Author: MASadmin

Election Predictions

Two days ago, at lunch I sat with a group of my fellow classmates in the refectory. We chatted, joked, gossiped, and did everything that people expect Seminarians to do (we even freaked out the folks using our conference center when we sung grace). Near the end of lunch, a distinguished professor, a giant in his field, came and joined us. He seemed to know me even though I have yet to take any of his classes. The conversation began with pleasantries but soon moved to heavier topics. Pretty soon, we were guessing who would be the next presiding bishop of the Episcopal church. As I cannot name ONE current bishop of their church, I kept my mouth shut. I did learn, however, that the current presiding bishop will be serving a 9 year term (nine!) and there was even talk, amongst our group of eight, on how to make her an archbishop (we all voted and said she should be one). I sat there, enjoying my coffee and cookies, and when the conversation moved to the ELCA (because they are thoughtful and wanted to include me), I threw in my two cents and even proposed a candidate for the next bishop of the Metro-New York Synod. I felt very distinguished and informed. Back pats for everyone.

When I was done, my young friend who was sitting next to me leaned over and informed me that she really wasn’t that interested in the conversation. Instead, she was care more about who would win The Bachelor. As I am also currently engrossed in it (what can I say – Courtney is my favorite and Ben is pretty terrible), we then proceeded to talk about it, loudly. In a matter of moments, the entire table stopped talking and turned to listen to what we said. Even the distinguished professor chimed in (though he admitted not knowing what the show was). I think I have finally discovered how, in the future, to derail any future discussion during an assembly of clergy: just bring up bad reality tv.

Kick Kick Kick Kick

IMG_3178 On Sunday night, I felt my kidling kick.

That was wild.

With K 21 weeks along, I didn’t expect to feel the little guy quite yet. She keeps telling me that the little guy is moving around (especially when it’s time to go to bed). And there it was! Right there! Kicking! And I could feel it! And then I got to tell it to settle down cuz mom’s gotta sleep.

I have a feeling that last bit will become old hat pretty soon.

Day 2 of Lent meets my Facebook news feed

With it being the second day of Lent, my Facebook news feed is blowing up with reflections on yesterday. Piety, love, God, Jesus, dust, ash, etc! There are status updates galore from my Episcopalian friends who spent their entire days standing in subways, going to firehouses and police precincts, giving ashes to those who requested it. Sore thumbs, it seems, is the name of the game. But not only are ashes being talked about, but sermons, fasting, and all that we’re giving up for Lent, is dominating my feed. And even I, very briefly, got into the act. In a way, I am part of the “problem”.

But, lo and behold, I’m back to my old self today by posting, on facebook, on how to wear a tuxedo (i.e. IT SHOULD FIT). I think I’ll point to the gospel reading from yesterday as the reason why this needs to be shared: someone’s olive oil is someone else’s formal wear and just because you gave up eating cookies or refined sugar doesn’t mean you have to look like it, amirite?

Peter and Cephas

Last week in New Testament, we were talking about the differences between Paul’s letters and some descriptions in Acts. The class split into groups and were given the task to either look at Paul’s conversion experience or the Apostle Throwdown in Jerusalem and Antioch. I, luckily, got assigned the Apostle throwdown – Galatians 2 and Acts 15. And, then, after our groups met and chatted, we had our own in-class throwdown. Sadly, no metal cage descended down from the ceiling but I was surprised to find that, at least vocally, my view of the throwdown differed from others because I take Paul’s view much more seriously than Acts. And that made me, in some way, the outsider – or at least the outsider willing to vocalize an outside view.

Now, I don’t mind that one bit and I’ll admit that, before that little exercise, I never had compared the two descriptions of the events. It just had not showed up on my radar. But I think the major difference, at least in how Paul describes the events, relates through Paul’s use of Peter’s name. In Gal 2:7, Paul uses Peter; in Gal 2:9, Paul switches to Cephas. Is Paul just flipping back and forth between Peter’s names because Paul and Peter are so close, Paul uses all of the versions of his name? Maybe….but, well, I don’t think so. Instead, Paul is calling Peter Cephas for a reason – he’s explicitly labeling Peter as the “other” to the gentiles of Galatia. It is Paul’s way of showing his authority (which is why he never calls himself Saul). Peter is labeled as different, the other, the one called to preach to the circumcised, not the gentiles. His authority, in the matter of Galatia, is different from Paul’s – and this is a difference that was sanctified not only by the apostles in Jerusalem but by the ultimate authority, Jesus. And even though Paul describes his logic throughout Galatians 2, he really didn’t have to. The fact that he called Peter Cephas laid this all out well enough.

In essence, Paul is a gamer; a baller; a playmaker. Paul is playing rhetorical hardball right here. He is willing to throw it down, and, in a sense, defend his house. And I like the idea of a Paul who’s willing to throwdown. But should I really trust Paul’s vision of the throwdown since he’s speaking to a people where he had to throw around his authority? Maybe not. I should probably consider his explanation with a huge grain of salt. But that willingness to throw his weight around, his cattiness, that willingness to fight? That feels more real to me and it’s why I give Paul’s point of view more weight than Acts. Is that one of my biases? I think so.