Golden Thread

Changes

2011-06-10T08:59:00.000-07:00

If anyone out there has been following these sporadic posts over the months and years, they may note that I have changed the name and discription. I had already changed the purpose/description in my disclaimer on the side. The name change refers to how I understand the Source of all that is.

I have started reading J. Philip Newell's "Echo of the Soul." In his introduction he writes:

" ... the analogy of royal garments woven throughwith gold. If the golden thread were to be ripped out of the clothing the whole garment would unravel. So it is with the image of God woven into the mystery of our being. If somehow it were to be extracted we would cease to exist. The image of God is not simply a characteristic of our humanity. It is the essence of our being ..."

Someone, in an interview for position of incumbent, once asked - you talk about God alot. Who is God to you. I simply replied - the Source of all that is - without God there is nothing. I still firmly believe that. It is understanding what that means in my personal faith life and in my life as a priest with which I struggle. Often the conflict comes between what I intuitively feel/believe and what those around me put forth as tradition/doctrine. In spite of my struggles, I hold unto the Golden Thread. Or maybe it is holding onto the Golden Thread that keeps me going forward through all my struggles - keeps me in my faith and in my church.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Reflection - Part 6

2011-06-08T13:13:00.000-07:00

We carry baggage today because we have not seen the Gospels through the lens of the earlier Hebrew writings, the traditions and understandings of which they came out, but rather through the lens of a community or communities struggling to define themselves as separate from the world. These communities may have shared a past with the traditions that formed Jesus but they did not share a future with them. They firmly believed the times were going to end. Their focus was not on bringing radical change to a world but rather to keep themselves for the end of the world. This is contrary to what Jesus preached.

It may well have been that Jesus did believe the end would come shortly after his death and resurrection. But it did not stop Jesus from reaching into the world and meeting people where they were rather than requiring people to jump through hoops to come to him. Once again Diarmaid MacCulloch writes:
Still, Jesus was a Jew immersed in the traditions that constituted the identity of his fellow Jews. He is recorded as taking a cavalier attitude to the Jewish Law or obeying its demands in ways that seem capricious, which caused anxious debate for generations about how far Christians
should imitate him, and which are still puzzling after much very sophisticated modern analysis of the mixture. Maybe the answer is that Jesus did not care a great deal about being consistent on the issue, given his concentration on the imminent coming of the kingdom, in which all laws would be made anew.

Or maybe it was the spirit of the law that Jesus followed rather than the letter – especially as it had been minutely defined by the various sects. Hence he healed on the Sabbath because his understanding that the spirit of the law was compassion and especially compassion for the vulnerable and those in need. Certainly the daughter of Abraham whom he healed was at no immediate risk but he saw her suffering and healed her so that she would not experience for even an instance longer – an example from which our medical system might benefit.

Maybe we as a church need to live in an end times mentality. There is no guaranteed tomorrow to complete our work, only today. If our work, based on the Gospels seen as a continuation of the prophetic tradition rather than solely through the lens of the Epistles, is to be working for the bringing in of the kingdom, as Jesus’ work was, then we need to act now to reach out and relieve the suffering around us. Not by waiting for those people to jump through the hoops and become one of us but by meeting them where they are and celebrating them for who they are – beloved children of God.

Instead of looking at a God that insists hoops be jumped through we could take the example of the father of the prodigal son – who seeing his wayward son approaching in the distance ran to embrace him rather than waiting for him to go through requirements and grovelling. We tend to be more like the other son – wanting some sort of requirements or accountability before the wayward son is accepted back into the fold.

Maybe we should look at the example of Jesus who, although he met people in the synagogue, went out into the highways and byways like the man with the wedding banquet and gathered people in to share in the meal – people who had not jumped through hoops or met requirements. The only qualification was that they existed and were invited – and all that were met were invited.

So at the beginning I said I might reach some conclusion. Typically, for me, I have not. So be it. The thoughts are there for further pondering. But for now, I have a vestry agenda to plan and a funeral service to put together. I may find time to reflect later on. Who knows.

Reflections - Part 5

2011-06-08T13:09:00.000-07:00

So I guess Paul does have a lot to teach about being church in today’s context. By learning how to live in community we also to grow to a greater understanding of what that means. It can help us reach out into the communities around us.

Diarmaid MacCulloch writes:
The separate inspiration of much of Paul’s message … was bound to bring tensions with the Jerusalem leadership … At stake was an issue which would trouble Christ-followers for 150 years: how far should they move
from Jewish tradition if, like Paul, they preached the good news of Christ’s
kingdom to non-Jews? Questions of deep symbolism arose: should converts accept such features of Jewish life as circumcision, strict adherence to the Law of Moses and abstention from food defiled by association with pagan worship …? Paul would allow only that Christians should not eat food which they knew had been publically offered to idols, and otherwise not make much of a fuss about wares on sale in the market or about dishes at a non-believer’s table.

I wonder what impact following Paul’s lead would have on the practice of open communion that seems to be in controversy today – especially after the statement from the Canadian House of Bishops. It is all fine and dandy to say that we don’t have to ask whether or not a person is baptized when they come to the rail for communion. That is the equivalent of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It does not provide consistency. Basically it says that we can practice open communion as long as we don’t do it knowingly. But as soon as we become aware we are not to practice it. So what happens then if I give someone communion on a regular basis and then find out they are not baptized. Of course, I would speak to them about baptism but am I to quit giving them communion when they have already received. Seems I am shutting the barn door after the horse got out. On second thought, maybe our bishops are following Paul’s example. Don’t eat the meat offered to idols but if you don’t ask and don’t know – it is okay.

It seems to me that if we follow Jesus’ example we would practice the meal as open to everyone. I am not aware of any place in the Gospels where Jesus insisted people be baptized in order to share the meal with him. There are no indications in the words of institution in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians or in the Gospels that the people who shared the last supper had to be baptized. It may well be that they all were as this was Jesus’ inner circle. But I am not even sure that baptism was a requirement for his community or whether it was later written in by his followers. We have no record of Jesus himself baptizing which seems strangely at odds with his commission that his disciples should go out and baptize the nations. Even the reading for Pentecost this year does not call on the disciples to baptize.

I am well aware that baptism as a requirement for full entry into the Church was a requirement very early on in the history of the Church. But I wonder if it wasn’t more an adaptation of the culture around it and maybe based on its Jewish roots. Circumcision was a requirement of the Jewish faith – an outward sign of belonging. The mystery religions of the time had an impact on the early Church and they had initiation rites.

I remember in seminary learning that the night before baptism the catechumens were given the secret. This secret was so secret that our professor had to finally tell us that it was the Apostles’ Creed as we couldn’t find any place that named it. It seems to me that Jesus, with his breaking down of barriers to a personal relationship with God, would not have put other barriers in place. I would, however, recognize a very human need to have some mark or rite of passage to belonging to the community.

Interestingly enough I recently researched the origin of the word “narthex.” Narthex is from a word referring to the giant fennel herb. I couldn’t, for the life of me, make a connection with the early church until I read that it was often used in initiation rites. Further research indicated that fire had been brought to earth in the hollowed out stem of this herb. Since fire was so significant to human development there is a connection with initiation. Early catechumens were made to stay in the Narthex for services until they were baptized. Some traditions had the doors being closed and locked before the reading of the Gospel. This would appear to be a very human requirement as I firmly believe Jesus would not have denied anyone the good news.

Reflections - Part 4

2011-06-08T12:58:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, we read Jesus and the Incarnation through the lens of the Epistles which is less of a ‘kingdom’ lens and more of a personal lens. So we, as a Church, tend to emphasize the difference Jesus and the Christian way makes in our individual lives. I have come to believe that this is one of the things that makes the Church more inward looking. We focus on the intellect (which is also a reflection of the influence of the societies in which the early Church struggled – intellect was part of the male and therefore superior. Experience, life lived in the messiness of the world was more the realm of the feminine and therefore inferior – a bit simplistic way of putting it, I realize.) I know a very dear woman with the heart of a deacon who constantly struggles with the structures of the church that see outreach as a pouring out of money rather than an engaging in the community around us. In this way, I very much feel my vows as a deacon – even though they were as a transitional deacon. I don’t see my vows as a priest changing the focus of my vows as a deacon but rather as a broadening.

We tend to hold ourselves distant from the struggles of the community around us. For St. George’s, and this is true of many churches, those struggles are separate from us because most of us do not live in the community in which our church is situated. Case in point being that although I serve in a core community, I live in a new suburb almost as far removed from the realities of my geographical parish as I can be.

Paul taught us well on how to live in Christian community. But Paul did not do much to teach how to continue Jesus’ incarnational ministry in the larger community context. Jesus did but we tend to follow Paul’s emphasis rather than Jesus'. Is it any wonder that we can’t get our congregations to look beyond themselves. For years we have taught through the lens of Paul’s writings. Even the call to discipleship in the Gospels is seen in that light.

And it might even be one of the reasons why so many people have cut their connections with the Church. They don’t see a continuity. The teachings and the call to the Christian life are not reflecting the reality in which they live. But this is not something we can blame Paul for. Paul, interestingly enough, was the one that reached outside the traditions of the church to be relevant to the larger community around him. (Did I mention that I live in a creative tension with Paul and his letters). It was actually the Jerusalem Church that wanted people to conform to the Jewish traditions ie. circumcision.

Reflections - Part 3

2011-06-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

I read the Gospels through the lens of the prophets. I do not see the prophets as pointing to the coming of Jesus. I see the Gospels using the prophets as a way of pointing out who Jesus was to those earliest Christian communities. I see the prophets as expanding on the purpose of the Law. People were not getting that God was about justice – not justice as we understand it today which is largely about avoiding sin and when we do sin we are punished for it. The justice we tend to practice today is largely retributive rather than restorative. This definitely reflects the Latin roots of the early church as the Hebrew roots were more about restoration – for example the idea of Jubilee.

Throughout the prophets – as harsh as they often appear – is the idea of justice with compassion. We can clearly see God’s agonizing over God’s beloved children and how they just don’t get it. The error of their ways often has to do with their disregard for the most vulnerable in society.

This is reflected in the Incarnation. Jesus continued the prophetic tradition. He was solidly rooted in the Law but based his following of the law on justice with compassion. We see echoes of the prophets in his agonizing over how people just don’t get it. I am solidly with the writer of John when he/she states that whoever has seen Jesus has seen God. Wow! What a wonderful God that is. When one looks at the Incarnation and the deep compassion that Jesus has for all that he meets – okay, maybe not always right away; the Syro-Phoenican woman being a case in point – one cannot help but understand what it means when he says that he comes to bring life and bring it abundantly.

Last Sunday, based on something David Lose said on Working Preacher.org, I preached on how we were called into the same intimate relationship with God that Jesus had. That relationship is not just based on belief but on participating. David Lose talks about the Ascension being the original Rapture and Left-Behind. Only in this case to be left behind was an honour and a privilege not a indication of imperfection. We are left behind to continue in Jesus work in the bringing in of the kingdom. Jesus tells us that we shall do even greater things than those which we see him doing. For Jesus it is not just about living our individual and corporate lives in a right manner – it is about working to bring about a change to all of creation – about restoring things to the original created state.

Reflections - Part 2

2011-06-08T12:45:00.000-07:00

One of my first discoveries after going through a year of BCP was that the readings are from the epistles and the gospels with the rare exception to prove the rule. Off hand I can remember one reading from Isaiah and I am too lazy to go back through and count the exceptions.

I had a time of fellowship with a couple of retired priests, one being my father. One of them made the comment that we tend to read the Gospels through the lens of the Epistles – especially Paul’s letters – rather than the Epistles through the lens of the Gospels.

I know that for a number of scholars the fact that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels speaks to them of the Epistles being closer to the teachings of the early church. But let us consider this. Paul, after his conversion took off to Arabia for three years. He did not go to the people closest to the source – Jesus. We are not sure what exactly he did for those three years. We also know that Paul was often on the outs with the disciples who experienced Jesus in the flesh. Paul did not spend a lot of time in Jerusalem, closest to the source, but was a Jew of the Diaspora. That coloured a lot of his thinking and the lens through which he saw Jesus. I am beginning to wonder if we can legitimately base our understandings of the early church and its understandings of Jesus based on Paul’s letters. Maybe James’ letter is actually a better lens (and I will admit to a bias for James’ letter).

Of course being of a more Protestant tradition – I grew up in a more evangelical Anglican congregation (although my father’s early mentors were more of a Anglo-Catholic background which makes my background an interesting mixture) – Paul’s letters very much influenced the theology with which I grew up – maybe not so much the theology I learned from my parents but definitely the theology of the Church around me. My background has always held me in a creative tension with those letters. The social justice – action in the world – keeps me closer to James (and let us remember the Paul had real issues with the Church in Jerusalem headed by James) but I worshipped in a world dominated by Paul. My colleague's comment about reading the Gospels through Paul’s letters made sense to me in my current challenges with the Church.

Part of the tension is the recognition that as much as I have problems with Paul, it is probably due to Paul’s reaching out to the Gentiles that Christianity eventually flourished. (or maybe I am doing God a dis-service. It may well have been that another vehicle would have been found and it would have been a different base on which Christianity flourished – who knows.)

Another of my more current understandings of Paul is that for Paul the end times were just around the corner. I am currently reading Diarmaid MacCaulloch’s Christianity The First Three Thousand Years. On page 114 he writes:
… Christianity was not usually going to make a radical challenge to existing
social distinctions. The was that Paul and his followers assumed that the
world was going to come to an end soon and so there was not much point
in trying to improve it by radical action.

… He made notably little reference in his letters to the ‘kingdom of God’, that concept of a radical turn to world history which had meant so much to Jesus and had accompanied his challenge to so many existing social conventions.

Paul only experienced Jesus in a personal revelation rather than in community and incarnation. He was very Jewish and it can appear that he fit his understandings of Jesus into that tradition. He did not benefit from travelling and listening to Jesus and having Jesus challenge his understandings as Jesus did for the disciples.

So we end up with a lens of focus on personal salvation with end times coming soon. Although, to be fair, one can see a dealing with the failure of the end times to come in Paul’s later letters. Sometimes, when I read the letters, I wonder if there is real continuity with the Gospels.

The Church became preoccupied with individual salvation. My colleague made another interesting point. Paul’s understanding of atonement was largely based on the Fall or original sin. We now understand those stories to be myths - attempts to understand how in a world created by God there can be so much wrong. Paul’s understanding was that Jesus’ main role was to bring about the return to our origins before the eating of the fruit. In the main, Paul’s emphasis was on living a life of personal rightness – not so much calling society to account.

I happen to believe that as well. But I see it more through the lens of the prophets. Somehow, something went wrong in creation. Probably it had a lot to do with humankind’s wilfulness. I see the law trying to set guidelines/rules about how to live in a manner that benefits all of creation. The Ten Commandments are very important in how to live individually within community but the Law is more than the Ten. It also looks at living as a community in a larger context.

I love the Summary of the Law in the BCP – ‘on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’ When saying morning prayer at the 10:30 service I almost always use the Hear, O Israel rather than the Apostles’ Creed. It places God at the centre but speaks to the fact that we can only have God placed at the centre when we live in right relationship with those around us. Paul does have some insights as to how to live that out in context of Christian community but maybe not so much on how to live and effect change in the context of living in and transforming the larger community around us.

My colleague suggested that we should actually be reading the Epistles through the lens of the Gospel rather than vice-versa. It makes sense to me. In that light, I can see how Paul enriches our understanding of living our faith incarnationally in our faith communities and in the larger communities around us.

Reflections - Part 1

2011-06-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

I make no claims to being a scholar. I try to keep up with some reading to continue my education. Usually I try to take a few hours a week in my field office (Mel’s Café) with a book. Some weeks I get no reading done as I spend a fair amount of time interacting with the regulars and building relationships with the community. I tend to be more of relational and experiential priest than an academic.

Being at St. George’s has been a challenge in a number of ways. I give thanks for Biggar as it helped me discover who I am as a priest and develop the skills and experiences for the ministry to which I have come believe God called me. Biggar helped me discover, St. George’s is helping me to grow more fully into that priest in the context of a Church that may not be quite ready for that type of ministry.

I have always struggled with Paul. My mother and I would get on a rant about Paul and my father would just shake his head at us and call us heretics. But both of them brought me to read the Gospels through the lens of social justice and the prophetic tradition. Because Dad was my priest for the first 20 years of my life I didn’t even realize that there might be different lens until I was about 18 and out in the world a little more.

While at St. George’s I am becoming re-acquainted with the BCP including the readings on any given Sunday. My early morning service on Sunday is the Service of Holy Communion out of the BCP. In keeping with that service I do use the lessons in the prayer book rather than the Revised Common Lectionary. It often means two different sermons on a Sunday morning which can be a challenge but I am discovering a few of my challenges are making more sense.

Given that a fair number of my congregation have gray hair, and usually they are the ones that are most hesitant to change, becoming reacquainted with our traditions through the BCP has been a real blessing as it is helping me to better understand where they come from. Granted St. George’s uses the Book of Alternative Services as its main resource for worship but most of the older members were formed by the BCP.

So where am I going with this meandering? I am trying to piece together in my mind some of the issues over resistance to reach out more consciously into our communities. So this will probably be the beginning of a few posts as I try to work through what I have so far. It is by no means academic as I make no claims to being an academic (I have come to believe that placing most of our emphasis on academic understandings has helped keep us from a practice of incarnational faith in our communities. We will send money but often will not give of ourselves. I respect the academics as they often provide the thoughts that spark my thinking but I do believe they need to be balanced by experience as well as theory.) As I am a “right brain” person it will appear to meander at times but will eventually reach a conclusion – I hope.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2011-03-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

One year ago today I sat in the bar with a friend listening to the band her boys played in. We had first met in a local cafe a few years back when I met another friend for coffee. My family and I had gone to that cafe off and on since that time and often Toni was our waitress. By the time I had moved to the city she had retired by came to cafe daily as a best friend of the owner.

The owner of the cafe has Parkinson's and it got to be too much for her so she sold the business. When it was first sold, Toni, that night in the bar, suggested that the community regulars at the cafe needed a place to meet. Between us the idea of a community coffee house meeting out of St. George's was born. It opened up mid-April and is totally self-supporting. It has donated a total of $1370 to St. George's in the form of cash for projects and a freezer.

At Christmas we put together three Christmas hampers for community members. We have donated to a project of the Legion that meets at St. George's and are preparing a donation to the Station 20 West project.

The coffee house is run solely on donations. People donate muffins, cookies, coffee etc. When no one has donated and supplies run low we will buy what we need. A bowl is placed out for people who want to donate to both supplies and the various projects we designate the funds for.

We have our regulars - both community people and church people. I try to be there as much as possible piggy-backing the time with my office hours. It is amazing the mixed community that has formed.

Last Thursday one of the community members suggested that we host another potluck like we did at Christmas. I suggested that it be this Thursday as it was St. Patrick's Day. And so it came to be.

It was wonderful. The table was laden with food. There was talking and sharing and laughter. There were door prizes. I am presently wearing a lovely huge green St. Patrick's Day tie that someone had won and left behind.

This is what church is. A place of gathering for all people. A place where people feel safe to come and share. One of the life-giving things for me is that it provides a venue for people to talk to me that normally wouldn't seek me out in my church office or meet me for coffee. The informal, almost chance met, atmosphere provides that feeling that they are not being preached at nor do they feel that they are formally seeking help. I love it when they draw me aside just to have me listen to what they need to share, what they need to get off their chests. For me, this is incarnational ministry. For many at the coffee house, this is as close as they are willing to get to a church. Regardless of whether they enter the actual nave of the church, they know that the church is there for them. And they know this because of the opening of the doors freely into the community - no cost, no strings, - just a place to gather and be who they are and accepted as the marvelous human beings they have become - in all their health and in all their brokeness.

Have you got a minute - sit with me

2011-03-09T16:40:00.000-08:00

I truly believe these are some of my most treasured moments as a priest. And they don't happen in a church. But rather the quiet after the rush in a local coffee shop. Or in a crowded noisey diner.

I love my calling - maybe not so much as a priest in a religious institution but as an ordinary person called by God to reach out in a hurt and broken world.

About nine months ago I sat in what has now become my regular diner - basically an early morning field office. I was relatively fresh from a rural context where I had an active community ministry supported by the people of my parish. I had been coming to this city diner for about two or three months. The only person I really talked to was my waitress.

I sat there and questioned God - Is this where I am suppose to be coming? I come here and sit in isolation time after time. I don't believe I am accomplishing anything here. - The answer was - keep coming.

Over the last few months I have managed to build a few relationships. I have even been invited to sit at the "staff" table a couple of times. And then today - there it was - "Have you got a minute - sit with me."

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

St. George's Newsletter

2010-04-29T16:22:00.000-07:00

Here is the latest edition of our newsletter.

Celebrating Natality

2010-04-26T17:53:00.000-07:00

I am reading Diarmund O'Murchu's "Catching up with Jesus: A Gospel Story for Our Time." So far I am quite enjoying it as it is giving me things to think about. This following put into words some of what I celebrate.

According to O'Murchu, Grace Jantzen proposes that "Redemption comes not through mortality with the emphasis on death and suffering but through natality celebrating the birthing, flourishing, and growth of everything in creation."

I thought about this. Death is something that is certain and relatively predictable. No we can't predict the exact moments nor in the long run can we fully control death but death is something that comes to all things. Birth is uncertain and unpredictable. Human beings tend to prefer the certain and predictable even when that means death. Witness how so many of our churches are shrinking into closure because death is preferable to the unknown of what might happen if we actually try something new.

But this idea of redemption being in natality really speaks to me. I have always had a problem with the emphasis on the cross and suffering. I much prefer to find things to celebrate - to look for the many blessings big and small in our lives and the world around that speak to God's ongoing presence and working. I do not believe that creation is finished but is ongoing. When the Kin-dom is complete so will creation be complete. And I don't see the coming in of the Kin-dom as an apocalyptic event but rather a growing of the cosmos into the purposes for which God created it and a coming of the world of Shalom here on earth.

In seminary we had to study Rowan Williams' book "The Wound of Knowledge." Now I will readily admit that with my problems trying to understand the written word I struggled to make sense of the book. It took me a couple of reads in order to "see" what Williams was trying to say (I may have mentioned before that I see in concepts, images, visions and find understanding the written word difficult unless the author is deliberately drawing word pictures). I do remember discussing one of the chapters in class. It had been about Augustine and how he believed that God was found in our weak times - in our cross moments. I argued that for Augustine, a male of some stature, those moments would not have been the norm and so it was legitimate for him to believe that God was most often found in them. But as a woman, times of powerlessness, of vulnerablity etc. were not so rare. I usually find God in the powerful moments spent in creation - both in the outdoors with bright warm sunshine and a lovely breeze or whipping wind and in the creating process of craft work.

It is interesting that if we look at this redemption in natality idea, women are more ideally situated traditionally to experience it. We are the ones to go through the pain and uncertainty of giving physical birth. We are the ones who are sterotypically considered the nurturers of relationship. These things, as part of our norm, can lead into a shared experience with the Creating Divine.

The emphasis on the cross and suffering carries with it the major views of atonement which centre around sin and judgement. It models and power over, an authority based relationship and a separation of the sacred and the secular. It is about control, and distance and it tends to keep things in the head rather than embodied.

What happens if our emphasis is on natality? We begin to focus on embodiedment, on incarnation and relationship. We tend to celebrate life and open ourselves to wondrous possibilities. We experience the awe and mystery of the various relationships with the Divine. Instead of trying to understand in a scientific manner we tend to feel the awe and mystery with a sense of euphoric oneness. The more intellectual model tends to focus on separation with a sense of our littleness in connection with an all powerful male God.

The embodied understanding that can come out of a celebration of natality helps lead us in a "seeing"/experiencing of the sacred in all things. This is my style of spirituality. I don't keep regular prayer habits or practices. Instead, I celebrate and try to open myself to the presence of the Divine all day. I have certain practices that I do when I want to do this in a deliberate manner. These practices usually involve embodiment. They usually involve more than one or two of the senses. And very rarely do they involve structured prayer or reading. They might involve music and meditation, which I have learned help me to open myself to the awe and mystery. In the warmer weather I try to do these practices outside sitting on the ground with the warmth of the sunshine and a breeze flowing past me. I find that this is the time that I am closest to the Divine.

Whether this is an outcome of the what I was taught about the relationship between the Divine and the individual and also with all other parts of creation or whether I needed to have these experiences to more fully understand the beliefs I was taught as a child, I am not sure. But I believe that my growing faith and my practices are definitely intermeshed. This celebration of natality as O'Murchu calls is has helped me form my ministry style. I can see the Divine at work in all things.

It does mean that I rarely talk about sin. It is not that I don't believe that we sin, that we cause separation between God and us and between us and others on a regular basis. I just don't believe that constantly pointing out where we fail accomplishes a huge amount in the long run. I have experienced the harm it does in a way less than full relationship with God as a young adult. I could not pray or participate in various ways in a service because I was no where near worthy enough. I prefer to celebrate the ways in which God is active in our lives and the lives of others around us. When I develop relationships with people I focus on the good within them. It is not that I am unaware of the edges, I just don't let that colour my interactions. I prefer to respond to the good and foster the development of that.

Natality lends itself more easily to a power with scenario. It lends itself to the uncertainty of being with people as they journey through life and walking with them in their struggles listening to them and stepping back far enough for them to make the decisions they need to make. It means facing those outcomes with them rather than taking charge when we feel they are wrong and criticizing when the outcomes are less than perfect.

It lends itself to a more inclusive acceptance of people. Part of this is because instead of holding the masculine up as the ultimate goal as our Christian faith has traditionally done (based not so much on the Scriptures as on the erroneous theories of pagan philosophers, something I find so totally ironic when people call me a heretic) it celebrates all aspects of the human sexuality. There is no fear of the feminine that leads to a need to treat woman differently in so many unjust ways and that also leads to a fear of homosexuality and its challenge to traditional understandings of male/female roles. There is an understanding that creation needs both male and female equally, that each person has gifts that contribute to the creating process in important ways - that the reality is we need all in order to create.

I think it also leads to a better way of growing into the mission to which God calls us. We are better able to step out trusting in the uncertainty of future as we try new things. We are better able to let go and trust in God. We don't end up locked inside our church buildings afraid to face the unpredictable world outside them.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

My Attitude Problem

2010-04-20T14:43:00.000-07:00

Although many may not agree - I am usually pretty laid back about things. There are a few issues about which my passion and enthusiasm show. Evangelism is one of them but that is fairly recent. Justice has always been something I have been passionate about. It is a passion that is a gift from my parents who believe/believed strongly in a world of Shalom.

I also care deeply about the Anglican Church. I remember leading a seminar at college that was about Anglicanism in other parts of the world. I researched with dismay growing each time I read about the growing influence of the Global South provinces and where their theology lay. I could see even then the impact they would have on the Anglican Communion and nearly wept for the way I knew we would change. It is not that I don't believe they shouldn't have a voice. It is that I believe they are where we were about 40 years ago. I firmly believe that in time all will come to realize that God is fully inclusive and that human sexuality is diverse and part of how we are created. I honestly feel that this will not be a huge issue in 20 years. We will have moved on to something else just a challenging to us as a Communion. Because we live in very different contexts there will never be a "common mind." To expect that we could ever have such a thing is ridiculous. We are far too diverse.

As much as I love the Anglican Church and its historical ties I cannot support the sacrificing of justice for the idol of unity. The ABC recently did a video for the Global South Conference.

Archbishop's Address

It is interesting the connection I feel with Canterbury. I have long believed that more than just physical traits are passed through our DNA. I believe that some of our spiritual ones are as well. I am a direct descendant of Queen Bertha of Kent whose husband gifted with St. Martins for Augustine. This makes Canterbury a special place for me. But, as much as it is special, I cannot continue to feel the necessity to continue to hold to it as a centre of unity at the sacrifice of justice.

As a child and teen-ager I was often in trouble with authority figures. I didn't realize until I had a daughter of my own that shared my attitude problem just what it was that caused the trouble. As an adult, dealing with that daughter's teachers, I realized that what I saw as issues of justice (and therefore I would not back down and was often taken to task for speaking back) were considered discipline issues to the teachers because I was challenging their authority. I never could back down from what I believed to be right. I still can't. I firmly believe that full inclusion of GLBTTs is what is right - that it is a matter of justice and that God is about justice. As a result if the ACC and TEC have to face consequences for their stance on this issue - so be it. I would rather see that than to see us uphold a very false unity.

And that is what it would be - a false unity based on the sacrifice of people and justice. How can it be a true unity with one group calling the shots and another having to sacrifice what it truly believes is the will of God? How can it be a true unity when it cannot embrace the diverseness that exists within it - when groups of it are not able to have integrity with their firmly held beliefs?

And as to consequences for ACC and TEC on a Communion level - what about Wales and Scotland and New Zealand? What about the voices in the C of E calling out for justice and full inclusion. If it is a matter of ACC and Tec facing consequences, what about those who share that passion and attitude for the same things? The reality is that we are just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe others are being relatively quiet right now but start to infringe on their sense of justice and their sense of integrity and we may see that the current sacrificing of justice for the idol of false unity will have more far-reaching consequences than Lambeth ever envisioned. We may see that they to have an attitude problem.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie +

Love One Another As I Have Loved You.

2010-04-06T15:38:00.000-07:00

Fulton MS: The World’s Cruelest Town

I was checking out the various blogs I follow today and came across the above link at Grandmere Mimi’s. I followed it and my heart and soul wept. Especially when I persevered and finally reached the original posts on the Facebook page, Constance Quit Your Crying, mentioned. But I was sick in my soul even before that.

A couple of days ago, a young woman came to me about a text she had received from a male friend. What that young man had written was completely unacceptable in any context. As this woman is someone very near and dear to me I struggled with my feelings around this young man who I had never met. I had to watch what I was wishing for, filtering it through the lens of my being a priest and doing or even wishing something that was inappropriate on any level. I finally settled on praying that this young man would see the harm in his actions and choose not to hurt another young woman in the way he had hurt this one.

It is so hard to separate ourselves from our very human tendency to lash out when something hurts our hearts or our souls. And many of us are hurt by what we see as injustice. Originally, I was only perturbed by the news of the above false prom, not only on Constance’s behalf but also on behalf of the other students who were set apart. But then, as I read more and more of the comments by supporters of Constance I became perturbed by the lack of love and tact within those writing.

There were some decent comments, rightly pointing out the wrongness of having a fake prom. But a vast number of comments were inflammatory. I noticed a fair number tarring all people from Mississippi with the same brush. That is unfair. The comments tended to see things in terms of black and white. Because this incident happened in Mississippi, then all things there must not be good. Even within the people who thought up this bizarre and hateful action there is good. Even in the midst of their fear, they do love and they do good. This action was totally wrong. They did harm – not only to Constance and the other students but also, in the long run, to themselves. The negative stereotypic comments were not helpful.

Part of the reason why they are not helpful is that those who respond with fear and hate, as I believe happened in Fulton, do so because they already feel insecure about their world. They dig in and become more rigid. The more negativity they have to face the more defensive they become. Inflammatory comments fuel a persecution complex. The current fad is to respond to negativity by making oneself out to be the victim and to claim that one is being persecuted. One can see this if one perseveres and reads through to the original comments on the Facebook page. The students did not see wrong in what they did but only saw that they were victims because their prom was canceled. The more extreme comments criticizing their actions will not help in bringing an understanding in how they were wrong to participate in the weekends events and will heighten a sense of being misunderstood,isolation and persecution by the outside world "that just does not understand what really happened."

Another thing that disturbed me about the comments where the way some of the people were so personally scathing of the students who went to the “real” prom. There was name calling galore and nasty comments about dress and behaviour. The dress and behaviour were not that different from many another school prom and, yes, it is not appropriate but to demonize these young people for something many others do is not appropriate either.

Way back when I took a couple of night classes for my second year of university we had someone come to talk to us about cults. He told us that if someone from a cult approached us we should not respond out fear or hate or be rude and cut them off. The best thing we could do would be to invite them in for a drink and snack. The young people from the cult at our door were taught that the world is an evil place and when we respond negatively we reinforce that perception. When we respond with love and care we may possibly be sowing a seed that will help if/when the person starts to question their cult.

This does not mean that it is wrong to point out to the young people of Fulton that what they did was wrong on so many levels and that it not only harmed Constance and the other students at the fake prom, it also harmed them. But that should be done in a loving manner, in a way that may cause them to stop and think about their actions in a different light rather than dig in and defend their actions thus reinforcing the fear and hatred. I worry that the line between those who participated in the what happened in Fulton and those who criticize their actions is not that great. It just so happens that they are each at opposites ends of the issue but the language and the response is very similar.

I hold all who have been touched by this incident in my heart and my prayers. I pray that we may all become aware of how potentially harmful our actions and responses may be and work to remember that God loves all the children God created. If we place God between us and those with whom we disagree maybe we can respond with the love which that our Lord and Saviour commanded of us just last Thursday as he ate with his disciples and washed their feet.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Good News

2010-04-01T15:12:00.001-07:00

A few years back a friend of mine resigned his position because he could no longer, in good conscience, say no to blessing same sex marriages. This meant that he was not able to act officially in any capacity as a priest.

The good news is that Shawn is once again going to be able to preside and preach. It does not mean that he is licensed once again (as he is remaining true to his convictions and that means that he cannot follow all the present canons of the ACC), rather that he has been given a letter of permission to preside and preach under the authority of the current bishop. As he is now a parishioner of mine the bishop has allowed for him to preside and preach under my direction. I am absolutely thrilled to say that he has agreed to take the 9 am Easter Sunday service in our Memorial Chapel. It will also be the first service in our chapel in a while as it was used for storage when I arrived. We are reclaiming the space as sacred at our Holy Saturday service (which Shawn and I are doing jointly) and the first Service of Holy Communion will be on Sunday.

So, this Sunday not only will I be celebrating the Resurrection joyously but also the marvelous ways that God has blessed my life recently.

Love and prayers,
Ann Marie

A Purple Bow Blessing

2010-03-06T09:21:00.000-08:00

I had a rough Wednesday and Thursday this week. I started in my new parish at the beginning of February. I was hired to bring about change and to help the church reach into the local community around them. There are times I wonder if what I am doing is effective and I get filled with doubts. I push getting out and doing things so strongly and then wonder - what if I am wrong to do so? What if it is not what these people are to do? What if, by pushing and sounding like a broken record, I am doing the very thing that can divide a congregation as you have people who are looking for the changes and others who need to maintain the more recent traditional understanding of being church (ie. 1950's style)?

I decided on Thursday that I needed to take a break and get away from it. So early Firday morning I went back home to Biggar. I caught an early ride out with my husband and my son. They dropped me off in Biggar on their way to Landis. I went into the first of my more favourite coffee spots. This is what I found.

In the morning this table is full of men. (The photo was taken in the afternoon lull.) The owner of this coffee shop placed the purple bow (purple is my signature colour) on the wall in memory of my time spent in her cafe.

I knew about this bow before I went in as she had told me what she had done on facebook and my husband and son had seen it when they went in for supper one night. Its presence touches me deeply. It touches me on a personal level - that I managed to make a mark that they want to remember. But most importantly it is a re-affirmation of what I have been preaching to the church for the past number of years. We need to get out of our buildings and get to where the people are. And it may not (and probably will not) translate into more bums in the pews and money in the plate and workers for our traditional projects but it will reach out to the people that God is calling us to reach out to.

These are the people that need to know that God (and the church) cares about them unconditionally. These are the people who need to hear the good news. It is not that we sit there among them and preach ad nauseum. It that we become a caring presence in their midst, sharing their joys and trials. I could tell of experience after experience of reaching people where they needed to be reached all because I was accessible to them. Not because I have any specific talents or even that I have any illusions that I am a super good priest but because I was there. I was there for them to turn to when they needed someone to help them deal with the various events in their lives. I was there when things where going relatively smoothly.

But it wasn't just about my being present. It was very much about my being a representative of a church and, more importantly, of a God that truly cared about all people. One of the conversations I had with a man from coffee row shortly after I announced that I would be leaving Biggar will always be treasured deeply in my heart. This man - a wonderful human being but definitely not a church goer - said to me - you don't know what an impact you have made on this community. When I replied that I hadn't done a whole lot he responded - just your presence among us, your willingness to be there made a difference. He tied it in with the presence of the church coming among them.

I was blessed with a wonderful congregation in Biggar. They could have complained about the amount of time I spent outside of the the church. They could have pointed out that this time was not showing monetary or people in church results and was not time well spent. But they did not. They even gave contributions at Christmas to fund my ministry - pay for my coffee. They did see the results in it in the comments made by the local community and were willing to accept that it was important for the church to be out and among the people and that could best be accomplished in our situation by the priest being present in the various gathering places.

I am going to print the above picture off and frame it and place it in a prominent space in my office. Not because of the honour it does me but as a reminder of the difference we can make when we get out of our buildings and into our the gathering and living places of our communities. Each time I see that picture I will remember the ministry to which God is calling God's church and I will gain strength because God has sent me a very real blessing in the presence of a purple bow on the wall of a small country cafe

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Happy New Year

2009-12-31T09:08:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year. May the year of 2010 be a blessed one for each and everyone of you.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Merry Christmas One and All

2009-12-25T07:44:00.000-08:00

May the peace and joy of this blessed season be yours throughout the new year.

Love and Prayers
Ann Marie

Adelaide Pearl Ash

2009-12-22T08:12:00.000-08:00

(This is what I wrote for Owen to say at the Celebration of Mom's Life. The bit about when Dad was ordained to the dianconate is Dad's contribution.)

Adelaide Pearl Ash
January 27, 1927 - December 11, 2009

Mom was a storyteller. She could take just about any situation and make a story out of it, often with a light and humorous touch. She also did not like things to be long and drawn out. In honour of our mother we have decided to keep those two things in mind as we celebrate her life.

When we think of our mother, it is hard to think of her without thinking of the very deep love she shared with our father. It wasn’t always that way. When Dad first moved to Peace River when he and Mom were twelve she nearly had the hair pulled out of her head by a friend when Mom refused to agree that Dad was a pretty great guy. However, her opinion changed.

On their 60th wedding anniversary Dad stood up to speak. He spoke of his love for Mom. At that moment a picture was taken of the two of them. Every word that Dad was saying was more than visible on Mom’s face as she gazed up at him.

Dad always claimed that when he would look at Mom his heart would skip a beat. We thought it was just a metaphor. We were wrong. When Dad was in the hospital a few years back, in CCU, Mom walked into the room to see him. Katherine was right behind Mom and noticed that on the heart monitor Dad’s heart literally missed a beat as soon as he saw Mom.

Mom loved to read. When the children were small she would sit with them and read to them. One of the books she read to Norman was the Dog That Wouldn’t Be. There were times while reading it that she would be laughing so hard she couldn’t continue. She told little vignettes out of that book and would laugh just as hard each time. When Sean was little and Mom and Dad took care of him after school, she continued her practice of reading to children.

Mom read for herself as well. She constantly looked for ways to stimulate her mind. She read all genres of books. She took university courses. And each morning she did the crossword puzzle.

There were some interesting edges to Mom as well. She was very competitive. She was upfront and honest in most contests though except party games. Ann Marie remembers attending a bridal shower once put on by the Jessie’s. It was after Mom and Dad had moved to Nipawin. She was sitting by one of Mom’s best friends, Betty Mauchel. They were working on one of those typical party word games. Betty leaned over to Ann Marie and told her, “We sure miss your Mom. She cheated the best of us all.”

Mom would not back down from a fight. She was stubborn and certainly had her own opinions. The family was on a vacation in Vancouver one year. They were driving from their campground in Surrey to Simon Fraser University. Mom and Dad had one of their regular arguments about Dad’s driving. Dad abruptly pulled the car over to the side of the road, turned to Mom and said, “All right. You drive.” Mom wouldn’t give an inch. She got out of her side of the car and walked around and took her place in the driver’s seat. We made it to our destination with only one wrong turn. Later, when we visited Dad’s nephew and his wife, Carol was horrified to think that Dad would do such a thing. Mom just lapped up all the sympathy.

Often when Mom was involved in something like reading she lost touch a bit with the outside world. Many were the times the family had to resort to yelling, “Fire!” to get her attention. And sometimes even that didn’t work.

One of Mom’s gifts was hospitality. She served numerous meals both to friends and to people in need. She was always conscious of the possible needs of others. When Norman first brought Sheila home to meet Mom and Dad, it was for a supper. Mom was a aware that Sheila might be somewhat uncomfortable meeting them for the first time so she invited friends of Norman and Sheila for the meal as well.

Mom was marvellous at food presentation but there were a few times it didn’t quite work out. One Christmas she decided to bring in the Christmas pudding with it aflame. She doused the pudding with rum and set a match to it. She then carried it festively into the dining room. The problem was that the tray was stainless steel. The flame soon superheated the tray and Mom was hard-pressed to get the pudding to the table without dropping it.

The concern for the needs of others also showed itself in her social justice work. Mom had a list. On this list were a number of companies and corporations she believed were not practicing good social justice. The biggest problem was that Mom never wrote this list down and there was a lot of fluidity to the list. When taking Mom on a trip one never knew which gas station to stop at just in case it was on the list. This also extended to food processing corporations and clothing companies. For a while the grandchildren had to be very careful which brand name clothing with logos they wore around their grandmother.

Mom’s care did not stop with human beings. She was forever sneaking treats to the various family pets. Katherine finally had to threaten Mom with the vet bills if she continued to give tidbits of human food to them. She would then give Mom a few doggie treats to give to them. The dogs all knew that Mom’s presence meant treats and cuddles.

One cannot think of Mom without thinking of the years she spent in ministry with Dad. From the very first she was every bit as much a minister as Dad and Dad will often say that she should have been the one that was ordained. It is in this role in her life that many people first knew her and then discovered a wonderful, talented, compassionate friend. It is telling that Mom and Dad still receive Christmas cards from people in all the parishes they ministered.

When Dad was growing up his mother prayed that he would become a minister in God's church and then left it to God to respond as God would. In retrospect it would seem that one of the ways that God worked to answer that prayer was through Mom who expressed a strong feeling that the two of them should go into some form of full time ministry, and encouraged Dad to give some serious thought to that possibility. As time went on the sense of being called grew and at the same time took a somewhat different shape. As a result Dad went off to college for four years and Mom was the sole support of a young family of three.

When all this came to fruition in the service in which Dad was ordained Deacon, Mom, at the age of 29, was shocked to learn something she had not counted on -- the wife of a deacon was supposed to be -- a godly matron!

One of the things Mom adamant about was that things should not drag on. There are so many stories that we would like to share to continue to show what a wonderful person, friend, wife, mother, and grandmother our mother was but in honour of her love of brevity we will leave you with the few already told.

Love and Prayers
Ann Marie

"the Anglican experiment is over"

2009-10-28T12:08:00.000-07:00

It's been an interesting time dealing with the questions resulting from the announcement that the Roman Catholic Church will accept dissident Anglicans into their fold. The first I heard of it was on coffee row one morning. I had just arrived and sat by my rector's warden. He leaned over to me and told me he had heard on the radio that morning that the pope had welcomed Anglicans and would accept me as a priest. But married priests could not become bishops (which is actually not scriptural by the way). I figured that was a little far-fetched. I could see Rome accepting male priests but not a female one.

So home I went to look into this. And of course I came to understand that it was dissident Anglicans who could not just accept people like me being ordained or consecrated as bishops. And the reality is that some present Anglicans may well swim the Tiber but most who accept this offer left the Anglican Communion a while ago.

So, you can imagine the rumours flying around, the most prominent being that the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church were going to join. My first statement when someone says that to me (and it is usually someone from the Roman Catholic Church) is that the Roman Catholic Church will be accepting our disaffected Anglicans and trouble makers (please accept that this is said tongue in cheek). My next is to explain the reality on the ground.

But official responses have been interesting. One especially caught my attention and caused a response. The Telegraph in England has a quote from the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham in which he claims that "the Anglican experiment is over."

Does this speak loudly about the type of people leaving or what? This man considers that because a certain small portion of the Anglican Communion might possibly consider swimming the Tiber, including himself possibly, 500 hundred years of struggling to grow into ourselves and God's will for us is now over. To me that is the height of arrogance - which (and I know that I am not being PC in this) is a trait I associate with the more vocal opponents of women's ordination. (And I will stress the more vocal part of that statement as I do know some very wonderful and gracious people who don't support WO but are not arrogantly vocal about it.) It is typical that it is their way or the highway and that somehow they alone know exactly what it is that God wills. Or at least that is how a number of them come across.

I firmly believe that "the Anglican experiment" is far from over. What we are experiencing is our growing pains as we grow more fully into who we are meant to be and as we struggle with discerning what that is. I think we still have something of great value to offer those searching for a spiritual home. And I firmly believe that we will survive this and grow closer to God for having been refined by all the fires we are going through.

On a lighter note here are what Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have to say about all this. Enjoy and please take these with a sense of humour. Anglicans will see the glaring errors in some of their understandings.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie +

Vision 2019

2009-09-20T17:21:00.000-07:00

This is my contribution to the Anglican Church of Canada's Vision 2019 project.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Avoiding Work

2009-09-11T14:09:00.000-07:00

This isn't actually about avoiding work. It's just a result of my avoiding work. I was thinking further on the clerical collar thing. Actually, I was walking. I now drive a diesel truck and unless I am driving any distance it is a pain to warm up so I have started walking if I am going anywhere in town. It means scheduling things a little differently but I have found it also gives me time for thinking that I didn't have before.

Anyway, I was thinking about the clerical collar thing. And the thought struck me that we speak about the Incarnation. God became one of us and dwelt among us in all ways. God did not set God's self apart from even the lowest of the low in any distinguishing way. I can't even begin to count the times people have said to me - When you told me you were a priest, I sort of went oh-oh but then I looked at you and figured you would be okay. And often this opens a door to all sorts of interesting discussions about faith and the church.

To balance it out - I have also heard stories where wearing the collar has helped people open up as well. I certainly don't expect people to not wear the collar just because of my experiences. And each of us must do what we feel comfortable within ourselves doing. I will admit that part of the reason I don't wear a collar is that I grew up with a priest who did not always wear one and it is what I knew. But I also think that there is something to be said for truly being among the people as one of them as opposed to being visibly set apart. I think it depends on the person as well. There are many who would not be suited to my style of ministry. It also depends on the context of the ministry and who we are trying to reach and what their needs are. I will admit to some interesting conversations when I have been wearing my collar as well.

I just think that we have to think seriously about making something a hard and fast rule. If we stick to one way of doing things, we are only going to meet the needs of a limited number of people. If we allow for diversity, we will reach many more.

I can appreciate the calls for moving back to older rituals. I understand that there is a growing population that appreciates that. But, lets not go to extremes. Let us not become rigid in how we do things - expecting people to conform to one way of doing things. Rather, lets allow for different possibilities, different ways of being able to learn about and to express our faith.

Another concern would be why we do these things. Do they become idols in themselves? Do we do them because they set us apart? Or do we do them because they bring life? If they bring life to all - that is one thing. But if something else is needed we need to open to that as well. The rituals are not what is important - they are God's gift to us to help bring life. But, if participating in those rituals is not life giving - if the rituals themselves become the focus rather than God, then we need to rethink these things. The rituals themselves are not the goal but are a way of reaching the goal. If they actually block that we need to rethink our use of them. It doesn't mean abandoning them because for some they are a powerful way of connecting with God. But it does mean being open to the different needs of others.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Hmmmm....

2009-09-11T12:25:00.000-07:00

I read this link today. I'm still not sure if I should take it seriously as it hits just about every hot button. And I'm not even going bite on the usual hot button issues as I probably wouldn't be saying anything I or someone else has not said before.

But - in all this is the effort to make ourselves more relevant to the RC church and our African brothers and sisters. What about making ourselves more relevant and strengthening our ties with our own people? Not that I'm saying that we go to the opposite extreme and ignore the RC and our African brothers and sisters, either. But if we are going to return to doing things in a traditional manner to strengthen those ties are we truly serving those around us?

I live in a tension around the wearing of my clericals. I do not wear my collar except for liturgical functions. Nor do I even own a cassock. These things are relevant in the contexts that they are needed. I have had discussions on my not wearing my collar. I truly do understand the logic behind wearing it and I do believe it. But, experience has also shaped my decision not to wear mine. I have experienced a real change in response from those in the larger community when they see me wearing it. People who are usually very comfortable with me and open to talking about spiritual things become hostile when they see me wearing it. Not that I can't handle the hostility but my main purpose is the building of relationships. If it is meant to set us a part and make us noticeable, believe me, I have developed tools that do the same without putting people's backs up. They may not be completely orthodox tools (okay, they are not orthodox in the least) but you wouldn't believe the openings for ministry they have provided.

If someone believes it is important in their context to wear their clericals - go for it. If they believe that they should wear their clericals for whatever reason - go for it. But please, don't put barriers in place in my ministry.

And notice, I kept away from ranting on the usual issues ;)

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Struggles understanding rural parish ministry today

2009-09-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

Last night at vestry I posed the question of what ministry, and especially parish ministry, is in today's context. There were three things that prompted the question.

The last was a request to facilitate a congregation through a major transition, which involves spending time outside my parish but in the same diocese.

Another was the sudden death of a priest in the diocese south of me. This leaves a friend of mine as the only stipendiary priest in an area larger than England consisting of five parishes. How might that impact me as the closest priest to some of those parishes, albeit in a different diocese? And, if it does affect me, what is the impact on my congregation and the larger PALS Community?

And running through all this is my ministry of presence in the larger community, which does not result in material gains for my parish. It does, however, meet a spiritual need as evidenced by the ever increasing calls on my presence and services by more members of that larger community.

Don't get me wrong - I love what I am being called to do. It actually energizes me. It certainly challenges me as I look for ways of meeting needs that traditional (and strongly male-oriented) expressions of spirituality no longer meet. And I will admit that there are a number of times that I skirt the edge or cross over traditionally accepted ways of placing things into the context of the people approaching me - especially when being with women for whom traditional (male-developed) practices have little to no resonance.

But I digress (which is typical). I am paid a full stipend by a community that can really only afford a half time stipend. For that full stipend I do about a half time traditional parish ministry. The other half is spent in my ministry of presence. This latter uses the same gifts, skills, and services as the former - I do blessings, listening, baptisms, funerals, spiritual direction in a community with few connections or defining boundaries.

So the question last night was somewhat of an effort to see how much acceptance my vestry had for the funding of calls on my time outside of the usual understanding of a parish priest's job.

Traditionally, in many congregations' minds, the priest is paid to minister to the people on the parish list. Oh, there is a sort of understanding of the parish as a geographical area and that the priest is to serve all in that area. But the reality is that the expectation is that the priest mostly serves those who contribute to the material fabric of the parish.

In general, I have been very blessed with a congregation that supports my ministry of presence. This is helped by the positive feedback and image in the larger community. But as I met with my wardens yesterday afternoon before the vestry meeting I sensed a lessening of tolerance for my extra little tasks.

The need out there is so great. The models of church from the 20th century are no longer capable of meeting that need. Most of the people I meet in the ministry of presence have a strong spirituality but feel the Church is no longer able to help them in that regard. Often things are explained in a context that no longer has a connection with personal experience and it leaves people struggling to understand their relationship and experience of the Divine. Traditional models of doing church no longer fit in with life-styles (and those life-styles are ones of necessity such as shift work that involves working on Sundays, two parents working different shifts, realities of rural life in a world where the family farm is no longer a viable option without an outside income etc.) Yet those people still need re-assurance and guidance every bit as much as those who are formally in a church community.

I am trying to help my people understand that being a church community is not just about the care of those who contribute to our particular community but also about making care available for all. This may involve work outside the parish boundaries, or even diocesan boundaries. It may involve a fair amount of time spent with people who in no way contribute to our particular church community. It is hard to get outside the expectation that the stipendiary priest is paid to show concrete results within the parish list and that there is a way of accounting for the time spent that shows material gain for the church - ie contributions toward the upkeep of the building and the stipend of the priest.

I don't even know where I am going with this post other than I am trying to form a question and then hopefully find some sort of answer that guides me in how I do the ministry to which I believe I am called while also honouring the hopes and expectations of the community that supports me. And maybe the larger question for me underlying all of this is - am I being fair to the people in that supporting community as I strive to do the larger ministry that I love so much and that actually feeds me spiritually.

I have often thought of resigning as parish priest. I could find a job that gave me some flex and allowed for a ministry of presence. I have always held back. This is mainly because I know that being the parish priest also helps people approach me. My being a parish priest thus becomes a tool in reaching out - a tool that would not be there is I were to find some other type of job and still do the ministry I feel called to do. Again, don't get me wrong - I also love being a parish priest and being with the community that looks after my physical support. It's just that I feel called to two slightly different styles of ministry and often feel guilty that the one is supporting the other without the other offering support back to the first. Is that being fair to my congregation? Is this a legitimate form or style of doing ministry?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Let the Earth Bear Witness

2009-06-27T11:27:00.000-07:00

I came across this YouTube video at Mad Priest's.

I'll let it speak for itself.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

"Neda"

2009-06-20T18:36:00.000-07:00

Updated: Sunday, June 21
(Scroll to the bottom)

I have been following the events in Iran today. I followed a few links from various blogs. The first link was from Episcopal Cafe. This a translation of from the blog of a young woman planning to attend the protests today.

"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…”

This brought home just how human and vulnerable the protesters are. I had to go for a walk to pray and meditate after reading this.

I then followed a link to the Huffington Post from Grandmere Mimi at Wounded Bird. I have been keeping up with the live blogging all day. One of the commenters posted a link to You Tube for Peter Gabriel's song I Grieve from City of Angels. At one point in this song there is a bit of jarring as it speaks to continuing in life. At first I wasn't going to post it but then decided that the bit that jarred me spoke well to my situation today. I spent it grieving for those in Iran but I also spent it living my life in Biggar, in a space full of peace and life.

Then there was an update from the young woman from yesterday. She had heard of her "sister's" death - the death of the young woman on the video. She had this to write.

" I'm here to tell you my sister died while in her father's hands
I'm here to tell you my sister had big dreams...
I'm here to tell you my sister who died was a decent person... and like me yearned for a day when her hair would be swept by the wind... and like me read "Forough" [Forough Farrokhzad]... and longed to live free and equal... and she longed to hold her head up and announce, "I'm Iranian"... and she longed to one day fall in love to a man with a shaggy hair... and she longed for a daughter to braid her hair and sing lullaby by her crib...

my sister died from not having life... my sister died as injustice has no end... my sister died since she loved life too much... and my sister died since she lovingly cared for people...

my loving sister, I wish you had closed your eyes when your time had come... the very end of your last glance burns my soul....

sister have a short sleep. your last dream be sweet."

It has been a long day. I continue to pray for the young blogger, for "Neda," the young woman who died on the video, and her family; for the young man I saw who had died during the protest and his family. I pray for all the protesters. And most strongly, I pray for the leaders of Iran to listen to their people and to honestly and peacefully find a way forward out of this violence so that justice may be done and peace brought about.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Update:

Malcolm at Simple Massing Priest has this post.
He does stress that it is uncomfirmed as yet but he has read on a blog by Andrew Sullivan that the Canadian Embassy has been turning away injured protesters. I know that yesterday, on The Huffington Post, I read a list of embassies who were taking in injured protesters and the Canadian embassy was not on the list. I also read the injured protesters going to hospitals and medical centres were being arrested. If what Mr. Sullivan posted is true, this does not speak well of our sense of justice and compassion. I have done as Malcolm suggested and e-mailed the various people listed, but it is Sunday so I don't expect to hear from anyone until tomorrow. I asked that they either confirm or deny the allegation and, if it is true, that they reconsider such an action.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Words, words, words = confusion

2009-05-26T15:22:00.000-07:00

I am a little confused lately in the whole debate over human sexuality. We seem to be playing with words, words, and more words. It's almost like we can do anything we want provided we don't actually call something a marriage or bless it as a marriage.

We have the pastoral statement by the Canadian House of Bishops. And today we have the ruling on Prop 8 from California. Dan, on Facebook, gave this link to DailyKos. You can also see his comments on it at Culture Choc.

I hate the water. I had a few scares with it when I was a little child and I get so tense when I'm in a anything larger than a bathtub that I get very dizzy from clenching my jaw so hard. But the few times when I go in I do it one of two ways. I may dip my toe in and then walk along with my water up to my ankles, gradually moving deeper and deeper. Or, I may just decide to dash in until all of me is submersed in the water. Usually there is less agony over the dash as it is over and done with. With the toe dipping, there's all that time of getting use to the cold or whatever.

I have watched this debate over human sexuality over the last few years. First of all, within the Church, those of us who supported it were told that we had to present it in terms of scripture, theology and doctrine. We have done this over a period of time, although I will admit it may not be as formal as some of our bishops would like. Still, the work is out there. All of a sudden, we're told that we need to observe process. I have heard some, who have not supported full inclusion in the past, say that they are not against same-sex marriage provided the proper process is gone through. Now that ticks me off more than having to present it based on scripture, doctrine, and theology because it appears to concede that there is really nothing standing in the way but a few human prescribed rules and guidelines. That in every real way that counts for our faith and our criteria, full inclusion is okay but lets just wait while we play with real peoples' lives.

Now we have the ruling from California that is so confusing - it appears to be saying that the concept of same-sex marriage is okay provided it isn't called marriage. Excuse me! Are we just playing word games with the lives of real people? And if this is just all about words rather than concepts or principles, how are we doing what is just and right in the sight of God.

It brings to mind the phrase - it's all over except for the kicking and screaming. Only in this case, we are dealing with people and their right and need for loving relationships to be fully acknowledged and accepted by all.

I am so confused. Why do we continue playing games with peoples' lives?

My Spiritual Oasis

2009-04-10T10:57:00.000-07:00

About 4 years ago I became a member of Integrity Saskatoon. It has been such a spiritually nurturing place and I give thanks to God for their presence in my life.

I thought I would share some pictures of this group. These pictures can also be seen on their blog site.

The first is a picture of one of our summer BBQs. During Fall, Winter, and Spring we meet at St. James Anglican Church, Saskatoon, to share in the Eucharist and to have fellowship with coffee and goodies afterward. This latter is also where we celebrate events in each other's lives such as birthdays, anniversary, retirements, transitions etc. We break for June, July, and August but gather at various members houses to eat and share fellowship. These times usually take the form of a potluck BBQ.

We experimented with where to meet. We met in the sanctuary but felt that some people were not comfortable with that space. We meet in the basement now. We celebrate in the round. It is not a very formal service although we do use the Book of Alternative Services. We read one lesson, generally the gospel. Whoever is presiding will make a few comments and then the floor is open to others to offer their reflections. Each person if offered a non-threatening opportunity to pray. We pass an item around - usually my folded stole. The group is told that they may hold on to the stole and pray aloud, or pray silently, while the rest of us hold that individual and their prayer in our hearts, or they can simply pass the stole to the next person. The stole acts as a "talking stick" so that whoever holds it is the only one to speak at that moment. During the eucharist we administer the bread and wine to each other.

As chaplain I try to arrange for various different people to preside at the eucharist. This helps us network with the various churches in the diocese. In the fall we are hoping to extend this networking ecumenically and I will be inviting representatives from other denominations to preside.

Integrity Saskatoon is an amazing group of caring and committed people. I have learned so much from them and have been given such life through my connection with them. I give thanks to God for their presence in my life.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Same Sex Marriage and Traditional Marriage

2009-04-09T15:07:00.001-07:00

I have been reading Elizabeth A. Johnson's "Truly Our Sister." I am just into it and have been reading the chapter on dualistic thinking and the idea of complementarity. Elizabeth points us to Genesis 1:26-27 and reminds us that there is no assignment of masculine or feminine qualities. We each experience fullness of being in God's image in our distinctive sexuality.

I know that I have written about the dangers of dualistic thinking in a post somewhere below. Dualistic thinking does contribute negatively in the move toward full acceptance of human sexuality in general. In every couple there must be a distinct male and a distinct female. Because of traditional negative reactions to the "feminine" homosexuality causes fear in "men" and threatens "women" in traditional relationships.

Because we are conditioned to thinking in terms of masculine or feminine rather than personhood being complete in each, the supposed ambiguity of roles in a same sex marriage/relationship throws our traditional understanding of "self" into question.

How many times do we look at a gay couple and try to determine who it is that plays the female role and who plays the male role. Same sex marriage/relationships place traditional/patriarchal understandings of marriage into question. Ultimately the man must be the head of the traditional/patriarchal household and to have a male in a perceived female role or a woman in a perceived male role provides a disconnect and challenge.

I remember an internet conversation with a Canadian Promise Keeper a number of years back (he really did stress that he was a Canadian Promise Keeper as opposed to an American one). We were "talking" about marriage and relationships. He kept stressing that neither he or his wife were head of the household - Christ was following Paul's writing. When pressed on the actual working out of that, he finally admitted that between him and his wife he was the head.

I spoke of my marriage as a partnership of equals. He wanted to know how that worked. I explained that we discussed decisions, which of course he and his wife did as well. Where he struggled was when we couldn't come to an agreement on something - who made the decision then - the man in his marriage. I explained that there were a number of factors that could come into play - that sometimes it was who felt the most strongly about the issue, sometimes it was who had the most knowledge and sometimes one gave way knowing that in another instance the other would do the same thing. He could not grasp that. In his mind - one person had to be designated to ultimately make the decisions and that person should be the husband.

I have done a few marriage preparation classes. Although I will willingly admit that I have a bias for a partnership of equals I do respect and accept how the couple has worked out how their relationship will play out. I have held my tongue when the relationship is based along more traditional lines as long as it is a healthy and mutual understanding. But I can see where, for those who have chosen to pattern their marriage along more traditional/patriarchal lines, same sex marriage without those defined gender roles is a challenge.

I have come to believe that it is partly the ambiguity of roles that causes such hostility to same sex marriage/relationships (once people manage to get past the sexual intercourse and anal sex visuals). Same sex marriages/relationships do challenge traditional marriage and it is a challenge that needs to happen as so many of us discover what it means to be fully human without the overshadowing, oppressive and totally false understandings through the millennium of what defines us as male or as female and the results lived out in a husband and wife relationship. Because same sex marriage/relationships challenge such entrenched ideas, reactions are often extreme and passionate. It's not just about marriage - it challenges a whole way of understanding.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

(PS: Malcolm - I finally posted something.)

Sometimes things are little bizzare

2009-02-24T09:06:00.000-08:00

I spent 3 hours this morning on coffee row checking in with people after yesterday's meeting. I came home and went on line to check out the newspaper article people were referring to. I found that I had actually read it last night after I got home.

But in the process of finding the article I linked to a previous article. In the column on the side, which listed related articles was this link: "This may be your year to paint your bedroom purple." Go figure.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Prayers Update

2009-02-23T18:55:00.000-08:00

Thank you for your prayers and concerns. An arrest has been made - a local man. Our meeting today has started the healing process for the community.

One of the positive things I found at the meeting was that the community is concerned about the family of the man who is charged with the murder. It could just as easily gone the other way. We tried to be very careful in how we dealt with the talk around the arrest but in general there was more concern than condemnation of the family. I give thanks to God for that blessing.

This community will heal. This became clear as we talked in our small groups. The process has been started and part of that is giving the people the information they needed (at least as much as the police were able to give) and provide a healthy venue for them to start being able talk to each other in constructive ways. I had been concerned because some of the conversations on coffee row and in restaurants was being done in whispers. Today, people spoke out loud and were able to voice the fears and feelings. It is a good first step. Another positive point is that out of this we may become a community that is much more conscious about how it cares for its members, especially its aging population.

Once again, thank you for your concern and prayers.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Prayers Please

2009-02-21T13:52:00.000-08:00

I would ask all that there to pray for our little community. Last Tuesday we experienced our first murder ever - an eighty-two year old woman living on her own. (Years ago there was a murder/suicide but that affects a community in a different way.) We may have had a colourful past in some respects, and sometimes that past may have involved things that bordered on violence, but never has it left our aging population feeling so vulnerable. In some ways innocence has been lost, never to be recovered. Now a murder has happened. Before murder was something that happened in the city or somewhere else but not here. Now it is here and people are struggling with how to deal with it.

Steps are being taken to help the community. We have a community wide information and concerns meeting scheduled for Monday. I ask prayers for the woman who was killed, for her family and friends, for the one who discovered her body and one who was the last to see her alive, and for the community as well as for whoever it was that did the killing and those surrounding him/her. That's a lot of prayers, I know, but thank you in advance for your concern.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Moving Forward

2009-01-29T12:33:00.000-08:00

Last year I was involved in the strategic planning process for our diocese. We went out and spoke to the people from end to end of the diocese in a series of three day long meetings. We also used information gathered at some events before our particular team took on the task. We were given an awesome resource person from the national church. All this resulted in a pretty good plan (with built in flex) that was passed enthusiastically at our diocesan synod last April. And then - not much was heard.

I had backed off due to some concerns in my parish about my time spent out of the parish so I was not really in the information loop anyway. However, things were not coming forward at the council level either. I know some of the reasons for this but, as I had backed off myself, I am certainly not going to point any fingers. Just recently a fire has been lit under our collective bottom ends and National Church has offered us some people resources. We just had a two day meeting in the city and I am pumped. Things are moving.

I'm not sure how much of what happened is for publication yet but suffice it to say that things are going to happen and they are "good". I have volunteered to work on piloting a project. We are looking at inner-diocesan companion parishes on an urban-rural line. Unfortunately, at this time National Church has no resources on this nor does the resource person who is working with us know of any.

If anyone happens to, for some obscure reason, be reading this post and have knowledge of companion parish systems set up within a diocese could you please let me know. I want to have a lot of the preliminary work by the end of February/middle of March.

We are a small rural diocese on the Canadian prairies. Our secular politics are split very strongly along urban-rural lines with the rural areas often feeling isolated and abandoned. This perception has spilled over into our church life. There have been recent moves to counter this by the diocese and these have been received quite well but they usually involve the synod office or committees coming out into the deaneries to meet. There has not much, if any, urban-rural interaction between parishes. We hope that the companion parishes will develop links to build better understandings and relationships.

One of my hopes is that, as my congregation ages even more and some consider moves to the city for health, family, or assisted living issues, the connections with a city parish will help in that person finding a church home. We also hope to be able to share resources - our gifts and passions, as well as giving support through prayer and encouragement.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie +

Acceptance for all

2009-01-21T08:13:00.000-08:00

I just sent an e-mail to a friend. As I was writing it I realized that one of the reasons I haven't posted on my blog recently is that I have been e-mailing this friend with my thoughts once or twice a week. Once those thoughts are written in the e-mail, I don't feel the need to express myself on this blog. However, this time, I will post my thoughts.

Not only was a black president sworn in but the ceremonies included Gene Robinson. Although he did not play a role in the actual inauguration, he was definitely present at the functions.

This also offers some hope. (By the way, I got the link from Mad Priest's blog.)

But as much as things are happening on official levels - in Canada, same-sex marriage is legal - there is still a lot of work at the grass roots level. I've noticed this in regard to the equality of women. Once things become government official there tends to be an attitude of - you've got what you want, what's your problem. And this ignores the fact that what is happening at an official level does not always happen at the more grass roots level. My orders of ordination are not accepted world wide in the Anglican church. Men who are ordained by a woman bishop cannot apply for positions in the Church of England (although I can unless it specifies male priest). There are parts of the communion that will not accept +Rodney because he ordained me (and two other women).

There's still a lot of work and speaking out to be done and in some ways it is harder when things are okay on an official level. Everyone figures that we have nothing for which to work toward because the government has made everything okay.

Don't I wish.

Even if I do have my equality in Canada there are still parishes that can refuse me just because I'm a woman - not that I would want to be their priest anyway. Our rights are there but not the full acceptance. And in my mind it is not enough just to have rights - there needs to be acceptance. Non-acceptance is still brutal. That is as true for equality for women as it is for equality for GLBTs. And people wonder why I speak out for full acceptance. What choice do I have? If I see the difference in regard to woman's issues, how can I not for GLBT issues? We can't just stop at acceptance for one and not work for acceptance for all.

Enough of a rant for today. I have to do research for Bible Study this afternoon.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Christmas Reflection

2008-12-16T07:41:00.000-08:00

(The following is what I wrote for the Christmas supplement in the local paper - The Independant)

I think of our Christmas Eve service at St. Paul’s. We start by lighting the Advent candles, which we have been lighting one by one over the last 4 weeks. And then we light the Christ candle, which in St. Paul’s case because we have a wreath that only allows for four candles, is the Paschal candle. We move into the service proper, which includes the Gospel reading from John 1:1-14 read from the King James translation of the Bible. We celebrate the Eucharist, which is truly a family event this night. And finally, we light our candles and stand in the candle light singing Silent Night. It is one of my favourite services of the year.

The above are all traditions – traditions that set this night apart from all others. We will have come through a time, four weeks, of preparing for this special night. Somehow, following the traditions of the years past make this night one of even more significance. The keeping of these traditions reminds us that the coming of the Christ child was not just for those who lived two thousand years ago, nor is it just for those of us alive today. It is for all peoples throughout history.

When we think of the various carols that we sing we recognize that this event is not just for humans but for the cosmos as well. We sing about stars and angels, about humans and animals. We hear about angels visiting shepherds in the fields. This was surely not a very quiet event. I know, if an angel suddenly appeared and spoke to me in such a manner, my heart would be racing and I would be shaking in fear and anticipation. Certainly an angel chorus singing Glory to God in the highest and peace to all people on earth would not exactly be a hushed event.

Yet, the moment that stands out for me each Christmas Eve is the moment when I look out over the congregation and see the candles lit and hear each voice softly singing Silent Night. Somehow this defines Christmas for me. I think that it is the hush and reverence of the moment. We stand in quiet awe of the magnitude of this gift from God – this humble beginning of the Son of God entering into human lives in such an intimate way that quietly impacts all our hearts and lives. Knowing at Christmas what is to come from this birth we can do little more than stand in hushed expectation and celebration. Mere words cannot describe the moment and so we rely on our traditions to express what we think and feel this most special of nights – Silent night. Holy night. Son of God, love’s pure light.

Love and Prayers,Ann Marie +

Embodied Thought

2008-12-11T11:00:00.001-08:00

I have been reading a book by Carol P. Christ. I know, I know, it's not a "Christian" book. But it is about feminist spirituality and that is a key interest of mine. It is also part of a pet project about reframing things so that our faith can resonate more with women who are reclaiming a place for themselves in a world that is still dominated by patriarchal understandings (although we are making progress).

There is a section on embodied thought and that has struck a chord with some of what I have been thinking lately. According to Carol: "When we think through the body , we reflect upon the standpoints embedded in our life experiences, histories, values, judgments, and interests. Not presuming to speak universally or dispassionately, we acknowledge that our perspectives are finite and limited. Rather than being "subjective," "narrowly personal", "merely confessional," "self-referential," or "self-indulgent" (discrediting terms taken from the ethos of objectivity), embodied thinking enlarges experience through empathy." (from the book, Rebirth of the Goddess)

I was reading this on coffee row. The usual suspects were not present at the inbetween times and so I had the rare opportunity to pull out my book and do some reading as well as some reflecting. The following are some of the thoughts I had.

Embodied thinking allows for compassion and flexibility. It is not as rigid and is more open to dialogue, which then facilitates open and "polite" discussion. Because we don't have "pretend" (we can never be truly objective inspite of what others would have us believe about objectivity) that we are being objective or that our personal feelings and fears are not a part of what we believe, we are freer to express ourselves and also to better listen.

Coming quickly on the heels of that thought was - embodied thinking openly acknowledges our subjectivity and fallibility. This facilitates our being more open to challenge without being so defensive. We may end up with a more rounded and grounded sense of where we are on any given issue because we can more freely seek and assimilate information from outside sources that help inform and challenge any beliefs we may hold.

Following on the post below and a post on Father T. Listens to the World, I also reflected on the idea that embodied thinking evens the playing ground. There is a better ability for equality. We are meeting on equal ground rather than insisting that one side prove itself to the other in a system that is set up to favour the latter. In an ironic twist, this actually makes it easier to be more objective in one's thinking.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Musings

2008-12-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

The Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold) had this to say:

Pluralist Speaks: Say it in 140

It speaks to what I see as one of the problems around discussing or dialoguing on the current issues in the Anglican Communion. I find the phrase, "closed hermeneutics fix the answer prior to any given question," particularly resonates with some of my struggles lately. There is a tendency to want to put the discussion within the traditional parameters, which do not utilize the growth of knowledge and methods of more recent years. When this happens the outcome is rather controlled.

I'm not sure where the balance is. I have struggled with this all my life. I have been a part of this diocese for 36 of my 48 years (4 of those years have been in the ordained ministry and 32 in lay ministry). It has been a relatively traditional diocese. I know my father, as a more liberal priest, was often almost a lone voice in the '70's. In more recent years we have moved closer to the centre. Because of my time spent here I do have an appreciation for tradition. I have always said that we need all spots on the spectrum as a system of checks and balances.

There's a problem in that as well. In a post below it was mentioned that since those of us who would bless same-sex marriages were bringing in something new we needed to defend it to the Church in order to change the status quo. I find that this often means that we also need to use traditional methods. Once we start branching out to some of the more recent ones ears are often closed to what we have to present.

In other words, the cards are stacked against us. It also provides a disconnect for those who have not kept their faith ties. They have become accustomed to more recent ways and understandings. They often cannot make the connection between what our traditional brothers and sisters are saying and what their experience and understanding are. I read a response from the Diocese of Westminster to the St. Michael's report. This response was by four people including Richard Legett and Sally McFague. As I read through it I realized that part of our problem was that our doctrines were not understood or articulated in a language that made sense to the average person today. Work seriously needs to be done in putting these into contemporary language. It is not that I necessarily believe that we must change those doctrines but rather that they need to be written so that most can understand what they are saying.

I first encountered this disconnect in the study guide that is mentioned a few posts below. One of the contributors used the 39 Articles as a reference point and printed some of those articles out. As they were written right out of the 1962 BCP in KJ English and cultural understanding of the words used, they would have been almost incomprehensible to the majority of my congregation. I realized that as much as some may value tradition and that part of that tradition is the language of the BCP, we foster a disconnect between the average person's faith life and the secular world. By fostering understandings that make faith seem poetic and set apart from the rest of our lives we are fostering a "Sunday" mentality - where we only need pay heed to our faith for an hour on Sunday mornings and then we can go out into the rest of the week until that hour the next Sunday.

I'm really not sure where I am going with this. It is something I have been pondering on for awhile. Once again, part of the problem is my difficulty with words. I know what the image is that I have in mind when I think about this but I struggle to get that image into words. I'm still working on it though because I think there is something important somewhere in that image even if I can't quite put my finger on it.

And how does this relate to what the Pluralist had to say. Maybe not at all but it was the Pluralists words that started the process of thinking on this once again. I think maybe it is that at times it is almost as though we are not speaking the same language. I often find - such as in the OT passages quoted as what some call "clobber verses" there is little relevance for the issue. There is no concept in them of the healthy, faithful relationships that we would bless (and there is no concept in them of homosexuality as that is a concept that didn't exist until the mid-1800's). For a number of people it is about the sex act that is spoken of in those passages and for a number of others the issue is about the goodness of the relationships we would bless. And the Church, especially the churches in the majority of the Anglican Communion, are insisting that we present our case in terms that do not reflect this difference.

I have talked to people who tell me that they are not necessarily against the approval of blessing of same-sex marriages but the Church has to put it in solid theological terms first. I keep thinking of the many papers I have read on the subject and thinking that we have presented our case in the many aspects already - we have offered biblical, theological, doctrinal etc. basis. It is not that we are being told that we are wrong but that we haven't done it. I wonder if it is because we aren't using the same methods or language. We just keep churning out more and more papers and avoiding the dialogue. Maybe it's because we can't find a common ground on which to start our dialogue in a language or terms that we all understand.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Saskatchewan Meteorite

2008-11-26T10:37:00.000-08:00

I don't watch T.V. so I often play catch up with the news. This weekend I was at a college council meeting and someone mentioned the Saskatchewan Meteorite (or Alberta/Saskatchewan). I remember sitting in the living room of our house in Saskatoon about the time the meteor would have gone over. The room lit up a fair amount (we were sitting in semi-darkness waiting for Owen to get home from Regina so we could all go for supper). I don't know if that was because of a car or because of the meteor but the timing fits.

I was quite annoyed that I had not seen the meteor. I hate not to be in the thick of things. Oh well. Then I got to church on Sunday and the talk was about a video one of musicians had sent in to the news service. She lives on a farm and has a security camera on top of one of her outbuildings pointed at their fuel storage tanks (fuel theft is a real problem in the rural areas). The camera caught the meteorite. You can see the video here. You can read about it here.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Other Names Meme

2008-11-26T08:49:00.000-08:00

I ran into this at Wounded Bird and thought it was cool.

1. WITNESS PROTECTION NAME: (mother’s & father’s middle names): Pearl Huntington
2. NASCAR NAME: (first name of your mother’s dad, father’s dad): Henry Sidney
3. STAR WARS NAME: (the first 2 letters of your last name, first 4 letters of your first name): Niannm
4. DETECTIVE NAME: (favorite color, favorite animal): Purple Cat
5. SOAP OPERA NAME: (middle name, city where you live): Biggar (I have no middle name)
6. SUPERHERO NAME: (2nd favorite color, favorite alcoholic drink, optionally add “THE” to the beginning): The Blue None (I am very allergic to any alcohol)
7. FLY NAME: (first 2 letters of 1st name, last 2 letters of your last name): Anni
8. GANGSTA NAME: (favorite ice cream flavor, favorite cookie): Maple Walnut Gingersnap
9. ROCK STAR NAME: (current pet’s name, current street name): Beethoven Fourth
10. PORN NAME: (1st pet, street you grew up on): Jeff Tenth

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Waterfalls

2008-11-24T09:48:00.000-08:00

Water has major meaning in my spirituality. This summer we were able to visit some of my favourite water places. I would like to share them with you. These first four pictures are from Marysville Falls just outside of Kimberly.

\

This is one of my peaceful meditations pictures. I love the sense of peace it brings. I made a prayer card out this with the scripture passage - "Come unto me all ye who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest."

These next pictures are from Lundbreck Falls in Southern Alberta.

And last but not least - the Bow Falls from Banff.

Personality Type Indicator

2008-11-24T09:05:00.000-08:00

When I was in seminary we used the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator. I actually come out as INFP - a feeler rather than a thinker. Interestingly enough my CPE supervisor never did succeed in getting me to say "I feel" rather than "I think."

Joe has a link on his blog that "typalyzes" blogs. I found the results interesting, especially in the light of the post below.

INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications. They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality.

Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

I will admit that I struggle with that second paragraph and will need to pray on what it may reveal about me. I don't generally get the impression, at least with my friends and parishioners, that I come across as arogant, imaptient and insensitive to people but I will certainly take the time to think and pray about the possibility and for improvement in that area.

What struck me as fairly accurate was the first paragraph, although I would say that there are edges to that.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Thinking in Words/Images

2008-11-24T08:06:00.000-08:00

I have been reflecting this morning on a dialogue in the post below. I am struggling to put those thoughts into words. Part of the problem is that I don't think in words, I think in images. Unfortunately, those images are not necessarily visual. If they were, I could at least find the words to describe them.

I teach a prayer workshop for parish nursing. The first time I was asked, I was given an outline to follow. Fortunately, for me, I was also told that it was not set in stone. The outline relied very heavily on structured and worded prayer. This is definitely not my forte. I changed the outline to involve a number of forms of embodied prayer. I have found embodied prayer is the style better suited to my way of thinking - it does not require concrete words. I am able to use symbolic actions and images to form prayers that don't necessarily have words.

I was somewhat nervous the first time I presented the workshop. It was very well received. The next time I presented the workshop, there were people there who came partly because they had heard about the first one. One of the things I explain is my difficulty with words - that I think in images - and thus a fair portion of the workshop is centred around styles of prayer that accommodate that. A number of people came up to me and were so thankful because they have the same way of thinking and are so relieved to have things put in a context to which they can relate.

This leads me to the reason for this post. In the comments for the post below, there is a comment about looking at the words and the meanings of the words as written as the defining way to interpret the various scripture passages - especially the ones that are considered to speak to same-sex relationships. I disagree with this method on two grounds.

The first ground is that it sets rigid parameters for interpreting the discussion. To insist on the words only is to limit and box God. I will grant you that language is originally a gift from God. However, it is very human in its make up and thus limited in its scope and understanding. To use words alone is to box God in. To insist on words alone is - to some extent- to insist on being able to control God's revelation. It is - to the same extent - to insist on controlling things so that the outcome is always the same. It does not always allow for the working of the Holy Spirit.

When I read a scripture passage I see images. I don't just see the words in black and white but rather images around those words. I see the culture in which they were written - although I will admit that the image is limited to what I have learned about the culture. I see the possible intent or motivation behind those words. I also see the culture of today and the message the words may have for that culture. For me, this is a much more wholistic approach to reading the scriptures.

I am not being innovative here. I believe the ancient Hebrews better understood the limitations of mere words. Their words did not have single meaning. Rather they were words that promoted thinking in images. Take the word "Shalom" for example. We all know that it means so much more than merely "peace." It brings to mind an image of what that peace is like - wholeness, harmony, justice, righteousness etc.

There is another facet to focusing exclusively on the words. I used to have a real problem with the BCP. A few years ago I would have called it "worm theology" along with some of my contemporaries. The spiritual damage that was done to me was immense and it took years of healing before I was spiritually able to embrace my faith. Actually, the problem with the BCP was not the theology per se but the tendency to think of only the words rather than the images they were meant to convey. When I took my second liturgy class at seminary I was given a real gift. The prof was able to convey the images the words were meant to give and I grew to love most of those images. Where I had problems with the images, I was better able to understand because I was able to see the words in the context and culture in which they were written and thus able to lose a fair amount of my negativity toward them. I now quite enjoy the BCP. The most dramatic of changes came around the Prayer of Humble access which is now fairly central as an expression of my theology where before it was one of the prayers that caused the most harm to my spirituality.

For those who may think that my refusal to engage in dialogue using words alone as terms of reference is a further revelation of my arrogant attitude, my willfulness, my blindness, my being deceived or whatever other term they want to give it, I will only say this in my defense. God gave me the gift of being able to think in images. I realize that any gift as a dual edge, one can use it in service to God or in service against God. One must always be very careful of the way that the gift is being used. Thus, the gift needs to be used surrounded by prayer and meditation. I strive to do that. Now who am I to listen to - human or God? I sincerely pray that it is God to whom I am listening and I tend to believe that because the use of the gift is surrounded by prayer and meditation that it is God to whom I am listening. If that means going against the flow, going against certain cultural expectations, then so be it. I am certainly in good company including that of my Lord and Saviour.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

My Journey - Stage Four

2008-11-11T13:04:00.000-08:00

I am the current Chaplain of Integrity/Saskatoon . I see that role as one of pastoral support and sacramental ministry. Integrity met to discuss what we should do to facilitate dialogue. We came up with the idea of a workshop. I attended the planning meetings but my role was not to direct but rather to be a pastoral presence and a link to the wider diocese.

We chose a young woman who is an ordained deacon in a local United Church. She had done a study session, which a member of Integrity had attended. The young woman was contacted and the group met with her to plan the workshop. During one meeting, I was sitting beside this woman.

I maybe need to explain that I am very much down at the hetero end of the sexuality scale. Most of my homosexual friends were male so I knew that I did not feel threatened in the least by them. I wasn't so sure when it came to females.

At this one meeting we were all sitting their talking. At one point, I realized that the young woman had her arm laying along the back of my chair. Now, if this was a man, I might have felt uncomfortable. And as I mentioned above, I wasn't sure how I would feel in close contact with a woman. Some level of my brain registered that her arm was there and that I was not worried or uncomfortable at all.

I will also admit that I have been uncomfortable with physical expressions of love/affection between homosexuals (but then overt seriously sexual expressions on the part of heterosexuals also bother me). I have discovered over the past year that this discomfort is lessening.

And so I continue on my journey. For me key points have been:
1. My conversation with my father that started this journey
2. My realization that the idea of same-sex relationships did not bother me
3. My study of scripture
4. My prayer/conversations with God on my internship
5. My realization that my support did not rely on the genetic/choice debate
6. My research and presentation to diocesan council
7. My realization that I am becoming totally at ease with physical expressions and with lesbians

As I write this, I am very conscious that I am a heterosexual person with no first hand experience of what it like living as a gay in a hetero world. I have been honest about my questions and where I stand. Usually, I might write with more of an eye to the correct language or with concern as to how my words and attitudes might come across to someone who is gay. I haven't done this here as I think it is important that I be bluntly honest about how my journey has come about. If what I have said rubs people on the raw, I apologize and regret what it is that may hurt but I cannot change what I have said for it is my experience.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

My Journey - Stage Three

2008-11-11T12:24:00.000-08:00

During my first year of ordained ministry there was an incident in our diocese that brought the issue of same sex relationships to the surface. As a result a chapter of Integrity was formed in this diocese. The chaplain was my very good friend, Shawn Sanford Beck. Shawn and I had gone through CPE together which gave us a fairly strong bond as well as the fact that we were two liberals in a diocese that was considered fairly conservative.

Integrity would meet for eucharist at the cathedral and then go for coffee at a near by restaurant. This was the first time that I really began to get to know same sex couples. What I saw and experienced brought a whole new dimension to my support.

At the same time, a study on the issue had been mandated by diocesan council. The report was published and as a member of council I was one of the first to receive a copy. I was horrified and disgusted after the first few pages and initially set it aside. I approached the bishop and learned that nothing would be done about the study. I was told that, if I was concerned about the fact that little was done to even attempt to present two different views, it would be up to the priest or study leader to present a more balanced point of view. It would stand as it was. I then approached some of my liberal friends in the priesthood. They too, would do little other than make sure it was not used in their parishes. Basically, they file thirteened it but would do little else.

I then spoke to Shawn about it. He had not seen a copy. He was able to get a copy and he brought it up at an Integrity meeting. Some of the other members also received copies and were deeply disturbed and hurt by what was written. Those of us who felt something needed to be done met together to discuss our options. We settled on writing a letter to diocesan council, carboned-copied to the Bishop asking that the study be rescinded. Members of Integrity were invited to attend and speak to the issue. I was no longer on council at the time. I also felt that those who this study directly affected needed to speak.

I think the next thing that happened is that the motion to rescind had a tie vote and the bishop decided to table it for the time being. Integrity was then asked to prepare a written response to the document. I went back to my research - binders full of it. I did not approach the issue from a biblical perspective this time as someone much more capable than myself was already doing so. This time I concentrated on the doctrine of marriage and the understanding of blessings. I used predominantly Anglican resources from the Anglican Church of Canada - papers by members of the Primate's Theological Commission. I also used Rowan Williams', "The Body's Grace", as well as Claiming the Blessing out of ECUSA (TEC now) and the Anglican Church of Canada's own presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council.

What I was learning convinced me even further. I looked at Jamie Howison's paper on the the purposes of marriage and the changes in understanding based on a study of the 1962 BCP and the Book of Alternative Services - "Thinking Faithfully About Sex and Marriage." I read another paper by Paul Jennings - "The Grace of Eros," and Gary Thorne's, "Friendship and Marriage." (Sorry, my link to this paper no longer works.) Another document I used was the Anglican Church of Canada's "Marriage: An Exploration of Marriage in Church and Society."

I will grant you that my final presentation was not balanced in its approach but then I figured that the opposing point of view had already been presented in the Study Guide (which I figured should have been called the Position Paper - literally). I should note that I do respect and appreciate the time the authors of the study guide put into the document. But I could not in good conscience support the one-sided approach (although someone who is in the know and liberal said that it was a better study than a number that he had seen - I would hate to see some of those others).

Diocesan Council did rescind the guide but felt that something should still be done. The bishop thought it might be best to open dialogue between all people. He approached Integrity for their assistance and Integrity agreed to come up with something.

My Journey - Stage Two

2008-11-11T12:01:00.001-08:00

Most of my first year for seminary was taken by correspondence. After four years I arrived on campus. This is where I really began to hear arguments both for and against same sex relationships. I, of course, argued vehemently for them. Most of what I heard against did nothing to convince me differently and I learned more about what lay behind the reasoning of those who supported.

On internship, my supervisor mentor was as much against same sex relationships as I was for them. We found a way forward without letting the issue harm our ministry together. I did ask to borrow one of her books which spoke against such relationships on a biblical basis. I will admit to not being able to finish the book although I did read it half the way through. The approach to interpretation in the book and the approach I had come to adopt at seminary were too different. I found no common ground on which I could base either an agreement or disagreement.

During my internship, I really questioned my stance on the issue. My supervisor/mentor was so much against (although not rabid about it). This caused me to question my own stance. To get to the parish where I was interning was a 45 minute drive on fairly open highway. I was able to spend a fair amount of that time in prayer and meditation. One day I gave my confusion over to God. What I recieved back was two touchstones. One was - does the relationship do any harm? The second was - does the relationship promote the work of the kingdom?

Up to this time I had not really come to know any same sex couples, so the matter was still fairly academic for me. I did know one gay couple from my church. I watched them and their love for each other but in all honesty they were an oddity for me at the time. I was fascinated because they were different, but, although I talked with them, I never really tried to get to know them.

I finished seminary and went into parish ministry. Without having to keep up with my theological studies on a structured basis, I now found time to study human sexuality more seriously. I pulled articles off the Internet from reliable sources. Admittedly the majority of these were pro same sex relationships but I did pull a number off that spoke against them. I also started a more serious feminist study of women in religion especially Christianity.

As I read more and more about the feminine and traditional understandings and experience, the more I discovered how deep seated was the attitude toward anything that threatened the "masculine". Patriarchy had a strong hold on society and religion in general and Christianity in particular. And patriarchy in the church was often based on the thoughts of pagan philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Those thoughts so went against my experience of being female that I couldn't believe that people still embraced them.

At the same time, there were occasions that I was having to defend being a female in ordained ministry. One gentleman mentioned that the Spirit would never call a woman to the ordained ministry. This was so contrary to my experience that I continued to question tradition. If tradition is wrong on the issue of the feminine, could not tradition also be wrong in the whole area of human sexuality.

This idea of fear of the feminine re-inforced what I had come to understand about the passages in the Bible in general and the passage in Leviticus in particular. As my feminist studies continued alongside my studies on human sexuality, I began to see more and more parallels and become more convinced that we were wrong in not accepting the "integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships" (as it was put by GS 2004).

My Journey - Stage One

2008-11-11T07:36:00.001-08:00

I first started on my journey toward acceptance of same-sex relationships based on a struggle my father, an Anglican priest, had with the issue in the early 1980's. My father still identifies as a homophobe. But he is a homophobe with compassion. He recognizes that his problem with homosexuality is based on his conditioning by society rather than his Christian faith. Now there's a switch from those who believe that supporting same-sex relationships is caving into society.

I will say that when I look back, I don't believe that I ever had been taught that homosexuality was a sin. I remember in high school that we had a teacher everyone figured was gay. But we mostly made jokes about him and the Zodiac club. It was more an "ick" factor than anything.

I can't even remember the context around my conversation with my father. There had been a church meeting of some sort and something about sexuality must have come up. I remember Dad speaking about the struggle between his head and his gut. His head told him that human kind was created in God's image which meant that we were created to be in relationship. He struggled with denying the opportunity for that intimate relationship to a group of people. And yet his upbringing gave him a major reaction in his gut whenever he thought about two men in a relationship together.

I didn't think much more about this for a number of years. The conversation did remain with me and did provide a basis whenever same sex relationships was brought up. It wasn't until the mid-nineties at a bible study when the pastor spoke strongly against same sex relationships that I realized that I had come to a sort of acceptance of them based on my dad's struggle. The acceptance, however, was more academic or intellectual than anything else.

In the late-nineties I started seminary. My New Testament class opened my eyes further to the wonder of scripture and I encounter feminism interpretations for the first time. I think my first in-depth feminist study was on Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well.

But it was my Hebrew Scriptures class that really made the study of scripture come alive for me. I think this was because it had a bit more of a cross discipline approach. I have always loved history and had taken classes in Sociology. My approach to things is more anthropological although I will admit to never having taken any Anthropology on a formal basis. During this time I was struck by the understanding of procreation. When coupled with what I understood to be the attitude toward the feminine the prohibitions about same sex intercourse became much clearer.

Looking at Leviticus I noticed that prohibition against same sex intercourse was only directed toward males. This raised a question in my mind. When I further thought on it, I remembered that to be female was to be inferior. When one considers the sex act, one could see where it was believed that one male would have to play a female role or be in a female position. This would have been very demeaning. Add to that the understanding of procreation where it was believed that the male seed was a tiny perfectly formed human being. To plant this seed in anything other than a woman's womb was akin to murder.

Sodom and Gomorrah is said to be about hospitality. To me it is about violence. Yes, hospitality is part of it but the violence of what the men wanted to do stands out more. It is not same sex relations that the men want. It is to violently humiliate the guests by using them as women. The passage disturbs me even further when I consider that it would not have been as bad in the men's eyes had it been a woman who was so violently violated. I should mention that this interpretation is very much influenced now by the realization that the reason God caused the flood was the violence of humans. The humans did evil in the sight of God but the evil that is mentioned most pointedly and consistently is violence.

I was beginning to take ownership of my own stance on human sexuality.

I should also mentioned that my parents were instrumental in providing the lens through which I view scripture. My father is a Canon Emeritus based on his work in the area of Social Justice. My mother was every bit as much involved in that work as my father and certainly holds her own ideas on it. Each of them is a force to be reckoned with. They brought me up in a world of love and inclusion. This is not to say that I am free from racism and bigotry. I can't help my gut reactions that have been formed by the people and society around me. What I can do is not act on those reactions when I understand them to be wrong.

Most telling for me is the gospels where Jesus lifts up those who are oppressed because of the systems and religious misunderstandings of what it means to be fully human. The thing in the Hebrew scriptures (next to the story of Creation) that stands out most for me is God's continual reminder to the Israelites to remember that it is God that brought them out of slavery in Egypt and to respond by looking after the orphan, the widow, and the alien in the strange land. There are the calls through the prophets to do justice.

Then there is the gospels themselves which tell of Jesus ministering to the outcasts - those that the religious system based on the laws (a number of which are in Leviticus) had declared unclean, often for things that were innate or beyond their control. The over-riding commandment that Jesus gives us is the one to love. God loves us. Our response to the love is to love God and to love one another. In the BCP, the book with which I was brought up, I remember being told that on these two laws hang all the laws and the prophets. There is no commandment or law greater than these. This is the lens through which I read and interpret the scripture.

The Celebration of Marriage

2008-11-05T15:13:00.000-08:00

"The marriage of two people is a holy union. It begins with your desire to
form a lasting, life-long partnership with another in God’s love, and
continues throughout your lives as a process of intentional living and
growing together. In a marriage, each of you as an individual, and together
as a couple, gradually transform and mature in God’s presence and image.

A wedding, then, is a rite of passage, a sacred ritual that celebrates your
desire to enter into a life-long relationship. It symbolizes the ending of
former ways of life and other future possibilities, and establishes a particular
pathway into the future – one that you promise to travel together.

By uniting within the context of a faith community, you recognize that God
is active in the love you feel for one another, and you place your relationship
in God’s care. Your individual stories – and your story as a couple – are
celebrated in the context of the story of God and God’s ways with the
human community, as understood within a particular community of faith.

In a Christian marriage, your personal stories are seen in the light of God’s
action in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s unfolding
pattern in our lives is one of dying to self and rising to Christ, of
transformation, and of self-offering. A Christian relationship is the living
out of a self-giving way of being in community with one another, in the
larger context of the Christian community.

Through a wedding, you as a couple enter into a life-long commitment. You
make your vows before God and the gathered community of family, friends
and the Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help you
fulfill your vows. Your marriage is a sacrament – an outward and visible
expression of God’s grace in bringing you together and nurturing your love."

The above text comes from St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle Washington. Now I will grant you that this is deliberately written so that it can be applied to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. But it does put forth what marriage is quite clearly. When one takes out the language of "male and female" we can see what marriage is at the heart of the sacrament (and I do believe it is a sacrament). Could someone please tell me why a same sex couple does not fit within the definition above?

Or failing that, can anyone tell me what is specific (other than procreation) to marriage being exclusive to male and female couples. I know the arguements from a scripture stand point. I have read them ad nauseum. They are at best inconclusive in the light current research and understandings available to us. Procreation is not an argument as we allow for marriage of male/female couples who are not or cannot have children.

If we believe, as Paul writes, that it is by the fruit we shall know God's blessings upon something, what stands in the way of a marriage that reflects the above?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Follow up

2008-10-06T21:35:00.000-07:00

I was just over at "Telling Secrets", Elizabeth Kaeton's blog. She posted this article which speaks more strongly to what I was attempting to say below:

That the church's silence and inaction in North America is also taking its toll on people.

That, yes we need to be concerned that people may be dying because of what we do say on the issue of full inclusion but it should not silence us because silence also has consequences.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Rambling Thoughts #1

2008-09-27T08:35:00.000-07:00

Wednesday was a clergy day for us. Our bishop and his wife gave a presentation on their time at Lambeth. It was interesting but didn't offer many new insights that hadn't already been discussed on the internet.

Toward the end there was a time for questions. Of course the same-sex issue came up (almost exclusively so). A comment was once again made about people dying in other countries because of the west's support for full inclusion. My response to that is that there are people in the west who suffering and dying because the Church does not speak out strongly enough for full inclusion. It has not done any where near the work necessary to bring about acceptance. My more conservative colleagues will tell us that is not the individual but the actions of which they disapprove. But yet, they do not speak for justice and compassion for the individual. The words they use and the images they provoke are ones that continue hostility and non-acceptance.

Yes, we need to be concerned about deaths in other countries - but let us not forget that some of the very people that speak about those deaths are also not speaking against the deaths of GLBTTs in their countries legal systems or from outside it. How many deaths would be prevented if they would speak out for love and acceptance? Yes, deaths are wrong (and it is horrific to think that something we are doing might be causing those deaths) - but so is standing by and doing nothing. The only way to ensure those deaths do not occur is to bring about change and acceptance on a world level and that means starting in our own countries to set the example.

Yes, those deaths are tragic but so is moving backward and forcing our friends back into the closet, back into a time with little rights. That in itself is death. Our friends have just as much claim to the abundant life promised in John 10:10b and in all the gospel. Stopping now is not going to bring about that life. So yes, my heart and prayers go out to those who may die because I, a simple rural Anglican priest, support the full inclusion of GLBTTs and I truly pray that my support does not bring about a single death - but to do nothing means that no progress will happen and other people will die - either by their own hands, or the hands of others, or through the lack of life by the denial of who they are as beloved children of God.

So, while we need to listen, we cannot be ruled by the actions of those who use violence to prevent change. Instead we need to continue to speak and educate so that eventually all may have life and live it without fear or guilt. For the Anglican Church of Canada to keep the staus quo or to move backward will not bring about life for either those Christians in other lands or for our GLBTT brothers and sisters here. It may be that we need to speak further a field to bring Jesus message of abundant life to all.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Marriage

2008-09-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

Last night we had our regular Integrity meeting. As we celebrated the eucharist, each of us administering to the other, I overheard one of our members say to the spouse, "Beloved, the body of Christ given for you." The beauty of that statement stopped me in my tracks for a few seconds.

While on holidays in August I received a phone call on my message manager which asked if I would consider presiding at a wedding in the middle of September. The short time meant that the couple could not take one of the weekend marriage preparation courses. I did the preparation with them.

The second question I ask a couple is, "why the church? Why not a marriage commissioner?" (The first is - Why marriage? Why not just live together?) We spend some time looking at Christian marriage and that is often referred to throughout the course.

I look at these two events and think about Sarah Palin's daughter and her upcoming marriage. Why is the daughter getting married. From the sounds of it - soley because she is pregnant.

I sit here shaking my head. Over ten years ago I read a right-wing magazine - not something I do often but this one was free and it had an article on teen-age dating trends. It spoke of serial monagamy bemoaning the fact that our teen-agers were having sex at such a young age. As this had currently become a huge issue in my own family, I read on. The article then put forth the idea that we should lower the age of consent for marriage so the children would not have sex outside of marriage.

They lost me at that point. My concern was about children having sex and their's was about children having sex outside of marriage. They were suggesting that children, who already showed a tendancy to serial monagamy, should get married. So what happens when the first flush of romance dies or that burst of lust is no longer. The marriage will end - but hey, the children at least did not have pre-marital sex.

I look at this way of thinking and I think of the complaint that if we allow GLBTTs to get married we will make a mockery of marriage or we will start the downfall of marriage.

Excuse me! The couple last night at eucharist is a same-sex couple and I would say their relationship is a beautiful example of what Christian marriage should be. It is clear that God is very present in their relationship and that the relationship has borne much fruit both within itself and for those who know and love them. One of the things I stress when teaching about Christian marriage is that outward flow of the gifts that God has given them in each other. I teach that marriage is a sacrament and we explore what sacrament means - an outward and visible sign of God's inward and visible grace. I can see that in spades in last night's couple. I can see it in the couple I recently did marriage prep with.

Now it may also be pressent in Sarah Palin's daughter and her fiance. I don't know them so I can't say that it is not. But the point is there is more danger of making a mockery of marriage or contributing to a downfall of it by getting married solely because one is pregnant. It is not to say that this particular marriage will not work out or that it will not be as beautiful example of Christian marriage - it may well be. I will admit to having my doubts based on the experience of many other teen-age marriages.

But this could show us that the problem is not about same-sex marriage per se but about same sex sex. Are we actually against two people committing to each other or are we against the idea of two people of the same-sex having sex?

Maybe I'm nit-picking.

On the way home, I started mentioning some of these thoughts to my husband. He asked the question - do people get as uptight about two women together as they do about two men? I don't think they do. There is a very real focus in the writings that abound on two males rather than two females. There is little mention of the non-sexual aspects of any relationship which actually form a larger portion of the relationship time.

From my conversations with various people and from the reading that I have been doing, I would say that the biblical basis and doctrinal basis are being used to mask an over-all discomfort with sex itself and even more - a society that still has not come to accept the equality of male and female. Sex should not occur outside of marriage and no man should take on a perceived female role.

A few years ago the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution saying the we recognize the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships. We have decided to look at the relationship as a whole and recognize that God is indeed present in many same-sex relationships just as God is indeed present in many opposite-sex relationships. We are not cheapening marriage. We are holding an ideal up. That ideal is not about legimating sex. It is about thinking seriously what it means to be in a relationship truly blessed by God. It is about what it means to be in a healthy committed relationship where the vows are taken because the couple recognizes God's presence and gift in their relationship. I have yet heard one couple - homosexual or heterosexual - tell me that they want to get married so they can have sex. Instead what I have heard is about committment and celebrating and acknowledging God's presence in their relationship. Indeed - it is about Christian marriage and all that it entails.

Labeling

2008-07-24T09:27:00.000-07:00

My bishop and the bishop of the diocese south of us have blurred our boundaries as far as pastoral care of the region. I am the only Anglican priest on highway 14 between Saskatoon and the Alberta border. There are two priests on highway 7 between Saskatoon and the Alberta border. It is a large area for three priests to cover and when one is away it makes it difficult for those south of me to arrange for pastoral care coverage. I'm fortunate because I work closely with the Lutheran pastor and, if I am away, he automatically covers for me. The blurring of the boundaries means that we no longer have to go through our respective bishops to arrange for one of us to look after another's parish for things such as holidays, illness etc.

I was called to do a funeral in one of the communities south-west of me. Their priest was at a wedding in Ottawa. I had met the woman who had died a couple times in previous visits. With a bit of adjusting of time on their part, I was able to do the funeral. There were a few things that were different.

First of all, I couldn't do the interment because I had a previous important commitment here - a 60th anniversary and I was asked to bless the couple. Arrangements were made for the pastor of an evangelical denomination to do the interment. As I have been involved with that particular denomination before, just briefly when I attended a workshop of Natural Church Development they were sponsoring, I was very aware that they did not ordain women. As well, I was aware of the discomfort some of the pastors felt when having to work with me. I wasn't sure how the meeting with the family and the pastor would work. It went well. I behaved, but then nothing was said that made me have to bite my tongue in front of the family.

That was the first edge of this experience. The second was that the woman who had died had such a strong faith and had found so much that was life-giving in that faith (naturally) that she wanted everyone to have a chance to experience a closer relationship with God. She wanted the prayer of salvation at the end of the service. First of all, not being from the evangelical branch of Anglicanism, I had to ask which particular prayer of salvation. I told them that I could not do it at the end of the service but I could work my sermon around it and have it at the end of the sermon. That's a bit of a stretch for me but I, too, have found so much in my faith and do love to share it so that others might know it too.

I researched evangelical prayers of salvation and the theology behind them. In general I certainly had no problem with them. I discovered four basic elements behind them.
1. God's love for us
2. Our separation from God through sin
3. The cross as penalty for our sin
4. The restoration of our relationship with God through confession and prayer.

I have absolutely no problem with elements 1,2, and 4, but my theology of the cross is not one of penal substitution. I could not stand in the pupit and say that I believed that Jesus died on the cross as a penalty for my sin and mean what I knew was the intent behind the prayer with any integrity. I'm not sure which theory of the atonement I embrace but I do know it is not that one.

(Actually, I am reading The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality. What Ian Douglas has to say about the atonement may come closest to the way I understand it.

"The ultimate act of Jesus' self-giving participation in God's mission is his sacrifice upon the cross and the victory over death. The joining ofJesus' pain and suffering with our pain and suffering on the cross is where we are passionately connected with God, with one another and with all creation. On the cross is where this new relationship, this right relationship, with God and each other is effected. In Jesus' resurrection three days after the agony of the cross, we are given the promise of restored life in him. Jesus' atonement for the sins ofthe world is our 'at-one-ment': our "at-one-ment with God, and our 'at-one-ment' with each other through the power of the Holy Spirit. In Jesus' death and resurrection we are given the means by which we become one with each other and with God. In the death and resurrection of Jesus the divisions between God and humanity are overcome, and the promise of reconciliation is made real."

I find even the above rather limiting as it only speaks to the cross and resurrection rather than the whole of the Incarnation and I see the 'at-one-ment' as taking place in the whole, not just part.)

Anyway, I did manage to find the words and thoughts to do an evangelizing sermon while speaking with full integrity to God, with the person who had died and with myself. I didn't do too badly, even my husband listened and learned (although he found the sermon a bit longish which it was compared to my usual funeral sermons.) The evangelical pastor read the eulogy and did the prayer of thanksgiving for the life of the person and read another gospel passage (John 3:1-17) just before I did the blessing and dismissal. All in all, the service went quite well and many people were touched by it.

The fun came at the luncheon afterwards. After most of the people had left, except for family, the pastor and I were talking. He touched on the current situation in the Anglican Communion. He told me about his time in Prince Albert (Diocese of Saskatchewan). He had met and worked with a number of the Anglican priests up there and found them to actually be more evangelical and conservative than he was. He would not have a problem with any of them preaching to his congregation. But those "liberal Anglicans" on the other hand...

I looked him in the eye, smiled sweetly and said: "Well you know, I am one of those "liberal Anglicans". If you were to invite me to preach in your church, your congregation would also find nothing to object to." He did not carry that conversation any farther. I wish he would have so we could once again find common ground in our service to God. Now, I am labelled in his mind as unfit to preach, as a teacher of a false gospel.

Labels - human-made, divisive, and limiting. "Liberal Anglican" does not really descibe the whole of who I am. Who knows what possibility for ministry and service could exist for me and the evangelical pastor. Certainly before that conversation at least one other person sensed possibilities. That labeling may have closed the door on that possibility. I realize that, in this case, geography plays more of a factor, but this conversation could have just as easily taken place here where I live. Certainly it is taking place in the world-wide Anglican Communion.

In general I don't have a problem with someone from elsewhere on the spectrum preaching to my congregation. I sincerely believe they need to hear from a wide range of understandings. I had a bishop from Tanzania speak to them 1 1/2 years ago. Now there was an evangelical sermon. As I listened I thought how good it was for my people (and the Lutherans and Presbyterians) to hear the message this man brought. I didn't worry about where our theology diverged. Actually, I can't even remember looking for points of divergence. And even had he preached something to which I took total exception, I would have embraced it as a chance to explore our faith more deeply in future conversations amongst ourselves.

But that isn't even the whole point. I have talked about the possibility of pulpit exchanges here among the ministerial. I am well aware that three of the eleven of us are from a more "liberal" background. If I were to end up in one of the more "traditional" congregations I am going to respect where they are at. I am going to respect that it is one time only proposition. I am not going to try and ferment trouble. We do have common ground and common understandings and this is where I would preach not in our theological differences.

I know that world-wide we have major differences. I know that they are important differences to all invovled. Just as I could not give up my stance for full-inclusion, I can respect that others cannot accept it. But why should this one factor determine whether or not we can journey and work together? Why are we making it the make or break proposition? Why are we, in the local church, letting the divisions at higher levels affect how we live and work together? Why am I considered unworthy because of something I have come to believe? I didn't come to that belief lightly but those who judged me have never asked me why I have come to believe as I do. Most of them don't want to hear. (Plus I grant you, it is a long, long story -pages and pages covering more than 20 years of study).

I know I am idealist but why can't we play nice like good little girls and boys?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Eye update

2008-07-24T09:21:00.000-07:00

Thank you for your prayers. I have now been taken off the one set of drops which means I have my vision back in the affected eye. I found out the main problem with my vision was not with the disease but with this one set of drops. They were needed to keep the pupil dilated, which helped in the absorbtion of the other drops. I am no longer the one-eyed, purple-haired Anglican priest adding colour to our small community. I am tapering off the second set of drops and should be done some time next week. The specialist is very pleased with the improvement in my eye. I am praying that this is a one time only thing. If it is not, it means that there is an underlying problem with my auto-immune system.

But once again, thank you for your prayers.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Prayers, Please.

2008-07-08T14:13:00.000-07:00

I have been diagnosed with Iritis. It's not life-threatening or even rare. It can, however, lead to vision loss. I have had some loss of vision but am hopeful it will come back with treatment. In the meantime I live in a very blurry world and my good eye (which used to be my weakest eye) is getting quite strained as I try to prepare worship and a sermon for Sunday.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Feminine Incarnation

2008-07-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

The first hour or so of my work day is usually spent drinking coffee. I have about three different coffee shops that I tour weekly catching up on what is happening in the community as well as touching base with a number of people who are not formally attached to any denomination (as well as with some of the Roman Catholic women who feel a female priest might understand their concerns and issues more than a male one.)

Today I had a few interesting conversations with people from a variety of backgrounds. (Actually, most of them are men at 8:30/9:00 in the morning. The women tend to go for coffee around 10:00/10:30. In general, coffee row is segregated in the morning but not segregated at 3:00 in the afternoon. This would be a pattern started a number of years ago when lifestyles were different.) One of the people I had coffee with was a friend/parishioner that I had helped out and spent a bit of time with a month or so ago. He had had a letter from a mentor of his in response to an update on what was going on in his life. In the letter the mentor mention something about the 'woman' priest.

Now, it is interesting that the person who wrote the letter - a very well educated man - felt the need to distinquish 'woman' priest as opposed to just priest. (It is also interesting that the spelling and grammar in that whole sentence would have been edited in vivid red on any university paper.) Is there something about the fact that this particular priest is a woman. My guess is, that had I been a man, that he would not have written 'you man priest' (He wrote 'you woman priest' so the spelling/grammar mistake in the quotes is his and not mine.).

This comes at a time when I have been following discussions about female bishops in the UK. There is a letter/petition sent to ++Canterbury and ++York from priests and bishops suggesting that their consciences might compel them to walk away should women become bishops without allowing enshrined discrmination structures to protect those who believe women have no place in ordained ministry. I find all this negativity and questioning interesting.

Of course, when I read "woman" priest it got me on one of my feminist rants. My poor coffee partner has actually heard most of it before as it is a common theme when I talk about our hierarchal, patriarchal church. But today, I thought of something else. It is probably something that I have read somewhere but it finally came together for me this morning.

Part of the problem with accepting women priests is basing one's objections on tradition - looking to the writings of the early church fathers who negated Jesus' full inclusion of women and elevation of the feminine from the pits that men had placed it. It is based on a dualistic philosophy of masculine/feminine - and either/or proposition. The masculine is considered superior and postive. The feminine is considered inferior at best and negative at worst. The masculine celebrates the intellectual which is the vastly superior condition - mind over matter sort of thing. The feminine is seen as body and nature which is much inferior and to be dominated.

Embodiment is considered much less than the mind and to be avoided as much as possible. Anything that reminds us of our earthly ties is not to be practiced. But here there lies a conflict with the very faith we profess. What is the key event in our faith? The Incarnation! And what is the Incarnation if not embodiment? God chose the defining event of history to be feminine. Yes, Jesus was male. But the Incarnation was feminine!

So for those who believe that only males can be priests because of traditions that developed around misunderstood ideas of masculine and feminne - why did God chose a 'feminine' way to save creation? The Incarnation is not celebrated because of its male traits (ie - intellectual) but because of its feminine (ie - embodiment and relational).

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Integrity Saskatoon Blog

2008-07-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

Integrity Saskatoon has started a blog.

Doctrine and Scripture

2008-06-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

The next essay I read was Christopher Seitz's "A Reflection on Scripture and Theology in the Canadian Anglican Context." This brought to life some more beefs that I have. I know that I am being nit-picky and that I am missing the point of the paper. There's two reasons for this. 1. I get so tired of claims that are not really reflective of either stance and 2. I can't argue the point of the paper because it is beyond my learnings to do so. I will let someone better qualified argue the Acts passage.

I have to admit that my back went up when I read this: "The Church of the the late modern West is divided, and so the claims of one of its number (The Anglican Church of Canada) to be 'the Church' are themselves part of the cause of the problems we now must face."

I realize that I don't have a good handle on attitudes and words used in Eastern Canada but I have never heard the Anglican Church of Canada claim that it was 'the Church'. In my, admittedly, small group of revisionists (but ever growing) out here, we tend to feel that we are not examples or normative of 'the Church' but rather speaking prophetically to 'the Church'. There is also the understood notion that 'the Church' would be establishment and, in general, those of a liberal or progressive bent, as traditionally understood, do not see themselves as part of establishment but on the edges, pushing for change. We see ourselves more as 'voices in the wilderness" - right or wrong, modesty or self-aggrandizement. I am not at all sure where the basis is for the claim that we see ourselves as "the Church".

Seitz goes on to write:

"The fact that the other Churches (including the vast majority of Christians today and through time) have reached a clear decision about the matter in question, and base this on either scripture or received tradition or both, establishes the point."

See the post below for my concerns about received tradition. 'Received tradition' based on information that was not complete/even shown to be wrong by research in present times. They have not so much reached a clear decision as maintained the status quo - closing themselves off from current research and understandings of sexuality.

"The very fact that the Western text of Acts has a different set of proscriptions reveals at once that the analogy was imperfect once the Christian Church became largely severed from its Jewish roots, ..."

Here is an acknowledgement that somthing can be seem as imperfect when it is severed from its roots (or context or worldview etc.). Is that not what revisionists are trying to get across? Are we not trying, apparently rather ineptly, that what has been said about human sexuality is imperfect. We don't deny that the 7 clobber texts exists. That would be foolish. What we are saying is that they are imperfect as a basis for the current debate due to their context and the different context now.

Times and understandings change. Case in point is the use of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage as a clobber passage. Very few people with any credibility will point to this passage as a proof text anymore and yet the more traditional understanding saw it as speaking against homosexuality. Closer study, placing the passage in its proper context, has shown that is not about homosexuality but about power and hospitality.

And don't think I'm letting the implication above that the revisionists don't base their understandings on scripture slide.

"Then there is the related problem, moring to the second point, that the ruling given overthrows nothing at all. It is seen to be consistant with the prophets...At question was precisely not overthrowing but unholding the Law and the Prophets. Again, there was no possibility 'doctrine' being anything other than an appeal to the scriptures..."

We revisionists really do see full inclusion (including same-sex blessings) as consistant with the scriptures. We look at the full of the scriptures (we tend to suck at proof-texting) and from that we find that full inclusion is consistant with the teachings of Jesus.

Seitz is making a case against the use of Acts 15 as an example of doctrine changing. For all I know, he may have a valid point - this is definitey not an area I feel anywhere near capable of debating, hence the nit-picking.

"This [using the Acts passage as an example of doctrinal change and other incidents like it] demands of course a serious commitment to individual texs and discrete episodes ... and not to the comprehensive scope of scipture, which inheres with is claim to be scripture, and not discrete episodes in religious history."

Do you ever feel like you have entered the twilight zone. I felt this way with some of the statements that are made in this paper. The first was that the ACC claimed it was 'the Church'. The second is in the above quote. If anything, revisionists usually get critisized for taking a comprehensive look at scriptures not with a form of 'proof-texting.' We will deal with individual texts when we are presented with them - such as the 7 clobber passages - but in general we look at the whole of the gospel rather than individual events and interpret through that lens. And we get soundly critisized for that.

One of Seitz's arguements is that, at least in the Acts 15 passage, "the Holy Spirit spake in relationship to the dominical teaching remembered..." The implication being (or at least as I understand it) that this is not the case with same-sex blessings or at least with the revisionist understanding of the Holy Spirit in this case. But revisionists turly believe that the Holy Spirit is speaking for full inclusion and that this is a continuation of the Holy Spirit speaking to the love, compassion, and inclusion of those society sees as outcasts and sinners. We speak in general terms and use specifics to highlight or example what we mean.

I will admit to getting confused in this first paragraph of the conclusion. And my confusion just grows and grows as I read farther. There appears to be a statement that the revisionists give a central role to doctrine. And yet when I talk to those in the middle or on the reasserters side I find them saying that we need to have a good theological and doctrinal basis for same-sex blessings and that the lack of this is a significant weakness in the revisionists stance. And yet I seem to be reading that we are the ones with an obsession with doctrine. Once again, I am not an academic, so I could be reading this wrong.

But it does remind me of an incident in my family's past (you didn't think I could go a day without a family story did you?) We would quite often get transients at our door looking for money. In one such instance one came to our door asking for money for a bus ticket. This was at noon on the first day of school in the fall and things were at sixes and sevens around the house. My mother had a couple of quarters and that was it. She informed the man that she had no money. He started yelling that all the white man ever thought about was money. I did a double-take at that - who was the one that was asking for money (and who was known to threaten violence when he didn't receive it as shown in a prior incident).

I realize that I live in an upside down world out here. Often things are backwards of larger centres but some of the claims made in this paper make me shake my head. There are times when revisionists are being credited with things that I find opposite of my experience. It leaves me with a feeling of disconnection and confusion with the paper as a whole and a lack of focus on what is the underlying arguement centered around Acts 15.

I know, I know that I have been nit-picky but I have to get the nit-picking out of the way in order to be more clear headed to see the paper in its true intent.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Tradition

2008-06-26T17:37:00.001-07:00

I have just been reading come of the papers submitted to the Primate's Theological Commission dealing with the request from General Synod for more about the blessing of same-sex relationships. First, I will confess that I am biased and most people know in what direction (and if you don't already know, it will rapidly become clear.) I will agree on at least one thing though. I do believe, especially in Canada where same-sex couples can be married, that we need to look at this through the lens of marriage. If we were to bless same-sex relationships outside of marriage, we would, in all fairness, have to look at blessing opposite-sex relationships outside of marriage (with which I will also admit to not having a problem as long as they qualify under the criteria of adult, healthy, committed etc.)

My beef for awhile has been a falling back on the early church fathers and tradition. I have done a fair amount of reading by feminist authors (I know - quel surprise first, that I actually read anything through to the end and second, that I would read feminist authors.) It has become clear how shaky the ground was behind many of strictures against the feminine and women. To large extent it was based on Plato's understandings and the resulting world-view that the feminine is inferior to the masculine. This created structures and mind-sets of fear of being considered feminine or having traits of the feminine. I could go into this in way more depth, but unlike usual, I am not feeling particularly verbose today - too much time spent doing research on church programs.

Suffice it to say that many prohibitions were placed on women because of an assumption of the inferiority of the feminine (decided by a man or men) and a tradition of exlusion and, at various times, oppression ensued. Today, we have a better understanding of sexuality and have made a fair amount of headway - although we still have a long way to go before we embrace a wholistic understanding of human sexuality.

I have respect for the writers of these papers as academics and learned men. I struggle to interact on an academic level for I willingly acknowledge that I am more intuitive and experiential. I have only read two of the papers so far and will probably have to read them a few more times before I fully understand what they are presenting. However, there are a couple of points that come to mind, in general, as I am reading.

The first paper I read was "What Would John Henry Newman Do?" by Dr. George Sumner. (First of all, until I went to seminary I had never heard of John Henry Newman so I guess even knowing who he is now is a sign that something sunk in at Emmanuel.) Dr. Sumner speaks of Newman's proofs "that a particular proposal is in fact a true develpment of doctrine." One of these proofs is that of "chronic endurance". The saving facet of this proof is that Newman appears to have seen endurance as past, present, and future.

However, if we just concentrate on the past and present as the reasserters would have us do, we would run into the problem that I have as a feminist with the church's more traditional understanding of the role and capabilities of women. The traditons were based on a world view and understanding that has since been shown as being in severe error. As more and more information comes to light about human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in specific, we can see where what has been held in the past is no longer valid in the present. I guess time in the future will tell if endurance reaches into the future but gazing into my crystal ball I would suggest that the future will show that same-sex blessings are a true development of doctrine.

The problem being that most of us don't look to the future. We state that because the past has not allowed for it, neither should we, after all it is tradition. There isn't even an openess to the idea that the future might prove that same-sex blessings are consistent with established doctrines.

Dr. Sumner writes:

"With respect to chronic endurance, we should recall that, while the traditional view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for almost twenty centuries, the revised view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for two generations. Does this mean that the proposal could never pass the tests? No, but it does mean that it manifestly has not done so yet."

Ah, he does allow for the future changing. But it becomes clear that he is very doubtful that this is possible. I would say that he is a bit premature in this. Many things that we now accept have had a slow acceptance initially as they so often challenge the status quo and mind set. We may have twenty centuries and a majority of Christians who believe that same-sex blessings are not consistent with scripture or doctrine but those twenty centuries did not have the information or understandings that are available today. Are we to ignore new studies and information? Are we not to act because there has been a negative mind set for twenty centuries? (I will allow that same-sex blessings may not pass the endurance test but I am fairly confident that it will do so which makes me as set in my views as those who do not share them are in theirs. I just don't find it a valid arguement that past centuries have held a view as wrong when they did not have the information we have today, including even an concept of homosexuality.)

I should also state that I don't believe that just because something is new that we should embrace it full tilt. I do think that tradition is generally good and a solid criteria for judging something valid. In this particular case, I find that current studies and findings of human sexuality do not, in the main, support the foundations underlying the traditional view. And so we come full circle.

So, I see two things wrong with the arguement - 1. That the present traditions and doctrines are, at best, based on incomplete understandings of human sexuality and, at worst, downright false assumptions. 2. That we seem to forget that apsect of "chronic endurance" that reaches into the future, and focus on the past and present as the data on which we base our judgement of enduring.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Celebration and Thanksgiving

2008-06-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

I was on holidays last week. I went up to a lake and camped for a week by myself. My family joined me for the weekend. I think I could have used another week but I am thankful for the one I had. (I get 4 weeks of holidays a year. I use up three of them in August and carry one week over "just in case". My vestry likes me to use that week up before I start into the next years holidays so I usually take the week in June.) These holidays were in between two events for which I want to offer up prayers of celebration and thanksgiving.

The first event was the graduation of my third child/second daughter. That was on June 14. (And yes, I was present at the Pride Parade. My picture was even in the paper but you have to know it was me. The camera focused on a gorgeous cross dresser and blurred the people behind but, if you know it's us, you can see my Dad and me in our clericals marching in the parade.) The family was all out. Because the class is so small, each grad is allowed 15 dinner tickets so most of those attending the grad were able to eat supper. Jay won the creativity award and the Credit Union bursary as well as receiving a certificate for graduating with more than 30 credits. She looked absolutely gorgeous and was constantly smiling. The youngest also got an award for most academically improved in grades 7-11. (That's two awards for him this year as he also received Air Cadet Rookie of the Year.) The after grad party went over safely - no major instances.

The second event was when my family was driving to join me at the lake. My older daughter phoned me to tell me they driving through Martinsville and would be at the lake in just over an hour. Just as we finished the conversation, I heard a piercing scream and the phone went dead. I tried phoning back imediately but was unable to get through. Frotunately, for my nerve's and imagination's sake, she phoned back relatively quickly. Someone had just t-boned them off an approach to the highway. All were okay including the people in the other car. For some miraculous reason, the van did not roll. My family only had scrapes, bumps and bruises. There was $19,000 worth of damage done to the van so it was totalled off but who cares. I could have lost 1/2 my family in one instant. I have been offering up prayers of thanksgiving ever since - every time I think about it or hear that scream in my head.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Pondering Separation

2008-06-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about Malcolm's comment on the post below. He brings up a concern that I shared when I first saw the idea a few months back. If we were to separate, even for a brief time, we give a free playing field to those who would work to change this church into a more narrow minded entity.

I vividly remember a certain week at seminary. We had a retired bishop from the States as a guest lecturer for a class on evangelism. Ash Wednesday also happened to fall in that same week. Three things stand in my mind about that week. First of all, the retired bishop, in a response to one of my direct questions, told me that he would never have considered me for the priesthood based on the fact that I have no management experience. I pointed out that I was in the process of raising four children and have been involved in numerous executive positions in a variety of community groups - President/Chair, Secretary, Treasurer etc. (Let me tell you that dealing with mothers about a dance recital or skating carnival is not an easy task - it requires many skills of management and diplomacy.) Anyhow, these experiences count for nothing apparently. In order for this bishop to accept me, I would have had to have a piece of paper to give value to my skills and learnings.

During one of the sessions we were discussing how to deal with issues. At least that is what we were suppose to be discussing. We divided into two groups of about 5. I was all set to give an example from my recent internship. My supervisor/mentor was quite conservative, which could have led to a few problems if any of our parishoners brought up the issue of human sexuality. She and I sat down to discuss how we would deal with this. Both of us realized that we were not going to change the other's beliefs on this topic. We agreed that if the issue came up, we would explain where we stood and leave it at that. No critisizing the other's stance. For us the more important work was to look after our people. Instead of focusing on the issue and letting it stress us and our relationship, we chose to focus on the tasks that we believed God was calling us to do in the parish. I shared this experience with my group, hoping it would lead to some discussion of how we work together with differences.

Instead, what the group focused on was my support for full inclusion of all people, in this case, specifically GLBTs. A discussion then followed about how the church should draw doctrinal lines and people who believed as I did placed outside.

Have I mentioned before that I am a feminist. I'm sure you would never have guessed unless I stated it outright. That Ash Wednesday, we had Imposition of Ashes in the evening. This was the winter after my internship so I had been somewhat out of college life and hadn't fully entered back into the life of the community - so many new people and being past Senior Stick (head of the Theological Students Society) I was trying to stay in the background, especially because there were decisions and things happening on TSS with which I was in a fair amount of disagreement. I looked up at the front and all of a sudden realized that all five of the ministers invovled with leading the service were male. This in spite of the fact that there were a number of capable females available.

I was not in a good space that week to begin with. But these three instances really had me questioning whether or not my call was in the Anglican Church in general and in my particular diocese to be more specific. I called up my Dad and we met at Timmy's (Mom was having a bridge night at their house). Dad did his best to help me deal with the feelings and questions these three instances had fostered. He kept pointing out to me that although I might have been somewhat isolated in my current situation there were others who thought as I did. He used the example of a diocese that I had lived in back in the mid-nineties, which had just elected a new bishop. That wasn't much help though as it did not give me the community support I needed then and there.

Shortly after that, I led a seminar in my Anglican Church and Soceity class. I had chosen the seminar on Anglicanism in other parts of the world. That was when I first realized the possibility for what is happening now. I read up on the African provinces and their growing influence with a theology and vision that did not mesh with mine. I remember speaking passionately about my concerns in that class. (I do get quite passionate which turns people off - they think that I am getting emotional - it's more that I get very intense about what it is I am speaking on). After class my prof suggested to me that I consider a call in another denomination. (I will admit to a bit of elitism in my response to that suggestion. I am a cradle Anglican - never lapsed and he came to the Anglican Church in his adulthood.) I think that he mistook the reason for my intensity in the class.

I went through a tough period of discernment that winter and spring. Was the Anglican Church the place for me? Was my sponsoring diocese the place for me? I chose to stay with both because I believed it was important for my voice to be heard. Not "my voice" specifically but the things I had to say. I knew that there were people who needed to know that they were not alone in their thinking, that needed to know that there are other possibilities and understandings within our faith, that needed someone to care and voice their concerns.

These instances and my reflections in the post below highlight a tension in my life in the church. I can see the benefit of not being so emeshed in our communities - in being able to stand back and objectively work together. It is possible as my supervisor/mentor and I proved. But I agree with Malcolm as well. If we leave we give free reign to those who would shape the church in the image they desire. I have remained in this church to be a voice for those who do not have a strong voice. When I considered leaving either this denomination or this diocese, I have always hesitated for who would then speak of the possiblities that are offered. (This particular way of thinking is a legacy from my Dad. He had burn out in the early '80s. He returned to ministry because he felt his particular voice was needed.)

So yes, separation might be healthy. But what do we stand to lose? Is there some other alternative that gives the benefit of stepping back without the loss of our voice in the wider community?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Ecumenical Service

2008-06-08T11:58:00.000-07:00

In 2005 Saskatchewan celebrated its 100th anniversary. The local Celebrate Saskatchewan committee approached ministerial about planning an ecumenical service to help mark the event. Ministerial agreed and a tradition was started.

The next year, ministerial was asked if it would host an ecumenical service on the Sunday of Community Days. Based on the response the year before at the Celebrate Saskatchewan service, we agreed. We don't wait to be asked any more. The ecumenical service is now part of the Community Days.

I love the ecumenical spirit in Biggar, both on ministerial and among the people. There is a sense of eagerness as we move toward one of our ecumenical events. It is amazing how we can come together to praise God. There is a sensitivity to our different ways of expressing our theology and our praise of God. This year our liturgy planning committee had representatives from the Anglican , the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Associated Gospel and the Seventh Day Adventist Churches. There is no discord in the planning with each of us being sensitive to the other without going overboard. Interesting enough this year we pulled in a lot of more traditional style resources from the Church of England and the ELCIC, although I offered a variety of samples. It is a real joy to work with people whose main aim is to praise God while fostering a sense of unity - especially after all the shenanigans going on in Anglican land.

Music is one of the resources we use to draw us together. We have a wonderful lead musician in the Roman Catholic music director. Her energy and enthusiasm as well as her knowledge of the local musical talent make our music ministry truly ecumenical. We sing a broad spectrum of pieces with a number of talented musicians.

This year was another wonderful service. It has me thinking about Mark Harris' recent post.

"Then BabyBlue wrote a note to that blog entry. You can read it HERE: She asks, "And what of charity for all, malice toward none? What if we all just agree to separate for a period?" Again, in the midst of all the mutterings, a gentle reality check. Early on in the development of the Covenant idea the Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb, one of our two representatives on that group, suggested to the bishops that perhaps we ought to consider a time out. She said, "I suggest that we enter a five-year period of fasting from full participation in the Anglican Communion to give us all time to think and to listen more carefully to one another. I think we should engage in prayerful non-participation in global meetings (in Lambeth, in the Anglican Consultative Council, in other Communion committee meetings) or, if invited to do so, send observers who could comment, if asked, on the matter under discussion. We should continue on the local level to send money and people wherever they are wanted. (This is not about taking our marbles and going home.) We need to remain wholly engaged in the mission of the church, as closely tied as we are allowed to the See of Canterbury and to the Anglican Communion as a whole. But we should absent ourselves from positions of leadership, stepping out of the room, so that the discussions of the Anglican Communion about itself can go on without spending any more time on our situation which has preoccupied it."

This past week I was with a good friend and suggested the same. Now this is not exactly what BabyBlue was asking for, but at least the idea that the Episcopal Church might "fast from full participation" was working at something of the same hope - that we might "step out of the room." Perhaps across the great divide we can do more than Dave Walker suggests, politely chuck used vegetables and rotten eggs at one another.

I do not believe BabyBlue's remedy is the answer, but there may be some other possibilities. More importantly, her remark triggers a conversation that we ought to take to heart. Are there ways to admit the separations and live with them for a while?"

At first when I heard this idea put forward, I was hesitant. Is not separation a sign of defeat? But as I reflect on what is suggested and my own experiences with the local ministerial, I begin to see some real value. I think that one of the reasons we are able to work so well on ministerial is our ability to separate ourselves. We can listen respectfully to each other and work together well because we are not trying to prove we are right by proving the other wrong. We are able to see our focus in fostering a sense of God's presence in our community and finding ways to help people express it and give thanks for it without falling into too much disagreement. We are able to let go and let others express themselves without censoring or critizing what they have said because we respect that they have the right to their beliefs.

The speaker today, by virtue of being our newest member, was the Seventh Day Adventist member. We worked together as a planning group to chose a theme and readings for our worship. He then put together his talk without further input from us. I may not have agreed with all that he said, although there wasn't much to disagree with, but I respect what he had to say because I know it comes from his faith and from his heart. Even had I found major disagreement with what he preached I would not have made an issue about it because I can respect his understanding of the scripture and the interpretation for how it should be lived out in our lives.

I think that this is all possible because I am not emeshed with him. I can hold myself separate. Maybe Anglicans worldwide to need to stand separate from each other in order to come together in common service to God. That separation will give us the chance to focus on other more important service to God such as feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, and working with God to bring about the kingdom. Maybe in that work we can find the unity that is so lacking right now.

I truly wish it could be done without separation for I believe we each have much to offer. But I begin to see that it is not possible to do so right now. There is too much history between us. Each of us feels we have too much at stake in what is happening. My experience with the ecumenical community here gives me hope that if we can separate and then work together on what is really important without our various polarizations coming into play, we might be able to work more fully together in the things that really matter - discernment of God's will for the restoration of creation and acting upon that discernment, each of us with our own understandings and skills without constantly trying to prove how right we are in our understandings and how wrong the other is. Maybe we could then truly celebrate our diversity and the wondrous gifts that God has given us, using those gifts to draw us together in praise and service.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

BBQ

2008-06-06T17:36:00.000-07:00

Today we held our fundraiser for community outreach.

We are a small church in rural Saskatchewan. We cannot meet our yearly expenses without drawing down on our savings. Even with extra fundraisers, we don't come close.

Our community holds community days once a year. They're happening this weekend.

Last year we held a BBQ at the community days to raise money to get school supplies for children whose families could not afford them. We were able to make that project extend for two years. We were so happy with last year that we decided to do it again this year.

We needed a new project as last year's still had funding. So we decided this year to raise money for the local Family Centre to co-sponsor a family fun day. This would involve rental of the local pool or bowling alley and a BBQ.

We did well for small town Saskatchewan. We should be able to completely sponsor the fun day with what we raised.

I love this on two levels. The first is that we did raise enough money for the project. The second is what it teaches us about stepping out in faith. It's been threatening rain. We had gorgeous weather - not too sunny but yet warm enough for people to eat outside at the tables. It also teaches about how we will suceed when we work for the kingdom - when we look beyond ourselves and our own needs to helping others with their needs.

We actually did better than last year and last year was a bit of fluke. We couldn't get the day we wanted last year. Although we did luck out and find a c0-sponsor that hadn't already been approached by the time we started looking. We managed to get the same co-sponsor again this year. They're an awesome help. They supply the location, the burgers and buns. The town supplies the tables which they drop off and pick up. We supply the BBQs workers and extra supplies.

Fun was had by all. It got a bit overwhelming at one point. One of the BBQers figured that we sold 40 burgers in five minutes. It was all we could do to keep up.

I prayed hard over this project last year because I knew that if we failed last year, they wouldn't try again this year. I prayed again this year because they work so hard and have such big hearts. Our prayers were answered in spades. Thanks be to God.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Gay Pride and a Feminist

2008-06-03T12:00:00.000-07:00

In a week and a half Saskatoon will be holding its Gay Pride Parade. At first I thought that I would not be able to go as it's my daughter's grade 12 grad and she informed me it was a no-brainer as to where I should be. However, God works in wonderful ways. It turns out that Jay wants her hair done at a small salon in the city right on the parade route. The appointment will take one and a half hours so athough I may not be able to march in the whole, I will still be there for some.

Each year that I am here there seems to be a theme in the questions I am asked. The first year was - "So, what do you think about this whole gay thing?" The second year the question was around same-sex couples raising children. The third was - "Why can't they just stay in the closet?"

This year is - "Why do they have to have a parade? You don't see so&so's insisting on one. I have thought on this a bit. I haven't come up with a whole response but I do have some thoughts. (Surprise! Surprise!) I am not going to defind the right to march as that is a given. I think that this question is an extention of last year's question. It comes from our own discomfort with our sexuality and the tradionally perceived roles of the sexes.

There is now a tacit acceptance that same-sex couples exist. People realize that they are not going to go away and the old euphemisms we used to hide them will no longer work. But we're still uncomfortable so we prefer couples remain where we don't have to acknowledge the relationship.

The Gay Pride Parade challenges that. The very fact that we are uncomfortable should challenge us to look more deeply. Instead, the reason given for opposition barely scratches the surface. We know that it is not PC to wish GLBTTs back into the closet so we voice our concerns by pointing out that no one else holds special parades. We won't mention Anglicans parading in downtown Saskatoon (albeit a relatively short distance) in 1976 from the Cathedral to a larger church. After all, that was a religious procession. Nor will we mention cross town walks on Good Fridays. Those are a form of the Stations of the Cross. Nor will we mention Marches for Jesus.

I would point out to those who question that the parade is a statement that gays are no longer willing to live in the closet in which society has placed them. "Fine," is the response. "But they are no longer in the closet. Why do they have to be in our face about it?"

Unfortunately, our very discomfort shows the whys. Because society still wants them in the closet. We still don't want to see that sexuality and relationship is not just a man-woman thing. We still don't want to publically acknowldege that sex is good in itself, that it can be fun, wholesome, and meaningful without producing children.

And, of course, there is the discomfort over the challenge to stereo-typic roles. It's a threat to see women dressed and in the role of male husband. Heaven forbid that women should ever discover that we can survive and find meaning in life without a man. Or the challenge to those of us who choose to emphasize our femininity but, due to socialization, feel that our very femininity is inferior.

And, certainly, only women should ever wear skimpy clothing to sell our sex. Men doing so is just gross. Who do they think they are? (I will admit that the Saskatoon parade is actually quite sedate in this matter but people conflate it with the parades that get TV time.) Only cheer leaders should advertize their sex.

And then there are the male couples. We all know that, because the ideal couple is male-female, one of those men has got to become like a woman. And the female role is definitely inferior - so one of those men must be letting all of his macho brethern down. How could he?

So, for me, it is not just about being gay or being hand-holding same-sex couples in public. It is, on a less public and acknowledged scale, also about challenging centruies old mis-perceptions about human sexuality and proper (and inferior) role of the feminine.

On the 14th, I will march with my friends to state their right to live their lives fully in public - to the potential for which God has created them. But I also march as a feminist demanding that we celebrate the whole range of sexuality and that we accept all as valued and equal.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Unbind Him

2008-03-09T13:58:00.000-07:00

I was on a panel yesterday at conference in the city. The panel was on sexuality, spirituality, and worship. I was really struck by what one of the panel members had to say. He spoke to the readings that we have been hearing in Lent. He mentioned the gospel for this Sunday, the story of Lazarus.

He mentioned the call to come out, which given that the context of the whole conference was a theme of celebrating courage - past and present - was a pretty powerful statement. It was at the College of Education and spoke to the issue of human sexuality in the context of education. So the call to come out had real meaning and power for a number of young people there. The panelist then went on to speak of Jesus' command to unbind Lazarus and related that to the church being commanded to help unbind those who have answered the call to come out so that they may have the full life that is promised to us. (Yes, you can see there is an influence of this in the gist of my sermon, which I mention in the post below.)

I found this man's talk very inspiring and enlightening. As a member of the Church, I have recommitted myself to the unbinding of the things which hinder all people from experiencing the full and abundant life that Christ has promised us. I'm not sure what my next step will be or if my steps will even be any different than what I was already going to do. But I have been inspired to continue.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Jesus called to Lazarus - Come out.

2008-03-09T13:18:00.000-07:00

Today was a major day in the life of my parish. We had to make a decision that would affect our future.

For the last few years the writing has been on the wall. We have been dipping into our savings in order to make ends meet. We figure we have between 5 - 8 years left.

In January we entered into visioning with the Luterans and Presbyterians as I have mentioned before. Today we dealt with the motion that came forward from the last joint meeting. It really was a make or break decision. Yes, it was only for worship on a trial basis over the next 9 months or so but if we voted no, it would most likely make the next few visioning sessions a little stressed and break the trust and relationship we have been building over the last two years. There is a lot of history behind this that I won't go into.

I spoke on the readings today. For the last few years we have been preparing for death - afraid to move forward, at times preparing to close our doors in a few years. In a way, we have been living in a death mentality, in our tomb, afraid to face the life to which we are being called. Jesus is calling us to come out of that tomb - to enter into life and light. Lazarus made the decision to come out even with the things that still bound him to death - the grave cloths - and made is entrance into life more difficult. When the decision was made and Lazarus was committed to it, Jesus turned to the people there and told them to unbind him. Jesus has given us the gift of the people around us to help us unbind ourselves from that which holds us to the path of death, to that which restricts us from being free to live the abundant life that Jesus promise. Not that I really thought the sermon would determine the outcome of the vote but it did allow me to express my hopes and frustrations for the congregation.

Anyhow, the result of the vote was unanimous. All voted in favour of worshipping together weekly with the other two congregations for a trial period till the end of the year. We will revisit the question then to see if it will become permanent.

How this group of wonderful people has grown over the last few years - ready to look beyond themselves to other possibilities, ready to embrace life, to trust in the Spirit. Not that we haven't had moments where we have slid or where we have become frustrated. Five or six years ago, they had a similar decision to make and voted against it. Even those who were so hesitant back then were strong supporters today, speaking out in favour very well and encouraging the others. I was so proud to be a member of this congregation today. I have to admit that if you had asked a year and a half ago if I thought we would be where we are today, I would have serious doubts.

What thrills me the most is that it is not all about money. It is about worship and relationship. Yes, our financial fears play a role but listening to the conversations over the last few weeks, I have heard the people talking about how energetic, how inspiring, how life-giving it is to worship with the other two congregations. It is the support of the larger numbers, the support and care of the other two communities, and the music that has reached those who regularly attended our joint worship. I have listened to members of the congregation talking on coffee row about the life in our church and the life with the other two congregations.

I think about what is going on in the wider Anglican Church and all the talk about doom and gloom. Here in St. Paul's, our life goes on. We have chosen to answer Jesus' call to come out of the tomb, to come out of death into life and light.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Venables to visit Fort Worth

2008-02-27T14:00:00.000-08:00

Episcopal Cafe has this item here.

My first reaction is "where the h*** are the people who speaking out definitively against this. What is with the huge silence. And then I realized, it really is too late for anyone to speak out. The time when it would have made a difference has passed.

I'm assuming that the powers that be did not want to offend anyone - did not want anyone walking off in a huff - and so they stood by and did nothing. It is an attitude that I have had to deal with and am still dealing with. I had phoned someone for some advice over a recent event in the life of my parish - an event that can end in very positive life for the congregation ifs it is handled well, but I also need the support of higher up. The person I phoned did not want anyone offended in the decision making process and almost completely tied my hands as far as working toward a positive outcome in fear that someone will be offended. After I hung up the phone I turned to my husband and said, "Well, he/she has already managed to have one person offended."

The point is that you cannot go through life without offending someone. My congregation will not make this decision without ticking someone off regardless of what decision we make. The best we can do is let people know that we understand and accept their feelings and opinions and that we care for them and wish them well for their future. You cannot move forward without leaving some behind, as regrettable as that may be.

I believe that a stand should have been taken a while back. Border crossing is wrong because of the chaos that results - I have no problem with creative chaos but I do have a major problem with destructive chaos. Maybe TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are wrong in their support of full inclusion (although I don't believe they are). Instead of trying to appease each, would it not have been better, when it was realized it wasn't go to happen, to take a stand one way or the other, let the chips fall where they may, and wish those who left well in their future. Maybe it would have left the possiblity of reconciliation in the future more open. It would not have resuled in the chaos that currently exists with lines blurred and everyone offended on one level or another. It would have resulted in all of us getting on with our lives and the mission of the church as we best discern it.

There are times when we need to hold the line and work to keep everyone together. There are times when it is best if we let go. It is now to late to go back to who and what we were. I believe that it is time that we cut our losses. The powers that be need to speak out and let things happen. We can then deal creatively with what is left. If it means that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and various other provinces are unable to continue in the present arrangement, then we can creatively come up with a way to support each other and work to fulfill Christ's commission. If it means that those who do not support full inclusion on all levels are unable to continue in the present arrangement, we need to give them our blessing and wish them well in their future.

As my parish visions to move forward, one of our biggest stumbling blocks is letting go of our building. It is not as bad now as it use to be but it is still a concern in our talks with the other two congregations. When it was the major stumbling block, it had become an idol that we were placing before God in total disregard for the commandment that speaks to having no other gods before God. Trying to keep everyone at the table in the Anglican Communion has become like that. There was a time when it was good and right that we try. The time has passed. Unity has become an idol before our commitment to and mission with God. We can see this in the negative results around the life of various provinces and dioceses, let alone on the parish level.

A number of years ago the small village I was in faced the closure of its school. I had two children in the school at the time. As parents and community members we fought that closure but lost again at the next level. We then accepted it and did our best to help our children to adjust to their new school in the next town. Some older members of the community felt we had not fought hard enough. But I realized that although we needed to fight the decision to close the school on a number of levels, not the least being the process and underhandedness of the school board making and implementing the decision, we could only do so to a point where it began adversely affecting our children and making the transition very difficult. We did the best we could within the existing structures but were then able to let go for the good of all concerned.

I look on the current situation in that light. The powers that be have done the best they can but now (and actually much too late) it is time to let go of the past and forge a new future from what is left. I'm ready regardless of whether that leaves the Anglican Church of Canada in or out of the Anglican Communion. I wish those who cannot see their way to full inclusion well either in or out of the communion. May they find the abundant life that is Jesus' promise to us all. I sincerely hope that the rest of us will as well.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Reach Out for Kenya

2008-02-27T10:14:00.000-08:00

This came from Amnesty International yesterday.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/kenya-action

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8721569146

"Reach Out for KenyaFebruary 27th is International Day of ActionMore than 1,000 people have been killed and over 300,000 displaced from their homes since violence broke out in response to elections in Kenya.

Immediately, Amnesty International sent a mission to investigate the human rights situation and help mobilize international action to protect civilian lives.
Although the violence has abated, there is an uneasy calm as the mediation talks take place, led by Kofi Annan.

Amnesty International urges Kenya's leaders to ensure the human rights of Kenyan people are protected.

An international day of public and online action this month will demonstrate solidarity with the people of Kenya and call on the Kenyan government to protect people from politically-motivated and ethnic violence.

On 27 February, people can show their outrage at the continuing human rights abuses in Kenya in a series of events organised by Amnesty International; including an online Facebook action and a series of street demonstrations.

The disputed election of 27 December 2007 sparked an outbreak of fighting and a series of grave human rights violations. At least 1,000 people have been killed so far, while more than 300,000 have been displaced.

Amnesty International's recent visit to Kenya found evidence of unlawful killings, the ethnically targeted forced relocation and burning of homes by armed militias, excessive use of force by security officials, sexual violence against women and girls, and violations of freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International has also documented death threats against human rights defenders and activists.

The death toll includes hundreds shot dead by police, who were deployed to quell the post-election violence and break up mass protests against the election called by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) opposition party.

Subsequent violence has seen increasingly organised attacks by ethnic militia and youth gangs against people of Kikuyu ethnicity, which has led to retaliatory attacks by Kikuyu militias and youth gangs.

There is particular concern at the ethnic dimension to the political violence and its possible long-term implications for Kenyan society.

Amnesty International calls on the Kenyan government to protect the people of Kenya, many of whom have endured unrelenting suffering in the last two months. Kenyan leaders must end the cycle of impunity that perpetuates the politically motivated violence in Kenya."

Inegrity Workshop

2008-02-27T09:56:00.000-08:00

A few years ago, partly as a result of a decision that was a public relations disaster, the bishop gave permission to form a chapter of Integrity Canada in our diocese. Shawn Sanford Beck was named chaplain and did a fantastic job of drawing people together. When Shawn's license was not renewed, I was named chaplain. There was controversy over the appointment as no one had thought to discuss it with Integrity. When I realized this, I tried to do something about it but made little headway. I discussed it with Integrity members and at first we decided to treat my chaplaincy as an interim one until the group could meet with the bishop. By the time we met with the bishop the group was more at peace with accepting me and I remained chaplain.

Interestingly enough, part of the reason I was chosen chaplain, was that Shawn had been very open and outspoken about his decision to say yes the next time he was asked to do a blessing of same-sex relationship. The powers that be thought that I might temper the group so that they wouldn't become outspoken. My understanding of chaplaincy is to facilitate the growth of the group and ensure that sacramental ministry is provided. It has been wonderful to see this group come into their own. In January they passed their own constitution. They have taken up a request of the bishop to help bring about dialogue in the diocese. There is life and purpose in the group and although our membership numbers have not grown, the commitment of the people has. We are also looking outward at other groups to see if we can help or partner in any way. My role has become smaller and smaller as members of the group start utilizing their gifts in leadership. It is absolutely fantastic to see this group come into their own.

Below is a info-letter that has gone out to the priests of the diocese to promote the workshop the committee has developed with input from interested persons around the diocese.

TOGETHER IN FAITH; ONE IN CHRIST
A Workshop by Integrity/Saskatoon

An Invitation to a GLBTT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Two-Spirited) Workshop

The full and equal inclusion of gay, lesbian, and other sexual-minority Anglicans in our Church raises issues that probe our deepest understanding of the Christian faith. Silence has proved ineffective for resolving these divisive issues and the continuation and growth of the resultant discord has reached the point where it threatens the very structure of the Church. Resolution of these issues will allow us to begin to heal and to get on with our witness to the Gospel of Christ however; this resolution will require the development of an informed opinion and a mutually respectful dialogue in the presence of the Holy Spirit. At present no structure or process exists within our Diocese to initiate this resolution and begin the necessary dialogue and healing.

At a meeting of Integrity/Saskatoon in September 2007, the Right Reverend Rodney Andrews, Bishop of Saskatoon discussed the various issues and needs in regards to meeting this impasse with the membership of Integrity. Bishop Rodney made several suggestions on processes that Integrity could follow to address those concerns; Integrity responded to the Bishop’s suggestions by developing a one-day workshop entitled “Together in Faith: One in Christ” designed to give participants the facts and interpersonal skills needed to reach a level of understanding and spiritual growth which, it is hoped, will permit us to go forward together in faith as a people who are one in Christ.

This workshop has been prepared by the Integrity Education Committee with professional assistance from Integrity/Canada, Affirm United, and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Canada and also incorporates the findings from two, pre-workshop, brainstorming sessions held last autumn with participants from the parishes of Saskatoon. Following this workshop Integrity/Saskatoon will set up a series of smaller workshops to be held in parishes outside of Saskatoon. This current workshop is scheduled as an all-day event for Saturday, April 12th at Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, in comfortable surroundings with wheelchair accessibility and ample parking.

DATE, TIME Saturday, April 12th, 2008; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

PLACE Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, Saskatoon

FEE $25.00 per person (Integrity/Saskatoon will provide subsidies where needed); includes lunch and coffee breaks. Please make cheques payable to Integrity/Saskatoon.

CONTACT Tom and Rose Rogers, 1534 McKercher Drive, Saskatoon S7H 5E1; Phone: (306)373-5165; E-Mail: rogerstr@shaw.ca .

DEADLINE March 31, 2008

Leo

2008-02-24T14:07:00.000-08:00

Updated:

If anyone is reading this please send prayers up for our cat, Leo. He belongs to our two children still at home. It has been and down and up day. We took him into the emergency clinic in the city yesterday. He was in pretty tough shape - kidney failure. He was fairly dehydrated. They kept him in over night and gave him fluids. He did start eating as well, which he hasn't really done for a few weeks. They told us this morning that he was doing better but then phoned and told us he desparately needed a transfusion. We rushed in after the service and the news was not good. We decided to bring him home for one last night and take him to our own vet tomorrow to have him euthanized. It was a tough decision.

The vet went to get things set up for us to take Leo home. She and her assistant came back and told us that when they got to him, he looked better so they took another blood sample. His red count was up a fair bit - still a concern but not dangerously low as it had been in the morning. We decided to bring Leo home for the night and take him to a vet friend of our son's in the morning. Please pray that things improve. Leo is only 4 years old - pretty young to have kidney failure and we have been trying to figure out what he may have accidently eaten or drank to bring this on.

He's an amazing cat - can't decide if he's cat, dog, or human and shows traits of all three. He loves old boots. He's got personnality plus and has given us many laughs with his antics. My own cat, Max, is lost without him as he has never known a time separate from him. When I brought Max home as a kitten, Leo mothered him, which was good because Max's mom had basically rejected him.

Updated: Monday afternoon.

By 9:00 last night we figured that Leo would not make it til morning. He surprised us and did so. He was more energetic and drinking water. He ate a breakfast of ground buffalo - his favourite. We went into the vet with our hopes up, knowing that this vet did not like euthanizing animals. Unfortunately, the news was not good. Leo's condition had probably been there from his birth. As the vet talked we could see signs that he had been going downhill for a while now. Any measures we could take were for comfort only. We made the tough decision to have Leo euthanized. It's been hard to come home without him and still see traces of him all over the house. My youngest is taking this hard but believes we made the right decision (he had a voice in that decision as well - he didn't want to see Leo suffer anymore).

We give thanks for Leo's presence in our lives these last 4 years. He brought us a lot of joy and laughter. We give thanks to God that we did have that last night with him, to say good-bye and let go.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Busy, Busy, Busy

2008-02-23T13:10:00.001-08:00

I have been very aware that I have not blogged for over a month. I can't believe how busy my life has been and it doesn't improve any in the next two months. I will seriously have to look at learning a little two letter word. I've had one day off so far this month (and that was to go grad dress shopping with my daughter) and they're few and far between till the end of April. Hopefully, I can schedule a week of holidays for a personal retreat in May.

Retreat in January was mandatory. I hate silence. I can be silent but to sit through a meal with friends I haven't seen in a year and not talk is just not right. And in the evening, after our last meditation and compline, it would be wonderful to sit around that old field stone fireplace and share ideas. It bothered me even more when I went through that particular room at 10:00 one night and not a soul was there - yet in a small room, tucked away in a corner were a crowd of talkers. I understand the value of silence and I have no problem with it except at meals and in the evening. I wrote a page long comment on the evaluation but I doubt that it will get anywhere.

Synod is coming up. I ended up as chair of Nominations and Elections. Guess who has never even been on that committee before. It wouldn't be bad if our Canons were not out of date with the reality in the diocese. Oh and the timing of our next synod in relation to the timing of the next General Synod isn't the greatest either. I'm having nightmares over this.

There are a few tasks that I really enjoy and that feed me rather than drain me. I continue to be chaplain to Integrity. The growth in this group is absolutely wonderful. Although we have grown numerically, that is not the growth I am talking about. It is the growth of the individuals for which I am thankful.

I have also been asked to be on a panel at a Breaking the Silence conference to speak about spirituality and how I handle things related to human sexuality in my parish and community.

I get to also lead a workshop on prayer for the local parish nursing program. I love doing that.

And the fourth thing that will feed my soul is a conference in the mountains. The main speaker is Diana Butler Bass. It comes at a super busy time - the weekend between Easter and our Synod - but I know I will find a source of energy there to carry me through.

But in the midst of these things that give me peace are other responsibilities. I am on the the visioning committee. I believe that we have come up with a good plan to move this diocese forward. I can only pray that the earthly power that be backs us to the hilt. One of the things that came through so loudly and clearly during our consultations with the people of the diocese is the fear that this plan will come to naught. I would hate to see them let down.

And then there is the compensation committee. That takes a fair amount of meeting time. I wish I could give more effort to it but I just don't have the time available - at least not until after synod.

Of course, I didn't think I was busy enough, so I took on emergency pastoral care for a three point parish 1 1/2 hours away and in a different diocese. I really need to give my head a shake but I know these people are going through a rough time. How could I refuse.

But the dear Lord decided that life still isn't full enough for me. My parents phoned me last week to let me know that they were moving from their two bedroom house to a one bedroom seniors apartment within a month - the apartment is available on Palm/Passion Sunday. So now I have to find time to help them organize and pack. I am in charge of the china, books, and spare bedroom.

And then, a joyous event that makes my life even more hectic but for which I am deeply thankful. We are in the midst of a four month visioning process. We meet once a month with two other congregations - Lutheran and Presbyterian - and then once a month with just our own congregation. We are trying to determine if there is a future for these three congregations in closer relationship. At the last meeting of the three congregations a motion was put forward that we , for a trial period, worship together all the time instead of just once a month. It was passed by the people there. Now I need to take it to a congregational vote. The other two congregations do not have to do such as thing as their polity does not insist on it. The nightmare here is determining who is qualified to vote. I won't go into the three days of hashing it out between my mentor, my archdeacon, and my bishop. I was away in Alberta with a prior commitment to my daughter for those three days so it was an interesting time with a phone permanently attached to my ear at times. It wasn't until Thursday, after driving into the city for a meeting, that I all of a sudden realized that I hadn't even given thought to this Sunday's service. Friday was spent putting the notice of the parish meeting out, meeting with representatives from the other two congregations and mine to work out some details on the original proposal - clarifying things for the parish meeting and trying to research for Sunday's service.

Please pray for my congregation and its meeting on March 9. Those who are the solid attenders and supporters are enthused about this proposal but there are others who haven't participated enough to realize what a blessing our joint worship is. This congregation split on a somewhat similar vote about 5 years ago.

Sometimes I wonder if I'll make it through. But on the other hand, I know that when I have, it will not have been on my strength alone. Being busy actually reminds me to rely on God all the more and I become so conscious of the Creator's presence in my life on many levels.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Response from the ABC

2008-01-21T11:36:00.000-08:00

Finally!

On the home page of the Anglican Church of Canada, a link to an article about a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even an apology for taking so long to respond due to work load in December.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Our Lady of Sign - Updated

2008-01-05T09:50:00.000-08:00

Wandering around the internet last night around midnight I came across this post at An Inch at a Time. Then this morning I came across this at Episcopal Cafe and this at Desert's Child. Being a female priest and a feminist I loved this comment at Episcopal Cafe by EH Culver:

"Two things: 1) several years ago a friend gave me a copy of an icon, "Our Lady of the Sign," In which the infant Jesus is sitting on the BVM's lap, and her hands are in the "orans" position. According to my friend, now an Episcopal priest and a Wise Woman if I ever knew one, in Eastern iconography Mary is never depicted without Christ, and in this icon she is presenting him to the world, as the priest presents His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.2) In a lecture this past fall a respected scholar and UMC elder made the point that the Incarnation is the best argument for the ordination of women. If Mary, a woman, could carry the Body and Blood of the Lord in her womb, why should a woman not hold the same Body and Blood at the altar?"

Here are icons of Our Lady of Sign:

Love and Prayers,

Ann Marie

Update

As per the comment below here is a link to Luis site. Luis Gutierrez

Anglican Bloggers

2008-01-04T13:11:00.000-08:00

Go to The Cartoon Blog by Dave Walker to find out about a new group on Face Book.

Dave writes: "I have decided that whilst procrastinating from my main task, that of producing one good diagram a day, I will attempt to mend the rift in the Anglican Communion using various methods.
Part one is the formation of a Facebook group entitled ‘Anglican Bloggers‘ which is for all bloggers and blog commenters with an interest in Anglican things."

Love and Prayers,

Ann Marie

Birth or Death?

2008-01-04T11:36:00.000-08:00

The Journey of the Magi
T.S. Eliot

A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For the journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.'
And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wine-skins,
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set downT
his set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death,
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

For years January 6th meant Ukranian Christmas Eve in our family. My husband is half Ukranian and we are fortunate that it is his mother that is Ukranian. Fortunate because it meant, when she was younger, that she went all out with the meal Christmas Eve – all twelve courses.

Now, with the family moving away (from Vancouver to Halifax, from Saskatchewan to Texas) we are no longer able to gather on January 6. It is a loss but, on the other hand, January 6 has once again become a time to celebrate Epiphany. So, this Sunday the wise men will make their trek across our living room to the crèche. This year I placed the wise men in my “desert” arrangement. I don’t have sand but I do have rocks and candles as well as various wood carvings from Africa. I find it interesting that I did so because this Sunday’s visual will involve a container with sand and rocks (desert) and one candle in the centre (the star). I got the idea from Billabong.

As I was doing research for my sermon, I stumbled across T.S. Eliot’s poem printed above. I found out it speaks to Eliot’s struggles as he came to Christianity and the Anglican Church. There is much symbolism here as we all think of our struggles with faith. But for me, this year, the poem has some interesting insights as to what my little church faces.

We know that in 5 to 10 years, if things stay the same, we will be closing our doors permanently. We know that if we want to prevent this we have to start planning now. But it is not an easy decision. Come the new year we are entering into a visioning process with two other congregations of two different denominations to see if there is a future for us in shared ministry of some sort. I wish I could sell the process to my people by being all upbeat and paint rosy pictures of the possibilities. It is not that I don’t support the process – I do or I wouldn’t be promoting it. It is not that I don’t think some sort of shared ministry is the way to go – I do think that it opens exciting possibilities. It is that it is like going into any relationship – there will be times when it will be very rocky and desert-like and we will want to pull back. I also believe that if we persevere, we will find life.

What intrigued me about Eliot’s poem was the bit in the last verse where he writes: “Were we led all that way for Birth or Death?” I think about that in the context of the people I am serving. They have come so far – we celebrate 100 years in just over a year, which I realize in terms of Europe is mere infancy but for rural Saskatchewan, that’s a good number of years. We are going into this process to see what it is that God desires for us. But in the process we will face death. We will face the death of the way we have done church for the last 100 years. We will, in all likelihood, face leaving our building behind. We will face no longer doing things entirely in what we have come to understand as Anglican. Our community as we know it will no longer be the same. We will have to start looking at and considering the traditions of others and how we can work together in those traditions which means leaving behind some of the traditions we have come to value. Regardless of whether we decide to go into some sort of relationship or not – we face death. But the death we face going into relationship is a harder death because our future is totally unknown – if we just shut our doors we know what the future is and once it’s done, it’s done. If we go into relationship, we will also be facing a desert time as we work anew to discover who we are.

And yet, should we decide to set out into the desert, we will be looking at birth. There are so many possibilities. There are things we cannot do now because we are aging and few in number. Our mission is vastly curtailed by lack of energy as we die. By joining with the other two congregations, we don’t necessarily become younger, but we do gain more energy. The three of us worship together once a month. The energy at that particular service is amazing. The things that we can do with the music and with other parts of the liturgy are exciting. And the things we learn about through our differences and similarities are life-giving and faith strengthening. We will be looking at the birth of a new community with endless possibilities for mission and future direction. We will be looking at the birth of new revelations of God in our midst and new ways of expressing those to the larger community behind us.

Birth or Death? Both and both are to be celebrated and mourned. But through both will come life, for at the centre of it all will be God and God’s light will guide us.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Merry Christmas

2007-12-24T06:01:00.000-08:00

Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom God favours!
Luke 2:14

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
All things came into being through him,
and without him not one thing came into being.
What has come into being in him was life,
and the life was the light of all people.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God,
whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify to the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He himself was not the light,
but he came to testify to the light.
The true light,
which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world.

He was in the world,
and the world came into being through him;
yet the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
and his own people did not accept him.
But to all who received him,
who believed in his name,
he gave power to become children of God,
who were born,
not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man
but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us,
and we have seen his glory,
the glory as of a father's only son,
full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-14

For thus God loved the world,
so that he gave the only son,
so that everyone trusting in him,
might not destroy themselves,
but may have eternal live.
John 3:16

(as translated by my Greek class in 2004)

I came that they may have life,
and have it abundantly,
John 10:10b

Work's Righteousness?

2007-12-15T19:55:00.000-08:00

A few years ago I had a defining moment in my faith life. My daughter had been in the hospital with an appendicitis attack. I was told she needed surgery. I went to phone my parents to pray for her. In that moment I realized that I could not pray. It was not that I couldn’t say the words and mean them. It was that I honestly did not believe that God would answer me because I was so unworthy. I was not the person that God desired me to be. But I could phone Mom and Dad and have them pray because they were good people with strong faith and God would listen to them. I knew there was something wrong with this thinking but set it aside because I still had my daughter’s surgery with which to deal.

One day, shortly after, I was in the church on a Saturday, setting up something for the Sunday School’s participation in the Sunday worship. I don’t remember what I was thinking or doing exactly but I do remember getting this revelation. Yes, I was not the person I could be. And yes, I was not worthy. But it didn’t make a difference. God loves me. Nothing I did or didn’t do affected that love. God’s love was unconditional. God loved me!!!!!

It is amazing how much that revelation freed me. My faith life changed. It began to grow. About three months later I got the call to the priesthood. A call I would never have answered before that revelation.

Where am I going with this? I entered into a discussion and in that someone remarked that there was a danger, if the church focused so much social justice, of coming to believe or rely upon work’s righteousness. This was after I had said something about believing that the Incarnation was about redeeming the world, but that I believed social justice was very much a part of that redeeming. I mentioned that my call to social justice came out of my knowing God’s grace deep within my soul.

Does focusing on social justice bring one close to work’s righteousness? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe that my small efforts for social justice will earn my salvation. I already have my salvation. That is shown in the whole of the Incarnation. I don’t have to earn it.

“We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: …”

It is so strange that this prayer that paralyzed me because of my focus on my unworthiness is the same prayer that has given me so much freedom. It is the prayer that reminds me of my freedom. All I did was remove my focus from my unworthiness - which places me in the centre of the prayer - to God's great mercies - which places God in the centre of the prayer. Now in response to that - I work, in God's name, with God's guidance, to try and bring that freedom to others. I don't work for my salvation. I work because of my salvation - huge difference.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

ABC's Advent Letter

2007-12-14T06:50:00.000-08:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury has finally released his Advent letter. (He's also released his Christmas letter.) I skimmed through it but that is all. No major changes that I can see in the brief skim-through. And nothing really about what the Southern Cone is doing.

It always amazes me how much of these things focus on TEC. I recognize that it is because of the election and consecration of Gene Robinson which has taken the issue into the episcopate and means that more people have to acknowledge it. But nothing is said about Canada. Not that I want us to have the hassles TEC is having. I'm quite happy quietly flying under the radar. But the present situation makes it appear more like a vendetta against TEC. Other provinces have also let it be known that they ordain homosexuals in relationships as well as do same-sex blessings. Not a boo is said to them.

In all honesty, as long as only TEC is targetted (and I really don't want other provinces targetted) I will not be able to accept that this isn't "politically driven" at the top. Not that I deny the firm convictions of the people on the ground. But why single out TEC as the issue when a number of other provinces are doing likewise - just not always openly? And why the silence from those other provinces on the matter?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Parallel Chruch Structures/39th Province

2007-12-13T14:35:00.001-08:00

I've been watching events in the States with interest. Events in San Joaquin have raised some thoughts and questions in my mind. And Bishops Harding and Harvey make these thoughts relavent to the Canadian Church as well.

When all this first came out, my immediate reaction was to uphold the decisions about diocese made at the Council of Nicea. Now I am really questioning that and San Joaquin and what has been revealed about its process have made me question even more.

From the sounds of it on the more liberal blogs, there was a lot of pain and fear and other harm done in the process in San Joaquin. I wondered - what if the resolution hadn't passed? What would life be like in that diocese for those who support full inclusion/want to stay in TEC. I think of marriages/relationships that have gone poisonous. Is it not better in the latter case for the partners to separate. Would it not be better in the former case for the Diocese of San Joaquin to separate from TEC with some sort of amicable (or at least as amicable as possible) agreement worked out between San Joaquin and TEC. In that agreement, there could be a continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in TEC. In this diocese would be those who share the values of TEC. People would have a choice as to which church they wanted to belong.

What is so wrong with having two provinces in the same area? We have been conditioned to rejecting this out of hand. But, we are not going to be serving the same people. I know that a question that comes up often is - there are different denominations in the same geographical area, why is that different from what is happening? And initially, I reacted negatively to that thought. But then I read about the pain in Forth Worth, in Pittsburgh, in San Joaquin on all sides of the issue. I read the different understandings about how our faith should be expressed and who should be excluded. I thought about talks that I have had with some of my colleagues in this diocese and how I have come to understand that it often comes down to our basic understanding of God and how God interacts with humans. In many cases, we are poles apart on that understanding. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we are two entirely different churches for we do share some things. But there are significant differences and I think we may need to express them in two separate entities.

In light of people moving across borders to the Southern Cone, I have revised my thinking. Which is the lesser of two "evils" - if one considers a 39th province an "evil" (and I need to note here that I am using a common expression. I do not even come to close to thinking that a 39th province or the people involved in "moving" to the Southern Cone are evil). The Southern Cone has a membership of some 20,000 people. With people from Canada and the US "moving" into that province, the indigenous membership will soon be outnumbered. Given the arrogance of humanity, and especially white North American humanity, I don't believe that this will be a healthy thing for the Southern Cone's indigenous membership. Would not the North Americans be better in a province of their own?

For those of us who support full inclusion. Would it not be better to have a Church (or province) that fully embraces that inclusion. I often wonder about my gay and lesbian friends and how they must feel that this debate is about them but does not include them. That they are being discussed but are not being included in the discussion or decision making in any real meaningful way. Would it not be healthier for there to be a structure that fully accepted all people without having to constantly be aware of the tensions.

Would not some sort of amicable agreement be a more healthy thing all around. I realize that this would have to involve a mutual acceptance to disagree on an international level. For one thing, some of the more extreme provinces would have to agree to accept both provinces rather than just the one which reflected their theology and I'm not sure that is possible. But then, I also don't believe that they are the majority either.

I know that transition would be chaotic and painful for all involved. But would it be any worse than what is happening now? And once we worked creatively to find a way to live together, maybe we could start focusing on some of the more important things such as our inner cities, poverty, etc. In the long run, I believe that is what Christ is calling us to do - rather than being bogged down in our differences as we are right now.

Acutally, I have thought further using an experience in my own life. The experience is not a parallel but it does offer some insight to my thoughts. A number of years ago we lived in a small town where the larger school district had decided to close down the local school. Many of us disagreed with the decision (and I still do). We fought the decision. We did the best we could with the structures in place and still the school was closed. Some of the older members of the community thought we should have fought harder. I disagree. I believe that had we carried it to the possible extremes it would have become a very unhealthy situation for our children and still that school would have closed. We did the best we could but ultimately we had to learn to live with the new arrangement. It was painful to see the school close and it was not easy to adjust to the new situation but we did. Maybe the resulting arrangements were not ideal but, being human, not much of what we accomplish is the ideal.

We have fought to maintain our current church structures in place. And maybe we have actually fought too hard. The reality is that we are no longer together. Is it not better to try to come to the best possible arrangements and to learn to live creatively within those? Is it not, in the long run, more healthy for all involved to say that we have tried our best but now it is time to look creatively at the future and do the best we can with what we have available - that we need to sit down and work out the best possible arrangements for all concerned given the reality that we are living.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

The Golden Compass

2007-12-13T09:25:00.001-08:00

Last week S's boyfriend, Sc, asked me what I thought about the Golden Compass. I had seen the name on the net but I hadn't really paid any attention to it. When Sc asked me about my thoughts, I asked him what it was. He told me it was a movie. I asked what it was about and he gave me a very brief precis. Then J chimed in that I had given her the book a few years ago. I asked to read it and she informed me that she had given it to the library. I questioned why I would give her such a book. I think I bought it because it was of the genre she likes reading - sci-fi, fantasy fiction and it had a literary prize sticker on the front.

A few days later I got an e-mail about "The Golden Compass" which led me an article on Snopes. I started to question J about her impressions of the book. Shortly after I found posts on it on Simple Massing Priest and Thoughts in Progress. Then this morning Episcopal Cafe had a link to an article on Beliefnet, Spiritual Lessons from "The Golden Compass".

I still haven't read the book so I won't weigh in with any comments right now. I will probably read it during Christmas and New Year's when I have some time off. If I feel so inclined, I will add my two cents to what is out there. But I thought it might be interesting in the middle of such controversy to post a few links to the ongoing discussion.

I will say that generally when outcry happens about so-called anti-Christians books/films, I don't tend to boycott. I prefer to read the book/see the film myself and look at what it has to say to me. If there is hostility toward Christianity/organized religion I think we need to question why. What is the person's perception of Christianity/organized religion? Is it a valid perception? Is the negativity a valid concern?

If I believe the person has it wrong, I will speak to correct the misperception. But if I think they have a point, I will speak to how we can use that to help us grow in our faith. I am not for banning or boycotting because I think it offers us a chance to take a more critical look at ourselves. It helps us understand better why we do the things we do or believe the things we believe. It also can help us to change if we discover that we are doing or believing the wrong things.

I also think that these books/films offer wonderful chances for evangelism. The more controversy the better. It gets people talking and asking questions. This offers us the chance to speak about our faith and to correct misperceptions.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Talks

2007-12-12T15:23:00.001-08:00

There have been some conferences lately with people who had some interesting things to say. One of these was in England and another in the US. Below are listed some of the talks that have found on various blog sites.

From Inclusive Church:

When signs signify

Out of the Silence

Each of us was given grace

From Episcopal Cafe

Shaking the Foundations

I haven't had a chance to read all of these but have downloaded them for when I do have the time.

Love and Prayers,

Ann Mare

Interview with Rowan Williams

2007-12-11T15:20:00.000-08:00

Ann Fontaine of Episcopal Cafe has this "lead" about an interview in the Times Online.

"Mylie Veitch, 18, asked him his views on a gay friend of hers who is considering adopting with his partner.
Dr Williams said: “This is a big one. I have questions as to whether same sex couples can provide the same stability as ‘normal parents’. I have no answers really, just questions.

Many would argue that we need a balance of men and women to bring a child up. However, I have seen one fantastic example of same sex parenting first hand and I suppose stability is another key consideration.”
...

"Asked about his support for gay clergy, he replied: “I have no problem with gay clergy who aren’t in relationships, although there are savage arguments about the issue you might have heard about. Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible, gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practicing homosexual relationships don’t. This major question doesn’t have a quick fix solution and I imagine will be debated for many years to come."

I can think of a number of households where there is both male and female where it is not healthy for children. For me, the point is the relative health of the environment not whether it is male and female. I tend to think it is far better for there to be two parents but that is due to the fact that parenting is a lot easier if there are two of you. I once single parented for two months when my husband and I were living in different provinces. I learned the value of just having someone else around for support - and that's with being able to talk to my husband each night.

I think that a fair amount of pressure on same-sex families is a result of society's reaction to them. It's pretty hard for children do deal with their peers at the best of times. But that is not a fault of the parenting, rather, it is a fault of society's expectations.

My second year here a number of my people would say to me that same sex couples could live together but there was no way they should have children. They learned not to say it in my presence. I'm pretty easy going on the subject of same-sex relationships with my congregation. I realize I'm not going to get anywhere by pushing them. But I have seen far too many children in foster care where the parents have been heterosexual. For me, it is the health of the relationships and parenting. When I think of some of the households that children in foster care go home to because we believe it is best that children be with their natural parents and how many children end up cycling between their family of origin and foster care, I cringe. My understanding is that many same-sex families do well. I will take a safe, healthy, happy environment any day.

In the second quote I would not be disturbed had the words "sexual preferences" not been said. I can accept that manner of life would require that we be in healthy committed relationships (I don't necessarily mean marriage as I consider that a man-made institution-with the emphasis on "man". For me it is not whether the couple is married but whether the relationship is a committed healthy one. I have seen many relationships outside of marriage that are very much blessed by God if we use the criteria of looking at the fruits of the relationship. However, I accept that for the Church, marriage or celibacy is a requirement). Had Rowan said said something about relationships outside of marriage I would find a fair amount more validity in the statement. There is enough debate as to what the relevant passages really mean - especially since there was no concept of homosexuality in Biblical times. Plus the fact that I believe we have to look at passages outside of those which mention same-sex interaction in order to further understand the issue.

Of course, Rowan Williams is a much more learned man than me (considering I'm not a man at all so I guess I should really say that he is a much more learned person than me). But there are times when all the learning from books cannot compete with the experiences of the world around. My experience has taught me that God does bless those in same-sex relationships. It is this experience which leads to my bias when I read the Bible or other books. I will openly admit that. But, it is each persons experience and prior learnings that influence how each of us interprets the Bible or leads to our understandings gleaned from other readings. My experience has provided a start for how I understand the issue but that is reinforced the more I read the books out there - and only a small amount of them deal exclusively with the same-sex issue although the majority of them do deal with human sexuality.

I guess where I stand is that the Bible reflects the culture of its time and can only speak to the limit of the understandings of the time. Witness the texts referring to slavery, the place of women, and even the understanding of creation, especially in regard to the relationship between the earth and the rest of the cosmos. There is deep richness in the Bible, speaking to God's relationship with all that God created. But God cannot be contained by human words and understandings which are limited. Even Jesus told his disciples that things would be revealed to them in time. So as our ability and understanding grow things are further revealed to us. Our struggles to understand human sexuality falls into this category. To even imagine that we can know, without question, all there is to know about God and God's desires for God's creation is place pretty close to creating God in our own image. To narrow what is to be understood to a few texts without looking at the whole is to do a serious disservice to the wonderful book that is the centre of our faith.

I respect that Rowan Williams has the understandings he does. I'm not going to criticize those understandings as he certainly has a right to them and I can't expect them to mirror mine when we are such two different people with different experiences of the world and different world views. However, I do reserve the right to disagree with what he has to say - which I have done because this is my blog.

(Updated: December 12 - Grandmere Mimi has a link to an article in Wales about the interview. She points out that the section on gay clergy is not there. She got the tip from Ann, who is linked above.)

(Updated: December 12 - afternoon - a commentor at Grandmere Mimi's left a link to the actual printed interview.)

Love and Prayers,

Ann Marie

Christmas Reflection

2007-12-09T19:47:00.000-08:00

(The following is the reflection I put in the local paper for the special Christmas section.)

I set up my nativity scene on Saturday. Well, “set up” might be pushing it. I try to be somewhat accurate when I put it out. Baby Jesus gets put in a drawer until Christmas Eve. The wise men are placed somewhere at a distance and will be brought into the scene on Epiphany. Mary, Joseph, and the donkey have a distance to travel as well and will probably arrive the Sunday before Christmas. The shepherds are in the field watching their sheep totally unaware that come Christmas Eve, just before we go to bed, they will make the journey to the stable. I look at my nativity scene. It seems pretty bare with only one little ox lying on the base.

Sometimes our world can seem like that. We read the newspaper and watch the television and we wonder if there is hope for our world. We rush around preparing for Christmas and sometimes, amidst the hustle and bustle of the crowds we can feel pretty lonely. We look at what has to be done for Christmas Day and wonder if we will ever be ready.

Yet, on December 24, as we gather as community and sing our songs, share our meal, and remember about the special birth, there is a feeling of expectation and hope. In the quietness of the night, as we sing Silent Night by candlelight, we are aware of something momentous happening.

Those of us who have held new born babies may understand the feeling. As we gaze into the eyes of the tiny infant, time seems to stand still. Regardless of all that has gone before, regardless of how tomorrow will turn out, for that one instance the world, the future is full of promise and possibilities. We gaze into the infant’s face and our hearts open up in prayer, yearning for all that is good for this child. We pray that he/she may grow up in a world free of strife and full of hope and good things.

Each Christmas Eve, as we join our families in singing in the soft light of the candles in the darkness, we look to a world full of promise and possibilities. For this brief instance in time we understand what it is that God desires for God’s creation. We open our hearts and our minds to the timeless memory of God’s vision brought into our world in the birth of the tiny baby two thousands years ago. It was an event that began a life that transformed the lives of many, bringing to reality the promise and possibility of which most births offer a glimpse. In that moment, past and future come together in the present and we celebrate life.

Come Christmas morning, my one lonely little ox will be in the midst of a busy scene with Mary, Joseph, a donkey, some sheep and a shepherd, and a tiny baby. His lonely and bleak world will be transformed into one of extended family and celebration. Sometime, in the dark hours of the cold and lonely night something wonderful has happened and the future begins anew with promise and possibility.

Love and Prayers,
Wishing you and your loved ones a joyous Christmas and a New Year bright with hope and promise,
Ann Marie

Blessed

2007-12-09T19:20:00.000-08:00

It's been a great couple of days. I've been feeling exhausted for awhile. But yesterday Integrity met. It's such a warm group of people. I celebrated the eucharist with close to my old energy. This is one area of my ministry I refuse to give up. I find it so life-giving. It is the part of ministry that I do for myself - where I am nurtured and cared for (and I realize that as chaplain it should probably be the other way around but I believe that membership and involvement in this group is God's gift to me to help me keep on a more even keel spiritually).

And tonight. What can I say. St. Paul's played host to the ministerial Taize service. This was our first and I wasn't sure how well it would go over. We provided the space and I provided the candles (Candles are my huge weakness. I have oodles and oodles of candles.) Our focus was a meditation on the cross. I never thought to set things out last week and just see how things looked. So tonight I set out the candles and took the cross from the reardos and placed it in the centre of the altar. Oops. Brass crosses do not show up very well when there isn't a solid background for them. What to do? I grabbed the Celtic cross from the meditation area. We could see it but it was so small on the altar. I sat through the practice trying to figure out a way to have a cross as more of a focal point.

Ask and ye shall receive. We have a wooden processional cross. It is a somewhat rough looking thing but it is painted with a gold coloured paint around the edges. My colleague and I managed to figure out a way of holding it in place right behind the altar. I lit the candles and the gold paint picked up the light. We had our focal point. One less worry for the night.

I wasn't sure how my people would respond to the service. This morning it didn't seem like many of them planned on attending. During announcements I told them that was not something that we wanted added to their list of things to do. Rather this was a gift from us (ministerial) to them. A chance for them to come and sit quietly in a break from the business of the season. A number of them showed up for the service. I think, from the comments, that they were very happy they did. Comments from others as they left have shown us the need for more such services so we will probably plan one for Lent.

It was so awesome. I sat at the back of the church looking up to the front with all the candles glowing. I listened to the people singing. We ended the service with a Gloria. It was so powerful. I have come home feeling energized whereas earlier today I was wondering how I would ever make it through the week.

These last few days, I have been truly blessed with communities that have helped heal me physically, mentally, and spiritually. I have been in such need of this healing. I give thanks to God for the wonderful people that I have been so blessed to know and work with and worship with. Alleluia! Alleluia!

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Naming "evil"?

2007-11-30T12:12:00.000-08:00

Being somewhat housebound today, I wandered through blogsphere, even checking on some sites that I normally avoid due to concern about my blood pressure. I should really know better. I can actually get through most of the comments on these blogs without major risk but suddenly there is one that makes me hot under the collar and puts me in the danger area. As I have mentioned before, to get hot under the collar in the middle of winter in the frozen north takes some doing.

So what has me all het up today? I wandered through a post on the Archbishop of Canterbury preaching and presiding at a service with/for gay and lesbian priests. The comments were pretty much what could be expected. I would shake my head in disagreement but no rise in blood pressure. And then one jumped out at me. It was one hoping that various people were just misled – that they were being foolish as opposed to evil.

Now I should know better. I really should. There were link lines under evil and foolish and, foolish me, I clicked on them. Well, the evil one led to a certain blog site of a well-known “liberal” priest and the foolish one led to a blog site of another well-known “liberal” priest.

I am not even going into the wrongs of these particular links. I will however speak to the wrong of the naming of a person as evil. Has the commenter ever truly met evil? I believe if he had he would be a lot more cautious about who/what he names as evil.

I had an experience a few years ago where I was frequently encountering evil centered around one person. I do not call the person evil but rather acknowledge that somehow evil was present with this person. Even having an encounter with this person time and time again, I still would not name the person as evil.

Part of it is that I believe that we are all children of God and I believe that, being created in the image of God, we all have a “spark” of the divine within us. To claim that a person is evil would be to say that there is no element of God in that person. I cannot and will not believe that evil is strong enough to wipe out completely the presence of God. So regardless of the actions of a person and how they manifest evil, I will not call a person evil.

It is interesting that frequently when I am being assaulted spiritually, in unrelated circumstances, this one person with whom I sense the presence of evil, will start appearing in my life again. Note, that I am still not saying that this person is evil only that evil is present when this person is – that somehow evil is around this person.

I have a wise and knowledgeable friend who also has had some experience with sensing evil. He describes it as a sort of energy. That is how I see it, as an energy that is present with this person I keep encountering – almost an aura if you wanted to be sort of new age about it.

With these experiences in mind, I would caution this other poster (if I thought it would do any good) to be careful about the word evil being applied to people. Part of this is from my own experience of evil. The other part is looking at the healing of demons in the gospels. The demons are not the people healed but something separate from the people. The demons influence various behaviours but as soon as they are exorcized the person is on the way to becoming who they are meant to be. I think of the demons entering into the swine and jumping off the cliff. The action is separate from the swine themselves, influenced by the presence with them. I look at the people in the texts in which the demons call out to Jesus. In all these instances the evil is separate from the person themselves.

So I urge that we take caution not to call people evil, not to demonize the “other”. We may disagree with beliefs or actions in any area of the spectrum but we should be cautious about personalizing it with the people holding those beliefs or doing those actions being named as “evil”. Once we dehumanize people in our minds by applying such titles as “evil” it is easier to forget that God also loves these people and desires goodness and health for them. And eventually, that can lead to us doing even more harm than we believe the original person did. It’s a slippery slope that can lead us into doing “evil” ourselves.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Alternative Christmas Market

2007-11-30T06:32:00.000-08:00

My fingers are too cold up here in the frozen north to do much typing. The temperature may only be in the -20 range but with the wind chill factor we are actually more in the -30 range. Add being on the open prairies to the mix (not a lot of trees or buildings) and it is not the greatest weather. Of course, just to make my life more interesting, my car is not working so I have to walk wherever I go. Good weather to stay indoors and get caught up on some administrative work. (Except for wandering a couple of blocks to coffee row in a few minutes to get warmed up on the current events and gossip.)

I was visiting Susan Russell's site and came across this Alternative Christmas Market. What a fantastic idea. I'm e-mailing a link to our local diocesan outreach committe as an idea for a future Christmas project.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Who hoo

2007-11-25T18:59:00.000-08:00

Riders won!!!!!!!!!!!!

What more can I say

Canadian Responses

2007-11-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

Update:
Primate and Metropolitans

(Update on Friday, November 30
Response to Canadian statement from the Southern Cone)

(Update on Saturday, December 1
Letters of support for the Network [tip of the hat to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans])

From Michael Ingham

From Victoria Matthews

Ann Marie's

This morning M brought me a news clipping from the Star Phoenix. It is about what is happening in the wider church. It is about the schism that is occuring. First of all, we need to realize that no one person or group is totally blame. The article tries to blame the "liberals" which we know would include me. However, to me, as I've mentioned before, those calling me liberal are actually radically liberal.

What we need to remember is that regardless of what happens, this changes nothing for St. Paul's. We will continue to meet as Anglicans, as members of this diocese, and as members of the Anglican Church of Canada. We will continue to worship each Sunday and we will continue our mission in the larger community. For us, nothing changes.

Our new Primate, Fred Hiltz, has said that he will issue a pastoral response sometime this week to be read next Sunday. I will get this and read it to you then. In the meantime, if there are questions or you hear anything that troubles you, please do not hestitate to call me. Although I have not been bringing this to your attention over the last number of years, partly because it does not affect what we do here and it's one added tension I did not believe we needed to deal with (and if I chose wrongly then I apologize), I have done my best to keep up with it. I won't be blaming anyone but I will try to help you understand what is going on.

(At least that is the gist of what I said to my congregation this morning.)

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

And now the finger pointing (Updated)

2007-11-25T09:49:00.000-08:00

I don't get the local paper. I keep up by watching the news on TV and listening to coffee row. A parishoner told me there was an article in the city paper about the schism. Most of my people are trying to figure out how you pronounce the word let alone being worried about it. I asked to see the article and the parishoner brought it to church this morning.

I just glanced at it before the service. I didn't get into what the whole thing said. At first glance what struck me was the fact that people like me are to solely to blame - the horrible liberals. I'm not "liberal". My theology prof informed me (and I take great pride in this) that I never made it through the Reformation theologically. My theology stops at the time leading up to the Reformation. So to me, the people accusing me of being liberal and to blame for the current schism are the radical liberals.

I'm not going to point a finger and point to the more extreme conservatives and say that they are to blame. I was brought up to understand that there is more than one side to any issue and that we all contribute to conflict and crisis. But I deeply resent being held solely (as part of a group) responsible for the present situation and the judgemental language that surrounds the blame. I apologize, I don't have an on-line subscription to be able to access the article but I am going to look at what it says.

The first exciting thing this article has to say is that the Anglican Church of Canada has been poisonsed by liberalism and is the real cause of schism now underway. Pretty strong wording if you ask me. Nothing like demonizing the "other". I usually find that when such hyperbole is being used there is shaky ground underneath.

"Those who are unfaithful to the heritage are the schismatics. It is not we who are the schismatics." At least if you are going to act on your convictions, have the courage to do so. Don't hide behind posturing and words. Who is taking the action of separating from the rest of the Anglican Church of Canada - which, by the way, is still very much a part of the World Wide Anglican Communion. I'm not saying that they are wrong in their doing so. I happen to believe they are but I acknowledge that they see no other options and I can respect them acting on what they hold to be true doctrine. But I don't respect them for casting full blame on the "other" with a total disregard to the fact that we hold equally strongly to our convictions and sincerely believe that we are being true to our heritage.

"the Anglican Church of Canada has been poisoned by a liberal theology that 'knows nothing of a God who uses (the Bible) to tell us things and knows nothing of sin in the heart and in the head." I beg your pardon. That's pretty judgemental. I may not agree with how this person understands the Bible and sin but I would never say that they know nothing about God or sin. We may understand and interpret differently but to say one of us knows nothing ... that's not facing reality. At times I get so frustrated at my lack of ability to use language. I think and write in pictures and words often fail the visions I have in my head. I'm sruggling to put into the words the picture I have of the hand flick that totally discounts anything one doesn't want to acknowledge or think about - that sort of "whatever" attitude that does not engage seriously with the conversation. The sort of - what you say can have no worth because you are wrong and I am right so that anything you have to say doesn't not need to be heard and certainly has no validity- attitude, the brushing off of me (and those who share my beliefs) as of no account, no value, as of little worth as a fellow child of God.

If I had no knowledge of sin, I would not have such a strong sense of God's grace. That sense of God's grace comes through my reading of the Bible and through my own personal experience of God.

" ... the Anglican Church of Canada is being ruined by its attempts to 'play catch-up with the culture' by adpoting whatever 'is the in-thing.'" I think that what frustrates me the most about this statement is that it totally negates the years of study and meditation that I did when I came to support full inclusion. At first I didn't support it. Gradually, as I looked at the scriptures and meditated on what I had read and learned, I came to understand that God was calling us to continue to grow in our understanding of God's work in creation. Certainly if I was following the prevalent attitude of the society around me, I would continue to be against full-inclusion. I just had a discussion with one of my of my parishoners on the very issue last night well aware that I am a distinct minority in this particular community and within this diocese. I'm not adopting a whatever "is the in-thing" attitude. I'm very much bucking the in-thing around here. After all my years of studying, I find I cannot go back and embrace what is the "in-thing" in this community.

Considering all the flack those who support full-inclusion are getting from many different sources - the demonizing, the discounting, the threats of loss - of salvation, of connection, of communion - this has to be more than just going with the flow. It is certainly a hard road that we are travelling going against what many in our common faith hold to be true. We have to have the courage of our convictions, and that courage does not come by taking the scriptures or our faith lightly.

(The quotes in bold were from the article "Anglican Church divided over liberal theology" found in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Friday, November 23, 2007. It was written by Charles Lewis of CanWest News Service. (It probably also appears in the National Post as that is in brackets and italics at the bottom of the article.) The theologian quoted is J.I. Packer.)

(Update: I have now found a link . The article in the Star Phoenix only went as far as "Officlas said Thursday a new North American Anglican province, which would include Canadian and American parishes, is now being discussed. It did not include anything about Michael Ingham.)

I disagree with a number of the priests in this diocese on the issue of full-inclusion (but certainly not all as I am definitely not alone in my understanding), but at no time do I discount what they have to say or demonize them or their beliefs. I accept that there are different experiences, different teachings, different understandings of things as basic as our image of God, lying between. I do not discount or flick my hand at what they have to say. I listen seriously to their concerns and I do consider their conversations when I reflect on the scriptures and meditate on full-inclusion. I continue to disagree with them, but I don't blame them for what is happening.

I think that schism is enevitable because our very basic understandings cannot be reconciled. Maybe schism is life-giving for all of us, I don't know. I respect them for sticking to their convictions and holding on to their integrity. I am sorry that we cannot continue our journey together because I think we each hold a key to the mystery of God. But I cannot respect or accept the blame that is being placed on those like me. I cannot respect or accept the discounting of something I firmly and sincerely have come to hold true. I cannot respect or accept the continuous accusations of secularism and heresy and non-biblical teachings when I know that what I hold to be true has come from scripture and from prayer and meditation whose source is the very God they claim I do not acknowledge. At the base of everything I hold to be true is the source of all life, the source of all that is, the source of all that I am and all that I will come to be as I grow further into the knowledge and love of that source - what we, as Christians, call God.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Reign of Christ - Darkness and Light

2007-11-24T14:31:00.000-08:00

I am struggling this week with the contrast of darkness and light. I am trying to get my sermon done for Sunday. I have read the lessons and picked out key words. I looked at the Benedictus – the canticle in place of the psalm and see that:

“1:78 By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us,
1:79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."”

I looked at Colossians and read:

“1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light.
1:13 He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,”

Until recently I have really valued the contrast of darkness and light. Because I have been so prone to depression, light has very real meaning. There is another level spiritually. I would lie in bed at night trying to get to sleep (I’m definitely not one of those who falls asleep as soon as my head hits the pillow – I could still be awake 3 or 4 hours later.) There would be this black pit open up before me. I would be terrified, something waited for me in that pit and I was afraid of it. To escape falling into the pit, I would envision Christ – starting out as a pinpoint of light and growing until the light covered the darkness.

I shared this with my CPE group a few years ago. It was suggested at the time that I go into the darkness and see if it was there to teach me something. At the time I was too afraid. Lately, I have been praying, with caution, for the opportunity. And if it happens and I go into it, it will be with prayer.

But why the change? Darkness and light rather than darkness versus light. Before only bad was in the darkness – only bad could be in the darkness. Witness the above quotes from the scriptures for this Sunday.

Two things have changed me. I read, a few years ago, an Advent litany on darkness. It paired the down side of darkness with an up side. I began to look at darkness as something to be embraced – in the right circumstances. The nurturing element. How we need the darkness for rest. Plants not only need light to grow, they also need the absence of light – darkness – to grow. In our mother’s womb we are in the dark and being nurtured. There were a number of other postives about darkness but the nurturing ones stand out the most. So darkness, rather than something to be avoided, is to be embraced in its life giving form.

I have also, as mentioned before, being doing some feminist studies on my own. I feel a real pull in this direction. I have been reading Carol P. Christ’s “Re-birth of the Goddess”. In it she explores the transition from a more equal society to the patriarchal societies that influence the writings in the Bible. She speaks of worship being in caves, the womb of the mother, – in the darkness. At first, I kept thinking how frightened I would be. I’m claustrophobic as well as having a deep rooted fear of the dark. As read and thought more, I began to embrace this womb/cave idea more.

One of the most powerful services for me spiritually is the Easter Vigil as we did it at Emmanuel and St. Chad’s. We would start in Rugby Chapel. The windows had all been blacked out. We would light the new fire and do the readings by candles which had been lit from that fire. We would then move from there into the full light of St. Chad’s chapel. I realize we could look at this as a move from darkness (to be avoided) into light (the desired place) except that in the darkness as we read, I felt nurtured with the life force flowing through me. It wasn’t a move from darkness to light but a move from one life-giving space to another.

What do I think about my fear of the dark now? I’m am still dealing with a deep-rooted fear of the dark. But sometimes I wonder if this is not a fear of the feminine – of fully embracing my femininity. Strangely enough, my fear of the dark lessens the more I celebrate being a woman. Traditionally the light has been associated with the male – something to be greatly desired – and the dark with the female – something to be avoided.

I look back to those moments when I would struggle to get to sleep and see that black pit. It happened at a time that I was struggling with my identity. When I answered the call to the priesthood, I began to embrace the female within me. Since that time, I haven’t experienced the sense of the black pit. Could it be that all the time I was being called to embrace myself as female? Could it be that the pit, that I actually now yearn to experience, is no longer because I have embraced myself as female?

This business of darkness versus light, which appears in our lessons for Sunday, leaves me struggling. I understand and embrace the concepts of moving from that darkness of oppression and death into the light of freedom and life. But, I am also aware that darkness is life giving and freeing and that light can be life-denying and oppressing. So as I prepare my sermon, I am trying to find a balance of darkness and light rather than a skewed vision of darkness versus light.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Acceptance?

2007-11-21T13:19:00.000-08:00

I highly recommend the blog – Desert’s Child. Not only is Katie Sherrod a very articulate writer, she gives us a view of what is going on in Fort Worth. My heart and prayers go out to all those in the Diocese of Fort Worth who are experiencing what Katie is.

I’m not often moved to get heated up about comments on other blogs but let’s face it, my current studies have definitely been in the feminist area and I am getting a little hot under the collar (not a real easy thing in Saskatchewan in winter) about those who believe women should not be priests based on the writings and understanding of men who haven’t got a foggy clue about the reality of what the feminine is. Many of our church fathers based their objections on the Plato’s understanding which is so full of misconceptions as to be almost funny. I would laugh except people take it all so seriously and then that does far too much harm in restricting women.

I was at a men’s breakfast last weekend. It was an interesting time and the men I work with to put on the breakfast (which was a tradition before I arrived) are wonderful. There a few that I work with on other things and we have developed mutual respect for each other. It was interesting talking with one of the pastors that I don’t usually work with. He’s from a denomination that does have female pastors (including some senior pastors – he tells me) but it is far from common. This pastor is a wonderful person and he was trying to be supportive of me and I really appreciate that. Fortunately, I was in a good mood so I didn’t take exception to the words he used which could have been heard as patronizing. I realize his intent and I thank him for it.

A few years ago, I attended a two day workshop on church development at one of the big evangelical churches in the city. It is not a tradition that accepts the ordination of women – although I do believe it is coming. Fortunately, the first day I was at a table with a ELCIC pastor who was able make sure that I was included and listened to (although, I often don’t have a problem especially when my back is up). The next day I was at a different table. Not quite as easy being accepted as an equal. I later found out that even the workshop facilitator had a few problems with my presence as it meant he had to revamp some of what he was saying (I was the only female, let alone the only ordained female. My registration application must have really thrown them for a loop. I'm not too sure what he modified either.). It wasn’t even that this workshop was only for those ordained. It was also for church elders – and none were women. I will give credit where credit is due though and say that in general they did treat me with respect and acceptance. I could see their struggles to do so and I really appreciated their attempt.

Over all, in spite of the good will and acceptance involved, it marks us. Even in these two situations where the men were honestly trying to be supportive, I was aware of that there were tensions and struggles within the men over my being an ordained women. I love them dearly for taking on those tensions and struggles, but there will not be full acceptance or equality until our interactions are not marked by them.

What does all this have to do with the opening paragraph? It was on Desert’s Child that I read the following response.

Corie from H-E-B said...
“Okay... So, here's something to think about, seeing as how the Catholic Church also does not ordain women to the priesthood (or the diaconate for that matter, which at least Bp Iker allows that). The priest represents Christ as the bridegroom of the Church. The Church is female, and so the bridegroom (Christ) is always represented by a male. It's not because the guys are better than us, but simply because the spouse of the Bride of Christ (the Church) is male. This is why Jesus was born in a male body, and not a female body. And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that the spouse of a female must be a male. I personally think that is a beautiful thing that is represented by a male priesthood that could never really make sense if the priest was a woman.”

Okay there are days that I just shake my head and cannot honestly think of a reply. Or I can think of so many that I just don’t know where to start and my words become a jumble.

First of all, it's a metaphor or analogy or whatever. It points to something - the relationship of the church to Jesus, using the example of marriage. It does not say that the relationship is completely like a marriage. There are elements of it that are like a marriage. It is not male to female that it is like but like the relationship of wife to husband.

Which brings me to the second point. It is about an understanding of marriage as marriage was at the time it was written -- a patriarchal marriage. The comparison would fall completely apart if one considered a marriage such as my husband and I have - a partnership - rather than one where the wife is subservient to her husband.

“And if you don't think it is fair, then remember that what God, our heavenly Father, considers right and proper just sometimes doesn't seem fair to His children. We don't always see the big picture, and it's not our place to change His rules.”

Whose flippin’ rules are these – God’s or man’s? I would venture a guess that they are entirely man’s when it comes to anything to do with women. Paul, for all that people like to misquote him does not appear (when looked at without major blinkers) to have a problem working with women or even naming women as apostles. EG Junia. Of course men had a problem and changed her name to Junius and then claimed she was a man.

By the way. I have absolutely no problem with changing men’s rules.

“But in the same vein, a church that decides a female can represent the bridegroom of the Church is always just a short step from allowing same-sex marriages. I'm not real surprised the Episcopal Church headed in that direction, and I think it is a shame.”

All I can respond (with the exception of the last phrase) is – YES!!!!!!!!

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Remembrance Day, 2007

2007-11-09T11:16:00.000-08:00

It's been awhile since I've had time to write anything. A number of things have happened but I'm not touching those right now. I need to be more at peace within myself. But today I made my annual trip up to the First Nations school north of me. It is a K-12 school. I get asked back because, for some reason (and I think it has to do with the Spirit answering my frantic prayer) the children will sit still to listen to me. I try not to sermonize but to tell stories that teach. I am very conscious that I am white and that I represent an institution that has done great harm to the First Nations people and their culture. So although I try to find touchstones within their culture, I do not try to pretend to know their culture or to be anything but who I am.

I found this resource on the web: United for Peace; from the United Church of Canada. On page 20 of the resource for the all ages worship service there is a story called The Egg. I thought it had a good message but felt it was to old for the children to whom I was talking. So, with Shawn's help, I used the basic idea as well as some points of the story and came up with the talk that follows. I painted a special egg last night for the telling of this story. This is not word for word as I did not have a script. This is from my somewhat faulty memory of the morning.

First of all I want to thank Mrs. S for inviting me to talk here again. This is the third year that I have been here. When I went to college to study to become a priest we had a saying that once something happened three times, it was a tradition. So, coming here to share in your Remembrance Day service has become part of my tradition and a part I value very much.

You may note that as a priest, today, I am not wearing a cross. I am wearing a watch (I held out the watch on a chain around my neck. This watch was my Grandma's. My grandfather gave it to her in 1927. It was passed on to me because I was given her name. I will pass it on to my daughter because she also shares my grandmother's name. It is going to be part of our traditions.

Years ago, many cultures passed on their traditions through stories. They would gather together and share stories about their past. We've kind of lost that today with TVs and computers. But I would like you all to imagine gathering with my family around a fire on a nice warm evening and listening as I tell I story.

Once there was a Mother Canada Goose and a Father Canada Goose. And they laid a very special egg. There was nothing special about the Mother and the Father Canada Goose. They were ordinary parents, like me, like your teachers, like your parents. But the Creator who made us knows that in ordinariness there is something special in each one of us. The Creator knows that each of us can do some special things. So the Creator gave Mother and Father Canada Goose a special task. They were given a very special egg.

Now this was not an egg like those of other Canada Geese. No, these egg had many colours. It was white and black and red and yellow. These are special colours because they are the colours of the all the races of the earth. They are also the colours of nature. And they are the colours of the Medicine wheel where there is inter-relationship and peace. So the egg had some very important colours to mark it as special. It also had the word, "peace" written on it.

Mother and Father Canada Goose saw that their egg was special and they were determined to do the best they could for their egg. Unfortunately, something bad happened to the marsh where the egg was laid and Mother and Father Goose had to leave. Some nice spiders wove a web that Mother and Father Goose could push their egg on and carry it as they flew to find a new place to nurture and hatch "Peace".

So Mother and Father Canada Goose flew, looking for a safe place to raise "Peace." After awhile they flew over a military base like Dundurn or Wainwright. This camp was in the middle of war exercises. Mother and Father Canada Goose did not think that this looked like a very good or safe place to raise "Peace". So on they flew, looking for a safe and secure place for "Peace".

After awhile they flew over a green park in the middle of the city. They thought that this looked like a good place to look after "Peace." But as they got closer they noticed that there were insecticides and pesticides and they thought that these were pretty dangerous for their egg. So on they flew.

They had been flying for quite awhile and the web was getting weak. Soon it began to fall apart. Mother and Father Canada Goose had to land the middle of a town. This was a town just like this one, just like where I come from and just like the town where my husband and children live. An ordinary town. They landed in a playground full of children.

Mother and Father Canada Goose had nothing to make a nest. They had just landed in the park and hadn't had time to gather anything to make a nest for "Peace." And "Peace" was about to hatch. A little girl noticed Mother and Father Canada Goose. She had been having a fight with her best friend over something or other but saw the geese land. She stopped fighting and noticed that the geese needed help. She picked up a twig and brought it over to them. Her best friend saw what she was doing and stopped being mad and gathered some soft grass and brought it over to the geese.

One by one, the children in the play ground stopped what they were doing and gathered twigs and grass for the geese to make a nest. They saw that "Peace" was a very special egg and wanted to help. Even when "Peace" hatched they continued to help Mother and Father Canada Goose to look after "Peace." Soon they were so busy helping raise "Peace" that they forgot about fighting and bullying.

After awhile, their parents noticed the change in the children. They saw what the children were doing and they stopped yelling at their children, at each other and at their neighbours and helped the children care for "Peace." And then the governments noticed the difference in the parents and they started to take care of "Peace."

It's a story. And it may seem farfetched but I believe it can happen. That if we all work together, we can have peace.

This Sunday, on November 11, at 11:00, we will gather to honour those people who gave so much for us in the World Wars. We haven't done well in our honouring of them. My generation has not worked very hard at caring for peace. We can see this with Afghanistan and Iraq. We have failed to honour the sacrifice of the soldiers. We have failed to create a tradition of peace.

My faith tradition has a line which states that "a little child shall lead them." With my generation having failed to bring about peace, it is now up to you, as the children of this world, like the children in my story, to help lead us into a tradition of peace. The men and women who fought in the wars are the warriors on the outside of the circle protecting us so that we can do the important work of creating that tradition of peace.

On Sunday, when we have that minute of silence let us give thanks to those men and women - those who died in the war, those who have died since, and all those who sacrificed physically, mentally, and emotionally. I have talked to a number of vetrens who speak of their struggles to make sense of the wars - to make sense of what happened, of what they saw and they did. Let us honour those people and give meaning to their sacrifice for us by saying thank you and by finding ways that we can care for "Peace" and by working to bring about the world for
which they fought so bravely.

Thank you.
__________________________________________________________

I have for years struggled with the minute of silence on Remembrance Day. My father's oldest brother died night flying over Britain. According to Dad, Uncle Norman was the brother who had it all - the good looks, the smarts, the athletic ability, the personality. I figure that this is largely a younger brother hero-worshipping his older brother because I believe my dad is pretty special. I will never know for sure because I never had the chance to know my unlce - he died 15-20 years before I was born - a gifted man whose life was cut short. So in the minute of silence I pay tribute to my uncle and, through that, to all the men and women who fought in the wars.

In the '90's I watched a documentary series put together by the War Amps. Ever since then I have understood that we truly honour those men and women when we work to ensure that no one has to go to war again. Their theme song was never again. You can access it here. Since that time I have added to my thoughts during the minute of silence. I no longer struggle to keep focused. I am now focused on the thoughts of how I can honour the men and women by working to ensure that the negatives they experienced are not expereinced in the future. For me, working to nurture peace is a better way of saying thank than to spend just one minute a year saying thank you.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Protest in Myanmar

2007-09-26T17:15:00.001-07:00

Life is extremely hectic right now. My to do list is a mile long. As a result, I really don't have time to blog. But this came through my e-mail from Amnesty International and I think it is very important. They ask that I send the message on but I make it a practice never to give out other peoples' e-mails unless I have their express permission. I figure I can use this blog as a way of at least getting the message out there.

Myanmar: Protect Buddhist Monks and Peaceful Protesters

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Lutheran Bishops for Anglican Dioceses

2007-09-23T12:29:00.000-07:00

For those of us who went to Emmanuel while Jim was lecturing at LTS, here is an article on the national website.

Lutheran bishops for Anglican Dioceses

At the beginning of my ministry out here (which is also the beginning of my ordained ministry), Jim was interim for the local Lutheran church. It was a real blessing for me as I struggled to get through that first year with as few mistakes as possible. Being in the same diocese, I run into Jim frequently. I continue to be blessed by his support.

I also very much enjoy Cindy and have had her out here to preach. She spoke at our joint celebration of 30 years of women in the priesthood and the anniversary of the Waterloo Declaration.

At one point, the Anglican and Lutheran congregations here talked about sharing ministry. It didn't go through but it is still a possibility for the future. We still share worship on the 3rd Sunday of the month. The Presbyterians have also joined us in that worship. I am learning a fair amount - especially how not to get in a panic over not being familiar with everything - having all my i's dotted and my t's crossed before I go out to participate in the worship. The Lutheran pastor who is here now is quite laid back about the whole thing so I am also learning to function without always wearing my vestments. I haven't quite got the knack of drinking coffee while giving the sermon although I have learned to talk without a script. I'm not saying I always do it well, but I am learning.

Our hardest adjustment came in the first year. Easter fell on the third Sunday which opened the question of where do we celebrate Easter. I brought it to vestry. We agreed that we should continue the pattern of third Sunday worship. It was interesting celebrating in another tradition. We were somewhat disconnected by the differences but it was a good experience.

We worship in each other's churches. January, February, and March we worship at the Lutheran Church. April, May, and June we worship at the Presbyterian church. These are just one Sunday a month. And then the whole of July we worship at the Anglican Church and the whole of August we worship at the Lutheran Church. September, October, and November we worship together once a month at the Anglican Church. The Lutheran and Anglicans share the Lenten and Holy Week services. There are a couple of these latter services that are also ecumenical such as the Tenebrae (which is usually hosted by the Roman Catholics) and the Easter Sunrise service (which rotates between the participating services). The Anglicans and Lutherans co-sponsor Monday School which has developed into a community church school.

I've developed a system. If you drive by the church and see a red sign you know the service is at the Lutheran Church. If you drive by and see an orange sign you know the service is at the Presbyterian Church.

I usually try to do something a little different at each of the Anglican services. Last week we had the blessing of the school children. We used praise music that I've taught the children at Monday School. The children came up to lead the songs that had actions. We said special prayers. Then I had the children come into the middle of the congregation. We all laid hands on their backpacks (I had them bring their back packs to church) and we blessed the backpacks and the children wearing them. One young boy went back to his mom and said, "Mom, God is glowing in my backpack." It was a high energy service and somewhat chaotic but I came home feeling energized.

But a little more on topic. I firmly believe that if the Anglican Church wants to continue in rural Saskatchewan we are going to have to look at shared ministries. Our PAL (Presbyterian, Anglican, and Lutheran) group is struggling within their individual communities. It is astounding the amount of energy that is present when the three join together. The singing is awesome. The chatter and laughter before the service is life-giving. On top of that we are learning to accept other traditions and to value the communities to which those traditions belong. It's not always easy as shown by the joint worship that first Easter. We are so strongly nurtured and familiar with our own traditions. But, the good far outweighs the struggles.

I see by the watch on my wrist that it is time to go to the LTC service so I had best quit writing.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

On the light side of things

2007-09-23T12:13:00.000-07:00

For once in my life I'm being a very good girl. I am not speculating or getting excited about happenings ahead of time. I'm reading what is out there regarding the meetings in New Orleans but I'm refusing to react until there is something more concrete.

On the other hand, short of briefing people on my sermon today (which was not one of my better ones due to the fact that I was fine tuning it at 7:30 this morning and found a glaring inconsistency) I haven't got much to say.

I have been dieting (it's actually going through a life style change) since May. I have lost about 37 pounds. Actually, I don't pay much attention to the scale. I don't even own one. Everyonce in a while I step on my parent's scale. I follow weight loss by the way my clothes fit and the way I look. I hadn't realized that all this time I've been using the scale wrong. No wonder it had me weighing so much. Now thanks to my sister-in-law I have discovered the right way to use it and I'm feeling much better about my weight.

Archbishop Michael Peers

2007-09-13T16:35:00.001-07:00

A few years ago, at the Spring Festival of Emmanuel and St. Chad, Michael Peers was the speaker. I was only able to make it to one of his talks but was fairly impressed. I had met him years ago, shortly after he was elected primate and was impressed with his easy manner then. He reminded me of the Friendly Giant (I know - I'm dating myself). It was kind of interesting because my own father reminded people of the Friendly Giant and I can see some similarities between Dad and ++Michael.

++Michael spoke about the last Lambeth Conference and about Primate's Meetings. Today, I have found several links to this on Episcopal Majority. I have a lot of respect for ++Michael, especially after hearing him speak.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Silence

2007-09-06T10:54:00.000-07:00

As the September 30th deadline approaches things are getting heated up. More bishops are being consecrated by African provinces, more talk is getting extreme. It’s getting to the point where I have slacked off following events and reading comments on blogs. However, I have been silently watching for too long – and anyone who knows me knows that it is unusual for me to be silent for long periods of time.

Some thoughts:

As much as I have respect for the episcopacy, why are bishops being consecrated. We hear of the bishops but what about the priests. It appears to me that the movement is starting in the wrong place – from the top down. Shouldn’t it be going from the ground up? Shouldn’t there be at least a solid group for the bishops to minister to? It has me very puzzled. Okay, the Africans are setting up missions in the states. From what I remember of my Canadian church history classes – the English did not send over bishops first but rather missionaries. When the need arose for a bishop on Canadian soil, one was consecrated. So why are bishops being consecrated for the States before the need for them arises? What does this say about the intent? What does this say about the motives driving this? In all honesty, to me it says nothing positive or Christian. I shall just leave it at that.

There are reports out of Africa – Nigeria to be specific – of horrible comments made by Bishop Orama of Nigeria. I think of the women and men I have the honour of knowing, especially through Integrity, and shake my head at the rhetoric. “Inhuman” – part of the irony is that not so many years ago people like the African bishop who calls gays and lesbians “inhuman” and not worthy of life were considered those very same things.

It is common that those who were oppressed take on the characteristics of the oppressors when they gain their freedom. We see this so often in the cycles of domestic abuse. We see it when nations gain their independence. And we see it in the very statements made by this African bishop. He has learned his lessons well.

But most astoundingly is the remarkable silence of certain factions of our church regarding the meaning of the statement. A fair amount has been said about the dangers of such a statement, but not much has been said about the wrongness in the meaning. This also puzzles me for I count many among my friends and colleagues who do not have the same understanding of full inclusion of my GLBT brothers and sisters and yet not one of them would ever consider calling GLBTs inhuman or not worthy of life. Why is there such a deafening silence as to the meaning of the statement from the more vocal?

I note that on Father Jake’s there have been some attempts to deflect by pointing out that nothing has ever been done to John Spong (I also note that he (John Spong) has sent a letter to Rowan Williams and I cringe.) What Spong has said or done has no bearing on what Bishop Orama of Nigeria has said. If one wants to question the lack of reining Spong in that is fine. There are times when I almost wish he could be silenced or at least that he would be far more diplomatic in his words and actions. But Bishop Spong has nothing to do with what Bishop Orama said. It is two separate issues and need to be dealt with as two separate issues. It is not okay for Bishop Orama to say what he did just because Bishop Spong has said and done what he has said and done. To try and deflect the words of the Nigerian bishop with such an issue does not address the issue. The issue is that some very damaging statements were made that could lead to bodily harm – painful death at its worst and shunning at the least and there is significant silence from the various leaders throughout the Anglican Communion on the issue. Where is Peter Akinola? Where is Rowan Williams? Where is Katharine (sp) Jefferts Schori? Where is Fred Hiltz? Where are statements made to counteract the statements by Orama to reassure our GLBT brothers and sisters that this statement does not reflect the mind of the Communion or the various provinces?

Of course, we don’t want to make a mountain out of what we perceive as mole hills and our leaders probably believe and hope that this will blow over. But each time something like this is said, another nail pierces the hearts and souls of those being spoken about. We realize that this bishop is not speaking the mind of the majority of the Communion but more noticeable than his words is the silence greeting them. There has to come a time when those in leadership positions stand up and say that this has gone to far. It has happened with TEC and New West. Why is it not happening with statements such as Orama’s?

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Update:
Thoughts from blogland (Some of these are thanks to Father Jake's site):
Elizabeth Keaton
Mark Harris
Anglican Scotist
Susan Russell and this
Davis Mac-Iyalla
Scott Gunn

Holidays?

2007-08-06T21:30:00.000-07:00

I am currently on holidays. We had planned to go to BC but our Newfie needed some major surgery to fix one of her legs - to the tune of $3200. So much for going anywhere. Between the cost and recovery time, we are sticking pretty close to home. If our son will look after the dog for us for one week we may make it to a lake.

But there are wonderful things to celebrate. Molly's surgery went well and she seems to be recovery nicely. She will need at least one more operation but it shouldn't be as expensive. If nothing else, this has helped us appreciate medicare all the more. Living in Canada we often don't realize the cost of our health care.

Staying home gives me more time to organize our celebration of Mom's and Dad's 60th aniversary celebration. We decided to have it out here rather than in the city. Part of it is that our costs for hall rental and catering are not as high. The other part is that Mom can just sit back and enjoy rather than worrying about being hostess with the responsibility of housing and feeding others. That falls onto my shoulders. Because we are keeping it small, it really isn't a lot of work for me either.

I get to do a service of celebration and thanksgiving. Mom and Dad decided that they wanted to renew their vows. The request threw me as I never thought they were into that sort of thing. Dad made the comment - "Why not? This time we won't have to keep them as long." (Meaning of course that they won't make another 60 years as both of them are 80 - just in case some might think they were planning on splitting in the near future.) I found a service from the Church of England that we will use as a base with the eucharist from the BAS - Eucharistic prayer #5. I sent a copy home with them tonight to look at and get back to me with suggestions.

Mom and Dad, my sister, and my older children and their partners were out tonight to help celebrate our youngest's birthday. Although I was not happy to discover I was pregnant over twelve years ago, I frequently give thanks for our youngest. He has taught me so much about life and about myself. He lives life very earnestly but celebrates each and every moment. He has taught me to do so myself and for someone who is prone to depression this is a real gift. I pray that he will never lose this himself as he grows older and begins to face the struggles and complications that come with maturity.

As I think of it, each of my children has given me so much. My oldest has taught me how to be a better parent (we went through a very rough 15th year with him). My second has taught me much about myself as she has a number of my traits. This has taught me how to celebrate the person I am. The third has helped me understand my more spiritual side. She has inner strengths and insights that never fail to amaze me. And my youngest as mentioned above.

I also give thanks for my husband. I often say that I may be his curse but he is very definitely my blessing. He has stuck with me and supported me through some pretty major changes.

So truly, life is blessed and I give thanks to God for all these blessings. Not being constantly on the go has given me time to reflect on these blessings, so I also give thanks for this time of relative quiet.

One last thing to celebrate. By the time this weekend comes, my house will be clean and I won't have to do fall cleaning in October. Or at least, I won't have to fall cleaning in the rectory. I will have to do some cleaning in my husband's house but at least it will only be the one house.

So, maybe our holidays haven't turned out as they were planned but, on the other hand, maybe they have turned out even better.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Mussing up yet again

2007-07-29T12:59:00.000-07:00

One of my biggest struggles at St. Paul's is our music ministry - we have very little. When I arrived, we had two organists who were members of our congregation. One has died and the other moved away. This leaves us with music students - who, let's be honest, are not always the most reliable although I really do appreciate their efforts. Often we find ourselves singing accapella. We're getting good at that but it means that we can't try too many new things.

Part of the problem is that I have been a member of a number of congregations so I find it difficult to remember which hymns are the ones St. Paul's knows and which are the ones that just my family knows. I've tried having a hymn chosing committee but this has not been successful. I've tried suggestion boxes and having various people chose the hymns but this has not seen much success either.

It leaves me struggling to arrange the music, always conscious of the displeasure of the people when I muss up. I think I could just about pray anything without complaint but music is almost a sacred cow. It doesn't help when I get slack about double checking tunes to familiar hymns. We sang - What a Friend We Have in Jesus. I figured I couldn't go wrong with that - everyone knows it. Well okay, everyone knows it but not to the tune that is in Common Praise. And wouldn't you just know. I never thought to check the tune when I chose the hymn. I didn't even think there could be more than one for such a old well known hymn.

Ohh boy. Apology time again. I suppose we could have looked for the tune we knew but that takes time and it's not fair to spring changes on organists at the last minute unless they are ones that know our music well. So muss up no. 1.

Actually that was muss up no. 2. The first came in the opening hymn which everyone knew. Which I thought I knew. So when the organist started before I had found it in my hymn book, I wasn't worried. I usually know the first verse of the older hymns. Unless of course, Common Praise decides to change the words. Then, as I'm trying to find the hymn and singing from memory, the congregation and I are singing different words - not a lot different but in a situation where I am required to lead the singing (which is because we have no choir) it does get a little tough.

I pray often for help in the music ministry area. I have enough basics but I would dearly love to have someone to take over responsibilty for this ministry. It takes far too much of my time. So if anyone is inspired to pray for something for my wonderful community - please pray for this.

I know there is a lot more that may be more important but at the moment this is a concern and distraction that are keeping me from those possiblty more important things - although, it is obviously very important to my people as it is the aspect of our worship that gets the most criticism. My "tweaking" of the services rarely raises an eybrow and my sermons don't often raise a comment (I wish they did, it would show that someone was listening). But something going wrong with the music is an issue. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting my people on this - our music is something that obviously speaks strongly to them and I would agree on its that it speaks very strongly to the soul - more than just the spoken word).

So, if you could find a little time to say a prayer or two, I would greatly appreciate it.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

An "Old Friend" - but not too old

2007-07-27T11:10:00.000-07:00

Deb is in Canterbury. Does she ever stop traveling?

Anyway, she has started a blog to tell of her "tale".

Oscar the Cat

2007-07-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

I caught the tail end of this story on CTV News.

Then I saw a more detailed story linked at Episcopal Cafe.

I am a cat lover from way, way back. My godmother gave me a cat when I was 4 and I have rarely been without one since then. When we got "Leo" for the children, I would lay on the couch with him curled up beside me. It was so peaceful and relaxing to hear him purr - almost healing. I can understand how it would help to have that presence as one was dying.

I know that one of the nurses at the Long Term Care facility here has mentioned concern with the residents who die all alone. The staff does the best they can but they have other people to look after. I told her that I would be willing to come in and sit with anyone who was dying by themselves but there has been no follow up. This story about Oscar reminded me of that converstaion and I think I will bring this story up at the next vestry meeting as an introduction to a possible ministry for my sick and visiting teams.

Anyhow, this sort of thing, the specialness of animals fascinates me - especially when it involves cats.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Struggles

2007-07-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

I have to say that since General Synod I have come closer than ever to actually doing something other than just talk. I have listened to the pain of those who have remained in the church with faith and hope of full inclusion. If it was just myself involved, I would have no problem in continuing the path I have chosen - to be a voice of possibility. But hearing the pain of those around me is becoming too much. I desparately want to reach out. Recently, I have been far closer to saying yes to doing a same sex blessing than I ever have. Not because of my own conscience, I can live with that. But believing that these blessings are so totally right, the pain of those denied is so strong.

I had given serious thought to asking the bishop to take back my marriage liscence. If I can't do blessings for same sex couples then I won't for opposite sex sort of thing. But that doesn't solve what is happening. The problem is that some wonderful people I have come to know and love are being denied something that I truly believe should not be denied (not because of social justice - but because after years of study, prayer, and talk, I firmly believe that they are already blessed by God and who are we, as humans, to continue to deny that.)

It's not necessarily that all want a blessing. It is the message that we are giving out. In denying the blessing we are saying that we do not fully accept them as the wonderful children of God that they are. We speak one thing but our actions (or lack of actions) say another.

The questions becomes, how can I affirm people's life in the faith if that faith does not fully accept them? What is there for me to say in response to their pain as they look for hope in these confused times? What can I offer them that speaks to that hope?

I continue to hold to chosen path, but it is becoming harder and harder. I am so much more aware of how wrong it is that we exclude those who are loved by God for all that they are. For me, maybe it is simpler - if it got to be too much, I can find some other space to live and answer God's call. But for those I would leave behind the options are not as easy. So far the need to stay and be a voice outweighs the need to reach out and answer the call to bless, but it is more and more of a struggle with each person to whom I listen.

I will manage and I will continue as I have been. I have wonderful support. I do have hope. I am able to work at doing some concrete things. But my heart and prayers are with those who do not have these things. If I'm struggling, I can only begin to imagine how much harder it is for them. As weak as my words and prayers are, please know that you are not alone and that you are loved for all that you are. I sincerely believe that there is hope for us all.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie