Sunday Morning Coming Down

Sorry, but I don't really give two figs if I am breaking any rules in reprinting this essay here.

You just gotta read this by Garrison Keillor who, in my not so humble opinion, is the best preacher in any church anywhere. I always listen to him on Saturday nights.

His essay reminds me of when Ms. Conroy was working the front lines of the AIDS Crisis in Baltimore. It was 1987. The AIDS Epidemic was just hitting Baltimore after beginning in 1981 in SanFran and Boston.

She would hie herself hence to a little Anglo-Catholic Parish we lovingly called "GASP" (Grace and St. Peter - but not necessarily the church referred to by Mr. Keillor) where our youngest daughter attended Elementary School and wore bloomers under her blue uniform and a starched white shirt with a Peter Pan Collar and learned Latin in the first grade and Greek in the second grade and kept them both in her studies through grade six.

She will tell you that it was the best damned education she ever received. She still speaks fondly of "Father Bullwinkle" (you know who you are and I understand that you occasionally visit here and still do not favor the ordination of women but you have always been lovely and gracious unto me) and continues to favor saying the Creed the way she was taught in mandatory Morning Prayer - from the 1928 BCP (Alas! But I know Fr. Bullwinkle would be so pleased).

This was also the church where porn star Tracy Lord was married to the son of Pat Moran, owner of a prominent Casting Company, devout member of the church and companion of fellow Baltimorians John Waters and Divine, but that's another story for another time.

(Oh, Fr. Bullwinkle, of your mercy and kindness, do tell the story about 'that wedding' and I promise to clean it up and make is suitable for the readership of this Blog).

Ms. Conroy would attend 8 AM Sunday Eucharist which was said from the 1928 Prayer Book - the words from which she had been baptized, confirmed and previously married. On any given Sunday 10 souls were in attendance. No Peace was passed. The church was notorious in not accepting the ordination of women. A shrine to "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was prominent even tucked away in the right rear corner of the Narthex.

I asked her why she did it. How she did it. Given the obvious theological conflicts.

She said, "Look, I lose about 3 - 4 people a week to this epidemic. These are people I know and love. I work hard to keep them alive and nothing I do seems to have any effect. I need a place, just one place, at the beginning of my week, where I know who God is and where God is and that there's some semblance of order and control in the universe. Please don't deny me this one hour of illusion. Some days, it's the only thing that keeps me going."

I never did. I never would. For her. Or, anybody.

But, Garrison Keillor says it so much better than I.
************************************************

Sunday morning coming down

I'm an old, tired Democrat, sick of this infernal war, but here in an old brownstone church there is a moment of separation from all the griefs of this world.

By Garrison Keillor

Oct. 17, 2007 In Baltimore with friends Sunday morning, a splendid fall day under blue skies, we marched off to the nearest church and found ourselves in an old brownstone temple of 1852, wooden box pews, stained glass on all sides, old tiled floor, for a high Anglican-Catholic Mass, a troop of choristers in white, altar boys, bearded priests in medieval vestments, holy water and puffs of smoke and bells and chanting of scripture, precision bowing and genuflecting, all rather exotic for an old fundamentalist like me but deeply moving, and it made me think about my father, whose birthday was Oct. 12, and brought me to tears.

It was formal high Mass, none of that "hi and how are we all doing this morning" chumminess, and the homily only summarized the scripture texts about healing, it didn't turn into an essay on healthcare. Ten voices strong and true in the choir and positioned as they were under the great arch of the chancel, their tender polyphonic Kyrie and Gloria infused the whole building with pure kindness.

The singing was O my God just heartbreakingly good. There were less than 30 of us in the pews, fewer than the names on the prayer list, and to hear "Behold, how good and joyful it is; brethren, to dwell together in unity" sung so eloquently as the priests swung to their tasks was to be present in a moment of extravagant grace that does not depend on numbers or any other measure of success for its meaning, just as the Grand Canyon does not depend on busloads of tourists to be magnificent. Most of our brethren, bless them, are off enjoying brunch or reading the funnies or lifting weights at the gym, and our faithfulness does not make us better people. We simply happened to walk by and see this vast canyon of God's love and stand looking into it.

Faithfulness was a guiding principle in Dad's life. He was the fifth of eight children of a farmer and a schoolteacher on a little farm on Trott Brook in Minnesota. Dad worked with his hands, tending his garden, fixing his cars, cutting and joining wood. He was faithful to his family, to the Ford Motor Co., and also to his separatist theology and visions of millennial splendor. If you are true to Christ and separate yourself from this world, you will be raised to glory in paradise. My father was faithful to this, even as his little band of believers dwindled, diminished by schism and by escaping children, and I was unfaithful.

I separated myself from the separatists with my eyes open. I wanted to live a big complicated life and not sit in a closet. I do not repent of that, though I have plenty else to repent of and am sorry that it came between Dad and me. There have been dozens of people who happened to sit next to me on airplanes over the years who knew more about me than my dad did. No more his fault than mine.

Now I'm an old, tired Democrat, sick of this infernal war that may go on for the rest of my life and in which more of our brethren will die miserably, both American and Iraqi. I'm sick of politics today, the cleverness and soullessness of it. I am still angry at Al Gore for wearing those stupid sweaters in 2000 and pretending he didn't know Bill Clinton, and I am angry at everyone who voted for Ralph Nader. I hope the next time they turn the key in the ignition their air bags blow up.

But here in an old brownstone church at an ancient ceremony, there is a moment of separation from all the griefs of this world. Ten men and women are singing a cappella, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless his holy name," and their voices drench us fugitive worshippers kneeling, naked, trembling, needy, in the knowledge of grace, and when we arise and go out into Baltimore, the blessing follows us.

It followed me as I ate a dozen oysters that afternoon and hung around the library and paid homage to H.L. Mencken's house on Union Square, that hearty old sinner who said, "Church is a place in which gentlemen who have never been to heaven brag about it to persons who will never get there." Thank you for your service to our language, Henry. Thank you for your life, Dad. And now onward to November and the first good snowfall and the first day of ice-skating.

(Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country.)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2007/10/17/baltimore/index_np.html

© 2007 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Vocation: Embarrassment

I was ordained on the Feast of St. Luke, October 18, 1986, in The Episcopal Church of St. Ann, Lowell, MA, "The Mill Girl Church."

I am the daughter of a Fall River Mill Girl and granddaughter of a woman who was part of the first wave of Portuguese immigrants to come to this country via Boston to be a domestic for the Beacon Hill elite.

My paternal grandparents were poor farmers from the Azores. My maternal grandfather was a Portuguese fisherman and sailor. My maternal grandmother was the seventh child and only daughter of poor farmers in a small village outside of Lisbon who came to this country - alone - after her mother died when she was 13 years old.

All of my aunts and uncles worked in the textile mills of Fall River. One of my uncles died at the age of 21, leaving a wife and a young son, in an explosion in one of the mills, which were notoriously unsafe. Because of that horrific and tragic loss, all of my aunts and uncles were involved, in one manner or another, in labor union organizing.

I have 'feisty' and 'justice' and 'independence' encoded in my DNA.

The Rt. Rev'd Frederick Barton Wolf, then recently retired bishop of Maine (now gone on to glory), ordained me for Bishop Chalfante, who "allowed" my ordination but would not ordain me himself because he said, "the church has not spoken clearly on this issue."

To which a member of The Cathedral of St. Luke in Portland and my sponsoring congregation responded, "Bishop, with all due respect, Elizabeth is not an 'issue', she is a person we have been deeply persuaded is called by God to be a priest in the church."

The bishop then demurred, adding, "I just fear she will be an embarrassment to the church." As some of you may know, those words would come back to personally haunt him with a most desperate irony.

Ms. Conroy and I recently marked 31 years of faithful, monogamous partnered life, sharing the joys and responsibilities of six children and four grandchildren. We live in the serious suburbs where we mow the lawn, rake the leaves, pay taxes and try to help our neighbors.

We contribute to our community and serve the church in a variety of ways - Ms. Conroy as a volunteer EMT, Parish Nurse, and member of the Outreach Committee and Parish Choir. I serve as rector of a parish, president of the Standing Committee, member of the Women's Commission and president of the Episcopal Women's Caucus, in addition to being a member of the Steering Committee of Claiming The Blessing.

I have tried very hard not to be an embarrassment to the church. I fear the church has not returned the favor.

When the church has "erred and strayed" from the gospel, I have called her to repent and return. I have done that boldly and with great confidence that Jesus would have me do nothing less. Indeed, I have come to understand that part of my vocation is to ask the uncomfortable questions, and raise the disturbing issues.

I try to speak the truth as I know it in love, with as much clarity and authenticity I have in my body and soul. This means that I have been an annoyance to some and an embarrassment to others. In those moments, some have told me that they wish I could be 'nicer', reminding me that sugar attracts more flies than vinegar.

Well, I ask, what is a body to do when one has set out the sugar but notes that all it has accomplished is to draw flies? Or, that the lumps of sugar are now being used as weapons, and that all of this thwarts the progress of the work of the gospel?

Nice? Okay. I can be nice, and I am, most of the time. After all, I am an Anglican. I know how to behave in social settings. I even know appropriate table etiquette in the most formal of occasions.

But, give me real. As Harvey Guthrie, then Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School, said to me at the start of my admission interview, "We don't have much time. You have important questions to ask about how this school will support you in your vocational aspirations and goals. I have important questions to ask you about how your diocese and your bishop - who has, since 1974, refused to send seminarians here - will support you in your vocation. The world is too dark and broken a place for us to play polite games with each other. So, let's get on with it, shall we?"

Give me truth and honesty, integrity and authenticity. Even when we don't understand. Even when we fundamentally disagree. Even when that makes you so angry with me you want to throttle me - but instead, you slip right into all of your unfinished business with your family of origin. (I only know this because I am capable of it, too.)

To those deeply invested in 'nice', I suppose I have been and, indeed, am an embarrassment. I recently found myself writing these words to a friend: "Self-differentiation. It's the only cross worth carrying." She remarked that this would make a GREAT T-shirt. I do believe she's right.

So, you'll understand, then, why this poem written by Louie Crew and sent to me by him this morning touched my heart.

Before you read it, I want to tell you what my day, this day of 21st anniversary of ordination to the priesthood will be like: I am headed into the office where I will begin to implement the actions of last night's Vestry meeting, which include putting a new roof on the church and replacing all of the windows in the undercroft (where all of the church offices and nursery school are located).

Then, I will have lunch with an ordained woman who has been very badly treated by the church. She is looking for new work, in a new diocese, but I'm going just to be an old friend - to remind her of how talented and skilled, experienced and wise she is and how God desperately needs her in the church.

I will spend the better part of the afternoon in prayer for a dear friend who was in a motorcycle accident two Sundays ago and sustained serious head injuries. He has been on life support for almost two weeks. He turned 57 years old on Tuesday and, on that same day, the doctors noted that his EEG showed "very little brain activity." They and his family and partner, a retired priest and a very dear friend, made the decision that if today's EEG does not show any improvement, he will be removed from all life support and his body allowed to take its natural course.

Pray for Donald.

I will be home in the early evening where, after a quick supper with Ms. Conroy who will run out to Evening Prayer and choir rehearsal, I will put the finishing touches on the sermon I am preparing for a dear friend who is celebrating a new ministry begun in Michigan. I'll leave on Friday and be home late Saturday night to prepare for the two sermons I will preach and two Eucharists it will be my privilege to preside on Sunday.

Embarrassing? Okay. I have a different word for it: Vocation.

If I weren't called to do this work, I'd never be able to pull it off - that and all of the folks who will "just drop by" or "just call to say hello" and I will suddenly find myself with the enormous privilege of listening to the secrets held deep in their hearts.

Here are Louie's words - his anniversary gift to me which I joyfully share with you.


Let Us Now Praise Caustic Christians


Let us now praise caustic Christians,
the champions of justice in all generations,
through whom God has restored the flow of mercy.

Some have nailed theses to the church door
with prophetic power.
Some have started new universities to
challenge the prevailing notions.
Some have overturned tables at the temple,
demanding alms for the poor, the sick,
and the destitute before we buy organs
and stained glass.
Some have worn dresses to be priested for gender justice.
Some have yanked off masks to proclaim their loving gay unions.
Some have demanded of the white authorities, "Let My People Go!"
Some have marched through tear gas and police dogs,
defying orders from prelates and judges.
Some have destroyed draft files
and burned plans for nuclear destruction.
Some have organized unions and cooperatives.
Some have fought to redistribute God's bounty justly.

All these won notoriety in their own generation
and were the scandal of their times.
Many have sat in jails rather than to recant
or to say that the earth as we know it
is at the center of the universe.
Others have died.

Many there are who have left behind them no name,
but a legacy of hope restored, conflict resolved,
injustice rectified, lives redeemed.
Their victories are the inheritance of future generations.
Their line will endure for all times.

-- Louie Crew, 1982

Ernest & I rejoice in the anniversary of your ordination. May God use your ministry to bring joy to absolutely everybody!

Shall the Fundamentalist Win?

A former seminarian of mine who has become a clergy colleague and a friend dear to my heart, sent me this link to a sermon by Harry Emerson Fosdick.

It's been a while since I read it, but, given the research reported by the Barner Group and posted on this Blog below, and reflecting on the parody of Mac vs. IBM computers which gave rise to the series "Christ-follower vs. Christian" (see also below), I think it's important to give it a fresh read.

“Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”: Defending Liberal Protestantism in the 1920s

Urban as well as rural Americans flocked to fundamentalist and evangelical churches in the 1920s. “Liberal” Protestants sought to reconcile faith and science and to slow what they saw as the reactionary tendencies of fundamentalism.

Harry Emerson Fosdick’s influential 1922 sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?,” called for an open-minded, intellectual, and tolerant “Christian fellowship.” Though the sermon cost him his post at New York’s First Presbyterian Church, his views represented those of an influential Protestant minority, and Fosdick enjoyed a long career at Riverside Church, built for him by John D. Rockefeller.

Following the Scopes trial and a well-publicized scandal involving well-known pastor Aimee Semple McPherson and a mysterious lover, fundamentalists began to lose the prominence they enjoyed in the 1920s. But religious fundamentalism would remain a vital political force in American life.

*************************************************

This morning we are to think of the fundamentalist controversy which threatens to divide the American churches as though already they were not sufficiently split and riven. A scene, suggestive for our thought, is depicted in the fifth chapter of the Book of the Acts, where the Jewish leaders hale before them Peter and other of the apostles because they had been preaching Jesus as the Messiah. Moreover, the Jewish leaders propose to slay them, when in opposition Gamaliel speaks “Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.” . . .

Already all of us must have heard about the people who call themselves the Fundamentalists. Their apparent intention is to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions. I speak of them the more freely because there are no two denominations more affected by them than the Baptist and the Presbyterian. We should not identify the Fundamentalists with the conservatives. All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Fundamentalists. The best conservatives can often give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is essentially illiberal and intolerant.

The Fundamentalists see, and they see truly, that in this last generation there have been strange new movements in Christian thought. A great mass of new knowledge has come into man’s possession—new knowledge about the physical universe, its origin, its forces, its laws; new knowledge about human history and in particular about the ways in which the ancient peoples used to think in matters of religion and the methods by which they phrased and explained their spiritual experiences; and new knowledge, also, about other religions and the strangely similar ways in which men’s faiths and religious practices have developed everywhere. . . .

Now, there are multitudes of reverent Christians who have been unable to keep this new knowledge in one compartment of their minds and the Christian faith in another. They have been sure that all truth comes from the one God and is His revelation. Not, therefore, from irreverence or caprice or destructive zeal but for the sake of intellectual and spiritual integrity, that they might really love the Lord their God, not only with all their heart and soul and strength but with all their mind, they have been trying to see this new knowledge in terms of the Christian faith and to see the Christian faith in terms of this new knowledge.

Doubtless they have made many mistakes. Doubtless there have been among them reckless radicals gifted with intellectual ingenuity but lacking spiritual depth. Yet the enterprise itself seems to them indispensable to the Christian Church. The new knowledge and the old faith cannot be left antagonistic or even disparate, as though a man on Saturday could use one set of regulative ideas for his life and on Sunday could change gear to another altogether. We must be able to think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to think our Christian faith clear through in modern terms.

There is nothing new about the situation. It has happened again and again in history, as, for example, when the stationary earth suddenly began to move and the universe that had been centered in this planet was centered in the sun around which the planets whirled. Whenever such a situation has arisen, there has been only one way out—the new knowledge and the old faith had to be blended in a new combination. Now, the people in this generation who are trying to do this are the liberals, and the Fundamentalists are out on a campaign to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship. Shall they be allowed to succeed?

It is interesting to note where the Fundamentalists are driving in their stakes to mark out the deadline of doctrine around the church, across which no one is to pass except on terms of agreement. They insist that we must all believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration—that the original documents of the Scripture, which of course we no longer possess, were inerrantly dictated to men a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer; that we must believe in a special theory of the Atonement—that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner; and that we must believe in the second coming of our Lord upon the clouds of heaven to set up a millennium here, as the only way in which God can bring history to a worthy denouement. Such are some of the stakes which are being driven to mark a deadline of doctrine around the church.

If a man is a genuine liberal, his primary protest is not against holding these opinions, although he may well protest against their being considered the fundamentals of Christianity. This is a free country and anybody has a right to hold these opinions or any others if he is sincerely convinced of them. The question is—Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? The Fundamentalists say that this must be done. In this country and on the foreign field they are trying to do it. They have actually endeavored to put on the statute books of a whole state binding laws against teaching modern biology. If they had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope’s.

In such an hour, delicate and dangerous, when feelings are bound to run high, I plead this morning the cause of magnanimity and liberality and tolerance of spirit. I would, if I could reach their ears, say to the Fundamentalists about the liberals what Gamaliel said to the Jews, “Refrain from these men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be everthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.”

That we may be entirely candid and concrete and may not lose ourselves in any fog of generalities, let us this morning take two or three of these Fundamentalist items and see with reference to them what the situation is in the Christian churches. Too often we preachers have failed to talk frankly enough about the differences of opinion which exist among evangelical Christians, although everybody knows that they are there. Let us face this morning some of the differences of opinion with which somehow we must deal.

We may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the Gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Here, for example, is one point of view that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact; it actually happened; there was no other way for a personality like the Master to come into this world except by a special biological miracle. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls who hold it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. . . . So far from thinking that they have given up anything vital in the New Testament’s attitude toward Jesus, these Christians remember that the two men who contributed most to the Church’s thought of the divine meaning of the Christ were Paul and John, who never even distantly allude to the virgin birth.

Here in the Christian churches are these two groups of people and the question which the Fundamentalists raise is this—Shall one of them throw the other out? Has intolerance any contribution to make to this situation? Will it persuade anybody of anything? Is not the Christian Church large enough to hold within her hospitable fellowship people who differ on points like this and agree to differ until the fuller truth be manifested? The Fundamentalists say not. They say the liberals must go. Well, if the Fundamentalists should succeed, then out of the Christian Church would go some of the best Christian life and consecration of this generation—multitudes of men and women, devout and reverent Christians, who need the church and whom the church needs.

Consider another matter on which there is a sincere difference of opinion between evangelical Christians: the inspiration of the Bible. One point of view is that the original documents of the Scripture were inerrantly dictated by God to men. Whether we deal with the story of creation or the list of the dukes of Edom or the narratives of Solomon’s reign or the Sermon on the Mount or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, they all came in the same way, and they all came as no other book ever came. They were inerrantly dictated; everything there—scientific opinions, medical theories, historical judgments, as well as spiritual insight—is infallible. That is one idea of the Bible’s inspiration. But side by side with those who hold it, lovers of the Book as much as they, are multitudes of people who never think about the Bible so. Indeed, that static and mechanical theory of inspiration seems to them a positive peril to the spiritual life. . . .

Here in the Christian Church today are these two groups, and the question which the Fundamentalists have raised is this—Shall one of them drive the other out? Do we think the cause of Jesus Christ will be furthered by that? If He should walk through the ranks of his congregation this morning, can we imagine Him claiming as His own those who hold one idea of inspiration and sending from Him into outer darkness those who hold another? You cannot fit the Lord Christ into that Fundamentalist mold. The church would better judge His judgment. For in the Middle West the Fundamentalists have had their way in some communities and a Christian minister tells us the consequences. He says that the educated people are looking for their religion outside the churches.

Consider another matter upon which there is a serious and sincere difference of opinion between evangelical Christians: the second coming of our Lord. The second coming was the early Christian phrasing of hope. No one in the ancient world had ever thought, as we do, of development, progress, gradual change as God’s way of working out His will in human life and institutions. They thought of human history as a series of ages succeeding one another with abrupt suddenness. The Graeco-Roman world gave the names of metals to the ages—gold, silver, bronze, iron. The Hebrews had their ages, too—the original Paradise in which man began, the cursed world in which man now lives, the blessed Messianic kingdom someday suddenly to appear on the clouds of heaven. It was the Hebrew way of expressing hope for the victory of God and righteousness. When the Christians came they took over that phrasing of expectancy and the New Testament is aglow with it. The preaching of the apostles thrills with the glad announcement, “Christ is coming!”

In the evangelical churches today there are differing views of this matter. One view is that Christ is literally coming, externally, on the clouds of heaven, to set up His kingdom here. I never heard that teaching in my youth at all. It has always had a new resurrection when desperate circumstances came and man’s only hope seemed to lie in divine intervention. It is not strange, then, that during these chaotic, catastrophic years there has been a fresh rebirth of this old phrasing of expectancy. “Christ is coming!” seems to many Christians the central message of the Gospel. In the strength of it some of them are doing great service for the world. But, unhappily, many so overemphasize it that they outdo anything the ancient Hebrews or the ancient Christians ever did. They sit still and do nothing and expect the world to grow worse and worse until He comes.

Side by side with these to whom the second coming is a literal expectation, another group exists in the evangelical churches. They, too, say, “Christ is coming!” They say it with all their hearts; but they are not thinking of an external arrival on the clouds. They have assimilated as part of the divine revelation the exhilarating insight which these recent generations have given to us, that development is God’s way of working out His will. . . .

And these Christians, when they say that Christ is coming, mean that, slowly it may be, but surely, His will and principles will be worked out by God’s grace in human life and institutions, until “He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied.”

These two groups exist in the Christian churches and the question raised by the Fundamentalists is—Shall one of them drive the other out? Will that get us anywhere? Multitudes of young men and women at this season of the year are graduating from our schools of learning, thousands of them Christians who may make us older ones ashamed by the sincerity of their devotion to God’s will on earth. They are not thinking in ancient terms that leave ideas of progress out. They cannot think in those terms. There could be no greater tragedy than that the Fundamentalists should shut the door of the Christian fellowship against such.

I do not believe for one moment that the Fundamentalists are going to succeed. Nobody’s intolerance can contribute anything to the solution of the situation which we have described. If, then, the Fundamentalists have no solution of the problem, where may we expect to find it? In two concluding comments let us consider our reply to that inquiry.

The first element that is necessary is a spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty. When will the world learn that intolerance solves no problems? This is not a lesson which the Fundamentalists alone need to learn; the liberals also need to learn it. Speaking, as I do, from the viewpoint of liberal opinions, let me say that if some young, fresh mind here this morning is holding new ideas, has fought his way through, it may be by intellectual and spiritual struggle, to novel positions, and is tempted to be intolerant about old opinions, offensively to condescend to those who hold them and to be harsh in judgment on them, he may well remember that people who held those old opinions have given the world some of the noblest character and the most rememberable service that it ever has been blessed with, and that we of the younger generation will prove our case best, not by controversial intolerance, but by producing, with our new opinions, something of the depth and strength, nobility and beauty of character that in other times were associated with other thoughts. It was a wise liberal, the most adventurous man of his day—Paul the Apostle—who said, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up.”

Nevertheless, it is true that just now the Fundamentalists are giving us one of the worst exhibitions of bitter intolerance that the churches of this country have ever seen. As one watches them and listens to them he remembers the remark of General Armstrong of Hampton Institute, “Cantankerousness is worse than heterodoxy.” There are many opinions in the field of modern controversy concerning which I am not sure whether they are right or wrong, but there is one thing I am sure of: courtesy and kindliness and tolerance and humility and fairness are right. Opinions may be mistaken; love never is.

As I plead thus for an intellectually hospitable, tolerant, liberty-loving church, I am, of course, thinking primarily about this new generation. We have boys and girls growing up in our homes and schools, and because we love them we may well wonder about the church which will be waiting to receive them. Now, the worst kind of church that can possibly be offered to the allegiance of the new generation is an intolerant church. Ministers often bewail the fact that young people turn from religion to science for the regulative ideas of their lives. But this is easily explicable.

Science treats a young man’s mind as though it were really important. A scientist says to a young man, “Here is the universe challenging our investigation. Here are the truths which we have seen, so far. Come, study with us! See what we already have seen and then look further to see more, for science is an intellectual adventure for the truth.” Can you imagine any man who is worthwhile turning from that call to the church if the church seems to him to say, “Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking; now think, but only so as to reach these results.”

My friends, nothing in all the world is so much worth thinking of as God, Christ, the Bible, sin and salvation, the divine purposes for humankind, life everlasting. But you cannot challenge the dedicated thinking of this generation to these sublime themes upon any such terms as are laid down by an intolerant church.

The second element which is needed if we are to reach a happy solution of this problem is a clear insight into the main issues of modern Christianity and a sense of penitent shame that the Christian Church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs. If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .

The present world situation smells to heaven! And now, in the presence of colossal problems, which must be solved in Christ’s name and for Christ’s sake, the Fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly!

Well, they are not going to do it; certainly not in this vicinity. I do not even know in this congregation whether anybody has been tempted to be a Fundamentalist. Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us always so and ever increasing areas of the Christian fellowship; intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair, tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference, as though we did not care about the faith, but because always our major emphasis is upon the weightier matters of the law.

Source: Harry Emerson Fosdick, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Christian Work 102 (June 10, 1922): 716–722.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/

I'm a Christ Follower (Mac vs. PC Parody) Part 01

This is the first of a six part series.

Every one makes me giggle.

Enjoy!

Hey kid, how 'bout some fire with that brimstone?

This article arrived in my mail box this morning, which I found worthy of special note.

The research was done by the "Barna Group" which is, I believe, a conservative-based organization in California.

Which makes this statement even more interesting: "The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people," he said.

Hmmm . . .so what's the next evangelism strategy, you think? Acceptance of LGBT people? Nah! Too radical.

Hang on! I've got it. Here's an idea: Let's develop some sort of 'Covenant' membership - with the 'real' Christians - those who are able to sign on to all of the strict, traditional, fundamentals of Christian doctrine - getting top shelf membership cards.

We'll call them 'the elect.' (That's 'reasserter' in Kendalland. It's 'hyper-Calvinst' with The Bullies. AKA 'the orthodox' or 'conservative' or 'evangelical' in the Network, CANA, AAC, ACK, and all the other spinter groups which I call 'QRSTUVWXYandZ'. AKA 'neo-Puritan' 'Evangelicals' in some corners of HOB/D.)

Those who can only sign on to three-quarters or more of the doctrines can be, ummm . . . how about 'the chosen'? (AKA 'Camp Allen Bishops' and/or 'Windsor Bishops' for the Kendall Elves and The Bullies. See also 'splinter groups' above. AKA 'Conservatives' in some corners of HOB/D.)

Those who can only sign on to half or more of the doctrines can be, . . . . ummmm . . .how about 'the faithful'? (AKA "The Movable Middle" on both sides of the church aisle. AKA 'Moderates'on HOB/D.)

Those who can sign on to less than one fourth of the doctrines can be, ummmmm . . . how about 'the seekers' or 'Christ-followers'? (Or, in Kendalland 'reappraisers'. For 'the Bullies' these are 'the apostate' and those who have 'walked away'. AKA 'Progressives' for some on HOB/D.)

Dual membership will also be offered. Those who can sign on at any of the above levels but have the ability to hold their personal beliefs in tension with those who disagree with them can be, ummmm . . . Ah, I know! "Traditional Anglicans." (AKA 'Mature Christians')

Different levels of membership will carry different privileges. You know, sort of 'upstairs / downstairs maid' sort of thing. Some will go to Lambeth and have seat, but no voice. Others will go and have seat and voice. And, then . . . .

What? What is that you asked? Didn't Jesus say, "And I, when I am lifted up, I will draw all to me?"

All? That means absolutely everyone?

Oh. I see. Never mind.

Here's another idea: Why don't we all just live the gospel?

That's an evangelism strategy that's been drawing all people - including young people - to Jesus for centuries.

Christian image is turning youths off
Web Posted: 10/12/2007 08:04 PM CDT

Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

Young people have graded Christianity, and so far, the report card doesn't look good.
Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.

A new book based on research by the California-based research firm the Barna Group found that church attitudes about people in general and gays in particular are driving a negative image of the Christian faith among people ages 16-29.

"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the ... defining response of the Christian church in the next decade," said David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book, "UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity."

"The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people," he said.

The findings were based on surveys of a sample of 867 young people. From that total, researchers reported responses from 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.

The vast majority of non-Christians — 91 percent — said Christianity had an anti-gay image, followed by 87 percent who said it was judgmental and 85 percent who said it was hypocritical.

Such views were held by smaller percentages of the active churchgoers, but the faith still did not fare well: 80 percent agreed with the anti-gay label, 52 percent said Christianity is judgmental, and 47 percent declared it hypocritical.

Kinnaman said one of the biggest surprises for researchers was the extent to which respondents — one in four non-Christians — said that modern-day Christianity was no longer like Jesus.

"It started to become more clear to us that what they're experiencing related to Christianity is some of the very things that Jesus warned religious people about," he said. "Which is, avoiding removing the log from your own eye before trying to take the speck out of someone else's."

Kinnaman said some Christians — including those in the entertainment industry — preferred to call themselves "followers of Jesus" or "apprentices of Christ" because the word "Christian" could limit their ability to relate to people. Even Kinnaman, 33, described himself as "a committed Christ follower," though he has called himself a Christian in the past.

In addition to reporting on the negative statistics, Kinnaman used the book to also give advice — from himself and more than two dozen Christian leaders — on new approaches.

"Our goal wasn't simply to say here's all the problems, but to hopefully point a way forward," Kinnaman said.

"When Jesus pursued people, he was much more critical of pride and much more critical of spiritual arrogance than he was of people who were sinful. And today's Christians, if you spend enough time looking at their attitudes and actions, really are not like Jesus when it comes to that."

Megachurch pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., used the book to say he hopes the church will become "known more by what it is for than what it is against.

"For some time now, the hands and feet of the body of Christ have been amputated, and we've been pretty much reduced to a big mouth," Warren wrote.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/stories/MYSA101307.01R.CHRISTIANIMAGE_.28beb95.html

Gay church loses members as acceptance spreads.

You know, from a safe, emotional distance I found this headline comforting in an odd sort of way.

Sadly, I think it's just a temporary downward 'blip' on the statistical screen. One thing is certain - as long as the institutional church continues to use theological language like "hate the sin, love the sinner," there will continue to be a message of hate which is delivered with the imprimatur of the institutional church.

As long as there is a message of hate being delivered with the authority of even one part of the institutional church, there will always be a need for the kind of sanctuary provided by the Metropolitan Community Church.

So, an odd sort of prayer for a uniquely queer situation:

May God continue to abundantly bless the MCC church and may it one day no longer be necessary or needed. Amen.

October 08, 2007

Gay church loses members as acceptance spreads
By JIM HAUG
Staff Writer

DAYTONA BEACH -- Metropolitan Community Church began in 1968 as an alternative for gays who felt alienated by most churches' condemnation of homosexuality.

After a contentious summer in which the denomination suspended local worship for a month and revoked the credentials of the local pastor, the Rev. Beau McDaniels, Hope Metropolitan Community Church members are doing what many congregations do after a fight with church headquarters.

They are thinking about joining another denomination. The United Church of Christ, a liberal Protestant church that has ordained openly gay clergy and affirmed same-sex marriage, is mentioned as a possible successor to the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

Vikki Del Fiacco, a former Metropolitan member in Daytona Beach, has already switched over. She is training for the ministry with Port Orange United Church of Christ.

Del Fiacco likes the United group because "it's open and affirming of everyone." She noted Metropolitan founder Troy Perry "never thought MCC would last long term."'

Its original mission was "to be accepting," Del Fiacco said. "But other denominations are accepting now."

Episcopalians, of course, have gotten much attention for ordaining an openly gay bishop.

Some liberal Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist congregations have also embraced openly gay members, said Lesley Northup, an associate professor of religion at Florida International University.

Because of the growing acceptance, gays may no longer feel the need to segregate themselves in a niche church, Northup said.

Coincidentally, the Rainbow Promise Fellowship Metropolitan Church in Lakeland has scheduled a vote on Oct. 14 on whether to disaffiliate with the Metropolitan Community Churches denomination.

The Daytona Beach and Lakeland churches could follow the example of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, which was once the largest Metropolitan Community Churches congregation with 3,500 members. It left the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches in 2003 and later joined the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ has a proud progressive history, known for setting the trend in ordaining black, female and openly gay ministers, religion scholars said.

As a congregational-based denomination, policy decisions are made at the local level. So United churches are not all alike. One in five United churches in Florida has declared itself to be "open and affirming" of homosexuality, said the Rev. Kent Siladi, the conference minister for Florida.

The Florida Conference of the United Church of Christ passed a resolution in May encouraging other churches to educate itself about becoming "open and affirming" toward gay members, Siladi said.

As a matter of clarification, United does not recruit other churches, Siladi said.

In another sign gay acceptance has become a moot point, Hope Metropolitan's dispute with its denominational leaders has nothing to do with ideology and is all about organizational matters.

Members criticize the denomination's investigation into their pastor, the Rev. McDaniels.

Information about the case, which allegedly centered around church finances, was not shared with the congregation, members said.

The investigation was restarted after the initial investigator found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Members defiantly worshipped outside on the church grounds when the denomination decided to suspend Sunday services.

The mood became so tense a church elder from Texas brought two security guards with her during a summer "reconciliation" meeting.

"It was all pretty ugly," said Susan McDaniels, partner of the pastors. Beau McDaniels declined an interview request.

In a rebuke of the national leadership, the local congregation decided to rehire the Rev. McDaniels under the new title of "worship coordinator" when the denominational leadership terminated her credentials as a preacher last month.

Citing confidentiality, United Fellowship Metropolitan Community Churches leaders have declined to comment on the case. They did not respond to interview requests for this story.

The fellowship has about 250 member churches worldwide. It has become active in promoting tolerance abroad, defending the rights of gays in Jamaica in a discrimination case, for instance.

Melissa Wilcox, a professor of religion at Whitman College in California, has written a book on Metropolitan Community Churches called "Coming Out in Christianity."

She acknowledged Metropolitan Community Churches founders intended the church as a temporary, "stop-gap" solution until other denominations became more accepting of gays.

Wilcox, however, noted many gays are still uncomfortable going to even the most liberal churches, Wilcox said.

They feel awkward and conspicuous when identified as the church's official "gay members." They also encounter "there goes the neighborhood" resistance from members who did not want them to join in the first place, she said.

So Metropolitan Community Churches still fills a need as a place of acceptance. "I think there's a future," Wilcox said.

jim.haug@news-jrnl.com

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Lifestyle/Headlines/lifeREL01EAST100907.htm

A Dinner Pary with a VBP

Okay, this is probably all the evidence you'll ever need to prove that I really am a VBP.

In the midst of all of the week’s activities came the birthday of someone who has become very, very dear to my heart.

It was his 29th birthday. He’s from Louisiana.

We had authentic Louisiana Dirty Rice, made with Chicken Gizzards (Swear to God! I figure anything made with ‘gizzards’ has to be ‘authentic’ to Louisiana) and Chicken encrusted with Fried Onion Rings.

I think, however, that it was the Spicy Louisiana Shrimp with Creamy Grits that was the ‘Really Big Hit’. The combination of the taste and texture of the spicy shrimp together with the creamy grits makes this beyond yummy.

Next dinner party is in two weeks. A friend is ‘going home’ to work in a congregation in Long Island.

So, here’s my question: Is there any food that is emblematic of Long Island? I’ve only ever eaten in Diners on LI – my favorite ones being in Baldwin, Plainview, Long Beach and Hempstead – so I’m thinking Meat Loaf, garlic mashed potatoes and canned creamed corn.

My initial research is yielding lots of recipes for Thai food and you know that ain’t right. I have also learned that Long Island resident Billy Joel’s favorite is Veal Picatta and/ or Chicken Marsala. Anyone got a good recipe? Please send it along.

I guess by now it's hopelessly evident: I really am a VBP: Very Boring Priest. I love my family and my church family and friends. I love to cook for them and make them happy. Just doesn't get much more boring - and wonderful - that that, now does it? Before you know it, MadPriest will be writing me off as a lost cause.

These recipes were sent to me by dear friends in Louisiana. Enjoy!

Spicy Louisiana Shrimp and Creamy Grits

A delicious version of shrimp and grits, this one is made with tomatoes, green onions, and mushrooms. Serve over savory creamy grits or your favorite cheese grits or grits cakes.

INGREDIENTS:

• 4 slices bacon, diced
• 4 cloves of garlic
• 6 to 8 ounces sliced fresh mushrooms
• 1 1/2 pounds shrimp (prawns work well), peeled and cleaned
• 1/2 cup sliced green onions
• 1 tablespoon chopped fresh parsley
• 1 can (14 1/2 ounces) diced tomatoes
• 1/2 teaspoon Creole seasoning*
• 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
• salt, to taste
• dash ground cayenne pepper or Tabasco, optional

PREPARATION:

In a large skillet, cook bacon until cooked but not crisp; add garlic and mushrooms. Sauté mushrooms until just tender, adding a little oil or butter if needed; add shrimp and cook, stirring, for 1 minute. Add green onions and parsley; continue cooking for about 1 minute. Add tomatoes, Creole seasoning, and a dash of garlic powder. Bring to a boil and simmer for about 1 to 2 minutes, or until shrimp is cooked through and liquid has reduced and slightly thickened. Taste and pepper, salt, and cayenne, to taste.

*Creole Seasoning:

• 2 1/2 tablespoons paprika
• 2 tablespoons salt
• 2 tablespoons garlic powder
• 1 tablespoon onion powder
• 1 tablespoon black pepper
• 1 tablespoon cayenne pepper
• 1 tablespoon dried leaf oregano
• 1 tablespoon dried leaf thyme

Combine all ingredients thoroughly and store in an airtight container. Makes about 2/3 cup.

Creamy Grits

These creamy grits are great with shrimp or seared scallops, tender slices of meat, or lamb chops.

INGREDIENTS:

• 1 cup heavy cream
• 1 can (1 2/3 cups) chicken or vegetable broth
• 1 cup water
• 4 tablespoons butter
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
• 1/8 to 1/4 teaspoon pepper
• 1 cup quick grits

PREPARATION:

Bring heavy cream, chicken broth, and water to a boil in a medium saucepan. Add butter, salt, and pepper. Slowly whisk in grits and reduce heat. Cook 15 to 20 minutes over low heat, stirring frequently.

Cajun Dirty Rice

INGREDIENTS:

• 3/4 pound chicken gizzards
• 3 1/2 cups hot chicken, beef or vegetable broth
• 2 tablespoons drippings or oil
• 4 tablespoons butter, divided
• 1/2 pound ground pork
• 1/2 cup each chopped onions, celery, green pepper
• 2 cloves garlic, minced
• 2 teaspoons salt
• 1 teaspoon black pepper
• 1 teaspoon paprika
• 1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
• a dash of Tabasco sauce
• 1 1/2 cups long-grain rice
• 1/2 pound chicken livers, minced

PREPARATION:

Simmer the chicken gizzards in broth for 30 minutes. Remove with slotted spoon and grind or chop fine. Heat drippings or oil and 2 tablespoons of the butter in a heavy casserole. Sauté the pork and chopped gizzards over high heat until browned, stirring frequently.

Lower heat, add vegetables and seasonings, and cook until vegetables are tender, about 5 minutes. Add rice and reserved broth, quickly bring to a boil, stir once, cover, and lower heat. Simmer 15 minutes.

Saute minced chicken livers in remaining butter for 3 minutes. Toss with the rice, taste for seasoning, and adjust. Cover and put in a low 225° oven for 10 minutes.
Fluff with a fork and serve.

Serves 6 as a main dish

" . . .marvelous works to be remembered . . ."

This morning was one of three or four times in our liturgical life cycle that we feature and celebrate the presence and ministry of the young people in our congregation.

The Confirmands read all the lessons and lead us in the Prayers of the People. The Youth Choir does the Offertory Anthem. All of the music is taken from "The Fishy Book" - a collection of camp songs - which has been used for years in this Diocese when the first incarnation of "Cross Roads" was known as "Eagles Nest."

In the Psalm appointed for today, we hear "You make your marvelous works to be remembered; you are gracious and full of compassion." (Psalm 111:3)

That piece of sacred text came alive this morning as one member of our Youth Group, Patrick James, gave a reflection on his experience in Belize this summer.

You will excuse me if I am so proud I could just burst.

Well here, see for yourself . . .

But before you do, can I just say that Tim Wong, our Missioner for Youth and Young Families, is totally, completely, absolutely awesome? It's no accident that Patrick's vocational aspiration is to be a Youth Missioner "just like Tim."

Okay, end of shameless gush.

2007 Belize Mission Trip Reflection
October 14, 2007
10am Youth Service
By Patrick James

Today I will reflect on this year’s mission trip to Belize. We visited the community of San Antonio, Belize to build a playground and assist with a health and dental clinic. We also ended up painting the community center. But these jobs weren’t all we were sent to do. We were sent to build up the sprit of the small community placed in the beautiful hillside of Belize and also to build on our community as members of this church and our towns. This aspect of the trip, to me, was greatly underestimated.

The town of San Antonio is a small town with a population of about 1,500 people. The trek to get there almost seemed endless. We spent 50 minutes driving up and down twisty hills on almost all single lane dirt roads. The scenery was not nice until we got to the city limits where all around all you could see were mountains.

It seems almost as that bus ride was a reflection to the country, you went from one beautiful town to another and the separation of these two places was a road full of litter and nothingness.

At one point we passed a hillside covered in used appliances and garbage. It was an image that I had to see twice a day and would make me think “why is this happening? Why are they just dumping it over the side of what could be a beautiful, green, and tree filled hillside?”

When we finally arrived at the work site, the people welcomed us with open arms. Everyday as we started to work on the playground we would be welcomed by a group of men and children.

As the day progressed the children would try to help us work, they would sit in the windows of the community center, play games, and smile. Everyday after work we would take the bus up to the school fields and play both soccer and “American football” with the kids. This was the best part of the whole trip.

On the first day when we played soccer with the kids, a lot of us tried to play competitive and tried to score. I was one of them. But after the second day, I realized that I have been selfish and the game wasn’t about us. The game was about the local kids.

After I passed one of the boys the ball and let him score, he had the biggest smile I had ever seen on his face. I will never forget that smile. It was so awesome to see them smile because of the satisfaction it gave me to know that because of what I was doing, they were smiling.

I strongly believe that even if we hadn’t built the playground, the children would have smiled because we were there and we were there for them.

As we worked during the week, some children would hang around the worksite and the a few men from the community would help out Matasis, the carpenter. They would help with any job they could. We never asked them to help with anything, but if we did need help they were the first people there. They helped us carry wood, hold lumber for cutting and drilling, and anything else that was needed.

One of these men was the bus driver that took us between Clarissa Falls and the worksite in San Antonio. His attitude towards the work we were doing was unmatched. He could have driven there, dropped us off and then taken the bus and gone home to spend time with his family, but instead he was there every day and worked in any way he could.

And the best part of it all was he always had a smile on his face. He didn’t know anyone in the community and had no other reason to be there except that he was of great moral character and saw the good in what we were doing as a group.

Helping the community of San Antonio was one aspect of this mission trip. However, I think the most underrated part of the mission trip was the 21 youth that retuned to Newark airport on July 14th who became drastically different people than the ones that left only seven days earlier.

Even though it took 2 or 3 days for us to realize this, we discovered as a group we are strong and could accomplish great things. By the end of the week everyone was talking and joking as a group and not just inside their “comfort zone” with their friends. For instance, the joke of David Huke screaming at the top of his lungs as the gigantic 6 inch gecko landed on his arm was much more respected towards the end of the week because we bonded and came together as a group.

So, in short, as a group we were able to bond through our jokes, our smiles, and laughs. You may still be asking, so what? What does bonding have to do with anything?

Well, not only was our bonding an essencial factor in finishing what we started that week, but it is an important factor in life. Being able to work as a group is a skill that is necessary in almost every work force in the world and this mission trip helped me realize that nothing can get accomplished without this.

Another way that we were able to connect with each other more was through the different skills that people brought to the project. Each team of youth working on the playground had individuals with different skills. Some were leaders, some were good with directions or measurements, while others were good at taking directions.
This led to each group member working together as a team and bonding closely with each other.

On the last night, RJ and I led our evening program. Here we discussed this same topic, that all the people in the group brought different skills to the project using a passage from the book of Romans chapter 12. It says “For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are in many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us”.

We transferred this idea to the anatomy of the human body and that each skill was a different part of the body. For instance, the sanders were the arms while the painters were the legs, and Tim was the head because without him nothing would have happened this week. But most importantly Jesus was the brain because he was the reasoning for going down there to work and was also our drive to finish out each day.

So back to how we as a group of youth changed in just 7 days. I can’t speak for everyone but I know that personally, the growth I made in just one week will play a crucial part in my life.

This trip has helped me to realize that a community of lesser affluence is a stronger more connected community because they depend on each other to survive.

Some families in San Antonio and places similar may have working electricity but not running water, yet your next door neighbor has running water but not electricity. Therefore these two families need to depend on each other to make it through the day. This may be something that we as kids in our privileged communities learn in school, but it really doesn’t mean much until you see it and experience it first hand.

But I have not only learned this, I have learned that teamwork is an essential part of our society and that you can’t make the world a better place on your own. It takes teamwork and dedication.

I believe this is how we accomplished the jobs God sent us to do in Belize as well as the jobs God will send us to do in the future.

Amen!

" . . .with truly thankful hearts . . ."

“And, he was a Samaritan”
Luke 17:11-19
XX Pentecost
October 14, 2007
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
(the Rev’d) Elizabeth Kaeton, rector and pastor

There is a wonderful line in the prayer of General Thanksgiving which you can find on page 101 and 125 in the Book of Common Prayer that includes these words, “. . . . that, with truly thankful hearts. . . .” (or, in the poetic flourish of Rite I " . . .that our hearts may be unfeignedly glad . . .")

I think those words reflect the state of the 10th leper in this morning’s gospel.

Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee, which is a little like going through the land between a backwater and a hick town. Not exactly the ‘must-see’ stop on anyone’s vacation itinerary.

Galilee was a 'rough and tumble' kind of place – a place of people connected in some way to the commerce associated with this seaport town.

Galileans spoke Hebrew with such a thick accent that they weren’t allowed to read publicly in the Temple.

Sort of like someone with a strong Brooklyn accent (Think:'toidy-toid and toid)' or a bloke with cockney accent associated with the rugged working class in Liverpool (Think: 'The Rain in Spain . . .' from 'My Fair Lady').

Samaria was a place which had been so ethnically and religiously diverse for so long that intermarriage was the norm.

Samaritans rarely made the journey to pray in the Temple in Jerusalem, choosing, instead, to worship in their homes with a liturgical style that incorporated the more secular aspects of their lives as well as those which embraced the religious and cultural diversity of their spouses.

The ‘pure’ or ‘upper class’ Jews considered those from Samaria ethnically impure – the ‘mongrels’ of their race.

So, Jesus is traveling between Galilee and Samaria - a proverbial ‘rock and a hard place’ – when ten lepers approached him from afar, calling out and saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

And Jesus, when he saw them, instructed them to go to the Temple and show themselves to the priests. But, something happened on the way to the Temple – they were healed (or, as scripture reports, 'made clean').

All ten were healed, but only one turned back to thank Jesus.

Admitedly, that wasn’t part of the original deal. Jesus had not instructed them to go to the priests and then come back to him.

One leper did return to Jesus, not only thanking him but praising God.

None of the other 9 did this. Just this one.

“And he was a Samaritan.”

Him.

Just him.

He came back. Not any of the others.

Just one of the mongrels – not worthy, as one of the daughters of Samaria would later say to Jesus, so much as to gather up the crumbs from under the master’s table.

And yet, worthy enough to have been made clean.

Worthy enough to understand the worth of this miraculous healing to turn back, praise God, and give thanks.

This is someone with ‘a truly thankful heart.’

This is one who sees ‘the bigger picture’ – that not only are all things connected in this life, and we to them, but we are also deeply, intimately connected to the One who called all of creation into being.

This is one who understands that when you are caught between a rock and a hard place, when you are in that place when you think you have lost it all, you are in the best place possible to know gratitude.

This is one who understands that, while 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom' (Psalm 111:10) the initiation of gratitude is the foundation of joy.

Isn’t it often the way that it is ‘the foreigner’ in our midst, the one who understands what it means to be an ‘outsider’, who is often the very one who is able to help us move through our anxiety and fear and find our way back to our hearts?

Once there, finding gratitude, and " . . . with truly thankful hearts . . ." we are able to rejoice to find our true home.

I suspect it was the gospel story of the leper who inspired this prayer, which the BCP offers to us to be said at the end of The Daily Office of Morning and Evening Prayer. It’s a beautiful prayer, one I’d like to leave you with this morning and suggest you consider whenever you hear the Gospel of the 10th Leper:

“Almighty God, Father of all mercies, we your unworthy servants give you humble thanks for all your goodness and loving-kindness to us and to all whom you have made. We bless you for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life; but above all for your immeasurable love in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ; for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory. And, we pray, give us such an awareness of your mercies, that with truly thankful hearts we may show forth your praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives, by giving up our selves to your service, and by walking before you in holiness and righteousness all our days; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with you and the Holy Spirit, be honor and glory throughout all ages. Amen.”

National Coming Out Day 2007

Okay, so I'm just catching up.

October 11th (Thursday) was "National Coming Out Day"

It was also my friend Jon's birthday.

I was also driving home from Massachusetts, having visited my 84 year old mother who had been hospitalized with Congestive Heart Failure.

And, preparing a FABULOUS Louisiana Dinner, featuring authentic Louisiana Dirty Rice (yes, with chicken gizzards), Spicy Cajun Shrimp served with Creamy Grits and Onion Ring encrusted Chicken complimented by a salad of Boston Bib Lettuce, cranberries, blue cheese, and pecans.

Dessert was a Red Velvet cake with cream cheese pecan frosting.

So, you'll excuse me if those of us who are already "out" missed the Big Celebration.

Which, by the way, is the whole point of National Coming Out Day.

Theology and Gumball Terrorism

It was all the news in Northern New Jersey this week.

Swear to God.

Two town officials in Dover, NJ (understand, please, that even in the town of Dover, putting "official" in the same sentence with "Dover" will automatically induce giggles), were just trying to do their job.

The mayor and the aldermen said their goal was to ensure that any gumball dispensed in their town was safe to eat.

However, news that "town officials" thought al-Qaida was thinking about poisoning gumballs sold in town machines reverberated throughtout the state. That brought lots of attention - and ridicule (like they needed any more) - to Dover.

The controversey apparently began when one of those pesky "town officials" in Dover discovered some of the machines in town were unlicensed. That was all it took for someone to speculate that this was a perfect set up for terrorism to strike our most vulnerable citizens.

Soon, the battle cry went up. "Save the children!" Nothing - absolutely nothing - can be a better, more effective call to arms than any thing that has the words 'save' and 'children' in it.

Well, it simply spiraled down and absolutely out of control from there.

Actually, you have to commend the town officials for trying to ensure that candy sold in machines is safe. It takes a very strong parent (or grandparent) to be able to resist the universal childhood plea for a penny or nickel or dime or quarter (depending on the size of the gumball) for a sweet, sticky, chewy treat as a reward for good behavior.

I suspect just about every one of those grand/parents has wondered, at least once, about where the gum came from and how sanitary the machine was (As an official Nana, you can trust me on this one).

But this? To move from wondering about the sanitation of dispensers, to the need to license and regulate them to protect the general public, and then to the idea of al-Qaida terrorism in three short steps says something about the climate of fear in our culture today in general, and the town of Dover in particular.

As my grandmother always used to say, 'A little bit of power in the wrong hands can do great damage.'

It's not just our country. It's also our church. The saga of Gumball Terrorism in North Jersey reminds me of some of the arguments being trotted around by those on the Radical Fringe Right.

Why, the argument begins, if you start blessing same-sex relationships, what's next? Blessing animals? Well, actually, we already do that.

See? They say.

The argument continues: first, we bless animals, next, we start blessing same-sex relationships. Will we soon start blessing 'three-some's' or people who are having group sex if they but promise not to add any more people to their little love-fest?

Puuulllleeeessseee!

Theology meets Gumball Terrorism.

Because, if you listen to the media long enough, you too will believe that no one is safe anywhere anymore - not even in church, but especially (if you read certain blogs and those who comment there) The Episcopal Church.

Swear to God!

Select A Candidate Quiz

I found this a fascinating quiz, sponsored by the Minnesota Public Radio. It certainly helped me to move away from the all the 'hype and drama' and focus on the issues.

Gee, do you think MPR would do something similar for the World Wide Anglican Communion? Oh, wait. Not every Province elects its Bishops or Primates. And first we'd have to have clarity about what the REAL issues are.

Never mind.

It's a very quick and easy quiz. All you do is "answer 11 questions to find out which candidates are most aligned with your views and opinions. You may skip questions if you do not want them factored into the results. This quiz is not meant to pick your candidate for you. It is designed to inform the public of the various stances candidates make. Results are not scientific."

Enjoy!

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Pants on fire

We interrupt your regular blog viewing for an important announcement:

Just when you think folks on the "fringe right" can't stoop any lower . . .

A friend tipped me off to this little gem (You know it's A Very Slow News Day in The Land of Bullies when they can spin a story out of Susan Russell's traveling itinerary.)

"Elizabeth Kaeton has already “blessed the covenant” of a group of four. She claims they consider themselves a family, and the relationship(s) is/are nonsexual."

Well, there is it, then. If it's written on a blog, it must be true, right? Every letter, word, comma, and period - just like scriptural interpretation.

Close, but no cigars. (Well, maybe one.)

Remember the children's game "whisper" (aka "telephone") where one child whispers something in the ear of another and you compare what was first said with the last message whispered in some one's ear?

What I said was this:

"On the other hand, I have blessed the non-sexual covenant of FRIENDSHIP between four people who considered themselves to be family."

Each had been abandoned by their families for various reasons: addiction, rebellion, gender identity, sexual orientation.

They had come to know a sense of real family in their (let me say it again, boys and girls, so we're all REAL clear) non-sexual relationships with each other.

Hear me cleary: I bless COVENANTS.

As Jesus said, "What is bound on earth is bound in heaven . . ." and I think Jesus is well pleased when we make - and the church blesses, in his name - sacred vows of honesty, love, mutality, fidelity, and respect.

Don't you?"

It's interesting, don't you think, how the modifier "she claims" next to "non-sexual" puts an interesting spin on it all?

Since these 'Bozo Bullies on Viagra' keep their anonymity the way Ft. Knox keeps the government mint, there's no way of correcting or clarifying this information once it's "out there" in the blogosphere.

Except, to use my own blog as that vehicle.

This interruption to your viewing pleasure has now ended. Please return to your regular blogging entertainment.

Jesus Saves - and Sells

On a completely different note . . .

The Grapes of Galilee is a new Israeli wine label, reportedly aimed at American Christians.

The grapes are grown in the region where Jesus Christ is said to have lived, and they are irrigated with water from the Jordan River, where he was baptized.

Deidre Woolard reports that, in fact, the Grapes of Galilee wine comes from an existing Israeli winery, only the Jesus-themed label is new. As Ad Age reports, the importer, Pini Haroz, sees the chardonnay, merlot and cabernet sauvignon wines as being perfect for holidays and he is marketing it in areas with high concentrations of Catholics.

The wine sells for $13.99 a bottle online.

I think I may have to buy a bottle of each for the next Altar Guild brunch.

An Open Letter to the LGBT Community from Bishop Gene

October 9, 2007


Now that the Church has had some time to absorb and consider the recent meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans and its response to the Anglican Communion, I’d like to share with you what I experienced at the recent House of Bishops meeting, and where I think we are as a result.


There is NO “mind of the House” nor a “mind of the Episcopal Church.” In fact, we are a House and a Church of many different minds. We are in transition from the Church we have been called to be in the past, to the Church we are called to be now and in the future. We are not there yet.

I value highly the thoughts and needs of my brother and sister conservative bishops, who have no intention of leading their flocks out of the Episcopal Church, but come out of dioceses which, for the most part, find the Episcopal Church’s actions of the last four years troublesome and alarming. I listened to them when they voiced the fears of their people that changing our views on homosexuality is a precursor to moving on to denying important tenets of our orthodox faith, from the Trinity to the Resurrection. We worked for a statement which would reflect the diversity we recognize and value as a strength of our Episcopal communion. It was our goal to describe the Church as it currently is: NOT of one mind, but struggling to be of one heart.

My own goal – and that of many bishops – was to do NOTHING at this meeting. That is, our goal, in response to the Primates, was simply to state where we are as an Episcopal Church, not to move us forward or backward. Sometimes, “progress” is to be found in holding the ground we’ve already achieved, when “moving forward” is either untimely or not politically possible. And, doing nothing substantive respects the rightful reminder to us from many in the Senior House that the House of Bishops cannot speak for the whole Church, but rather must wait until all orders of ministry are gathered for its joint deliberations at General Convention.

While many of us worked hard to block B033 and voted against it at General Convention, it IS the most recent declaration of all orders of ministry gathered as a Church. The Bishops merely restated what is, as of the last General Convention.

Yes, we did identify gay and lesbian people as among the group included in those who ‘present a challenge” to the Communion. That comes as a surprise to no one. It is a statement of who we are at the moment. Sad, but true.

Many bishops spoke on behalf of their lgbt members and worked hard to prevent our movement backwards. We fought hard over certain words, certain language. We sidelined some things that truly would have represented a movement backwards.

I want to tell you what I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the course of his comments, it seemed to me that the Archbishop was drawing a line between fidelity to our gay and lesbian members, and fidelity to the “process of common discernment,” which he had offered as a prime function of a bishop. I heard him saying that gay and lesbian members of our Church would simply have to wait until there was a consensus in the Communion. When we were invited to respond, I said something like, “Your Grace, I have always respected you as a person and your office, and I always will. But I want you to know and hear, that to me, a gay man and faithful member of this Church, this is one of the most dehumanizing things I’ve heard in a long time, and I will not be party to it. It reminds me of Jesus question ‘Is the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?’ Choosing a process over the lives of human beings and faithful members of this Church is simply unacceptable and unscriptural.” The next morning, the Archbishop tried to assure us that he meant both/and rather than either/or. I tried to speak my truth to him.

On the issue of same sex unions, I argued that our statement be reflective of what is true right now in the Episcopal Church: that while same sex blessings are not officially permitted in most dioceses, they are going on and will continue to go on as an appropriate pastoral response to our gay and lesbian members and their relationships. Earlier versions of our response contained both sides of this truth. I argued to keep both sides of that truth in the final version, providing the clarity asked for by the Primates.

Others made the argument that to state that “a majority of Bishops do not sanction such blessings” implied that a minority do in fact sanction such blessings, and many more take no actions to prevent them. All this without coming right out and saying so. That argument won the day. I think it was a mistake.

Another issue to which I spoke was this notion of “public” versus “private” rites. I pointed out on the floor that our very theology of marriage is based on the communal nature of such a rite. Presumably, the couple has already made commitments to one another privately, or else they would not be seeking Holy Matrimony. What happens in a wedding is that the COMMUNITY is drawn into the relationship – the vows are taken in the presence of that community and the community pledges itself to support the couple in the keeping of their vows. It is, by its very nature, a “public” event – no matter how many or how few people are in attendance. The same goes for our solemn commitments to one another as lgbt couples.

I suspect that these efforts to keep such rites “private” is just another version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” If avoidance of further conflict is the goal, then I can understand it. But if speaking the truth in love is the standard by which we engage in our relationships with the Communion, then no.

Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates MISunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact “declared a ‘moratorium on all such public Rites.’” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.

Lastly, let me respond to the very real pain in the knowledge that the change we long for takes time. This movement forward is going to take a long time. That doesn’t make it right. It certainly does not make it easy. Dr. King rightly said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” but that didn’t stop him from accepting and applauding incremental advances along the way.

We have every right to be impatient. We MUST keep pushing the Church to do the right thing. We must never let anyone believe that we will be satisfied with anything less than the full affirmation of us and our relationships as children of God.

BUT, I will continue to try to remain realistic in my approach. I work hard, and pray hard, to find the patience to stay at the table as long as it takes. And I hope we can refrain from attacking our ALLIES for not doing enough, soon enough. The bridges we are burning today may turn out to be the bridges we want to cross in the future. Let’s not destroy them.

We need to be in this for the long haul. For us to get overly discouraged when we don’t get all that we want, as fast as we want, seems counterproductive to me. We should never capitulate to less than all God wants for us, but to lose heart when we don’t move fast enough, and to attack the Church we are trying to help redeem, seems counterproductive.

The two days of listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury and some members of the ACC were the two hardest days I’ve had since my consecration. (It was a constant and holy reminder to me of the pain all of YOU continue to experience every day at the hands of a Church which is not yet what it is called to be. Ours is a difficult and transforming task: to continue serving a church that seems to love us less than we love it!) I was comforted by the support I DID receive from those straight bishops who spoke up for us, and especially by many of the Bishops of color, who implicitly “got” what I was trying to say and defied the majority with their support of me and of us. I was even encouraged by many conservative bishops’ willingness to work together to craft a statement we, liberal and conservative alike, could all live with.

I believe with my whole heart that the Spirit is alive and well and living in our Church – even in the House of Bishops. I believe Jesus when he told his disciples, on the night before he died for us, that they were not ready to hear and understand all that he had to teach them – and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. I believe that now is such a moment, when the Church, in its plodding and all-too-slow a way, is being guided into truth about its gay and lesbian members. It took ME 39 years to acknowledge who I was as a gay man and to affirm that I too am considered precious by God. Of course, the very next day after telling my parents, I expected them immediately to catch up to what had taken me 39 years to come to. Mercifully, it has not taken them the same 39 years to do so. The Church family is no different. It is going to take TIME.

I voted “yes” to the HOB statement. I believe it was the best we could do at this time. I am far less committed to being ideologically and unrelentingly pure, and far more interested in the “art of the possible.” Am I totally pleased with our statement? Of course not. Do I wish we could have done more? Absolutely. Can I live with it? Yes, I can. For right now. Until General Convention, which is the appropriate time for us to take up these issues again as a Church, with all orders of ministry present. I am taking to heart the old 60’s slogan, “Don’t whine, organize!”

I am always caught between the vision I believe God has for God’s Church, and the call to stay at the table, in communion with those who disagree with me about that vision – or, as is the case for most bishops, who disagree about the appropriate “timing” for reaching that vision of full inclusion. In this painful meantime, please pray for me as I seek to serve the people of my diocese and you, the community of which I am so honored to be a part.


Your brother in Christ,

+Gene