Peak Moment
I am considering more and more the future of this blog, and am pondering having two of these things; one I still keep anonymous, in fact more anonymous than this blog is now, and one which is public, made available to my church and others. If I do this, if I create another blog besides this one, I will note it here and anyone who reads this (all five of you sweet souls) can email me for a link to the public blog. For the moment this remains as is.
What a weekend.
Each year my church elects delegates to Diocesan Convention at the annual meeting. I have never considered running as it involves a weekend several hours from my home, and because I really didn't know what happens there. Somehow, this year, I suppose because I had been senior warden twice, I was nominated, said sure, and won one of the three delegate spots. It's never that competitive; a bit of good natured cajoling usually occurs. I never have had the sense anyone was that passionate about attending.
The annual meeting is in January, and in truth I forgot all about Convention until my rector handed me the info about a month ago. I put off making my hotel reservation (if you can call where we stayed a hotel) and ended up having a buddy who was gong get the room and sharing it with him. I had very neutral expectations.
I did not know what the resolutions would be until Friday afternoon. But I had a good week spiritually (in my own way) listening to LT Johson's lecture series on Paul, beginning to blog again, attending church. How much Johnson prepared me for what was coming this weekend I did not know until Saturday, but let me say: one of the resolutions involved the blessing of same sex unions. Our Bishop has already said he will not sanction any such blessings unless General Convention approves them when they meet again in 09. All this measure was asking was that we vote to ask General Convention to develop rites for same sex blessings. Meaning, it is a request that we be allowed, under the direction of the National Church, to hold them. It was not a vote to begin holding them. According to hearsay anyway, such a motion had been presented to the motions committee, but as the Bishop reaffirmed his unwillingness to allow same sex rites without consent of the Deputies at General, the motion was rewritten, or removed, in favor of what we voted on Saturday. Even though it was a conservative request in one sense, there was no doubt that it was still very radical and contentious. My diocese is large and there are many mixed feelings on this issue. A few churches have tried to leave the Diocese over this already as our previous bishop voted to affirm Gene Roinson's election by his diocese. Well, one that I know of. I do believe a few churches, and certainly a number of individuals, have requested no money go to the Diocese from their parishes or persons in the wake of that vote. Overall, though, the discussion has been open, honest, and good.
This Saturday was no exception. I was amazed that over 300 people could discuss the issue with passion, from both sides, and treat each other well during and after the debate. But debate we did. It was a remarkable time. The motion was almost tabled until next year; that vote came so close the tellers had to hand count the for and against. But I remember the proposer of the initiative quoting Martin Luther King in the hall: "if not now, when; if not us, who?" It was very moving.
I had decided at lunch I wished to speak myself. There were several microphones, and I got in line early with a few notes on a sheet of paper. But with many, many strong feelings.
I used to condemn homosexuality as a neurotic aberration; I certainly opposed gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. I was a Baptist literalist, after all, and didn't know any gay people. Or the ones I did know in the church were guilt consumed. My views changed very slowly, very slowly. At first from knowing a lesbian couple in southern california....hearing their story of walking down a street at night, unclasping hands as they walked into the streetlight light, then retaking them as they moved into the darkness between. Then I began reflecting on the issue on this blog and reading ohers who were doing likewise. For me, though I have held to an imperfect Bible in theory since my (re)conversion in 00, the deep seated myth of the God-written book has lifted very slowly for me. Not as the result of any abstract theological discussion, but as a result of actually reading the (almost) entire thing. I am well aware of the verses in Romans, Leviticus, and elsewhere in the NT. I am also aware of the verse in Deuteronomy (or Lev....no time to look it up) where the illegimiate child is excluded form the Sanctuary for several generations. LTJ put things together very nicely for me in his series on Paul and the Gospels; I listened to the latter a couple of years ago. Still, I know the verses, I realize the import of this issue, I understand the pressure on the Anglican Communion. I did not approach my time at the mic lightly.
Yet, with an utterly clear conscience, I argued fully, passionately, and with all I could must (in 120 seconds) in favor of the resolution. I admit I am quite glad we have no comment from Jesus on this issue (any attempt to show we do is painfully forced in my view) and I find it quite easy to see Paul's writings, while deeply valuable, as quite human. Paul never addresses this issue except in asides anyway. Those he describes in Romans 1 are somehow gay, and otherwise deeply messed up, a a result of their idolatry. It strikes me as odd that some see the pressure to perform same sex unions as a symptom of our age, our zeitgheist, but think everything Paul wrote which has survived somehow transcends his own.
I told my own story. Jesus, rather clearly, forbids remarriage in the synpotics, or so it seems, yet when my girlfriend and i walked into an Episcopal church merely because it was cute on the outside we were warmly welcomed. My divorce was discussed, yes, but not in great depth (of course, the story is rather dramatic....but I did have a girlfriend during my separation, even if I was pushed into that). The fact that that church wanted to see us spiritually supported and nurtured, that it was the only one we visited that did want that, rather than just to make a few hundred bucks off the ceremony, was what got S and I attending church after both of us being long away. It led to us joining a parish in Nor Cal, attending Alpha Class, was part of what led to my reconversion, and the rest, well, is personal history. All the ministry I have done since or will do in the future is in part a result of the church's willingness to marry us though I was divorced and we were living together already. The heteros learned a few decades ago to cut themselves some slack....
And then I talked about King's letter from jail, his definition, drawn from Aquinas I believe, that a just law is one which uplifts human personality. I talked about loving gay couples I have known, about how a public blessing allows them to have the same support structure, even accounability, around their families I enjoy around mine. I was very scared, and said so; it was my first convention, I was fifty feet from the Bishop and in a hall with three or four hundred people. No one else from my parish spoke. But I will tell you: the entire blog has been worth it, it all has been worth it, for the little part I played. Many others spoke also, of course. But when the motion to postpone failed, and the motion to affirm the resolution passed, when the gay couples present began hugging those who supported the resolution....I say again, it was all worth it.
We too easily forget what Paul set aside when he insisted that Gentile converts did not need to conform to the law. Had they converted to Judaism, circumcision would have been required as I understand the times. But Paul, that deep student of Torah, set aside Torah in favor of a different law entirely, the law of love. It was very strange that the reading of the day, as part of morning prayer, was the famous (and infamous) passage in Matthew when Jesus says that the entire law must be kept, that the one who does not keep it and teaches others not to keep it is least in the kingdom. That is a very troubling passage for me; I believe it is unique to Matthew, and the church has surely disregarded it, except maybe the Matthean community (and the odds of Matthew being written by an actual eyewitness I feel are slim). Whatever that means, it stands in contrast to things Jesus says elsewhere in that gospel and the others, at least as Matthew has redacted it. And it surely stands in contrast to Paul. I do not mean to get off the main issue, but I feel I did God's work, was a small part of it, this weekend. If we are wrong then we have erred on the side of grace, and over committed sex with a lover, surely one of the least harmful things I can imagine.
After the motion passed, I was very impressed, moved, by the sense of family that remained in that room. Several delegates from another parish were at my table, all voted against passage, yet afterwards acted as if nothing happened; they were very warm towards me, even after my vocal position! It was remarkable.
And this entire thing has me thinking again......Deacon school? Seminary and priesthood? Something, surely. What a feeling to be a part of the work that the the diocese does. Their outreach to the poor, the hungry, the ill and mentally ill is astounding. And the sense of community there was so great! I know I have things to work out for myself and my own faith, but I cannot understate how powerful this weekend was for me. I would go again in a flash.
It is one thing to know I gave a good lecture, on rare days a great lecture, in a writing or literature course. But to use my speech for God's kingdom, to incorporate the outcast...that is truly something. I have so much to sort out (like the passage in Matthew!) but right now I am just basking in the beauty of being a small part of something so lovely. Of seeing so many small pieces fall into place, and such an important, even historic, issue proceed.
Well, I must run. Sincere love to all, and thanks to A for posting below, truly. That kind of honesty is where this blog began....it sustains me still.
What a weekend.
Each year my church elects delegates to Diocesan Convention at the annual meeting. I have never considered running as it involves a weekend several hours from my home, and because I really didn't know what happens there. Somehow, this year, I suppose because I had been senior warden twice, I was nominated, said sure, and won one of the three delegate spots. It's never that competitive; a bit of good natured cajoling usually occurs. I never have had the sense anyone was that passionate about attending.
The annual meeting is in January, and in truth I forgot all about Convention until my rector handed me the info about a month ago. I put off making my hotel reservation (if you can call where we stayed a hotel) and ended up having a buddy who was gong get the room and sharing it with him. I had very neutral expectations.
I did not know what the resolutions would be until Friday afternoon. But I had a good week spiritually (in my own way) listening to LT Johson's lecture series on Paul, beginning to blog again, attending church. How much Johnson prepared me for what was coming this weekend I did not know until Saturday, but let me say: one of the resolutions involved the blessing of same sex unions. Our Bishop has already said he will not sanction any such blessings unless General Convention approves them when they meet again in 09. All this measure was asking was that we vote to ask General Convention to develop rites for same sex blessings. Meaning, it is a request that we be allowed, under the direction of the National Church, to hold them. It was not a vote to begin holding them. According to hearsay anyway, such a motion had been presented to the motions committee, but as the Bishop reaffirmed his unwillingness to allow same sex rites without consent of the Deputies at General, the motion was rewritten, or removed, in favor of what we voted on Saturday. Even though it was a conservative request in one sense, there was no doubt that it was still very radical and contentious. My diocese is large and there are many mixed feelings on this issue. A few churches have tried to leave the Diocese over this already as our previous bishop voted to affirm Gene Roinson's election by his diocese. Well, one that I know of. I do believe a few churches, and certainly a number of individuals, have requested no money go to the Diocese from their parishes or persons in the wake of that vote. Overall, though, the discussion has been open, honest, and good.
This Saturday was no exception. I was amazed that over 300 people could discuss the issue with passion, from both sides, and treat each other well during and after the debate. But debate we did. It was a remarkable time. The motion was almost tabled until next year; that vote came so close the tellers had to hand count the for and against. But I remember the proposer of the initiative quoting Martin Luther King in the hall: "if not now, when; if not us, who?" It was very moving.
I had decided at lunch I wished to speak myself. There were several microphones, and I got in line early with a few notes on a sheet of paper. But with many, many strong feelings.
I used to condemn homosexuality as a neurotic aberration; I certainly opposed gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. I was a Baptist literalist, after all, and didn't know any gay people. Or the ones I did know in the church were guilt consumed. My views changed very slowly, very slowly. At first from knowing a lesbian couple in southern california....hearing their story of walking down a street at night, unclasping hands as they walked into the streetlight light, then retaking them as they moved into the darkness between. Then I began reflecting on the issue on this blog and reading ohers who were doing likewise. For me, though I have held to an imperfect Bible in theory since my (re)conversion in 00, the deep seated myth of the God-written book has lifted very slowly for me. Not as the result of any abstract theological discussion, but as a result of actually reading the (almost) entire thing. I am well aware of the verses in Romans, Leviticus, and elsewhere in the NT. I am also aware of the verse in Deuteronomy (or Lev....no time to look it up) where the illegimiate child is excluded form the Sanctuary for several generations. LTJ put things together very nicely for me in his series on Paul and the Gospels; I listened to the latter a couple of years ago. Still, I know the verses, I realize the import of this issue, I understand the pressure on the Anglican Communion. I did not approach my time at the mic lightly.
Yet, with an utterly clear conscience, I argued fully, passionately, and with all I could must (in 120 seconds) in favor of the resolution. I admit I am quite glad we have no comment from Jesus on this issue (any attempt to show we do is painfully forced in my view) and I find it quite easy to see Paul's writings, while deeply valuable, as quite human. Paul never addresses this issue except in asides anyway. Those he describes in Romans 1 are somehow gay, and otherwise deeply messed up, a a result of their idolatry. It strikes me as odd that some see the pressure to perform same sex unions as a symptom of our age, our zeitgheist, but think everything Paul wrote which has survived somehow transcends his own.
I told my own story. Jesus, rather clearly, forbids remarriage in the synpotics, or so it seems, yet when my girlfriend and i walked into an Episcopal church merely because it was cute on the outside we were warmly welcomed. My divorce was discussed, yes, but not in great depth (of course, the story is rather dramatic....but I did have a girlfriend during my separation, even if I was pushed into that). The fact that that church wanted to see us spiritually supported and nurtured, that it was the only one we visited that did want that, rather than just to make a few hundred bucks off the ceremony, was what got S and I attending church after both of us being long away. It led to us joining a parish in Nor Cal, attending Alpha Class, was part of what led to my reconversion, and the rest, well, is personal history. All the ministry I have done since or will do in the future is in part a result of the church's willingness to marry us though I was divorced and we were living together already. The heteros learned a few decades ago to cut themselves some slack....
And then I talked about King's letter from jail, his definition, drawn from Aquinas I believe, that a just law is one which uplifts human personality. I talked about loving gay couples I have known, about how a public blessing allows them to have the same support structure, even accounability, around their families I enjoy around mine. I was very scared, and said so; it was my first convention, I was fifty feet from the Bishop and in a hall with three or four hundred people. No one else from my parish spoke. But I will tell you: the entire blog has been worth it, it all has been worth it, for the little part I played. Many others spoke also, of course. But when the motion to postpone failed, and the motion to affirm the resolution passed, when the gay couples present began hugging those who supported the resolution....I say again, it was all worth it.
We too easily forget what Paul set aside when he insisted that Gentile converts did not need to conform to the law. Had they converted to Judaism, circumcision would have been required as I understand the times. But Paul, that deep student of Torah, set aside Torah in favor of a different law entirely, the law of love. It was very strange that the reading of the day, as part of morning prayer, was the famous (and infamous) passage in Matthew when Jesus says that the entire law must be kept, that the one who does not keep it and teaches others not to keep it is least in the kingdom. That is a very troubling passage for me; I believe it is unique to Matthew, and the church has surely disregarded it, except maybe the Matthean community (and the odds of Matthew being written by an actual eyewitness I feel are slim). Whatever that means, it stands in contrast to things Jesus says elsewhere in that gospel and the others, at least as Matthew has redacted it. And it surely stands in contrast to Paul. I do not mean to get off the main issue, but I feel I did God's work, was a small part of it, this weekend. If we are wrong then we have erred on the side of grace, and over committed sex with a lover, surely one of the least harmful things I can imagine.
After the motion passed, I was very impressed, moved, by the sense of family that remained in that room. Several delegates from another parish were at my table, all voted against passage, yet afterwards acted as if nothing happened; they were very warm towards me, even after my vocal position! It was remarkable.
And this entire thing has me thinking again......Deacon school? Seminary and priesthood? Something, surely. What a feeling to be a part of the work that the the diocese does. Their outreach to the poor, the hungry, the ill and mentally ill is astounding. And the sense of community there was so great! I know I have things to work out for myself and my own faith, but I cannot understate how powerful this weekend was for me. I would go again in a flash.
It is one thing to know I gave a good lecture, on rare days a great lecture, in a writing or literature course. But to use my speech for God's kingdom, to incorporate the outcast...that is truly something. I have so much to sort out (like the passage in Matthew!) but right now I am just basking in the beauty of being a small part of something so lovely. Of seeing so many small pieces fall into place, and such an important, even historic, issue proceed.
Well, I must run. Sincere love to all, and thanks to A for posting below, truly. That kind of honesty is where this blog began....it sustains me still.
Comments