.

She specifically asked him what "protections" it was he needed that required his nuptials so soon before Lambeth. He did not answer the question. There's a reason he did not answer the question. That's because it is simply not true that he gets any legal "protections" from a civil union that he could not otherwise have in some other fashion. And if, as he says, the threats are the reason he needs these protections, then why is he not singing "for God's sake get me to the church on time" and getting on with it--since he says he's already getting such threats? Gene Robinson is lying. He is getting civilly unionized when he is just so he can make a point. But he is too much of a coward to be honest, or is too invested in his lie, or he truly believes everyone listening to him is too stupid to realize exactly what he's doing and that he's lying. Or maybe he thinks he's being clever and cute. Most likely it is all of these.

Ms Gledhill admirably pressed him on what the nature of the threats were. At first he said he could not talk about them, given counsel he had received from "the security people" that he works with. (Interesting he did not mention the police--why would he not have involved them if there were real threats to his person?). But then he just couldn't help himself, and went on to talk about messages just left on his home phone from British callers that he apparently interprets as threats, suggesting that they were prompted by newspaper articles in Britain about him. He could not pass up the opportunity to again portray himself as victim (and not-so-subtly adding the British press to his growing list of persecutors). Want to bet we'll never hear of any arrests, despite the ease with which such calls can be traced?

It's a good thing that Gene Robinson keeps talking about himself (and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking . . . .). In doing so he makes it ever more apparent that this is a fellow with some serious problems of self-image, a seriously inflated need to be the center of attention, a serious neediness for the affirmation of others, and a seriously weird absorption with himself. Whether this is a result of his choice to move from bisexuality to homosexuality, or his recurring alcoholism, or his genetic predisposition, or his tragically odd upbringing is hardly relevant. Someone with this distorted a personality and outlook has no business being a priest or bishop.

Rowan Williams, whatever his views about homosexuality, must be shaking his head in amazement that this guy is the reason the whole Anglican Communion is about to shatter.

The 'I' of the Storm [Updated]

Once again, the high priest of narcissism simply must be swept to the center of attention.

Critical to Gene Robinson's psyche is playing the victim, so in 2003 he went to great pains to ensure that everyone knew that at his consecration he wore the ultimate vestment of victimhood--a bulletproof undergarment. He claimed--without ever producing an iota of evidence--that there were credible death threats against him. Of course many public figures have threats made against them, but few don Kevlar so proudly and publicly as Gene did. (And of course if he were seriously threatened, the last thing he would have done was announce what sort of countermeasures he takes to protect himself.) His claims of death threats were never scrutinized by the media, nor was he ever called upon to provide details. And somehow when the consecration was over, he no longer saw a need to wear a bulletproof vest--even though there was also no evidence any threat had been neutralized.

But now he's at it again. He's apparently claiming that his life is again at risk as he travels his Via Dolorosa to Lambeth martyrdom this summer. Reports the New York Times: "He planned his civil union for June, he said, because he wanted to provide some legal protection to his partner and his children before he left for England for the conference. Bishop Robinson has received death threats, and he wore a bulletproof vest under his vestments at his consecration in 2003."

It's pretty plain to most observers exactly why Gene so wanted to be a "June bride," as he described himself in his first attempt to explain the provocative timing of his nuptials. The point all along was to insult the majority of the world's Anglican bishops as they gathered weeks after in Lambeth. Of course his plan was that he'd be there, pseudo-spouse in tow, just to make all the orthodox unhappy, and force Her Majesty the Queen, among others, to acknowledge him. While that part of his honeymoon didn't work out as he had hoped, he'll of course still be there, in the bazaar for those peddling their causes and wares. (He said he would not do that--but of course couldn't pass up the attention, so reversed himself.) He still aims to offend--and he will. He still aims to bring attention to himself (for he can do no other)--and he will. He's still offered no reasonable alternative explanation for his timing--because he can't.

But while his first explanation was supposed to be cute in a gay kind of way, his new explanation is at best disingenuous. That's not just because there's been no evidence offered for these supposed death threats. It's because there is nothing legally that his New Hampshire civil union will accomplish for him or his children that could not be accomplished easier through very simple estate planning, assuming he is bravely heading into harm's way and in need of putting his affairs in order. This is just another statement designed to bring attention to himself, to inflate his importance, to secure his victimhood, and to provide some sort of explanation for his timing.

Gene Robinson can't shut up, but at least he needs to put up. What are these death threats he claims to have received? Exactly what "legal protections" is he talking about providing his consort and children that requires a civil union before he travels? Since the New Hampshire civil union law was in effect in January, why if he needs these protections is he willing to wait until June to get them, if there really is a death threat against him? If this really is the reason for his timing, does that mean he was lying when he earlier said it was all only about having a June wedding?

-----------------

UPDATE (27th April): In case anyone thinks I have overstated Robinson's connecting the timing of his civil union with death threats, listen to his BBC interview this morning [starting at 36:40]. Radio Four's Sunday program interviewer Roger Bolton challenged Robinson about his saying, on the one hand, that homosexuality was being given more attention than it should have, while then inserting himself so provocatively into Lambeth. Listen to the whole interview, if you want to hear a case study in megalomania. But here is a transcript of the remarks pertaining to Robinson's martyrdom complex:

Bolton: And of course there's one other thing you'll be doing this summer, I understand, in June. You are going to go through a civil union with your partner. Do you think when you do that you will be in God's eyes "marrying" your partner?

Robinson: No, this is not marriage. The civil authorities here have passed a civil union law, and frankly when I head to Lambeth and really put my, not just my spiritual life but my physical life in danger, I am unwilling to attend and put myself in danger without at least some of the protections that are provided to me and my family are in place by virtue of this civil union law. I think that's what any husband or wife would do for their spouse, and I can do no less for my partner of 20 years.

Bolton: Does that mean, Bishop, that you fear for your life?

Robinson: One of the great things about being a believer in Jesus Christ is that we need not fear death. On the other hand, I'm not stupid, and I need to provide for my family just as anyone would want to provide for their family. And so, while I am not fearful--I do not think about that very often--at the same time I need to be prudent.

Interesting how he says it's not marriage, but then asserts he's acting as "any husband or wife would do." Pity that Mr. Bolton, as tough an interviewer as he is, did not press Robinson about exactly what "protections" he is referring to; why if he needs these protections, he's willing to wait until June to get them; and why he's just now offering this (different) story about why he is having his civil union just before heading to Lambeth. Someone needs to call Robinson on what appears to be a rather transparent and contrived falsehood that depends on others not pressing him for details.

For a fellow says he doesn't think of being killed very often, he sure talks about it a whole lot, doesn't he?

Leave Gene alone!

Matthew over at Billy Ockham beat me to it.

Why can't they just leave poor Gene Robinson alone? Where is Chris Crocker when we need him:

How friggin' dare anyone out there talk about Gene being the Gay Bishop after all he's been through. He went through a divorce. He has children. He was burdened with those awful marriage vows, and the vows he took as a priest.

They made him a bishop, which he never, ever wanted. He never wanted anyone to know he was gay, but they made him say it. All he wanted was to be a simple country bishop. And now he's going through a battle to be accepted at Lambeth. He's trying to avoid anyone seeing him in the Marketplace there and talking to him and making him say he's gay. And they're forcing him to take a world tour outside his diocese to talk about being the Gay Bishop.

All you people at the New York Times (and Time and Newsweek and Episcopal Life and Anglican blogs . . . ) care about is readers and making money off of him as the Gay Bishop.

HE'S A HUMAN!! He hasn't been able to be a country bishop or priest for years. He can't even spend time in his diocese because all you people want is more, more, more, gay, gay, gay bishop---LEAVE HIM ALONE. You're lucky he's even done press availabilities and book signings and TV interviews and book tours and gay award ceremonies and parades and magazine articles and rallies for you bastards.

LEAVE GENE ALONE!!. . . PLEASE.

Is it professional to publicly bash a bishop who is going through a hard time and to keep calling attention to him?

Leave Gene Alone Please . . . Leave Gene Robinson alone . . . right now . . . I MEAN IT.

Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, because he is not well right now.

LEAVE HIM ALONE!

Falsehood of the week

"There are a handful of archbishops who are unhappy with us and the Anglican Church of Canada."

--Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori at Miami's Trinity Cathedral

Sporks and carbon footprints

Somehow when the most prominent world religious leader and shepherd of the largest Christian church is in New York, the Presiding Bishop just had to be in Utah. That's because there the unbaptized diocesan bishop was celebrating the building of an obscenely expensive bureaucratic center. And of course property, especially of the expensive variety, is what is most important to the Presiding Bishop--certainly more important than hearing anything a boundary-crossing pope would have to say. (In fairness, given how fast the Diocese of Utah is atrophying, perhaps it's good they have some sort of cenotaph at which future generations can learn that there was once a religious cult in Utah other than the Mormons.)

But when there's God's Business to be done in New York, my how fast the Presiding Bishop hurries home. As Chris Johnson reports, the Presiding Bishop made it back to deliver this sermon on the highest of her High Holy Days--Earth Day. Every Episcopalian should watch this, and then compare it with any of the sermons given days earlier by Pope Benedict. That the Episcopal News Service thought it so good to post the video says a great deal about what passes for "preaching" in our church, and what passes for "Gospel."

Chris has made fun of the Presiding Bishop's heralding a spork as a "green" implement. It's actually much worse in the video, where she suggests one should carry a spork around so to avoid using disposable cutlery. One can simply lick it off, she suggests, and save it for future use, and so presumably save the planet. Remind me never to sup with the Presiding Bishop. And perhaps she should hold her tongue a bit when denigrating Majority World bishops for their backwardness. I do believe they all use clean and washed cutlery when eating the many chicken dinners that have proven such powerful bribes to ensure their orthodoxy.

That said, the spork is a useful metaphor for her view of the Christian religion, and if American elites had proper armorial bearings, her arms would no doubt sport the spork as heraldic device. A spork, after all, is a syncretistic implement that attempts to combine the best attributes of fork and spoon, but ends up failing to do anything well at all. The tines are too short to properly spear food with, and the bowl is, owing to the tines, unable to hold anything for which a spoon is necessary. The spork has its fans, but one senses mainly because the nomenclature is catchy and the implement rarely encountered. So people talk about the virtues of sporks, but they don't actually use them. Syncretistic religion of the sort that appeals to the Presiding Bishop is the same: it sounds oh-so-tony and sophisticated, but it offers nothing worthwhile, and so ultimately has no use or lasting appeal. Because it has no tines, it cannot capture the truth; because it has no integrity it cannot hold or preserve it either.

What was most offensive about this so-called sermon, though, was what the Presiding Bishop suggested as a way to reduce our carbon footprint:

How can we participate in reducing the carbon output of the buildings in which you and I worship on Sundays, or elsewhere? That's a major challenge. It's a prophetic act. And as I've pointed out to people, we could do it almost instantaneously if we shared a building with another congregation. You know most buildings, unlike this one, that are used for church purposes sit empty most of the time. How can we use that blessing that we've been given for the benefit of the larger community the other six days and 12 hours--18 hours--on Sunday? A challenge, but I think a very, very important one.

Uh, one way, Kate, that you can meet this "very, very important" challenge "almost instantaneously" is to stop creating those empty church buildings. You can do your part to reduce the carbon footprint by not spending millions of parishioner dollars to sue fellow Christians just for the express purpose of making those buildings carbon-wasting empty. Goodness knows, you could even reconsider your preference for turning those buildings into pubs, and actually agree to share them with Anglicans who want only to have a place to worship God--since you say we should share them. But of course you don't really care about carbon footprints, any more than you really eat with a dirty spork. And you don't want congregations to share those buildings, either, save when "merging" Episcopal parishes that are sailing toward extinction into a single lifeboat so they may die together. So your words are simply not true. Because if they were, you would not be creating the wasted spaces you so decry. You would be eager to share those spaces, if not for Christian purposes, at least to "save the planet."

But now we at least all know that your environmentalism is as authentic as your Christianity.

Credit where credit's due

Word has come via the Living Church that the Presiding Bishop has apologized for the timing of the inhibition she placed on retired Bishop Edward MacBurney, and has for the time being lifted the inhibition. It is not in the Presiding Bishop's nature to back down, and likely there are those around her who counseled not to, so this must have been exceedingly difficult for her. She is to be commended for not only reversing her position, but also having the decency to telephone the bishop and talk with him. Moreover, it was good that she let others know (and in a very public way) that she had erred--she didn't have to do that, and that, too, speaks well of her in this situation.

There have been plenty of strong words on this blog condemning her original action, so it is certainly not necessary to revisit here that decision or the sort of mindset that produced it. But perhaps whatever (or whoever) brought her to this change of heart will lead her also not to reinstate the inhibition at all, as it truly does not meet the requirements of the canons, as maybe she has now realized. Perhaps, too, she will have opportunity to revisit on a larger scale how she treats those she views as opponents. To the degree she was relying on the counsel of others, such as her chancellor, in making the original decision and others like it, perhaps she will question whether they are serving her well. They are not.

It's appropriate now, though, to take her action at face value and to give credit where credit's due, and--as always-- to pray for the Presiding Bishop and our church.

If a church is "post-Christian," is it really still a church?

Dean Munday's excellent blog has a superb quotation from Mark Steyn's new book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, wherein Steyn absolutely nails it in describing the decline of mainline Protestantism--and the Episcopal Church in particular. Representative excerpt-of-an-excerpt follows, but do read Dean Munday's longer selection. One question that this raises: if a church is "post-Christian," how can it in any sense of the word still be termed a "church"?

Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political cliches, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he'd most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an "Arms Are for Hugging" sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.

Q.E.D.

This blog asserted that the Presiding Bishop's conduct with respect to octogenarian Bishop Edward H. MacBurney was reprehensible and indefensible, sending him as she did an inhibition knowing his son was very soon to die, and after having been asked to forestall that action until his family crisis had passed. I was quickly assailed for having made a "scurrilous" allegation against the Presiding Bishop by saying what she did was deliberately cruel.

So I challenged anyone to offer a plausible explanation other than intentional cruelty for why she would have done what she did. And to date no one has. No one has said she didn't know the bishop's son was at death's door, because the evidence is that she did know. And none of the Presiding Bishop's followers have been able to explain why, given that knowledge, what she did was not un-Christian, was not lacking charity, and was not entirely avoidable.

That, of course, is not wholly a bad thing: it makes the point that what the Presiding Bishop did was so beneath contempt that even her most ardent disciples do not care to come to her defense in any substantive fashion. It suggests that some of them have a conscience and sense of morality that she wholly lacked in this situation--or at least have some cognitive dissonance. For them to say what she did was good or even acceptable would be to say something quite terrible about their own humanity and their own Christian ethics, and that they cannot do. That is itself, of course, silent condemnation of the Presiding Bishop's actions. Q.E.D.

But it also suggests that they are rank hypocrites, especially if they are the decent human beings or even Christians that most presumably wish to be. That's because they do not condemn what they know was very, very wrong. It suggests that even knowing this they are willing to subordinate to their political aims what is right and honorable and decent and Christian--much in the same way they stay silent when they know the rights of fellow Episcopalians under the canons are being transparently trampled upon and ignored. They destroy their very souls in order to get what they think they want. (And what, then, will they truly have gained when they do get what they want?)

At some level they recognize this hypocrisy, and cannot face it. So when called out, all some can do is throw up invective, resorting to accusations, for example, that the issue is all about being jealous because the Presiding Bishop acts without male sexual organs, or because we orthodox Anglicans are akin to male sexual organs. (A bit odd that recurring fixation.) Or they suggest, incorrectly, that perhaps the Presiding Bishop had no discretion under the canons, and was forced to do what she did. This of course shows that in their heart-of-hearts they hope she had no choice--because they know that what she did otherwise would have been quite horrible. Others fall back on an equivalency argument, that somehow a violation of the canons excuses a violation of the norms of civilized behavior. They don't think this one through very well, since the primary violator of the canons has been the Presiding Bishop herself, and surely they would not defend such cruelty against her if she had just lost her child (or if such cruelty was directed against themselves, for that matter). If this equivalency is admitted, what would not be allowed to do to an accused canon-breaker? And asserting an equivalency is still an effort to avoid facing the character of her conduct on its own terms.

What leaves the Presiding Bishop so exposed here are the canons themselves, for they make plain that what she did was entirely discretionary--both the inhibition itself, and its timing. The very canon she cites (Title IV, Canon 1, Section 6) says she may issue the temporary inhibition--classic legal language of discretion. There are no time dictates, and the action is one entirely tethered to circumstance. The next section (Section 7) then warns and mandates that such an inhibition "shall be an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and limited to preventing immediate and irreparable harm to individuals or to the good order of the Church." [Emphasis added.]

Here is the reason there has been no defense made for the Presiding Bishop based on the canons, for it is her beloved canons that indict her, and highlight the totally volitional nature of her choice to inhibit Bishop MacBurney at the very moment his son was about to expire. Moreover, for her to satisfy the requirement of Section 7, she has to conclude that there is "immediate and irreparable harm to individuals or to the good order of the church." [Emphasis added.] Of course the bishop's great sin--confirming young people into the Anglican faith--was already done, so that was not an ongoing or immediate harm. (We'll leave aside the very open question of whether his confirmations rise to the level of the canon's requirement for inhibition.) So she would have to argue that unless she inhibited him at that very moment of family crisis and grief, Bishop MacBurney was likely to leave his son's bedside or casket and immediately go engage in some unauthorized episcopal acts. Even Katharine Jefforts Schori cannot say that with straight face.

So we are left with what this blog suggested initially: that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church acted with deliberate and calculated cruelty against an elderly, grieving retired bishop. For all of Frank Griswold's heterodoxy, for all of his dissembling, to my knowledge no one ever could make the case that he was deliberately cruel. His successor has made that case about herself in spades with this indefensible action.

That is not something any of us as Episcopalians would want to believe, no matter what our views of the current crisis. We don't want to believe it because, if true, it tells us something quite awful about the ethics of those charged to shepherd us, and the depth of moral decay at the very highest levels of an institution that is supposed to be the Body of Christ. We can all hope that this conclusion is the wrong one, that in fact she did not know about the bishop's family crisis, or that she did not intend the inhibition to be delivered to him until long after his grief was abating, or that the entire inhibition was never meant to happen, given the strictures of the canons. We can all hope to hear that she has asked forgiveness of Bishop MacBurney for what she did. We can all hope that this blog will have reason to say mea culpa and say that the evidence shows the Presiding Bishop was in no way cruel to Bishop MacBurney and his grieving family.

We can also all hope that this is a terrible dream about a once-fine institution now corrupted and perverted in the very core of its being, and that soon we will awake and discover it never happened.

Fanatic in the full flood of her atrocity

Victor Hugo's Inspector Javert, unlike our Presiding Bishop, was a stickler for the law, and would never have so cavalierly ignored its demands as she does, even in his pursuit of Jean Valjean. But Javert's lack of kindness, empathy, and mercy seems eerily familiar, as does his obsessive pursuit of a man so much better than he. Like Javert, Katharine Jefforts Schori can utter self-righteous platitudes, but apparently cannot comprehend the essence of Christian charity. No one seemed inclined to stop Javert, perhaps because they were cowed by his power, perhaps because it was clear early on he would eventually destroy himself. Will anyone stop Katharine Jefforts Schori?

In case you've not read Les Miserables and have only seen the musical, here's an incentive to read the book, and a reminder of the sort of person Javert was. See if you find him at all familiar.

The instant that Madeleine's glance encountered Javert's glance, Javert, without stirring, without moving from his post, without approaching him, became terrible. No human sentiment can be as terrible as joy.

It was the visage of a demon who has just found his damned soul.

The satisfaction of at last getting hold of Jean Valjean caused all that was in his soul to appear in his countenance. The depths having been stirred up, mounted to the surface. The humiliation of having, in some slight degree, lost the scent, and of having indulged, for a few moments, in an error with regard to Champmathieu, was effaced by pride at having so well and accurately divined in the first place, and of having for so long cherished a just instinct. Javert's content shone forth in his sovereign attitude. The deformity of triumph overspread that narrow brow. All the demonstrations of horror which a satisfied face can afford were there.

Javert was in heaven at that moment. Without putting the thing clearly to himself, but with a confused intuition of the necessity of his presence and of his success, he, Javert, personified justice, light, and truth in their celestial function of crushing out evil. Behind him and around him, at an infinite distance, he had authority, reason, the case judged, the legal conscience, the public prosecution, all the stars; he was protecting order, he was causing the law to yield up its thunders, he was avenging society, he was lending a helping hand to the absolute, he was standing erect in the midst of a glory. There existed in his victory a remnant of defiance and of combat. Erect, haughty, brilliant, he flaunted abroad in open day the superhuman bestiality of a ferocious archangel. The terrible shadow of the action which he was accomplishing caused the vague flash of the social sword to be visible in his clenched fist; happy and indignant, he held his heel upon crime, vice, rebellion, perdition, hell; he was radiant, he exterminated, he smiled, and there was an incontestable grandeur in this monstrous Saint Michael.

Javert, though frightful, had nothing ignoble about him.

Probity, sincerity, candor, conviction, the sense of duty, are things which may become hideous when wrongly directed; but which, even when hideous, remain grand: their majesty, the majesty peculiar to the human conscience, clings to them in the midst of horror; they are virtues which have one vice,--error. The honest, pitiless joy of a fanatic in the full flood of his atrocity preserves a certain lugubriously venerable radiance. Without himself suspecting the fact, Javert in his formidable happiness was to be pitied, as is every ignorant man who triumphs. Nothing could be so poignant and so terrible as this face, wherein was displayed all that may be designated as the evil of the good.

Monstrous

She is reportedly a mother. And she even thinks it's oh-so progressive and modern to call Jesus "Mother." So at some level one would would have thought she had regard for the attributes ascribed to any normal mother. But when confronted with the opportunity to show any semblance of maternal kindness, and display any understanding of parental love (or love of any sort), the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church goes out of her way to deliberately do the opposite, and so rightly conjures up every horrifying fairy-tale caricature of the cold, cruel, vindictive, heartless, ugly woman.

What did she do? She inhibited 80-year old retired Bishop of Quincy Edward H. MacBurney. She did so after being told that his son was on his deathbed, and despite pleas that she forestall any such action until the crisis in the bishop's family had resolved. And her response? A mere two days before Bishop MacBurney's son died, she deliberately proceeded with her cruel and callous and truly unnecessary act. Today, while undoubtedly still experiencing grief that no parent should ever have to endure, Bishop MacBurney was informed of the inhibition.

Because we know she was told fully of the situation, there can be no other conclusion but that the Presiding Bishop deliberately did this in a time and manner that would cause the maximum distress to a grieving parent. We have learned from her repeated violation of the canons that she is lawless. Now we also know she is evil. Because truly there is no other word to describe such vile and sadistic cruelty.

Is there any person who can defend this sick and twisted act--at any level? How can any bishops of our church--liberal or conservative--countenance this? Where is the outrage from the downtrodden Gene Robinson--surely is not such callousness at the death of a colleague's child worse than not being invited to a Lambeth tea party? And where are all the so-called "liberals" who are always accusing the orthodox of not being sufficiently welcoming, loving, and accepting? Where are our friends at the Anglican Communion Institute, who act as if these people are honorable Christians with whom we can reach accommodation? If this is the example set by the leadership of our church, is it the sort of church that any of us can remain in?

This is not a matter of theology or polity or even property. The behavior is so far below the threshold of Christian conduct that there's not even a question about whether it comports with Christian notions of morality or is a proper witness for our Lord. No, this is a question of basic human decency of the most minimal sort. And Katharine Jefforts Schori has shown she cannot even measure up to that standard. Yet she has the unmitigated gall to speak the words reconciliation and tolerance and inclusion and justice.

Ask yourself this: have you ever in any part of your life--in your family, your business associations, your neighborhood, your social life, or any other dimension of your life--known anyone to be so truly cruel to someone who is losing their child and then grieving that loss? The answer is surely no, as even the worst person we know would understand the gut-wrenching pain of losing one's child. Then ask yourself what it means when such an unspeakably mean and inhuman act is done by the senior leader of the church of which you're a member.

Church of the rip current

Tim Keller on the church:

The church of Jesus Christ is therefore like the ocean. It is enormous and diverse. Like the ocean there are warm and clear spots and deadly cold spots, places you can enter easily without danger and places where it will immediately whisk you away and kill you.

You can probably guess what kind of water I think best describes today's Episcopal Church.

(Quotation from Books and Culture's review of Tim Keller's The Reason for God--recommended earlier on this blog here.)

Firm is his promise, and his mercy sure

Today's good news from the Old Dominion is probably what prompted this joyous hymn to be stuck in my head all day. Bishop Timothy Dudley-Smith, one of the finest hymn-writers of the past half-century, wrote the hymn in 1961, after reading a review copy of the New English Bible New Testament. The hymn is an adaptation of the Magnificat, taken from that translation. (Here is a BBC Songs of Praise singing of the hymn.)

Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Lord!
Unnumbered blessings give my spirit voice;
tender to me the promise of his word;
in God my Savior shall my heart rejoice.

Tell out, my soul, the greatness of his Name!
Make known his might, the deeds his arm has done;
his mercy sure, from age to age to same;
his holy Name--the Lord, the Mighty One.

Tell out, my soul, the greatness of his might!
Powers and dominions lay their glory by.
Proud hearts and stubborn wills are put to flight,
the hungry fed, the humble lifted high.

Tell out, my soul, the glories of his word!
Firm is his promise, and his mercy sure.
Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Lord
to children's children and for evermore!

Another version of what happened today

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

"The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed the child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

Blinking at reality

There is much to like about Judge Bellows's opinion in the Virginia cases, in which he found the Commonwealth's "division" statute applied. But what was most gratifying was his calling out the Episcopal Church--meaning most especially the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor--for what in essence was a lie. Not just any ol' white lie, mind you, but a bold, deliberate, calculated lie--and one that insultingly assumed the judge was too stupid or too weak or both to identify it as such.

The lie, of course, was that despite massive departures from the Episcopal Church, and parishes and dioceses leaving, and the Episcopal Church effectively declared out of communion with many of the world's Anglicans, that there was no "division." A division, the Episcopal Church asserted with stunning hubris, could only exist if they said it existed--therefore it didn't exist. The judge begged to differ. He found the case overwhelming that there was in fact a division, and even quoted the use of the word division by the plaintiffs back at them (citing Bishop Lee's words as but one example).

Of course the judge was too polite to use the L-word. Instead he said "it blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude."

"Blinking at reality" is perhaps the best expression that anyone's used to describe the mendacity of Episcopal Church leaders. First, it confirms there is a reality that exists--not just some pluriform truth that is nothing more than a function of clever word use and dictated perception by whomever is in power. Second, it suggests the reality is one that the Episcopal Church well knows--since a blink is but an interruption of sight, and a very brief one that rarely distorts perception. Finally, although a blink can be voluntary or involuntary (i.e., an attempt not to see or a conditioned reflex of closing one's eyes), it neither changes reality nor precludes one from truthfully reporting that reality. In short, one who blinks at reality is one who lies without any excuse.

This is behavior we have seen for some time: an ease in dissembling that can only be caused by a long, desensitizing habit of lying, or an utter lack of conscience--or both. It's a behavior that in a Christian context is so awful to believe is happening that many find it difficult to accept, hoping and praying that it just isn't so. And when the reality of being so deliberately lied to finally hits, it is a terrible realization--whether you are an African bishop, or the ACI, or a Windsor bishop, or an average pew dweller. That's because with that realization comes the realization that in fact one probably is not dealing in a Christian context at all, but with people with a very different view of the world, a very different set of values, and a very different notion of God.

Of course the judge had opportunity to see this along with everyone who saw the video deposition of the Presiding Bishop, in which her sneering disdain for the judicial process and for the truth (in her attempt to evade answering questions) was on evidence for all to see. It could not have been difficult to conclude after that performance that the entire case for the Episcopal Church was based on a lie. But the evidence was so overwhelming that he didn't even have to consider the sort of person who was responsible for bringing this whole matter so unnecessarily into his courtroom.

This was but the first in a series of legal issues that must be settled, and cannot be viewed as telegraphing anything about how the judge will rule on the constitutional questions or other matters. It doesn't tell us how an appeals court will ultimately decide the cases. But however it turns out, it is very reassuring to know that when exposed to the light of day, the dishonesty of the Episcopal Church leadership--their blinking at reality--is plain for all to see.