davidould.net

I mean, what topic could possibly cause an Anglican bishop in, say, Australia or England, to break collegiality with other bishops in order to promote an increasingly controversial and divisive agenda? Hold your thought and come with me. 

First, to Gippsland Diocese in Victoria, Australia where the December issue [scribd] of the Gippsland Anglican has a report on page 8 of a new clerical appointment.

All seemingly innocuous until you check out the caption under the picture, "Reverend David Head with his partner, Mark". And there you have it, open endorsement in the diocesan newspaper. What readers may not realise is that the liberal agenda is not as advanced here in Australia as in the US. So this is still a big deal. What may simmer under the surface is often allowed to simmer, as long as it doesn't boil over.

But Bishop John McIntyre has never been one for not kicking up a fuss. And it appears here that someone has approved the agenda of openly promoting a clergyman living in a homosexual partnership. If not the bishop then someone on his staff. Either way, the implication is obvious. This was a deliberate decision.

Rev. Head was previously at Holy Trinity Hampton where his relationship was (as someone recently described it to me) considered an "open scandal". Perhaps it all got too much, we don't know and Melbourne is a whole other question - a diocese where the fight really is on between the evangelicals and the liberals. But Bishop McIntyre over the border in Gippsland has decided to make it an issue by appointing and publicly affirming him. The Australian House of Bishops is about to meet in conference. You can be sure there will be a number for whom this appointment is unacceptable. One commentator told me that when the doors close on the meeting room it can get a bit fierce inside. I'm sure we can expect some free and frank discussions there.

---

Over in England the same game is being played. The freshly-minted bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, has come out in favour of gay marriage, contrary to the current position of the Church of England. And that right on the eve of General Synod - I mean, who would have thought? Of course, Changing Attitude are loving it, and who could blame them. Well, surprise surprise, a man who we all knew what be controversial but nevertheless got appointed has now been controversial, to the extent of breaking ranks with his fellow bishops. Who could have predicted it? Here's what I'd like to know, what does his suffragen Graham Kings of Fulcrum fame think of it all? He was part of this response in 2005 which included a restatement of the traditional position and also critiqued exactly the sort of thing that Holtam has done,

One member of the House has already publicly broken with collegiality and distanced himself from the pastoral letter. Unless there remains a common commitment to church teaching and discipline within the House, there is a real risk that the levels of tension and disintegration witnessed in other provinces in relation to these issues could become a reality in the Church of England.

So I emailed his office and asked exactly that. I'll let you know if we get a response.

---

Bishops breaking collegiality. You know what, Fulcrum are right - when they do it causes all sorts of problems if it's not dealt with. It increases "levels of tension and disintegration". Not convinced? Take a look at TEC. You won't have to look very hard. And what ends up being compromised? Gospel witness and the proclamation of Christ. Go figure. Now that is worth kicking up a stink about. If everyone just stays in their dog collars and mitres as though nothing has changed then it would be a disaster - because it would mean that something has changed - this would now be acceptable.

---

UPDATE Sunday 12 February 2012 Bishop Kings has been kind enough to respond to my questions. Here's what he had to say (my question in italics, his response in blockquotes) Does Bishop Graham agree with the statements recently made by Bishop Nicholas Holtam on the subject of "gay marriage"?

No

Does Bishop Graham think that Bishop Nicholas' statement is similar to those which were critiqued in the 2005 Fulcrum statement "Fulcrum Response to the Bishops' Statement on the Civil Partnership Act 17 September 2005" (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050917cpa.cfm?doc=6) which contained the following: One member of the House has already publicly broken with collegiality and distanced himself from the pastoral letter. Unless there remains a common commitment to church teaching and discipline within the House, there is a real risk that the levels of tension and disintegration witnessed in other provinces in relation to these issues could become a reality in the Church of England.

We are new colleagues but old friends. We are committed to working together creatively even when we disagree. The position of the House of Bishops and the Church of England remains unchanged.

Well there you have it. He doesn't agree and he has no answer to the question as to whether Holtam has broken collegiality and increased tension and disintegration. I feel for Graham Kings. My sense is that Holtam has put him in an almost impossible position.

Monday 6 February 2012 marks the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne. The Church of England have prayers for the occasion.

God of time and eternity, whose Son reigns as servant, not master; we give you thanks and praise that you have blessed this Nation, the Realms and Territories with ELIZABETH, our beloved and glorious Queen. In this year of Jubilee, grant her your gifts of love and joy and peace as she continues in faithful obedience to you, her Lord and God and in devoted service to her lands and peoples, and those of the Commonwealth, now and all the days of her life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As good as that is, it's still not a patch on this, is it?

O GOD, who providest for thy people by thy power, and rulest over them in love: Vouchsafe so to bless thy Servant our Queen, that under her this nation may be wisely governed, and thy Church may serve thee in all godly quietness; and grant that she being devoted to thee with her whole heart, and persevering in good works unto the end, may, by thy guidance, come to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen. O LORD our God, who upholdest and governest all things by the word of thy power: Receive our humble prayers for our sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, as on this day, set over us by thy grace and providence to be our Queen; and, together with her, bless, we beseech thee, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family; that they, ever trusting in thy goodness, protected by thy power, and crowned with thy gracious and endless favour, may long continue before thee in peace and safety, joy and honour, and after death may obtain everlasting life and glory, by the merits and mediation of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever one God, world without end. Amen. AI.MIGHTY God, who rulest over all the kingdoms of the world, and dost order them according to thy good pleasure: We yield thee unfeigned thanks, for that thou wast pleased, as on this day, to set thy Servant our Sovereign Lady, Queen ELIZABETH, upon the Throne of this Realm. Let thy wisdom be her guide, and let thine arm strengthen her; let truth and justice, holiness and righteousness, peace and charity, abound in her days; direct all her counsels and endeavours to thy glory, and the welfare of her subjects; give us grace to obey her cheerfully for conscience sake, and let her always possess the hearts of her people; let her reign be long and prosperous, and crown her with everlasting life in the world to come; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

And never forget this:

1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Another fascinating article, this time from instant fundas.

The pitch drop experiment began in 1927 when Professor Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, set out to demonstrate to his students that some substances that appear to be solid are in fact very high viscous fluids. He used tar pitch, a derivative of coal once used to waterproof boats, in an experiment to prove his point. At room temperature, pitch appears to be solid and can even shatter if hit with a hammer, but despite its look and feel, pitch can also flow at room temperature, albeit extremely slowly.

 

For his experiment, Parnell melted some pitch into a glass funnel with a sealed stem and allowed it to cool for three years. In 1930 he cut the sealed stem, hung the funnel over a beaker, and waited. It took eight year before the first drop fell into the beaker and another nine years before the second drop hit. Parnell didn’t live to see the third drop fall in 1954, as he passed away in September 1948. By then, the experiment was stored away in a cupboard of the physics department.

 

The Pitch Drop Experiment with its current custodian, John Mainstone in a picture taken in 1990.

 

The pitch-drop experiment might have fallen into obscurity had it not been for John Mainstone, who joined the University of Queensland physics department in 1961. One day a colleague said, “I’ve got something weird in this cupboard here” and presented Mainstone with the funnel, beaker and pitch, all housed under a bell jar. Mainstone asked the department head to display it for the school’s science and engineering students, but he was told that nobody wanted to see it. Finally, around 1975, Mainstone persuaded the department to publicly display the experiment in a cabinet in the foyer of the department building.

The experiment that carries on beyond death. Sometimes you just don't have the time to see what something is really like. The current life expectancy of the Australian man is 79 years. They wouldn't outlast the pitchdrop experiment. They might not even really get to see the effects. Life, and life that is short, is a lot like that - it obscures us from seeing the reality of things. And, of course, often death itself is the reality.

This week I've been working on Luke 12, the Parable of the Rich Fool. Jesus speaks of the idiocy of not realising there is more to this life than 79 short years. And in the middle he does so in a really clever way. The Rich Fool is speaking...

Luke 12:19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”

It's an obvious allusion to this...

Eccl. 8:14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. ¹⁵ So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

Qoheleth, the speaker of Ecclesiastes, is working through the conundrum of life. It doesn't seem to make sense - no one gets what they deserve. If that's reality then the only sane option is to live it up now. Enjoy life - eat and drink and be glad. And, of course, store it up to stop if from going.

But as Ecclesiastes progresses we realise that there's more to life. Or, more accurately, more to life than life.

11:9 You who are young, be happy while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.

The judgement of God puts everything into perspective. What seemed arbitrary and unfair will be measured and held to account. The 85 year experiment does have a demonstrable conclusion. You may die but you willsee the pitch drop, just not in the way that you thought. Which is, of course, Jesus' point,

Luke 12:20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

Assessing this life based on only this life is nuts. You simply can't live long enough to see the pitch drop because death will get you first. And then it's too late. Besides, the results of the experiment are already in - so why act like you don't know what will happen?

 

OMGosh this is so awesome but 30 years too late (although I'm not sure I really cared about Tolkein when I was 7almost8). Forevergeek has the details,

We’re salivating with each new reveal that comes along from LEGO for its upcoming Lord of the Rings toy line. We’ve seen several character posters, but today we’ve got your first look at the killer minifigures for the entire Fellowship and several baddies, including Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Gollum, and Nazgul.

Right, enough talk - here they are.

 

Fascinating little snippet from Wired Science.

The fundamental origin of our dearest beliefs is a centuries-old philosophical question: Do they reflect, as Kant claimed, deep and pure principles? Or, per Jeremy Bentham, are they elegantly rationalized cost-benefit analyses?

 

Neuroscientist Greg Berns of Emory University put this question to the test in a brain scanner. He found that when people refused to accept cash for stating beliefs opposite to their own, it wasn't simply because the cash wasn't enough. Reward-calculating parts of their brains weren't even part of the equation; instead, activity occurred in rule-processing, right-or-wrong systems. Principle was truly principled.

 

Image: BenFrantzDale/Flickr

 

Citation: "The price of your soul: neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values." By Gregory S. Berns, Emily Bell, C. Monica Capra, Michael J. Prietula, Sara Moore, Brittany Anderson, Jeremy Ginges and Scott Atran. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 367 No. 1589, March 5, 2012.

Of course it doesn't solve the question. Sure, according to Kant some things just are - the noumenal truths. But if they're hard wired is that because we're created by God that way? Or is it how we've evolved? Or, (can. open. worms all over floor) both!

Either way, interesting stuff.

 

I wrote previously about the campaign to have the ridiculous "gay panic" defence removed in Queensland. Fr Paul Kelly is reporting that the Qld. Government have agreed to tighten up the law in this regard. A great result! Thanks to all who signed the petition and much kudos to Paul for getting it running.

picture: Queensland Parliament Building in Brisbane

This via the always-stimulating forevergeek

It's raining cats and dogs here. So obviously time for this...

Brilliant stuff. Watch this:

Now read this:

John King of CNN wilted under Newt's bombast, but that is not the point. The point is whether or not he needed to wilt. King tried ineffectively to defend himself against Newt's attack by saying that it was another network that had done the interview, and it was one of those things that was "out there" with people "talking about it," gotta ask, journalistic duty, etc. Newt, in bellicose mode, wasn't having any and said to him, on the contrary, "your network decided to lead off with this question, and it was Disgraceful, Appalling, Reprehensible," or whatever words of high dudgeon he used. "How dare you bring moral indignation into a presidential debate! I'll show you moral indignation." The audience was at first agape, and then it roared to its feet. Is he not whacking a liberal? What's not to like?

 

Despicable is not serial adultery. Despicable is asking about it.

I don't think we have seen the like since Woodrow Wilson was a blastocyte. Obama is certainly arrogant, working that little tiptilted-nose-attitude thing of his, but his hubris is an arugula salad kind of pride. Newt works day and night in the great kitchen like a master confectioner of conceit, with one of those thirty gallon stainless steel mixing bowls, making tray after tray of the peanut brittle of brag.
I don't think I could watch an Obama/Newt debate without constantly looking around for the little car that the 13 clowns were going to tumble out of. This is the circus, isn't it?

We are dealing with a high vulgarian, living well above the tree line. We are dealing with an ego of field rank, looking around for Wellington. We are looking at a flyblown reputation, masquerading as something else -- but we should remember that shiny is not the same thing as clean. This is a merchant of buncombe, with everything in his shop priced to move.

As if. But the whole thing fascinates me. My conservative friends in the States are daily bemoaning the lack of a real choice - a fiscal and social conservative who isn't a loon or a serial adulterer.

• Romney - a centrist moderate if ever there was one. The Republican hierarchy might like him but the footsoldiers aren't convinced.
• Gingrich - a man that cheated on and dumped not one, but two wives. I mean, seriously?
• Ron Paul - more a libertarian than a republican. Most think he's in for entertainment value.

Which leaves one guy. Santorum. I'd be voting for him. Yes, he's a Roman Catholic but he makes no bones about it, unlike Romney who fudges the big questions (oh, how good would it be for an interviewer who knew his stuff to press him on Mormon doctrine).

And when he talks "family values" you know he means it. There's a glaring hypocrisy in Gingrich's scathing attacks on Bill Clinton while he, himself, was conducting an extra-marital affair. I don't know how you get past that in terms of establishing integrity - not once, but twice.

What also strikes me is the question of who really is the conservative front-runner. Consider these comments from Santorum at today's CNN debate,

Of course the reality is that Santorum may not last until Super Tuesday. But I'd hope he will - because there's a growing sense that Gingrich is a loose canon. At some point he's going to explode and then Santorum will be clear. And once it's Santorum vs Romney then surely he'll be home and dry. Unless, of course, Ron Paul has money to throw down the drain.