Miss Ellie

Sometimes you have to go down - way down - down to the bottom rung and out to the margins of human existence - down where the streetwalkers and performers, the artists and musicians, the hotel maids and restaurant barkers, the alcoholics and 'recreational' drug users live and move and have their being, amidst the broken and not-quite-lost-but-not-quite found - to find the ones who carry the Light.

It's the place where the restorative mercies of unconditional love can be found.

The streets of 'end of the world' communities like Provincetown are such a place.

That's where you'll find people like Miss Ellie.

Rumors of his February demise were, to paraphrase Mark Twain - and, like the rest of her life - just slightly exaggerated.

While it was true that s/he had been seriously ill, Eliot Castillo, Provincetown's own "Miss Ellie" did not die in February.  Apparently, s/he had one more encore to perform.

S/he did finally succumb, however, after a valiant battle with pancreatic cancer in her hospital room overlooking Hyannis Harbor at Cape Cod Hospital on April 8th.

Estimates vary, but s/he was somewhere between 78 and 80 years old.  

Young.

Ageless.

Eliot Castillo was the father of five children, a grandfather, and a Baptist minister who moved to Provincetown in November of 2001, found a job at a supermarket deli, and, at age 70, became "Miss Ellie" - a sidewalk chanteuse, showgirl and promoter of the restorative mercies of Provincetown.

“I knew Provincetown was an open, accepting place, and I knew if there was any place that I would be comfortable, it would be Provincetown. I am happy now to be the woman I’ve always wanted to be,” s/he says in one of several online videos s/he’s posted.

The entire Provincetown community - which is amazingly diverse - warmly embraced Miss Ellie and her campy sense of fun and showmanship. Even for some of the conservative folk who live here (yes, even conservative folk live her), her sheer joy and loving nature proved to be absolutely irresistible.

Provincetown and Miss Ellie. It was a match, as the saying goes, made in heaven here on earth.

Anyone who has visited Provincetown and strolled Commercial Street over the last 10 years - especially during the tourist season - has seen or heard Miss Ellie perform.  She loaded up her sound system in a wagon which she pulled with one hand; she held a microphone in the other.

The sign on her wagon variously proclaimed, "Dreams R2B Realized,", or "Living My Dream."

Here s/he is, performing in August of last year.

Yes, I know. The sign says "78 years old."

A true lady never reveals her age - unless, of course, it is to her advantage.

By all accounts, Miss Ellie was a true lady.

And, one helluva dame!

Miss Ellie eschewed labels or strict definition. When questions, like “Are you transgender, a transvestite, a homosexual?” were asked, s/he answered simply, “I am a human being.”

My friend Alicia had gone to the Performer's Place in front of Town Hall on Friday night and placed some flowers and a neon green sign expressing love for Miss Ellie.

By Saturday afternoon, it had quickly grown into an impromptu memorial of flowers, votive candles and notes of love and condolence.

Small groups of people gathered there to mourn her loss and share stories and memories of the last decade of "living her dream".

One young woman talked about how she shared a room in Miss Ellie's apartment with a few other people. She had fallen at work and broken her leg, but didn't know how she would get to the hospital so she hobbled her way back to her room.

Miss Ellie took one look at her and picked her up "like a rag doll," she said, and carried her to the hospital where her leg was set and put in a cast.

"S/he took me home," the woman said, "and fixed me soup, feeding it to me like a baby."

Miss Ellie also helped her with recovery as well as her hospital bills. The woman sighed sadly and said, "S/he had a real generous heart. I'm so going to miss her."

Someone else said, "S/he's a real cultural icon of Provincetown."

"Our Lady of Provincetown," someone in the crowd said.

No one laughed. No one even smirked. That statement had been neither an exaggeration nor a joke.

As serious as one can be about the exaggerations of life in Provincetown - where, for some, a commitment to "living your dream" rises to the level of religious experience - the folk who gathered at the Miss Ellie memorial were as serious as a heart attack.

I can already imagine the new monument at Town Hall Square. Replacing - or across from - the statue of the soldier with a gun in his hands will be a statue of Miss Ellie in a miniskirt, low cut tank top and Joan Crawford open-toed shoes with a microphone in her hand.

A small bronze plaque will read, "Miss Ellie: Our Lady of Provincetown."

People will leave flowers and prayer cards at the base of the statue.

No. Joke.

A young man in the crowd then told a story about some kids who had set up a lemonade stand one summer to collect money for People with HIVD/AIDS. Miss Ellie went over and emptied her entire tip jar into their collection box.

That act of generosity, he said, inspired everyone around the kids to empty their pockets to contribute to their cause for People with HIVD/AIDS.

"That's just the way s/he was," he said. Everyone else smiled sadly. A few people began to huddle against the chilly Spring wind as they cried softly into each other's shoulders.

It's clear that Miss Ellie not only had a fan base but will continue, even in her absence, to have a real presence in this community.  Her generous spirit is irreplaceable and will leave a deep void in the life of this community.

Parker Palmer, the great Quaker theologian and educator, once said that it's not death we're afraid of - what we fear most is living.

Not Ms. Ellie.

S/he lived fearlessly and boldly, embracing and living the gospel that "Dreams R2B Realized".  I'm sure s/he did not "go gently into that good night"- but it wasn't because s/he was afraid.

She just knew she had run out of encores on this side of Paradise.

So, here's to Miss Ellie: A free spirit of a human being who "lived her dream" out, loud and proud, unconfined by definition of gender, age or sexual orientation, with a song in her heart -  manifested in her sonorous baritone voice - and a spirit that was - and will always be - indomitable.

Rest in peace, Miss Ellie.

May you rise in glory that far surpasses even your own expectations or wonderful, creative imagination.

Because sometimes, as Miss Ellie knew , you have to reach down - you have to reach way, way down - in order to touch a real Star. 


Read Miss Ellie's obituary.

Breaching

I'm in Provincetown for the weekend, visiting with my dear friends Alicia and Kathleen at their place, The Fairbanks Inn. (Please do click on the link and take a 'virtual tour'.)

I've got a paper due and continue to work on my projects. This gives me a beautiful, quiet location from which to do that work.

Mr. Theo is here with me, loving the water but not-so-much the traffic, which is already getting heavy, even though not every shop or restaurant is yet open.  The cars makes him a little nervous. That's as opposed to his naturally "shy" self, but he seems to be holding his own as we walk through the crowds to walk the beach.

Yesterday, we walked out near the jetty. I headed there because I was curious about a gathering of gulls I noticed out on the water.

Alicia had told me that, sometimes, when you see the gulls gathering over the water, it can mean that there's a whale just below the surface.

Which means there's fish.

Which means that, once the whale has finished feasting, it's a free 'sushi bar' for the gulls.

As Theo and I walked closer to the jetty, other people began to join us. The word is out that the whales are in town.

You won't find that as an announcement in the newspapers or hear it on the radio. No invitations have been sent. People in this part of the world just 'know' these things, the way the crocus seem to know that it's time to breach  the hard shell of the earth and make an appearance.

What I - none of us, really - didn't expect to see was the performance the whale was about to put on for us. With no warning, and from out of absolutely nowhere, the whale suddenly breached the water, his large body gracefully surfacing from the water's edge, gliding through the air, and returning to the anonymity of the deep.

He resurfaced again, briefly, to hold up a fin as if to wave to the crowd.

It all happened so unexpectedly and swiftly that it caused everyone in the small crowd to gasp. I mean, it was Friday afternoon, around 2:30. No one had made an appointment. No admission fee had been charged. No one made a financial gain. Indeed, we barely had time to snap a picture.

Watching the whales was like listening to a free reading of the Psalm appointed for tomorrow (De profundis - Psalm 130):

Out of the depths have I called to you, O LORD;
LORD, hear my voice; *
let your ears consider well the voice of my supplication.

It was just one of the 'perks' of being at an 'end of the world' community. One of those things no one can control - like the way the light hits the ocean, creating the illusion of a change of color in the water from steel gray to deep blue.

Or the way the wind chases the billowing clouds across the sky, changing shapes that dance across a canvass of changing shades of blue, inviting the imagination into a gentle, slow dance with them.

Or the way the water changes rhythm, from a soft lap against the beach to waves that rock the boats moored along the harbor.

The whole round earth seems to be breaching into Spring, pushing through memories of a long, cold, difficult winter to glide across the surface of our lives, waving to us from the deep.

It's a bit like watching the earth's sermon on the passage from Ezekiel (appointed for tomorrow's lessons from the lectionary for Lent V).

"Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live." I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude."

New life is being carried on the Spring breeze.

Small, initially shy plants like the Hostas are making their way up through the earth, it's leaves curled tightly around itself.

After only one hour in the morning sun, however, they become bold enough to open and unfurl themselves, and begin to actually look like Hostas.

They are normally 'candy' for deer, but since there are none in this particular part of this ocean-side neighborhood, they grow with relaxed confidence. Their only real difficulty will be tourists who don't respect them and walk on them or throw cigarette butts at them, and their dogs who occasionally "water" them.

Theo and I did see a possum scurry across the road last night on our final walk of the evening.

Such strange creatures!  Inquisitive features.  Funny ears. Long nose. Small, closely placed eyes.

Makes me think that God created the possum, like the leviathan, just for the sport of it.

Seeing that possum last night did remind me of the gospel passage appointed for Lent V - The Story of Lazarus in John 11:1-45.

Possums are known to "fake death" as a means of defense when attacked. S/he is capable of falling over on her side, mouth open in a death-like grin with saliva running out. It's a state from which s/he cannot be roused until the danger is past.

There's a wonderful little bit of Cherokee folklore about why this is so - about how the Rabbit and the Cricket tricked the Possum so that his tail has no fur and explains why it is that Possums "fake death".

It is the female Possum, however, who can "hide new life" in her pouch, keeping her babies safe for up to three months, riding in her pouch or on her back until they fall off and learn how to make it on their own.

In that way, the Possum also tells the gospel story of Lazarus who emerged from the cave at the sound of the voice of his friend, Jesus.

In saving Lazarus - raising him from the dead on the Sabbath - Jesus also committed the 'unforgivable sin' which, ironically, sealed the certainty of his own execution and death.

Death. New life. Crucifixion. Resurrection.

All of nature, it seems, is conspiring to tell the old, old stories from scripture, each in their own way.

All of nature is breaching new life.

Pushing through.

Emerging gracefully.

Bringing salutations from the deep.

Proclaiming, with St. Paul, as he once did to the ancient church in Rome, that:

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you". (Romans 8:11) 

We wait and watch for the coming of God, as the Psalmist sings, "more than watchers for the morning; more than watchers for the morning".

Just Say "No".

Please head over to Planned Parenthood and sign the petition to let members of Congress know that we will not allow the budget to be balanced on the backs of women - especially women who can't afford health care like mamograms and pap smears.

Indeed, only 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortion-related. Besides which, federal funding for abortion - except in cases of rape or incest - has been illegal since the 1970's.

Here's the letter you are being asked to sign. Please do so RIGHT NOW.

Send a message to Congress: Just say "not" to extremists. End the War Against Women.

Dear Representative Boehner and your extremist colleagues in Congress, 

Your willingness to shut down the federal government and devastate the daily lives of millions of Americans because of your vendetta against Planned Parenthood is utterly despicable. 

And it is absolutely clear that your actions have never been about reducing government spending. They have always been about your vendetta against Planned Parenthood. I know it; you know it; and so do millions of Americans. We stand together to stop you, and we will not back down. 

We are teachers and students, mothers and fathers, Republicans and Democrats, lawyers, doctors, and manual laborers, women and men. We know that the health care Planned Parenthood provides to screen for cancer, test for HIV, prescribe birth control, and empower and educate women, men, and teens is essential. We are millions strong — and growing. 

The hardships a government shutdown will create are unacceptable, and we implore you to stop. 

Sincerely, 

Glenn Beck and the Anglican Covenant

It has been announced that Glenn Beck is leaving his Fox News program at the end of the year.

I'm hoping that, by this time next year, the Anglican Covenant will have reached a similar fate.

Let's just say that I'm I'm guardedly optimistic about what I view as an interesting juxtaposition of politics, religion and grace.

Let me to explain first, by talking about Glenn Beck.

Mr. Beck's ratings have reportedly been in decline since January, 2010. In a year, his show had dropped from 2.9 million viewers to 1.8 million in January.

Oh, make no mistake. Mr. Beck won’t be going away completely.  Neither will the impulse for something like an Anglican Covenant.

According to the release, Beck will be developing other projects for the Fox News Channel.

Fox News and Mercury Radio Arts, Glenn Beck’s production company, are proud to announce that they will work together to develop and produce a variety of television projects for air on the Fox News Channel as well as content for other platforms including Fox News’ digital properties. Glenn intends to transition off of his daily program, the third highest rated in all of cable news, later this year.

The bottom line, however, is that Mr. Beck has lost his easy access into many American homes - and automobiles - as a way to propagate his extremist right-wing perspective on everything from health care to liberation theology to the authenticity of the birth certificate of the President of the United States.

He'll still have his "fan base", but the "marked share" of that base has eroded by more than a third in the past year - apparently, this is primarily from a younger demographic.

I suspect that, the longer we discuss the Anglican Covenant as a vehicle to "keep us talking to one another", the "fan base" of this document will, similarly, erode.

I trust that we will have discovered that in talking to each other without the Anglican Covenant, we CAN keep talking to each other without it.

Mr. Beck was at the zenith of his popularity in January, 2010, during the health care debate, becoming a leading voice in the shameful, fear-mongering effort to stop legislation that would bring about much needed reform.

Like so many extremists, however, the man always overplays his hand, alienating more people than he was able to persuade. So, too, with those who have insisted on the development of an Anglican Covenant.

For example, Mr. Beck's take on black liberation theology was as laughable as it was disconcerting and, momentarily at least, worrisome.

In the end, however the intellectual abilities of theologian James Cone proved too formidable for Mr. Beck.

Elijah Prewitt-Davis, a master's student at Union Theological Seminary where Dr. Cone teaches, writing for Religion Dispatches in July, 2010, noted:

In a simplistic bifurcation, Beck contrasted liberation theology to his own view of what he called “traditional Christianity.” He claimed that salvation was a strictly personal affair and that there were no “works” we could do to receive the grace of God. Central to his concern was that liberation theology promoted “collective salvation” and resulted in communism and redistribution of wealth. On his infamous chalkboard he drew lines from James Cone to the Black Panthers, then to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, then Marx, then, you guessed it, President Obama and immigrants. Chalk lines, however, are easily erased.

Beck also infamously suggested any church promoting "social justice" or "economic justice" was merely was using code words for Nazism and communism.

"I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ... Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to Jeremiah Wright's church, yes!

I suspect, however, that it was Beck's "Restoring Honor" March on Washington in August of 2010 that was, ultimately and ironically, his undoing.

He had the audacity to speak on the anniversary of and in the same place from which Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I have a dream" speech 47 years earlier.

Beck argued that the focus of the rally - to pay tribute to America's military personnel and others "who embody our nation's founding principles of integrity, truth and honor" - was never at odds with King's message.

Unfortunately, Mr. Beck's extremist rewriting of history was not only seriously flawed, it was a shameful, transparent attempt to promote his particular brand of xenophobia - which includes racism, sexism, heterosexism and homophobia - while at the same time lining his pockets (and the coffers of Fox Network) with financial gain.

The man has no honor, much less the qualifications to restore honor to this country.

Mr. Beck appealed to some of the most vulnerable and troubling instincts of the human enterprise.

It's an old, old pattern - one we see operative in the Anglican Covenant.

When the world seems to be out of control - wars and rumors of wars, unemployment, an unstable economy with a growing deficit - a base human instinct of fear and anxiety is to stabilize our sense of the world by creating a scapegoat we all can hate so we'll be comforted by the assurance that "we" are the "good guys".

Mr. Beck has a keenly defined sense of how to play to those fears. And, make pots of money for himself and his cronies in the process.

There is no honor in that.

Finally - FINALLY! - some people are beginning to figure this out.

Ultimately, the "Prophets of Grace" are winning over the "Prophets of Doom". They always have. They always will.

That's because just as grace is a very personal theological matter, it is also a very important political construct.

Grace reminds us as individuals that, contrary to Mr. Beck's testosterone infused, muscular virtue of an ethic of individual merit, there is nothing we can do to earn the love of God — that it is simply poured out upon us.

As my Southern friends like to preach: Grace is like grits in a good Southern restaurant. You don't have to order it. It just shows up.

Prophets of Grace remind us that, at a political level, the minute we begin to create political structures we believe to be unambiguously right, we begin to make our own politics into God.

Prophets of Doom, however, not only create false idols, they create the illusion of demons lurking around every cornerstone of freedom.

"The Other" - anyone who is different from them - becomes "the enemy".

For Prophets of Doom like Mr. Beck, anyone who isn't white, male, heterosexual, American-born and his-kinda-Christian is automatically suspect.

For Prophets of Doom like the writers of the Anglican Covenant, anyone who is from the United States, or anyone who is LGBT or a woman in the episcopacy or embraces the inclusion of diversity is an "affront" and can cause "offense" to what they believe is "traditional Anglicanism" for which there are "relational consequences".

The ultimate test of any community or identity, however, is how it manages the border between the familiar and the unknown, what is "inside" and what is "outside", who is "us" and who is "them".

The thing about Prophets of Grace is that they attempt to remove the line altogether and give us a completely different way to think about ourselves and each other as children of God.

In an odd sort of way, this gives me hope for the eventual relegation of the Anglican Covenant to a postscript in the history of this time of schism in the Anglican Communion.

It is a document that would bring a broad smile to Glenn Beck's face.

It's the "Restoring Honor" equivalent of a group of right-wing extremists in the Anglican Communion who have, ironically enough, marched themselves right out of the Communion, declared the very Anglican Covenant they wanted irrelevant, and their own Jerusalem Declaration a far superior document of unity and clarity.

In attempting to give "teeth" to Anglican identity, the Anglican Covenant bites into the very essence of the Spirit of Anglicanism and provides "relational consequences" to anyone who "offends" that identity.

In this way it is prima facia evidence that post-colonialist thoughts of empire and domination are still alive and well - for Mr. Beck as well as The Anglican Covenant.

Yes, you heard me correctly.

I am learning more about post-colonialism in my classes with Patrick Cheng and Kwok Pui-lan - specifically, that post-colonialims is not just about a period of history, or soldiers and war, settlement and exploitation of resources, and the attempts to govern indigenous inhabitants of an occupied land.

Post-colonialism is also about a mindset about power. It's about the power to name and define. It's about domination and, ultimately, oppression - financial, political, psychological, spiritual, and religious.

This is why the proponents of the Anglican Covenant are so keen to ram this document through the provinces as a "final draft" - without possible negotiation or revision or adjustment for the particularities of the indigenous soil into which it is attempted to be planted.

I keep thinking of that little but powerful poem by Edward Markham:

"He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him In !

Mr. Beck and the Anglican Covenant provide us with evidence of the last gasps of the death rattle of patriarchy and post-colonialism.

Oh, each will continue to have their "fan base" and their "market share". Of this, I have no doubt. But, the popular support for the Prophets and Vehicles of Doom will not have out. This is especially true for "the younger demographic".

The challenge to the Prophets of Grace will be to draw a circle that is large enough to take in the Prophets of Doom, even as they circle the wagons in smaller and tighter and more rigid formation, lamenting that "the sky is falling".

Love has the wit to win.

That's not the question.

The question is: Will we have the courage to love?

UPDATE:  From Huffington Post . I think someone ought to do one on why the Anglican Covenant will ultimately fail.

The Whore of Tripoli

For a third time, 29 year old Iman al-Obeidi, a post-graduate law student in Tripoli, broke away from her Libyan captors to tell her story of kidnapping, gang rape, beating and house arrest by 15 members of strongman Muammar Gadhafi's armed forces.

Journalists from around the world, stationed near Tripoli, have been pressing the government for information about Ms. al-Obeidi since she first burst into the hotel press room last week, visibly bruised, alleging that she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted.

It was reported that, "A wild scuffle began as journalists tried to interview, photograph and protect her," according to David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times.

"Several journalists were punched, kicked and knocked down by the security forces, working in tandem with people who until then had appeared to be hotel staff members. Security officials destroyed a CNN video camera and seized a device that a Financial Times reporter had used to record her testimony."

According to Kirkpatrick's NY Times story, the Ms. al-Obeidi reported:

“They say that we are all Libyans and we are one people . . . but look at what the Qaddafi men did to me.” She displayed a broad bruise on her face, a large scar on her upper thigh, several narrow and deep scratch marks lower on her leg, and marks from binding around her hands and feet.

She said she had been raped by 15 men. “I was tied up, and they defecated and urinated on me,” she said. “They violated my honor.”

She pleaded for friends she said were still in custody. “They are still there, they are still there,” she said. “As soon as I leave here, they are going to take me to jail.”

"Libyan state television is reporting on her, painting her as a traitor and a prostitute," CNN's Anderson Cooper said on his show Wednesday night. He then played a clip, which you can watch below, of a female state broadcaster smearing al-Obeidi on the air.

"With all due respect to whores, even a whore may have some sense of patriotism," the anchor said, per Cooper's translation. "Even a whore will have a sense of patriotism when it comes to her homeland, Libya. But sister Eman has a political hate agenda. She is extremely radical." Al-Obeidi is said, in reality, to be a post-graduate law student who has been studying in Tripoli.

The government claims it has released her into her family's custody--but family members deny this and say they rejected a bribe to have al-Obeidi recant the rape allegations.

Foreign reporters are still trying to get reliable word on al-Obeidi's whereabouts, and pressing Muammar Gadhafi's regime for details. Aside from CNN, reporters from the New York Times, the Financial Times, Reuters and other news outlets on the ground in Tripoli, have helped cast a spotlight on al-Obeidi's case.

Details of al-Obeidi's release remain sketchy. Her present location is unconfirmed, but she reportedly made a second attempt to speak with journalists at the hotel this past weekend and was again rebuffed.

Ms. al-Obeidi emerged from seclusion a third time on Monday, this time successfully, to offer more public testimony with CNN's Anderson Cooper about her alleged gang-rape and captivity.

"There is no safe place for me in Tripoli," she told Cooper. "All my phones are monitored. Even this phone I am speaking on right now is monitored and I am monitored. And yesterday, I was kidnapped by a car and they beat me in the street and then brought me here after they dragged me around. They told me whenever you leave the house we will do this to you, meaning that I was not allowed to leave the house or see the journalists. I had asked to see the journalists. They beat and hit me and sent me back. Tell all the human rights organizations to return me safely to my family."

Along with most of the rest of the world, I am horrified and sickened by the ordeal this woman has had to endure in the name of freedom.

It is even more horrifying to consider that she is not the only one. Indeed, Ms. Obeidi has been pleading not only for herself but for some of her friends who are still imprisoned, still being beaten and tortured and sexually assaulted.

The most horrifying part of this horrible news story is that it is not news. It is as old as time. The "original sin" of The Garden is the inherent misogyny embedded in the story of the "natural order," ordained by God, of Adam's domination over Eve and all of creation.

Do you really suppose, as we have been told for centuries, that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? It may make for a good story about the salvific, unconditional love of Jesus - that he even "loved the sinner" like her - but I suspect it's far from the truth.

Uppity women - women who have risked and dared to talk truth to power - have always been labeled whores and prostitutes by those who fear the truth that women have to tell.

Was Magdalene not the first one ever to tell the truth of the story of the resurrection of Jesus? And, was her story not dismissed by the disciples as unbelievable?

Ironically, Ms. al-Obeidi is, perhaps, the true patriot in this turbulent story of Libya's struggle for freedom. She gets it.

"They say that we are all Libyans and we are one people," she cried out to the journalists of the foreign press, "but look at what the Qaddafi men did to me.”

Yes, look what was done to her!

As difficult as it is to consider, we must not look away.

The image of Ms. al-Obeidi, the alleged 'Whore of Tripoli' is one of a true patriot - moving past her own personal pain and humiliation (Qaddafi's men not only allegedly raped but urinated and defecated on her!) - to help other women while calling her nation to examine the foundations of the justice and freedom they allegedly stand for and are risking their lives to attain.

Here's the most important lesson about freedom: "No one is free unless all are free".

Not me. Not you. Not those Qaddafi thugs with guns who think they are in power.

One report notes:

Al-Obeidi has come forward with her story at a critical juncture in the efforts of Gadhafi's regime to clamp down on the work of the foreign media. Journalists working out of Tripoli say they are contending with tightly monitored and almost surreal working conditions. Some even fear that their hotel-prepared food is being spiked with sedatives, according to NPR.

"That was why the outburst of Iman al-Obaidi ... was so revelatory," writes Liz Sly in The Washington Post. "In an instant, she crystallized the harsh realities of the Libya the government goes to such lengths to prevent journalists from seeing."

It's also possible that the widespread media exposure saved al-Obeidi's life.

The New York Times' David Kirkpatrick, who is on the ground in Tripoli, notes: "Thanks to the publicity in her first interviews ... she may have gotten off easy. Others in her situation, human rights advocates say, are typically confined for years in so-called rehabilitation facilities, subjected to unscientific virginity tests, deprived of any entertainment or education except lessons in Islam, and subjected to solitary confinement or handcuffs for any sign of resistance to authority."

As for al-Obeidi, she told Cooper she has constant nightmares of death and wishes to leave Tripoli, but is no longer afraid.

The passion for, the vision of, freedom - true freedom - is one that overcomes fear.

The impulse for freedom - true freedom - has its own nobility and an altruism which propels one past one's own suffering to take risks to ensure that others might be free.

The dream of freedom - true freedom - is what is keeping Iman al-Obeidi alive and bold and brave.

She only looks like a madwoman to those who are threatened by her passion, vision, impulse for and dream of freedom for everyone.

She only looks like a whore to those who try to hoard things they can never possess.

This is the ancient truth we rediscover today from The Whore of Tripoli.

No one is free unless all are free.

Not you. Not me.

Ever.

Ethics and Spiritual Care

Twenty-five years ago, I never would have put the word "ethics" in the same sentence with the words "spiritual care."

Perhaps, if we had put these words together sooner, we might not have some of the problems we have today.

I remember the first time I heard the term "spiritual abuse". It was used by a man to describe how his pastor had used a form of "prayerful aversion therapy" to "cure" him of his homosexuality.

Now, I clearly understood what he meant, and, in fact, agreed with him. Even though my friend had gone to the pastor because he was tired of the abuse he had taken from society - the taunting and the tittering, the need to keep secrets and tell lies and really hoped that he could change so that he might know what it would be like to be "normal" -  there was no doubt in my mind that this cleric had abused the spiritual power of his office. And breached some ethical boundaries.

I mean, if someone told you that s/he was able, through the power of prayer, to turn an apple into a pear, and charged you pots of money to do it, and, in the end, the apple was still a pear, you'd feel ripped off, wouldn't you?

Wouldn't that be an ethical violation?

Indeed, if you had sincerely and genuinely and earnestly prayed along with the pastor to change the apple into a pear - and later discovered that prayer does not - cannot - change the essence of God's creation, that you'd simply become an apple who was foolishly trying to "pass" as a pear - you'd feel that your spirituality had been abused, wouldn't you?

But, is that "spiritual abuse"?

What are the "outward and visible" signs? How do you measure it? What are the parameters?

What may look like spiritual abuse to some is religious practice to others.

For example: What if your sister, at age 18, told you that she wanted to join a religious group? In fact, she's very excited about joining this community of all women who live by a very strict set of rules, including life-long celibacy.

First of all, she'll have to change or alter her name. She couldn't wear her own clothes and, instead, had to wear a shapeless, drab, ill-fitting garment that covered most of her body.  Indeed, she would have to give up all of her possessions, leave her home, and live at the group's headquarters where everyone there will become her new "family". They will, in fact, call each other "Sister".

She will not be allowed any contact with her family of origin for the first several months, and silence is enforced between 9 PM every night to 9 AM the next morning. Silence is also enforced during meals where she will, instead, be forced to listen to passages read from the sacred readings of her religion. She will spend most of her day in a very regimented order of prayer, most of it on her knees, and some of it in ritual chanting.

Would you be concerned that your sister was joining a wackadoodle religious cult?

You might, unless you knew that much of what is written above describes many Roman and Anglo-Catholic religious orders for women - and, men.

Another example: I can't tell you how many clergy colleagues I've spoken with who have called - outraged and upset and shaken - to tell me that when they've tried to revitalize a stagnant or dying congregations with some innovation - liturgical, mainly, but also with outreach or especially evangelism - programs to the increasingly ethnically or racially diverse neighborhood - they've been charged by some angry parishioners with "spiritual abuse".

Indeed, I've had some lay folk from other congregations ask to talk with me about how their pastors were "spiritually abusive" because they had "ruined" or were "trying to kill" the congregation with their "pastoral style" or "innovation".

Now, there are some cases where "spiritual abuse" is as clear as the Iberian nose in the middle of my face. However, we call it a "boundary violation". Or "clergy misconduct". Or, "conduct unbecoming".

Whenever a clergy person uses the power of his or her office to take advantage of a vulnerable parishioner - financially, sexually, emotionally - it is certainly an odious violation of ethics and professionalism.

The Episcopal Church - and many other denominations - are pretty clear about these things and have canon law which defines it and outlines how these cases are to be handled and the clergy "disciplined"

But, is that "spiritual abuse"?

Besides the normative non-maleficence ("do not harm") and beneficence ("do good") are there ethical standards of practice for pastors, chaplains, pastoral counselors and spiritual directors that are not set in the negative by punitive, disciplinary regulations and canon law?

Moreover, are those standards the same for pastors, chaplains, pastoral counselors and spiritual directors? Do they differ for laity vs ordained? If not, then who or what is the regulatory body for the laity - especially if they are independent practitioners?

Or, is pastoral care and spiritual direction both so innocuous and innocent - and, ultimately ineffective - as to render them so meaningless and irrelevant that no one really cares?

Until and unless, of course, harm is done.

We will be discussing some of this issues later this afternoon in Kwok Pui Lan's class here at EDS in Cambridge, MA where I am privileged to be Proctor Scholar for the semester. We have a guest lecturer coming - someone who is a well-respected ordained pastoral counselor in the area.

We've been using the book Ethics and Spiritual Care: A guide for Pastors, Chaplains, and Spiritual Directors by Karen Lebacqz and Joseph D. Driskill to prepare for this lecture and discussion.

Rather than present a "rule" book, the authors present a guide for what they call "mapping the muddy terrain" and intersections of spirituality and ethics, raising some excellent questions for consideration.

For example, "spirituality" is, as the authors say, a "slippery and indefinite term." Two people can define themselves as "spiritual" and speak of their "spirituality" but it is not at all clear that they are speaking about the same thing.

So, too, with ethics. "Is it possible to have ethical standards in a pluralistic world?" the authors ask.

Which raises a question in my mind as to whether or not it is acceptable for a profession to have and operate out of a different set of "spiritual ethics" depending upon their individual religious beliefs.

Does any other profession operate in that way?

Which, of course, raises the whole question of whether or not pastors, chaplains, pastoral counselors or spiritual directors are - or should be considered - 'professionals'.

In the Episcopal Church - and many mainline Protestant denominations - that question is, ironically enough, pretty much answered in the affirmative, mostly by the negative posture of regulatory canon or church law.

In terms of this question, the authors rely heavily on the work of Paul F. Camenisch, "Clergy Ethics in the Professional Model," (from 'Clergy Ethics in a Changing Society'), who moves us from the traditional professional model of rules and principals to one that is marked by four things: skill, autonomy, goal, and motivation.

There are an increasing number of voices who argue that ministry is not a profession, or caution that the traditional professional ethics model does not fit ministry well because of the diversity of approaches which flow from a variety of social locations, such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.

There are more and more voices arguing for "clergy ethics" to have a model of its own terms and justifications. I tend to be one of those voices. Readers of this blog will recall that one of my projects has been to develop a model - a template, if you will - of professional standards for Clergy and Professional Church Work.(Click on the link to see that post).

I sort of backed into this issue while preparing to do a Mutual Ministry Review with my Wardens and Vestry. It became painfully clear to me that most people in the pew - indeed, most elected leaders in the church - have no idea what clergy do. None.

Oh, some "know" clergy preach on Sunday, so we have to write a sermon. And, others have "heard" - or may have even personally experienced - that clergy visit people in hospitals and nursing homes and rehab, hospice and extended care facilities, and, perhaps, prepare people for marriage and baptism when not presenting a Sunday Forum or Advent or Lenten Educational Series.

Beyond that, however, there really is not a whole lot of sophistication - and, I would dare say, not much concern - about the role and function of clergy. Except for these three unwritten rules

(1) Be there when I need you. Immediately, if not sooner.

(2) Meet all of my expectations for what clergy do for people in need or crisis.

(3) You must be able to discern when and how I need you because I'm not going to tell you that ahead of time. Mostly, because I, myself, don't know and think you should.

This discussion is rarely rarely meant with malice aforethought, but is part of the "magical thinking" some people have about the church in general and clergy in particular.

It is even more rarely spoken out loud, and that conversation is never held with the clergy person in the room or anywhere within listening distance. Except, of course, by gossip and rumor and innuendo. After the fact. Usually by someone else with an "axe to grind" with the clergy person.

It often surfaces for discussion in one of these occasions:

(1) During a mutual ministry review

(2) During the annual budget formation when increases to clergy salary are discussed.

(3) When there is a budget shortfall

(4) When the clergy person has preached something controversial from the pulpit or tried a liturgical innovation or is trying to lead an unpopular outreach ministry to the neighborhood or world that stretches folks out of their comfort/safety zone.

When I began the discussion with my Wardens and Vestry, in preparation for the Mutual Ministry Review, I was asked, "Well, what are the professional standards for clergy?"

"What?" I asked, surprisingly started by the question. "You mean, beyond the Book of Common Prayer and Scripture?", I sort of joked.

"In our professions," these mostly corporate types said, "there are professional standards. Don't clergy have them?"

Good question.

No, I mean, that's a Really Good Question.

Is it not reasonable to assume - since we use many templates from the secular world in terms of everything from budget formation to job descriptions and contracts which define parameters of performance, accountability and responsibility and performance evaluation, and, more recently, marketing-as-evangelism - that clergy would, in fact, have 'professional standards'?

Perhaps there is a little "magical thinking" on the part of clergy, as well. At the very least, we have certainly been naive.

Camenisch's argument is that it is not sufficient simply to define a profession and then to see whether clergy fit the description. There are enough similarities between clergy and other professions to appropriately deem the clergy a profession, but enough differences that clergy cannot be entirely subsumed under the professional model.

For example, Lebacqz and Driskill point out that "... while other professionals such as doctors or lawyers may deal with individual clients, clergy usually deal with an organized clientele. This structural difference," they note,"is significant."

We have much ground work to do in defining professional standards, which must be based, I think, on a definition of spirituality and spiritual care before we can begin to approach what "spiritual abuse" really means.

Unfortunately, in this present litigious culture, it is increasingly incumbent upon clergy and "professional laity" in the church who are pastors, chaplains, pastoral counselors and spiritual directors, to begin to be proactive in this area.

I understand that some denomination in some specialized fields - such as chaplaincy - have already taken the lead in this. I will be following up on this and exploring this more fully. I'm also expecting this afternoon's lecture and discussion to bear much fruit.

Lebacqz and Driskill discuss some very important work in defining "spiritual abuse" which has already been published and is being used in the court room.

Indeed, the book "Ethics and Spiritual Care" arose when Lebacqz was asked to be an "expert witness" in a case where there were allegations of spiritual abuse.

Several works are noted by the authors:

Lloyd Rediger (Clergy Killers: Guidance for Pastors and Congregations Under Attack), who uses the term in describing the "killing" actions of parishioners toward clergy and clergy toward parishioners.

Archie Smith, Jr. (Navigating the Deep River: Spirituality in African American Families), uses the term in describing why some LGBT people leave the church.

Michael Langone (Recovering from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse), uses the term in talking about recovery from cults.

Flora Wuellner (Feed My Shepherds: Spiritual Healing and Renewal for Those in Christian Leadership) uses the term to describe spiritual practices that focus on the structures of religion rather than our freedom in relationship with the divine.

Matthew Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn and Dennis Linn (Healing Spiritual Abuse and Religious Addiction) use the term in describing their own spiritual journeys and recovery from certain church practices and experiences.

But it is two books which the authors lift up as providing public attention to the term "spiritual abuse":

Ronald M. Enroth's, Churches That Abuse and
David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen's The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.  

Taking these texts as a foundational basis, Lebacqz and Driskill present a five point "Composite Picture" of spiritual abuse of parishioners by clergy, which would look something like this:

1. Spiritual abuse can consist in

+ damaging or diminishing parishioners' spiritual growth
+controlling or confining parishioners' spiritual growth or possibility
+neglecting parishioners' spiritual growth.

2. The notion that some spiritual practices can be defined as abusive has scriptural warrants in the discussion of false spiritual leaders. (Matthew 23 and Matthew 11:28-30)

3. The understanding of spiritual abuse rejects any perpetrating of shame in personal and spiritual development.(Family Systems theory)

4. Spiritual abuse is also seen as closely linked to patterns of addiction in which people try to find meaning in an all-consuming system, structure or process that in fact limits their human freedom and growth or makes them control others.

5. Although spiritual abuse can happen between any two people, it is linked with power or perceived power and thus is most likely to be perpetrated by a spiritual leader or director.

Even so, the authors point out the various difficulties with this "profile", which I will not enumerate here. I highly commend this book - and all the books listed here - to you for your own further reading and consideration.

Perhaps a definition of "spiritual abuse" is somewhat akin to the definition of pornography. You can't always define it but you know it when you see it.

It's a bit like Bette Midler's infamous definition of a promiscuous person who, she says, is anyone who is having sex more than her.

That's not to say that, like it or not, judgment is not an integral part of the work of the church. It is. It is offered, however, in love and with kindness and always, always, with the opportunity for confession and repentance and the assurance of God's forgiveness and absolution.

For example, in counseling men and women who have come to me to admit that they have strayed from their marital vows, I always gently remind them that they have "missed the mark" of God's standards for us while at the same time, offering them the opportunity for the Sacramental Rite of Penitence and the assurance of God's forgiveness.

That is always accompanied with an invitation to "pray for me, a sinner."

Here's the thing: Guilt and shame are not always bad things. Sometimes, guilt and shame are the internal warning signs that something is not 'right' and needs, at the very least, to be reconsidered.

However, when one becomes the vehicle to deliver and produce that guilt and shame in others, one has begun to place one foot over the boundary and disturbed the delicate power balance between that person and the pastor, chaplain, pastoral counselor, or spiritual director.

This is why I, personally, consider it a form of "spiritual abuse" to coerce anyone into a decision about matters of reproductive choice or to attempt to "change" - through the "therapy of prayer" - someone's sexual orientation to conform with someone else's understanding of the meaning of scripture and God's intention for us.

Neither do I insist on confession and repentance of sin. My role, as I see it, is to gently remind people of how they have "missed the mark", offering the Sacramental Rite of Penitence as a gift of the church.

Others may disagree with me, considering my choice to honor the gift of free will and choice as a form of "spiritual neglect" or even "abuse".

Others may be appalled that I mention sin at all, much less offer the Sacramental Rite of Penitence.

So be it.

And therein, my friends, lies the difficulty with Ethics and Spiritual Care.

I will be leaving my time as Proctor Scholar here at EDS in a little over a month with more questions - deeper, more profound questions - than when I first arrived.

Certainly, my questions are more spiritually mature than when I arrived here, almost three decades ago. Well, I suppose, one would only hope that to be true.

I have rediscovered and reaffirmed my sense that the best tools one can come to "professional" ministry - lay or ordained - besides an active religious imagination, is one's curiosity in the human enterprise.

What one learns in seminary about scripture and church history, theology and pastoral care, homiletics and liturgics, provides an important foundation for the rest of one's life of service in the church.

Of this I have no doubt.

It is, however, the commitments of our Baptismal vows to love and serve the people of God, respecting the dignity - and intelligence - all God's children, seeking and honoring Christ in all persons, that, at the end of the day, provides the foundation for the ethical structure of spiritual care.

Equally important, as Rainer Maria Rilke writes, is to “Live your questions now, and perhaps even without knowing it, you will live along some distant day into your answers.”

Not "the" answer, but "your" answers.

That, I have come to believe, is a foundational principle of 'Ethics and Spiritual Care'.

I hope this has been helpful to you. Please don't hesitate to leave your questions or comments or stories here on this blog.

My hope is that this will be part of an on-going, more intentional, crucial conversation that will bring us to be a more authentic Body of Christ.

Sleeping through the revolution.

April 4, 1968.

I was in the lounge of the dorm of the nursing school I was attending, drinking coffee and playing a game of Bid Whist with some of my classmates while preparing myself for work on the 11-7 shift on the medical surgical ward.

We were just killing time before we would be on the front lines of our altruistic dream: Saving the world, one person at a time.

Such is the rhythm of life when you are in your twenties - intermittent waves of altruism and nobility lapping at the shores of boredom and listlessness.

Someone - I can't remember who - came into the lounge and yelled, "Dr. King has been assassinated!" I remember that the atmosphere in that room went from ho-hum to surreal in 0.5 seconds.

We were shocked. Stunned into silence. The information refused to sink into our consciousness. Someone turned on the television. The obvious, painful, horrible truth was there for everyone to see and yet we stared in disbelief.

The balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN. Dr. King on the ground. Someone tending to him. Everyone else pointing their fingers at the brick building across the street.

Even so, we stood around the television, hands covering our gaping mouths. Heads shaking slowly in terrible sadness and disbelief.

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy had been shot five years earlier, in November of 1963. Could this be happening again?

As hard as the present was to imagine, little did we know that Robert F. Kennedy would be assassinated two months later, in June of 1968.

It was a time of turbulence and unrest in the country. The battle for Civil Rights had been won but racism was still very much alive. The war in Vietnam was still raging.

Dr. King had just preached the previous Sunday - Palm Sunday, March 31, 1968 - at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. In what would be his last Sunday sermon, the title was, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution".

His text was taken from the 16th Chapter of the Book of Revelations, "Behold I make all things new; former things are passed away." He wrote:

I am sure that most of you have read that arresting little story from the pen of Washington Irving entitled "Rip Van Winkle." The one thing that we usually remember about the story is that Rip Van Winkle slept twenty years. But there is another point in that little story that is almost completely overlooked. It was the sign in the end, from which Rip went up in the mountain for his long sleep.

When Rip Van Winkle went up into the mountain, the sign had a picture of King George the Third of England. When he came down twenty years later the sign had a picture of George Washington, the first president of the United States. When Rip Van Winkle looked up at the picture of George Washington—and looking at the picture he was amazed—he was completely lost. He knew not who he was.

And this reveals to us that the most striking thing about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not merely that Rip slept twenty years, but that he slept through a revolution. While he was peacefully snoring up in the mountain a revolution was taking place that at points would change the course of history—and Rip knew nothing about it. He was asleep. Yes, he slept through a revolution. And one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands. They end up sleeping through a revolution.

We were not sleeping through a revolution. We knew that we were in the midst of one.

Many of us were in nursing school so that we could go to Viet Nam and tend to the soldiers there. Others of us came to nursing school having been Peace Corp volunteers and had been inspired and persuaded to continue our education in ways that would make a difference in people's lives.

We all knew we had to shake off our grief and shock and get ready for our assignment. The night supervisor was Ms. Duffy, and she would have none of this.

Ms. Duffy wore a starched white pinafore over her white uniform - with stiffly starched collar and cuffs. She was a legend at the hospital. Everyone knew that sh had tried to get into medical school but that she had been denied admission because of her gender. So, she went to Mass General Hospital School of Nursing Program - "The General" as it was known in those days - and graduated top of her class.

She went on to serve as a nurse in the Army, earning the highest rank possible to women in those days. She had served in Korea and Viet Nam and had seen hideous injuries and evidence of "man's inhumanity to man" first hand and up close.

There was no question that she was a "hawk", but she was curiously silent when the conversation came 'round to Viet Nam. Some of the doctors joked she might be "getting soft". One of the head nurses wondered out loud if she might have been traumatized by what she saw in Nam.

Ms. Duffy was stern and strict. Everything by the book. She took the position of Night Supervisor because she knew that she could handle most any situation that arose, while the doctors slept in the lounge. She would only awaken them when she knew the situation was beyond her legal limit.

When Ms. Duffy walked into the nursing station, everyone - E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E., including the doctors - stood up until she nodded for us to be "at ease" and we were able to return to whatever it was we had been doing.

In her way of quiet but strong authority, she was part of the revolution. She changed minds and hearts. Everyone I knew - including the doctors - wanted to be just like Ms. Duffy. When Ms. Duffy was on duty, no matter what your shift presented you, you knew everything was going to be more than okay - it would be handled with skill and expertise and professionalism.

That night, as the hour came for us to report for duty on the 11-7 shift, we walked onto the wards - 10 minutes early, as Ms. Duffy required - we were met with a sight none of us ever imagined we'd ever witness.

There was Ms. Duffy - in the medication closet - and she was weeping. The door was closed - locked, as it always was - but we could see her through the window on the door. She was bent over the counter, her starched white collar embedded in a spot under her jawbone. Her shoulders were slumped and shook as she sobbed into her arms.

Eventually, she stood up, threw her shoulders back, blew her nose, fixed her hair, and then noticed us, all gathered 'round the window, watching her. Doctors. Nurses. Nursing Students. Lab technicians. Secretaries.

She smoothed her starched uniform and straightened her nursing cap and then opened the door, passing through us like Moses parting the Red Sea.

When she got to the end of the crowd, she turned and said, "A great man has been taken from our midst. It is right to grieve and mourn. But we do his legacy no honor by standing around, sleep walking through our grief. So, dedicate everything you do tonight, to his honor. Be especially tender and kind and compassionate to the poor you care for. Dr. King would be most pleased by that."

Here was a woman - a white woman - who had served in the military on the front lines in Korea and Viet Nam, an admitted "hawk" who was mourning the loss of a man of peace.

Then, she said something I'll never forget. She said, "Dr. King was against the war in Viet Nam. He preached on it just this Sunday. I suspect this is, ultimately, what got him killed."

Someone among us gasped.

She paused and then said, "In his sermon Dr. King said we need to 'learn to live together as sisters and brothers or we will die together as fools'. He also said, 'I can't be what I ought to be unless you are what you ought to be'. So, let's help each other be the best we can be. That's just the way God made the world."

And then, she picked up her clip board, cleared her throat, and said, "Carry on."

I think, in many ways, Ms. Duffy was right. Many thought Dr. King had gone too far. That he should have stopped when the Civil Right's Amendment was passed. But, he wouldn't. He was in Memphis to help to organize a worker's strike there. He was planning another March on Washington. A "Poor People's March".

He was called a Marxist and a Communist for those activities.

But, criticizing the War in Viet Nam put him over the line, in the view of his opponents. He mentioned this in his Palm Sunday Sermon:

One day a newsman came to me and said, "Dr. King, don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and people who once respected you have lost respect for you. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?" I looked at him and I had to say, "Sir, I’m sorry you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion." Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.

On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?

There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of goodwill to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "We ain’t goin’ study war no more." This is the challenge facing modern man.

It is the challenge that faces us, still.

We are now engaged in three wars - Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. I believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, he would be speaking out against those wars and calling us to study peace.

And, I believe Ms. Duffy would be in the front row, cheering him on in her own quietly dignified but powerful way.

We would all do well to listen to or read Dr. King's sermon today. You can find it here. You can either read it or listen in.

It's time to take the position that is not safe or politic or popular. We need to do what our conscience tells us is right.

We need, as Dr. King preached, "to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands".

We can not afford to sit around, killing time, waiting to do what's right. The waves of altruism call to us from a sea of nobility, beckoning us to swim for our lives and the life of the world.

We dare not be caught sleeping through the revolution which is sweeping the Middle East. The time is always right to do what is right. We need to end these immoral wars, not because it's easy or expedient - because it is decidedly neither. We need to end these immoral wars because it is the right thing to do.

The time has come and now is for us to learn how to live together as sisters and brothers in a global Beloved Community, lest we die together as fools.

Here's how Dr. King ended that Palm Sunday Sermon:

We’re going to win our freedom because both the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of the almighty God are embodied in our echoing demands. And so, however dark it is, however deep the angry feelings are, and however violent explosions are, I can still sing "We Shall Overcome."

We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

We shall overcome because Carlyle is right—"No lie can live forever."

We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant is right—"Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again."

We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell is right—as we were singing earlier today,

Truth forever on the scaffold,

Wrong forever on the throne.

Yet that scaffold sways the future.

And behind the dim unknown stands God,

Within the shadow keeping watch above his own.

With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair the stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

Thank God for John, who centuries ago out on a lonely, obscure island called Patmos caught vision of a new Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, who heard a voice saying, "Behold, I make all things new; former things are passed away."

God grant that we will be participants in this newness and this magnificent development. If we will but do it, we will bring about a new day of justice and brotherhood and peace. And that day the morning stars will sing together and the sons of God will shout for joy. God bless you."

I delight to imagine Ms. Duffy and Dr. King in heaven. 

I have this sneaking suspicion that, when she walks into a room in the heavenly palace, everyone - including Dr. King - stands up. 

"The time is here. The time is now"

It's only Spring, but things are really starting to heat up in the First State.

The Delaware Senate introduced civil unions legislation Tuesday that would extend all the state-level benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

On Wednesday, a group of about 40 clergy - twenty opposed, twenty supportive - testified before the sub-committee.

Sub-committees are notorious for being the place where all controversial legislation is sent to die.

Dying, yet behold, it lived!

Delaware Senate Bill 30 (S.B.30) passed the sub-committee, despite testimony from some clergy who were, they said, "sent by God" to proclaim that Civil Unions in Delaware would be the downfall of Western Civilization, threaten the sacred institution of marriage, increase all of the evils of the world, and incur the wrath of God in such Biblical proportions so as to cause earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes, pestilence, wars and rumors of war, famine, global warming and further tear the hole in the ozone layer.

Yada, Yada, Yada.

I'm told that one scrubbied-up, very earnest young cleric testified that he was raised by two women who later split up as a couple and "returned to heterosexuality".

His point was not to to say that he didn't have "love in his heart" for homosexual persons - he assured everyone that he did. Rather, the point of his testimony was to debunk the theory that LGBT people are "born that way" and can, through the power of prayer and faith in God, country, apple pie and Chevrolet, "convert" and become "normal".

I'm also told that at least three Episcopal clergy I personally know, including my dear, dear friend, Mark Harris, gave moving testimony in support of Civil Unions and Marriage Equality. The resolutions of support of Marriage Equality passed by the Diocese of Delaware were also presented before the committee.

Mark Harris wrote:

I was frankly ashamed of the statements and behavior of some of those who spoke against the bill. I was ashamed because, as a convinced and convicted Christian I found their statements wildly condemning, biblically illiterate, and lacking in any pentecostal vision. The spirit present in their remarks was the sad spirit of a God who condemns. Sad to say too, their remarks were mostly outside the competency of a civil legislature. Here was an opportunity to address inequities in the law and practice of community life in Delaware and the opposition could only offer the bread of conspiracy and the dry loaf of condemnation. Not much to feed on.

The legislation, which currently has 27 co-sponsors, would allow for the recognition of civil unions performed in other states, but would recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions as well, not as marriages.

Equality Delaware assisted in drafting the legislation, which reflects recent polls showing that residents of the state prefer civil unions to same-sex marriage.

The bill is expected to pass the House and the Senate. Governor Jack Markell has said that he will sign the bill into law. Here's his speech on Tuesday.

In the words of the Governor, "Hatred has no place here."

I have to tell you that, while this isn't full Marriage Equality, this is huge.

HUGE!

Remember, Delaware is the home of Christine "I'm-not-a-witch" O'Donnell who was, with Sarah Palin's blessing and lotsa Tea Party money, the Republican candidate for U.S. Representative. She lost the November 2010 U.S. Senate election in Delaware, to Democrat Chris Coons by a margin of 57% to 40%.

In an odd sort of way, perhaps Delaware was able to make this important first step on the road to full Marriage Equality precisely because of Ms. O'Donnell's candidacy.

I call it the "Anita Bryant Effect". I suspect her nomination served as a real wake up call about politically-packaged prejudice and bigotry and hatred.

I have to tell you that I personally believe that the "elephant" in the sub-committee room was that, when Delawareians introduce themselves to someone not from Delaware and get that wide-grin-smirk, "Oh, yeah, Delaware. Christine O'Donnell" I sometimes do, they want nothing more than to be able to respond, "Yes, but we have Civil Unions."

I note with chagrin, however, that in Sussex County, where I live, Ms. O'Donnell carried the vote. Some of the people in my neighborhood still wear their Christine O'Donnell T-shirts and have not removed their supportive bumper stickers.

Not all. Not many. Some. Enough to make my skin crawl.

For the most part, my experience of life in "Lower, Slower Delaware" is mostly, "live and let live." That sometimes gets translated from the religious language of "hate the sin, love the sinner" which is far from optimal but I'll take that any day over the Westboro Baptist wack-a-doodle religious mantras of "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for AIDS".

I'll also take that over the wide, all-teeth grin "there, there, all in good time," patronizing expressions of those who tell me they are my "friend" - even have me over to dinner - but ask me to be "reasonable" and "patient" while they either do nothing or laugh hardy when a 'fag' or 'dyke' joke is told, or cast their vote to reject the equality of all of God's people and all of the earth's citizens.

As Governor Markell said, "The time is here. The time is now."

I just signed the "Spiritual Leaders Statement". It is garnering the signatures of an amazing amount of Delaware Clergy. I note that there are now 29 signers each in both the Episcopal and Presbyterian columns.  Third in line are the Methodists.

There are 109 signatories, all totaled. Delaware is a small state for the First State, but apparently, we have no shortage of clergy.  Here's the statement:

"Love for and respect of one's fellow human beings are perhaps the most prominent and universal core values of the many spiritual and religious traditions that have ever existed. While sometimes differing markedly in many other ways, spiritual and religious persons and groups can at least agree with this tenet: "We have a deep and abiding obligation to love and respect others." Indeed, not treating others respectfully or as we would want to be treated is seen by the various faith traditions as moral failure.

As leaders representing a wide variety of spiritual expression in the State of Delaware, we strongly support the full civil rights, including civil marriage, of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, and see such support as being very consistent with our shared belief."

Now really, who couldn't sign onto that statement?

Wait, wait. Don't tell me. I already know.

It all seems so simple. We know, for some people, it's not.

Which is why this is about Civil Unions and not Marriage Equality.

Yet.

Keven Cathcart of the Human Rights Campaign told me that he thought, once this issue began to get traction and become reality in the states - state by state - the issue of marriage equality would be settled - ultimately, finally - by the IRS which would demand uniformity.   

That was about 15 years ago - before we had Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions, much less dared to dream about Marriage Equality.

I didn't believe him then.

I believe him now.

Delaware is known as "The First State". It's far from the first state to sign onto Civil Unions or to struggle with the idea of Marriage Equality.

It won't be the last.

The time is here. The time is now.

Thanks be to God.

Here's mud in your eye!

The lessons appointed for the Fourth Sunday in Lent contain two powerful stories of the mysterious workings of God.

I am struck, once again, by the story of Samuel and Saul and the anointing of David in the first lesson found in 1 Samuel 16:1-13.

The chapter opens with God reminding Samuel of the fact that God has rejected Saul as King of Israel. Up to that point in history, God had raised up leaders as they were needed. It had ever been thus from the time of Moses through the days of Judges. It was clear that God was sovereign - not the men who were raised up to be leaders.

As Samuel grew older, the elders of Israel met with him and demanded that he appoint for them a king so that they would be like other nations. At their insistence, God allowed Samuel to appoint Saul, son of Benjamin, "a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; he stood head and shoulders above everyone else." (I Samuel 9:2).

But, Saul was not a good King. He was an impetuous and impatient ruler. He acted on his own, not obeying orders from God as reported through Samuel. Before going into his first battle, he offered a sacrifice without waiting for Samuel to arrive. Were it not for this disobedience, God would have anointed him King.

Indeed, his disastrous reign only lasted about two years.

The words Samuel uses to tell Saul that he may not be King are these: ".... the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart . . ."

Later, when Samuel is to choose Saul's successor, God says to him, "... for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart."

In the Gospel lesson for tomorrow (John 9:1-41), Jesus heals the man born blind - the one of whom the Pharisees believed as a punishment for sin - his own or that of his parents.

Jesus says,

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. . . . . When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man's eyes, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see."

This enrages the Pharisees and the careful order of their sense of how God works in the world. Besides, Jesus heals the man on the Sabbath. "Some of the Pharisees said, 'This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath'."

The Pharisees had driven out the man who had been born blind but now could see. This was outrageous to them! How could a sinner be saved from his blindness? Especially without THEIR divine intervention? THEY certainly would not have done this on the Sabbath! Unlike Saul, they kept what they understood were God's rules.

Jesus later catches up with the man and says to him,

"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, `We see,' your sin remains."

Discernment is a tricky proposition.

It's an exercise in humility, taking one deep into the corner's of one's heart. Sometimes, we make choices with the best of intentions, only to learn, sometimes years later, that our choices were made out of fear or anxiety, or pride and yes, even politics.

I've been thinking a lot about a guest editorial which appeared yesterday in the De Moines Register. It was written by JEFF ANGELO, a former Republican state senator in Iowa, who now lives in Ames and works in media relations in Des Moines.

He writes,

"During my (12 year) tenure in the Senate, I voted for a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and I was lead sponsor for a similar amendment.

I heard from my church and my fellow Republicans that homosexuality was wrong, and I thought I could lovingly disagree with them. I could "hate the sin, love the sinner" as people say when they do not believe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. But there came a point when I could no longer ignore how much this attitude hurt the people I know. Because this issue is not about rhetoric; this issue is about people and their freedom to choose a spouse."

Imagine! A Conservative Republican with a change of heart!

Through my eyes, this looks like nothing short of a miracle.

I don't know if that's a statement about my faith in God or my faith in the inherent goodness of the people God has created.

Mr. Angelo goes on to defend his position, based on the liberties provided for in the Constitution while uplifting the Republican values of "small government" and the fact that the "stability of marriage and the sanctity of personal liberty are the foundations of conservative values", adding that "we should be glad those values are spreading and being embraced in so many different walks of life. They are universal and fundamental."

The cynic in me says that this man was able to "see the light" once he removed himself from the harsh glare of politics.

The Christian in me hopes that, while this may well be true, it was more than that. I hope that, he was able to see that God does not judge anyone by the outer self but judges, rather, on the content of one's heart.

When we understand that about God, it's easier to look beyond the categories and small boxes into which we place people - "Black/White", "Old/Young", "Rich/Poor", "Gay/Straight" - and look, rather into their hearts.

Mr. Angelo writes,

"Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, we're all joined by our love of liberty. Free citizens are allowed to disagree and live their lives as they choose without fear of government reprisal as long as life and property are not threatened.

The tenor of this debate does not serve the people Iowa well, and is not in keeping with an Iowa culture known nationwide for displaying respect and generosity of spirit. Each day, Iowans worship with, work with, live with, and love people who are gay. Together we make a great state, facing the same problems and, hopefully, the same bright future.

Well, okay. He's still a politician. But, he's a politician with a heart who looks with the eyes of his heart on the hearts of his LGBT sisters and brothers.

Jesus said of the man he healed, "he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. . . . ."

It's an outrageous statement to make - that God takes our human limitations and foibles and yes, even our sin, and uses them to God's glory. Outrageous! And yet, that is one of our understandings of the mystery of God.

God chose David - "ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and he was handsome", the least of the flock of Jesse - to be King. Oh, he was not perfect, by any means imaginable. But, his heart was the heart of an anointed leader.

How to discern the heart of an anointed leader is never easy. It just looks easy in Scripture because the people writing the story were doing so after the fact.

Here's the thing about discernment: Sometimes, you've got to close your eyes and look inward before your eyes are opened to see God's hand at work in your midst.

Sometimes, you've got to get egg on your face - or mud in your eyes - before you can really see clearly.