Topics at Thanksgiving Dinner (Not Introduced By Me)

Anglican chant.
The present and historical importance of Benedictine spirituality in the Episcopal Church and in Anglican churches generally.
The necessity of theology by holding Scripture, reason, and tradition in dialectical tension ala Richard Hooker.
Various parts of the Hymnal including S288 and 365. Etc.

The host was a very senior professor in my department who just happens to have a daughter who is an Episcopalian and a connexion who is a retired priest.

So it was a fun afternoon, stuffing, pie, and all.

Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!

And the name of the Apostolic Constitution is:

Anglicanorum coetibus

I originally read it as Anglicanorum coitibus. I'd wager someone in the Vatican chancery had the same thought.

Creator and Redeemer of All the Worlds Redux

Lee of Thinking Reed posts about an astrobiology conference at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

You may remember a piece I wrote a few years ago on the subject of this conference . You also may have seen ABC's remake of V, in which the Vatican (presumably infiltrated by the aliens) immediately welcomes Anna and her vast cohort with open arms.

A couple of points from the Washington Post article Lee links are worth fleshing out:

"I think the discovery of a second genesis would be of enormous spiritual significance," says Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist from Arizona State University who is speaking at the Vatican conference. He believes the potential challenge to Christianity in particular "is being downplayed" by religious leaders.

"The real threat would come from the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, because if there are beings elsewhere in the universe, then Christians, they're in this horrible bind. They believe that God became incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ in order to save humankind, not dolphins or chimpanzees or little green men on other planets."

Davies explained the tensions within the Catholic Church: "If you look back at the history of Christian debate on this, it divides into two camps. There are those that believe that it is human destiny to bring salvation to the aliens, and those who believe in multiple incarnations," he said, referencing the belief that Christ could have appeared on other planets at other times. "The multiple incarnations is a heresy in Catholicism." (As Giordano Bruno learned.)

This is one of those situations in which the Creeds send us for a loop. For we proclaim, "δι’ ού τά πάντα εγένετο (through him all things were made)" but then say, "όν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών (for us human beings and for our salvation he came down from heaven)." Those who debated the Christian faith in the 4th century simply had no conception of a heavens filled with Earths. Yet the basic proclamation of the Gospel to us is clear. The defining characteristic of the Christian revelation is the Incarnation, the one through whom all things were made emptying himself and becoming a very small part of creation. The widest proclamation of the Great Commission is probably the oldest: that the Gospel be proclaimed to every ktisis created being. That the fullness of creation receive the message of the Creator. In that case, there is no need for another Incarnation, for a human to an alien to intelligent cetaceans are just as irrelevantly different in the economy of salvation as the Jew and the Gentile. The deciding factor in the operation of grace as we know it is that of Abraham whose faith the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was reckoned to him as righteousness. Lee is correct that aliens without religion would be a troubling scenario, since we are not always kind to the creatures among us whose capability for faith in God we cannot discern.

But, of course, there is another opinion in the article:

Many Protestant scholars agree with Funes, saying that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would not pose a major challenge to their faith or theology, especially if it was not intelligent or morally aware. But on the evangelical side, there is a deep concern, one reminiscent of the battles over evolution. "My theological perspective is that E.T. life would actually make a mockery of the very reason Christ came to die for our sins, for our redemption," Gary Bates, head of Atlanta-based Creation Ministries International, told me recently in a critique of the Vatican conference. Bates believes that "the entire focus of creation is mankind on this Earth" and that intelligent, morally aware extraterrestrial life would undermine that view and belief in the incarnation, resurrection and redemption drama so central to the faith. "It is a huge problem that many Christians have not really thought about," he said.

To some extent, you can read the Scriptures to support a very geocentric position on the acts of God. The sun, moon, and stars are described in Genesis, "as signs both for festivals and for seasons and years." The Psalmist has a somewhat different opinion, "When I consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars you have set in their courses, What is man that you should be mindful of him?" (Psalm 8). This Psalm is Christological. The exalted human compared to the vastness of the heavens is Jesus Christ, the one through whom all things were made. But the exaltation of Jesus or the kenosis of God the Son in human flesh is an act of randomness. Why humans? Why Abraham? The freedom of God is to relate to anyone He chooses. Moreover, the Psalmist tells us, "Yours is the day, O God, yours also the night; you established the moon and the sun. You fixed the boundaries of the earth; you made both summer and winter" (Psalm 74). I just can't read this without seeing this as an acknowledgment of God's dominion being exercised through physical law. And yet these same physical laws could allow for other habitable planets, even intelligence. Like Leviathan, who knows what God has made for the sport of it.

Gary Bates's position reminds me of the speech to Job out of the whirlwind. You can imagine Bates encountering an extraterrestrial at the resurrection of the body and asking God to explain himself, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" Don't you know how the universe works? The basis of "biblical creationism" lies in a theological view that cannot deal with the universe that God created: that makes their faith in the Creator dependent on the nature of the creation. Biblical literalism or inerrancy can be an idol as thrilling like any of the Amorites. I suspect that Bates thinks if Christians did think about it, they would attack the effort to find out the truth. This is dangerous error. Truly living under the government of God means accepting the creation that has been given to us and opening ourselves to the possibility that God's love is wide enough for all created beings.

From Another End of My Diocese

I decided to take a look at what's been going on "John 1:5" lately.

Here's an excerpt from a reply to someone angry about the Church of the Blessed Sacrament's decision to be a parish with some members under DEPO of Bishop +Ed Little (including the clergy I would presume) and some under ACNA The very idea of doing something like this is so astoundingly creative (and beats the alternative) that you all should know about it.

Moreover, the sloganistic words “diversity” and “inclusivity” have little or nothing to do with the Christian faith of the New Testament, which is the foundation of our life. Diversity and inclusivity are valuable principles only when they are expressive of the much richer and deeper Christian virtues of firm adherence without compromise to revealed truth, lived out in powerful charity. When these convictions are held, then “diversity” and “inclusivity” do not need to be mentioned, for they are already being done. I don’t think you can even find these words in the New Testament—you find much more powerful and richer words than “diversity” and “inclusivity”. How can one be more inclusive than to “preach the Gospel to every creature”? When one is committed to preaching to every creature, one doesn’t have to repeat how “inclusive” one is being. The very appellation “Evangelical” requires “inclusivity”. And how can one be more diverse than “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female—you are all one in Christ Jesus”? Being incorporated into Christ does not obliterate or ignore these real differences, but rather affirms the uniqueness and value of each believer and revels in the differences that make up the one Body. The very appellation “Catholic” requires “diversity”.

The attraction of the progressive tendency in the Episcopal Church these days is that I find more room there than anywhere else to discern how the promise of God in Jesus Christ along these lines can be genuinely realized. I worry that we may be led into self-idolatry if it goes too far. But to borrow from Alister McGrath's analogy of Christian doctrine as a ship, there is bad wood in some parts of the ship that's causing illness and violence among the sailors. My love for the shipwrights will not blind me to the faults in the cabin walls. And anyone who says otherwise must be challenged just as much those who are trying to tear up the entire ship "to give us all some fresh air."

Excerpts from Paul the Deacon

Derek was nice enough to post a chapter of his dissertation discussing the important influence Paul the Deacon had on the medieval church in the West.

I found out he was a poet and was curious what he wrote. I have mixed feelings on Carolingian poetry. I like their hymnody, e.g. a solis ortus cardine , but I found Alcuin rather bizarre. I think I like Paul the Deacon.

For those who don't read Latin, here is a very little taste: (I don't believe in dry or literal translations for poetry)

From his verses to Peter the Grammarian
"I am compared to Homer, Horace, and Vergil/ I am more a rhetorician or a hack philosopher/ But you, O man of Verona rate with Tibullus."

"I don't know even a little Greek, forget Hebrew/ Three or four on the faculty have taught me a few words/ The little I've gleaned is all I bring to the threshing floor."

Thank You For Your Prayers

I just wanted to thank you all for your prayers for my late grandmother and my family. I've been mostly on the road this past week, so I'm understandably not up to writing about much. But I thought you might enjoy this Pandagon conversation about tipping , which raises some very interesting issues, not the least how I think the strong Sabbatarian streak in American Protestants is reflected in some of our behavior at Sunday lunch.

Breaking Silence

I am the third of the dissertating trio in this little section of the blogosphere, and while Christopher and Derek seem to be over the hump, I am still very much in the thick of it. I smell very much of camel. Therefore, I really haven't been thinking much about the usual matters of this blog. I enjoy reading Haligweorc , The Topmost Apple , Thanksgiving in All Things , and Culture Choc . Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the wonders of the world beyond my computer screen.

Could I beg a favor of you? Could you pray for my grandmother and my family. My grandmother is between life and death at the moment. If you ever wonder why I read appear to read so widely, you can trace it to my grandmother, from whom I inherited (through my mother) my voracious appetite for good books of all kinds.

Responding to C056: Seeing the Grace Among Us

Note: Apparently, the House of Deputies has yet to approve C056. It will take up the legislation this morning.

Well, it's happened. Every three years, General Convention is asked to approve liturgies for "same-sex blessings" or approve the drafting of such liturgies for further study. Finally, in 2009, we have C056, which says:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call for a renewed pastoral response from this Church and for an open procession for the consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Convention for further action; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church, and be it further

Resolved that this convention continue to honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality and be it further

Resolved that member of this church be encourage to engage in this effort.

In other words, General Convention has authorized me and every other Episcopalian to reflect on "the blessing of same gender relationships." So I am going to do just that.

Recently, the Diocese of Niagara in the Anglican Church of Canada posted their trial liturgy for such blessings on their web site. I remember skimming this liturgy and thinking something to the effect of "I might have to stifle laughter frequently during the ceremony." Derek quotes some gifted reader as saying,

"I believe their new liturgy is the absolute quintessence of everything that is wrong with liberal
Anglican liturgics. It’s so supernally bad, abysmally written, and theologically horrifying that if I were a gay man in the Diocese of Niagara contemplating marriage, I might throw myself over the falls in despair. It’s no wonder that so many anti-inclusion Anglicans see inclusivity as the path by which the Anglican Churches will abandon their fidelity to the Creeds and to the theology of the Prayerbook.

I currently attend the parish in the Anglican Communion that has been blessing same gender unions the longest (nearly two decades). I once attended such a liturgy, which resembled a wedding of two sensible straight people beyond childbearing age with a slight shift of pronouns from the 1979 BCP (well as faithful as my parish ever is to the Liturgy of this Church). Louis and Ernest Crew (though much younger) apparently used the 1928 BCP.

From these anecdotes, I think the blessing of same gender unions is likely to go one of two ways. Either liturgies will be developed that showcase the descent of Anglican liturgics further and further toward Unitarianism or pop paganism, because someone will think that living in a homosexual relationship is apostasy anyway (they'll say "progressive" or something rather than apostasy, but let the reader understand) or someone will alter the Marriage liturgy decently and in good order.

The first essentially denies a same gender union a Christian character or at least a Trinitarian one. The second says that a same gender union is the same as an opposite gender union in terms of Christian theology.

I can't find the quote at the moment, but someone (I think on Thinking Anglicans) said something to the effect of, "Anglicans bless fishing boats and dogs but not the love [between two people of the same gender]"

From a theological perspective, the blessings of the Church fall into three categories. Fishing boats and dogs fall into a category that probably should be called sacramentals . The Roman Catholics use this name for any ritual outside of those necessary for the efficacy of the Sacraments. So sprinkling holy water or praying over someone in general is a sacramental. (The Methodists call our next category sacramentals, but I'm a High Churchman and prefer the Roman usage.) The Scriptural warrant for the fishing boat/dog type of sacramental is 1 Timothy 4:4-5. The Apostle says, "For every thing created by God is good and nothing to be refused, if received in thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." Except for the fact that Paul is knocking kashrut, this is very Jewish approach to the world. And so a sacramental reminds us of the goodness of each created being and the whole of creation and their utility to the Kingdom when used by members of the Kingdom. But beyond this, a sacramental has no particular theological significance. A scientist might call a sacramental relevant to Christian life on short timescales: the sanctification of the little things of daily life.

Marriage in Anglican theology falls into a second category defined by the Articles of Religion as, "states of life allowed in the Scriptures...for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." (Article XXV). In true High Church fashion, I regard these as Sacraments not of the Gospel or commonly called Sacraments, as the Article saith. These are important on scale of our natural lives. They aren't necessary to salvation. No one need use them. But they are the standard forms of care for great changes and long timescales in our life. For some, they can serve to deepen the work of God within us and our communities. The Apostle says of some women that they will be saved through their children. He was arguing against marriage at that time (on prudential grounds), but this comment shows he recognized that the raising of children could be means of relating to God. In fact, it's a good example of how our relating to God more deeply is very often couched as mimesis . By relating to our own children, we understand how God tries to relate to us. Something I often hear from parents who want to baptize their children is that they hear the words of the Father to Jesus in his baptism and want to say this with God to their own children.

The 1662 BCP says of Marriage (or the Solemnization of Matrimony):

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

The first part is interesting in that it does everything but say that Matrimony is a Sacrament. It is instead an "estate", a thing in which to stand, to be stable. Thus if I may dispense with explaining the eternal nature, relevance, and necessity of the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism, Anglican theology recognizes three means or forms of blessing: sacramentals, estates, and Sacraments. Of course, to be consistent, I guess sickness and/or wellness are estates as well to include Unction, but anyone who has been sick or especially chronically ill might appreciate that there is a particular form of blessing and care for that estate. (Penance is for for spiritual illness after all. Hmmm...)

I think the blessing of a same gender union ideally is the blessing of an estate, a particular and not universal need. Like Penance (or Matrimony for that matter), all may, some should, and none must. The question is whether the estate of a same gender union is Matrimony or not. I would argue from the 1662 BCP that it isn't for the very reasons that opponents of homosexual love in general might use. Same gender unions don't arise from the primal union of Adam and Eve. Jesus didn't go to a gay wedding in Cana. Most obviously, same gender unions do not signify to us the mystical union between Christ and His Church. Nor could a gay couple procreate (using their own resources) for most of human history. Matrimony arises from Scriptural witness that connects male-female romantic love with the relationship between God and the covenant people. Matrimony is a mimetic exercise with distinct obligations of the partners. In former times, theologians often emphasized the New Covenant role of the husband and the Old Covenant role of the wife: sacrifice for one, obedience for the other. In modern times, we're having a lot of trouble dealing with gender complementarity, gender roles, equality between men and women in all spheres and life, the evils of patriarchy, and a past in which the equal status of men and women in Jesus Christ and elsewhere was denied. Yet even in this more egalitarian age, I think New Covenant role of a wife requires serious reflection. If a wife is supposed to imitate the Church, I think that could mean something quite different in the present era. But maybe I'll figure out what that is if I ever get married.

In our era, I think the confusion of same gender unions with "the way of a man with a maid" (or at least the lawful way) is logical. Matrimony has become egalitarian, so the notion that husband and wife might have distinct mystical significance and roles in a marriage seems old-fashioned, backward, and dangerous. So let me tell you a story. My mother was the first person in her particular white collar workplace not to leave when she had a child. I was very well taken care of when I was a baby. My parents worked different shifts. My mother ensured that I was fed the old-fashioned way using modern technology and the transfer of necessary nutriment took place when they changed shifts. My father recognized that the work my mother did was important to her flourishing (and possibly larger aims) and nobly inconvenienced himself in a variety of ways to make it happen. (I associate my father with household chores stereotypically associated with men and women). My mother realized that bringing me into the world was an important telos as well. In a world in which women try to be both mothers and active in the labor force (and often fail without support), I find the self-giving love of Christ for a Church pursuing actively his Reign to be quite palliative to the often falsely egalitarian modern marriages, in which husbands appreciate their wives' income (and children) but not the struggle that it takes to do it if relieving that struggle would hurt their own careers.

I suppose same gender unions could have that dynamic. In a lesbian relationship, one partner could have the kids, the other not. Surrogacy etc. allows all sorts of permutations with regards to reproduction, and I know the progeny of these relationships and think that they turned out very well. What worries me is that being gay or lesbian is a gift from God: an occurrence throughout the created order and thus the result of natural law. If God didn't give such a gift for a good and particular purpose, I think it would not be fitting, considering the prejudice humans show to those out of the mainstream in anything. I worry that we might try to incorporate gay and lesbian relationships into Matrimony, because we do not appreciate the unique charisms such relationships have in the Church and the world. How many times does a gay couple get asked, "Who's the woman?"? Well, from my reading of certain ancient texts, that's not how life-giving same-sex relationships work. To relate to someone in love of the same gender, you need to relate on the same level. The ancient world was obsessed with active and passive and violence and exploitation. That's not love. That's not a permanent and faithful union. That's not a mimesis of anything of things where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Part of our theological work with same gender unions must be about the unique charisms such relationships bring to the Church. This will be hard. In our discussions of civil marriage, we demand equality in all things, fearing that the equality of our citizenship depends on it. In the Church, we need not worry. Our equality lies in the Sacraments. But thinking about estates means thinking about gender distinctives or distinctives in gender relationality, the particularity of our creation, and how we participate in the divine life with one another. As I've written before, there's an eschatological hierarchy in all of this. A monk is in an estate. An anchorite is in an estate. And at the eschaton all estates end and merge into an estate in union with the Triune God.

I've argued before that the mimesis of same gender unions lies in the relationality of the members of the Body (with Christ as Head) or the members of the Trinity, following the ancient estate of adelpheia (signified through the rite of Adelphepoesis). But I'm open to any other ideas or arguments. In this time of theological reflection, I would urge us all to spend time in fellowship with faithful couples of all types in the Episcopal Church. See how unions solemnized by matrimony work. See how unions of two men or women work. See the gifts they bring to each other, the church, and the world. And then I urge brothers and sisters to pray on the how the life of God in relation to creation is reflected therein. Only then should the liturgizing begin.

P.S.: The rite *Christopher and his partner used is far and away the best I've seen. (Yes, I wrote part of it, but I only could write what I wrote because of the theological vision of the rite and its celebration of the unique charism of the union of two Godly men.) The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music needs to read it well before the next General Convention.

Two Hits

1. The title of our youth Christian Education hour today was, "The G.C. in the O.C.-I in You and You in Me."
Ubuntu==High Priestly Prayer in John.

2. The key mission question for TEC today: How can we be post-Evangelical?

The USA: Where Even the Extreme Right Are Modalists

I was reading Pandagon today, which was exposing the virulent "Biblically-based" homophobic rhetoric of Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern, including her "Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation for Morality." I then was surprised to see this Proclamation close with:

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, [emphasis mine] to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

For the record, Rep. Kern is married to an Independent Baptist minister. As in the case of many Episcopal priests, it is not known whether the formula used above is a mistaken attempt at inclusive Trinitarian language or intentional Modalism.

Postcards from the Edge

Well, at least postcards from thesis writing.

The current and former graduate students among my readers will know or remember that writing a thesis is alternately tedious and exhilarating in roughly equal proportions. Like Anastasia, I'll try to anonymize my subject matter as much as possible. My thesis mostly will be a series of journal articles on the air conditioning system of a nearby ball of rock that may or may not be red. Chapter 2 on momentous hot flashes has received decent reviews from my collaborators but still require substantial revision before it gets to the journal. Chapter 3 on the distribution of contaminants in the air conditioning system is mostly ready for others to read but in light of the comments on Chapter 2 probably should be revised. Chapter 4 on the origin of contamination in the air conditioning system in certain seasons is stuck on the part where I blame a form of contamination on Warner Bros' famed Tasmanian Devil. There may or may not be a Chapter 5 that is a broad overview of the air conditioning system, its seasonal variability in operational efficiency, and the general distribution of condensation and contaminants in the system. Yet whether there is a Chapter 5 or not, I still probably will be writing most of a paper on that subject. Unfortunately, I still feel very silly writing about the parts of the air conditioning system, some of which really don't have names in the literature. Yay, thesis! I just wish I could write for more than five hours per day without feeling entirely empty of cogent thoughts.

In other news, I have another round of baptismal preparation to help facilitate in July and also am helping out with a community-supported agriculture project. On this blog, I tend to complain bitterly about my parish, but I also should point out that the parish actually puts the same amount of energy into its service of others as it does into its iconoclasm. I'm not sure whether it is really prepared for our more energy-constrained future in some senses (Ionia's social safety net is not long for this world without a robust tech sector and the Asian trade), but we do seem to be working on efforts related to sustainability and community-building that may make life better for many of our neighbors even in the greater metropolitan area.

I was a groomsman at a wedding this weekend in the Midwest. I had a great time. The friend who was getting married is a Friend, but his bride was LCMS, so the ceremony was LCMS. I was moderately surprised at how egalitarian marriage liturgies can be even in the more confessional side of American Lutheranism and how very similar to the 1979 BCP. The hymn choices were wonderful. We sang both "Earth and All Stars" (physicist marries veterinarian...) and "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus!" But the best part of the wedding was how amazingly hospitable everyone was. (Oh, and I managed to see many old friends again...). Unfortunately, I also appear to be allergic to the Midwest during the summer or in general. I've long suspected this after a few interesting family vacations and four years of college, but I wish I knew why.

In a few weeks, General Convention 2009 meets in Disneyland. I'm not kidding. I'm not planning on going to GC, but I did work out the two trains and a bus I'd need to get there. Given the hubbub about the K.T. Forrester election, I am curious how heated "The Happiest Place on Earth" might become if the different "revisionist" factions in the Church start fighting each other. My advice to delegates: Go to Knotts Berry Farm. It's cheaper and at least as fun. My advice for everyone else: see p. 818.

Aaargh!!!!

Aargh!!!!!

What kind of ceremony? Reception? Bishop Frade surely realizes that the reception of a priest not laicized licenses that priest in the Episcopal Church. See this helpful guide to procedures in the Diocese of New York.

Is this a good idea? Yes, I know Archbishop Cranmer married while under a vow of celibacy.

Note: toni2701 points out that Fr. Cutie was received as a layman. Episcopal canon law apparently puts additional hurdles to the primitive church in this respect, though frankly the primitive church really never contemplated these kinds of transfers. See Article VIII of the Constitution and Canon III.10.3. But I find it interesting that the Diocese of New York does not mention reception until Step 22.

Um, Ordination Vows...

I was reading a story this morning from the Miami Herald, in which the Archdiocese of Miami's young, attractive head of radio programming (a priest) has been revealed to be violating his ordination vow of celibacy. On one hand, I think the celibacy requirement for priests in the Latin Rite arises from reasons other than eunuchhood in anticipation for the eschaton and may displease God thereby. On the other hand, Roman Catholic priests take a solemn vow to be celibate and if they stray, all catholic Christians should encourage and support them to repent and return to the Lord for breaking the vow. Apparently, Episcopal bishops think otherwise:

On Wednesday, the Episcopal Church, which allows married priests, offered Cutié another option.

''He is welcome in our church,'' Bishop Leo Frade of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida said in an interview. Frade said the church has young priests who date and about five former Catholic priests. ''For us, a single guy on the beach with his girlfriend is no problem. Episcopalians look at this and scratch their heads.'' Experts say violating the celibacy vow doesn't necessarily end a priest's career.

When we have a supposedly conservative Episcopal bishop taking someone else's ordination vows so lightly, we have a serious problem.

Edited to reflect we confused Bishop Frade with some other bishop.

Notes on the Holy Saturday Liturgy

Oh, most neglected Office of Holy Saturday! Weird break between Good Friday and Easter Vigil, when we've all tired of prayer...

OK. Forgive my humor. I understand completely why Holy Saturday pretty much has been neglected (at least in the West) through most of Christian history. The clergy need a break. The sanctuary needs to prepared for joy. Sweet-smelling flowers need to be placed. The organist needs to practice. The choir needs to practice. Everyone needs to get ready. Panic ensues. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a brief 20 minute lay-led liturgy to get us settled into these preparations and ground us once more in the work of the Lord? So I include these suggestions for modifications of the Holy Saturday liturgy as it is written in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. > Note also we're not the only ones who experience Holy Saturday fatigue . (And the Orthodox liturgy is so awesome.)

First, while the Ambrosian Missal has a special liturgy of the Word for this reason, I see good reason to put the Holy Saturday liturgy into the Daily Office framework, just make it a little different. Imagine that the living and created world is without the Word who animates all being. In the unseen realm of Sheol, things are happening, but in ordinary creation, things have become topsy-turvy. And thus the Opening Sentence should be:

"If I say, 'Surely the darkness will cover me, and the light around me turn to night', darkness is not dark to thee, O Lord; the night is as bright as the day; darkness and light to thee are both alike."

Three years ago, I was asked to say Morning Prayer on Holy Saturday. I thought, "What should the Opening Sentence be?" And this came to me. Then a few months later, I noticed this was one of the Opening Sentences for Evening Prayer!

Invitatory Psalm? I recommend this be out of the ordinary, too. At Evening Prayer in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the office begins with the priest saying Psalm 104 before the closed doors of the tabernacle. In this tradition, Psalm 104 is the Adamic hymn of thanksgiving to God (probably after the expulsion from the Garden). It is a hymn of joy in the wonders of God's creation and their benefits for us. As an Evening Invitatory Psalm, its use again reinforces the topsy-turvy nature of this day. As the Adamic song of thanksgiving, it might have been a likely greeting when Adam imprisoned in Sheol saw the Lord among the dead. (If Athanasius is correct, Jesus and Adam would have looked very much alike I presume or might have seen each other in Eden.)

The Psalter. The BCP says 130. I prefer 139, which proclaims the presence of the Lord in the grave.

The readings. I use two: The OT is Job 14:1-14 in the BCP. I think verse 15 completes the thought, "You would summon me, and I would answer: you would long to see the creature you have made." The NT suggested by the BCP is 1 Peter 4:1-8. I don't agree. I find this part of 1 Peter a little too much about uplifting ourselves above our non-Christian fellow creatures. The ancient Epistle for the day is 1 Peter 3:17-22. I didn't know this but chose to read it today because of how much I dislike the beginning of chapter 4. One of the interesting parts of 3:17-22 is the connection of the symbolism of Baptism to the flood and to Jesus' oblation on the cross, which I find appropriately edifying in anticipation of Easter Vigil. But this passage is also meaningful in that it talks about those to whom Jesus preached. We often think of the Harrowing of Hell in terms of the liberation of Adam and Eve and the prophets (though some of them entered Paradise in the body). Peter writes of the wicked and disobedient who were drowned in the flood being evangelized by Christ. This is a beautiful reversal of Jewish tradition, for it says in the Mishnah , possible in the tractate on Pesach, "the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Wilderness have no portion in the world to come." Yet we hear that Jesus came especially to the dead to give these a portion in the world to come.

The Prayers:
Never know what to do. Possibly, "In the midst of life, we are in death (p. 484)" to replace the versicles and the responses. Its use is suggested by the BCP.

Holy Saturday needs a hymn. I sang Pange Lingua , because I hadn't yet. The Orthodox apparently sing, "All mortal flesh keep silence" especially on this day. Sounds good to me.

So those are my thoughts.

I also had a weird Good Friday thought. Mark 15:37 says of Jesus, "ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν." That is, "And then Jesus with a great cry sent forth his spirit". Great cry and sent forth his spirit are a chiasmus: "sent cry great spirit." So Mark means the sending forth of the spirit and the "great cry" to be intimately connected. I didn't think of this until I was reading a Latin anthem at Tenebrae last night, but Psalm 104:30 is ,"ἐξαποστελεῖς τὸ πνεῦμά σου καὶ κτισθήσονται καὶ ἀνακαινιεῖς τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς" in the Septuagint. "You send forth your spirit and they are created and so you renew the life of the world." It's effectively the same Greek, except that the ἐξ has jumped from send to spirit. I don't know enough Greek to know if putting the preposition on the noun in this case is unusual or significant, but it does suggest that Mark's Gospel puts the Word on the Cross, "sending forth his spirit with a cry," just like God in creation.

One last note: Athanasius and whomever he was quoting in his treatise on the Psalms insist Psalm 66 is about the Resurrection. as if it were obvious. I don't see it. Can anyone help me?

Thoughts for the Day

One

"But if any honest Christian wants to know why He suffered death on the cross and not in some other way, we answer thus: in no other way was it expedient for us, indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good. He had come to bear the curse that lay on us; and how could He "become a curse" otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the cross, for it is written "Cursed is every one that hangeth on tree." Again, the death of the Lord is the ransom of all, and by it "the middle wall of partition" is broken down and the call of the Gentiles comes about. How could He have called us if He had not been crucified, for it is only on the cross that a man dies with arms outstretched? Here, again, we see the fitness of His death and of those outstretched arms: it was that He might draw His ancient people with the one and the Gentiles with the other, and join both together in Himself. Even so, He foretold the manner of His redeeming death, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Myself." --Athanasius, On the Incarnation

"The compelling similarities between the manners in which the scientific community generates and evaluates theories and the Christian community receives doctrines point to two fundamental theoretical issues which make the notion of 'heresy' an inevitability:

"The underdetermination of theory by evidence ... The dynamics of the reception of theory

... Once more, this model demands a book-length study, which is currently being pursued."


-- Alister McGrath, The Science of God

Founded on Jesus Christ?

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11

It's happening again. An Episcopal diocese has elected a bishop and stormclouds are swirling around the result. Is it a sign of growing maturity that the bishop's sexual orientation isn't the issue? I think not.

For information on the dispute, see Episcopal Cafe's current round-up .

Part of the dispute stems from the organizational framework of the Diocese since the mid 1980s, which emphasizes a concept called "Mutual Ministry." You'll note that I have intentionally linked to the Diocese's description of this framework. In theory, I like the idea of mutual ministry. Recently (while taking a break while writing draft chapters of my thesis...or published articles), I read Three Minute Theologian's online version of his book, Killing George Herbert . It's a tour de force on how defective present models of Anglican ministry are and finds considerable insight in reform from Bonhoeffer, Rowan Williams, and others. But the key problem of the book that most parishes are still somewhere in the leftmost two models of ministry described in the pyramid plots on the Northern Michigan page. Northern Michigan's aging and shrinking population has been forced toward a model of ministry that may have benefits for the wider church. The details can vary, however. Rather than calling this model uncatholic etc., let's use this dispute as an opportunity to learn from N. Michigan. Maybe, some sort of FAQ could be provided to Standing Committees. Does it concern me that the election was non-competitive? Of course. The Holy Spirit should be free to work in such cases, viz Pope Fabian. But the circumstances aren't yet clear.

Part of the dispute involves the Zen Buddhist practice of the Bishop-elect, Kevin Thew Forrester. In light of pagan and Muslim syncretism by Episcopal priests in recent years, we should ask whether the Buddhist principles Forrester embraces contradict Christian principles, as is quite clear in the former two cases, which imply worship of the asheroth /erotoliturgical expression and denial of Jesus' divine equality with the Father in each case respectively. In both of these cases, it's fairly clear that the foundation upon which these priests were building was not Jesus Christ, God of Israel and human being, crucified, died, and risen. I don't have enough the facts of the case to judge.

The final part of the dispute involves accusations of some of the exact liturgical abuses that go on in my parish most of the time, often to my vexation. There is a part of me that would like to Forrester's alleged total disregard for the authorized worship of the Church severely punished, considering he has been elected to an office of oversight in this matter. I feel especially tempted, knowing how these kinds of changes forced down a parish's throat can have serious consequences for the faith of the faithful. But I also know that some of these changes really can be healing for some people. I think it's more important for us to talk about why liturgical abuses go on and what effect they have and what processes liturgical change be implemented than punishing the abusive. Often the problem is one of ignorance rather than malice. Liturgical abusers need counseling, not punishment.

Keeping Your Lent on the Right Side of the Law

My officemate, a sometime Methodist, asked me what I was doing for Ash Wednesday. I mentioned that I had begun Lent with the Commination this morning, a sixteenth century thing, though I had used the seventeenth century version. I explain that its name derives from the Latin for threatening, so it involves a lot of threatening.

"[Caelius]", she says, "You're going to have to explain that."

"What do you mean?"

"You're not doing anything illegal, are you?"

Having determined what she meant, I responded, "Oh, no, it's entirely legal to threaten yourself."

The Monastery would like to wish you all a Holy Lent.

Abortion Is a Christological, Not a Patriarchal Issue

Amanda Marcotte briefly troubled my morning with this excerpt from a piece she wrote further quoted on Pandagon this morning.

The national conversation over abortion feels like war because it isn’t about abortion per se. It’s the most important battle in the struggle over the existence of the patriarchy. The dictionary defines patriarchy as, “a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.” This explains why abortion matters more than anything else--if we believe that “life” begins at conception, then the father gets all the credit for making children, and this in turn justifies male authority over women and official “ownership” of children. If we believe that “life” begins at some other point in fetal development, then the credit for new people goes to women, and patriarchal justifications dry up.

Could it be this baldly simple? Because if Christian motivation against abortion rests on these grounds, they seem ridiculous. Why deny women credit for the production of children?

In truth, Marcotte's words forced me to look back at Tertullian's De Anima , perhaps the most fundamental inspiration for the Roman Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception, where I encountered at Chapter 27:

Indeed (if I run the risk of offending modesty even, in my desire to prove the truth), I cannot help asking, whether we do not, in that very heat of extreme gratification when the generative fluid is ejected, feel that somewhat of our soul has gone from us? And do we not experience a faintness and prostration along with a dimness of sight? This, then, must be the soul-producing seed, which arises at once from the out-drip of the soul, just as that fluid is the body-producing seed which proceeds from the drainage of the flesh. Most true are the examples of the first creation. Adam's flesh was formed of clay. Now what is clay bug an excellent moisture, whence should spring the generating fluid? From the breath of God first came the soul. But what else is the breath of God than the vapour of the spirit, whence should spring that which we breathe out through the generative fluid? Forasmuch, therefore, as these two different and separate substances, the clay and the breath, combined at the first creation in forming the individual man, they then both amalgamated and mixed their proper seminal rudiments in one, and ever afterwards communicated to the human race the normal mode of its propagation, so that even now the two substances, although diverse from each other, flow forth simultaneously in a united channel; and finding their way together into their appointed seed-plot, they fertilize with their combined vigour the human fruit out of their respective natures. And inherent in this human product is his own seed, according to the process which has been ordained for every creature endowed with the functions of generation. Accordingly from the one (primeval) man comes the entire outflow and redundance of men's souls-nature proving herself true to the commandment of God, "Be fruitful, and multiply."

Thus, while Tertullian maintains through this work as I do that the act of breathing and ensoulment are simultaneous, ensoulment for him derives from the hot flush of our fathers' orgasms in direct line from Adam. Indeed, Tertullian argues with a logic not too dissimilar than that which Marcotte intuits from Christians today.

This is heresy. For what follows such logic but the anathemas of St. Gregory Nazianzen:

If anyone should assert that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a channel but was not fashioned in her, divinely because without the help of man and humanly because by the law of conception--he, too is godless."

But while Tertullian's view is incorrect in this light, since it is necessary that Christ's humanity in both body and soul be contributed by her in unity with the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, the exact mechanisms are not anything that late antiquity really was able to say much about, considering that the standard medical understanding of generation qua Tertullian is Aristotelian or Hippocratic with all sorts of assertions about hot and cold, dry and wet and a fairly male-centered view of the whole business. If Christianity had its first great philosophical stirrings post Watson and Crick, the cooperation (synergy) between the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit might have been easier to deal with or not.

And while I would like to believe that the burden of Anglican moral theology favors implantation in the uterine wall as the point of ensoulment and the convenience of holding also that this is perfectly synergistic in that the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary could breathe as one into the implanted Christ, the Pope is likely never to agree with me.

But from these kinds of issues, we see why abortion was of such great importance to the early Christians. Given the significance of unborn children in the birth narratives and thinking about the mechanics of how a child could grow in the womb as God and man, the eyes of faith only could be enlightened with the need to see a child as human at a very early stage of development beyond all contemporary knowledge and the need that children be preserved at that stage, since they, too, must be in the image of God. But these are the eyes of faith. Those outside the faith really only can see so far as Tertullian writes:

"Now, in such a question as this, no one can be so useful a teacher, judge, or witness, as the sex itself which is so intimately concerned. Give us your testimony, then, ye mothers, whether yet pregnant, or after delivery (let barren women and men keep silence),-the truth of your own nature is in question, the reality of your own suffering is the point to be decided. (Tell us, then, ) whether you feel in the embryo within you any vital force other than your own, with which your bowels tremble, your sides shake, your entire womb throbs, and the burden which oppresses you constantly changes its position? Are these movements a joy to you, and a positive removal of anxiety, as making you confident that your infant both possesses vitality and enjoys it? Or, should his restlessness cease, your first fear would be for him; and he would be aware of it within you, since he is disturbed at the novel sound; and you would crave for injurious diet, or would even loathe your food-all on his account; and then you and he, (in the closeness of your sympathy, ) would share together your common ailments-so far that with your contusions and bruises would he actually become marked,-whilst within you, and even on the selfsame parts of the body, taking to himself thus peremptorily the injuries of his mother!

.

Only so far and after so long of gestation does the law of nature permit a mother really to feel a life within her. But some of us forget this. We forget that pregnancy begins as a biological disturbance more than as a clear interaction, so we can't imagine why a woman
doesn't feel guilty about an early term abortion , because if we took the extreme position that she was a murderer, it would be very strange. She is the embryo's most intimate acquaintance, yet only knows it from chemistry and remote sensing. But she just may not see. It is often a belief in God who made both the visible and invisible things that can make us see the unseen things in the very depths of our nature.

But at the level of quickening, abortion is a human rights issue, for beyond the Bible-beating and the ultrasounds (or if they ever pass away) always will lie a kick, a beating, and a leaping in the womb: a life growing toward the atmosphere. It is impossible for me to contemplate who has the right to terminate an indubitable human life. And, yes, it's so much easier to fight for this life than the life of the addict, the homeless, the stateless, and the criminal. But it is hard to fight for one of these lives without fighting for them all.

Envelopes and Offices

1. So last year, the pledge envelopes were being distributed. But apparently, my pledge envelopes vanished down a rabbit hole. Oh well. But I was promised that new ones would be printed and sent to me. Last week, I received notice that I had a new envelope number to write on my checks and thanked me for "Going Green." Well, fine. I love doing things for the environment, even if involuntarily, but couldn't I have kept my beloved envelope number?

2. Derek and Christopher and Chris Tessone and Father John-Julian are discussing Office Reform. Let me add my two cents. I officiate publicly at three liturgies per year:

1. Morning Prayer at the Young Adult Retreat
2. Compline on Good Friday Night
3. Morning Prayer on Holy Saturday

I just received the Young Adult Retreat, informing me that Morning Prayer will be Rite One. Given consultation, I probably would have gone with Rite II, since I do like to use these occasions to popularize the Office. My standard routine is daily Morning Prayer at dear Josh Thomas's place with the General Thanksgiving and the Prayer of St. John Chrysostom added (sometimes with the original closing). This is the kind of Office I would promote to people my age. Sure, Josh's Canticle choices are informed by the 1979 BCP but he almost always keeps the NT Canticle steady as Magna et Mirabilia , which I think is wonderful and he keeps the OT Canticle in a rota (Saturdays are Benedicite Omnia Opera . The key is that Josh recognizes that the parochial office has a limited impact and tries to make prayer as accessible as possible, retaining almost all of the necessary and salutary elements. Look at his traffic feed sometimes. He's reaching the world with the way he presents the 1979 Office.

But if you want Rite One, I'll do it with the Confession, Benedicite Omnia Opera and Te Deum Laudamus , because that's how I roll.

Media Notes

I just saw the new movie directed by Darren Aronofsky, The Wrestler , starring Mickey Rourke. If I had to summarize the aesthetic of this movie, I would describe Marisa Tomei's character giving Mickey Rourke a lap dance as he documents the wounds of a long and successful career in professional wrestling. Tomei then says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." She notes she's quoting Passion of the Christ not Isaiah 53, but she gets the point. Randy "the Ram", nee Robin Ramsinski is a sacrificial victim of a sort, bearing the griefs of a world that can't bear forgiveness and the burden of unconditional love. The movie also has political undertones, pitting the heroic Dodge Ram-driving Ram against an African-American named Bob who wrestles as the Ayatollah, carrying Iranian flag as his cheap prop. In these less immediately Iranophobic times, Bob is a car dealer in Phoenix, but in the ring, the assaults on his body and his expressions of disdain for the American hero still stir up primitive and orgiastic emotions in a crowd whose ancestors loved bull-baiting and public executions. The Wrestler is a reminder that the ritualized violence of the past remains a very present part of modern life, whose only enemy is compassion for the Other and the villain. I also think Aronofsky gets a real kick that his title character's signature move is the Rambam.

NBC is desperately trying to hype its new show, Kings about a "modern monarchy." Here's the web site. Yes, it's true. Hollywood has so run out of ideas that they're updating I Samuel. Who has the rights to that anyway?

Two Words: Rhinestone Chasuble

And the sermon described forthcoming appearances of the preacher on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

But we sang St. Patrick's Breastplate at the Recessional, so I guess it was a good Sunday.

About That Incident in Tess of the D'Urbervilles

bls mentions in her post today the incident in Chapter XIV of Tess of the D'Urbervilles depicted in a BBC adaptation of the Thomas Hardy novel being shown on PBS last Sunday and this coming Sunday, in which Tess baptizes her dying baby Sorrow privately according to the form given in the Prayer Book, because her father has locked the house against the parson.

I'm afraid as far as I can tell that even in the era during which the novel is set, the parson was in the wrong to deny Sorrow burial in consecrated ground. Hardy unfortunately glosses over the parson's exact justification for his actions and the BBC production tries to fill in with a little hemming and hawing to imply that Tess could not be a lawful minister of Baptism, perhaps because she is a woman. The early 17th century canons of the Church of England do discourage private baptism, perhaps less for the theological grounds we would cite today (the importance of the local Christian community showing visible support for the incorporation of the child into the Body) than as a form of repression upon non-conformity. However, the ancient Patristic precedents support Tess. Some of these even allow baptism in the proper form of words by pagans and heretics to be valid Reading them more restrictively as the Roman Catholics do to exclude those baptizing in the correct form of words with heterodox beliefs concerning their meaning, Tess still would be empowered to baptize in extremis as was clearly the case. Renton and Robertson's Encyclopedia of the Laws of England quotes Bingham's Scholastical History of Baptism , "[The Church of England] forbids laymen or women by its laws to baptize: but if it be done in due form, she does not wholly disannul or order it to be repeated as entirely null and void." These authors also quote ecclesiastical law reports from as early as 1809 in support of this position, even allowing baptism by Dissenting ministers to be valid.

Hardy's account of the incident doesn't really give much insight into the priest's motivations, noting only that he was new to the parish and so not acquainted with the devout and reasonably well educated Tess (for a rural working class woman) or her unfortunate circumstances. His attitude may be punitive and malicious, treating Tess as a "loose woman" who locked him out of her house in the cold night while he was trying to do his duty and now expects him to believe she baptized the child according to the Prayer Book rite (which Hardy actually says she did). His attitude may stem from simple ignorance and the obligation to enforce his misunderstanding of canon law. After all, Tess does get him to admit "sinner to saint" that Sorrow is properly baptized. This rather misty business suggests that Hardy finds his Anglican clergymen easier to portray one dimensionally, whereby they may be more easily pilloried. But I think it's fair to say that situations like this easily could arise in a world where a poor rural woman could not be expected to have recourse to a canonist or even any kind of second opinion.

It's not a situation that could arise in TEC today, where emergency baptism is a little more clearly explicated in the Prayer Book and the funerary offices of the Church are more freely offered in recognition of the deep theological truth that even non-Christian human souls and bodies have kinship with the Triune God and are worthy of being put to rest with dignity and good order. But I suppose such things still depend on who the priest is.

New Year, New Blather

Or the same old...

Item the First: The Postulant designates me a Superior Scribbler. I thank him but realize that all memes of this type generally die here.

Item the Second: I had a month of blog silence there. It's been a rather hectic couple of months, involving three transcontinental round-trips (well, come next week) and one intercity train journey. In that time, I've attended three services of Lessons and Carols, all somewhat different. I've also been to two conferences and presented two talks and two posters. I've seen the Wren Chapel at William and Mary, where services are far more rubrically proper than I've seen in a long time. Reflecting on this busy time, I realize that I must have been having a lot of fun, but it was intensely exhausting.

Item the Third: In the new year, I have a thesis to write. Being single and childless, this is easier for me than others we know. But I'm also going to try to learn to drive and get a job during the same period. So will there be long periods of blog silence in the new year? As events warrant.

Item the Fourth: The anonymized title of my thesis is Flying Particles of Nanophase Iron Oxides and the Boreal Spring and Summer Weather of a Cold, Desert Planet. Take that, Google.

Item the Fifth: James Howard Kunstler's predictions for the new year include multiple families living in suburban housing, farming organic gardens. Some of these families will become a new servant class to replace our broken service economy. In addition, the Federal Government, who is the ultimate source of compensation in my current future, will become gradually insolvent. Living in a state with thousands of vacant units of suburban housing, a potential water shortage that will pit the needs of the nation's fruit basket and my thirsty metropolitan area, bonds that cannot be floated, and a treasury that will be insolvent before the lions of March come calling, I say that Kunstler's future is looking plausible indeed.

Item the Sixth: I am currently reading Don DeLillo's Underworld , which might be called an American Foucault's Pendulum thematically, but proves quite convincingly why Europeans don't respect our authors come Nobel time. I should write about this more later.

Item the Seventh: I disagree somewhat with bls about Slumdog Millionaire but only because I suspect my cinematic standards have been warped by the subpar offerings of the last year. But I disagree with any claims that it is the "best movie ever." It will be Oscar-competitive, but it has its faults, especially in how it presumes knowledge of the complex religious politics of Mumbai and the surrounding state, which is important for understanding the early scenes. In other news, did you know that Sony Pictures is making Bollywood movies now? I hope they show some of them in the United States.

Happy New Year!