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.)
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sometimes things are little bizzare
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
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
Monday, February 23, 2009
Prayers Update
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
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
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Prayers Please
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
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
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Moving Forward
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 +
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 +
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Acceptance for all
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
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
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Christmas Reflection
(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 +
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 +
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Embodied Thought
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
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
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Musings
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
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
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saskatchewan Meteorite
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
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
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
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
Monday, November 24, 2008
Waterfalls
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
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Journey - Stage Four
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Celebration of Marriage
"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
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
Monday, October 06, 2008
Follow up
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)