The Spotsy Awards

I note this week it's July 4th and I'm sick and tired of writing about the Mugabes and Akinola's of the world; here's a few heroes to inspire rather than lament.

The life-time Spotsy for non-achievement goes to 73-year old Shivcharan Jatav of Jaipur, India. Mr. Jatav failed his 10th grade high school finals for the 39th time since 1969 (more than my Spanish, geometry and chemistry failures, combined, but not by much). He vows to try again. Get this gals; he says if he ever does pass, he'll be more the eligible bachelor then ever.

The Spotsy for courage-under-fire goes to professors and students at Baghdad U. The AP reports how a family of one coed, Afrah Kakhim, pays a trusted friend to drive her and nine others to campus. Some students skipped their finals after gunmen tried to ambush another minibus. She'd only answered two questions before the gunfire grew too intense and they fled the classroom. Over 200 professors have been killed since 2003. Afrah says, "I cannot let terrorism beat me. If they keep us from college, they will deny us everything. I defy all the difficulties to finish my studies. I need a job to help my family."

When I think of what I got up to in college...

The cutting-edge Spotsy goes to public libraries in DC, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York where USA Today writes services for the homeless include seminars on health care, internet job search training, housing and counseling referrals, and a 5-day camp for homeless children.

On the other hand, a Spotsy curmudgeon goes to "Nancy Huntley, Director of the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois," who, "says services for the homeless are outside the scope of a librarian's job. Our role is just to provide books and information."

Hold those boo's. I can't quite bring myself to condemn Nancy. First, I aspire myself to be a curmudgeon. Second, as a former shelter manager, I'm forced in my mind to balance the rights of 'ordinary,' patrons not to be accosted by panhandlers, or startled by loud inappropriate outbursts, while perusing the shelves in what I consider to be a holy space.

It's interestng Nancy's feelings surfaced at the Lincoln Library. I've spent the past month engrossed in, Team of Rivals, by Doris Kerns Goodwin. I'm looking at life through What Would Lincoln Do lens.

I find his way of approaching controversy similar to mine: perform in-depth reserach; agree with opponents where you can; contest all illogical arguments.

Lincoln didn't appeal to higher law though his language was often spiritual. He wasn't a believer in an afterlife, of things unproven. He discerned hallowed documents, then followed the precedent of law as inspired by the Declaration of Independence, and specifically codified as practice, by the Constitution; a relationship, similar perhaps, to Bible and Prayer Book.

I'm still unsure where that leaves Lincoln in regards to rights of homeless and non-homeless library patrons; maybe I'll figure that out by the end of this piece.

I'm on firmer ground predicting Lincoln's stance in our Church struggle. He undoubtedly would be for restoring union.

During the past two General Conventions, votes were tallied as two thirds for the consecreation of Bishop Robinson and the election of Bishop Katharine; surely a mandate for inclusion, in accordance with established electoral and legislative practices of The Episcopal Church. As a matter of conscience, Lincoln wouldn't have blocked the formation of an opposition Church party; he also wouldn't have countenanced a secession that included seizing property. Lincoln would have referred, not to the authority of the Bible, as a practical matter, but to the Canons and Constitution, as the final arbiter.

Lincoln consistently maintained it was crucial to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories; that in accordance with natural law and morality, the institution would eventually die out on its own where it already existed. Here, I must question, as did the abolitionists, why he did not consider it his responsbility to end the horrific injustice, immediately, despite the cost. The same question can be posed to St. Paul; he wrote slaves should be content with their lot in life due the immanence of the Second Coming. I can't accept Lincoln or Paul's logic here, nor can many African-Americans who are anti-Pauline for this reason. Nevertheless, once the union of the Church was restored, and inclusion Constitutionally enshrined, Lincoln definitely would have magnanimously embraced reconciliation.

I noted a few weeks ago the significance of the Vice President holding the offspring of his lesbian daughter. The Economist just posted survey results showing a whopping three quarters of 18-34 year olds think there's nothing wrong with being gay, as opposed to a majority over 55 who still think otherwise. The future belongs to inclusion; the notion that mainline churches will die out, over this issue, while fundamentalism will triumph, is proved false by the accurarial data, as long as those 18-34 year olds attend church at all. The crucial question remains, as it was for Lincoln, is how long must we wait, or must we wait at all?

There are those who believe the Civil War needn't have been fought; that Lincoln was right about a foredained end to the institution of slavery without the requisite bloodshed. My conscience, or energy of impatience, informs otherwise. Yet, our very continued existence as an evicted Episcopal parish stands as a more peaceful resistance to those whose ethos is formed by the superiority of exclusion. Within our temporary deprivation, there is no anger or bitterness, nor desire to make war on our enemies, only the same abundance of goodness and decency that has traditionally defined the parish, and indeed, Americans at their best. The last grace-under-pressure Spotsy goes to us, then, St. Margaret's Episcopal, of Woodbridge, Virginia, USA, in our year of the Lord, 2007.

Now, how about those rights of homeless and non-homeless library patrons. Can separate but equal needs be integrated in the same place at the same time? The answer must always be: yes.