From a military Retired Affairs Office newsletter:
Have You Heard?
An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Paso, Texas leading an old tired mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, have you ever danced?" The old man looked up at the gunslinger and
said, "No, I never did dance... never really wanted to."
A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna' dance now," and started shooting at the old man's feet. The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody was laughing, fit to be tied. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled shotgun, and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air.
The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was almost deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin barrels.. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said, "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?" The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir..... but I've always wanted to." There are two lessons for us all here:
1. Don't waste ammunition.
2. Don't mess with old people.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Truth Shall set you free, stay away from Fox!
Here is one result of the poll that found that Fox News is deceptive (climateprogress.org):
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
THE POLLING CHART OF THE YEAR:
A World Public Opinion (WPO) poll finds that a remarkable 60% of those who watched Fox News almost daily believe that “Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring,” whereas only 30% who never watch it believe that. Only 25% of those who watch CNN almost daily hold that erroneous belief — and only 14% who listen to NPR or PBS almost daily.
This is not terribly surprising given that, as we learned this week, as of last December, Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon has required reporters and producers that report on even the most unequivocal scientific facts about global warming to dispute those facts ” IMMEDIATELY.”
Erroneous views turn out to be commonplace among regular Fox News viewers, as ThinkProgress explains:
Last week, World Public Opinion (WPO) released a poll exploring political information in a post-Citizens United national election and found that 90 percent of voters “said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently.” More troubling, the poll also found “strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign.” WPO said that voter misinformation contained beliefs about current issues such as TARP, the Recovery Act, health care reform, the economy, and climate change that were “at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.”
WPO found one bright spot in its lengthy report: “Those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.” However, there was one exception, Fox News:
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
– Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) (91 percent of those who watch Fox News “almost every day”)
– Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) (72 percent)
– The economy is getting worse (26 points) (72 percent)
– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) (60 percent)
– The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) (63 percent)
– Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) (49 percent)
– The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) (56 percent)
– When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) (38 percent)
– And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)(63 percent)
As Mark Howard at AlterNet notes, this data coincides with results of previous surveys finding that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about public policy issues. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Fox News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgable about national and international affairs. And a 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussien had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
The WPO reports that 62% of those who voted Republican believed “There is not agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring, whereas only 26% who voted Democrat believe that. The WPO has a nice box that explains the facts of the matter:
Status of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
In 2005 the United States’ National Academies of Science joined the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in making a joint statement about all aspects of the climate change issue. As to the reality of climate change, the academies stated: “Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.”
The US Congress in 2008 requested The National Academy of Sciences to research climate change. The NAS’s information base, in turn, rests in great part on climate change research that was mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and has been conducted by various government departments and agencies.
In April 2010 the Proceedings of the NAS published a study of expert opinion, “Expert credibility in climate change,” which found—after surveying the publications of 1,372 climate researchers—that “97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change].”7
In May 2010 the NAS released its most recent report, which stated: “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change.”8
Actually, the traditionally conservative and staid NAS made a stronger statement in May:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
Global warming is “unequivocal,” that climate change is occurring is a “settled fact” — unless you watch Fox News, of course, in which case there are no settled scientific facts, at least if they interfere with conservative ideology.
=========================================================================
The above is copyright 2010 by Joe Romm, Climate Progress.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The God of Hope - and Evolution
The God of Hope - and Evolution
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Every so often one of our local pastors feels impelled to write or speak out again the evil called “Evolution.” Recently, a local Baptist preacher wrote a “sermonette” for the local bi-weekly paper. He titled his sermonette, “Folly of Evolution.” I thought about writing an opposing sermonette, but decided against it, since that would accomplish little or nothing, But when I am confronted with items of this sort, I tend to think things out by writing about them. Here is, for what little it is worth, my response.
My colleague wrote that he accepted the fact of evolution, but, he said, people misunderstand it. He, of course, bases his ideas on the Book of Genesis, which has been given pride of place by long-ago Jewish scholars. My colleague writes that what we call “creation” was actually God’s “recreation” of a prior creation. The immediate problem which arises, of course, is that this implies, very strongly, that God didn’t get it right before. There have been, science tells us, five major extinction events. If my friend is correct, then God messed up multiple times. It’s as if he said, “Well, screwed that one up. I’ll try again with some different critters.” Eventually, of course, we turned out to be the next critter. But, and this is a big “but,” given what we’ve done to the planet, how can we make any claim to being the final “good” thing?
My poor literalist friends are, it seems, getting themselves trapped in a maze of their own creation for in their desire to condemn evolutionary science they create erroneous science and support this with an inadequate theology. There is, of course, an alternate explanation. I am indebted to The Reverend Canon Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, whose book “The God of Hope and the End of the World,” has given me many hours of challenging and delightful reading in this area. I have, frankly, stolen part of his title for this little “sermonette.” The other author I must acknowledge is Dr. John F. Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University, whose book “God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution” is an exceptionally well written treatise on modern natural process theology (my term for it).
Dr. Polkinghorne is a former particle physicist (and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for his work in reconciling science and religion) and is a Fellow of the Royal Society (Great Britain’s premier scientific organization). The book I am using was printed in 2002, at which time Polkinghorne was “Canon Theologian to Liverpool.”
Polkinghorne cites St. Paul, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:13)” Polkinghorne, however, focuses on hope. He quotes Jügen Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionary and transforming the present.” (note: eschatology is the study of end things) But it is all too easy to misunderstand hope. Polkinghorne quotes Janet Soskice that “even in churches today there is a tendency to represent hope as if it were a psychological mood. ‘Lack of faith and charity can be treated by prayer, but lack of hope is treated with antidepressants.’”
Understanding the real significance of hope involves differentiating two very different components of eschatology; futurist eschatology, which focuses on the final end and transformation of this reality into the new reality of God’s realm; and realized eschatology, which focuses upon the transformations of life that take place in present history. Hope is deeply involved in both components. Polkinghorne points out that “For the Christian, hope arises out of endurance in the face of adversity, based on trust in the love of God (Romans 5:3-5).” He goes on to note that hope is, at its essence, moral in its character, “for it is a good future for which we may dare to hope.”
If we have this hope then we should be prepared to work for it. The ultimate result of this lies in the hands of God, but this must not deter us from letting ourselves be changed; letting ourselves become new creation. Hence a realized eschatology involves change, involves all of God’s creation, involves evolving in ways we do not and cannot control or direct. My pastoral colleague cited an unknown source who explained evolution as a process of sea worm deciding to go on land, land worm deciding to walk, and ape deciding to become human. This is, of course, a non-scientific statement and would never been uttered by an individual with even a modest scientific education. I often hear my fundamentalist friends say that “All biology teachers teach that man descended from an ape.” I must admit I’ve never heard this. I collect older science textbooks and my collection goes all the way back to Darwin. None ever said that.
From a theological standpoint, the statement is simply nonsense, for even theologians recognize that the ability to decide questions lies with humans. As a prayer in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer has it, “You have blessed us with reason, memory, and skill.” That is our blessing or curse, depending upon how you look at things. But the point is that we, alone among the animals, can think and reason, and decide. Everything else is driven by more primitive processes.
Before Darwin, Natural Theology sought to seek God in nature, an effort that failed for a number of reasons. Today, natural theology is making a comeback, often among scientists, but increasingly among theologians. John Haught’s book explores this in some depth (it is a “popular” book, not one written with professional theologians as an audience). Haught writes, “Even though much of the revival of natural theology is now the work of scientists… it is an important instance of contemporary engagement of religious thought with the natural setting of evolution.” Modern natural theology is very process oriented. He also writes, “… all the moments of an evolving world are harvested into the divine experience…. Here all the suffering, struggle, loss, and triumph in evolution are finally endowed with eternal meaning.” One interesting proposal from process theologians is that “The ‘point’ of the universe [may have] something to do with the production of a beauty that is God’s experience never fades but grows increasingly wider and deeper and abides everlastingly.”
In this scheme, Darwinism is but a recent episode in a larger cosmic story. Darwin, however, has played a role in the development of the modern theological notions of creation, eschatology, revelation, divine love, divine power, and redemption.
Creation, to take just one of these notions, is “central to the faith of millions,” notes Haught. He goes on to indicate that “Taditionally Christian theology spoke of three dimensions of God’s creative activity: original creation (creatio originalis), ongoing creation (creatio continua), and new creation or fulfillment of creation (creatio nova).” Prior to the modern era only the first of these was stressed. But with the advent of modern critical analysis and modern science, the second and third areas have taken on greater emphasis. With this modern thought, Haught notes, “… the fact of evolution now allows theology to realize more palpably than ever that creation is not just an ‘original’ but also an ongoing and constantly new reality. This ongoing and ever changing reality is part of the realized eschatology previously mentioned.
Bringing the two streams of thought together, we can see that hope is inextricably intertwined with the process of creation, the continuing evolution of all of creation. It is in this hope that we can perceive that all that is, both seen and unseen, are moving. In Haught’s words, “And so the horizon of human expectations [can] begin to shift toward a future that includes the universe and the entire sweep of its evolution. This moving is a seeking for the future, it is the hope for that future. To paraphrase St. Paul, “… the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…. (Romans 8-22).” It groans as it seeks fulfillment and, after Darwin we can “speak more assuredly than ever about the inseparability of cosmic and human destiny.
Evolution is not something to fear. In fact, it appears to be the means by which God has, and is, calling creation forward into new creation. That the future will bring us closer to God, to that end-thing we cannot yet see, is an article of faith, expressed in our hope, trusting in God’s love.
Feast day of John of the Cross
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Autumnal Gazing
Ever since my days as a boy in North Sanford, NY, I have been deeply appreciative of the Autumn season. I love the colors in the forest - red, yellow, orange, pink, green - all mixed together in a chaotic jumble of exquisite beauty. I love the warm sun on my face and arms, the heat seeping through the fabric of sweater, shirt, or jacket. I love the chill of cool to cold northern breezes, raising "goosebumps" on my skin as the sun settles in the west and the earth's heat radiates back through the deepening blue of the sky into the black of starlit space.
Here, in Southern Illinois, our autumn scenery is what I would call "very pretty," but it lacks the crispness of mountain flora and atmosphere. The warm days are more summer-like than I prefer, although I have grown used to them over the last thirty years of living here. The black nights are not as black, since the population density here is much higher than it is in upsate New York, and every farm has an array of spotlights and security lights, and floodlights - as if the people are frightened of the dark. If you read the papers and talk to people, you will learn that in the twenty-first century of the Common Era, fear of night is returning - which today is not fear of wild animal or savage Indian, but fear of neighbor or of neighbor's kin. I suspect that this is also more true than I would want in Broome and Delaware Counties of New York, as well. It does not speak well of us as a species.
Today the newspaper carried a story that this fall will be rather bland. There have been "spot droughts," you see. A fungus has infected the trees and a wasp infestation has resulted in the tree leaves being attacked by insect larva - I have seen the galls on the leaf bottoms, myself. All of this has affected the ability of the tree to produce the appropriate amount of sugar during the growing season and that will affect the ability of the leaves to show forth their most brilliant colors. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.
Meanwhile we are in the middle of a political drought of sorts. As one writer put it, we have the specter of "two bankrupt political parties, busy bankrupting the country." The country seems to be infected with a swarm of money wasps, attacking the political system, implanting the multitude of growing parts with galls of money, bringing productive governance to a halt - all to feed their own greed. The American political system is currently for sale. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.
Here, in Southern Illinois, our autumn scenery is what I would call "very pretty," but it lacks the crispness of mountain flora and atmosphere. The warm days are more summer-like than I prefer, although I have grown used to them over the last thirty years of living here. The black nights are not as black, since the population density here is much higher than it is in upsate New York, and every farm has an array of spotlights and security lights, and floodlights - as if the people are frightened of the dark. If you read the papers and talk to people, you will learn that in the twenty-first century of the Common Era, fear of night is returning - which today is not fear of wild animal or savage Indian, but fear of neighbor or of neighbor's kin. I suspect that this is also more true than I would want in Broome and Delaware Counties of New York, as well. It does not speak well of us as a species.
Today the newspaper carried a story that this fall will be rather bland. There have been "spot droughts," you see. A fungus has infected the trees and a wasp infestation has resulted in the tree leaves being attacked by insect larva - I have seen the galls on the leaf bottoms, myself. All of this has affected the ability of the tree to produce the appropriate amount of sugar during the growing season and that will affect the ability of the leaves to show forth their most brilliant colors. Good fall color will be, they say, a rather hit or miss affair.Thoughts on Missions in Springfield
Marti asked a couple of questions about the outreach fund and about the funding of mission churches. Those are two totally different issues.
Sue gave an excellent response regarding the outreach fund. What follows is my opinion about the funding of the mission churches and place of those missions in the life of the diocese.
For a number of years, I was a member of the Department of General Mission Strategies (DGMS), culminating with my serving a term as Chair of DGMS. When I became chair, Bishop Beckwith and I had a discussion in which we both agreed that the continued growth in funding the mission churches could not go on. The original concept (long before my time on DGMS) was that the diocese would fund "up to half" of the Vicar's pay (the priest-in-charge of a mission is, in our usage, called the "Vicar"), but the mission churches were tasked with improving their own stewardship, with the goal of ultimately eliminating the need for diocesan assistance. Over the years some churches (mine of St. Thomas, Salem) worked diligently to work our way to zero assistance. We achieved that goal around 2001 or 2002, if my memory serves well. Some churches, though, were happy to give their Vicar a raise, simply passing the need on to the diocese in their annual request for assistance.
It was that growth that I wanted to end. Bishop Beckwith wanted, for reasons we didn't explore sufficiently (my bad), to eliminate the funding altogether. I said, "Aye, aye, sir" in good military fashion (I'm a retired Navy Lieutenant Commander [of the Line], he a retired Rear Admiral [Chaplain Corps]) and off I went. In a few short years, around 2006, I believe, mission funding had been reduced to zero. At it's maximum, the total funding had been around $60,000 per year (give or take - I don't have an old journal to look at). We, in DGMS, allocated those funds to each church, EXCEPT IN THE HALE DEANERY, where the diocese handled the funding. The Hale deanery money would be above and beyond the DGMS administered funds. DGMS was never given an adequate report as to the Hale Deanery money, so we just quit asking, on the theory that to Bishop Beckwith and Treasurer Jim Donkin, we had become "just a noisy gong." The elimination of mission funding dealt only, we understood, with the non-Hale Deanery mission churches.
At the present time, all of the mission churches (Hale Deanery and part of the Darrow Deanery excepted) are on their own to secure priests. In the case of St. Thomas, Salem, the Bishop's Committee (the mission church version of the vestry) voted to pay me $16,992/year (I really forget how we came up with that strange number) starting in late 2002 (when I was a Deacon on the way to becoming a priest). That number has never changed, over the last eight years, but has resulted in a slow decline in reserve funds over the last four years as we lost a couple of fairly high giving members to death. I presume, but do not know, that other mission churches have similar problems.
That, of course, raises a good set of questions, as Marti indicates. Does the Episcopal Church, in its Springfield incarnation, want to have a mission role? Or does it prefer to "hunker down" in the parish churches of the larger congregations?
We need to recognize that in many of the Illinois communities (mostly large towns that the state, in its wisdom, has declared to be "small cities), the Episcopal Church cannot compete, in numbers, with either the Roman Catholic Church or the fundamentalist Protestant Churches (mostly in the guise of Baptist or Christian Church denominations). Do we really want to?
We are, and will always be, a small minority church, with mostly family size (less than 75 members) congregations. These can be quite dynamic, as any number of the small missions can tell you. But if, as Marti implies, we have the wrong model, then we need to rethink that model. That may, as Bishop Beckwith wanted, to mean the raising up of local deacons and priests, who are willing, as I am, to work for minimum or no wage at all, depending upon other sources of income to support our ministry (as noted, I'm retired from the military). But that means that the people must do much, much, more to pull their share of the load. In my church, they do. Almost everyone, not just "the few," do most of the work. But the importance of being part of the diocese, and not being seen as "step-children" cannot be over-emphasized. The problem of "big parish" versus "little mission" cannot be ignored. I suggest that both the parish churches AND the mission churches have been, and are, guilty of "us versus them" thinking, to the detriment of our Christ-given commandment to spread the good news.
So that's my "two cents, or less" on the subject.
Peace and blessings to all. Tom+
Sue gave an excellent response regarding the outreach fund. What follows is my opinion about the funding of the mission churches and place of those missions in the life of the diocese.
For a number of years, I was a member of the Department of General Mission Strategies (DGMS), culminating with my serving a term as Chair of DGMS. When I became chair, Bishop Beckwith and I had a discussion in which we both agreed that the continued growth in funding the mission churches could not go on. The original concept (long before my time on DGMS) was that the diocese would fund "up to half" of the Vicar's pay (the priest-in-charge of a mission is, in our usage, called the "Vicar"), but the mission churches were tasked with improving their own stewardship, with the goal of ultimately eliminating the need for diocesan assistance. Over the years some churches (mine of St. Thomas, Salem) worked diligently to work our way to zero assistance. We achieved that goal around 2001 or 2002, if my memory serves well. Some churches, though, were happy to give their Vicar a raise, simply passing the need on to the diocese in their annual request for assistance.
It was that growth that I wanted to end. Bishop Beckwith wanted, for reasons we didn't explore sufficiently (my bad), to eliminate the funding altogether. I said, "Aye, aye, sir" in good military fashion (I'm a retired Navy Lieutenant Commander [of the Line], he a retired Rear Admiral [Chaplain Corps]) and off I went. In a few short years, around 2006, I believe, mission funding had been reduced to zero. At it's maximum, the total funding had been around $60,000 per year (give or take - I don't have an old journal to look at). We, in DGMS, allocated those funds to each church, EXCEPT IN THE HALE DEANERY, where the diocese handled the funding. The Hale deanery money would be above and beyond the DGMS administered funds. DGMS was never given an adequate report as to the Hale Deanery money, so we just quit asking, on the theory that to Bishop Beckwith and Treasurer Jim Donkin, we had become "just a noisy gong." The elimination of mission funding dealt only, we understood, with the non-Hale Deanery mission churches.
At the present time, all of the mission churches (Hale Deanery and part of the Darrow Deanery excepted) are on their own to secure priests. In the case of St. Thomas, Salem, the Bishop's Committee (the mission church version of the vestry) voted to pay me $16,992/year (I really forget how we came up with that strange number) starting in late 2002 (when I was a Deacon on the way to becoming a priest). That number has never changed, over the last eight years, but has resulted in a slow decline in reserve funds over the last four years as we lost a couple of fairly high giving members to death. I presume, but do not know, that other mission churches have similar problems.
That, of course, raises a good set of questions, as Marti indicates. Does the Episcopal Church, in its Springfield incarnation, want to have a mission role? Or does it prefer to "hunker down" in the parish churches of the larger congregations?
We need to recognize that in many of the Illinois communities (mostly large towns that the state, in its wisdom, has declared to be "small cities), the Episcopal Church cannot compete, in numbers, with either the Roman Catholic Church or the fundamentalist Protestant Churches (mostly in the guise of Baptist or Christian Church denominations). Do we really want to?
We are, and will always be, a small minority church, with mostly family size (less than 75 members) congregations. These can be quite dynamic, as any number of the small missions can tell you. But if, as Marti implies, we have the wrong model, then we need to rethink that model. That may, as Bishop Beckwith wanted, to mean the raising up of local deacons and priests, who are willing, as I am, to work for minimum or no wage at all, depending upon other sources of income to support our ministry (as noted, I'm retired from the military). But that means that the people must do much, much, more to pull their share of the load. In my church, they do. Almost everyone, not just "the few," do most of the work. But the importance of being part of the diocese, and not being seen as "step-children" cannot be over-emphasized. The problem of "big parish" versus "little mission" cannot be ignored. I suggest that both the parish churches AND the mission churches have been, and are, guilty of "us versus them" thinking, to the detriment of our Christ-given commandment to spread the good news.
So that's my "two cents, or less" on the subject.
Peace and blessings to all. Tom+
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Little Egypt Parade
For those who don't know, this section of So. Illinois is known as "The Gateway to Little Egypt." The story is told that a drought in the northern part of the state led farmers south seeking corn and fodder for their animals. That was a trek that became known as the journey to Little Egypt. So, of course, in a truly American way, we have a parade and time of festivities in early October to celebrate the name, if not the occassion.
The good people of St. Thomas always have a free lemonade stand, only on cold years it becomes a hot chocolate give-away. This year was one of those exceeding strange days. When the sun was shining, we had a run on lemonade. But when the sun went behind the clouds, the temperature dropped a quick 8 - 10 degrees and hot chocolate was favored. But no one left thirsty.
St. Thomas also had a small float in the parade. The theme, as set up by chairperson Martha Stiehl, was "Volunteers: The Saints of God." They played and sang the good old hymn, "I sing a song of the Saints of God." The float was peopled by Jim Stiehl (a doctor - in life as on the float), Joan Baker (not a queen, but one of our English-women - isn't that about the same), Bill Smith (a soldier in life and on the float), Jeff Kozuszek (soon to be ordained - we hope), Willie and Olivia Shuler, along with Nick Kozuszek, at tea, Liz Hinman as an artist, and, of course, our Musical genius, Martha Stiehl. Enjoy the Video of them passing the church.
The good people of St. Thomas always have a free lemonade stand, only on cold years it becomes a hot chocolate give-away. This year was one of those exceeding strange days. When the sun was shining, we had a run on lemonade. But when the sun went behind the clouds, the temperature dropped a quick 8 - 10 degrees and hot chocolate was favored. But no one left thirsty.
St. Thomas also had a small float in the parade. The theme, as set up by chairperson Martha Stiehl, was "Volunteers: The Saints of God." They played and sang the good old hymn, "I sing a song of the Saints of God." The float was peopled by Jim Stiehl (a doctor - in life as on the float), Joan Baker (not a queen, but one of our English-women - isn't that about the same), Bill Smith (a soldier in life and on the float), Jeff Kozuszek (soon to be ordained - we hope), Willie and Olivia Shuler, along with Nick Kozuszek, at tea, Liz Hinman as an artist, and, of course, our Musical genius, Martha Stiehl. Enjoy the Video of them passing the church.
Monday, September 27, 2010
An Exciting Time
This is an exciting time for me. My days as Vicar of St. Thomas are rapidly drawing to a close. As of today, I have 54 days of active time remaining. In the last two months I have:
Be at Peace. Tom+
- Taken part in the nomination and election of the next Bishop-elect, Fr. Dan Martins.
- Completed confirmation classes for three ladies (two for confirmation, one for reception).
- Conducted a First Communion Class for two lovely young ladies, and celebrated their First Communion.
- Begun (and am half way through) a course of instruction from the University of Illinois Extension Service that will, in about a year's time, result in my certification as an "Illinois Master Naturalist." Note photo of White Snakeroot, a wood-edge prairie wildflower. This plant killed Abraham Lincoln's mother with what was called "the Milk Sickness" after cows ate the toxic plant.
- Continued to provide pastoral care to my little flock of 60 souls.
- Continued to provide outreach and counseling to community people with either financial needs or just a person to talk with.
Be at Peace. Tom+
Monday, January 25, 2010
Gays in the Church
Two full lifetimes ago, in my first career (I'm now in my third), I was the Weapons officer on a U. S. Navy guided missile destroyer, USS Parsons DDG-33. I reported to Parsons in July of 1971 and, after the ship moved to Japan, spent from December 1971 until just before Christmas of 1972 in the combat zone of Vietnam. In January 1973 I was due for relief and a lieutenant named "Bob S." took over from me so that I could get the first shore duty tour in over fifteen years of service.
Bob was a "real" combat veteran, having served a tour in-country in Vietnam and had earned a purple heart while there. To me, who had spent almost 44 months in the combat zone, always on board cruisers and destroyers, Bob was the real "hero," since he had served in much greater danger than I and had paid a price for that service. He took over as Parsons' Weapons Officer and, from all that I heard, served admirably in that capacity.
I left Parsons and served for a year and a half on the staff of the Commander, Naval Forces, Japan, working in Naval Intelligence. Then, in October of 1974 I was transferred to the Surface Warfare Officer's School Command at Newport, Rhode Island for what I knew upfront was to be my final active duty tour. I was Lieutenant Commander by that time and I ended up being in charge of all of the weapon system instruction at the Cruiser-Destroyer Head of Department School (previously known as "Destroyer School," or, colloquially, as "DesTech"). I was also the school's instructor in Surface-to-Air Guided Missiles, or SAMS.
Shortly after my arrival, I was pulled aside and given the job or re-organizing all of the Weapons instruction into one "Combat Systems Branch" for the school. And, best of all, I was given an assistant to help with the SAM instruction - one "Bob S." From December 1974 until my retirement from active duty on December 1, 1977, Bob and I got to know one another quite well. I learned a tremendous amount about him and from him, even though he was my subordinate officer.
First of all, Bob was exceptionally proficient in all of the technical aspects of guided missiles. In time we were also handed the task of teaching the Harpoon Anti-Ship missile system and Bob applied himself wonderfully to learning that new system (the precursor, in many ways, of the Tomahawk missile used in Dessert Storm). Bob explored tactical elements of deploying the Harpoon at a time when the Navy, itself, still didn't know what to do with this new toy.
Secondly, Bob was always available to answer questions of issues that I might raise, some of which had moral consequences. His advice was always sage - always "spot on" to use a old phrase. When I, who had become single via the divorce route, was tempted to date our secretary, Bob told me why that was not a good idea and reminded me of the damage it could bring into our branch, he was completely correct and so my bright idea for "a date" ended up being a "coffee" time to get to know my administrative assistant a bit better - and that was a far better route to take than the one I first envisioned.
Finally, I came to learn (or to confirm long-held suspicion) that Bob was a celibate gay man. By then I had come to know Bob, to trust him and his judgement, and to value his friendship. So his "secret" was something that had to be protected at all times, for there are always those who perceive an opening to advancement be the destruction of the career of another person. I am glad that during my tenure, no harm came to Bob in his career by the words of anyone else. This blog is the first time that I have ever publicly taken notice of Bob's sexuality.
At that time, I felt that his sexuality was his own business and should play no role in either advancing or delaying his career. I was, by the standard of the day, quite forward looking. But I have come to see that the entire conversation should be unnecessary, for human sexuality is a gift that we are born with. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trans-sexuals are all the equal - total equal of this heterosexual male. All of us, glbth, have God-given gifts and fully deserve the entire spectrum of possibilities to be ours. No one should be denied something based upon their sexuality.
My Church, the Episcopal Church, has been struggling with this for almost fifty years. The topic first came up in the 1960s and we began to talk about it. We talked about it for forty years. In 1998, the highest deliberative body in the Anglican Communion of Churches (of which The Episcopal Church is but one Church of many) passed a resolution that tried to "split" the differences, but merely managed to muddy the waters. It stated that same-sex relations were impediments to marriage and ordination. Then it said, but homosexual people are full members of the Body of Christ and swore that we all, throughout the world, were committed to a listening process, to hear the experiences of gay and lesbian people.
The Episcopal Church, which had been talking for almost forty years - very loudly - began to listen more deeply and then, in 2003, took action. We ordained a practicing homosexual man as Bishop of New Hampshire. And all of those parts of the Anglican Communion that had their fingers crossed when they resolved in 1998, screamed bloody murder that we Episcopalians are damaging the communion. Funny, I thought we were simply actually listening, dialoging with our glbt friends, and then taking their experiences to heart.
As a progressive and broad Episcopalian, I am heartened by what The Episcopal Church (TEC) has done. Will it make us more popular with the average American? Of course not. Will it make us more popular with God? That is a non-sensical question, for we all already have God's love. We are called to practice it. I have the hope and continue to pray that we are indeed practicing Godly love as we continue to work to include all of God's children in this Church.
Thanks be to God, the father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, who lives and reigns with the Holy Spirit, one God, calling us to become. Amen. TAD+
Bob was a "real" combat veteran, having served a tour in-country in Vietnam and had earned a purple heart while there. To me, who had spent almost 44 months in the combat zone, always on board cruisers and destroyers, Bob was the real "hero," since he had served in much greater danger than I and had paid a price for that service. He took over as Parsons' Weapons Officer and, from all that I heard, served admirably in that capacity.
I left Parsons and served for a year and a half on the staff of the Commander, Naval Forces, Japan, working in Naval Intelligence. Then, in October of 1974 I was transferred to the Surface Warfare Officer's School Command at Newport, Rhode Island for what I knew upfront was to be my final active duty tour. I was Lieutenant Commander by that time and I ended up being in charge of all of the weapon system instruction at the Cruiser-Destroyer Head of Department School (previously known as "Destroyer School," or, colloquially, as "DesTech"). I was also the school's instructor in Surface-to-Air Guided Missiles, or SAMS.
Shortly after my arrival, I was pulled aside and given the job or re-organizing all of the Weapons instruction into one "Combat Systems Branch" for the school. And, best of all, I was given an assistant to help with the SAM instruction - one "Bob S." From December 1974 until my retirement from active duty on December 1, 1977, Bob and I got to know one another quite well. I learned a tremendous amount about him and from him, even though he was my subordinate officer.
First of all, Bob was exceptionally proficient in all of the technical aspects of guided missiles. In time we were also handed the task of teaching the Harpoon Anti-Ship missile system and Bob applied himself wonderfully to learning that new system (the precursor, in many ways, of the Tomahawk missile used in Dessert Storm). Bob explored tactical elements of deploying the Harpoon at a time when the Navy, itself, still didn't know what to do with this new toy.
Secondly, Bob was always available to answer questions of issues that I might raise, some of which had moral consequences. His advice was always sage - always "spot on" to use a old phrase. When I, who had become single via the divorce route, was tempted to date our secretary, Bob told me why that was not a good idea and reminded me of the damage it could bring into our branch, he was completely correct and so my bright idea for "a date" ended up being a "coffee" time to get to know my administrative assistant a bit better - and that was a far better route to take than the one I first envisioned.
Finally, I came to learn (or to confirm long-held suspicion) that Bob was a celibate gay man. By then I had come to know Bob, to trust him and his judgement, and to value his friendship. So his "secret" was something that had to be protected at all times, for there are always those who perceive an opening to advancement be the destruction of the career of another person. I am glad that during my tenure, no harm came to Bob in his career by the words of anyone else. This blog is the first time that I have ever publicly taken notice of Bob's sexuality.
At that time, I felt that his sexuality was his own business and should play no role in either advancing or delaying his career. I was, by the standard of the day, quite forward looking. But I have come to see that the entire conversation should be unnecessary, for human sexuality is a gift that we are born with. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trans-sexuals are all the equal - total equal of this heterosexual male. All of us, glbth, have God-given gifts and fully deserve the entire spectrum of possibilities to be ours. No one should be denied something based upon their sexuality.
My Church, the Episcopal Church, has been struggling with this for almost fifty years. The topic first came up in the 1960s and we began to talk about it. We talked about it for forty years. In 1998, the highest deliberative body in the Anglican Communion of Churches (of which The Episcopal Church is but one Church of many) passed a resolution that tried to "split" the differences, but merely managed to muddy the waters. It stated that same-sex relations were impediments to marriage and ordination. Then it said, but homosexual people are full members of the Body of Christ and swore that we all, throughout the world, were committed to a listening process, to hear the experiences of gay and lesbian people.
The Episcopal Church, which had been talking for almost forty years - very loudly - began to listen more deeply and then, in 2003, took action. We ordained a practicing homosexual man as Bishop of New Hampshire. And all of those parts of the Anglican Communion that had their fingers crossed when they resolved in 1998, screamed bloody murder that we Episcopalians are damaging the communion. Funny, I thought we were simply actually listening, dialoging with our glbt friends, and then taking their experiences to heart.
As a progressive and broad Episcopalian, I am heartened by what The Episcopal Church (TEC) has done. Will it make us more popular with the average American? Of course not. Will it make us more popular with God? That is a non-sensical question, for we all already have God's love. We are called to practice it. I have the hope and continue to pray that we are indeed practicing Godly love as we continue to work to include all of God's children in this Church.
Thanks be to God, the father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, who lives and reigns with the Holy Spirit, one God, calling us to become. Amen. TAD+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)