Good they pulled it, then! Odd that it got that far before anybody weighed the "statecraft" issues on the scales with the "moral leadership" issues, because both obviously matter at the level of a bishop's formal statements. Surely one can simply separate frank speech about ideas/structures/rhetoric, best kept in informal, verbal utteran…
Good they pulled it, then! Odd that it got that far before anybody weighed the "statecraft" issues on the scales with the "moral leadership" issues, because both obviously matter at the level of a bishop's formal statements. Surely one can simply separate frank speech about ideas/structures/rhetoric, best kept in informal, verbal utterances, from careful statements about particular policy matters, best kept in formal, very particular written statements (though I grant that the episcopacy and their comms people seem to have skipped this lesson, in general, which is very odd).
I hope they'll sort that out and come out with both a really solid formal statement that includes paying closer attention to the faith of actual people with actual individual and group histories, and less to the fantasies of sociologists, anthropologists, and salesmen for the "Park Service Religion."
Because, folks, the history is far messier than you think, and the caricatures are far less accurate than chauvinists and apologists and activitsts will tell you. I've been on a learning curve since I married into a life in what was "Indian Territory" until ten minutes ago, and there's plenty still to be learned. The nature of these relationships among multiple American Indian peoples and multiple European-origin peoples, each with multiple faiths and ideological sets, is *not* what the push/pull of totalizing sentimentality wants you to think; it's far, far more interesting.
[ For a fun teaser, for those interested in chasing some of that complicated, mixed, and particular history, here's something I prepared as seed-material for a proposed undergraduate-research program when I was working on the NASNTI grant team at the ill-fated St. Gregory's University in Shawnee, OK: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1EnXv-So3vWnmAqFzuch02h3JVOc&usp=sharing ]
Good they pulled it, then! Odd that it got that far before anybody weighed the "statecraft" issues on the scales with the "moral leadership" issues, because both obviously matter at the level of a bishop's formal statements. Surely one can simply separate frank speech about ideas/structures/rhetoric, best kept in informal, verbal utterances, from careful statements about particular policy matters, best kept in formal, very particular written statements (though I grant that the episcopacy and their comms people seem to have skipped this lesson, in general, which is very odd).
I hope they'll sort that out and come out with both a really solid formal statement that includes paying closer attention to the faith of actual people with actual individual and group histories, and less to the fantasies of sociologists, anthropologists, and salesmen for the "Park Service Religion."
Because, folks, the history is far messier than you think, and the caricatures are far less accurate than chauvinists and apologists and activitsts will tell you. I've been on a learning curve since I married into a life in what was "Indian Territory" until ten minutes ago, and there's plenty still to be learned. The nature of these relationships among multiple American Indian peoples and multiple European-origin peoples, each with multiple faiths and ideological sets, is *not* what the push/pull of totalizing sentimentality wants you to think; it's far, far more interesting.
[ For a fun teaser, for those interested in chasing some of that complicated, mixed, and particular history, here's something I prepared as seed-material for a proposed undergraduate-research program when I was working on the NASNTI grant team at the ill-fated St. Gregory's University in Shawnee, OK: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1EnXv-So3vWnmAqFzuch02h3JVOc&usp=sharing ]