Lessons about Blogger

Today I learned the hard way that, when writing a long post, one must always write it offline, or else post and then publish. I had decided to try a "how did my day go" sort of post about yesterday. As soon as I'd gotten it all written up - the current state of the Salonika Yizkor book translation project, the coworker who is now in the hospital for a sex change operation (about the only thing going on at work that I could think of worth writing about), the Cavafy poems I was looking at, the discussion on IRC about the diary of a porn video store clerk (see our main blog page for the link), the cat book, and trying to prepare for a Bible study on the Sermon on the Mount, I hit post and publish, saw myself disconnect from the network, and my entire post disappear into oblivion. I'm not going to try to reconstruct it; you'll just have to imagine it. I don't lead all that exciting a life, anyway. I'll probably write about those Cavafy poems later though, and also about the Sermon on the Mount, though it may be a bit before I get back to either.

Blog-a-thon

I have to say my favorite Blog-a-thon participant so far is Pulp Friction. Cool parodies.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 9:22 PM

Psalm 55

"Were it an enemy who insulted me, I could put up with that; had a rival got the better of me, I could hide from him."

"But you, a man of my own rank, a colleague and a friend, to whom sweet conversation bound me, in the house of God!"

What strikes me in reading this is how specific the Psalms can be about the trials encountered by the authors. It's not just a bland request for God's help, or expression of neediness. It's a very personal complaint: betrayal by a close friend. Often I find myself more abstract in my prayer life, as if I don't quite dare to lay out my real desires, in all their gory detail. Only in a moment of crisis - a family member in the hospital, perhaps - does that reserve break down.

I looked at Forward Day By Day for today, and the author for this quarter picked, from the day's lectionary readings, the same part of Psalm 55 to reflect on, but he had a different thought: the memory of how sweet alcohol and drugs had seemed to him, while they ruined his life. Another kind of "friend" that can betray you.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 9:06 PM

Looks like I'm not an addict

6.25 %

My weblog owns 6.25 % of me.
Does your weblog own you?

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 12:07 PM

More on the new Archbishop of Canterbury

Anne Wilson posted a few links, which I will shamelessly steal. The first is an article (which people have been discussing on several blogs), in which Rowan Williams talks about "the corruption and premature sexualisation of children by a consumer society, singling out the Disney Corporation, talent shows and computer games for particular criticism." The second is an item at the web site of the Society for Protection of Unborn Children, speaking of the Archbishop's lifetime membership and "positive pro-life views." In addition, the Telegraph reports that the incoming Archbishop is being accused, by evangelical Anglicans, of idolatry for appearing to condone praying to Mary in his book Ponder These Things: Praying with Icons of the Virgin, and the Guardian publishes The new head of the Anglican church ... in his own words, an article which relates some of the Archbishop's words on war and retaliation, homosexuality, consumerism, the failure of secularism, abortion, the Queen, being archbishop, and women bishops. Several letters to the Guardian discuss what Rowan Williams' first tasks should be.

Meanwhile, in non-Archbishop-related Anglican Communion news, Christopher Johnson comments on the report of the International Anglican Conversations on Human Sexuality.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 11:28 AM

Lauds

I tried reading Lauds this morning, over at Universalis, and here is something that struck me, from Ezekiel 36:

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you.

I will take the stone heart from your breast and put a heart of flesh in its place.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 10:46 AM

AIDS in Uganda

Orrin Judd, Antioch Road and Jody both comment on the Uganda AIDS success story. So I went to Medscape to see what articles I could find. Here is a Reuters medical news article on AIDS control in Uganda, and here is a conference report on HAART and Prevention of HIV Transmissionm both published this month.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 12:52 AM

Condoms

Jody's views on sexual morality are not mine. I don't mean the business of his being gay; it's simply that he's expressed pretty much a hands off attitude on what consenting adults do in private, and I believe that, whatever consenting adults should legally be entitled to do, a Christian ideal of sexuality should involve a fuller connection with your partner than simple consent.

But Jody is dead right about the medical facts about condoms. They work. They make a difference. Not 100% difference, sure, but enough of a difference that, by any rational medical standard, people who aren't choosing a monogamous relationship with someone known to be HIV negative would be pretty darn well advised to use them. It does Christianity no service to pretend otherwise, and to talk as if condoms were thoroughly worthless.

Any case for chastity is better built on other arguments than the worthlessness of condoms.

Canon 220 and lashon hara

Somewhere in the comments on Amy Welborn's blog (scroll down to the article on July 24th about Bishop McCarthy being told to sell his house and find some bishop willing to take him in under supervision), someone brought up Canon 220, which I hadn't heard of before. Evidently, this is a part of Roman Catholic canon law which says you should be careful of another person's reputation: don't say bad things about other people that aren't true (naturally), that you're not sure of, but also even if they are true, unless you have a compelling reason.

I can see where this kind of rule could be either really cool or really bad, depending on just how compelling people think the reason has to be before someone's genuine misdeeds can be revealed. In the midst of the current scandals, where priests were in some cases shuffled to new congregations without anyone in their new parishes being told that they were serial child molesters, the potential downside is pretty obvious. On the other hand, given better sense about when a reputation (whether of an individual or of the church) shouldn't be weighed more highly than other people's need to know, I can see where this kind of thing could be in the spirit of Christian discipline set forth in Matthew, and of avoiding destructive gossip.

Anyway, what particularly struck me about Canon 220 was its correspondence to the Jewish concept of "lashon hara," which means, basically, negative gossip about someone else, whether true or false. Here is a web site which discusses lashon hara, which you can compare and contrast with Canon 220 (I'm not sure where to find Canon 220, but I expect it is on the Web).

Muslim immigrants

What can I say about a story like this one, linked to by Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan quotes from a passage in the article in which a professor argues that '"Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative" and that "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."' So, shall I fear multiculturalism gone insane, defending in Muslim immigrants what would be indefensible in anyone else? Or yet another in a flood of accounts, from one person or another, aimed to convince me that Islam is dangerous and bad? Perhaps both?

Whether Islam is a religion of peace is up to Muslims, of course. It does no good my lecturing about it, one way or another. But I appreciate the Sufis I've encountered (even Anne Wilson, who is often critical of Islam on her blog, appears to agree that Sufis show a more positive side of Islam); I appreciate my friends from Turkey and Iran; I know a sufficient number of Muslims (from the devout to the nominal believers) who are not any kind of threat to me. This may be, as the above mentioned article suggests, because Muslims and non-Muslims are better integrated in the US than they are in countries like the Netherlands and Norway. Not living in the Netherlands or Norway, I can't say. But it does mean we can live peaceably. For that reason, it's important to me not to focus only on the negative side of Islam.

I forget what horrific custom was under debate. Female circumcision? Some other form of oppression of women. Whatever it was, Basalat was adamant that this thing had nothing to do with Islam, and his Western interlocutor was equally adamant that Islam demanded it. Finally, Basalat said, "You are trying to convince me that Islam requires me to do this. Are you sure you want that on your conscience?"

I don't want on my conscience any such thing.

So, how do I show respect to my Muslim neighbors without falling into the kind of multiculturalism gone wild that Andrew Sullivan is raising as a danger? To me it seems simple. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. My clothes are, plainly, my affair, and, be my country ever so multicultural, nobody has any greater right to attack me for what I wear. They shouldn't even get to present it as a mitigating factor. That Norwegian professor quoted in the article is, therefore, full of it. But behavior, not identity, is the standard here.

Fantasy violence

The black robe and his party were in dire straits. Captured by Indians, they faced torture. And, as the gruesome scene continued to play, I found myself making my usual response to any disturbing movie scene. Pull back. Look away. Reassure myself. It's only a movie, after all. I am here, safe, in, um, Zagreb. In the middle of former Yugoslavia. In 1992. Right. OK, maybe not so safe.

I think of that moment, the moment when disengaging from the screen didn't work, sometimes, when I read discussion of fantasy violence (such as the discussion of the Matrix on my husband's blog). Usually it's all too easy to distance yourself. That's part of my fear, I suppose. That distancing myself, learning not to react too strongly to violence, could become too much a habit.

At the same time, some of the more valuable stories I know do involve violence. A net friend of mine likes to point to the stories of Dostoevsky. Take, for example, Crime and Punishment. Here is an unflinching account of a murderer in the context of a story which is clearly redemptive.

Another net friend of mine once compared modern horror stories with the ancient accounts of the martyrs. Both, he said, used horror and pity to reinforce conventional values. And I suppose it may be true, at least for a certain kind of horror story. Frankenstein and Dracula, at least, both in their different ways, have a distinct moral thrust. The movie Bless the Child has a clear Christian theme.

So, how does one strike a balance between a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach which avoids a real fictional encounter with what is wrong with the world, and spending so much time with fantasy violence that one becomes desensitized to it? I'm not sure.
posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 12:17 AM

Some time in the next few days I hope to have time to write more; in the meantime, here is a blogwatch:

A Christian worker in Bosnia

Stranger in a Strange Land is an interesting Christian blog that I found through Martin Roth's Christian blog list. Ellen Hampton writes about her experiences living and working in Bosnia. Today she writes about evangelizing through friendship, and the importance of not simply using the friendship as a "front" to get the message across.

More on Rowan Williams

Conservative Episcopalian blogger Christopher Johnson offers his take on Rowan Williams. I'd have to say I have a more positive impression of Rowan Williams, so far, than he seems to, but I did like his I Can't Believe It's Not Roman Catholicism!^TM term for the Anglican Communion. It reminds me of the last line of that "I Am an Anglican" song that my uncle likes to sing.

That Washington Post article on homosexuality and seminary formation

Father Rob Johansen has joined the discussion with a more critical view of the Washington Post article on Theological College.

Why Bother?

Some interesting discussion on why one would find it important to be Christian at Amy Welborn's blog, at Sursum Corda, and several other places.
posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 7:59 AM

More quiz results

Militant Feminist Quiz

I'm getting there. I don't suck, but I've got a ways to go.

They weren't kidding about the militant part. I don't think anyone would hit 100% on that one.

posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 9:31 PM

This time, I don't come out the same as Joel

You sometimes doubt yourself - who you are and what you can do. You're a curious person, with questions and concerns about the world. You go along with the crowd and aim to please others to your best ability. But when you finally discover what you're really capable of, you can do some serious ass kickin'! You're fast and furious, and you will always stick up for what you believe, and those who you care for. Not only that, but you're charming and charismatic, so you get along with people well, and others often look up to you.
posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 9:14 PM

More on Rowan Williams

Here are a few links to give more background on the new Archbishop of Canterbury:

The official Church of England announcement, including a biography of Rowan Williams

A press coverage summary from Anglicans Online

Several things come out in the press coverage. Rowan Williams is liberal on political issues (such as social justice issues and the arms trade), has supported the ordination of women, and is controversial because of his belief that committed homosexual relationships should not be a bar to ordination. But he is orthodox on traditional Christian doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Resurrection. As an editorial in the Telegraph puts it, "Unlike a former Bishop of Durham, he does not speak of 'a conjuring trick with bones' in the same breath as the Resurrection." He is intellectual (able to speak seven languages and lecture in five), but is still reported to have the common touch.

A Church Times article quotes various church leaders in praise of Rowan Williams, until now the Archbishop of Wales. Welsh Bishop Barry Morgan describes him as having "the spirituality of Michael Ramsey with the social conscience of William Temple," and the Revd John Walters, Vicar of Llandeilo Tal-y-bont, a former schoolmate and close friend, says, "There is a lovely story about when he was in the procession to receive his DPhil at Oxford, and a wino he knew hailed him. Rowan broke ranks and went over to speak to him, and said, ‘Sorry, I’m a bit busy now. I’ll see you later.’ There’s no arrogance about him."

Jane Williams, the wife of Rowan Williams, writes a Church Times column on this Sunday's readings. This week's column is a reflection on Romans 8:12-25, and learning to act as children, and not as slaves.
posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 8:21 AM

I'm expecting to be scarce on the blog this week, busy with regular offline life. I'm also working on a couple of book reviews for Ganesha's Library. In the meantime, here's just a few comments on matters under discussion on other blogs.

Rowan Williams named new Archbishop of Canterbury

Here's an article about it, link copied from Father Jim Tucker. Rowan Williams was the most liberal of the people being touted as leading candidates to succeed Archbishop Carey. I'll write more about both the outgoing and the incoming archbishop later this week.

AIDS epidemic in Africa, and muppets with diseases

Word in the World, commenting on the new HIV positive muppet (airing, evidently, only in South Africa), and the question of balancing Christian compassion with Christian truth telling, remarks that "the truth is, the agony of HIV and AIDS, in almost all cases, is a completely self-inflicted wound." I don't know, is it, really, even "in almost all cases?" Collectively, the AIDS epidemic is in many ways a self-inflicted wound - it would not be nearly as bad if people behaved differently - but is it, in a real sense, individually? I've read that in some parts of the world, for women, those who are married are at more risk of AIDS than those who are not. How much control do all of them have over whether their husbands are visiting prostitutes?

In any case, whatever the reason any given person is HIV positive, my feeling is this. I have no opinion about muppets with diseases, but I don't believe in moral judgments on diseases. Moral judgments on behavior (including sexual behavior), yes, but on diseases, no.

Homosexuality and seminary formation

Lots of commentary about this article, which makes a persuasive case that at least one Catholic seminary has, through silence and skittishness, failed to deal effectively with the formation of gay candidates for the priesthood. Bloggers commenting include Mike Hardy, Tony Adragna, David Morrison, and Steve Mattson. I lack confidence in my ability to link to everyone's archives, so in each case you can scroll to find the comments. What I liked both about the article and about the various blogger comments on it is that discussion is focusing on what I would consider the right place - which is not whether gay men should ever be priests, but rather whether priests are being given the kind of foundation they need for celibate life.

Those condoms at World Youth Day

Lots of bloggers commenting on the group which is handing out condoms to participants in World Youth Day. And, really, that action bugs me, too. It's not like this is a dire necessity to prevent disease. Any teenager old enough to travel to see the Pope in Canada has probably already heard about safe sex, has some spending money, and knows where to buy condoms, right? In countries like the US, after all, they're available in any grocery store. And if people are coming from countries which are truly condom deprived, being handed one or two while they are at World Youth Day won't make a whole lot of difference.

So the point of this particular exercise seems to be not that it's going to directly supply information and condoms to people who truly don't have it, but that it points out how unrealistic Vatican policies are. "Don't leave it up to your Guardian Angel." Now, if truth be told, I think Catholicism sometimes romanticizes sexual abstinence rather too much - particularly when it comes to promoting natural family planning (one good available option for married couples, fine, but I'm not convinced those abstinent periods are actually a marital boon). And I also believe in the free availability of condoms, and of information about safe sex.

But this kind of action, which seems to me to be suggesting that, first, Catholic youth are going to be having premarital sex, second, that they'll be having it during the few days they spend at World Youth Day (with strangers they barely know?), and third, that they can't be bothered to realize what they are doing and bring their own darn condoms - well, it seems to me like a rock bottom low level of faith in teenage behavior. Granted, in fact, some Catholic youth do have premarital sex. Evidently, so do some Catholic priests. But does that justify insulting all the ones who aren't having sex, who might possibly be taking Catholic teaching seriously?
posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax at 8:47 AM