Did I speak too soon?

[dsdrane]

I'm certainly willing to give ++Jefferts Schori the benefit of the doubt for the very near future. However, there is only one morally respectable outcome to all of this, and she knows it.

I'm all for trying to bring along as many "new converts" as possible, but not on the backs -- timewise -- of GLBT folks who are already members of the Episcopal Church.

I also understand that reasonable people can disagree, at least about various paths and speed. A good friend of mine is a liberal Anglican now in Hong Kong. Raised in England and a cradle Anglican, he's just about as gay friendly as a straight boy can be. That said, he advocates keeping the AC together, to trust the process, and hang tight. In his words, "you've been waiting since Adam" so what's a little while longer?

At first, I was appalled that my friend wrote something like that to me, because, in fact, the converse argument is true: BECAUSE we've been waiting since Adam, it is outrageous to be asked to wait one minute more. But, to his mind, the end justifies the means, and I know the end he seeks is full recognition and participation by GLBT Anglicans worldwide. He pointed to the Anglican role in ending slavery and aparteid, all of which I see and understand. He sees an AC that is one day fully inclusive, and he would like the American Church to still be a part of it when that day comes. That is an honorable position in my view.

What he does not understand is that the train has already left the station. Full participation is not a theory in the US; it is now fact and cannot be undone. The deviation (if you'll pardon the word) has already occurred -- not unlike the polygamy deviation already allowed in some of the very same African countries now leading the charge against gays, a deviation also unpalatable to many but tolerated in the tradition of a decentralized AC.

++Jefforts Schori has the unenviable task of trying to stay upright while the plates of AC tectonics realign and grind to a halt (until the next issue comes along). But, ultimately, there is nothing for her to do or say; our Church has already spoken. The ball is firmly in the AC's camp and in the camps of the various parishes flirting with abandoning their traditional dioceses. To move forward together is their choice, not ours.

[Daniel]

David- you indeed may be right considering that her usage of 'this' church rather than 'the church' may imply that she is talking about 'the' church on this side of the Atlantic. That's one way to see it, but this doesn't account take into account that she is taking the tack that those who are sitting in the back of the are being told to sit there a good deal longer.

This is the worst kind of co-dependent thinking. Those who are gay in 'this church' are being told they should put up with the beating a little while longer until the forces that are beating on them get a little more comfortable with the fact that they are beating.

Voluntary suffering- as in taking on the suffering of another person- is one thing. That is something I can understand. But we are not talking about voluntary suffering here. We are talking about African Bishops who- in their own countries like Nigeria- are behind the most dracocian of anti-gay laws. Gay Episcopalians are fooling themselves if they think those on the far right can be molified (and I very much doubt many think this actually). They cannot. The fact is that those who see no room for differences - those on the far right that is- will not make room for them.

Those who are happy to sit in the back of the bus a while longer are free to do so, but I will not be among them.

And guess what? I never expected Schori to really stand up for us. That's not her job. That's ours. It would be nice if she took a stronger stand, but it's evident she will not. Again- it looks as though she is trying to control and redirect forces that she cannot- properly speaking- deal with. This is not a comment on her as a person, but on the nature of the dynamic.

[dsdrane]

++KJS's job, when taken to task by the AC, is to stand up for what the Church she represents is doing and has done.

There is nothing to debate, defend, explain, or justify; there is only what is.

[dsdrane]

I did speak too soon:

http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/e...sion_stan.html

[andrewlittle]

I was born, baptized and initially raised Anglican. I am now Presbyterian (talk about jumping from the pan into the fire, eh.) My prayers are with yours, that collectively the Episcopal Church has the spine to do what is right in the sight of God, not just expedient in the sight of the organizational structure.

Ultimately, while ++KJS's job is critical, it is up to the episcopy at large to make the decisions, is it not?

[dsdrane]

I find it sadly ironic in the extreme that just as ++Katharine is, whatever her good intentions, trying to sway the American Church to "cool our jets" for the sake of Anglican unity, the Nigerian Church happily and enthuiastically supports -- as Daniel pointed out earlier -- and, dare I say, is orchestrating the passage of a bill in Nigeria that essentially outlaws homosexuality in that country.

I don't think it is hyperbole to forecast that gay people will die directly as a result of such a law (over and above those who no doubt already have in such a hostile climate), and, when they do, the AC will have blood on its hands.

This is the group we're so desparate to appease???

[suzer1013]

I've been following the blogs and news to the point I am ready to throw my computer out the window! But, before I do that, let me share with you an excellent article from the L.A. Times on this very subject (see below).

Susan
___________________

A DIVORCE THE CHURCH SHOULD SMILE UPON

By JACK MILES
Published: March 1, 2007
Los Angeles

THE decision of the global Anglican Communion to threaten the Episcopal Church, its American affiliate, with expulsion is about much more than the headline issue of homosexuality. Yes, the impending divorce has been precipitated by the decision of the Episcopal Church to consecrate a gay bishop and to allow individual congregations to decide whether or not to allow gay marriages. But as so often in religious history, the deeper issue is one of church governance. In effect, the Episcopalians left the Church of England more than two centuries ago.

The problem dates back to the time of the American Revolution, when the Church of England in America was just what that name says: it was the Church of England, merely in America. Since the 16th century, when King Henry VIII made himself, in effect, the pope of England, the English king had been the supreme church authority. Time had somewhat eroded this authority by 1776, thanks in part to the Puritan revolution in the mid-17th century. Nonetheless, the authority structure within the church remained officially monarchical.

So it was no surprise that after the newborn United States broke with the crown in the political realm, the Church of England in the United States did so in the religious realm as well, establishing a democratic form of self-governance under a “presiding bishop,” whose title echoed that of the chief executive of the new nation. The name the new church adopted — from episkopos, the ancient Greek word for bishop — signaled that its governance would be neither by pope nor by king but, as in early Christianity, by elected bishops.

British colonial history did not end in 1776, of course. As the British Empire grew, the Church of England went wherever the crown went, evolving in the process into a religious multinational, called the Anglican Communion, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised a global spiritual jurisdiction. Structurally, however, the Episcopal Church, though long since reconciled with Britain, remained uneasy under this arrangement.

Why? Because the deepest rationale for the creation of the Church of England had been that church governance through separate national churches better reflected the practice of the early church than did papal governance. During its first centuries, Christianity had governed itself as separate but equal dioceses or administrative units, each coinciding with a great capital city, each headed by a bishop; the pope, at that time, was merely the bishop of Rome.

Thus, the same logic that dictated the initial creation of the Church of England dictated that, once the United States had become a separate nation, it ought not to belong any longer to the Church of England nor to the Anglican Communion as a colonial extension.

For sentimental reasons, including now fading American Anglophilia, Episcopalians and Anglicans alike tended to mute this logic. However, under the improbable stimulus of a dispute over homosexuals, the logic may be about to assert itself, with consequences that may be larger for the Anglican Communion, and in particular for the Archbishop of Canterbury, than for the Episcopal Church itself.

Numerically, the 2.3 million Episcopalians do not loom large among 77 million Anglicans. Symbolically, however, given the global importance of the United States, the departure of the Americans will leave the archbishop exposed as a quasi-colonial, quasi-papal figurehead heading a church made up, anachronistically, of Britain and her mostly African and Asian former colonies. This will be an awkward state of affairs, and portends further fissures along the same logic that underlies the impending departure of the Americans.

There is, finally, a quintessentially 21st-century implication to this quite likely split. A solid majority of American Episcopalians supports their church’s stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. A minority disagrees, and some of these members have even sought to pull out their congregations from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with one of the Anglican churches in Africa that have been most vehemently opposed to the Episcopalians’ decisions on homosexuality.

The flip side of such threats is that, along the same lines, any British or Canadian or Australian congregations that wished to disaffiliate from their local forms of Anglicanism might well affiliate with the Episcopal Church. In fact, a few have already signaled their readiness, though in the hope of preserving Anglican unity the Episcopal Church has not encouraged them.

I pass over, for the moment, the many legal complications involved in such rearrangements, the surrendering of church property that is entailed and so forth. The broader point is that communications technology makes new forms of church organization possible, and geographically distant congregations can easily join together. Rather than voting with your feet, you may now vote with your mouse, perhaps the most amicable form of religious divorce.

A generation from now, when we look back on the breakup of the Anglican Communion and on the status of homosexuals within the churches of the world, what may we expect to see? An old proverb holds that “God writes straight with crooked lines,” and at this juncture, the Author of Liberty, as a venerable American hymn names him, seems to have taken pen in hand.

Jack Miles is a senior fellow for religious affairs with the Pacific Council on International Policy and a scholar in residence with the Getty Research Institute.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by keltic63

perhaps this isn't quite as important to you as it is to the rest of us.

You're right Steve. I'll just sit back and listen while the real gay people figure this one out.

[BruceChris]

I have heard that KJS' is especially noted for her abilities as a reconciler, a negotiator, an arrainger of compromises, and a soother of rampant egos. (Maybe WE should hire her)

Anyone here who believes that Anger Management is something that John Bolton is to be complimented for in his use on his subordinates, and not a dicipline for practicing on one's self, please see me after.

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and give her, and the rest of the Episcopalians the benefit of the doubt for the next few months, until the drop dead date. (She may have some idea that something can still be done to prevent the deaths of a number of Nigerian gays.)

And as Suzer has just pointed out, schiziming from the Anglican Communion need not be a bad thing, and would allow a more clear exposure of the corruption in the leadership on the other side of the water.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[suzer1013]

Another excellent piece below.

I can't say I agree with Spong on everything, but this one, IMO, is spot on.

Susan

_________________

"Church Should Repent, Not Gays"
by John Shelby Spong


Why would I form my belief about gay unions and gay clergy from my faith?

That is not where one goes for the knowledge that is the catalyst for destroying prejudice.

Historically my faith has taught that sex was evil, that celibacy was the higher path of virtue, that marriage was a compromise with sin, that slavery was a legitimate human institution and that women were created to be second class citizens.

Some have tried to use the old “separate but equal” argument, but it did not work in segregationist America and it will not work for religious systems trying to justify their patriarchal sexism. With that kind of a track record why would anybody go to their faith tradition to inform their attitudes toward homosexuality?

Is the Bible’s presumed condemnation of homosexuality more virtuous or lasting than its commitment to polygamy, slavery or the hatred that God was portrayed as expressing for other religious traditions than that of the chosen people?

The revolution in attitudes toward homosexual people in our generation has been fueled by the recognition that sexual orientation is neither a sickness that needs to be cured, nor a choice that needs to be challenged. It is also not a sin for which repentance is required.

Homosexuality is one of the givens in the world of human experience. We are born with different hues of skin. We are born male and female, left-handed, right-handed, gay and straight. Acceptance of the givens in life is the first step into wholeness.

The attempt in the name of religion to impose ancient and dying prejudices on any segment of the population is a sinful act. Many in the Christian Church at the highest levels of ecclesiastical leadership are today guilty of that sin.

The repentance needed is not the repentance of homosexual people who are increasingly self-accepting people; the repentance that is needed must come from religious leaders and religious people whose ignorance on this subject has led the Christian Church to act toward gay and lesbian people in a way that violates everything that Christianity has ever taught.

Minds, even religious minds, will change. The alternative is that these minds will die and the minds of the next generation will change. Either way, however, religious homophobia is doomed.


Posted by John Shelby Spong on March 1, 2007 8:20 AM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o..._not_gays.html

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by u-dog

You're right Steve. I'll just sit back and listen while the real gay people figure this one out.

David- Let's cut to chase here Ok? You are someone who in in the closet, right? You haven't experienced the freedom that comes with not being in the closet. You have your own particular journey. I - and no one else here- will fault you for your choices in the matter. We have 'been there' for you every step of the way. And will be, you can count on that. But I wish to point out that your criticisms - at times- come across as moralizing to those who have been too often dictated to in the past. Those of us who have slogged through the journey in gaining our freedom - in whatever measure we have it- will not give it up for just anyone- especially when it has not been demonstrated that doing so is our - or anyone's- best interest.

I am more concerned about your happiness that your being right about this matter.

BruceChris- I wish I could hope with you that ++Schori has something up her sleeve, but this strikes me as wishful thinking and not an objective analysis of the situation.

Suzer- thank you for the articles. They are in very insightful to say the least. I like, especially, the historical perspective. And Spong, like always, is way ahead of the curve. I love the man.

[u-dog]

earlier today I expressed the opinion that the Presiding Bishop should be "cut some slack" -- that is to say "given some room to maneuver" she is piloting a big ship through a coral reef and there is a riot going among the crew and passengers and the wheelhouse is on fire. I beleive she knows which port she wants to get to, but that she would like to get there with the passengers in tact and without ripping the bottom out of the ship in the process. Personally, I don't think she can do it, but it is her calling to try. I don't believe that just because she hasn't slapped a third of the passengers and crew in irons that she is a traitor to the cause.

Steve's response was to suggest that perhaps I don't care about the cause as much as others. That struck me as an "ad hominem" (against the man) argument that completely ignored the content of my post. To me, it seemed to suggest that because of the choices that I have made in my life that I was less entitled to an opinion than others -- that there is a hierarchy operative here of which I was unaware. In my momentary anger, I fired off a smart ass response in which I offered to sit down and shut up like a good little boy. I wish I had not. I am always sorry when I do that.

If I misjudged Steve's intent, I apologize.

Dave

[suzer1013]

Perhaps we ALL need to be a bit more gentle with each other?

When our defenses are up because of events going on in the world, especially anti-gay stuff that make us all a bit sensitive anyway, it's all too easy and all too human to start sniping at each other. I saw this on a blog recently (in fact, I think it is one I recommended in another thread), and the priest running the blog basically has left for Lent - he is silent until he figures out what to do with the anger and frustration of everyone involved.

I try to remind myself that this is EXACTLY what those who would oppose our equality would want. What better than to have the GLBT community fractured and fighting within itself, than presenting a united front?

So, much peace and love goes out to everyone here. I love y'all. In the closet, out of the closet, waaaayyyy out of the closet, where the hell is the closet, diving back into the closet, who the hell's closet is this -- wherever we are at this point in time, it's o.k. Focus on Love, ok?

Now, we've got tornadoes headed our way, so we're in for a bumpy night (let's hope not!). Peace out, ya'll....

Susan

[Daniel]

I've been serving on the negotiating committee for a new contract where I work. It is the second time I have done so. We've been at it for 9 months now. It's interesting to see how people react when the situation gets stressful toward the end of negotiations- which is where we are now. Some people can't deal with the heat that the interaction brings- and get very emotional. Other people get very rational. One person- this week in fact- bailed out completely. It seems that whatever core issues are at stake for each person become activated. Everyone's coping mechanisms come into play big time.

The crisis in the Episcopal Church seems to be evoking the same kind of dynamic. Whatever hasn't been dealt with is bound to get shaken up. Speaking personally, I choose to see this as encouragement to expand and grow- rather than contract and cower in the dark- hoping against hope that what is probably going to happen will not happen.

Am I rooting for a schism? No. But I'm not fooling myself that it's not going to happen either.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Steve's response was to suggest that perhaps I don't care about the cause as much as others. That struck me as an "ad hominem" (against the man) argument that completely ignored the content of my post. To me, it seemed to suggest that because of the choices that I have made in my life that I was less entitled to an opinion than others -- that there is a hierarchy operative here of which I was unaware. In my momentary anger, I fired off a smart ass response in which I offered to sit down and shut up like a good little boy. I wish I had not. I am always sorry when I do that.

If I misjudged Steve's intent, I apologize.

Dave

Your call to cut her some slack felt like a public reprimand, which I have sensed coming from you more than once. In that context, I felt the content of my post, my concern that Schorri may be selling us out, was ignored by you. As Daniel has pointed out, you are still in the closet, which we all have supported here; I've expressed my support to you myself. It has nothing to do with who is gay, or the real gay. It seems that you have less to lose and more patience with Schorri because you are in the closet. You still have all the benefits of being straight. I feel like you're asking us to sit down and shut up. If you felt like you were being silenced, I'm sorry for that; at the same time, I felt like my opinion was being censored by you.

[BruceChris]

Each side seems to be taking the other's defense of self as as attack on them. Or almost.

I am writing this in response to your criticism of u-dog. I believe pretty much the same as he does, re bishop KJS, and I have done my best to say so. It is possible to win the battle, and lose the war, or vice versa.

I know that it is not pleasant to be stuck, halfway to your goal, feel it to be very painful, and see your glass as half full. The fact that I do not catch hell for saying essentially the same thing makes me wonder If I'm losing my touch.

I am sure that my being a nominally straight member of a gay church, here in Minneapolis makes my life a lot easier than most.

The line between disagreement and disrespect can at times be a fine one. I would like to again point out that the bishop's reputation is built on being able to negotiate, work between the lines, and sooth sensitive egos, and her opponents have given her 7 months, to do just that. My money is still on the lady. $Bets, anyone?

And that if she does decide to pull the plug on the Anglicans, it will not be until the very end, but that she Will do it

And, I might further ask, just what is it that, say, Ghandi would do, that she is not doing? -- If you guys are going to throw rocks at Andrew, I want MY share, too!

Peace, Love, and Forgiveness, Bruce Chris

[andrewlittle]

I may be an idiot. But I happen to like you guys a lot, and hate to see you contend with each other. So, at the risk of treading on everyone's toes, I'm jumping. (Ooh - the water's quite warm. Did someone pee in the pool?)

Sensitivities seem to be at play here - as well as, I think, an authentic and heartfelt effort to be pastoral.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Dave (u-dog) recognized that emotions and doubts were running high, and that all expectations seemed to be piled onto ++KJS's back. Sometimes, being pastoral means calling people back to a central place - to consider the larger picture - to try to see through the eyes of the one we have a probem with.

I think Dave's language may have set teeth on edge. BUT, as I read (and re-read) the post, I see the same kind of direct, honest language I have become used to seeing when you guys interact with each other. No fluff, no muss - but said with, what appears to me, the respect and love and honesty I have seen before. It read it as an attempt to relieve immediate tension and doubt, by reframing the bigger picture. This is sometimes dangerous when emotions are high, as Dave is no doubt fully aware - it goes with his vocational territory.

When I first read Steve's one sentence response, I thought to myself, "He knows Dave isn't ECUSA." It was short, but rife with emotion. I figured it was because of denominational difference, which may, of course, reveal how dense I am. I have also come to learn that Steve says in very few words what it takes me paragraphs to say. Very few of his posts are long, but many are packed full of good stuff, anyway. This one, on rereading it in light of sensitivities, may have been a tad too brief.

I do think Steve's response showed a high degree of emotion, as many other's understandably do in this thread. The issue is viewed as critical, urgent and immediate. I can see how Steve may have thought that Dave was being dismissive - although, I do not think that was what Dave was doing - but I can see how his response could be construed that way. Daniel's response showed the same kind of emotion, as did Dave's (dsdrane) and others, but spelled out in a clear way why the issue is critical to him.

I then think other sensitivities stepped into play. Dave (u-dog) inferred that Steve was dismissing his thoughts because of his choice to remain in an opposite-gender marriage. I'm not sure this would have been Dave's inference had it not been for another very recent, very raw series of posts dealing with one person's attitude that "heterosexually married homosexuals" shouldn't call themselves gay. I think, for what its worth, that this exchange was tainted by the opinions of another - one who lacks sensitivity, humility, tact and grace.

In that other thread, Steve had taken that poster to task - quite viscerally, I might add - for his remarks. But the stage was set, I am afraid, for Dave to believe that Steve's issue was his life choices - not the level of anxiety and sense of urgency Steve felt over the ECUSA situation. Dave then made the remark which he later said he regretted. The rest of the exchange moves along that path, which I happen to believe is not the path that was meant.

This misunderstanding, I think, has been the result of the "well being poisoned", so to speak. In a public forum, opinions sometimes get shared that the vaste majority of the members disavow and object to. But, the heinous nature of those kinds of posts is that they seep into other exchanges - raising sensitivities and emotions in subtle and harmful ways. There's not much that can be done about that, other to communicate.

Dave (u-dog) was the first to bring up (in this post) the issue of life choice with his "let the real gays figure this out" reference. It shows a high degree of hurt and sensitivity to that particular issue that arises, I believe, not from Steve's post but from the other one. Standing back, I have difficulty seeing that Steve would have issue with that, especially considering his visceral defense on the other thread.

From there, however, Pandora's box is open. The hurt is tangible in many of the remaining posts and nothing but open conversation is going to close the f$#%%^g lid that someone else opened. I pray that you all will take the time and effort to do so - I happen to love you all, and hate to see the words of someone else infect relationships.

If nothing else - perhaps I can represent a common point to which all can direct their hurt and anger and dismay. Come on, get pissed off at me - and love each other.

[u-dog]

The line between disagreement and disrespect can at times be a fine one.

Keltic,

I Disagree with your opinion of Schorri I don't disrespect you for having it. As BruceChris points out she has 7 months to do her magic. I don't know whether she can do what she must try to do or not -- I suspect not. I don't KNOW whether she will sell out GLBT people when all is said and done or not. I don't think its fair to make that judgement NOW. That's all I said. Where your feeling of censorship and being judged came from... I don't know. Where your idea that I believe gay people should sit down and shut up and wait patiently in the back of the bus came from... I don't know.

I do not now and never have felt judgemental or censorial towards you or your opinions even when I disagree with them. I will try to answer your posts with more care and attention in the future in order to avoid giving that impression.

Andy: Thanks! I take it all back. You might make a half way decent pastor after all.

[Daniel]

It's been mentioned twice here on these pages that Schori has '7 months to do her magic' with the intimation that this is a self-assigned task- as well as a mandate from abroad. Her vision of leadership is one thing- having to jump through a bunch of hoops set for her by homophobic bishops is another.

Cut her slack? From one point of view, you could say that she put the rope around her own neck and is getting ready to jump.

I do not envy her for one minute.

[nmwolfboy]

i gotta second u-dog's perspective on ++KJS in his first post. And yes, this is REALLY important to me, as an Episcopalian in a diocese led by a Bishop who characterizes himself as a 'Windsor' Bishop.

Of course, i'm also very blessed to be part of an extremely welcoming & affirming parish within this conservative diocese.

In the whole Anglican Communion brouhaha, it's the Nigerian glbt Anglicans i'm most worried about right now. The Church of Nigeria seems bent upon creating new martyrs by supporting the hateful new Nigerian legislation, and Rowan Cantaur just maintains his silence instead of speaking out in condemnation of ++Akinola's actions.

As to ++Katharine - i may regret sticking my neck out here with a perspective that runs counter to the expressions of my brother & sister glbt Anglicans, but here's my blogpost response to her webcast earlier this week.

Sorry for the Episco-speak.