Ship of Fools: Are Episcopalians stupid or gutless?

Thread: Are Episcopalians stupid or gutless? Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005653

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Our leaders are counting on it being one or the other.

The choir of the National Cathedral, an Episcopal church, will sing at the inauguration of the short-figered vulgarian, according to the St. Louis Dispatch on January 11. (Rather interestingly, the Episcopal Cafe didn't have the story till the next day.) The cathedral always holds a prayer service for the inauguration of a new president, and of course the choir will sing for that, but the dean has also accepted an invitation for the choir to sing during the prelude to the inauguration, a civic ceremony.

The Presiding Bishop's statement (also the day after the story appeared in the Dispatch) shows that he either can't or won't distinguish between between praying for the president and celebrating the ascendance of a craven fool to the highest office in the land. We're getting the same shit from the dean of the cathedral and the the Bishop of Washington. The priest who will be the next Bishop of Los Angeles, my bishop, has on Facebook quoted from the Presiding Bishop's statement without making his own comment; I take this as an endorsement.

The PB, the dean and the bishop-elect probably don't want to be seen as endorsing someone who clearly wouldn't recognize the Gospel if the angels Gabriel and Michael together came down to explain it to him, but they also don't want to piss off the supporters of the Mango Molester in the church either. But feeding us bullshit about how important it is to pray for the next president when the real question is whether the National Cathedral's choir should be sent to a civic ceremony to celebrate him is disgusting. Do they really think no one will notice the distinction? Or is it simply that the via media is nothing more than mealy-mouthed platitudes for people without the guts to take a stand?

Should we pray for the president? Of course. But should the choir of the National Cathedral sing for him? That's the question that these pusillanimous putzes won't answer.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

How about stupid and gutless?

Does the Cathedral get paid to let their choir sing at civil events? 30 pieces of silver is, I believe, the going rate.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

I assumed they'd be taking the opportunity to sing truth to power

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Do the members of the choir get a say in all of this or do they just have to do what they are told?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Do the members of the choir get a say in all of this or do they just have to do what they are told?

That provoked a thought in my mind: what would happen if the members simply refused to show up? Or (say) turned up, but with visible signs of protest at what they were being asked to do and who they were doing it for (if you see what I mean)?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

They should all wear pussy hats.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Depends what they're going to sing, surely?

If they were going to do something like this, then more power to their larynxs.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I suppose it might be argued that they're not really a quote unquote "National" Cathedral if they don't get involved in major civic occasions.

So much for separation of church and state.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Do the members of the choir get a say in all of this or do they just have to do what they are told?

I feel sorry for the choir being put in a position where they're at the centre of a storm like this. Whatever an individual choir member does now - do it or not do it - someone's going to hate them for it. I'm a singer and if I were one of them I would develop laryngitis right now.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Any form of prayer for the country especially regarding this inauguration is entirely valid.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

If they are going to sing The Magnificat, Go Down Moses and an anthem that compares the coming of The Holy Ghost to a "shower of gold" then more power to their elbows.

But I predict it will be some inoffensive guff by Howells.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Some setting of the Magnificat would be interesting.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Depends what they're going to sing, surely?

If they were going to do something like this, then more power to their larynxs.

For a not particularly Hellish take, I've opened a thread in Heaven for song suggestions to mark next week's unsealing of a scroll.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

But I predict it will be some inoffensive guff by Howells.

"Take Him Earth for Cherishing" maybe?

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

The band of the Coldstream Guards played the Imperial March from Star Wars for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he came to meet the queen.

Ba ha ha ha!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I would definitely go for the Magnificat, and then he could echo the legendary king of Sicily who demanded to know who had written such subversive stuff and claim it didn't apply to him.
Unfortunately, Gabriel would not then turn up to replace him and give him the post of court jester for a year.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
The band of the Coldstream Guards played the Imperial March from Star Wars for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he came to meet the queen.

Ba ha ha ha!

/tangent

That reminds me of the story that while waiting for King Edward VIII to make his speech on the radio, announcing his abdication, the band of the Welsh Guards played excepts from "The Merry Wives of Windsor".

//

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I am the author of the article (thanks to information from certain Shipmates who made me aware of the situation), she said, outing herself.

I don't see that there's any problem with the interfaith service. What bothers me, as an Episcopalian, is the way that church leaders are attempting to conflate the service with the secular entertainment.

A number of my questions were ignored by the NC's outside PR guy. What I really don't understand is why they wouldn't even tell me what they're going to sing. Seriously? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some setting of the Magnificat would be interesting.

A setting of Ps 79 would be much more pointed and appropriate.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Depends what they're going to sing, surely?

If they were going to do something like this, then more power to their larynxs.

How about "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Especially since Dear Leader used that (for some reason) at many of his campaign rallies.

I'm not sure how I would have decided if it were my call. This is, however, an opportunity for public witness to the Gospel. Should it be ceded to the charlatans and hatemongers who make up the list of "religious leaders" on the program? Cardinal Dolan, Franklin Graham, Paula Shite (I mean White)?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

By the way, here's a link to the final version of the article. The Episcopal Cafe went with the first version.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

One of the comments to the draft article linked to previously says it all. Noticer of misplaced modifiers that I am, ordinarily I would bristle at such a comment, but under the circumstances it rings ominously true. Church of Trump indeed.

quote:
To celebrate, to sing, to participate at this event is an endorsement by the official choir of our most prominent church of Trump.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I have just e-mailed the dean as follows:

quote:
Dear Dean Hollerith:

As an Episcopalian, I am more than dismayed by your decision to send the Cathedral choristers to perform at the inauguration of Donald Trump.

To pray that God may bestow wisdom and right judgment upon all our elected officials, including the President, is a good and noble thing. To acquiesce in the ascension to office of a man to whom Jesus would surely say, "Get behind me, I do not know you" is quite something else.

Please reconsider your decision before it is too late. Please tell the choristers that they will not be participating in this shameful spectacle after all.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
A number of my questions were ignored by the NC's outside PR guy. What I really don't understand is why they wouldn't even tell me what they're going to sing. Seriously?

Perhaps they have a surprise planned?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I believe the church should be prophetic-ie proclaim God's truth to society. So hell yeah the choir should sing but their work should be carefully chosen to proclaim a very clear message.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I believe the church should be prophetic-ie proclaim God's truth to society. So hell yeah the choir should sing but their work should be carefully chosen to proclaim a very clear message.

But now Mr. Tangerine Man has said there's to be no preaching at the service.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

Since when does anyone get to tell a church what or what will not be included in a service. This is getting worse and worse.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If a formal sermon is to be omitted then it becomes even more important that the choice of hymns, liturgy, readings, prayers etc preach.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But now Mr. Tangerine Man has said there's to be no preaching at the service.

Wow. Where's the evangelical outrage?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I believe the church should be prophetic-ie proclaim God's truth to society. So hell yeah the choir should sing but their work should be carefully chosen to proclaim a very clear message.
But now Mr. Tangerine Man has said there's to be no preaching at the service.

Tiny fingers is a coward, big shock.
Or his handlers were just smart enough to recognise the potential for problems.

[ 14. January 2017, 23:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's not the Episcopalians who are necessarily stupid or gutless.

Jennifer Holliday, who supported Clinton in the election, and who took her cue about going to the inauguration from Clinton, has now backed out of performing because of the howls of outrage about how performing at the inauguration = supporting Trump.

I repeat, this is someone who is on record as a Clinton supporter. There's no doubt where her political sympathies lie.

But she, like Clinton, has some concept about the orderly transition of power, and the rule of law, and accepting that the worse candidate won.

Meanwhile, just like with Brexit, I spend a lot of time watching many of my left-leaning friends (most of my friends, like me, being left-leaning) doing their level best to find ways to cast doubt over the legitimacy over a Trump presidency before it's even begun.

I repeat, it's legitimacy. Not whether it's going to be a good presidency.

And it's all justified by "the Republicans did it first", as if we're on a fucking playground and it's okay if we descend to a level of baseness so long as someone else got there before we did.

And yes, I do know there are things surrounding Trump that are well worth investigating. But what shits me is that people can't distinguish between things that would be politically damaging and things that would actually throw into question the legality of his election.

I am truly getting sick to fucking death of the degree to which the left side of politics are showing themselves to be bad losers. As a left-leaning person, it's fucking embarrassing to be associated with it.

Singing for the President of the United States is an honour because of the position, not because of the person occupying it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I am truly getting sick to fucking death of the degree to which the left side of politics are showing themselves to be bad losers. As a left-leaning person, it's fucking embarrassing to be associated with it.

Really. It is people on the left that do this? Because Nobody doubted the legitimacy of Obama's election, nobody carried on for years about where he was born, nobody fought laws that benefited them simply because they came from Obama...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I am truly getting sick to fucking death of the degree to which the left side of politics are showing themselves to be bad losers. As a left-leaning person, it's fucking embarrassing to be associated with it.
Really. It is people on the left that do this? Because Nobody doubted the legitimacy of Obama's election, nobody carried on for years about where he was born, nobody fought laws that benefited them simply because they came from Obama...

Wow. You clearly didn't bother reading the bit where I said what I thought of a "the Republicans did it first" argument. Skipped over that bit because it didn't suit you.

HOW THE HELL does the fact that your enemies did something shitty first make it any less shitty when you do it? WHY the hell should I not be embarrassed about people on the left doing this, just because someone else did it first?

If you read for comprehension, you'd understand what "associated" means. It doesn't mean exclusive ownership.

[ 15. January 2017, 00:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Just getting bored with your "Lefties are awful" rants.
Whilst I obviously align leftwards, I never had the allusion that all the left were better than the right.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just getting bored with your "Lefties are awful" rants.
Whilst I obviously align leftwards, I never had the allusion that all the left were better than the right.

They're not "Lefties are awful" rants. They're "Lefties are behaving awfully" rants. The difference is the entire fucking point.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Add behaving in the appropriate places in my reply and it is still valid. And that is my point, fucking or otherwise.

[ 15. January 2017, 00:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, I wouldn't want you to be bored just because I decide to break the Ship's self-congratulating bubble once in a while.

If once every couple of months is too often, would you like to set up a Schedule? Is it okay if I ask my side of politics to behave better than the other side around Easter? Or should I wait until Pentecost before suggesting it might not be such a great idea to join in the general undermining of democracy?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I haven't paid enough attention to map out what it is, but you do have periodic episodes of over-reaction, which makes this complaint a bit ironic.

[ 15. January 2017, 01:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I haven't paid enough attention to map out what it is, but you do have periodic episodes of over-reaction, which makes this complaint a bit ironic.

1. This is Hell. The home of tirades.

2. The reacting is also driven by frustration at the echo chamber.

3. You don't seem to understand the word "ironic" either (given that I'm the one pointing out the existence of a periodic phenomenon). I'll add it to the list.

[ 15. January 2017, 01:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

That's just plain dumb Orfeo. People don't have to identify as left or right to care about things that legitimize trump. They merely have to care as human beings. It is quite appropriate as human beings to avoid anything related to this man and to make thorough disapproval.

We can distinguish between the sickening and the terrifying in this instance, and understand that there is responsibility regardless of the office the guy is to inhabit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's just plain dumb Orfeo. People don't have to identify as left or right to care about things that legitimize trump. They merely have to care as human beings. It is quite appropriate as human beings to avoid anything related to this man and to make thorough disapproval

I care about things that legitimize Trump. You know, like elections.

EDIT: Did you even READ the link that you posted? You know, the one that explicitly accepts legitimacy?

[ 15. January 2017, 01:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The priest who will be the next Bishop of Los Angeles, my bishop, has on Facebook quoted from the Presiding Bishop's statement without making his own comment; I take this as an endorsement.

I am happy to report that I was wrong about this. John Taylor says that he is skeptical about the advisability of the choir singing at the inauguration.

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I believe the church should be prophetic-ie proclaim God's truth to society. So hell yeah the choir should sing but their work should be carefully chosen to proclaim a very clear message.
But now Mr. Tangerine Man has said there's to be no preaching at the service.

And the cathedral bigwigs have rolled over for this. Dear god.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, just like with Brexit, I spend a lot of time watching many of my left-leaning friends (most of my friends, like me, being left-leaning) doing their level best to find ways to cast doubt over the legitimacy over a Trump presidency before it's even begun.

I repeat, it's legitimacy. Not whether it's going to be a good presidency.

And it's all justified by "the Republicans did it first", as if we're on a fucking playground and it's okay if we descend to a level of baseness so long as someone else got there before we did.

No, it's justified by the fact that the legitimacy of his presidency is in fact in question.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

How is the legitimacy in question?

Seriously, give details. I'm open to the argument, for example, I was interested in the questions about electronic voting machines.

But a lot of the stuff I've seen flying around is a variation of "we don't like him or his policies" that doesn't work as an equivalent of "his election was invalid". I think the man is an arsehole of the highest order and his policies are often idiotic or awful. That's a very different thing from overturning an election result.

No-one has yet explained properly to me exactly which bits of "Russia tried to influence the election" actually become a legal issue. Because heck, America spends a great deal of time and effort trying to influence political outcomes in the rest of the world. And America has basically enshrined the right of corporations to influence American politics. And there's clearly nothing illegal about being friendly towards particular countries because everybody does it.

What I want to know is, is there anything that tips it from "yuck, he's in bed with the Russians and that's revolting" to "this is an illegal situation"? Is there anything that turns "Russians tried to influence American voters" into "there was an illegal interference with the election"?

[ 15. January 2017, 01:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The ironic is your over-reaction to over-reaction.
Hell is for rants, yes. My memory says you have not confined this to Hell, but that might be wrong.
I also don't remember you being constructive about this outside of Hell, but I haven't read either the US election thread or the Brexit thread in their entireties, so I might have missed it.
Regardless, having better expectations of the bit of the electorate whose positions you share is ridiculous. Stupid knows no ideology.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regardless, having better expectations of the bit of the electorate whose positions you share is ridiculous. Stupid knows no ideology.

Really? I operate on the vague hope that stupid concentrates around stupid ideologies.

And also that the Ship, of all places, has a relatively low concentration of stupid.

[ 15. January 2017, 01:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The ship also has a high concentration of people who care about other people. And that demographic is legitimately dismayed by Trump. And Brexit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ship also has a high concentration of people who care about other people. And that demographic is legitimately dismayed by Trump. And Brexit.

I missed the part where I said that was a problem.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ship also has a high concentration of people who care about other people. And that demographic is legitimately dismayed by Trump. And Brexit.
I missed the part where I said that was a problem.

I didn't say you did, though your reactions seem to ignore that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Regarding performers not wanting to perform for the inauguration. Performers are a business and, for some, their business will be affected by the perception of support for Trump.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regarding performers not wanting to perform for the inauguration. Performers are a business and, for some, their business will be affected by the perception of support for Trump.

Yes. And I guess Jennifer Holliday will prevent some loss of income by giving into the stupid. You would think that her fans would be aware of her support for Hillary Clinton, but apparently not.

I'm not critical of her.

[ 15. January 2017, 02:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regarding performers not wanting to perform for the inauguration. Performers are a business and, for some, their business will be affected by the perception of support for Trump.
Yes. And I guess Jennifer Holliday will prevent some loss of income by giving into the stupid. You would think that her fans would be aware of her support for Hillary Clinton, but apparently not.

I think people will see someone perform for Trump and interpret that as support for Trump regardless of anything else. Those idiots that clung to Sanders, voted for third party candidates even though they hated Trump, etc. should have illustrated this for you. Not to mention the idiots who voted for orange boy even though it will likely hurt them.
Already the Republican legislators are trying to end Affordable care, strip Medicare and destroy helathcare for women.
In North Dakota, there is even a bill to allow a person to "accidentally" run over protesters.* A law that is in reaction to the pipeline protests in that area.

*OK, technically it shifts the burden of proof onto the victim of the incident, but effectively it is what I said.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I want to know is, is there anything that tips it from "yuck, he's in bed with the Russians and that's revolting" to "this is an illegal situation"? Is there anything that turns "Russians tried to influence American voters" into "there was an illegal interference with the election"?

I said the legitimacy of his presidency is in question. I think it depends on two things -- whether his being "in bed with the Russians" goes so far as to mean they have kompromat on him that could make him act against US interests and whether or not the director of the FBI violated the Hatch Act. And we don't know either of those things, but they're both possible.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yeah, and see, this is where it gets hazy for me. Because it's not illegal to be blackmailed. But being blackmailed is not an excuse for doing something illegal.

And then there's the difference between illegal, and politically toxic and if people knew this stuff some of them wouldn't vote for you.

I think there are a LOT of things that are politically toxic that make staying in office practically untenable, that don't reach the level of making holding an office illegitimate. That's part of my concern here. It's the difference between "we don't want him in office" and "he can't be in office".

The FBI thing is a whole mess that had "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspects to it. But suppose for the sake of argument the FBI Director or someone in the FBI did break the law. Does that make a Trump victory illegitimate? I'm not entirely certain about that. If someone broke the law seeking to sway an election, when do we attribute that to the candidate who benefited?

Of course, if something emerges to directly link Trump to funny goings-on, all hell would, ahem, legitimately break loose.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If someone broke the law seeking to sway an election, when do we attribute that to the candidate who benefited?

We don't have to attribute it to the candidate for the election to be illegitimate.

quote:
Of course, if something emerges to directly link Trump to funny goings-on, all hell would, ahem, legitimately break loose.

This is not outside the realm of the possible. We don't know the nature or the extent of Trump's connections to people in Russia with an interest in having a pliant friend in the White House. It might just all kind of look bad. Or maybe he sold us out before he was ever in office in order to gain that office. As I said, it's a question.

Rep. John Lewis thinks Trump's election is illegitimate, and he is not attending the inauguration. A short list of other members of Congress have also said they won't attend, and there are still 5 days left for other people to say the same. I don't pretend for a moment to think this isn't as much a political stance as it is a moral one, but I don't have a problem with it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it might not be such a great idea to join in the general undermining of democracy?

Democracy has been generally undermined already, so any such suggestion is too late.

To take the US example. What was the great attraction of Trump to the Republicans? It wasn't his personality, it was the size of his wallet. And, the attraction of Clinton to the Democrats? She has some experience of office, but mainly she has friends with lots of money. Even Sanders, with his army of supporters without much money, but together had lots of money. When election campaigns cost vast sums of money then choices about who stands follows the money - and we get politicians bought by those who pay for their campaigns, in perception if not always in reality. Has that not already undermined democracy? And, has not that horse been roaming wild for so long that it's pretty much pointless to try and talk of closing the stable door?

And, I'm not going to pretend the UK is any better. Especially when politicians seek (and, largely fail) to patch up divisions within their party by putting an ill-conceived and ill-considered referendum to the electorate.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Oh, do we have politicians in the UK? I thought we mostly had a collection of banal, self-seeking, treacly-mouthed, xenophobic non-entities, who had somehow persuaded Them Asses that they were a Good Thing...

Wait a mo...that's the Government .... [Ultra confused]

There are, of course, some Good Politicians, but they can be counted on the fingers of one finger.

IJ

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Strangely enough this feels almost like a non-question to me, because as the established church the C of E has to do it all the time. We cross our fingers, hold our nose and allow our services and ceremonies to be used by secular power, hoping (in my case anyway) that something rubs off the other way, and that the offering to God and the hospitality extended have effects beyond anything immediately obvious.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Established being the key word there. America doesn't have one, separation of church and state and everything.
By being part of the government, the CofE isn't making a political statement by participating in government ceremony.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

IMO, there should be no religious service attached to any government event in the US.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Established being the key word there. America doesn't have one, separation of church and state and everything.
By being part of the government, the CofE isn't making a political statement by participating in government ceremony.

The CofE isn't part of the government. Even that part which is involved in the legislature, the Lord Spiritual, sit as cross-benchers.

[ 15. January 2017, 14:50: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The C of E is part of the constitutional structure, by virtue of its establishment, but is not part of the government. This why the lords spiritual are cross-benchers: they can't be on either the government side of the house of lords or the opposition side, meaning that they are not party to the structure of government, nor beholden to the government for their presence.

In the same way (hopefully) offering space and structure is not the same as legitimating any particular occasion; indeed, with a lot of luck/grace, the care with which structure and occasion are created exposes the poverty of those invited to take part.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Potatos patahtos. The CofE has an official place. By virtue of that, their actions are not inherently seen as political in the same way the independent churches of America would be.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The C of E is part of the constitutional structure, by virtue of its establishment, but is not part of the government. This why the lords spiritual are cross-benchers: they can't be on either the government side of the house of lords or the opposition side, meaning that they are not party to the structure of government, nor beholden to the government for their presence.

The bishops may not be part of HM Government, but most assuredly are part of the government of the UK as a whole, despite their being bishops of a church established in only one part of the realm.

And equally assuredly they are beholden to the Govt for their presence. I know the formalities of their "election" to office, but in truth is that it is the Govt that appoints them ( a bit better now than in the days when it was purely the PM of the day who gave the advice to HM.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Strangely enough this feels almost like a non-question to me, because as the established church the C of E has to do it all the time. We cross our fingers, hold our nose and allow our services and ceremonies to be used by secular power, hoping (in my case anyway) that something rubs off the other way, and that the offering to God and the hospitality extended have effects beyond anything immediately obvious.

I think the difference is that the UK is a monarchy and the US is a republic. To my understanding, the ceremonial that the CofE conducts has to do with civic and royal occasions, not partisan occasions. The Archbishop of Canterbury crowns the officially nonpartisan British Crown, not the Prime Minister.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IMO, there should be no religious service attached to any government event in the US.

And yet, despite your opinion, there's a national cathedral.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes, I've never understood that.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Strangely enough this feels almost like a non-question to me, because as the established church the C of E has to do it all the time. We cross our fingers, hold our nose and allow our services and ceremonies to be used by secular power, hoping (in my case anyway) that something rubs off the other way, and that the offering to God and the hospitality extended have effects beyond anything immediately obvious.
I think the difference is that the UK is a monarchy and the US is a republic. To my understanding, the ceremonial that the CofE conducts has to do with civic and royal occasions, not partisan occasions. The Archbishop of Canterbury crowns the officially nonpartisan British Crown, not the Prime Minister.

Nope, the difference is the separation of Church and State. You can thank the Lutherans for that and their Two Kingdom doctrine. If you want you can take the far more prickly relationship between the state and the Church of Scotland. You can see through that the way that it influenced Puritan thought.

No Puritanism is not strict Calvinism it draws on all the Magisterial Reformation traditions. Yes, that includes Lutheranism. What differs it from Separatism is the stronger emphasis of Anabaptism and other Radical Reformation groups.

Jengie

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Established being the key word there. America doesn't have one, separation of church and state and everything.
By being part of the government, the CofE isn't making a political statement by participating in government ceremony.
The CofE isn't part of the government. Even that part which is involved in the legislature, the Lord Spiritual, sit as cross-benchers.

Wikipedia reminds us that they do not sit on the cross benches, but on the Government side, nearest the throne. They don't take the party whip, though.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

If they don't participate, the idea that it's a National Cathedral I think certainly goes out the window. That may be happening or have happened anyway, and it may now very well be the National Cathedral of a Certain Political viewpoint.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
If they don't participate, the idea that it's a National Cathedral I think certainly goes out the window. That may be happening or have happened anyway, and it may now very well be the National Cathedral of a Certain Political viewpoint.

I think it was always the National Cathedral of White Protestants, at least in the mind of many.

If they truly wanted to be a light unto the gentiles, they would refuse to have anything to do with the shameful spectacle that will take place this Friday.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I think it was always the National Cathedral of White Protestants, at least in the mind of many.

Then its audience and sponsorship will be that much more narrowed as it becomes imbued with faction.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IMO, there should be no religious service attached to any government event in the US.
And yet, despite your opinion, there's a national cathedral.

Whilst I appreciate your appraisal of my influence, it does not exist despite my opinion. I do not think I would have been consulted even if I had been born before 1893.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, I've never understood that.

ISTM, America has done poorly managing its separation of church and state.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Thank you. I think. [Paranoid]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IMO, there should be no religious service attached to any government event in the US.
And yet, despite your opinion, there's a national cathedral.

Washington National Cathedral (the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, for the pedants) has always been a bit of an anomaly. It was, and is, privately funded - government funds were not used for construction or maintenance. It is in theory simply the Episcopal cathedral for the area. Yet it has also been designated as the "National House of Prayer" by Congress (I have a sneaking suspicion this would be ruled unconstitutional, should it ever come before the courts - although no one's ever tried it, to my knowledge). Pierre L'Enfant's original plan for the city of Washington had space left aside for a great church for national purposes (if memory serves, his plan would have put it just north of the National Mall, in what is now Chinatown).

But hey - what other place can say their cathedral has a grotesque of Darth Vader? [Biased]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
If they don't participate, the idea that it's a National Cathedral I think certainly goes out the window. That may be happening or have happened anyway, and it may now very well be the National Cathedral of a Certain Political viewpoint.
I think it was always the National Cathedral of White Protestants, at least in the mind of many.

If they truly wanted to be a light unto the gentiles, they would refuse to have anything to do with the shameful spectacle that will take place this Friday.

ISTM that if they refused to go, they'd be declaring themselves not to be the 'National Church' of the Americans who voted for Trump.

The only way around this, if they really despise Trump and all his works to that extent, is publicly to repudiate the 'National Church' tag. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

jbohn:

quote:
But hey - what other place can say their cathedral has a grotesque of Darth Vader?

Our cathedrals are already full of older pagan images. [Devil]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I have been, in my modest way, a supporter of the National Cathedral. But the next time I get a fundraising email from the Dean, I plan to politely request removal from the mailing list.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by lilBuddha;

quote:
ISTM, America has done poorly managing its separation of church and state.

I agree - and US Anabaptists would think even more so, regarding much of what goes on there as 'Neo-Constantinian' rather than the kind of separation Anabaptists want.

As I see it there has always been an ambiguity between those who really want 'no establishment of religion' at all and those who think more in terms of the US being a broadly 'Christian' country but without a specific national 'established' church.

Whichever side of that ambiguity you come down on, you'll find people on the other side shouting at you that the 'Founding Fathers' intended their version instead.

Given the number of atheists and 'deists' around at the time and among or associated with the leaders, I'm inclined to the view that they intended the fuller separation with freedom for 'all faiths or none'; but the reality was at the same time that most US immigrants had come from countries in which they belonged to an established church or to a dissenting group that - unlike Anabaptists - would have liked to be established. They realised that they couldn't get their former national church, or their dissenting group as the case might be, appointed as the US establishment so settled for thinking in terms of 'generally Christian'.

We live today with this ambiguity....

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
]Nope, the difference is the separation of Church and State. You can thank the Lutherans for that and their Two Kingdom doctrine. If you want you can take the far more prickly relationship between the state and the Church of Scotland. You can see through that the way that it influenced Puritan thought.

I'm not sure about that, Jengie. There are Lutheran state churches, after all, so although Two Kingdoms may have established a kind of theoretical framework within which disestablishment could be conceived, it certainly doesn't require it.

In America, at least, the influence of Deism and freethinking (not to mention Anabaptism) was a much stronger influence on the separation of Church and State.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

I'm a DC area person and have been heavily involved in making trouble on this. I think it's absolutely appalling that the choir has to sing for the inauguration (and I'll talk about the assertion that it's not mandatory in a moment). the way I see it is this: the PB and +Budde have sold this as "praying for the president" answering the question they were not asked ("is it okay to pray for a president?") and answering THAT question, the answer to which is "duh, of course." The question is two-part: should the Cathedral hold the planned interfaith prayer service for the inauguration and should the choir be part of the entertainment for the inauguration? To which we now have to add a third question, should the Cathedral Dean and bishop have agreed to That Man's request that there be no preaching?

People say, what would Jesus do? And say, of course he would take every opportunity to preach the gospel. But that still doesn't give much guidance. In my view, the inaugural prayer service represents an opening the doors of Love to those invited, including the president, and sharing prayers for us, for That Man, and for the country and the world. I would say, yes, hold the service. I would have said "are you kidding me?" to the demand for no sermon. I'm well aware that the EC does not always have sermons at their services, but whether to do so or not cannot be the decision of a president in a country with no established church. The EC is not a state church, and has no business getting in line with demands of the State.

The other question is, should one of the country's premier episcopal church choirs be part of the pre-game entertainment at the inauguration? And to that, I say, no way. The question here with "what would Jesus do" is to me, "would Jesus agree to be part of the entertainment at a triumph of Caesar, along with the paid admirers, games, circuses, etc etc." and that is very difficult for me to imagine.

There is no question that many see the choir's being part of inaugural entertainment (a secular occasion) as endorsement of a truly terrible human being, who has publicly espoused views inimical to those professed by our church. When part of the argument in support is, well, he won, so we have to support him, that is a secular argument. The church in its history has gotten into the worst trouble supporting unworthy rulers, and has been at their best when speaking truth to power. Let the EC not have to make a profession of guilt, as the German churches had to do after the war, as many US church bodies have had to do in connection with slavery and treatment of First Nations groups and many other things.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
jbohn:
quote:
But hey - what other place can say their cathedral has a grotesque of Darth Vader?
Our cathedrals are already full of older pagan images.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Ahh-men, Laura.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Forgive my ignorance but is the choir formed of volunteers or are they employed?

The glory of being a volunteer of course is that you can always say 'sod this' and walk off to anything you don't want to do.

The limiting factor is that of letting your mates down.

M.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They should all wear pussy hats.

OMG, Boogie! You are awesome!
[Killing me]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
]Nope, the difference is the separation of Church and State. You can thank the Lutherans for that and their Two Kingdom doctrine. If you want you can take the far more prickly relationship between the state and the Church of Scotland. You can see through that the way that it influenced Puritan thought.

I'm not sure about that, Jengie. There are Lutheran state churches, after all, so although Two Kingdoms may have established a kind of theoretical framework within which disestablishment could be conceived, it certainly doesn't require it.

In America, at least, the influence of Deism and freethinking (not to mention Anabaptism) was a much stronger influence on the separation of Church and State.

There are multiple readings of it. However, it very clearly stated by Andrew Melvill to James VI (Scotland).

quote:
"Sirrah, ye are God's silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is king James, the head of the commonwealth; and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, not a lord, not a head, but a member."

Important this is high Presbyterianism citing Two Kingdoms and it also clearly seen as implying a separation of church and state.

Jengie

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

It is my understanding that they'll be singing 'God Bless America' by Mr Irving Berlin.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Not a hymn, in other words, but a 'national song'. Perhaps 'Give 'Em The Old Razzle-Dazzle' is unsuited to choral arrangement.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Forgive my ignorance but is the choir formed of volunteers or are they employed?

When I lived in a suburb of DC, I tried joining but was told, quite tersely: "We are a paid professional choir and we have no openings for persons of your voice."

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not a hymn, in other words, but a 'national song'. Perhaps 'Give 'Em The Old Razzle-Dazzle' is unsuited to choral arrangement.

It's been arranged for chorus. My group sang it two seasons ago. I love the line:

"What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if in fact you're just disgusting?"

[ 18. January 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It sounds ideal. There's a lot of fine musical theater numbers that would suit.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Thank you, Amanda B.

M.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Forgive my ignorance but is the choir formed of volunteers or are they employed?
When I lived in a suburb of DC, I tried joining but was told, quite tersely: "We are a paid professional choir and we have no openings for persons of your voice."

It is professional to a very, very high level. My husband sang in it when he first came to the area, and I have a number of friends who have, over the years. One does not volunteer, oh my goodness, no.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It is my understanding that they'll be singing 'God Bless America' by Mr Irving Berlin.

One would have thought Evancho could have managed this. One certainly does not need the National Cathedral Choir to sing one of the most oversung songs in the history of the Union. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

It wouldn't be my choice for imparting that sense of "beauty and transcendence" that the Dean and the Bishop say is the gift they wish to offer the nation. But hey, it's got "God" in it three times! So, it must be a hymn, right?!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Dunno, I think God blessing America is a sentiment we can all get behind. I think you're going to be needing a lot of that blessing to live through the rule by the orange-faced-Russian-lapdog.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

So who's going to crash the Saturday Prayer Service to MW it?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Someone, I hope. [Biased]

I had a response to my e-mail to the dean of Washington Cathedral. It was from the director of communications, who said, in part: "As I’m sure you can imagine, we’ve been deluged with letters."

However, he went on to say that their decision to participate remains in place.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

NPR article on the National Cathedral service. (KQED)

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It sounds ideal. There's a lot of fine musical theater numbers that would suit.

How about "For Now" from Avenue Q?

Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :

Being close to DC, I've been watching this as well, and can't help feeling like we've been used. I too was more upset at the choir singing at the secular Inauguration, as the service itself is a longstanding tradition. Apparently sermons aren't always part of the service, and if they are, the President usually chooses the preacher. We were probably lucky that did not happen.

I was quite upset that the service the morning of the Inauguration, at St. John's, had a rather extreme Southern Baptist preacher, we rolled over easily on that as well.

It's like we are in the rent-a-church business. Watching the service this morning made that impression manifest, we had little impact on any of it. There was even a musical number that got a standing ovation, it was a strange service.

I can't imagine the Catholic Shrine would have put up with any such thing. We should have stated that we'd plan and staff the service, or they could find another locale, same with the St. John's service.

The whole thing has made me most uncomfortable.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

Would Jesus apply his blessing to the state, which as part of its duties must do things like wage war? What if what was a different president who was less politically objectionable, but still in the course of his duties had to conduct drone strikes to destroy the nations enemies? Are paid choirs and multimillion dollar edifices a testament to the kingdom of God?

I think drawing a line at identifying what the Kingdom of God is for or against is somewhat tricky.

[ 22. January 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0