Some of these online quizzes are fun and interesting. It's always worth remembering that many of them are made by people who aren't necessarily experts in the subject at hand. In this case, though I thought the quiz was well thought out. I'm not sure I agree with the summary of my results, but I'm intrigued by it.

You scored as Mystical Communion Model. Your model of the church is Mystical Communion, which includes both People of God and Body of Christ. The church is essentially people in union with Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit. Both lay people and clergy are drawn together in a family of faith. This model can exalt the church beyond what is appropriate, but can be supplemented with other models.

Mystical Communion Model		84%
Sacrament model		72%
Herald Model		56%
Servant Model		50%
Institutional Model		11%

What is your model of the church? [Dulles] (created with QuizFarm.com

No one has ever accused me of being a court watcher. While I like to keep abreast of what the appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court are saying about the issues of the day, prognosticating on who the next judicial nominee will be and sifting through nominees' garbage have never been my idea of a good time. So I barely noticed when talk of George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, turned away from the nominee and toward his wife—until I realized that I know his wife.

Jane Sullivan (later Jane Sullivan Roberts) and I worked together on the board of directors of Feminists for Life of America in the 1990s. I knew her as a highly intelligent woman, an accomplished attorney, and a consummate professional. She is also against abortion, which means that she is now being vilified by single issue wing nuts who would appoint Mickey Mouse to the Supreme Court if he promised to keep abortion not only legal but as prevalent as possible. And make no mistake—those people are scared to death of Jane, if for no other reason than that she may—gasp!—influence her husband.

Fine, I'll play their game. Who exactly is Jane Sullivan Roberts? Let's look at the picture painted by Nina Easton of the Boston Globe:

In 1998, two teenage girls—one pregnant, one a new mother—sued a Kentucky school district because officials there, hoping to send teens a message about unwed motherhood, denied them admission to the National Honor Society.

In an affidavit filed in the case, Serrin M. Foster, president of the group Feminists for Life, argued that the school district's policy would "encourage students to hide their pregnancies and not seek prenatal care...and instead obtain an abortion, or, worst of all, commit neonatal infanticide."

Foster's affidavit was written by a technology attorney named Jane Sullivan Roberts [...]

In the course of her work for Feminists for Life, where she serves as pro bono counsel, Roberts has allied with many of the same groups that are fighting her husband's nomination. Among them: NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and NARAL. In the Kentucky case, her affidavit supported a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or Hanna Rosin of the Washington Post:

[S]he has lived a modern feminist adventurer's life, traveling the world in her twenties, collecting degrees in math and education, becoming a partner at a competitive D.C. law firm, starting her own family in her forties.

[ . . . ]

At the moment she found Feminists for Life, they were just gearing up for a transformation, and Roberts instantly joined the board and gave the group legal advice. In their efforts to address the causes of abortion, they banded with traditional feminist groups to lobby for the Violence Against Women Act and against certain welfare cuts.

[ . . . ]

At Holy Cross, in Massachusetts, she was part of its first freshman class of women. Some had opposed the decision to integrate, so the women who chose to go there were seen as pathbreakers, pioneers walking into sometimes uncomfortable territory.

Dangerous stuff, these women who dare to think for themselves, refuse to be pigeonholed, and—most shocking of all—have the unmitigated gall to work for a more just society for women instead of just bitching about the one we have now.

One can certainly understand why the abortion apologists who are now trying to depict Jane Sullivan Roberts as a whack job are so threatened. For them, it's all about abortion. Not that they'll ever admit it. On the contrary, they like to pretend they aren't really for abortion at all. Yet in trying to convince others, they often unwittingly concede that abortion is not a free choice but rather something that is chosen by women who feel they've been backed into a corner. Don't take my word for it—listen to them:

No woman wants to have an abortion for the fun of it or as some sort of rite of passage. The decision to have an abortion reflects the poverty and inequities of the world we live in: scarce resources for and commitment to children; relationships where men are not prepared to love and commit to women and children; hostility toward sexuality and women.
—Catholics for a Free Choice

Kate Michelman, head of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, made a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We think abortion is a bad thing. No woman wants to have an abortion." After publication in that paper, Michelman denied that she said it, but it was on tape.
—As referenced by Rachel MacNair, Achieving Peace in the Abortion War

No woman wants to have an abortion, but many college women would prefer that choice be there if they have to choose between having an early baby and having a college education.
—Melanie Delp, UNC Greenboro

If we are to take these people at their word, we see that it is far less pro-woman to merely perpetuate what women see as a tragic last resort than it is to focus on providing more first resorts. Abortion advocacy organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Organization for Women cling to the last resort because that where the money is. Feminists for Life, through the hard work of people like Jane Sullivan Roberts, works on making more available the options that women want so they don't end up with their backs against the wall with abortion as the only way out.

The fact is that if Jane did the very same advocacy work on the very same issues for a pro-abortion organization that she has done for Feminists for Life, she'd be hailed as a committed feminist. Of course, she'd be hard pressed to find a pro-abortion organization that actually offers other choices to women. They're Madison Avenue tag line of "pro-choice" is spot on because they're for only one choice while denigrating the others. So strident is abortion orthodoxy that it encourages the narrow-mindedness that renders adherents incapable of thinking outside the box and effecting the kind of social change needed to address the most challenging situations that 21st century women face. Read the above quotes one more time and you'll see a trend: Abortion defenders see poverty and inequities, scarce resources, non-supportive men, hostility toward women, women having to choose between their children and their educations—and they think abortion will fix it. People like Jane see the same thing and seek to eliminate the injustices instead of eliminating the children. The two approaches are light years apart.

While strong independent women like Jane Sullivan Roberts are blazing trails, the pseudo-feminist establishment keeps itself mired down in the same tired thinking that has failed to solve the problems that lead women to abortion in the first place. No wonder they're all afraid of Jane.

As a single woman all my life, I have never felt "out of place" at church. I am a cradle Catholic, much more active in adulthood than I was as a child, and have always belonged to moderate congregations. So this attitude is completely foreign to me:

With keys in one hand and a Bible clutched in the other, I get out of my car and take the first step of what I know to be the longest walk of my life. After overcoming the urge, more than once, to turn around and go home, I take a deep breath as I begin walking up the front steps. At the top, I am greeted with a handshake before merging unnoticed into the crowd as I make my way to an empty pew. I keep myself occupied by reading the church bulletin. It's Sunday again, and I'm single!

"It can be dispiriting to sit alone in a church seemingly full of married couples. Many single people—generally happy, well-adjusted folks—feel utterly uncomfortable in church," said Camerin Courtney, an editor for Today's Christian Woman, as quoted in Lauren Winner's book titled, Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.

Such a problem exists only in a church that views marriage as the primary goal of one's very existence. Chances are, such a church's idea of marriage is something like this:

God has given men and women different roles in the family, the Church, and society. This teaching of Christ is mostly ignored by modern society.

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties." [Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Arcanum Divinae, n. 11]

The first quote comes from the American Family Association, headed by a conservative United Methodist minister. The second comes from a conservative Catholic web site. Both quotes reveal the error of traditionalist Christian thought, that people as created by God aren't really good enough until they clothe themselves in man-made gender roles.

I used to think that such attitudes were the inevitable consequence of Christian fundamentalism/conservatism. Lara, an online friend from way back, recently showed me otherwise when she told me about having embraced the concept of biblical equality. Still, while oppressive gender stereotyping may not be inevitable among conservative Christians, it remains prevalent.

In many ways, I am much more liberal than even my own congregation. I do know several progressives who are active in the parish, but as a whole we don't really embrace progressivism the way I'd like to. Nevertheless, I am fully accepted as a single mother engaged in lay ministry roles and have never felt discouraged from participation on any level because of my marital or parental status. Part of the reason is because I am comfortable in my own skin and assert my right to be where I am and doing what I'm doing, but I have not had to ignore the actions or comments of other parishioners or church staff in order to do so. On the contrary, my participation has been actively sought and welcomed.

So to those like the writer of the first article, I say that if you are shunned in your church community, you can and should find another church. And to the writer of the second, I say that I hope you stay far away from my parish. We don't need or want you.

Fourteen days after the deadly terrorist attacks against London's public transit system, there have been more bombings, CNN.com is reporting. This time, a hospital may also be a target or in some other way involved.

Police said Thursday there were small explosions at Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations and an incident was reported on a bus in east London.

Scotland Yard also confirmed they were looking into an "incident" at University College Hospital, where armed officers have been deployed. Witnesses report policemen with flak jackets entered the hospital along with dogs.

Though initial reports are sketchy, it does not appear that today's attacks are as serious in terms of casualties as the July 7 bombings. Still, this can't be good news for a city and a nation that have ramped up security measures in the last two weeks.

Update

The BBC is describing the attacks as "minor blasts" and reports one injury and no fatalities. Authorities have arrested two and continue to puruse "a number" more; they believe today's explosions are related in some way to the terrorist attacks two weeks ago.

To continue to follow this story online:

• BBC News (UK)
• Sky News (UK)
• Guardian Unlimited (UK)
• The Telegraph Online (UK)
• CNN International (USA)
• Fox News (USA)
• MSNBC World News (USA)

The Den Mother is proud to join Robert Mayer and others in flying the Union Jack in solidarity with our friends.

U.S. Navy Capt. M. Scott Speicher, if he is still alive, will be 48 years old next week. More than 14 of those years have passed since his aircraft was shot down over Iraq and he was declared dead. The problem was that he apparently ejected, survived, and may even have been captured, something that was not thought to be the case until many years and a lengthy investigation later.

Capt. Speicher's family an friends had great reason to hope he would be found after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in 2003 and U.S. troops occupied Iraq. Instead, the leads dried up one by one. Rumors from earlier this year suggested that the Navy might again change Speicher's status, this time back to Killed in Action.

Now comes a bit of good news that the Navy isn't willing to give up on finding him quite yet. A special board of inquiry has recommended that efforts to find Speicher be not only continued but intensified.

As his friends strongly believe, he needs to be brought home if alive and given a proper burial on American soil if dead. The Department of Defense continues to seek the return of MIAs from prior wars dating back to World War II, and every so often their efforts result in the return of remains to the families. Capt. Speicher, who may still be alive, deserves at least that much effort.

The apparent terrorist attacks that shook London earlier today were intended to coincide with the G8 summit, theorized Prime Minister Tony Blair. Perhaps an unintended by-product of that timing is the ability of the world's leaders to make a visible display of solidarity by appearing alongside Blair as he addressed the media. The not-so-subliminal message: terrorist barbarians will be confronted by the ire of the civilized world, which will unite against them.

Update

The casualties continue to mount, with 37 now reported as killed and hundreds upon hundreds injured. Perhaps that is the silver lining, that so many managed to survive. You may recall that there were relatively few injuries as a result of the September 11 attacks; in the World Trade Center towers in particular, those who didn't get out unscathed simply perished when the buildings collapsed.

Major events such as this tend to bring out the crackpots, and they all seem to be congregating over at Democratic Underground, where terrorism apologists abound and have no trouble finding reasons why Londoners deserved to be attacked:

[R]emember who it was that launched an unprovoked invasion of a disarmed country and murdered 112,000 Iraqis. How many times sicker are those people?? THAT is what these people are responding to.

On the other hand, saner minds have issued unequivocal condemnations of the bombings. Among the best statements I have read is from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

[I]f these terrorists thought they could intimidate the people of a great nation, they picked the wrong people and the wrong nation. For generations, tyrants, fascists, and terrorists have sought to carry out their violent designs upon the British people only to founder upon its unrelenting shores.

Before long, I suspect that those responsible for these acts will encounter British steel. Their kind of steel has an uncommon strength. It does not bend or break.

The International Olympic Committee has selected London, England as the host of the 2012 summer Olympics. London beat out Paris, Madrid, New York, and Moscow for the biennial honor.

The conventional wisdom had Paris as the favorite, but as was the case with the selection of Beijing for 2008, that prediction proved wrong. Moscow was the first of the finalist cities to be eliminated in the voting, followed by New York and then Madrid. French representatives were said to be stunned by the final vote.

Having never been to London, I have no personal opinion as to how they will fare hosting an event of Olympic magnitude. They hosted the games twice previously, but the Games—and the world—are quite a bit bigger now. Still, if Athens managed to pull it off in 2004 in spite of the ineptness of their organizing committee, London should certainly be able to get it together in the next seven years.

What is interesting about London (like Sydney in 2000) is that it isn't easily accessible by motorists from other countries. A larger-than-usual percentage of visitors will arrive by plane or take the train ride from mainland Europe via the Chunnel. In either case, visitors will rely heavily on public transportation, which is a good thing considering what a mess such an influx of tourists would make if they were to bring in their own cars.

As for why the U.S. will not be hosting the games for the fifth time in less than 35 years, the opposite traffic situation applies in New York. A focal point of the United States' great northeastern megalopolis, New York is a day's drive or less for millions upon millions of people who might not be able to afford to go to an Olympics if they had to fly. And it is not an easy city for visitors to move around in; toll bridges tie up traffic throughout the boroughs, signage is poor to non-existent in many areas, and the easily navigable Manhattan street grid becomes a parking lot at least twice a day with just the cars they already have. The city is also ill-suited for the type of centralized activity that helps make the Olympic experience so exciting; I can't imagine how they could manage even two or three event venues within walking distance of one another. The recent failure to finalize plans for a new waterfront stadium must have weighed heavily against them as well. In my opinion, New York didn't have a prayer.

But I digress. Now London embarks on the long road that Torino, Beijing, and Vancouver are already on. Like those cities and others before, I'm sure they'll put on a fabulous show.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton