Bishops All A-Twitter

An Archbishop of Canada, Congo and Korea are on a panel at a House of Bishops meeting in North Carolina...

Sounds like a set-up for a joke. And it is. Because the HoB topic of the morning was the Anglican Covenant. And, unlike the typical "Spank the Yanks" we've been used to hearing out of Lambeth Palace, this was more like a round of "Kick the Covenant".

Rt. Rev. Kirk Smith of Arizona was live tweeting their comments, which the Rev. Ann Fontaine posted to The Lead, and on her Facebook page. Needless to say, I was delighted to see the following streaming commentary:

.Archbishop of Korea quoting from formal response from Korean bishops: do not see necessity for a codified Covenant.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbishop of Korea is now speaking (In Korean) with my old colleague Aidan Koh translating.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbp. of Canada is "uneasy" about possible two -tiered system proposed in Covenant.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbishop of Canada does not see any mention of reconciliation and mediation for those who might be disciplined by sec. IV of the Covenant.
about 4 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbishop of Canada now speaking.
about 5 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbishop of Congo is hopeful about the future. about 5 hours ago via TweetDeck .Archbishop of Congo now speaking in French: Does not feel that there has been adequate discussion of the Covenant among the Primates. about 5 hours ago via TweetDeck .Bp. Alexander: Can catholicity be expressed other than locally?
about 5 hours ago via TweetDeck .Bishop Neil Alexander of Atlanta presents opening paper. Argues that changes in polity will result in changes of ecclesiology.

"Does not feel there's been adequate discussion of the Covenant among the Primates."
"Uneasy about possible two-tiered system."
"Do not see the necessity for a codified Covenant."
Words not from the Americans. I suppose it might be safe to assume, then, that it's not just "the Yanks" who think this whole thing has been an unnecessary waste of time, and a preoccupation over things temporal!

I note, too, that the Bishops began their day with morning prayer. As such, they heard the lamentations of Jeremiah as God is laying it out for the prophet how God's people have erred and strayed... AGAIN. They also got a dose of Paul's letter to the Romans, about those who by faith (not the law) are among the nations that come from Abraham. Good words to reflect upon as one considers a document that attempts to turn faith into the law.

"Are You A Homosexual?"

There are those times when, deep in processing my own thoughts, a person approaches and--wham--a new insight to what had been my own private puzzle. Such was the case as I paced about in Eve's Garden at St. John's before the service yesterday.

A woman emerged from the parish hall doors and saw me as I was on another turn of walking past the sitting benches. She strode purposely toward me, smiling the whole way. She greeted me warmly, and introduced herself. We shook hands and then, dropping her voice a little bit, she says, "I'm going to be blunt. Are you a homosexual?"

That was not only blunt; it is the first time anyone has been that direct with me, especially in a church setting, in the two-plus decades since I came out! Most people will say "Um, I kinda think maybe you might be". Even my own mother didn't ask me the question that way. Strangely, while it hit me like an "Oh, wow! OK, then!", I guess I'm so comfortable in my own skin that I answered confidently and quickly, "Yes."

She went on to explain that her reason for asking me such a bold and blunt question was that she had a family member who had just come out, and her big question is can one be gay and active in the ordained leadership of the Episcopal Church. And this is when I wanted to find that belly of the whale and leap into it rather than to talk about this subject.

In the United States, it really depends where you live and move and have your being just how far the welcome into the church will be extended to you if you are gay. I read about lots of gay and lesbian clergy all over the country, engaging the church in all kinds of ways, and bearing witness to the church that one can be part of this body of Christ and be queer and serve at the altar and... my goodness... NOBODY drops dead in the aisle! Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Table happen just like they do when straight priests are presiding. The gospel is still the gospel, even when it is coming out of the mouth of a queer deacon. In fact, one could argue, a lesbian reading the words of Christ that sing of liberation and freedom for all might seem appropriate if sadly paradoxical.

The writhing that I am witnessing in the church over issues of sexuality has been at times enormously painful. Not too dissimilar to what it is like to have my life put up for a public vote to decide whether I am fit to marry my partner, or adopt a child, or be protected from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, or employment. Most of the time, I try to ignore it and chalk it up to so much noise in the life of the institution. But, to be honest, I am fed up with being a political football. I just want to live and let live. And yet the laws don't allow me to forget that I am not equal. Similarly, there is "the law" that seems to hang like a sword of Damocles over the Episcopal Church. General Conventions can vote to do whatever they want to do, but everyone is so careful to say that there is room for "interpretation" about what the actions really mean. End result: you can have one diocese running full-steam ahead to include all the baptized in as many of the sacraments as it can while another has pulled the brake line on the whole thing... and may even try to leave the tracks.

These were the thoughts going through my head as I paced about in the Garden, examining all the dedicated spaces and crosses in memory of members of the church. My question: "Do I really have a place here?" Enter this woman with her question about the Episcopal Church and the future it may hold for her gay relative. She told me the diocese (it was one I have heard is gay-friendly) and I told her that all should be fine in that diocese. And I invited her to join PFLAG.

As we parted, I reflected on my advice to her, and a curiosity at this-- what I might call "God moment"-- where the internal struggle is met with an answer of sorts from the outside. Of course, I can't know for sure what will happen to anyone anywhere in the church. But I am aware that there are places in the Episcopal church where being gay doesn't have to be such an "issue" and that LGBT candidates for ordination don't have to exhibit a kind of "super-righteousness" to prove themselves worthy to be called.

Do I have a place here? Yes, I believe I do.

May the understanding and appreciation of all the myriad of people who God has called to return spread throughout the whole Church and the world.

You Talkin' to Me?? Dialogue with the Samaritan Woman

For all that the Church, the institution, has done throughout history and across the board to diminish women and keep them as far from the authority roles as possible... there are just tons and tons of examples in Scripture where it was the women who prove to be the disciples of Jesus. One such case is the Samaritan woman at the well in John's gospel. She's arriving at Jacob's well at high noon to gather water and take it back down the mountain into her Samaritan village. Jesus, meanwhile, has been on a long hike to Galilee, the city where new ideas and cosmopolitan life is thriving. He stops at the well and send his disciples off to get some food. This woman arrives, and he can't resist the opportunity before him.

Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."... The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)

I can only imagine what this must have been like for her. First of all, men aren't going to talk to women this way because they just don't do that. And secondly, Jesus is a Jew. This woman is a Samaritan. This is like a Yankees fan asking a Red Sox fan for a drink. Oh, sure: we may look a like, but we know who is our kinfolk...

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?" Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life."

I have a feeling the Samaritan woman wasn't counting on this kind of a conversation when she went to collect her bucket of water at the well. In her head, I can imagine her trying to put this all together: "Here's this Jewish guy sitting by the well and he has no bucket, and now he's talking to me about living water that gushes up to eternal life?!?!" In a place and time where water is as valuable and important to day to day operations as we have become dependant on oil, he is talking about something that sounds extraordinary and amazing.

The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water."
Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, "I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!"

Now she must be totally freaked out! He's talking to her, he has living water, and he knows her past and her present, too?! If I were in her shoes, I'd really be getting a little worried. "Who is this guy? And why is he insisting on talking with me? Why doesn't he let me just get my water and get out of here?"
This is a response I have felt before as I've tripped along on my own faith journey. Those moments when I sense that I am being nudged and poked are also moments when I want to dig my heels into the ground and say, "No, I don't wanna!"

She tries to find a polite exit from this dialogue:

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem."

Ha! And now that ought to stump the Jew. The thing that will separate these two is where they worship. And still, Jesus does an akido move and redirects her to see things not in the concrete ways she's always seen them.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Barrier down. And he is still there, talking to her. And so she tries again to politely end this discussion.

The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us." Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you."

Lucky for her, the disciples come back with the food. So she is able to finally get on her way. Back in her village though she tells people what she'd experienced:

Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" They left the city and were on their way to him.

And here we see the power of this woman's testimony. She takes off without the water jar. The conversation, the longest Jesus has with anyone in the Gospels, must have done so much to her that she isn't consumed with her task of gathering water. Or maybe the conversation has made her think twice about the need for this water. After all, he's just told her that the water in the well will leave her thirsty, and what he promises is a flowing water that will feed her for her life. And she blurts it out, "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" I hear in the statement a sense of wonderment and awe, so much so that she can hardly make sense of it herself. Again, this is a response I can understand. When things happen that draw my focus to God and how God is moving and working in my life... it's like having my breath taken away. A real "A-ha!" That's how I read her question, "He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" It's not so much a real question, but more one that is rhetorical. She knows what she's experienced. Has it been real? "Pinch me, fellow Samaritans!" And on her testimony, they are curious enough to trudge up the mountain to seek out this man.

Meanwhile, the twelve disciples, are worried that Jesus hasn't eaten and needs to partake of the food. What they don't understand is that he just feasted in a way that is far more fulfilling to his mission on earth, and he uses this as a teaching moment:

Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, "Four months more, then comes the harvest'? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, "One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor."

And just to drive this point home, here comes the harvest up the hill. The Samaritans, who were on the "other side" in the split of Judah and Israel and subsequently are now considered "other" in every sense, are climbing up the mountain road to meet Jesus. In turn, he welcomes them. And he stays with them to teach them.

And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world."

Working through this woman, Jesus reaches another population with his message.

I see in this story the work of LGBT Christians as well. Like the Samaritans, the gay community has not necessarily been welcome to be in the pews of many Christian churches. And many Christian churches have condemned us all to hell and spewed forth so much hatred that its no small miracle that any of us have bothered to come back. So when one of our own kind says, "Hey, I have found a Church that doesn't hate gay people" this can pique curiosity. Feeling accepted by a faith community removes one of the major stumbling blocks for many in their path toward God and eternal life. The other is in the discovery that no matter what the people of God may have said or done, the truth about Jesus can be found in the reading assigned from Romans:

Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

Jesus meets us where we are, not where somebody else thinks we ought to be. Those who think we ought to be the super-good and super-righteous in order to be in full relationship with Christ have missed the part where Jesus was talking to the outcasts, the "others" and inviting them to come into a relationship with him, so they could share a drink with him. A drink from a spring that gushes up to eternal life.

Has Bahati Been Defeated?

Slain Ugandan LGBT civil rights leader David Kato. Kato's heinous murder and circus-like funeral may have helped bring down Bahati's anti-gay bill.

A post at Eruptions from the Foot of the Volcano seems to say that the infamous, "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda has been defeated in Parliament. The bill, sponsored by MP David Bahati, would allow for the execution of some LGBT people, and jail time and fines for others... as well as punishment for those straights who don't turn in their gay neighbors. This news comes a day after the United Nations Human Rights Council reaffirmed its statement that LGBT rights are human rights and condemned of violence against LGBT people. The United States and some European nations took the lead on this at the UN.

This is great news. There has been a lot of pressure coming from outside the African country to not pass this bill. Some reports indicate officials are pulling the measure because there are already anti-gay laws on the book. If only such an argument would work in states like Florida where we not only put anti-gay language in statutes... we seal it up in the state constitution!

Meanwhile, MP David Bahati, the parliamentary leader of this "Kill the Gays" effort and who has been a disciple of US evangelicals including Rick Warren and Scott Lively, is defiantly saying, "the government is aware that 95 percent of Ugandans do not condone homosexuality."

Even if that is true, Uganda does not exist in a vacuum. There has been international outcry after he introduced the bill in 2009. The scurrilous rag, Rolling Stone (not the rock-n-roll magazine), published the photos and addresses of "100 homosexuals" who the paper said should be hanged. One of those pictured was LGBT leader David Kato. Kato was beaten to death with a hammer in his apartment. More disgrace fell upon the country when the Anglican Church of Uganda refused to allow a priest to preside at Kato's funeral, and instead sent a lay reader who launched into an anti-gay rant in the middle of the service. It would seem Bahati, and Archbishop Orombi, and US evangelicals propping up this madness overplayed their hand.

The defeat of this bill is indeed good news. But our eyes must not leave Uganda and other African nations where our LGBT brothers and sisters live in fear. Perfect love casts out fear. We need to support organizations that are offering safety to LGBT people, and keep up the demands from our secular and religious leaders to speak out against the violence and sanction governments that support imprisonment, torture and killing of gay people.

When Mortal Flesh Keeps Silent

I had to make a very difficult decision while leading Morning Prayer.

The reading assigned from Romans was Romans 1:28-2:11. This picked up two verses later than the previous day. No biggie... except I know what's in vv 26-27 of that first chapter. Most LGBT people who have encountered "Bible Bigots" know what those verses say, and in the ears of someone living in the 21st century, it's not pretty. It would appear to be an unambigous statement from Paul that same-sex relations, be they female or male, are anti-Christ. These, along with Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10... are among the favorites to throw at LGBT people in an effort to separate us from God. They are the "No"s of Scripture as in "No, it's not for you!"

I had thought about including those verses into the scheduled reading. I have written about them before here and have talked about my frustration that the church doesn't just confront these words of Paul and talk plainly about translation... time frame of Paul... and, especially for me as a lesbian, to note that my "natural" relations are with women; hence to have sex with a man would be, for me, "unnatural".

But as the service went on... first with a reading from Jeremiah about the wrath that will come to Judah and how she, and Israel, have been playing the whore (in other words, haven't been keeping their eyes on God)... and then using the penitential canticle in the BCP... I thought, "No, not today. Today, we will go with the assigned reading." Plus, there was a new person in the congregation which made me think twice about starting with what sounds like hateful vitriol... that would have required some explaining of context. At 7:15am, I'm not ready to attempt an explaination of Paul to anyone!

I do find myself vexed by the whole thing. Ignoring these passages, and pretending that they don't exist in "the Book" when they do is not a good answer to me. Especially when they are the very words a Biblical literalist will use to assert that I am a devil.

So, was I a coward and hypocrite for not taking it on myself to read aloud these offensive words of Paul? No, I don't think so. As I was preparing to start reading, an internal check of myself told me that the question here was one of what is the wisest move: override the diviners of the lectionary or stick with the program? And ultimately this question: why am I thinking of overriding this? Am I doing this with God... or am I doing this for my ego? Again, weighing all the other factors surrounding this decision, I quickly got to "this is an ego thing." And I let it go and those verses remained silent.

Still, as I contemplate the courage of those who are trying to develop same-sex blessings for the church, I keep wondering if what we're skirting in the church is honesty. Brutal, uncensored honesty. The church, in my opinion, has never really owned up to its trespasses against the LGBT community, perhaps because it continues to commit them in some corners. One way to make amends would be to give some effort to talk about those passages in Scripture that challenge us. And, once and for all, make the point that (1) Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships; (2) neither Jesus, nor Paul nor anyone had a concept of LGBT relationships in the 21st century; (3) the word "homosexual" is NOT in the original texts because the word did not exist until the 19th century CE.

Just a thought.

Special Rites

Over the weekend in Atlanta, the Episcopal Church's Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music was meeting to begin preparing the texts for blessing same-sex marriages. It is groundbreaking and exciting to see the church moving on this issue. And, for those of us in places where same-sex marriage is forbidden, it is... well, interesting.
Interesting because no matter what happens with the church, marriage is a "special right" reserved for heterosexuals in Florida. Not only is same-sex marriage outlawed in four places in the state statutes, the voters made it unconstitutional in 2008. And since the Book of Common Prayer notes that a marriage "conform to the laws of the state and the canons of the church," ... well... that just makes it all "interesting".
And so, I am taking my seat in the nosebleed section of humanity and watching the church engage in another ecclesiastical political football game with my personhood.
I have read some reports of the events in Atlanta, all glowing and positive. Apparently, the SCLM did some theological reflection, looking at the liturgy of our service where we Celebrate and Bless Marriages. The opening shows where there is a bit of a problem for the LGBT community:

Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of
God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and
this woman in Holy Matrimony.
(BCP, p.423)

But what if it's a woman and a woman? Or a man and a man? Even the choreography for the wedding instructs the celebrant to have the woman to the right and the man to the left. Again, what if they are of the same gender? Should we do Butch and Femme?
The group also worked on pastoral and teaching resources as well as canon law and other legal ramifications. There were surveys of Bishops and Deputies about where things stand with them now, and plenary and small group discussions.

All of this is good. But there are things about the process that bothered me when I watched the news conference.

The biggest was when I heard a question asked about "Christian marriage" vs. "Same-sex marriage".

Excuse me? Are some of us not Christians?

The fact that we would separate those two ideas gave me pause. As the news conference went on, what became clear from this consultation is that the SCLM is taking a very narrow, literal approach to the language of the C056 (the resolution asking the SCLM to embark on this work of developing rites for same-sex blessings.) And that's what they are doing: blessings for same-sex couples only, and not a service that could be used by a straight couple as well. There was great emphasis by the SCLM Chair Ruth Meyers and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson that the Committee is doing exactly as asked by the 2009 General Convention. Exactly. No deviation.

I understand that. But at the same time, I am sighing heavily at the thought that there are rites for heterosexuals and rites for homosexuals. Each of us get to have our very own "special rites" as if the language of a covenant to love and honor one another is not common for both groups.

And then, I have to pull out a tissue and dab my nose. Because, as I mentioned, I am watching all of this from the nosebleed section of the Diocese of Florida. And the last word I had, our bishop not only says, "No" to same-sex blessings by the church, it is an emphatic "Hell NO!" Someone asked Vermont Bishop Tom Ely what could be done to move the hearts and minds of those who are not willing to allow for the blessing of same-sex marriages. +Ely's answer was pretty much a "not much":

"I'm not going to pound anybody over the head and make them go where they are not prepared to go."

I have wondered as the church continues to writhe and wrestle with this Christian idea of "full inclusion of the baptized," what will happen with these bishops in places like Florida when they find themselves seeing more and more LGBT people who are married in other countries or in one of the six states that have legalized same-sex marriage show up in their pews. How long will they continue to cling to what now they seem to want to call "Christian marriage"? Or maybe how long will the church survive if it continues to tell this segment of the baptized, "You are 3/5ths a person in the church."

Maybe 3/5ths a person in the church. In God, I am whole.

*******

Here are some links worth checking out: Rev. Dr. Caroline Hall's two part report HERE and HERE. She gives details of what happened at the Atlanta Consultation on same-sex blessings. And then there's Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton's take on the matter at TELLING SECRETS.

An Excellent Post

I use this blog as a space to share the many firings inside my noggin, but sometimes there's another blogger out there who hits a homerun that needs to be read. Such is the case for this post on "A Church for Starving Artists". Here's a snippet:

It's tempting to be "the entertaining pastor" or the "funny pastor" or merely "the smart pastor." But the 21st C Church is sorely in need of the equipping pastor who models servanthood and compassion, the pastor who is unafraid to grapple with the deepest issues of our lives, the pastor who sees people with the eyes of Jesus.

MadPriest pointed folks in this direction, and it really is a great entry. Go off and read it... and come back here for my ponderings later! :)