It is such a shame that flying has too often become such an ordeal.

“As of 2008,” the 49-year-old professor of English at Emory University writes in “The Dumbest Generation,” “the intellectual future of the United States looks dim.”

The way Bauerlein sees it, something new and disastrous has happened to America’s youth with the arrival of the instant gratification go-go-go digital age. The result is, essentially, a collective loss of context and history, a neglect of “enduring ideas and conflicts.” Survey after painstakingly recounted survey reveals what most of us already suspect: that America’s youth know virtually nothing about history and politics. And no wonder. They have developed a “brazen disregard of books and reading.”

Things were not supposed to be this way. After all, “never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater,” writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize — they’ve actually made us dumber.

The problem is that instead of using the Web to learn about the wide world, young people instead mostly use it to gossip about each other and follow pop culture, relentlessly keeping up with the ever-shifting lingua franca of being cool in school. The two most popular websites by far among students are Facebook and MySpace. “Social life is a powerful temptation,” Bauerlein explains, “and most teenagers feel the pain of missing out.”

Read it all.

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem,” Albert Camus wrote, “and that is suicide.” How to explain why, among the only species capable of pondering its own demise, whose desperate attempts to forestall mortality have spawned both armies and branches of medicine in a perpetual search for the Fountain of Youth, there are those who, by their own hand, would choose death over life? Our contradictory reactions to the act speak to the conflicted hold it has on our imaginations: revulsion mixed with fascination, scorn leavened with pity. It is a cardinal sin ”” but change the packaging a little, and suicide assumes the guise of heroism or high passion, the stuff of literature and art.

Beyond the philosophical paradox are the bewilderingly complex dynamics of the act itself. While a universal phenomenon, the incidence of suicide varies so immensely across different population groups ”” among nations and cultures, ages and gender, race and religion ”” that any overarching theory about its root cause is rendered useless. Even identifying those subgroups that are particularly suicide-prone is of very limited help in addressing the issue. In the United States, for example, both elderly men living in Western states and white male adolescents from divorced families are at elevated risk, but since the overwhelming majority in both these groups never attempt suicide, how can we identify the truly at risk among them?

Read it all.

Pledging to “move toward a low-carbon society,” leaders of the world’s richest nations on Tuesday endorsed the idea of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but failed to set a short-term goal for reducing the toxic heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet.

The declaration of the so-called Group of Eight ”” the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia ”” called on developing nations like China and India to follow suit.

It drew immediate criticism from environmentalists, who said it did not go far enough.

But the leaders themselves cast the announcement as an important step forward in setting the groundwork for a binding international treaty on climate change, which is being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations with the goal of an agreement by 2009.

“The G-8 nations came to a mutual recognition that this target ”” cutting global emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 ”” should be a global target,” Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan said in announcing the agreement.

Read it all.

Check it out and please note the full audio is available via this link.

The Church of England was thrown into disarray last night after its ruling body, the General Synod, rejected a series of amendments by traditionalists opposed to the ordination of women bishops. These included a proposal to create so-called “superbishops” that would have allowed clergy who object to the idea of female bishops to opt out of being administered by them.

A motion reaffirming the Church’s commitment to press ahead with the consecration of women bishops was passed late last night after more than six hours of passionate and, at times, bitter debate. The bishops voted in favour of bringing forward legislation to ordain women bishops by 28 to 12. The clergy voted in favour by 124 to 44 and the Laity by 111 to 68.

Virtually all the amendments put forward by traditionalists, which could have provided them with a variety of opt-out clauses, were struck down one by one. Their defeat raises the real possibility of schism within the Church, between those in favour of women bishops and an alliance of traditionalists, Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals who vehemently oppose the idea.

Read it all.

A couple of hours ago, the Church of England decisively severed itself from its Catholic roots. By voting to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists, it reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen. But any hope of unity with Rome and the Orthodox has gone forever.

I’m not sorry. From the moment the C of E voted to ordain women priests in 1992, it cut itself off from the Catholic mainstream. But unexpectedly generous safeguards allowed traditionalists to cordon themselves off from the rest of the Church, persuading themselves that they, rather than the main body, preserved its true Catholic identity.

Read the whole thing.

After a tortuous legislative session marked by the defeat of 13 of 14 proposed amendments, the General Synod of the Church of England on July 7 approved legislation on how it will begin to consecrate women as bishops. The final vote occurred after 10 p.m. local time in York .

Read it all.

The governing body of the Anglican Church in Britain voted on Monday to approve the appointment of women as bishops, a step that appeared to risk a schism in the church in its historic homeland as the Anglican church worldwide faces one of the most serious threats to its unity in its history, over the ordination of gay clergy members.

After a debate late into the night in the city of York, the General Synod of the Church of England, an assembly that holds ultimate authority on church doctrine in Britain, voted by comfortable margins within each of the synod’s three houses ”” bishops, clergy and laity ”” to approve the consecration of women as bishops in the face of bitter opposition from traditionalists.

The vote came 16 years after the synod voted, after similarly fractious debate, to approve the ordination of women as ministers within the British church. But traditionalists unreconciled to the end of the male monopoly within the clergy revived the battle over the issue of approving women as bishops, warning that it could lead to a breakup of the church in Britain.

Read it all.

Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in General Synod note with regret that, despite the clear advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Exeter and other Bishops, the Prolocutor of the Province of Canterbury and the Chairman of the House of Laity and the obvious lack of consensus, the General Synod today resolved to make no meaningful provision for those in conscience unable to receive the ministry of women bishops.

There must now be a period of prayerful reflection. However, members of both the General Synod and of the Church of England will understand that actions always have consequences.

Simon Killwick
Chairman, Catholic Group in General Synod
Geoffrey Kirk
Secretary, Forward in Faith
Stephen Parkinson
Director, Forward in Faith

The Church of England’s ruling body, the General Synod, has voted to confirm the ordination of women as bishops.

But a national code to accommodate traditionalists was approved by the Synod, which was meeting in York.

Read it all.

The vote on the final motion, which was very much as put in the first place by the House of Bishops was then approved by all three houses. However, once again, if this had been the Final Approval debate for the legislation it would not have gained the 2/3rd majority necessary in the House of Laity.

After the decision the Archbishop of York tried to say that the vote did not amount to a decision to kick traditionalists out of the Church of England. However, the fact that he said it indicates that is exactly how many will receive the decision.

Read it all.

This is the text of the final motion approved by Synod:

”˜That this Synod:

(a) affirm that the wish of its majority is for women to be admitted to the episcopate;

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard; and

(d) instruct the legislative drafting group, in consultation with the House of Bishops, to complete its work accordingly, including preparing the first draft of a code of practice, so that the Business Committee can include first consideration of the draft legislation in the agenda for the February 2009 group of sessions.’

The voting was:

Bishops: 28 for 12 against 1 abs

Clergy: 124 for 44 against 4 abs

Laity: 111 for 68 against 2 abs

But there is a religious vision that dissents from this cafeteria-style theology. In 2008, it often comes into conflict with trendier views on the flashpoint issue of sexuality — perhaps the greatest preoccupation of our age.

For 2,000 years, Christianity has taught that God had a purpose in creating human beings as male and female. He gave the two sexes complementary bodies and natures so that they could become “one flesh,” and in the process generate new life. The faithful, committed sexual love of man and woman holds a special dignity in Christian teaching, which sees it as mirroring God’s love for humanity.

In recent years, however, a different vision of sexuality has grown fashionable. In this view, sex of all kinds — whether straight, gay or otherwise — is best understood as a vehicle for pleasure and self-expression. Today, this vision of sex dominates our entertainment industry, is taught in our schools and inspires events such as gay pride celebrations.

Read it all (3 pages in total).

We live under law, different kinds of law. The law of God, which is for our health, and the law we make for ourselves. We long to be masters of our future, and so we become the prisoners of our past. We long to take control of the world we’re in. And because we are who we are, and our histories have been what they have been, we dig ourselves deeper and deeper into unfreedom. The will that we want to use to conquer the world, is a will weakened and bruised by the legacy of self-love, going back to the very roots of the human race. The effects of that legacy work themselves out as relentlessly as any oriental karma. We want to take hold of our future and we are gripped, paralysed, by our past.

We find ourselves in that ‘waterless pit’ of which Zechariah speaks. Waterless pits – perhaps that should trigger a memory of one particular Old Testament story. Do you remember that when Joseph went in search of his brothers and they decided to kill him ”“ they threw him into a pit where there was no water. Remember Joseph? Joseph who was so unpopular with his brothers because he believed his future was in his hands. He knew he could foresee the day that his brothers and his father would bow down to him. But he finds himself in a waterless pit, sold into slavery. God’s future for him only begins to happen when he is stripped of his claim to be master of his own future. In a waterless pit the dreams fade away. There is only God over against the body of death.

So, reflecting on Joseph, we can perhaps turn back to our own moments of waterless perplexity, those times in our discipleship, individual and corporate, our discipleship as persons, our discipleship as a Church, to which we may turn back to those moments, as moments when ”“ if we will ”“ we can hear the Word, when ”“ if we will ”“ our dreams are overtaken by God’s future. And how very hard it is to let go of our claims upon our own future. How very hard to accept the waterlessness of the pit, how very hard to understand that we are there in the presence of God and of death.

Read it all.

Read it all from Justin Brett.

Thinking Anglicans has a helpful summary–Read it all.

Update: Ruth Gledhill’s summary is here.

Not long ago, a young titan of New York real estate sat in his psychotherapist’s office. An art collector, he was thinking of bidding about $8 million for a painting, and something about the deal made him uneasy.

The therapist thought the patient was merely trying to impress him. This happened whenever the man felt unsure of himself, which was most of the time.

But instead of trying to explore the patient’s anxiety, the therapist encouraged him to buy the artwork: “This is what you want; you should go get it.”

T. Byram Karasu, a Manhattan psychiatrist whom the therapist consulted about the patient, was appalled. “That was precisely the wrong treatment,” he said. “The doctor forgot that addiction cannot be satisfied by its object. The therapist’s job is not to comfort and validate the patient’s excesses and consumption. Those are neuroses.”

Read it all.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi’ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

“Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,” Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

Read it all.

We are still figuring out what has been lost, and what has been found, in the aftermath of Darwin’s and Wallace’s great scientific discovery. Does recognizing that we are closer to nature automatically mean that we are further from God? This question is no more answerable today than it was 150 years ago, of course. But thinking about the men who devised the theory and drew such different conclusions from it restores a certain wholeness to the debate that has lately, with ultra-Darwinian notions of “the God delusion” and equally irresponsible ideas of “intelligent design,” grown nearly as polarized as it was in the mid-19th century when the theory was just floated to a world that still read the Bible as a scientific text.

It is foolish to be arguing about creation vs. evolution in the classroom, given the mountain of evidence for evolution by means of natural selection. But talking about Darwin and Wallace together, and the vastly different conclusions they drew from their theory of evolution, makes a great deal of sense in this fractured and contentious moment. We need them both.

Read it all.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Religion has played an unusually prominent — and controversial — role throughout this campaign season, raising the question: What are the appropriate boundaries between religion and politics? Kim Lawton has our report.

Reverend LOUIS HUSSER (Pastor, Crossgate Church, Robert, LA, during sermon): What is right always outweighs what is wrong. Can I get an “Amen?”

KIM LAWTON: “Citizenship Sunday” at Crossgate, an evangelical church in Robert, Louisiana. God and country are the order of the day. There’s lots of patriotic music, a push to register new voters, and a sermon called “What’s Right with America?”

Rev. HUSSER (during sermon): Celebrate the freedom that we have as Americans, because it’s a God-given freedom. If you agree with that, can I get an Amen?

LAWTON: Pastor Louis Husser stresses that the Citizenship Sunday efforts at his church are all nonpartisan. He believes people of faith have a moral obligation to be involved in the political process.

Rev. HUSSER: One of the challenges with Americans is that we have been sold this idea that you separate politics from your faith and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Read it all.

Conservative evangelical leaders met privately this week to discuss putting aside their misgivings about John McCain and coalescing around the Republican’s presidential bid while urging him to consider social conservative favorite Mike Huckabee as a running mate.

About 90 of the movement’s leading activists gathered Tuesday night in Denver for a meeting convened by Mathew Staver, who heads the Florida-based legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel.

Many evangelical leaders backed other GOP candidates early on and remain wary of McCain’s commitment to their causes and his previous criticisms of movement leaders. But with the presidential field now set, many evangelical leaders are taking a more pragmatic view, realizing also that the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is making a strong play for evangelical voters and talking freely about his faith.

Read it all.

Here is one:

Sir, It is deeply disappointing that you choose to describe possible provision by the Church of England for those who cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate as “enshrining discrimination”. (Leader, July 3).

The issue has always been one of how best to hold together in one Church of England loyal Anglicans with differing convictions on a disputed question of faith and order, so that all may flourish. The signatories to the open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are not “threatening to defect,” if women are consecrated as bishops, but making plain their concerns about the need for provision which has theological integrity and is secure in law. Nor are they “defying” anyone. The note from the Archbishops which accompanied the publication of the text of the motion to be debated at the General Synod on Monday makes it clear that they are looking for an open discussion, in which all options will be given a fair hearing. The Archbishops have not, for very good reasons, declared their mind as to which outcome they might favour. Above all, they need our prayers as they weigh and ponder how best to lead the Church at this time.

The Rev J.M.R. Baker
Principal
Pusey House, Oxford

Read them all.

Read it all.

And may I continue to recommend the World Christian Database as one good source on this question?

From here:

Following the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), many of you are no doubt aware of media reports, suggesting that the Anglican Communion is facing serious division.

It’s premature to comment at this point. There will be opportunities, after our return from Lambeth, for reflection on GAFCON and the Lambeth Conference and to discuss various statements and resolutions resulting from both.

Meanwhile, together with my fellow Melbourne bishops, I wish to assure the clergy and laity of the Melbourne Diocese that relationships in the Anglican Communion will be properly and prayerfully considered at the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, the ten-yearly meeting of world Anglican leaders, held from 16 July to 4 August in Canterbury, England.

Please uphold with us, affirmation of Archbishop Freier’s hope for Lambeth: that it will provide an opportunity to “live the unity that we share in Christ.”

The need is for the Church to engage in mission in a world facing suffering as varied as climate change, poverty, aggression and corruption, to name but a few. Therefore, we ask that all Melbourne Anglicans heed the Archbishop’s call to prayer, and display grace and generosity of heart to which a life centred in the Gospel calls us.

Scepticism isn’t meant to characterise the Church of England’s parliament. But few here believe that women priests would really knock back bishoprics, having come so far, even if there are men-only dioceses. And if women win the day with a single episcopate and a simple code of practice to protect Catholic conscience, no one seriously expects a mass exodus to Rome of priests and laity who still adore the Anglican Communion, womanly warts and all.

But there is a greater risk to this debate. Never underestimate the Church of England’s capacity for bottling it. On Saturday there was a “take-note” debate, so called because delegates were invited to take note of the Manchester Report on women bishops by doing what Christians do best at conferences ”“ splitting into buzz-groups to discuss their feelings and then coming back for a plenary session.

It was a sort of dry run for today’s proper debate, designed to take some of the sting out of feelings that are running high. Instead, it revealed the Anglican tendency for pulling back from difficult decisions and hoping that God (or the Bishop of Manchester’s working group) comes up with a better idea before the next Synod.

Read the whole article.

It might well be impossible to prevent a break-up of the Church’s traditional governing structure. The opposing forces within Anglicanism might prove too strong. And it would certainly be a mistake for the liberal leadership of the Church to jettison the principle of equality for women and homosexuals in a desperate pursuit of a deal. Yet the Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, is surely right at least to attempt to hold the ring. Unity is preferable to a schism. If a deal acceptable to all sides can be achieved, it should be energetically and tirelessly pursued. And it is by no means an impossible task. The Church of England’s leadership is attempting to hammer out a deal on special arrangements for those Anglicans who feel that their consciences would be offended by being preached to by female bishops.

Appeasing the hardliners will be difficult. And a rival grouping, headed by female clergy, is also warning that it will not back any deal that proposes discriminatory laws. Yet there would seem to be a way through. Those who have a problem with the authority of women bishops should be encouraged to attend churches under the control of male bishops. This kind of discreet, ad hoc “parish-swapping” already takes place in areas where there are women priests.

The issue of African objections to homosexuality in the American church is more problematic. The ideological chasm between these two wings of Anglicanism will be very difficult to bridge. The church leadership would seem to have no option but to float the idea of a looser association that permits doctrinal differences on the ordination of female and gay bishops.

The prize of unity is worth fighting for. The Anglican Communion can still be a force for good in a volatile world. And if this major Christian denomination manages to accommodate such differences of opinion, it could provide a stimulating example to other religions experiencing similar tensions.

Perhaps we should remember history. The Church of England was reformed in the 16th century with an extraordinary amount of doctrinal compromise. The task of reconciling England’s former Catholics with its hardline Protestants makes today’s disagreement look trivial in comparison. Elizabeth I said she did not desire to “make windows into men’s souls”. Global Anglicanism needs that kind of humane pragmatism today.

Read the whole editorial.

The General Synod is meeting in York, northern England, the second most important city in the church after Canterbury.

Members will be asked to back a motion calling for a national code of practice to accommodate parishes which cannot accept women bishops.

The Right Reverend John Packer, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, will attempt to amend this motion by putting forward proposals for work on two possible ways forward.

One option would be for a national code — but the other would be to explore the creation of a new class of “super bishop” called a “complementary bishop” to cater for objectors.

Under Packer’s proposals, there would be three “super bishops.

Packer’s proposals come amid calls from a significant number of General Synod members for a delay in pressing ahead with legislation to introduce women bishops.

The archbishops of Canterbury and York, the two most senior figures in the church, are understood to favour a compromise that would avoid an exodus of the most conservative wing, The Times newspapaper said.

Read it all.

Nadal, seldom short of positive energy, leapt with delight and hustled to his chair to prepare to serve for the championship. It was 9:10 p.m. in London when he walked to the baseline, and the light was so dim at the end of this intermittently rainy day that both players were concerned.

“I almost couldn’t see who I was playing,” Federer said, shaking his head.

Nadal agreed. “In the last game, I didn’t see nothing,” he said. “Was unbelievable. I thought we have to stop.”

Wimbledon’s organizers have pushed their sessions to the limit this year, with other matches finishing at 9:30 p.m. Not finishing on Sunday would have forced the tournament to extend to Monday, with all the logistical challenges that would have entailed.

“It would have been brutal for fans, for media, for us, for everybody to come back tomorrow, but what are you going to do?” Federer said. “It’s rough on me now, obviously, to lose the biggest tournament in the world over maybe a bit of light.”

You have to love the picture. I was interested to hear Brad Gilbert, Patrick McEnroe, and Bud Collins all describe it as the best match ever in their mind. I leave that evaluation to later when more perspective is possible, I am just blessed to have seen it–read it all.