Advent Brings A New Rite (for some)...

From the Boston Business Journal

 There is excitement in the air for this Advent, and it's not just because it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

The long-awaited rite for blessing same-sex relationships has arrived, and is going into effect this Sunday in those dioceses where they are permitting the rite's trial usuage.  Called, "I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing," the rite tracks much the same liturgy that exists for straight couples in the church, with Scripture readings, presentation of the couple before the presider, vows and rings.  I posted a link to the rite on Facebook and the overwhelming reviews from my Christian, and non-Christian, straight friends has been "beautiful."

It is well-written.  It is a right and good and joyful thing.  And it is not available in all dioceses of the church.

I'm beginning to feel a little bit like I live on the Island of Misfit Toys.  I see the postings from friends celebrating this momentous occasion in the history of our church, and yet I know this Advent will be no different than the ones from previous years when it comes to the place of the LGBT faithful in this diocese.  We are to give our time, our treasure, our talent (up to a point), but there is no will power to really live into that final statement of our Baptismal Covenant:

"Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"

There is no out-clause of, "Well, except for those queers!"  And there is nothing that excuses the rest of the Church, the larger body living in enlightenment, from keeping their laterns safely ensconced in their own dioceses when there are still large pockets of darkness that exist in the Church as a whole.  LGBT people in Florida live in a state where the civil authorities have been stepping on our necks for decades, and the church has chosen to keep its prophetic voice silent on such matters.  Refusing to even discuss the new rite, and issuing the edict that there will be no blessing of same-sex unions even before there was a vote at General Convention, was just business as usual.

Some have talked to me about how it was in the days of women's ordination.  Heck, they can't seem to get over the gender issue in England, not to mention those places in this country where parishoners still will cross to the other side of the rail rather than receive the Eucharist from a woman.  I know my sisters in Christ have endured much pain and hardship in the face of such anti-Christian behavior and dogma.  That doesn't make the foot-dragging and the intentional snubbing of LGBT Christians as fully-baptized members of the church any better.  In fact, haven't we spent enough time beating each other down rather than building each other up?  Are we really that slow to understand that when Jesus fed all the many thousands of people, he fed all and all were satisfied?  Is "all" too difficult to comprehend?

And so here I sit, on the Island of Misfit Toys, wondering when we will see the day that all people see justice and peace, and have their dignity respected.  Hurrah for you, my brothers and sisters in elsewhere Episcopaland. And don't be afraid to send some light this way!

Well, I Declare: Welcome to My World!

I have tremendous respect for Rev. Susan Russell and the many folks at Integrity who have fought tirelessly for decades to bring about full equality for all the baptized in the Episcopal Church. And, as anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows, I owe more than a hat tip to Bishop Gene Robinson for his role in my spiritual development from the time he was running Sign of the Dove Retreat Center when I was a confirmand at Christ Church in Exeter to his brave and brilliant witness as the bishop of the diocese in my native New Hampshire.

These are the people who have been on the front lines of this struggle for LGBT equality. They know how hard it is to overcome prejudice and fear, and they have stuck it out in the face of some ugly opposition.

All of us who have had to take a stand for our rights to be treated as full members of the Body of Christ, whether it be in the context of our churches or in the secular arenas of government, have seen the hard-heartedness of those who wish to hold back the LGBT community, and make us second-class citizens. It is extraordinarily difficult, at times, to maintain your center when you come face-to-face with homophobia and hatred. I know my voice has trembled as I have learned to speak my truth living in an area of the country that has not always shown "my kind" love and acceptance.

But I am heartened when I see the chipping away at hard-line stands against LGBT people in those places where I least expect to see it.  Such was the case this summer when our General Convention approved a rite of blessing for same-sex couples paving the way for churches in those dioceses that allow for civil marriages to offer the seal of approval in the church communtiy as well.  This was a big deal for my brothers and sisters living in the more enlightened areas of the country.   For those of us dwelling in one of the 35 states where marriage equality is prohibited by law, this was another sad reminder of our circumstances.  Still, the option is there for bishops to adopt the rite approved to fit their context. 

Amazingly, some have done it.  The bishop of Southeast Florida gave the green light to the priests in his diocese to offer a blessing to those couples who were married elsewhere (since Florida bans marriage equality...or "the substantial equivalent thereof" in both the state constitution and four places in the state statutes.)  The bishop of the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, which begins at Apalachicola and runs along the southern part of Alabama, also gave his approval to use the blessing rite with many caveats (e.g. a lesbian or gay couple must receive his OK in addition to that of a priest and a church vestry).  Not perfect, but better than a flat out, "No!"

Now the bishop of the diocese of Georgia has finally weighed in.   Oddly, Bishop Scott Benhase has felt the need to modify what had been adopted because he contends that the language accepted at General Convention was too much like a marriage.  For him, a marriage within the context of the church is for "one man and one woman."   The one and only rite acceptable in Georgia is what is called Appendix 1 and is basically like a Prayers of the People and not actual vows spoken by the couple.  It is an odd choice and takes away from what I believe the church should be blessing: namely, a covenant between two people. 

But then, we are talking about the diocese of Georgia... which includes all the very red state areas of southern Georgia.  And sadly, Blakely, GA, is not Berkeley, CA.

Sigh.  Welcome to my world!

The upside, for me, is that at least they have approved something in Georgia that acknowledges the existence of LGBT couples in their congregations.  This is a step ahead of the diocese of Florida, the place I find myself, with its headquarters in the equally conservative Jacksonville.  Never mind that the western part of this diocese includes the much more liberal Tallahassee or the southern end that has the far more progressive Gainesville.  In the diocese of Florida, we do not discuss "the love that dares not speak its name."   We gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians are the invisible ones who are welcome to be members of a church, contribute to the lay ministries, and most definitely to the collection plate and stewardship campaign.  But we are to assimilate and then shut up about this "gay thing."   And those actions of acceptance done in Christ's name in Indianapolis this summer?   We are to greet such news with a polite smile, a "bless their hearts,"and then we are to proceed with business as usual. 

This hodgepodge system of acceptance hardly seems like the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven to me.  But what are we to expect when we give bishops the latitude to adapt and make up their own definitions of what constitutes "generous pastoral care" to the LGBT communities in their midst?  I realize this is the only way to get some bishops to do the right, and good, and joyful thing of recognizing the Christ in me and others like me.  But it is also giving many the out to simply keep us as strangers at the gate and refuse to extend the full welcome we all desire.  When is that no longer going to be acceptable?

I appreciate that both Rev. Susan and Bishop Gene are ticked off about the response from the bishop of Georgia.  But the door is cracked open in Savannah in a way that it is not in places like Tallahassee and Orlando.

Welcome to my world.  It's time for the really Good News to reach the Deep South.

The Burning Desire for that Bread and Wine

It's week number three of the "I am the bread" lines from John's gospel.  And I can just hear the priests who are preaching this Sunday secretly wondering, "How long, God?  How many more sermons can I write on this topic?" 

Better still, this is the portion of the "I am the bread" speech which talks about actually eating Jesus' true flesh and drinking his true blood as the pathway to eternal life.  Sounds a bit like the Zombie Apocalypse, doesn't it?

In all seriousness, this may be the perfect opportunity in some quarters to touch on that issue of this past General Convention: open communion.   That would be the broad topic.  The narrower discussion might be, "Why ARE we so protective of this sacrament?  Why DO we value baptism as the prerequisite to receiving this true bread and blood of Christ?" 

In the Episcopal Church, or at least in my experience of being an Episcopalian low these 44 years, I find that we don't like to ask these types of questions.  For all that we say that we don't check our brains at the door (and that IS true), most of us don't consider why we do the things we do.  We do them because "that's the way we've always done it."  One must be baptized to receive the Eucharist.  This is how we know that someone is a baptized Christian.  By receiving the host and the wine, the individual receiving this is bringing Christ into them, and feeding the Christ seed that was planted in them from the beginning of their lives and sealed at their baptism with water and oil. 

But for me that raises another question.  If baptism is all that is required for someone to receive the Eucharist, then why do so many parents and churches forbid children... yes even babies... from receiving?  Could a baby not get the host possibly with an ever-so-slight touch of the wafer into the cup of Salvation?  Perhaps that might seem too far-fetched, but I really don't think it is.   I don't understand the practice of making baptized children prove themselves worthy of the Eucharist through doing special projects before they can have the taste of the body and blood of Christ.  If we value baptism as our adoption by God into the body of Christ, then there is nothing left for a child to prove.   They are worthy. 

I remember when I had to go through my own routine of proving worthiness to my rector.  I was willing to jump through all the hoops in the world, create the poster with pictures representing "community", meet with him to talk about what I thought "communion" meant, and so on and so on.  I did this because I was longing to receive Christ in the same way that everybody else was.  Did I have a fully-formed theological position as to what happens when I take Christ into my own body?  At seven years-old, no, I did not.  What I knew was that I wanted it and I didn't understand why I couldn't have it.  I sometimes see this same desire in children at the rail.  The priest has stopped and offered a blessing on the child's forehead.  And then comes me with that bright shiny chalice.  I ask quietly of the parents if their child can receive.  Almost always the answer is, "No." And so I look and smile at this young one, and can feel their eyes as they carefully observe me administering the cup to mom and dad.  Some of the really young ones might reach for the cup.  I had one baby do that last week, and I smiled at her and said, "Yes!" 

So, if there is a desire of children who are baptized to receive communion before they have done whatever they need to do to satisfy some human-imposed requirement that allows them this very important sacrament, what would it be for the adult person who also wants to receive, but perhaps is not baptized?   What might it be that urges them to want to go to the rail?

Perhaps it's the continuous message they hear that to eat and drink these elements is to become one with this amazing presence called Jesus Christ.  Perhaps in their own hearts and minds, God is doing work that we can not see.  They could be just wanting to receive because of that good ol' fashion peer pressure of "everybody else is doing it."  In that case, I suppose, it will go in and out of them without ever taking root.  But what if they are someone who is seeking after God in Christ?  Do we say, "No!"?  Do we really have the right to refuse God to someone who asks for it?

I have heard veterans of war talk about their experience in the midst of battle.  When your life is under constant threat from an enemy military, and there is a priest offering communion to the troops, it's amazing how nobody bothers to stop and say, "All baptized Christians are welcome to receive."  Such formalities go out the window, and everyone, baptized or not... and some who are non-Christian, take the sacrament.  And nobody died of that.

Tradition of the church gives us many examples of baptism as an important first step in the journey toward God.  Jesus was baptized before he spent his 40 days in struggle becoming readied for the task before him.  Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in one of those dramatic moments in Acts where an apostle sees that one need not be a Jew or even look like a Jew or be of a particular orientation to be worthy of this entrance right into relationship with God.  So I do understand the desire for not watering down, as it were, the importance of baptism.  But is the table of God a place to draw a line in the sand?  And if it is, when will we really put into practice the idea that all baptized Christians, from babies to their great-grandparents, are eligible to receive?

Same-Sex Blessings: Good Enough for Pensacola

Big news from a most unlikely area of the Sunshine State.

Bishop Philip M. Duncan II of the diocese of the Central Gulf Coast has said he will allow priests in his diocese to use the recently adopted blessings for same-sex unions.

OK... let me say that again.

A bishop.  Of the Episcopal Church.  In the state of Florida that is NOT Miami Beach has said, "Yes to Bless."

This is a big deal.  Especially because Bishop Duncan had voted, "No" at the General Convention in Indianapolis.

Now there is still a HOWEVER within this decision.  Bishop Duncan is giving priests and parishes the chance to "opt out"; if they "opt in" then the couples must meet with a priest and he will consider each request for a blessing of a same-sex union individually upon notification from said priest.  Still, this is a huge step toward equality from a part of the state which has infamously awarded custody of children to fathers with murder convictions rather than to mothers who also happen to be lesbians.  Bishop Duncan is anticipating some push-back.  And I appreciate what he told the Pensacola News-Journal:

“Episcopalians are a strange lot in that we are always asked to use our minds and our hearts, and to think about where God is calling us,” he said. “We can all hold divergent opinions on things that are allowed.”

I am hoping his decision will serve as a note of encouragement to other bishops in this pocket of the southeastern United States.  The bishop of Alabama, Rt. Rev. Kee Sloan, voted for A049.  But he is not allowing use of the liturgy until there has been more discussion within the diocese.  Bishop Duncan's territory stretches into southern Alabama.  Perhaps +Kee Sloan will receive a level of comfort from the approach his brother in the HoB has taken.  And perhaps it will aid Bishop Sloan as he embarks on the dialogue in his part of the state.

And, of course, one can only hope that Bishop Duncan might pick up the phone and have a chat with the Bishop of Florida, who also voted No at GC77.  And not only voted No, told us in a letter before convention that he would vote No and he won't allow any of our priests to get anywhere near that gay thing.  For me, and for many others, the stance of our bishop on this matter has been a cross between tiresome to painful.   You can only take so much of seeing the postcards from General Convention, gleefully announcing the widening inclusiveness of the Episcopal Church, all the while knowing that this "inclusive thing ain't gonna happen here!"   In order for any of these resolutions to pass, there always needs to be the clause that allows somebody somewhere to be left behind.   We wonder, "Gee, who will be the next group that is excluded from the welcome?"  Well, right now, it's those of us stuck in those places that have been allowed to be foot-draggers or total obstructionists.  When will "All" mean "All"?

If it can happen in the pro-military, patriotic, flag-waving land of Pensacola, it should be able to happen anywhere.

Bishop Philip M. Duncan II:  very well-done and God bless you!  You're a Bishop Duncan I can like!

Picking Up Their Ball and Going Home (fixing link)

(fixing errors in link and information)
There's so much to talk about in regards to things happening in these final days of General Convention 2012. But I am not surprised to see this news to say that the diocese of South Carolina is pitching a fit and leaving.  Two members are staying behind, but the rest of the deputation can not continue to function in a "business as usual" way.   Will be interested to see what unfolds.  I guess in South Carolina, the signs that say "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" really need the addendum, "Except you queers!"

H/T to Grandmere Mimi for the heads up on the broken link.

Point of Personal Privilege

Bishop Gene Robinson has had enough.

Yesterday, he rose on a point of personal privilege and called on his brother and sister bishops to cease and desist in the constant sniping and backstabbing that he has had to endure for nine years.

I am not there in Indianapolis, so I don't know what it was that two other members of the House of Bishops have said or done to undermine Bishop Gene's credibility this time, but I really don't have to be there because anyone who has followed this man's career, especially during these past nine years, are all too aware of how nasty and mean-spirited and downright ugly people have been.   Particularly the people in the purple shirts.  It is disheartening and it is a dishonor to the One whom these bishops say they serve.

Bishop Gene has had to endure more crap from all corners than anyone should ever have to take.  Pointedly excluded from the decennial Lambeth Conference; daily death threats; endless interviews in which he must answer questions about the bad behavior of others toward him in the Anglican Communion rather than talk about his true passion, which is God.  What's his "gay agenda?"  Answer: Jesus Christ.    

It is fascinating, in that incredible God way, that Bishop Gene's statement to basically, "Get off my case!" came on the same day that the House of Bishops approved resolutions to widen our welcome in the Episcopal Church to transgender people, and adopt liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions.  It is the perfect display of where we are as the Episcopal Church.  On the one hand, we are ready to embrace the differences in our human sexuality and see them not as divisions but more of the wondrous biodiversity of God's good creation.  HOWEVER...

There always seems to be a "however."  While most of the Episcopal Church is basking in the glow of the sun (or is that S-o-n), there are many more of us living in dioceses that have overcast skies and in, some cases, a forecast of endless rain.   No matter what happens at the national level, there always seems to be the fine print that says, "This offer is null and void in [fill in the blank]."  For those of us living in places where the sun isn't shining yet, it can be depressing to see the postcards from elsewhere with the implied message of,"Wish you were here."

In the realm of God, there is no fine print.  There are no black-out dates, no exceptions, no exclusions.  Christ's love for the world is for all, everyone, and given out freely with plenty to go around.   It is only in the church, a human institution with human beings running it, that suddenly some travelers are left stranded at the gate.  And why is that?

It is fear.  Fear of the unknown, of what may or may not occur if we allow people who are living in society's margins to have a seat inside the church, inside the rail even, and give them the chance to rest and bask in God's love story and participate as active members in its telling and re-telling to the world at-large.  Fear, the very thing that throughout Scripture God is saying, "do not be afraid! I am with you!"   Fear, the direct opposite of faith, the roaring lion that is on the prowl ready to devour everything and anything in its path.  I heard it expressed again and again when I read the testimony given on the same-sex blessing resolution.  Clergy and bishops talking of their fear of what granting full membership in the Body of Christ to LGBT people will do to Christians and churches half-way around the world.  Do these same bishops and clergy ask themselves about what happens when the church doesn't recognize us as fellow Christians in those same countries?

That whole argument about what is happening... and could happen to Christians... in predominantly Muslim countries is a red herring.  The tension between the cousin religions has been going on for millennia, I would even argue from the moment that Abraham turned to Hagar and said, "Sorry, babe.  You and Ismael have gotta go."   Dangers have faced Christian minorities long before the Episcopal Church began embarking on a call to allow all of God's children access to the sacraments of the church.  Seriously, folks: crack open your copies of "Holy Women, Holy Men" and read all about the various martyrs throughout our history.

I can be sensitive to the difficulties inclusion may pose for some members of the body.  But I can not allow my sensitivity to their pain to become my pain as well.  Because I am not in pain.  I am in joy.  I can not allow their fears to become my fears because I am not afraid.  I have faith that God will continue to spread out a feast of Love before us every day with the open invitation to those who want to come to the table to pull up a chair and break bread and have wine and be happy.

I have had enough of the bickering, and the clouds and the rain.  It is time for the sun to shine.  Everywhere.

New Zealand says "Meh" to Anglican Covenant

Word from New Zealand is that their General Synod has voted, "No" on the Anglican Covenant.  Well, actually, they've said, "Meh."   Sections 1-3, which restate what the core beliefs are in Christianity and affirms that Anglicans really like their bishops, seem acceptable enough to the church there.  However, Section four, which contains the big stick method of disciplining those member churches that do things outside the box (like ordaining women and gays and supporting marriage equality), did not go over well in NZ.  Since it seems votes on the Anglican Covenant do not allow for breaking apart the four-sectioned document, the vote would go down in the books as a "No".  And it was unanimous.

Will see how the Anglican Communion Office spins that one.

In the meantime, at a church convention much closer to home, our deputies and bishops are grinding up the various proposals on the Anglican Covenant from the "Oh, yes, sir: please may I have another" idea... to the "Are you nuts? No!" proposal that I support, as well as everything in between.   The type of sausage that will come of this process is still unclear.  Our No Anglican Covenant Coalition representatives, Lionel Deimel and Revd. Malcolm French, are doing a great job of making our case that our "No" must mean "No".   Both of them have been talking to deputies and bishops and keeping us all abreast via their blogs (Lionel Deimel's Web Log and Simple Massing Priest).  The big sticking point seems to be fear.  I'm not sure if anyone is actually using that word--fear--in their discussions and debates as they try to shove this bit and that piece into the sausage casing.  But from what I am gathering from our intrepid leaders of NACC, there is this desire on the part of the subcommittee making the sausage to come up with a product that both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops can gobble down without choking.  There is strong feeling that the HoD is not interested in the Anglican Covenant and wants it to die.  But there are those in the HoB, some of whom are part of the sausage subcommittee, that... (here it comes) fear a firm "No" will be unacceptable.

Let me quote a portion of a Rule for Lent that was once shared in a sermon by former Episcopal Presiding Bishop Arthur Lichtenberger:  "Fast on fear, and feast on faith."

I am hoping those creating the Episcopal Church's answer to the Anglican Covenant will pay attention to what is happening.  The Anglican Covenant is a non-starter in much of the Anglican Communion.  Worrying and hand-wringing about what may or may not happen in the HoB seems to be an excuse to allow fear to have the upper-hand in our true discernment of the proposal.  If the deputies are strongly opposed, it really doesn't matter if the bishops vote for it.   And trying to second-guess or hedge bets or whatever is just creating more chaos where there is a clear choice: we either approve it or we don't.  And most of us in this church don't want it, so let the vote reflect that opinion.   Please do not kick it down the road to 2015.  That would be like holding vigil at the bedside of a dead person in the hopes that in another three years she'll take a breath.

Please continue to hold Lionel and Malcolm and all those participating in this process in your prayers.

Almighty and everlasting Father, you have given the Holy Spirit to abide with us for ever: Bless, we pray, with his grace and presence, the bishops and other clergy and the laity now  assembled in your Name, that your Church, being preserved in true faith and godly discipline, may fulfill all the mind of him who loved it and gave himself for it, your Son Jesus Christ our Savior; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. (BCP, p.255)

Shaking Off Dust

Rev. Danielle Morris of the diocese of Central Florida.  Photo by S. Sheridan, ENS.

 The word filtering down from Indianapolis is good.

The House of Bishops has approved a resolution calling for a churchwide response to the epidemic of bullying.   They've also adopted a resolution to offer anti-discrimination protection for church employees who are transgender and opening ordination to transgender people.  And there was a baptism using the fountain outside the Westin Hotel!   How cool is that?!

The discussion is underway about same-sex blessings.  There were more people who rose to speak in favor of resolution A049--a resolution to authorize liturgical resources for same-sex blessings.  The chatter on blogs for weeks has been that this proposal, which is the product of last convention's resolution C056,  was almost a "done deal."   But I noticed as I scrolled through countless tweets that the opposition to A049 was largely coming from one diocese.  More searching and I found out which one:  Central Florida... with some additional help from the diocese of Southwest Florida.

Well, at least it wasn't the deputation from Jacksonville.   But rather Orlando and Fort Myers.  Still two dioceses in this state in which I live.  I only wish that the report from the Episcopal News Service had revealed that someone, anyone, testifying in favor of A049 was from the Sunshine State.  Miami?  Ft. Lauderdale?  Unfortunately, if they did, it wasn't in the report.

It seems fitting, then, to have the Gospel of Mark for this Sunday be the passage in which Jesus realizes that he will not be able to make headway with his message in his home town, and so he and his apostles move on.  And he sends them out, two by two, to take the good news to the people with these instructions:

He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place.  If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them."--Mark 6:10-11  

It would seem to me that if I were an LGBT Episcopalian living in either of those dioceses I would be ready to shake the dust off my feet as I walk out the door.  During the testimony, one of the priests from Central Florida looked at a young gay man from Duke University and told him he would be welcomed in her church, and then went on to implore gay people to be sensitive to the consequences of having the Episcopal Church welcome us as full members.  She noted that by pressing for our full inclusion, we were putting Christians living in predominantly Muslim countries at risk.  Because Christian would then equal gay and that wouldn't sit well with Muslim leadership. 

I have heard this argument before.  And I have said in a prior blog entry that the sick part of what is happening with Christians in Muslim countries is that many of those Christians have turned on LGBT people and persecuted my African and Asian brothers and sisters resulting in death, imprisonment and general fear.  And let's face it: the divisions between Muslims and Christians, and the dangers of fundamentalist fury in foreign countries, existed long before there was any hope of same-sex blessings in the Episcopal Church.  Asking us to continue to live in a crucified place is not OK.  


Many of us in the southern United States continue to live in that crucified place in a way that our brothers and sisters in the northern urban areas do not.  Even as I celebrate the turning tide toward full justice occurring at General Convention, I am also aware that no matter what happens in Indianapolis, laws and canons in Florida will not change.   Church-wide things might be different, but as the old advertising campaign used to say, "Florida: the rules are different here."  It seems our church can move forward in many parts of the country, but we refuse to budge from our bygone era in Florida.  A049 allows for the trial use of same-sex blessings, but our bishop won't allow our priests to use them.  Period. 

Shall I simply shake off the dust of this place?   The Mark passage is similar to the message delivered to Ezekiel:  "I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God.' Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them."  

I think it's incumbent on all LGBT Episcopalians in this state to not shrink and fold in the face of opposition to our full inclusion.  The Spirit is speaking to the church and is calling the larger body to move more in the direction of making all of us in the LGBT community welcomed guests to the party.  We must continue to live and love as we do and claim our place in the body of Christ.  There is a reason so many of us are coming back to the church.  And there is a reason so many of us who want to come back stay away.  We must ask the groups such as Integrity to give attention to places such as Florida and equip us with what we need to educate about LGBT inclusion and lessen the fears about us.  I, for one,  would rather stand in a prophetic place than a crucified place.

Episcopal Sausage Making

It's virtually impossible for me to keep up on this blog with everything happening in Indianapolis, especially from Tallahassee.

But in a convention center far, far away from here, the discussion is underway on the Anglican Covenant. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has its Episcopal convenor, Lionel Deimel, and our moderator from the Anglican Church of Canada, Revd. Malcolm French, at the convention. Both of them are providing on-the-ground perspective on their blogs which can be found in the "Brilliance in the Blogosphere" to the right. You can also check in on the NACC blog "Comprehensive Unity."  There really is only one acceptable stance on the Anglican Covenant: "No!"  Apparently, there is still hand-wringing among some who worry that a "No" vote will result in the Episcopal Church being relegated to a second-tier status.  Well, at this point, we'll have some excellent company because the Scots have rejected it along with the Philippines.  And, let's face it: the Scottish Church helped us create an Anglican Communion when they gave us our first bishop in the States with Richard Seabury.  The majority of English dioceses have rejected the document which sets up a system of rules and punishment that simply have never been part of Anglican doctrine.  What makes us the lovable, frustrating, fractious people of God that we are is that we don't have a lock-step approach to church, but we do share a common love of God as embodied in Christ and breathed as the Holy Spirit.  If we can please just accept that we are never going to agree on everything, but we do agree on the essential truths, then we can put this nonsense to rest and get on with being agents of Love in a world that sorely needs that.

There is, of course, lots more happening at General Convention. Things seem to be proceeding apace on the full inclusion of transgender people in the church and more movement on the marriage front... beyond just simply allowing the blessing of same-sex marriages. Today, a committee in the House of Deputies moved forward a resolution that would create a task force to study and report to the 78th General Convention on giving priests the opportunity to marry same-sex couples, not just bless them. For serious church wonks, this same discussion is happening simultaneously with the Presbyterian Church USA.

And yes--there's even more happening in Indianapolis. The Episcopal Church has set up a feed that will let those not in attendance tune in to watch what's happening.

Please keep all at the Convention in your prayers, especially if they step outside into the unusually hot and humid weather they're having in Indiana right now!

Out of the Box in Indy

There's a double-feature playing in Indianapolis. Below is one of the movies, the latest in the Voices of Witness series. This one is called "Out of the Box" about the experience of transgender people in the Church. Get yourselves a bowl of popcorn, and spend a half-hour learning about your trans brothers and sisters-in-Christ.

Let Freedom Ring... and say "Yes to Bless"

Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines. 

Or at least say a prayer.  The Episcopal Church's General Convention is starting in Indianapolis.  And there is much that will be on the plate of our bishops and deputies between now and the scheduled end of July 12th. 

On my own radar, I am hoping that our church will follow suit with Scotland, the Philippines, New Zealand, the dioceses in the Church of England (etc. etc.) and vote, "No" on the Anglican Covenant.  It is a flawed document that was borne from a very bad place (the Windsor Report) which was borne from an equally bad place of fearing the inclusion of LGBT partnered people in the episcopate.  There are attempts to soften our response to this plan by saying, essentially, we'll continue to mull it over.  The only response that I find acceptable is for us to say, "Thank you, but no thanks!"  If you would like to read more on the Anglican Covenant, click HERE, or simply go to the labels section of this blog and read entries listed under the "Anglican Covenant" or "Anglican Angst."

Another major issue on my radar, and the one likely to receive the most attention from the secular media, is the proposal to adopt liturgies for same-sex blessings.  I already know where my bishop stands (opposed).  I am not so sure where the rest of our deputation from Florida is on this matter.  My hope is, from all that I have been hearing about the priests in our diocese, that our bishop may have one or two who will stand with him on this, and the rest will see fit to vote their conscience as they contemplate the presence of the LGBT&  faithful in their midst.  Increasingly, the resistance to recognizing gay people as fully-baptized members is becoming a position of a bygone era.  My continued prayer is that God keeps doing God's thing to bring more and more into the fold... even if that means the hardening of some hearts in the process. 

Scripture helps to shed some light in this area. In the daily morning office, the readings have been from Numbers.  We have entered that part of the book with the famous scene in which Balak has called on Balaam to curse the Israelites.  But that's not what God has in mind, and put different words in the mouth of Balaam:

Then Balaam uttered his oracle, saying:
‘Balak has brought me from Aram,
   the king of Moab from the eastern mountains:
“Come, curse Jacob for me;
   Come, denounce Israel!”
 How can I curse whom God has not cursed?
   How can I denounce those whom the Lord has not denounced?
 For from the top of the crags I see him,
   from the hills I behold him;
Here is a people living alone,
   and not reckoning itself among the nations!
 Who can count the dust of Jacob,
   or number the dust-cloud of Israel?
Let me die the death of the upright,
   and let my end be like his!’  Then Balak said to Balaam, ‘What have you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, but now you have done nothing but bless them.’ He answered, ‘Must I not take care to say what the Lord puts into my mouth?’--Numbers 23:7-12

Stories such as this from the Scriptures give me hope that there are those in Indianapolis ready to vote "no" on the resolution on blessings who may find that their hearts and minds are changed as they encounter the incarnation of the very people they would deny.  Folks who are gay and have been living in partnerships who would like to have their unions recognized by the church are in the pews on Sunday, and they are there in Indianapolis as well.  For now, all we're seeking from this gathering is approval of the liturgies to bless our unions.

There are resolutions, notably A050, which will take the Episcopal Church even further toward full marriage equality.  But that issue won't come up for a final decision until the 78th Convention.   Let's get through this 77th meeting first, recognizing that the Episcopal churches, especially in Province I, would like to offer a blessing liturgy for same-sex couples.

Gracious God, who has made us one family by Holy Baptism, give compassion, wisdom, and courage to our bishops and General Convention deputies who will soon gather in Indianapolis; that all your children may be hallowed by equal access to all the sacraments; through Jesus Christ our Teacher and the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.  Amen.--Integrity's Prayer for General Convention

Communion Conundrum

When I was about eight or nine years old, my family invited our neighbors to attend church with us one Sunday. My mom wanted to share the Episcopal liturgy with our not-particularly-religious,  New England Congregationalist friends. I was just happy to have my buddy with me at the service. I needed someone my own age to commiserate with me later about the experience of the sermon. I remember that when it came time for the Eucharist, I turned to my friend.

"You can't have communion."

She looked at me funny. "Why?"

"Because," I reasoned, "you haven't been baptized."

You see, I had been trained so well by the rector in the "rules" of the church. I knew I wanted to receive Holy Communion as a child, and this was yet-another one of those "things" that I pressed with my rector at the tender age of seven.   He had me do a special study, and cut out pictures from magazines and demonstrate that I knew what "communion" meant and what the bread and water and wine represented, and by doing this I had proven myself worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist. But my friend hadn't done any of that. So, I knew that meant she could not join us at the Eucharist.

My mother, a cradle Episcopalian, shot me a disapproving look.  "Yes, she can!"  And I was given one of my first lessons in the chapter of life called, "Don't Be a Jerk."  My friend joined us and, in fact, she and her brother were later baptized in the Episcopal Church.

I share this story as the Episcopal Church prepares for its General Convention in Indianapolis.  Among the issues that are on the front burner for church wonks, but not as important to the secular media, is the resolution which would open up the Eucharist to the unbaptized.  I know reporters will be waiting to file their stories on the Church's vote on the blessing of same-sex unions; we LGBT people are very fascinating critters that need to be examined, re-examined, and talked "about" a lot.  Helps to divert attention away from the more difficult and--well--less sexy topics that happen at a Church governing convention.   But I imagine the debate about the unbaptized receiving Holy Communion will generate some sparks as people weigh the meaning of these two all-important sacraments of the Episcopal Church: Baptism and Holy Eucharist.

They are important each in their own separate and together way.   Talk to most lay people who are engaged in the Episcopal church, and the majority will tell you that they love the Baptismal service.  It is not only a moment of welcoming a new child (or adult) into their own relationship with God, but it is the community event of pledging our support and love for this person and a commitment to help nourish and encourage them as they grow up in Christ, and reaffirming our own commitment to keep walking with God.

Similarly, the Eucharist is the moment of reconnection with God in Christ and with God in us as we take the body and blood into our being.  The Eucharistic feast is the celebration of the life-affirming event of Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf.  In confirmation class, we were schooled in the phrase that the Eucharist is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."   To bring that into my body on a weekly basis is a way to remember, and re-member, myself to God and to allow Love to flow through me and out to the world.

How important is it to have the former before the latter?

I have known of many people who have received the Eucharist, but were of other faith traditions.  Nothing bad happened to them.  Nothing bad happened to the church.   And, in some cases, it can lead to a desire to be baptized. 

I also think about how "the Way" spread following the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.  In the Book of Acts, people who were considered the outsiders hungered for a chance to be included.  And despite the misgivings of his Jewish disciples, Jesus' followers came to realize that these people have the Spirit within them; and then they baptize them.  So, that makes me wonder if this is a chicken or egg kind of question?  Again, how do we know that by allowing someone to receive Christ's body and blood, this won't whet their appetite further and lead them to become baptized?

And then there is the basic feeling that I have about what we are doing in the ritual of the Eucharist.  We invite people to "The Lord's Table."   We call this meal "The Lord's Supper."  Operative in both of those phrases is "Lord"; not "the Church".   The meal is provided by God, both in the figurative sense of it being the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and the literal sense that the bread and the wine are products of the earth's bounty which are also part of the creation of God.   The functions of the people at the altar, be it a bishop, priest, deacon, Eucharistic minister, or acolyte, are to be the wait staff for what is really supposed to be God's meal.  It's God's banquet, God's party, and God only knows who will get called to taste and see how good this food and drink is.

Finally, let's steal a phrase from the culture wars: "Think of the children!"   I think of me as a child.  I really, really, really wanted to partake in this ritual.  By my understanding (and that of many others I have found who are in the ordained priesthood) I didn't need to prove my knowledge of what all the symbols meant.  I had been baptized; hence I was already considered ready in the eyes of God to receive.  But there continues to be a practice in many places that children must be "of age" to receive the host and the cup.   When I talked with the former rector of St. John's, he said the one consistent battle he fought at each church he went to was over the Eucharist and when it was appropriate to give it to a child.  I know I was not the first child with a deep desire to join in this uniting to Christ at the Table.  And if children long to be included in this moment of symbolic solidification of faith, how much more so would an adult want that?

No matter what happens at General Convention, a change such as this would not happen overnight.  In the meantime, I commend to those with interest to go visit Elizabeth Kaeton's blog, Telling Secrets, to read more analysis and consider ordering "Water, Bread and Wine" which contains essays examining the question from many perspectives.  If nothing else, I hope this issue will encourage more dialogue about why we believe what we believe about baptism and the Eucharist.       

Caught in the Storm

For those of you following the news of Tropical Storm Debby, we're doing OK here in our pocket of Tallahassee. The rain has been falling non-stop all day, at times heavy downpours and blowing wind. This is the South's version of a Nor'easter.
It sets an interesting backdrop for the things on my mind. Yesterday's gospel lesson was the story from Mark about the raging sea, and the frightened disciples, and the sleeping Jesus who wakes up to their cries of "Help!" and calms the storm. It seems that this metaphor was appropriate as the rain blew against the stained glass windows, and as we made our way from the safety of our sanctuary to the parish hall for an update on General Convention 2012 by our rector.
There are lots of issues that will be facing the bishops and deputies of the Episcopal Church next week in Indianapolis. From the description of the budget situation, it seems there is an intent to cut many program areas at the church headquarters (environmental justice, diversity, Christian formation). From what I understand, the idea is to shift these responsibilities down to the diocesan and even the parish level. What's not clear is what kind of funding will accompany that shift. And years of covering state politics showed me, when the state decided it wasn't going to be in the business of "xx" and it would be up to the counties or cities to provide "xx", it would be up to the County and City Commissioners to figure out how they were going to pay for "xx" to continue in their communities. My guess is that is going to be the upshot of this budget cutting and shifting down to the local level. It's going to be painful. And apparently has already had its own internal pain in the process of creating a budget for the Episcopal Church as reported by Katie Sherrod, who is a member of the Executive Council, the group normally charged with carrying out the duty of drafting a budget.
There is the matter of the Anglican Covenant. Thankfully, from the description I heard the rector giving, it would seem that our deputation going to Indianapolis is inclined to vote against the document. He gave the impression that there was a resolution that would be offered which would say, "We want to continue in dialogue, but we don't support the Anglican Communion Covenant." That would sound like D007, which is what me and my fellow bloggers in the No Anglican Covenant Coalition are supporting. But I know that is not the only idea out there, and my rector couldn't tell me which resolution he was referencing. To be clear, the only option that I find acceptable is the one that politely, but firmly, says, "No, thank you; non, merci; no gracias; nein, danke (have I covered all the languages of the Episcopal Church?)" This flawed proposal, the outgrowth of the Windsor Report which was the outgrowth of fear of gay people becoming bishops, just needs to die and go away. Period.
Speaking of fear, we get to one of the biggest hot button issues: blessing same-sex unions. There was much made of the term "union" vs. "marriage" at our forum. Mainly, it seemed there was a desire to make it clear that the rites to be considered by GC2012 would allow the blessing of "unions" not "marriages." I found this a bizarre distinction given that there are states and the District of Columbia where the civil government has said it is OK for us LGBT people to get married. But whatever! Our bishop, John Howard, has again written a letter to all of us on the topic of General Convention, with extra special attention given to this particular resolution. And, again, the bishop has gone on record opposing the idea of allowing LGBT people of faith to have our partnerships recognized by the diocese of Florida. Nevermind that if we cared to get the blessing of an Episcopal priest, all we'd have to do is travel to Miami where Bishop Frade has already given the green light to bless marriages that couples have entered into in those six states and DC where it is allowed. Suddenly, it just seemed so fitting that the sky was pouring down rain on our roof as this topic was being discussed. Unless you have lived in society's margins, you have no idea how painful it is to have an institution founded on the basis of Christ's love telling you, "We want your time, talent and treasure, but we don't really want you." The church ought to be the great equalizer where no one is greater or lesser than another. Ah, but then, they don't call it an "institution" for nothin'.
I have had enough meetings with our rector to know that he doesn't share +John's opinions about same-sex unions, marriages, blessings, etc. And rather than attempt to defend or explain the bishop's attitude (beyond saying +John is a "traditionalist"), Fr. Dave offered to people that they could take hard copies of his letter and read it for themselves. And the copies quickly went around the room.
I did not take one. I didn't need it. I had already read, marked, learned and inwardly rejected his reasoning on Friday when the letter showed up on the diocesan website. If there was any silver-lining in what I saw in his words, words, words on this issue: at least he owned the opinion as his own. In 2009, the bishop sent a letter back to all of us during the convention to denounce the adoption of D025 which lifted the moratorium on electing and consecrating LGBT people to the episcopate. It was an incredibly hurtful letter which framed the argument in the "fears" of Florida's deputation and grounding the argument against gays in what "We Florida Episcopalians" know about "Christian marriage" and so on.
In a change of approach, this letter makes it clear that the opinion expressed is that of Bishop John Howard and not necessarily our deputies. My hope is that when the voting occurs in Indianapolis, our deputies will find it in their hearts to consider the faces of the LGBT people they have encountered (and you know that they have), and that they will choose to see us as the face of Christ worthy of the compassion of our Savior as expressed in Matthew 25.
And, once again, our bishop will stand firm in the quick sand of "No" as the rest of the church says "Yes." Perhaps then, Bishop Howard will realize that the storm that is sending waves crashing over the bow of his boat is not one that will drown him, or me, or any of us. Because this, too, will pass.
Perhaps by then, Tropical Storm Debby will stop raining down buckets of water on our heads and we'll see the sun again. And maybe even a rainbow.

Beware, Mr. Big: Double 0-Seven is Coming

I have to laugh that the No Anglican Covenant Coalition's proposed resolution for the upcoming General Convention has been filed and assigned the number:  D007.

That's "House of Deputies" Double O-Seven.  Y'know, like Bond.  James Bond.

But unlike Bond's martinis, I would say that, as a group, we have been stirred and not shaken in the past several weeks.  The votes out of the Church of England have given me hope that there are more and more members of the Communion who understand that the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant is a really bad idea that just needs to be put in the circular file and forgotten.   The NACC, and its allies going to GC 2012 in Indianapolis, are preparing to bring logic to bear once more in the hopes that we will convince the Episcopal Church to vote in favor of keeping our Communion together rather than cater to the fears that have produced the Anglican Covenant.

Below is the text of D007.   Time to live... and let the the Anglican Covenant die.

RESOLUTION TEXT

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 77th General Convention give thanks to all who have worked to increase understanding and strengthen relationships among the churches of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention reaffirm the commitment of this church to the fellowship of autonomous national and regional churches that is the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention recognizes that sister churches of the Anglican Communion are properly drawn together by bonds of affection, by participation in the common mission of the gospel, and by consultation without coercion or intimidation; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention, having prayerfully considered the merits of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant and believing said agreement to be contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and tradition and to the best interests of the Anglican Communion, respectfully decline to adopt the same; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention call upon the leaders of The Episcopal Church at every level to seek opportunities to reach out to strengthen and restore relationships between this church and sister churches of the Communion.

EXPLANATION

Churches of the Anglican Communion have been asked to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.The suggestion for such an agreement was made in the 2004 Windsor Report, which recommended "the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between churches of the Communion."

The Windsor Report was produced at the request of Primates upset with the impending consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the promulgation of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions by the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, of the Anglican Province of the West Indies, was entrusted with leading the development of the first draft of a covenant. This same Archbishop Gomez was one of the editors of "To Mend the Net", a collection of essays dating from 2001 and advocating enhancing the power of the Anglican Primates to deter, inter alia, the ordination of women and "active homosexuals, " as well as the blessing of same-sex unions. Archbishop Gomez's punitive agenda remains evident in the final draft of the proposed Covenant.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant attempts to create a centralized authority that would constrain the self-governance of The Episcopal Church and other churches of the Communion. This unacceptable inhibits Communion churches from pursuing the gospel mission as they discern it.

The Church of England has already declined to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines has indicated that they will not support the Covenant, and the rejection of the Covenant by the Tikanga Maori of the Anglican Church in Aoteroa, New Zealand and Polynesia renders it virtually certain that those churches will also decline to adopt.

The deficiencies of the proposed Covenant would lead to an Anglican Communion further divided rather than more unified. Declining to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant not only avoids permanent, institutionalized division, it opens the way for new opportunities to build relationships across differences through bonds of affection, by participation in the common mission of the gospel, and by consultation without coercion or intimidation.

Turning Attention to Indianapolis

Now that the majority of the Church of England dioceses have rejected the so-called Anglican Communion Covenant, those of us with a passion for preserving the Communion are putting our collective minds toward seeing the Covenant defeated at the Episcopal Church's General Convention 2012 in Indianapolis this summer.

One might think this shouldn't be too tough to sell the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, the two governing bodies, on the wisdom of rejecting a document that couldn't even hold up in its home base of the Church of England.  But this is the United States.  These are our bishops, clergy and laity. And we have certainly seen bizarre and unimaginable things happen when you put a question up for a vote in this country! 

The members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, especially the ones with working knowledge of how to draft resolutions and exactly how to wordsmith these things, are making a modest proposal for the delegates to GC2012 to consider.  Please feel free to share this post  with delegates from your own diocese or go to the NACC blog and find the resolution in Word document and PDF form.  Our hope is that many delegates to the Episcopal Church's GC2012 will consider our position, and vote a simple, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Anglican Covenant so we can get on with the business of the Church's mission of sharing Love with the world.  Perhaps when all this covenant business is behind us, we might start to see each other again as brothers and sisters in Christ and not brutal enemies that must be destroyed.

Title: Relation to the Anglican Communion

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 77^th General Convention give thanks to all who have worked to increase understanding and strengthen relationships among the churches of the Anglican Communion, and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention reaffirm the commitment of this church to the fellowship of autonomous national and regional churches that is the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention believe that sister churches of the Anglican Communion are properly drawn together by bonds of affection, by participation in the common mission of the gospel, and by consultation without coercion or intimidation; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention, having prayerfully considered the merits of the Anglican Communion Covenant and believing said agreement to be contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and tradition and to the best interests of the Anglican Communion, respectfully decline to adopt the same; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention call upon the leaders of The Episcopal Church at every level to seek opportunities to reach out to strengthen and restore relationships between this church and sister churches of the Communion.

______

Explanation: Churches of the Anglican Communion have been asked to adopt the so-called Anglican Communion Covenant. The suggestion for such an agreement was made in the 2004 Windsor Report, which proposed “the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion.”

The Windsor Report was produced at the request of Primates upset with the impending consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the promulgation of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions by the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, of the Anglican Province of the West Indies, was entrusted with leading the development of the first draft of a covenant. This same Archbishop Gomez was one of the editors of To Mend the Net, a collection of essays dating from 2001 and advocating enhancing the power of the Anglican Primates to deter, inter alia, the ordination of women and “active homosexuals,” as well as the blessing of same-sex unions. Archbishop Gomez’s punitive agenda remains evident in the final draft of the proposed Covenant.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the Anglican Communion Covenant attempts to create a centralized authority that would constrain the self-governance of The Episcopal Church and other churches of the Communion. This unacceptably inhibits Communion churches from pursuing the gospel mission as they discern it.

The Church of England has already declined to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines has indicated that they will not support the Covenant, and the rejection of the Covenant by the Tikanga Maori of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia renders it virtually certain that those churches will also reject the Covenant. A number of Global South churches have indicated that they will decline to adopt the Covenant.

The deficiencies of the Covenant are legion, and the Anglican Communion faces the prospect of becoming a fellowship not united but divided by the Covenant. It is essential to reject the Anglican Communion Covenant in order to avoid the Communion’s permanent, institutionalized division.