Canterbury Condemns Ugandan Ugliness

It really is so rare that I offer praise of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.  But the ABC has offered a strong statement in condemning the mad rush in Uganda to pass the hateful Anti-Homosexuality bill before the end of this parliamentary session.

"Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can't see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible - it seeks to turn pastors into informers."

The statement, pulled from the Archbishop's website, notes that this is a reiteration of his position that he took in December, 2009.   I can only hope  that he recognizes the deeply troubling atmosphere present in the situation on the ground in Uganda and that the Anglican Church of Uganda has been a partner in building the homophobia in that country.  He really has nothing to lose in stating that he can't understand, "any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades" being a party to this desire to imprison LGBT people.  Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda doesn't care about the Anglican Communion; he only cares about playing the role of interloper in the United States and being Bishop to those malcontents who hate gays and women more than they love God.

But beyond the obvious that this bill is atrocious and awful and will gain the attention of the likes of me and others in the international 'hood of LGBT bloggers, I found this post at GayUganda the most telling and revealing about why this damn bad penny just won't go away.   It's a diversion away from the other real problems plaguing the country.  News about riots and the arrest of government opposition leaders are out there in the U.S., but buried deep into the newspaper.   And, as is the case usually, it takes a blogger such as GayUganda to make the link.  As he notes, "Gay rights are human rights!" 

Progressive Christians Who Won't Believe Out Loud

When I first saw this ad last week, I thought it was sweet, although a bit too sugary for my taste.  But I got the idea.  A new family arrives and endures the looks from the congregants that leave you thinking they are not particularly friendly.  Note to Christians: a lot of you look this way to the strangers coming into your churches. It struck me as a sad commentary that the young Asian woman places an Episcopal hymnal next to her in that, "Sorry, no room for you in the pew" way.  Such a contrast to the official advertised slogan, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."  Thankfully, at the end of the ad, she redeems herself.  If you look closely, she's the one who moves over to make way for the new family.

A family that is a young son, and his two moms. 

The commercial is from Believe Out Loud, a project of Intersections International which is trying to push the heretofore silent majority in Christianity to stop being afraid and finally go public with their welcome of LGBT people into places of worship.

In the circles of progressive Christians, this ad should have been a big hit.   Should have been.

But at one progressive website, the executives decided this ad was not the kind of "Mom and Apple Pie"  advertising they were comfortable with for Mother's Day.  Sojourners website, one of the largest in progressive Christendom, refused to run the ad.   This has prompted an outcry from not only Believe Out Loud, and its parent organization, but from many bloggers who note that Sojourners advocates for the poor and the needy and thus gets lumped under the category of "progressive", but has failed to engage on other social justice matters, especially for LGBT people.  Or worse--have the founder go on record in other publications in opposition to such things as equal marriage rights.

Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, issued a statement to clarify their position, which has morphed from a concern that to show the ad would appear to be "taking sides" to saying that they would prefer to discuss "the issue of the LGBTQ community" on their editorial pages and not in their ad space.

I believe the appropriate metaphor would be that Mr. Wallis has just put his foot in his mouth.

What is meant by"taking sides" or  "the issue of the LGBTQ community"?   There is no issue; there is reality.  In your face, and in your pews, reality that--oh, my--gay people exist and they show up in church on Sunday.  That's what the ad is talking about.   There is the growing reality that gay people not only exist and go to church, they are also raising families; hence an even bigger incentive to find a church, so that a child gets a grounding in God that one can hope will not disappear.  Gay parents do this... just like straight parents do it.   The difference is the straight parents and their children receive spoken and unspoken affirmation from the church for their family life.  Churches are great at celebrating through the prayers the umpteenth anniversary of a straight couple.   Do they give the same recognition to gay couples?  Possibly... but only if you live in one of the countries, or five of the 50 states and the District of Columbia that allow for legalized marriage for LGBT citizens. 

In some ways, what Sojourners has done is illustrate the disconnect that so many of us of the gay persuasion find disturbing about those Christians who call themselves, "Progressive."  Like others who gather under that label, how progressive they are seems to have limits and often the line seems to be drawn at us.  They can fight for the poor.  They will sing "We Shall Overcome" on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  But put out church literature at gay pride, or participate in a Pride Week Interfaith service?

In my own experience, I have been flummoxed when talking to clergy that the minute I say something about making overtures toward the LGBT faithful and welcoming them into our church community,  I am on the receiving end of a quote from Paul's letter to the Galatians that "In Christ, there is neither Jew or Greek, free or slave, male or female."  Admittedly, this is a big step up from having the horrible passages from 1 Corinthians or Romans tossed at me in an effort to deny my membership in the Body of Christ at all.   But still, it is a cop out.   It is a way of saying, "We don't need to talk about that here."

But that's the problem.  We do need to talk about that here because the Church has been the single biggest sinner when it comes to the gay community.   Religious leaders have preached hate-filled sermons against us, endorsed bigoted legislation, and have stood on street corners with bullhorns during our pride parades.  They have whipped people into a frenzy of fear that LGBT people were going to molest children, destroy marriages, and paint church altars pink and purple.  Get into a conversation with someone who opposes equality for LGBT people, and it won't take 15-seconds before the phrase, "The Bible says..." comes trippingly off the tongue. 

Meanwhile, the straight Christians who identify as "progressive" or "liberal" are comfortable telling their favorite gay Christian how much they support us in (fill-in-the-current-"issue"-facing-gays).  But will they take the same righteous stand to a straight friend, unprompted and unprovoked?  More likely, there will be a reason given for why they kept quiet.   Strange that they won't maintain that same silent witness if the issue is homelessness, welfare, or the rights of women.  

Another pet peeve I have is when I hear the excuse that they can't bear witness on behalf of gay people because, "Well, I'm not gay."  Well, I'm not a migrant farm worker, and yet, I will testify to the evils of trying to enact Arizona-style immigration laws in Florida.  And imagine what would have happened if every white person in America had said, "Well, I'm not black" during the civil rights movement?

I've read on many a blog written by a priest the bemoaning of the "numbers game" that gets played in churches these days.  Everybody's concerned that we need "lotsa" people, and here we get back to those parents with children.   They're called "Young Families".   Well, what if that "Young Family" has two dads or two moms?  They are still a family, right?  Yes, but their parents relationship may or may not be validated by the church.  What if there are childless couples who arrive at church?   Do we count our LGBT people in the numbers, or are they counted in the same way some states seem to want them counted as 3/5ths a person?   Of course, I know the answer that we are fully counted in "the book".  But what happens when presence in the pew leads to calling to the pulpit?  In some places, that's another line drawn in the aisle of acceptability.
   
I'm fed up with the excuses of supposed "Christian progressives" with their wishy-washy stands on equal rights for LGBT people and trying to find the "other side" in the discussion.  If God is the God we know and love and serve, then there is no "other side" in the question of whether or not I should be welcomed into the Body of Christ.  I am there already. 

Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.--1 John 4: 20-21

A full welcome in the Church is part of that love.

Happy Mother's Day

I remember in college when I was taking an English course which doubled as a Women's Studies class and I had to write an essay on an influential woman.  I had certainly read about lots and lots of high-powered, feisty feminists who were chiseling away at the glass ceiling in (fill-in any number of professions).   I had enjoyed reading the poetry of Adrienne Rich, getting familiar with Janet Lewis and had slogged through enough Virginia Woolf.  Amelia Earhart was spectacular,  Cheryl Miller was a superstar. And I had already been exposed to a number of women in elected office in my home state of New Hampshire.

But when I thought about who had really influenced my life, it was definitely my mom.  And that was the essay I wrote.

My mother was an only child who gained siblings when her parents divorced and her dad remarried.  Her mom worked to support herself and my mom.  Her dad, while brilliant, was an alcoholic.  She would tell me and my brothers the stories of traveling by train from New York to Michigan for the summer to visit her father, and how she would make up scenarios, telling the porter that she was a runaway princess and such. 

She and my dad married in 1954, and it didn't take long for them to start a family.  My oldest brother was born on this date in 1955.  I came along in 1968, eight years after my brother, Tom.   During that time, my mom was a homemaker who would continue to volunteer to work on political campaigns.  About the time that I was in elementary school, she decided to complete her college education.  So she went back to school at the University of New Hampshire, designed her degree program and worked on developing a statewide group home system for juvenile delinquents, a means of diverting children from hard-core prison time to a way that would give them structure and discipline without cells and bars.  Her determination and dedication to getting her degree was admirable, and made quite the impression on me. 

Throughout my life, both  my parents had a way of opening our home and our dinner table to many odd characters.  I never understood why this young person, or this older gentleman, was spending so much time with us, but I also never questioned it and thought, "Well, it's a round table and we've got room."  My mom and dad lived and practiced the Christian understanding of hospitality and looking out for those fellow human beings in need.  Another indelible mark on me.  And if my parents weren't opening the house to people, my mom and dad both had a soft spot for animals.  No dog was ever a stranger in the Gage household!

And so I say again, "Thank you!" to the Anonymous Peggins, my most faithful blog follower and mom for the ways in which you have demonstrated love and been such a huge presence in my life.



The Truth Will Set You Free

The Truth Will Set You Free_Trailer from Reveal Productions on Vimeo.


This documentary is due to be released in January 2012.   The opening scenes in the trailer are from a parish in North Conway headed by Rev. Susan Buchanan.  The scenes from the disruption during Gene's sermon in London recalled the trembling I felt as I watched it three years ago.  There is something terrible about a man swinging his motorcycle helmet and screaming heresy in a church.  +Gene has endured a lot during his tenure as bishop of New Hampshire.  So has the Church.  My hope is that as we keep moving forward in time, the truth of LGBT Christians will become apparent... and that truth will set lots of people free.

National Day of... Oh. My. God.

I pray, both out loud and silently.  I pray in a church, sometimes in my office, sometimes as I'm walking somewhere and take in what is around me.  In other words, I don't have a problem with prayer or people who choose to pray.

But I am not a Prayer Warrior, and I am not a member of any task force for prayer.  I have always felt uncomfortable about the National Day of Prayer because it has always felt like its aim was for a certain type of prayer for a certain type of person... and I did not fit that mold. 

Clearly, I am one who must be prayed for!

Just look at the images in the promo video.  I mean, if we don't pray, then we won't be able to ward off the darkness that is hovering over... let's see, the White House and, oh, yes: San Francisco!  Not to mention the Midwestern farmland of the U.S.   I'm thinking that's Fulton, Missouri.



I have to say that after watching this video I am more convinced than ever that these folks are just wacko.  Thankfully, there is a parody of the "Task Force Trailer" that helps to mitigate for its misery.



I pray God will accept my prayers and supplications... and a pastrami on rye! 

Misplaced Joy

Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Sunday night's prime time drama turned from the hunting and killing of "the bad guys" on CSI: Miami to the real-life drama of the military operation that led to Osama bin Laden's death.   Within the hour of learning the news, people began flooding the streets in New York and Washington, DC, to celebrate.  And even college students at Penn State went out to wave flags, and sing Lee Greenwood's űberpatriotic anthem "God Bless the USA". 


I watched this watched this scene this morning and talked it over with my partner.   She said it reminds her of the story from Exodus when the Israelites escape through the Sea of Reeds, and the waters come crashing back down on the Egyptians, the chariots and the chariot drivers.   The tale ends with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, and all the women taking up tamborines and singing and dancing at the calamity that had befallen their oppressor.   This is a common motif in the Hebrew Scriptures.  I have often noted that in Judges, Jael takes a tent peg to the head of the Canaanite commander Sisera as he slept.  This is followed by a little folk song  by Deborah and Barak to celebrate the event.  It seems Biblical for there to be much dancing and joy at the death of an enemy. 

But is that God's or human kind's rejoicing?  

Again, I have no love for Osama bin Laden or anyone who puts his life to work for the purpose of death and destruction of others.  But I can not understand the flag-waving and the shouts of "U-S-A!!" as if we'd just won the Olympic Gold or something.  That's just weird. 

And there's something of a let down in this.  Osama bin Laden is dead.  There will be no trial.  No chance for his victims to see justice served.  The U.S. took possession of his body and dumped it into the ocean.  Thus far, we haven't even been shown the photographs of his corpse which supposedly show that he was killed by a single shot above the left eye.   Ten years of searching.  Ten years of wondering where he is.  Ten years of his mere existence making our intelligence community sweat.  One bullet above the eye--boom--done.  Kind of like a tent peg to the head.

Perhaps for some this is cause to celebrate.   But I really think I must be missing something here.  Death, even of our enemy, is not a reason for me to stand up and cheer.   Thankful for the end of a threatening presence, but flag-waving?  No.

Some friends have noted on Facebook that Osama died on May 1st... the same day that Hitler was found dead in the bunker.  It's an eerie coincidence, and leaves me with much the same feeling.  Without a chance to bring the accused before the victims, it feels as though, in death, the Osamas and the Hitlers are able to retain some psychological power.  One 9/11 family member remarked, "His death doesn't bring back my loved one."  That's your reality.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't think this death has made the world a better place.

"On Nights Like This One..."

The networks have never had such a big story to interrupt all the ridiculous CSI shows on a Sunday night. 

Osama bin Laden, the notorious and nefarious leader of Al-Qaeda, has been killed by U.S. Military forces who launched an offensive on a hiding place in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  President Barack Obama, in making the announcement on national television, told us that no Americans were killed in the firefight, and that there was an effort to minimize civilian deaths in the attack.   bin Laden's body is in U.S. custody.  No word on what has become of the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda.  President Obama put it this way, "On nights like this one we can say that justice has been done."

There are those who ran out into the streets outside the White House and Ground Zero in New York to chant "U-S-A" and wave American flags.  But I was particularly moved by a quick interview with a family member of one of the thousands killed on September 11th in the World Trade Center.  You could hear in the woman's voice that she was shocked.  And I think that's a place many of us went to upon hearing the news of bin Laden's murder.  Here is the man who has kept this country on pins and needles for more than ten years, taking responsibility for bloody and deadly attacks in Somalia as well as the U.S. on September 11th.  We've been promised that "We're gonna git 'im!"  and yet nothing.   Now, we've finally closed in on him and killed him?  Wow!

And it raises an interesting thought for me: will his death really bring closure for the families, and by extension, this country which was so deeply wounded by the 9/11 attacks?   I imagine it will be a mixed-bag.  There will be those who join in the chants of "U-S-A!!" but I'm not comfortable going there.  I'm not UNhappy about the demise of Osama bin Laden, and yet I find it hard to rejoice in the death of an individual.  I wasn't giddy on the day that they hanged Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and I don't find myself particularly joyous tonight.  I don't think the world is safer because I don't think Al-Qaeda stops it's plans to take us down.  In fact it may be a time of heightened security.  One can only hope that by cutting off the head of this organization, the rest of this particular body will collapse.