Salvific violence

In just a few days, on November 11, the calendar will call us to mark Veteran's Day.

I'm really struggling with this. It happens every year.

It's not that I don't think Veterans should be honored. I do. Abundantly. The actions of men and women in military service who have seen and participated in war - willingly or unwillingly and for whatever reason - is often nothing less than sacrificial and, in many cases, noble.

Some have signed up for service with a spirit of altruism known particularly among the young. Others have signed up willingly with, perhaps, a spirit that is less than noble - the irresistible call of adventure and travel, or the reckless abandon that is seen as no less risky than bungee-jumping, driving a car at high speeds, or living in inner city neighborhoods - with the added benefits of acquiring a job skill that will translate into a job in the "real world", or the promise of paid college tuition after a tour of service.

For some, it is freedom from an oppressive or violent home environment, a way out of grinding poverty, an alternative to serving time in jail, or the hopeless "what the hell" attitude of those whose lives seem to be going nowhere else fast.

For still others, it is an opportunity to put into action all the carefully taught machismo of their youth, or the justification of the prejudice they have been so carefully taught.

It's not the veterans I have a problem with. It's the war.

As a child and young adult, I used to carefully watch the faces of the veterans who stuffed themselves into their now ill-fitting uniforms or put on their best suits, festooned with medals of distinction, plop their DAV caps on their heads and march in Veteran's Day parades that seemed to have been more popular and better attended in my youth.

Some held their heads high, their shoulders back, their faces beaming with pride. Too many others seemed merely old and sad and tired, their faces deeply etched with memories too hideous to find their way into words, except 'round the bar at the AmVets Club or the VFW Hall, after a more than a few beers and shots. Or, to relive in the middle of a dark night in terrifying nightmares that seem all too real.

My father was one of those men, although he never marched in the Veteran's Day Parade. He was too busy working overtime and double overtime, just to live The American Dream he fought so hard to preserve and win for himself and his family. He drank too much and smoked two packages of Lucky Strike a day.

He sometimes got what he called "a bout of Malaria" which he had picked up in the Philippines. He would sweat so profusely and shake so violently it frightened us as children and our mother would shoo us away to our rooms or outdoors to play.

Sometimes he would awaken suddenly, in the middle of the night, with shouts and screams so loud and terrifying as to wake up the entire house.

"Daddy's having a war dream," my mother would say. "It's okay. Shhhh. Shhhh. Go back to sleep." A war dream? I would think, "More like a war nightmare," as I lay awake trying to imagine the horrors my father had experienced.

He received the Purple Heart and with it, the benefit of only having to pay the first $200 of his property taxes - a substantial savings in Massachusetts. He felt proud of that status, telling us kids about it often. I always felt as if he was justifying his malaria and nightmares, as well as what I now know was the suffering caused by undiagnosed and untreated Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

I remember, as a kid, listening to the story of the torture of Jesus on the Cross every Good Friday and suspecting that there was a link, somewhere in there, to the justification of the evils of war.

"Jesus died on the cross for you" was not far from "Your uncle died in Korea so America could be free." Which was not too far from "Your father suffered in the war so we could have a good life."

I think I was nine or ten when I began to connect the violence my father often exhibited at home with the violence I experienced in the Story of the Atonement.

"He suffered and died for our sins" was not too far from "I'm doing this for your own good." Which was not too far from "Of course your father is harder on you. You're the oldest. You set the example for the younger ones. If they see you punished, they'll learn."

You'll excuse me, then, and understand when I tell you that I don't think there's anything salvific about violence.

Those who serve in social service agencies that deal with domestic violence or with abused children can provide lots of anecdotal evidence to support the connection between the violence of the cross and the abuse they see in the women and young children who seek shelter in or relief and legal intervention from their agencies.

Religion Dispatches recently ran an essay by Sarah Sentilles "Waterboarding in the Living Room," that offers a glimpse into a US torture culture that relies on salvific violence, misogyny, and legal hypocrisy. She writes:

22-year-old Trevor Case has been sitting in a Nebraska jail since late last month for allegedly waterboarding his girlfriend. After accusing Danielle Stallworth of cheating on him, according to police reports, Case tied Stallworth to the couch, stuffed socks into her mouth, bound her wrists with belts and hair ties, placed a shirt over her face, and poured a pitcher of water over her head so she would believe she was drowning.

"History", Sentilles writes, "suggests that drowning women for real or perceived transgressions is not unusual at all."

Citing work done by William Schweiker, she writes that

"The notion of violence as vehicle for salvation depends on the logic of certain versions of atonement theology in which Jesus’ violent death on the cross is understood as salvific. The idea that waterboarding might deliver the victim from his or her sins also echoes the discourse used to justify contemporary practices of torture and the prevalent understanding of the so-called war on terror—on both sides—as a cosmic battle between Christianity and Islam."

She ends her essay with these words:

Case has been charged with domestic assault, false imprisonment, and making terroristic threats. Meanwhile, the architects of the Torture Memos and proponents of waterboarding remain free—giving talks at universities, speaking on television shows, receiving medals of commendation, or sitting behind home plate next to Nolan Ryan cheering for the Rangers during the World Series.

Case is in jail for allegedly using the same technique employed by the US military, the CIA, private contractors, and US allies. In a country in which Karl Rove can say that he is “proud” of using waterboarding against suspected terrorists without facing punishment of any kind, why wouldn’t Case feel proud, too?

So, having my connection between the Atonement and the obscene violence of war and the equally obscene violence against women and children affirmed by far more learned people than I, you'll perhaps better understand my disquiet and discomfort with Veteran's Day.

I desperately want to honor my father and all the men and women who are veterans of war. I do not want to do that with flowery, poetic, sweet and foamy patriotic language that dulls our mind and covers our eyes to our own complicity in war, honors the Evil of war and supports the politicians who willingly sacrifice the loves of young men and women for impulses than could never be confused with nobility or altruism.

Still, I believe it is very important to honor those who have experienced war - especially those who have done so while keeping their lives secret under the salvific violence of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a means of keeping "order" and "discipline" of military life - which is nothing more than machismo draped in the patriotism of the flag and hidden under the mantle of "duty" and "honor".

If nothing else, honoring our veterans is an important reminder of the ravages of war and the insanity of military life, even as it lifts the spirits of those whose souls have been crushed by 'salvific violence' in all its various forms.

I have been impressed with the people of the First Nation - the so-called Native Americans or Indians - have dealt with their veterans.

John Brown, Jr., one of the Navajo Code Talkers from WWII, offers some wisdom:

"I had nightmares thinking about the blood. The Japanese and the smell of the dead. Rotting Japanese and they probably got into my mind. And they had a Squaw Dance for me in Crystal. And I imagine they killed that evil spirit that was in my mind. That’s what it’s about. There’s a lot of stories there. It takes a long time to talk about it. It usually takes a medicine man to explain everything properly. But it works."

The Navajo people have different kinds of ceremonies for returning soldiers. When a soldier returns from war, his family can decide to sponsor a ceremony for him. They contact a spiritual leader, sometimes called a medicine man, who talks to the soldier about what he has experienced and decides which ceremony will be best for him. The Enemy Way ceremony (sometimes called the Squaw Dance) is one Navajo ceremony used for soldiers who were in combat, captured, or wounded.

Intense preparations are made and, at the appropriate time, the ceremony is conducted. Often it includes family members and others who participate in the prayers, songs, and other parts of the ceremony. These ceremonies help the Navajo war veterans return to a state of balance, or beauty, within the universe. This state of balance is called “Hozho” in the Navajo language.

Happily may their roads back home be on the trail of pollen.
Happily may they all get back.
In beauty I walk.
With beauty before me, I walk.
With beauty behind me, I walk.
With beauty below me, I walk.
With beauty above me, I walk.
With beauty all around me, I walk.
It is finished in beauty,
It is finished in beauty,
It is finished in beauty,
It is finished in beauty.

'Sa'ah naaghéi, Bik'eh hózhó
—from a Navajo Ceremony (Four Masterworks of American Indian Literature, ed. by John Bierhorst, 1974)

I imagine this prayer can only be said with any integrity or efficacy after 'intense preparation' with a Spiritual Leader as a way to begin to restore balance and peace and, as John Brown says, "kill the evil spirit" that takes up residence in the human mind after an experience of war.

The Office of the Bishop Suffragan for Chaplaincies in The Episcopal Church has a website which offers lots of liturgical resources for Veteran's Day.

I still have a great deal of trouble with a lot of the language and imagery, but I did find this prayer - this litany - from the Iona Community which I offer to you as you prepare your own observance of Veteran's Day:

In the midst of hunger and war,
we celebrate the promise of plenty and peace.

In the midst of oppression and tyranny,
we celebrate the promise of service and freedom.

In the midst of doubt and despair,
we celebrate the promise of faith and hope.

In the midst of fear and betrayal,
we celebrate the promise of joy and loyalty.

In the midst of hatred and death,
we celebrate the promise of love and life.

In the midst of sin and decay,
we celebrate the promise of salvation and renewal.

In the midst of death on every side,
we celebrate the promise of the Living Christ.

And, this, my own prayer:

Holy, loving and most gracious God, You who have wondrously created and yet even more wondrously restored us to fullness and holiness of life by the gift of your Grace: Help us find within us the divine spark that called us into being and send your Holy Spirit to fan its flames with the passion of your Divine Love and Justice. As we honor those who have fought throughout the ages in many wars and those who are still in the midst of war, help us find in our souls the mercy of God; in our hearts the compassion of God; in our minds the wisdom of God. Be especially present to those whose hearts are burdened, those whose conscience is heavy ladened, those whose minds are a battleground of conflict, and all those who live in secret fear of discovery. May all our lives - the lives of friends and foe, of every person of every nation, race and tongue - be filled with the peace of God, which passes all human understanding, that we may study war no more. We make our petitions to you and to Jesus, whose sacred heart is wounded by our brokenness, trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all Truth and belief and understanding, that we might find healing and hope and peace. Amen.

A Covenant for Retirement

Cartoon from Slap Upside The Head

On November 6, 2010, V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, during his closing remarks at the end of diocesan convention, announced plans for his retirement on January 5, 2013.

It's been two days since the announcement was made. I've been trying to get my head wrapped around that but it simply won't compute. That's probably because my heart strings are still all tangled up in the very fact of his election and consecration, not to mention the incredible leadership he has shown in the past seven years.

In his announcement, he gave a few of the reasons for his decision:

The fact is, the last seven years have taken their toll on me, my family, and YOU. Death threats, and the now-worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as Bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark, who has faithfully stood with me every minute of the last seven years, and in some ways, YOU. While I believe that these attitudes, mostly outside the Diocese, have not distracted me from my service to you, I would be less than honest if I didn’t say that they have certainly added a burden and certain anxiety to my episcopate. While my resignation may not stop such pressures completely, it does seem to be the right time for me to initiate the nearly-two-year process for your election of a new bishop. A three-month overlap will allow for a smooth and appropriate transition.

There are still things left for me to do. First and foremost, there is continuing to be a good bishop for you during the next two years. I don’t intend to be a “lame duck,” as you deserve a bishop during this interim that is “on all burners” for the remaining two years. I intend to continue to be fully engaged as your Bishop in the remaining time we lead the diocese together. You can do YOUR part by not sweeping me aside, either literally or emotionally, over the next two years, while I lead as your Bishop Diocesan.

Let me assure you that I am in good health – having lost 25 pounds put on over the last seven years in part by eating all your good food!! Especially that coconut cream pie in Colebrook! I continue in my fifth year of sobriety, which has been a total blessing to me. I continue to treasure my work and ministry with you, and it is a total joy and privilege to serve you and to serve God in this holy collaboration with you. After two more final, vigorous years with you, there are other things that I hope to do, in a new chapter in my life and ministry.

In addition to my heart strings being pulled, I find that my mind is racing in a variety of directions:

Backward to the first time I met Gene and his then wife, Boo, a million years ago, it seems, at Sign of the Dove Retreat Center in New Hampshire, which they both directed while their two beautiful young daughters scampered around, here and there.

Then, my mind takes me back to a call I got from him shortly after he and Boo divorced. I asked him why. He said, "I can no longer live a lie." I said, "Gene, are you gay?" He said, "Sheesh, Elizabeth! You just took my breath away! I've just really begun to claim the answer to that question for myself, even though I've really known the answer for years. Apparently, so have a lot of other people." he laughed. "I guess I'd better get used to people asking me that question, huh?"

Little did he know that the question would become, "A gay bishop?"

And the answer was, "Why, yes. Yes, of course."

Well, that's a question that would be asked almost everywhere else but in the Diocese of New Hampshire, where he has always been "the bishop" . . . "our bishop".

As +Gene said in his address,

"YOU are, and will continue to be, the reason I have not only survived, but thrived, during this tumultuous time in the wider Church. New Hampshire is always the place I remain, simply, “the Bishop.” This is the one place on earth where I am not “the gay Bishop.” I believe that you elected me because you believed me to be the right person to lead you at this time. The world has sometimes questioned that, but I hope you never did. You always treat me as a human being, a beloved child of God, and an eager servant of Our Lord. That is what I have tried to be, all along the way – and with every ounce of my being, I will continue. And God willing, I will leave this office in 2013 with even more love, more affection and more gratitude for you than when I assumed this role.

There's always been that wonderful, wholesome, sorta-kinda-innocent-naive-golly-gee-whiz quality about +Gene that's part of his charm.

You can hear it in the remarks in his address, can't you? Acknowledging the pain of the past seven years but still using self-effacing humor like his opening remark:

By January, 2013, I will be approaching my 66th birthday. (This is where you say, “But bishop, you look so young!”) I will have been a bishop over nine years, a reasonable and typical tenure for a bishop my age in the Episcopal Church, in what I consider to be one of the great and healthy dioceses of The Episcopal Church.

See what I mean? He is simply amazing.

What's even more amazing is that his episcopacy was the spark for the whole flap in the Anglican Communion, which led us to the final draft of the Anglican Covenant via the Windsor Report.

A statement from Archbishop Peter Jenson, General Secretary of GAFCON (I can never remember what the initials stand for - something about Global Anglicans and Future of something), noted this:

The agonising dispute in the Anglican Communion is not about Bishop Robinson personally. It is true that his consecration as a Bishop seven years ago was one of the flashpoints for a serious re-alignment of the whole Communion. But many things have happened since then. GAFCON is about the future. It is dedicated to the future of a renewed Anglican Communion centred on the orthodox teaching of the Jerusalem Declaration

.
No, that's not a clip from the statement. That's the entire thing, which continues the drumbeat of the fundamentalist evangelical brisk and to-the-point "not the person but the behavior / love the sinner hate the sin" position.

Problem is, that position may be part of the 'orthodox teaching of the Jerusalem Declaration', but it is not part of the orthodox teaching of Jesus, whose own eyes were opened by an ancient member of the anawhim (the outcast), the Canaanite woman, who challenged Jesus to see not only the humanity of his own racism and sexism, but also the limited sight of his human vision for his mission and ministry as being only to the Jews (Matthew 15:21-28).

It also gives a bit of a sideswipe to the fact that those who are part of GAFCON do not subscribe to the idea of an Anglican Covenant. As Jensen notes, "But many things have happened since then. GAFCON is about the future."

And, the Anglican Covenant is not in their future. Or, ours. This is one point on which I'm happy to agree with the GAFCON crowd.

Don't believe me? G'wan over and read Bishop Alan's blog post for today, "Right solution, Wrong Problem". It's wickedly funny and quite brilliant. I think this bit is most brilliant:

"You don’t build trust by inventing a third party body to talk about people behind their backs and adjudicate. People who go to court usually end up feeling worse, sometimes even when they have won. Trust comes, in my experience as a bishop, from openness, listening skill, direct speech, compassion, accountability, stability and hope, experienced relationally in as low-key a register as possible."

Openness. Listening skill, Direct speech. Compassion. Accountability. Stability. Hope. All experienced relationally in as low-key a register as possible.

See also: +Gene Robinson.

The Anglican Covenant will come and the Anglican Covenant will go - all without the votes it needs to become anything of any significance in the Anglican Communion.

Many things have happened since +Gene Robinson was elected and consecrated bishop in the church seven years ago, including the election and consecration of Mary Glasspool as Bishop Suffragan in Los Angeles.

God willing, there will be a few more LGBT people elected to the episcopacy in the next two years.

However, +Gene's historic episcopacy will forever be a high mark in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

+Gene may collect a pension, and he may not occupy an office at the Diocesan Center in New Hampshire, but he'll never retire the place he has come to fill in our hearts.

The "retirement address" concludes with these words:

There will be plenty of time in the future for remembrances, thanksgivings and reflection on our time together. For now, though, there is important work to be done. We need to let our fine Standing Committee and the future Search Committee do their jobs, and in the meantime, get on with being the Church and preaching the Gospel in this part of God’s vineyard. New Hampshire has made a name for itself in the last few years, and although unwittingly, we have been on the national and international stage. It has given us the opportunity to proclaim God’s love for ALL of God’s children in profound ways. I do not expect that to be diminished in any way as we move through the next two years of transition and as you move into a new partnership with your new bishop! All I can say is that it is the most profound, blessed and exciting honor to continue as your bishop. Thank you, thank you, thank you, for loving me and working alongside me in bringing the Church in New Hampshire and the world ever closer to the Reign of God.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, +Gene, for loving us and working alongside us as we have moved ever closer to the Realm of God.

Now, let's dry our tears, wipe our noses, pull up our socks, and roll up our sleeves.

There's lots more Gospel work to be done.

Let's get on with it!

Seven husbands

Cartoon from Agnus Day

The Gospel Lesson for today (Luke:20:27-38) makes me giggle.

No, it's not simply the outrageous story of the Sadducees asking their ridiculous question about the Resurrection. I mean, did you hear them?

"Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her."

Pretty silly, right? I mean, can you just see Jesus rolling his eyes?

While that's a funny image, it's actually the memory of a sermon I once heard, several years ago, on this very text, that makes me giggle.

Believe it or not, it was at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. They were having a 'revival', complete with jubilant Gospel Music and a fiery preacher. And, fiery he was. It was, in fact, none other than Jeremiah Wright.

Yup. That Jeremiah Wright. From Chicago. The former pastor to President and Mrs. Barack Obama.

Oh, THAT Jeremiah Wright.

Well! Let me tell you what! I was NOT prepared for that sermon.

Jeremiah got up into the pulpit, and, after a few opening comments, started right in on the text.

"This is the first time the Sadducees have met up with Jesus. The first time they have been able to get up close and ask him a question. "

"Now tell me, church, we're on what? Chapter what? Chapter 20? Chapter 20. Alright now, it has taken twenty chapters of Luke's Gospel before the Sadduceess finally got 'round to talking to this Jesus."

"It's not like Jesus was just hangin' round, doin' nothin'.  I mean, wasn't it way back in Chapter 4 of Luke's gospel that he went to the Synagogue in Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and preached his very first sermon?  Wasn't it Chapter 4? And, didn't the people get enraged at what he said and kicked him out?  And, not one of the Sadducees asked him a question? What's up with that?"

"And, wasn't he always healing people? Miraculous healing? Like healing leapers (Chapter 5), and the centurion's son (Chapter 7), and healed the Gerasene demoniac (Chapter 8) and on and on and on and here we are in Chapter 20 (!!) - Chapter 20 (!!!) and the Sadducees finally come 'round to ask Jesus a question.  Hm-hm. Imagine that!"

"And, what do they ask him about, when they finally get 'round to asking a great preacher and a prophet? Some silly hypothetical question about 'well, if this woman's husband dies, and her brother marries her and he dies and . . ."

"If you look behind the question, you'll see the real question they were asking. They're like silly boys in the sixth grade, hemming and hawing and not getting to the point and making themselves look ridiculous."

"What these boys want to know about the Resurrection is - what concerns them most about eternal life is - this: When I die, who's gonna be first in line for booty call?"

Well, I'm here to tell you that the church fell OUT. I mean, people were laughing so hard, they couldn't hardly catch their breath. Remember - this was happening in an Episcopal church. Strike that - an Episcopal Cathedral. No, strike that: THE National Episcopal Cathedral.

Yes, it was a 'revival'. Yes, there were lots of African-Americans in the pews. But they were Episcopalians! God's 'frozen chosen' come in all different flavors. The shock value alone of hearing something like the words "booty call" in church was something they hadn't experienced in a many long year of church-going in the Episcopal Church. If ever.

Once the laughter subdued and Pastor Wright was able to get a word in edgewise, he got to his point:

"And, ain't that always the way with the church?  Ain't we more concerned about things that don't have any never-mind with God? Ain't we just so obsessed with sex? Especially in the church? Doesn't it just makes your heart sad? So, let's talk about life and death and resurrection, church."

"Let's talk about what Jesus meant when he said, "Indeed, they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God being children of the resurrection."  Shall we?"

And, off he went, for another 60 minutes, preaching on the Resurrection.

It was the BEST sermon I've ever heard.

So, off I go then, to church. I hope you're going as well. We can't all hear sermons like Jeremiah Wright but we can all turn the thoughts of our hearts on Jesus and the Resurrection.

And, if the thoughts of our hearts can't stay on Jesus and the Resurrection, then maybe our minds can be entertained by the thought of 'booty call' in heaven.

Either way, God will be so glad to see you in church!

Mark's Jacket

It was red, with white leather sleeves, white buttons and two white stripes on the cuffs, collar, waist band and, just for good measure, both side pockets.

It belonged to my dear friend, Mark Clark, who died in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, just as it was starting to hit Baltimore in the late 1980s/early 1900s.

Mark was a patient of Ms. Conroy, who had co-founded an AIDS Hospice Home Health Care Agency. It was a necessity at the time. The collateral epidemic we called "AFRAIDS" - fear of AIDS compounded by a xenophobia of gay people and people of color - was also at its zenith.

It was hard for that "demographic" - one of the sterile, medicinal terms used by the medical profession as a veil of emotional distance - to get the care they needed. So, a group of lesbians who were public health nurses got together with some of the doctors who were gay men or allies to provide that care.

That's how I met Mark.

Well, actually, I met Mark through his partner, Dennis who had, just the week before, learned that he was HIV positive.

Dennis had been a Roman Catholic priest who had left - Rome and the priesthood - after he determined he could no longer live a lie. The week before his diagnosis, the letter had come from Rome, which informed him of what he already knew: he had been laicized. The letter and the diagnosis, coming together like that along with Mark's recent bout of serious illness, had conspired to devastate him.

Would I talk to him Ms. Conroy had asked.

I should have been used to it. She was always dragging me into the lives of her patients. Someone wanted to be baptized before they died. Someone wanted to confess before they died. Someone wanted to get married before they died - mostly those from the African American community which was also being hard hit by the epidemic, but also a few gay men.

I grumbled but the truth was that there was a place in my heart where I knew that I was being invited onto holy, sacred ground. It was a privilege and, in an odd way, a true joy - probably because I never got a dime. The reward came from knowing that this was enormously important work. I never felt more alive and embraced by the Spirit of the Risen Lord and my faith was never stronger.

Oh, I did get to attend some of the most amazing, inspiring, faith-affirming funerals in the Black Baptist Church. Ever.  As well as some magnificent memorial services with incredible music and the most fascinating and diverse congregations comprised of men in tuxedos, drag queens, prostitutes, drug addicts, jazz musicians and artists, along with a full ration of clergy and other religious types - not to mention other assorted n'er do wells.

It would have made Jesus smile.

As Sara Miles would say, "If you want to meet Jesus, sometimes you have to sit in the smoking section."

And, I got invited to dinner in some of the most humbling homes where I was invited to a veritable feast of fried chicken, creamy grits, rice and beans, 'chitlins', pulled pork, macaroni and cheese and some of the best bean, sweet potato, or apple pie this side of Eden.

Mark and I didn't like each other at first, although he did finally allow as how Dennis was better after talking to me. Very soon after that, when Mark was stronger, they invited us over to dinner.

There were two other male couples at that dinner. It was the first time they had ever invited lesbians to dinner. Ms. Conroy and I giggled that they must have begged some friends to come as back-up reinforcement. Truth be told, it was the first time we had ever been invited to dinner with gay men.

It just didn't happen that much, back in the day. Gay men were gay men and lesbians were lesbians and, trust me, whatever the 'the 'twain' was, it never met. In any way, shape or form.

And if you were bisexual, well, I suppose you dined mostly with straight people because most of the lesbian and gay community didn't trust you.

The AIDS epidemic changed all that.

Mark was an engineer. A graduate of University of Delaware (Go, Blue Hens!). He was a handsome young man in his early thirties with blonde hair and piercing blue eyes, which, if you paid attention, gave a bit of a forewarning to his very intense personality. He was serious and intellectually curious, which was always a challenge to his doctor and the other health care professionals who were part of his health care team.

He loved music - any kind of music - but mostly pop music which was always playing in the house. Whenever he knew I was coming over, he would make sure to play "our song" - a little ditty by a group known as The Fine Young Cannibals appropriately titled, "She Drives Me Crazy."

Eventually, as we got to know each other and our fondness for each other grew, we took liberties with the song and changed it to "You Drive Me Crazy" - laughing as we sang the song together, while his IV line dripped silently in time and the oxygen traveling through his nasal cannula hissed softly in the background.

Our friendship grew - despite our many differences. Indeed, we first came to Rehoboth Beach with Dennis and Mark, who had bartered with Ms. Conroy: a long weekend at their rented beach house, a block from the ocean, in exchange for her care of his Hickman Catheter and administering his medications and nutrients that would keep him alive for another year.

We fell in love with Rehoboth Beach right then and there, and always came back, year after year. If you had told me over 20 years ago that I'd be living on Rehoboth Bay I'd have laughed right in your face and said, 'I'm a New England girl. I'm just here for the party."

Apparently, God had other plans.

They owned an absolutely "gawjus" home in Bawlmer, hon, just down the street from Memorial Stadium (now home to the Ravens Football Team) where we would sometimes park our car and walk to catch an Orioles Game.

One day while I was visiting him in their home there was an unexpected chill in the air. It was one of those "suddenly fall" days that hits Baltimore from out of the normally blue skies and moderate season. Mark asked me to turn on the heat, giving me explicit directions about how to manage the thermostat because, of course, a girl couldn't be expected to know about such things.

"Hey," he called out to me from the other room. "While you're there, go into the hall closet and bring me my red varsity jacket."

I called back, "Um . . . bring me my red varsity jacket, please?"

I could hear him groan before he responded to my request, his voice dripping with sarcasm. I giggled softly to myself, wondering when it was, exactly, that this man had become my little brother.

"Got it? Have you got it?"

"I don't see it in here, Mark. Are you sure it's here?" I regretted saying it the minute the words came out of my mouth.

"Of course I'm sure," he scowled. "Just open your eyes. LOOK!"

"Okay, okay," I said. "Wait! Here it is! It was in the back."

More grumbling.

"Nice jacket," I said, walking into the room. "Feel like going to a game later today?"

He smirked. "No," he said, "I . . I . . .I . . ."

This was not like Mark. At. All. He never stumbled. Never stammered. I waited.

"I want you to have it," he said with a sadness and resignation that broke my heart.

My mouth went dry. I knew instantly what he was saying. What the gift of that jacket meant, symbolically.

He was acknowledging that he'd never wear that jacket again. He was admitting to himself, something he had never done before - that there was no going back. The disease was ravaging his body. He was weak. He knew it. Could feel it. It was becoming increasingly difficult for him to walk. He napped often, not always able to finish a chapter in the books he loved to read.

"Try it on," he said.

I slipped the jacket off the hanger and tried not to cry. God, that would have been embarrassing to me and unbearable to him. I would be acting like a total girly-girl. Completely unacceptable. Besides, he'd only get angry.

It fit. Perfectly.

"Well," I said, "how does it look?"

He nodded, obviously pleased. "You need a little 'butching up'."

"Hmm . . .," I said, "it does fit well." I could feel the tears welling up in my eyes.

I stood there for a few silent moments, trying to gain my composure and reaching for something to say that might break the tension that was suddenly thick in the room.

"Should I pass a blue light over it before I take it to the cleaners?"

He smirked. "Don't worry. You won't get any 'boy-cooties'.  Anyway, I never wear a jacket when I'm having sex," he said, indignantly.

"Well," he said as a smile slyly crossed his face, "maybe not THAT jacket."

We laughed. God, it felt good to laugh. So, we laughed some more. We both knew we were laughing so we wouldn't cry, but we did. But, it was okay. Tears streamed down our faces, anyway, disguised by our hilarity.

It felt good.

Later that year, I wore the varsity jacket to his Memorial Service.

It felt good. And, right.

When I was packing to move to our new home, there were many things I knew I couldn't take with us. I gave away forty bags of clothes and shoes. I must have taken Mark's jacket at least forty times, putting it in a bag and then taking it out again.

I knew I needed to give it away. I knew I couldn't just give it away. I just couldn't.

I had it dry cleaned and waited for some direction from the cosmos. Finally, it came. I gave it to a dear friend, telling him just a bit of Mark's story.

"I'll take good care of it," he promised. I knew he would.

Later that evening, my friend called me. "Elizabeth, it doesn't fit. I'm so sorry. What do you want me to do with the jacket?"

"Will it fit your daughter?"

"No, I don't think so," he said sadly, "but, you know, I was thinking. I have some students at the University who are here from Africa. Often, they don't have any warm clothing. If you'd like, I could hold onto it until the fall. I'm sure I can find a good home for it."

"Oh, that would be wonderful," I said, truly relieved.

"I know how much that jacket means to you, and I wanted us to come to the decision together," he added. I was even more grateful for his friendship.

A few weeks later, he called. "I found a home for the jacket," he said.

"There's a woman I know. Lives at the Market Street Shelter. She was working on her PhD when her son became ill. Then, she became ill. She lost her job. Then, she lost her home. She comes by my house every so often, to use my computer and have a cup of tea and just have some time alone in a real home. She came by today and I asked her if she had a jacket for the cold weather. She said she didn't. She tried on Mark's jacket and it fit perfectly. She was so happy. I hope you are, too."

"I am," I said, "but more importantly, I think Mark is very happy knowing that his jacket has found a good home."

Early this morning, as I walked outside to take out the trash before the trucks arrived, I was taken by the cold, brisk wind that sent a violent chill through my body. Fall has fallen on Rehoboth Bay. It came as an unexpected but not completely unwanted surprise.

It's just brisk, is all. It comes with the change of Season and I am deeply grateful to live in a place that has all four seasons, albeit milder versions of the ones I remember from my youth in New England.

And then, I remembered Mark's jacket. I thought about that woman and hoped she was able to wear it today, a day that would, no doubt, be much colder in the NE Corridor.

The memory of Mark surrounded me like a warm embrace. The chill in my bones was suddenly gone. The furrow across my brow that my shivering had brought on melted and I felt myself smile all the way back into the cozy warmth of my wee home.

Some memories are difficult, bringing back images we'd rather forget. Others are more pleasant, reminding us of better, happier days.

When both come together, winding their way together in the corners of the heart in a tangle of bitter and sweet, they are sacred gifts that warm the soul, warding off the harsh realities of the present, giving us strength and courage to persevere into the future.

This was one of those memories.

I am deeply grateful for its blessing.

I got mine. Pity about yours.

The Church of Ireland Gazette is reporting an interview with N.T. "Tom" Wright, former Bishop of Durham (UK) and now a Research Professor at the University of St Andrews, in which he says that the Church of England should not proceed to the consecration of women as Bishops if the move were to create a large division.

Oh, but wait! There's more!

He said:

"My own position is quite clear on this, that I have supported women Bishops in print and in person. I’ve spoken in Synod in favour of going that route, but I don’t think it’s something that ought to be done at the cost of a major division in the Church."

Honest to Pete!

"Why, some of my best friends are women. I've even married one."

If someone on the Religious Left (Is there a 'Religious Left'?) said something like, "My position is quite clear on this, that I have supported (insert your own demographic group: People of Color, People with Disabilities, Aged) Bishops in print and in person. . . . but I don't think it's something that ought to be done at the cost of a major division in the Church" . .. .

. . . .Well, there would be howls of protest so loud it would rattle the china on the shelves of Lambeth Palace.

And, rightly so.

His statement just drips with anxiety.

With all due respect, put on your man-pants, sir, and get a grip. I can feel my last, poor, tired nerve being pulled. Even now, I've started to clutch for my pearls.

If you don't know N.T. Wright, he's the theological architect of the Evangelical Right's position. He's quite brilliant, actually, and, I understand, a friend of Marcus Borg. He has written scholarly texts, but his popular books, What St Paul Really Said and Simply Christian, and Following Jesus are quite engaging.

He's a bit of a Jack Spong in that way. I don't always agree with all of his theological thinking and reasoning, but he always - always! - makes me think about my own theology. And, his books are never boring - always well written and well edited.

It's also clear that both Jack Spong and Tom Wright love Jesus. Very Much. They just understand his teachings in very different ways. Which is why I love being a member of the Anglican Communion.

Wright defines himself as a "reformed Calvinist" and his work has been soundly praised by the likes of some like Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

He has promoted more traditional views about Jesus' bodily resurrection, and Jesus' Second Coming - which he holds as part of the core beliefs of Christianity - and has been quite clear in his understanding of the biblical condemnation of homosexuality.

He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first-century Judaism and Christianity.

Which is why his statement to the Irish Gazette completely befuddles me - when it doesn't frustrate me, almost to the point of anger.

Jesus was a revisionist and a reformer at his core, constantly challenging the organized religion of his day about firmly held doctrine like The Sabbath and Purity Codes regarding dietary and etiquette customs.

He told stories and parables about the Samaritan, the priest and the Levite. He healed the bent over woman and the woman with the hemorrhage, and answered the prayers of the Canaanite woman. He invited himself to the home of a Tax Collector, and ate with notorious sinners and prostitutes.

He welcomed women and chose to first reveal himself after his resurrection to a woman - a sign many women and men from antiquity to post-modernity have seen as a powerful statement about the intention of his mission in the world.

So, of course, Jesus would welcome women into the corridors of power and the councils of authority in the church today.

Wright knows this. Which is why he has supported the ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood. So, why this statement? Why place the mission of Jesus in subordination to the unity of the church?

Well, it's what white, straight, educated men who are entrenched in patriarchy and enamored of their own power and authority within that oppressive structure say and do when they feel their positions are being threatened.

First, Scripture is elevated to the level of near-idolatry. When that doesn't work (and, it couldn't in Wright's case because he's already accepted the ordination of women), you plead before the Altar of Unity.

It's become a very sad, almost predictable sight.

Pathetic, actually.

What of the all-embracing, abundant love of God? What of the vocational call of Jesus to do the work of God in the world? What of the movement of the Spirit in the hearts and minds of people to reform the structures built by humankind which do not reflect the love of God and the vocation of Jesus?

Is unity in the church more important that the work of the Triune God?

Wright was also asked if he thought the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, aimed, it is said (and I obviously don't agree) at keeping the global Communion together, would become a reality, Bishop Wright said:

"I think so, because I don’t think really there’s any alternative." He said the Communion could not afford to have "the kind of unstructured mess that we’ve had".

Isn't it interesting how anxiety and fear can block vision and reason?

It seems that Wright has forgotten that Anglicanism is, in its essence and Spirit, a wonderful, holy, unstructured mess.

It would also seem that the good bishop has lived this long and is somehow blissfully unaware - or, perhaps has forgotten - that, at its core, life is messy.

Life, at its best, is chaotic and unpredictable and unstructured because life, at its best, is infused with Love.

I'm reminded of what what St. Paul says about Love in II Corinthians 13:4-8 and what Gibran says in his poem about Love

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I am in the heart of God." And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

I suspect that the "issue" of the consecration of women to the episcopacy in the Church of England is yet another manifestation of the unconditional, abundant, embracing, life-changing, transformative, messy Love of God.

No human structure can bind it or contain it. No human impulse, no matter how self-protective or well-intentioned, can make it any less messy.

This will come to pass. It is of God. It is of God's Love. It will have out.

And, it won't take an Anglican Covenant to hold us all together. God has had us in Her hands since the beginning. We have been carried thus far by faith. S/he has not taken us this far just to drop us on our heads.

The good bishop's words belie his desperation and anxiety. He knows only too well of the inevitability of the election (or 'appointment') and consecration of women to the episcopacy.

His words may sound like comfort to some as a "quick fix resolution", but I have to believe that a man of Wright's obvious intelligence understands, at the end of the day, that he has eaten too much of the bread of anxiety.

He knows in his heart of hearts, where he keeps the treasure of Scripture, that interference with God's Love will only end, long term, in disaster.

It always has. It always does. It always will.

So, as we say in the Colonies, 'get a grip', Bishop Wright.

To use your words, "because I don’t think really there’s any alternative."

Christine O'Donnell Is Not A Witch

She's also not Senator from the "First State" of Delaware.

Thanks be to God!

Last time I checked, with 99% of all votes counted in the state, Democrat Christopher Coons defeated Republican Christine O’Donnell 57% to 40%. Coons commanded 173,900 votes, while O’Donnell received 123,025.

She did win two of Delaware’s three counties, Kent and Sussex (AKA "Lower, Slower Delaware" - which is my county), O’Donnell lost big in the state's most populated county of New Castle.

Interestingly enough O’Donnell received 44% of the male vote in this election, while only getting 36% of the female vote. Tea Party voters, who funded her campaign, were surprised, thinking, simplistically (as they are wont to do) the 41 year old female would have appealed more to voters of her own sex.

It would be wrong to count her out of any future elections. She's no Elphaba - the Wicked Witch of the West of L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz. Neither is she The Good Witch Glinda. But, she does try to defy the downward gravity of her Tea Party platform.

Besides Delaware, Democrats did chalk up wins against Sharron Angle in Nevada, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, John Raese in West Virginia, and Carly Fiorina in California, and this morning Colorado was called for the Democrats. Votes are still being counted in Washington State, but it looks like Democrats will prevail there as well.

The loss of a Democratic Majority loss was a huge disappointment - although, if you listened to the polls, it was not a surprise. The Senate, however, remains solidly Democrat, which should make the next two years very interesting in terms of getting anything substantial passed.

Most experts are saying that we are probably safe from major hits - but not some change - to the Health Care Reform Bill, but those who are concerned with reproductive rights are raising eyebrows of concern that anti-abortionists gained strength in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in Tuesday's election, setting the stage for legislation that could be even more damaging to women's access to health care than the Stupak abortion-coverage ban.

I must admit, I'm very, very nervous about this particular issue. We are going to have to work even harder for reproductive rights for women than we have in the past unless we want to see further erosion of the rights of women.

My concern is that the very real anxiety about unemployment and the recession will create a climate that will make it even easier for sexism and misogyny - not to mention racism and draconian immigration laws - to flourish.

Don't even get me started on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Marriage Equality.

As President Obama somberly said in today's noon press conference, "The power of government does not rest with those elected to government positions. The power of government rests with the people."

I never thought I'd quote Sarah Palin, but "You betcha!" Politicians, beware! Democrats, Republicans and Tea Party members are not in power.

We the people are.

And, it's not just "fiscal sanity" we want to restore. We want to restore sanity to the mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world of people who interpret the Constitutional foundation of "freedom and justice" to be for some - not all.

Meanwhile, Andy Borowitz of The Borowitz Report is reporting, with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek, that Canada is reporting a huge jump in immigration - over 55,000,000 requests just since Tuesday night!

Borowitz reports:

Of those fifty-five million requests, well over 99.99% of them came from U.S. citizens, with a particularly large number coming from residents of Florida and Kentucky.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said that he was “flabbergasted” by the fifty-five-million-plus requests for Canadian citizenship, adding that it was difficult to pinpoint the precise reasons for the staggering increase.

“My only theory is that after the 2010 winter Olympics, the sport of curling is finally starting to catch on,” he said.

In other news, responding to last night’s election returns, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters, “I’m so stoked I just turned the tanning bed up to eleven.”

But former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin struck a more somber note, saying that despite several key victories, “it was a tough night for Tea Party voters because it involved so much math.”

It will be sort of fun, two years hence, to watch Tea Partiers eat a little crow for a change, when they can't create jobs, lower taxes and reverse the recession in the same amount of time they've given the present administration to perform the same miracle.

They just might call Christine O'Donnell in to dust off her black pointy hat and toss it back in the ring.

I know. I know. Even, Tom Ross, the Chairman of the Republican Party in Delaware said, "She's not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware. She could not be elected dog catcher."

Even so, solid money is on the fact that she's already standing by ready, willing and . . . well. . . . she'd have to defy a whole lot more than gravity to be able to be elected in this state.

But, don't count her out. She may not be able to defy gravity, but she is nothing if not persistent. And, young. She's got plenty of time to learn.

And then, watch her fly.

International Campaign launched against Anglican Covenant

Note: I've been working with this group for about three weeks now and I must say that the energy and passion is most impressive. These are intelligent, committed, dedicated people - lay and ordained - who love Jesus and His church as it is made manifest in the Anglican Communion. Please do visit our website - it's brilliant - and, when you get to the bottom of the web page, click "join us."


LONDON - An international coalition of Anglicans has been created to campaign against the proposed Anglican Covenant. Campaigners believe the proposed Covenant constitutes unwarranted interference in the internal life of the member churches of the Anglican Communion, would narrow the acceptable range of belief and practice within Anglicanism, and would prevent further development of Anglican thought.

The Coalition's website noanglicancovenant.org will provide resources for Anglicans around the world to learn about the potential risks of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"We believe that the majority of the clergy and laity in the Anglican Communion would not wish to endorse this document," according to the Coalition's Moderator, the Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows, who is also the Coalition's Convenor for the Church of England. "Apart from church insiders, very few people are aware of the Covenant. We want to encourage a wider discussion and to highlight the problems the Covenant will cause."

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed in 2004 as a means to address divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft of the Covenant, which has been unilaterally designated as the "final" draft, has been referred to the member churches of the Communion.

The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms which would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion.

Critics of the proposed Anglican Covenant, including members of the new Coalition, believe that it will fundamentally alter the nature of historic Anglicanism in several ways, including the narrowing of theological views deemed acceptable, the erosion of the freedom of the member churches to govern themselves, and the concentration of authority in the hands of a small number of bishops.

Two English groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, ran anti-Covenant advertisements in last week's Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper aiming to make more members of the Church of England aware of the dangers of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"If the Anglican Communion has a problem, this is not the solution," according to former Bishop of Worcester Peter Selby. "Whether those who originated the Covenant intended it or not, it is already, and will become even more, a basis for a litigious Communion from which some will seek to exclude others."

The launch of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition website coincides with the commemoration of the sixteenth-century theologian Richard Hooker. "Hooker taught us that God's gifts of scripture, tradition, and reason will guide us to new insights in every age," according to the Canadian priest and canon law expert, the Revd. Canon Alan Perry.

"The proposed Anglican Covenant would freeze Anglican theology and Anglican polity at a particular moment. Anglican polity rejected control by foreign bishops nearly 500 years ago. The proposed Anglican Covenant reinstates it."

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition began in late October with a series of informal email conversations among several international Anglican bloggers concerned that the Covenant was being rushed through the approval process before most Anglicans had any opportunity to learn how the proposed new structures would affect them.

noanglicancovenant.org

Revd. Dr Lesley Fellows (England) +44 1844 239268
Dr. Lionel Deimel (USA) +1-412-512-9087
Revd. Malcolm French (Canada) +1-306-550-2277
Revd. Lawrence Kimberley (New Zealand) +64 3 981 7384

See also: ENS News Story here.

It was 20 years ago today . . .

. . . Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play.

It was seven years ago today that V. Gene Robinson was consecrated Bishop Diocesan of New Hampshire.

It only feels like twenty years.

On one level, it feels as if +Gene has always been bishop - that there has never been a time when he was not bishop. He has fit into the role with seemingly effortless grace and style. He is so clearly called to the position it often makes me weep with joy when I listen to him or read something he has written. What a gift - what a treasure - he is of and to the church catholic and militant here on earth!

On another level, and while we've been through many turbulent waters over the last seven years, the wise know that we have only just begun. We have a long, long way yet to go, and many more turbulent waters to cross before we begin to catches other glimpses of the Realm of God manifested in the church in its fullest glory.

Indeed, the Church of England will be meeting in General Synod 22-24 November. Besides revisiting - again! - the role of women in the episcopacy, the matter of the approval/acceptance/endorsement of the "final draft" of the Anglican Covenant will come up for a vote.

It is no coincidence - indeed, it of great significance - that these three issues - homosexuality, gender and the Anglican Covenant - come before "Mother Church". The three are intricately and intimately bound together in an inextricable web of ignorance and prejudice and anger.

The Anglican Covenant came into being as a direct result of the election and consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop in the church - the first honestly, openly gay man to be able to do so.

The painfully public conflicts and threats of schism that have beset the church since the ordination of women in 1974 in The Episcopal Church reached a peak in October, 2003 when the Primates called an emergency meeting to discuss the "problem" of the approval and endorsement of +Gene's election by The Episcopal Church.

That meeting led to the the articulation of a need for an Anglican Covenant in The Windsor Report, written in 2004, the goal of which was to have a more unified church. The path to that goal, the Windsor Group determined, was to develop a more centralized authority, moving us toward a more 'catholic' - that is 'universal' church in which the "correct teaching" of the Anglican communion could be maintained and taught.

Make no mistake: The Anglican Covenant also moves us to a more 'catholic' - that is to say, centralized, authoritarian - institutional embrace and expression of authority.

While it is a proposed solution to the conflicts among the various evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, so-called 'orthodox', liberal and progressive theological aspects of the richly faceted gem of the Spirit of Anglicanism, the Anglican Covenant is, in fact, punitive and retributive in nature, an embarrassment and insult to Christianity in general and Anglicanism in particular.

Why do I say this? Provinces and dioceses and churches that adopt the Covenant will commit themselves to accepting the authority of an international Standing Committee (formerly the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates Meeting), which will make recommendations regarding the resolution of further controversies within the Communion.

The Anglican Consultative Council and, particularly, the Primates meeting may then institute "relational consequences" to punish a church deemed to have violated their Communion obligations under the Covenant. Churches that reject the Covenant will seemingly be relegated to a secondary status within the Communion.

Make no mistake: We are being asked to sacrifice the gift of classical Anglicanism on the altar of 'unification' at the impulse of punitive anger over women and LGBT people being allowed full access to the corridors and councils of institutional power and authority..

Being united by a negative impulse rarely produces a positive result.

So much for the Spirit of Anglicanism that has always rested on the three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition and reason.

Yes, it was Richard Hooker, that classical Anglican theologian who gave us that image with Scripture as the primary leg, and tradition being an important and essential second leg; but he argued that we have our God-given reason to guide us in balancing the stool.

With these three sources of authority, change becomes possible and proper as conditions and understandings change. Allowing a diversity of opinion allows us to explore new possibilities.

And if the church isn't about exploring new possibilities which can lead us to change and transformation, we are not being true to Christ, the rock on which we are founded, who transformed himself from death to eternal life in the gift of The Resurrection.

Pragmatically, this means we will quickly become irrelevant to the very people Jesus called us to love and serve.

Indeed, I believe the Anglican Covenant would, in fact, promote schism, because it would treat those who dissent from any such judgment as un-Anglican. This flies in the face of both scripture and our Anglican tradition, and is an insult to reason.

How very odd to find myself in the conservative position of advocating to maintain this classic Spirit of Anglicanism wherein diversity of opinion is a sign of a healthy community committed to seeking - but not necessarily always having - truth.

The celebration of the anniversary of Bishop Gene's consecration today brings that all into sharp, clear focus for me.

Happy anniversary, Bishop Gene! Happy Anniversary to The Episcopal Church!

In another twenty years, I am convinced that we will all look back on this time, scratch our heads and ask, "What the heck was THAT all about?"

And then, we'll ring up St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - I understand they've been going in and out of style, but they're guaranteed to raise a smile - and ask the one and only Billy Shears to play us another celebratory tune.

Perhaps, at that time, twenty years hence, we'll all raise our glass and sing, "God save the Quean!"

When Sheep Attack

I was attacked by this book.

I'm talking about "When Sheep Attack" by the Rev'd Dr. Dennis Maynard.

I didn't want to read it. I tried to dismiss its slim size and large print format with occasional bold sentences as an indication that this was probably not a serious book for clergy to read.

Dr. Maynard has been an Episcopal priest for over 35 years. I had read only one of his previous books "Those Episkopols" - a resource for clergy to use during their new member ministry - but rarely found an audience for it. Not that there isn't an audience for it. I just never encountered a new member who was concerned about questions like, "Can you get saved in The Episcopal Church?" and "Why do Episcopalians reject biblical fundamentalism?".

Besides, in this book and several others of his, the author is clearly addressing the laity of the church. The back jacket of the paperback book begins:

Do you love your parish? Are you fond of your pastor? Would you believe that in just a mater of a few weeks your pastor and his family could be abused, humiliated, and unemployed? In just a matter of days your parish could be split down the middle. A couple of months from now close to forty percent of the people you currently see at worship could no longer be there. Close to half of those will never attend worship or participate in any church. Friends that you see talking and laughing this Sunday may never speak again.

If you want to do whatever you can to keep that scenario from happening to your pastor and your parish, then this book is for you."

I picked up a copy - at the urging of a friend - and read it any way. I discovered that this book is a wise old owl dressed up in sheep's clothing.

Now, I want to say, straight up, that you and I both know that the ecclesiological landscape is littered with "toxic" clergy. There are men and women in collars who are fine, intelligent, well educated, deeply spiritual people who are, nevertheless, embarrassingly incompetent in a parochial setting.

Some of the sisters and brothers in black or purple shirts are simply not equipped to lead a community of faith, much less a diocese, in the rigorous demands of parochial and diocesan ministry.

In many ways, it is, as my former seminary professor and John H. Snow aptly described it, an "impossible vocation" to balance the various pastoral, spiritual, educational, financial and administrative facets of leadership in the church.

Then there are those who have - flat-out - broken relational or sexual or financial boundaries. There are, sadly, "black sheep" in white collars. There are numerous media accounts of "clergy misconduct" and "conduct unbecoming".

In the Episcopal Church, we have Title IV Canons to deal with that when they are discovered and brought into account for their behavior. It is a sad reality which has, in some ways, always been with us.

Clearly, some "wounded healers" are more wounded than they are healers.

This book is not about that.

Neither is this book about the sad reality of 'conservative' or 'orthodox' verses 'liberal' or 'progressive' theological arguments which are tearing at the very fabric of community life in churches across denominational lines.

Rather, the author of "When Sheep Attack" addresses those situations in churches where there are what he calls "antagonists" - a person or a small group of people whose need to be in control begins to control them and the community, leading them to attack the leader.

It happens more often than you might think. It's a somewhat silent epidemic which is not often addressed because, well, quite frankly, most Christians are more invested in being nice than telling the truth.

Church secrets are the worst secrets to expose.

And, the most dangerous and damaging.

Clergy, I think, are some of the worst offenders at keeping secrets. See also: "abused, humiliated and unemployed" - and, led to believe that they are completely at fault for what has happened to them, often if not explicitly than by the inference of the behaviors of their own "chief pastors" (aka "The Bishop").

This is compounded, in my experience, by "the silence of the lambs" - those folk who see and know what is going on, but remain silent or stay away - primarily because they don't know what to believe - much less what to do - about the vicious rumors that are being spread by the "antagonist" sheep concerning their pastor.

They also don't want to "hurt the church". Clergy come and clergy go, but the church lives on, even if the lifeblood of the community has become poisoned, or the baptismal waters polluted with toxic elements, and their behaviors have become dysfunctional and dangerous to the spirit and the soul.

It's the kind of attitude about the church one sometimes hears in defense of toxic family members: "He may be an abusive old codger, but he's our abusive old codger." Some people believe that about the institutional church.

Besides, this is the church where marriages, baptisms and funerals have been held of relatives and loved ones. When weighed against the life or career of one clergy person - even if s/he has become 'a lamb to the slaughter' - the choice seems obvious.

Besides, people really do believe themselves when they say, "We're a warm, welcoming church". The problem is that they really believe that this is the mission of the church - not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Woe be it unto the clergy person who tries to get a church which is highly invested in "nice" to do the mission of the church!

I know one clergy person who is being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and is presently on disability after the experience. Whenever s/he is called by someone from the Church Pension Group, someone will always say, "I'm so sorry this has happened to you."

One could hear that as a lament that this is some kind of aberrant situation. I don't think that is what's being said. I don't know the actual statistics, but I am willing to bet the deck on the front of my house that I love so much to say that there are probably more clergy who are silently suffering from PTSD - most of whom are too embarrassed to apply for disability benefits from the church - than anyone could imagine.

Some of them are "interim clergy" - or, in the current new title - operating under the "Office of Transitional Ministry". In my experience, many of these clergy are working out what they consider their "sins" - or, their unaddressed anger - on unsuspecting congregations. Which only compounds the problem.

Ever wonder why so many congregations have unsuccessful "transitional periods" that "lasted almost longer than we could bear"? I'm convinced this is one of the reason.

Others are working as "non-parochial" clergy, many of whom are in social service or other not-for-profit organizations. Many I know are healing and basking in the affirmation of working in settings and with people and agencies who deeply appreciate their skills and talents. I hear them say, over and over, that they would "never go back" to parish ministry. Ever.

Still others are working on their doctorates and seeking employment in the ever-shrinking market of faculty positions at seminaries or universities with religion or psychology departments. If you listen carefully under the intelligent, articulate and erudite rhetoric of The Academy, you'll hear lots of rationalization and, every so often, just a bit of projection which, to the trained ear, barely masks the pain.

I shutter to think what they are passing on by osmosis to their seminarians. What's that old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." I'm convinced that some "can't" because they simply couldn't return to what they experienced as a dysfunctional, painful, dangerous setting.

Still other clergy have taken an "early retirement" option, collecting their pension while seeking other part-time or full-time work - including as staff of churches - some large and successful, others small and struggling who welcome the additional help and status of clergy on their roles. If there has not been any healing, many, as Maynard points out, either become strong allies to the antagonists in the church or become, themselves, the antagonists.

Insecurity and jealousy are terrible things. They are a hideous sight to behold when manifested among the ordained. I can't tell you how many seminarians I have known who have gone on to become associate pastors in places where the senior pastor was so insecure that s/he verbally abused the newly ordained and/or actively sabotaged and undermined their ministry.

I know their situation only too well. That was, in fact, my experience in the very first priest associate position I held. I'll never forget the day the rector returned from a five week vacation. I walked into the office and he was standing there with a handful of pink telephone messages and was screaming at me, "These are all for you. I don't know half the people who left these messages! What the hell are you trying to do?"

He also pulled me out of the procession line as we were singing the first hymn and walking into church on a Very Hot summer Sunday because I was wearing sandals and no stockings. "You will dress like a proper lady in this church," he hissed loudly as he grabbed the arm of my alb.

That was my first Sunday at that church. I left 18 months later.

Dr. Maynard reports that he has been called in to consult with thousands of troubled congregations over the years across all denominational lines - Protestant and Catholic. In this book, he has taken twenty-five of those congregations and studied them intensely, looking for patterns and similarities.

One of the shocking things he found is that, in every case, antagonists attack not when things are going bad. Rather, they attack successful, competent pastors - after the ASAs (Average Sunday Attendance) have increased and the Stewardship Programs have been more successful than anyone could remember.

Maynard draws on the work of Kenneth C. Haugk, author of Antagonists in the Church. While he stops short of describing them as suffering from a psychological disorder (but I wouldn't), the behavior pattern of antagonists is easily discernible. These are people who thrive on creating trouble. They appear to have an insatiable need for power and control.

Some of them love "drama" whose reward is in tearing things down. In my experience, there are others who are highly invested in being the "hero". Their reward is in creating a "villain" from whom they can "rescue" the congregation.

Here's one of the most jarring paragraphs in Dr. Maynard's book:

"The data in our twenty-five case studies could easily allow us to conclude that the more successful and popular the pastor, the more likely they are to be attacked by the antagonists. But make no mistake about it. Their intent is to tear down both pastor and congregation. We could easily further conclude that their desire is to return the parish to its dying, less dynamic state."

Dr. Maynard is very clear that the antagonist is not to be confused with those who offer positive critiques on the ways that parish ministry can be improved. Most competent clergy welcome positive feedback, and are unafraid to implement changes based on this feedback, often on an 'experimental' basis, seeking more feedback from the congregation as the experiment progresses.

This is how a healthy congregation moves through the discernment of change and transition that are part of a life in Christ. However, Dr. Maynard says that

"Antagonists go for the jugular. They have a singular goal. They want to hurt, humiliate and destroy the senior pastor. In the course of their attacks, they intentionally want to divide the congregation between those that agree with them and the supporters of the rector."

Those who have either been the targets of antagonists or experienced their destructive patterns in communities will immediately recognize the patterns as Dr. Maynard articulates them in this book.

However, those who have not are probably shaking their heads right about now, incredulous that this could ever happen in THEIR congregation, much less ANY congregation.

Denial is very strong in "nice Church people". Indeed, one of the former parishioners of the clergy person I spoke about earlier who is on full disability for PSDT after a horrible, intense, destructive experience in a very affluent suburban congregation in a nearby diocese is a case in point.

She is a beloved member of her church and her diocese, seen as a leader for justice - especially for women in the church. However, she seems completely oblivious to the fact that the last three leaders of her congregation have either been removed or left after conflict. Indeed, the last rector struggled with addiction problems, violated serious sexual boundaries as well as his marriage vows. He is now divorced and deposed and still living in the diocese in a community not far away - a situation which leaves his memory a bitter and very much alive reality in that community.

I met up with this wonderful woman a few months ago at a gathering of church activists. I found myself cringing when I heard her talking about their new "Priest in Charge" - a "nice young gay man" who has, she says, "started to turn the community around."

"He's starting to bring people back to church," she cheerily reported. "It's so good to see everyone happy again. It's such a nice church - a great place. Now, it's a happy place."

A few weeks ago, I met said "nice young gay man"in that nearby diocese at another church gathering. As Priest in Charge, he has a three year contract - sort of "rent with option" for both parties to buy into a long-term rector relationship. I don't know that congregation well, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the antagonists in that community will lay low for three years beneath the veneer of niceness - I mean, they even hired someone who was gay! See how 'open' and 'inclusive' and 'warm and welcoming' they are! - before they begin to reemerge and the pattern will repeat itself.

Dr. Maynard points to this dynamic as part of the fuel that fires the antagonists - and, I would add, silences the lambs - in communities of faith that have undergone this kind of turmoil. He says it becomes "part of the DNA" of congregational life.

Dr. Maynard was able to identify the character of "arrogance" in the antagonists in each of the twenty-five congregations he studied. Affluent suburban churches are filled with affluent people - many of whom enjoy financial success in the corporate world which has made them arrogant. They are very much used to being in power and control. Others are "company people" who understand only too well their place on the "food chain" of the corporate structure. Both groups apply corporate techniques and strategies to the church which don't always fit neatly.

There is no doubt in my mind that many congregations can be helped by a good business plan. The problem is that most of those business plans are not built on a "gospel plan" - which is not as simple as just "doing good." When the church is at its best, it moves beyond mere "charity" into an understanding and emulation of the sacrificial love of Jesus.

One man in one of the congregations I served took me to task for preaching that "the church is at its best when it understands itself as filled with beggars who teach other beggars where to find bread."

"That's not my image of the church," he said, trying to sound kindly and helpful but he barely concealed his distress and disgust. "The church to me is like an ice cream truck," he said, as I listened, slack-jawed. "It delivers good things to people."

I could just see that developing as a corporate logo for the church. Worse, I could see a majority of the congregation happily buying into it as the sole purpose of what is at the soul of the church.

I went home and wept.

Dr. Maynard's research also led him to understand that not only are some bishops unhelpful in these situations, they can also be part of the problem. In every single one of the twenty-five cases he studied, the priest/pastor did not get any help from their bishop or judicatory leader. Indeed, some of the clergy were encouraged to resign or retire by their chief pastor. And, in every single case, that's exactly what happened "for the health and well being of the church."

However, for some clergy, it did not end there. Some of the antagonists followed the clergy around wherever they went, repeating the rumor and innuendo to the congregation which was either calling him or her or had called the clergy person to be their rector.

Dr. Maynard writes:

"Absolutely every clergy person in our study was in agreement that the one thing that could have changed everything was a strong intervention by his or her bishop. This did not happen in any of the case studies. Half of the priests surveyed reported that they believed their bishops had almost immediately sided with the antagonists. They reported that their bishops actively worked with the antagonists for their removal. Some of the bishops turned on the priests completely, attacking them verbally, sending them for psychological evaluation, investigating the priest's past ministries or threatening to "defrock" them as being unfit for ministry."

Mind you, Dr. Maynard reports that:

"All twenty-five participants were serving congregations that were alive and growing at the time the antagonists accelerated their attacks on them. The clergy reported they had just completed the most successful stewardship campaign in the history of the congregation. Others had just conducted successful capital campaigns. Still others had just finished a successful building project or were about to embark on one. Record attendance at worship was being recorded and the rector, the parish or both had received national attention in the denominational press.

Perhaps the universal frustration for all the clergy is summarized in this statement by one of the priests, "I still don't know what I did wrong. Everything was going so well. Then a group of no more than a dozen people brought it all to an end. I just don't get it. Dennis, I hope your study will help me understand. I feel like I was being punished for doing a good job. Am I wrong? I loved my parish. I loved the people. My ministry with them energized me. Please somebody tell me what I did wrong."

There are several signs of hope in this book - and several "ounces of prevention" that don't necessarily offer a cure but begin to articulate some things laity and clergy can do to raise awareness about the problem and take steps to take care of the particulars of situations when they develop.

Clearly, raising awareness in terms of the leadership of bishops is key. Indeed, Dr. Maynard devotes a section to one bishop whose clergy identified his leadership as crucial to a successful outcome in situations with antagonists.

He also discusses one situation in particular where the clergy person was clearly at fault. After Dr. Maynard's interview with the staff and leadership of the congregation, the wardens and vestry developed a plan of action which included anger management courses as well as leadership development for their rector. On the ride back to the airport, Dr. Maynard asked one of the wardens why they elected to take this particular path.

Her response was simply startling: "We don't allow our rectors to fail," she said. And, he didn't. He went on to become a highly effective leader in that congregation and in the church.

Healthy practices can also be part of the DNA of congregational life.

So, you may be asking yourself why Dr. Maynard's primary intended audience is the laity of the church. Why is he not directing this to clergy so we will gain better understanding of the antagonists in our midst? Why is he not addressing the problem directly to those who have power and control - the bishops and judicatory leaders?

Good question.

I suspect there are a few reasons, none the least of which is that, despite what we think of institutional power and authority, the most powerful people in the church are the laity. It's time we started acting like it and respecting their intelligence as well as the authority of all the baptized.

That is not to say that this is the only reason for Dr. Maynard's targeted audience. He knows that an informed, educated laity leads to an informed, educated - if not intensely curious - clergy.

Clergy and bishops will read what laity are reading - even if only in self-defense.

Besides, if every one of the 25 clergy studied in the book walked away from their positions to end the dispute, and if every single one of their bishops or judicatory leaders offered no help or were part of the problem, then it falls to the laity to take some real leadership in these situations.

Frankly, I think this book ought to be widely read by everyone in the church - laity, deacons, priests and bishops. There is a great deal to consider in this slim little book with large print. Lots of good information. Lots of startling data. Believe it or not, even more hope.

There is also "tough love" - the kind that Jesus gave. I found this one, in chapter six, a real eye-opener. It's under "Dissolution Clause" in the Letter of Agreement:

"In light of the current climate, I would like to recommend an additional clause. This clause would include the following details. That if the governing board should pursue a dissolution action against the rector, then any and all legal expenses resulting from that action incurred by the rector or the parish shall be paid for by the vestry.

Then, I would recommend one further clause. It should be clearly agreed at the beginning that if the governing board initiates the dissolution of ministry action, the rector shall receive a minimum severance package. Depending on the size of the parish, this should be a minimum of eighteen months and for larger parishes where the job possibilities for a removed priest are fewer it could go up to five years salary and benefits.

I would especially recommend a dissolution clause in the Letter of Agreement before accepting the call to serve a parish that has removed a previous senior pastor."

Some of us love the church enough to risk saying - and doing - what is necessary to bring about change and transformation so that She may be the vehicle of love and change and transformation that Jesus and his disciples intended.

If you are about that kind of sacrificial love, please read this book. The life you save may be your own - and that of the church.

After you vote . . ..

Happy Halloween to My Grandbabies!

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!