Friday, July 25, 2008

Which of these are they against?

A number of "conservatives" have been ranting through the blogosphere about the "unbiblical" Millennium Development Goals and how yesterday's march by the bishops of the Communion was somehow inappropriate - a distraction from the important issue of the Bishop of New Hampshire's sleeping arrangements.

I am curious to know from my "conservative" friends, which of these goals they are so against.


Just sayin' is all.

6 comments:

Ann Marie said...

Can anyone tell me how they are unbibilical? Seems to me they bring out the intent of how God desires us to act in the world quite well. Is it because they're not printed on those tablets that Mark and Grandmere Mimi have on their blogs?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

joseph said...

I haven't seen as many bloggers claim that they are "unbiblical" - are there speciific blogs you have in mind?

I have seen many people point out the sheer irony of a group of bishops claiming to support such goals and then proceed to a rather upscale lunch after a march against poverty. If they wanted to make a public statement, they might have finished off the afternoon in a different fashion. They might have done something hands-on in the afternoon as a follow up to their words. Even a few of the bishops (Kirk of Arizona, for example) thought there was something a bit wonky with the agenda that day.

This detracted, at least in my eyes, from the credibility of the bishops marching. It does not in itself detract from the worthiness of the MDGs. A number of stories in the secular press have reported on this apparent inconsistency as well.

It is the same irony and inconsistency I see when people ask me to march for "conservative" causes (pro-life marches for example). I simply don't do it. It's easy to go on a march; it's not so easy to end the march by offering hours and hours of free babysitting to a single mom so she can take time to upgrade her education and skills.

I'd rather walk with a person than march for a cause.

Malcolm+ said...

There was only one I saw which specifically referred to it as "unbiblical." But trashing the MDGs is a recurreing meme on many of the "conservative" sites - and with "conservative" commentators on other sites.

(Note again my distinction between "conservatives" and conservatives.)

I agree that the irony of an MDG march followed by a banquet and a royal garden party is poor planning on the part of the Lambeth Design Group. I occasionally wonder at the endemic ineptitude of the Lambeth media relations function. Any half awake PR person would have recognized that the inconsistency would undermine the witness.

But I'm referring to consistent trashing of the MDGs - particularly by American "conservatives" as part of their ongoing war of attrition against the Episcopal Church.

BTW, Bishop Greg appears in Ruth Gledhill's video of that day.

Ann Marie said...

I agree about the irony but I wonder if the radical contrast between the march and the teas doesn't highlighten and jar more than a continuation of the march.

I remember attending a PWRDF family camp 18 years ago (I only know it was that long ago because my third child was two months old at the time. We had one of those meals where a small percentage get the full meal deal and the majority get bannock and water. I was one of those who got the full meal and I can tell you it sure made and impact.

I think it takes both actions - the marching for public awareness, visible solidarity but backed up by a willingness to walk with all the time rather than the occassional march.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

joseph said...

I would have to agree that there are a number of folks who are overly suspicious of participating in such things as the MDGs. Jesus fed the crowds, and he preached the kingdom: some of the more consdervative Christains think that if you only feed without preaching, you are doing a disservice to the gospel.

Maybe they have forgotten those other chapters in Matthew...

Tim Chesterton said...

I heartily agree with all of them. But then, some conservatives don't think I am one (conservative, that is).