The next essay I read was Christopher Seitz's "A Reflection on Scripture and Theology in the Canadian Anglican Context." This brought to life some more beefs that I have. I know that I am being nit-picky and that I am missing the point of the paper. There's two reasons for this. 1. I get so tired of claims that are not really reflective of either stance and 2. I can't argue the point of the paper because it is beyond my learnings to do so. I will let someone better qualified argue the Acts passage.
I have to admit that my back went up when I read this: "The Church of the the late modern West is divided, and so the claims of one of its number (The Anglican Church of Canada) to be 'the Church' are themselves part of the cause of the problems we now must face."
I realize that I don't have a good handle on attitudes and words used in Eastern Canada but I have never heard the Anglican Church of Canada claim that it was 'the Church'. In my, admittedly, small group of revisionists (but ever growing) out here, we tend to feel that we are not examples or normative of 'the Church' but rather speaking prophetically to 'the Church'. There is also the understood notion that 'the Church' would be establishment and, in general, those of a liberal or progressive bent, as traditionally understood, do not see themselves as part of establishment but on the edges, pushing for change. We see ourselves more as 'voices in the wilderness" - right or wrong, modesty or self-aggrandizement. I am not at all sure where the basis is for the claim that we see ourselves as "the Church".
Seitz goes on to write:
"The fact that the other Churches (including the vast majority of Christians today and through time) have reached a clear decision about the matter in question, and base this on either scripture or received tradition or both, establishes the point."
See the post below for my concerns about received tradition. 'Received tradition' based on information that was not complete/even shown to be wrong by research in present times. They have not so much reached a clear decision as maintained the status quo - closing themselves off from current research and understandings of sexuality.
"The very fact that the Western text of Acts has a different set of proscriptions reveals at once that the analogy was imperfect once the Christian Church became largely severed from its Jewish roots, ..."
Here is an acknowledgement that somthing can be seem as imperfect when it is severed from its roots (or context or worldview etc.). Is that not what revisionists are trying to get across? Are we not trying, apparently rather ineptly, that what has been said about human sexuality is imperfect. We don't deny that the 7 clobber texts exists. That would be foolish. What we are saying is that they are imperfect as a basis for the current debate due to their context and the different context now.
Times and understandings change. Case in point is the use of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage as a clobber passage. Very few people with any credibility will point to this passage as a proof text anymore and yet the more traditional understanding saw it as speaking against homosexuality. Closer study, placing the passage in its proper context, has shown that is not about homosexuality but about power and hospitality.
And don't think I'm letting the implication above that the revisionists don't base their understandings on scripture slide.
"Then there is the related problem, moring to the second point, that the ruling given overthrows nothing at all. It is seen to be consistant with the prophets...At question was precisely not overthrowing but unholding the Law and the Prophets. Again, there was no possibility 'doctrine' being anything other than an appeal to the scriptures..."
We revisionists really do see full inclusion (including same-sex blessings) as consistant with the scriptures. We look at the full of the scriptures (we tend to suck at proof-texting) and from that we find that full inclusion is consistant with the teachings of Jesus.
Seitz is making a case against the use of Acts 15 as an example of doctrine changing. For all I know, he may have a valid point - this is definitey not an area I feel anywhere near capable of debating, hence the nit-picking.
"This [using the Acts passage as an example of doctrinal change and other incidents like it] demands of course a serious commitment to individual texs and discrete episodes ... and not to the comprehensive scope of scipture, which inheres with is claim to be scripture, and not discrete episodes in religious history."
Do you ever feel like you have entered the twilight zone. I felt this way with some of the statements that are made in this paper. The first was that the ACC claimed it was 'the Church'. The second is in the above quote. If anything, revisionists usually get critisized for taking a comprehensive look at scriptures not with a form of 'proof-texting.' We will deal with individual texts when we are presented with them - such as the 7 clobber passages - but in general we look at the whole of the gospel rather than individual events and interpret through that lens. And we get soundly critisized for that.
One of Seitz's arguements is that, at least in the Acts 15 passage, "the Holy Spirit spake in relationship to the dominical teaching remembered..." The implication being (or at least as I understand it) that this is not the case with same-sex blessings or at least with the revisionist understanding of the Holy Spirit in this case. But revisionists turly believe that the Holy Spirit is speaking for full inclusion and that this is a continuation of the Holy Spirit speaking to the love, compassion, and inclusion of those society sees as outcasts and sinners. We speak in general terms and use specifics to highlight or example what we mean.
I will admit to getting confused in this first paragraph of the conclusion. And my confusion just grows and grows as I read farther. There appears to be a statement that the revisionists give a central role to doctrine. And yet when I talk to those in the middle or on the reasserters side I find them saying that we need to have a good theological and doctrinal basis for same-sex blessings and that the lack of this is a significant weakness in the revisionists stance. And yet I seem to be reading that we are the ones with an obsession with doctrine. Once again, I am not an academic, so I could be reading this wrong.
But it does remind me of an incident in my family's past (you didn't think I could go a day without a family story did you?) We would quite often get transients at our door looking for money. In one such instance one came to our door asking for money for a bus ticket. This was at noon on the first day of school in the fall and things were at sixes and sevens around the house. My mother had a couple of quarters and that was it. She informed the man that she had no money. He started yelling that all the white man ever thought about was money. I did a double-take at that - who was the one that was asking for money (and who was known to threaten violence when he didn't receive it as shown in a prior incident).
I realize that I live in an upside down world out here. Often things are backwards of larger centres but some of the claims made in this paper make me shake my head. There are times when revisionists are being credited with things that I find opposite of my experience. It leaves me with a feeling of disconnection and confusion with the paper as a whole and a lack of focus on what is the underlying arguement centered around Acts 15.
I know, I know that I have been nit-picky but I have to get the nit-picking out of the way in order to be more clear headed to see the paper in its true intent.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tradition
I have just been reading come of the papers submitted to the Primate's Theological Commission dealing with the request from General Synod for more about the blessing of same-sex relationships. First, I will confess that I am biased and most people know in what direction (and if you don't already know, it will rapidly become clear.) I will agree on at least one thing though. I do believe, especially in Canada where same-sex couples can be married, that we need to look at this through the lens of marriage. If we were to bless same-sex relationships outside of marriage, we would, in all fairness, have to look at blessing opposite-sex relationships outside of marriage (with which I will also admit to not having a problem as long as they qualify under the criteria of adult, healthy, committed etc.)
My beef for awhile has been a falling back on the early church fathers and tradition. I have done a fair amount of reading by feminist authors (I know - quel surprise first, that I actually read anything through to the end and second, that I would read feminist authors.) It has become clear how shaky the ground was behind many of strictures against the feminine and women. To large extent it was based on Plato's understandings and the resulting world-view that the feminine is inferior to the masculine. This created structures and mind-sets of fear of being considered feminine or having traits of the feminine. I could go into this in way more depth, but unlike usual, I am not feeling particularly verbose today - too much time spent doing research on church programs.
Suffice it to say that many prohibitions were placed on women because of an assumption of the inferiority of the feminine (decided by a man or men) and a tradition of exlusion and, at various times, oppression ensued. Today, we have a better understanding of sexuality and have made a fair amount of headway - although we still have a long way to go before we embrace a wholistic understanding of human sexuality.
I have respect for the writers of these papers as academics and learned men. I struggle to interact on an academic level for I willingly acknowledge that I am more intuitive and experiential. I have only read two of the papers so far and will probably have to read them a few more times before I fully understand what they are presenting. However, there are a couple of points that come to mind, in general, as I am reading.
The first paper I read was "What Would John Henry Newman Do?" by Dr. George Sumner. (First of all, until I went to seminary I had never heard of John Henry Newman so I guess even knowing who he is now is a sign that something sunk in at Emmanuel.) Dr. Sumner speaks of Newman's proofs "that a particular proposal is in fact a true develpment of doctrine." One of these proofs is that of "chronic endurance". The saving facet of this proof is that Newman appears to have seen endurance as past, present, and future.
However, if we just concentrate on the past and present as the reasserters would have us do, we would run into the problem that I have as a feminist with the church's more traditional understanding of the role and capabilities of women. The traditons were based on a world view and understanding that has since been shown as being in severe error. As more and more information comes to light about human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in specific, we can see where what has been held in the past is no longer valid in the present. I guess time in the future will tell if endurance reaches into the future but gazing into my crystal ball I would suggest that the future will show that same-sex blessings are a true development of doctrine.
The problem being that most of us don't look to the future. We state that because the past has not allowed for it, neither should we, after all it is tradition. There isn't even an openess to the idea that the future might prove that same-sex blessings are consistent with established doctrines.
Dr. Sumner writes:
"With respect to chronic endurance, we should recall that, while the traditional view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for almost twenty centuries, the revised view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for two generations. Does this mean that the proposal could never pass the tests? No, but it does mean that it manifestly has not done so yet."
Ah, he does allow for the future changing. But it becomes clear that he is very doubtful that this is possible. I would say that he is a bit premature in this. Many things that we now accept have had a slow acceptance initially as they so often challenge the status quo and mind set. We may have twenty centuries and a majority of Christians who believe that same-sex blessings are not consistent with scripture or doctrine but those twenty centuries did not have the information or understandings that are available today. Are we to ignore new studies and information? Are we not to act because there has been a negative mind set for twenty centuries? (I will allow that same-sex blessings may not pass the endurance test but I am fairly confident that it will do so which makes me as set in my views as those who do not share them are in theirs. I just don't find it a valid arguement that past centuries have held a view as wrong when they did not have the information we have today, including even an concept of homosexuality.)
I should also state that I don't believe that just because something is new that we should embrace it full tilt. I do think that tradition is generally good and a solid criteria for judging something valid. In this particular case, I find that current studies and findings of human sexuality do not, in the main, support the foundations underlying the traditional view. And so we come full circle.
So, I see two things wrong with the arguement - 1. That the present traditions and doctrines are, at best, based on incomplete understandings of human sexuality and, at worst, downright false assumptions. 2. That we seem to forget that apsect of "chronic endurance" that reaches into the future, and focus on the past and present as the data on which we base our judgement of enduring.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
My beef for awhile has been a falling back on the early church fathers and tradition. I have done a fair amount of reading by feminist authors (I know - quel surprise first, that I actually read anything through to the end and second, that I would read feminist authors.) It has become clear how shaky the ground was behind many of strictures against the feminine and women. To large extent it was based on Plato's understandings and the resulting world-view that the feminine is inferior to the masculine. This created structures and mind-sets of fear of being considered feminine or having traits of the feminine. I could go into this in way more depth, but unlike usual, I am not feeling particularly verbose today - too much time spent doing research on church programs.
Suffice it to say that many prohibitions were placed on women because of an assumption of the inferiority of the feminine (decided by a man or men) and a tradition of exlusion and, at various times, oppression ensued. Today, we have a better understanding of sexuality and have made a fair amount of headway - although we still have a long way to go before we embrace a wholistic understanding of human sexuality.
I have respect for the writers of these papers as academics and learned men. I struggle to interact on an academic level for I willingly acknowledge that I am more intuitive and experiential. I have only read two of the papers so far and will probably have to read them a few more times before I fully understand what they are presenting. However, there are a couple of points that come to mind, in general, as I am reading.
The first paper I read was "What Would John Henry Newman Do?" by Dr. George Sumner. (First of all, until I went to seminary I had never heard of John Henry Newman so I guess even knowing who he is now is a sign that something sunk in at Emmanuel.) Dr. Sumner speaks of Newman's proofs "that a particular proposal is in fact a true develpment of doctrine." One of these proofs is that of "chronic endurance". The saving facet of this proof is that Newman appears to have seen endurance as past, present, and future.
However, if we just concentrate on the past and present as the reasserters would have us do, we would run into the problem that I have as a feminist with the church's more traditional understanding of the role and capabilities of women. The traditons were based on a world view and understanding that has since been shown as being in severe error. As more and more information comes to light about human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in specific, we can see where what has been held in the past is no longer valid in the present. I guess time in the future will tell if endurance reaches into the future but gazing into my crystal ball I would suggest that the future will show that same-sex blessings are a true development of doctrine.
The problem being that most of us don't look to the future. We state that because the past has not allowed for it, neither should we, after all it is tradition. There isn't even an openess to the idea that the future might prove that same-sex blessings are consistent with established doctrines.
Dr. Sumner writes:
"With respect to chronic endurance, we should recall that, while the traditional view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for almost twenty centuries, the revised view has only been found among a relatively small number of Christians for two generations. Does this mean that the proposal could never pass the tests? No, but it does mean that it manifestly has not done so yet."
Ah, he does allow for the future changing. But it becomes clear that he is very doubtful that this is possible. I would say that he is a bit premature in this. Many things that we now accept have had a slow acceptance initially as they so often challenge the status quo and mind set. We may have twenty centuries and a majority of Christians who believe that same-sex blessings are not consistent with scripture or doctrine but those twenty centuries did not have the information or understandings that are available today. Are we to ignore new studies and information? Are we not to act because there has been a negative mind set for twenty centuries? (I will allow that same-sex blessings may not pass the endurance test but I am fairly confident that it will do so which makes me as set in my views as those who do not share them are in theirs. I just don't find it a valid arguement that past centuries have held a view as wrong when they did not have the information we have today, including even an concept of homosexuality.)
I should also state that I don't believe that just because something is new that we should embrace it full tilt. I do think that tradition is generally good and a solid criteria for judging something valid. In this particular case, I find that current studies and findings of human sexuality do not, in the main, support the foundations underlying the traditional view. And so we come full circle.
So, I see two things wrong with the arguement - 1. That the present traditions and doctrines are, at best, based on incomplete understandings of human sexuality and, at worst, downright false assumptions. 2. That we seem to forget that apsect of "chronic endurance" that reaches into the future, and focus on the past and present as the data on which we base our judgement of enduring.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Celebration and Thanksgiving
I was on holidays last week. I went up to a lake and camped for a week by myself. My family joined me for the weekend. I think I could have used another week but I am thankful for the one I had. (I get 4 weeks of holidays a year. I use up three of them in August and carry one week over "just in case". My vestry likes me to use that week up before I start into the next years holidays so I usually take the week in June.) These holidays were in between two events for which I want to offer up prayers of celebration and thanksgiving.
The first event was the graduation of my third child/second daughter. That was on June 14. (And yes, I was present at the Pride Parade. My picture was even in the paper but you have to know it was me. The camera focused on a gorgeous cross dresser and blurred the people behind but, if you know it's us, you can see my Dad and me in our clericals marching in the parade.) The family was all out. Because the class is so small, each grad is allowed 15 dinner tickets so most of those attending the grad were able to eat supper. Jay won the creativity award and the Credit Union bursary as well as receiving a certificate for graduating with more than 30 credits. She looked absolutely gorgeous and was constantly smiling. The youngest also got an award for most academically improved in grades 7-11. (That's two awards for him this year as he also received Air Cadet Rookie of the Year.) The after grad party went over safely - no major instances.
The second event was when my family was driving to join me at the lake. My older daughter phoned me to tell me they driving through Martinsville and would be at the lake in just over an hour. Just as we finished the conversation, I heard a piercing scream and the phone went dead. I tried phoning back imediately but was unable to get through. Frotunately, for my nerve's and imagination's sake, she phoned back relatively quickly. Someone had just t-boned them off an approach to the highway. All were okay including the people in the other car. For some miraculous reason, the van did not roll. My family only had scrapes, bumps and bruises. There was $19,000 worth of damage done to the van so it was totalled off but who cares. I could have lost 1/2 my family in one instant. I have been offering up prayers of thanksgiving ever since - every time I think about it or hear that scream in my head.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
The first event was the graduation of my third child/second daughter. That was on June 14. (And yes, I was present at the Pride Parade. My picture was even in the paper but you have to know it was me. The camera focused on a gorgeous cross dresser and blurred the people behind but, if you know it's us, you can see my Dad and me in our clericals marching in the parade.) The family was all out. Because the class is so small, each grad is allowed 15 dinner tickets so most of those attending the grad were able to eat supper. Jay won the creativity award and the Credit Union bursary as well as receiving a certificate for graduating with more than 30 credits. She looked absolutely gorgeous and was constantly smiling. The youngest also got an award for most academically improved in grades 7-11. (That's two awards for him this year as he also received Air Cadet Rookie of the Year.) The after grad party went over safely - no major instances.
The second event was when my family was driving to join me at the lake. My older daughter phoned me to tell me they driving through Martinsville and would be at the lake in just over an hour. Just as we finished the conversation, I heard a piercing scream and the phone went dead. I tried phoning back imediately but was unable to get through. Frotunately, for my nerve's and imagination's sake, she phoned back relatively quickly. Someone had just t-boned them off an approach to the highway. All were okay including the people in the other car. For some miraculous reason, the van did not roll. My family only had scrapes, bumps and bruises. There was $19,000 worth of damage done to the van so it was totalled off but who cares. I could have lost 1/2 my family in one instant. I have been offering up prayers of thanksgiving ever since - every time I think about it or hear that scream in my head.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Pondering Separation
I have been thinking about Malcolm's comment on the post below. He brings up a concern that I shared when I first saw the idea a few months back. If we were to separate, even for a brief time, we give a free playing field to those who would work to change this church into a more narrow minded entity.
I vividly remember a certain week at seminary. We had a retired bishop from the States as a guest lecturer for a class on evangelism. Ash Wednesday also happened to fall in that same week. Three things stand in my mind about that week. First of all, the retired bishop, in a response to one of my direct questions, told me that he would never have considered me for the priesthood based on the fact that I have no management experience. I pointed out that I was in the process of raising four children and have been involved in numerous executive positions in a variety of community groups - President/Chair, Secretary, Treasurer etc. (Let me tell you that dealing with mothers about a dance recital or skating carnival is not an easy task - it requires many skills of management and diplomacy.) Anyhow, these experiences count for nothing apparently. In order for this bishop to accept me, I would have had to have a piece of paper to give value to my skills and learnings.
During one of the sessions we were discussing how to deal with issues. At least that is what we were suppose to be discussing. We divided into two groups of about 5. I was all set to give an example from my recent internship. My supervisor/mentor was quite conservative, which could have led to a few problems if any of our parishoners brought up the issue of human sexuality. She and I sat down to discuss how we would deal with this. Both of us realized that we were not going to change the other's beliefs on this topic. We agreed that if the issue came up, we would explain where we stood and leave it at that. No critisizing the other's stance. For us the more important work was to look after our people. Instead of focusing on the issue and letting it stress us and our relationship, we chose to focus on the tasks that we believed God was calling us to do in the parish. I shared this experience with my group, hoping it would lead to some discussion of how we work together with differences.
Instead, what the group focused on was my support for full inclusion of all people, in this case, specifically GLBTs. A discussion then followed about how the church should draw doctrinal lines and people who believed as I did placed outside.
Have I mentioned before that I am a feminist. I'm sure you would never have guessed unless I stated it outright. That Ash Wednesday, we had Imposition of Ashes in the evening. This was the winter after my internship so I had been somewhat out of college life and hadn't fully entered back into the life of the community - so many new people and being past Senior Stick (head of the Theological Students Society) I was trying to stay in the background, especially because there were decisions and things happening on TSS with which I was in a fair amount of disagreement. I looked up at the front and all of a sudden realized that all five of the ministers invovled with leading the service were male. This in spite of the fact that there were a number of capable females available.
I was not in a good space that week to begin with. But these three instances really had me questioning whether or not my call was in the Anglican Church in general and in my particular diocese to be more specific. I called up my Dad and we met at Timmy's (Mom was having a bridge night at their house). Dad did his best to help me deal with the feelings and questions these three instances had fostered. He kept pointing out to me that although I might have been somewhat isolated in my current situation there were others who thought as I did. He used the example of a diocese that I had lived in back in the mid-nineties, which had just elected a new bishop. That wasn't much help though as it did not give me the community support I needed then and there.
Shortly after that, I led a seminar in my Anglican Church and Soceity class. I had chosen the seminar on Anglicanism in other parts of the world. That was when I first realized the possibility for what is happening now. I read up on the African provinces and their growing influence with a theology and vision that did not mesh with mine. I remember speaking passionately about my concerns in that class. (I do get quite passionate which turns people off - they think that I am getting emotional - it's more that I get very intense about what it is I am speaking on). After class my prof suggested to me that I consider a call in another denomination. (I will admit to a bit of elitism in my response to that suggestion. I am a cradle Anglican - never lapsed and he came to the Anglican Church in his adulthood.) I think that he mistook the reason for my intensity in the class.
I went through a tough period of discernment that winter and spring. Was the Anglican Church the place for me? Was my sponsoring diocese the place for me? I chose to stay with both because I believed it was important for my voice to be heard. Not "my voice" specifically but the things I had to say. I knew that there were people who needed to know that they were not alone in their thinking, that needed to know that there are other possibilities and understandings within our faith, that needed someone to care and voice their concerns.
These instances and my reflections in the post below highlight a tension in my life in the church. I can see the benefit of not being so emeshed in our communities - in being able to stand back and objectively work together. It is possible as my supervisor/mentor and I proved. But I agree with Malcolm as well. If we leave we give free reign to those who would shape the church in the image they desire. I have remained in this church to be a voice for those who do not have a strong voice. When I considered leaving either this denomination or this diocese, I have always hesitated for who would then speak of the possiblities that are offered. (This particular way of thinking is a legacy from my Dad. He had burn out in the early '80s. He returned to ministry because he felt his particular voice was needed.)
So yes, separation might be healthy. But what do we stand to lose? Is there some other alternative that gives the benefit of stepping back without the loss of our voice in the wider community?
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
I vividly remember a certain week at seminary. We had a retired bishop from the States as a guest lecturer for a class on evangelism. Ash Wednesday also happened to fall in that same week. Three things stand in my mind about that week. First of all, the retired bishop, in a response to one of my direct questions, told me that he would never have considered me for the priesthood based on the fact that I have no management experience. I pointed out that I was in the process of raising four children and have been involved in numerous executive positions in a variety of community groups - President/Chair, Secretary, Treasurer etc. (Let me tell you that dealing with mothers about a dance recital or skating carnival is not an easy task - it requires many skills of management and diplomacy.) Anyhow, these experiences count for nothing apparently. In order for this bishop to accept me, I would have had to have a piece of paper to give value to my skills and learnings.
During one of the sessions we were discussing how to deal with issues. At least that is what we were suppose to be discussing. We divided into two groups of about 5. I was all set to give an example from my recent internship. My supervisor/mentor was quite conservative, which could have led to a few problems if any of our parishoners brought up the issue of human sexuality. She and I sat down to discuss how we would deal with this. Both of us realized that we were not going to change the other's beliefs on this topic. We agreed that if the issue came up, we would explain where we stood and leave it at that. No critisizing the other's stance. For us the more important work was to look after our people. Instead of focusing on the issue and letting it stress us and our relationship, we chose to focus on the tasks that we believed God was calling us to do in the parish. I shared this experience with my group, hoping it would lead to some discussion of how we work together with differences.
Instead, what the group focused on was my support for full inclusion of all people, in this case, specifically GLBTs. A discussion then followed about how the church should draw doctrinal lines and people who believed as I did placed outside.
Have I mentioned before that I am a feminist. I'm sure you would never have guessed unless I stated it outright. That Ash Wednesday, we had Imposition of Ashes in the evening. This was the winter after my internship so I had been somewhat out of college life and hadn't fully entered back into the life of the community - so many new people and being past Senior Stick (head of the Theological Students Society) I was trying to stay in the background, especially because there were decisions and things happening on TSS with which I was in a fair amount of disagreement. I looked up at the front and all of a sudden realized that all five of the ministers invovled with leading the service were male. This in spite of the fact that there were a number of capable females available.
I was not in a good space that week to begin with. But these three instances really had me questioning whether or not my call was in the Anglican Church in general and in my particular diocese to be more specific. I called up my Dad and we met at Timmy's (Mom was having a bridge night at their house). Dad did his best to help me deal with the feelings and questions these three instances had fostered. He kept pointing out to me that although I might have been somewhat isolated in my current situation there were others who thought as I did. He used the example of a diocese that I had lived in back in the mid-nineties, which had just elected a new bishop. That wasn't much help though as it did not give me the community support I needed then and there.
Shortly after that, I led a seminar in my Anglican Church and Soceity class. I had chosen the seminar on Anglicanism in other parts of the world. That was when I first realized the possibility for what is happening now. I read up on the African provinces and their growing influence with a theology and vision that did not mesh with mine. I remember speaking passionately about my concerns in that class. (I do get quite passionate which turns people off - they think that I am getting emotional - it's more that I get very intense about what it is I am speaking on). After class my prof suggested to me that I consider a call in another denomination. (I will admit to a bit of elitism in my response to that suggestion. I am a cradle Anglican - never lapsed and he came to the Anglican Church in his adulthood.) I think that he mistook the reason for my intensity in the class.
I went through a tough period of discernment that winter and spring. Was the Anglican Church the place for me? Was my sponsoring diocese the place for me? I chose to stay with both because I believed it was important for my voice to be heard. Not "my voice" specifically but the things I had to say. I knew that there were people who needed to know that they were not alone in their thinking, that needed to know that there are other possibilities and understandings within our faith, that needed someone to care and voice their concerns.
These instances and my reflections in the post below highlight a tension in my life in the church. I can see the benefit of not being so emeshed in our communities - in being able to stand back and objectively work together. It is possible as my supervisor/mentor and I proved. But I agree with Malcolm as well. If we leave we give free reign to those who would shape the church in the image they desire. I have remained in this church to be a voice for those who do not have a strong voice. When I considered leaving either this denomination or this diocese, I have always hesitated for who would then speak of the possiblities that are offered. (This particular way of thinking is a legacy from my Dad. He had burn out in the early '80s. He returned to ministry because he felt his particular voice was needed.)
So yes, separation might be healthy. But what do we stand to lose? Is there some other alternative that gives the benefit of stepping back without the loss of our voice in the wider community?
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Ecumenical Service
In 2005 Saskatchewan celebrated its 100th anniversary. The local Celebrate Saskatchewan committee approached ministerial about planning an ecumenical service to help mark the event. Ministerial agreed and a tradition was started.
The next year, ministerial was asked if it would host an ecumenical service on the Sunday of Community Days. Based on the response the year before at the Celebrate Saskatchewan service, we agreed. We don't wait to be asked any more. The ecumenical service is now part of the Community Days.
I love the ecumenical spirit in Biggar, both on ministerial and among the people. There is a sense of eagerness as we move toward one of our ecumenical events. It is amazing how we can come together to praise God. There is a sensitivity to our different ways of expressing our theology and our praise of God. This year our liturgy planning committee had representatives from the Anglican , the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Associated Gospel and the Seventh Day Adventist Churches. There is no discord in the planning with each of us being sensitive to the other without going overboard. Interesting enough this year we pulled in a lot of more traditional style resources from the Church of England and the ELCIC, although I offered a variety of samples. It is a real joy to work with people whose main aim is to praise God while fostering a sense of unity - especially after all the shenanigans going on in Anglican land.
Music is one of the resources we use to draw us together. We have a wonderful lead musician in the Roman Catholic music director. Her energy and enthusiasm as well as her knowledge of the local musical talent make our music ministry truly ecumenical. We sing a broad spectrum of pieces with a number of talented musicians.
This year was another wonderful service. It has me thinking about Mark Harris' recent post.
"Then BabyBlue wrote a note to that blog entry. You can read it HERE: She asks, "And what of charity for all, malice toward none? What if we all just agree to separate for a period?" Again, in the midst of all the mutterings, a gentle reality check. Early on in the development of the Covenant idea the Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb, one of our two representatives on that group, suggested to the bishops that perhaps we ought to consider a time out. She said, "I suggest that we enter a five-year period of fasting from full participation in the Anglican Communion to give us all time to think and to listen more carefully to one another. I think we should engage in prayerful non-participation in global meetings (in Lambeth, in the Anglican Consultative Council, in other Communion committee meetings) or, if invited to do so, send observers who could comment, if asked, on the matter under discussion. We should continue on the local level to send money and people wherever they are wanted. (This is not about taking our marbles and going home.) We need to remain wholly engaged in the mission of the church, as closely tied as we are allowed to the See of Canterbury and to the Anglican Communion as a whole. But we should absent ourselves from positions of leadership, stepping out of the room, so that the discussions of the Anglican Communion about itself can go on without spending any more time on our situation which has preoccupied it."
This past week I was with a good friend and suggested the same. Now this is not exactly what BabyBlue was asking for, but at least the idea that the Episcopal Church might "fast from full participation" was working at something of the same hope - that we might "step out of the room." Perhaps across the great divide we can do more than Dave Walker suggests, politely chuck used vegetables and rotten eggs at one another.
I do not believe BabyBlue's remedy is the answer, but there may be some other possibilities. More importantly, her remark triggers a conversation that we ought to take to heart. Are there ways to admit the separations and live with them for a while?"
At first when I heard this idea put forward, I was hesitant. Is not separation a sign of defeat? But as I reflect on what is suggested and my own experiences with the local ministerial, I begin to see some real value. I think that one of the reasons we are able to work so well on ministerial is our ability to separate ourselves. We can listen respectfully to each other and work together well because we are not trying to prove we are right by proving the other wrong. We are able to see our focus in fostering a sense of God's presence in our community and finding ways to help people express it and give thanks for it without falling into too much disagreement. We are able to let go and let others express themselves without censoring or critizing what they have said because we respect that they have the right to their beliefs.
The speaker today, by virtue of being our newest member, was the Seventh Day Adventist member. We worked together as a planning group to chose a theme and readings for our worship. He then put together his talk without further input from us. I may not have agreed with all that he said, although there wasn't much to disagree with, but I respect what he had to say because I know it comes from his faith and from his heart. Even had I found major disagreement with what he preached I would not have made an issue about it because I can respect his understanding of the scripture and the interpretation for how it should be lived out in our lives.
I think that this is all possible because I am not emeshed with him. I can hold myself separate. Maybe Anglicans worldwide to need to stand separate from each other in order to come together in common service to God. That separation will give us the chance to focus on other more important service to God such as feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, and working with God to bring about the kingdom. Maybe in that work we can find the unity that is so lacking right now.
I truly wish it could be done without separation for I believe we each have much to offer. But I begin to see that it is not possible to do so right now. There is too much history between us. Each of us feels we have too much at stake in what is happening. My experience with the ecumenical community here gives me hope that if we can separate and then work together on what is really important without our various polarizations coming into play, we might be able to work more fully together in the things that really matter - discernment of God's will for the restoration of creation and acting upon that discernment, each of us with our own understandings and skills without constantly trying to prove how right we are in our understandings and how wrong the other is. Maybe we could then truly celebrate our diversity and the wondrous gifts that God has given us, using those gifts to draw us together in praise and service.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
The next year, ministerial was asked if it would host an ecumenical service on the Sunday of Community Days. Based on the response the year before at the Celebrate Saskatchewan service, we agreed. We don't wait to be asked any more. The ecumenical service is now part of the Community Days.
I love the ecumenical spirit in Biggar, both on ministerial and among the people. There is a sense of eagerness as we move toward one of our ecumenical events. It is amazing how we can come together to praise God. There is a sensitivity to our different ways of expressing our theology and our praise of God. This year our liturgy planning committee had representatives from the Anglican , the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Associated Gospel and the Seventh Day Adventist Churches. There is no discord in the planning with each of us being sensitive to the other without going overboard. Interesting enough this year we pulled in a lot of more traditional style resources from the Church of England and the ELCIC, although I offered a variety of samples. It is a real joy to work with people whose main aim is to praise God while fostering a sense of unity - especially after all the shenanigans going on in Anglican land.
Music is one of the resources we use to draw us together. We have a wonderful lead musician in the Roman Catholic music director. Her energy and enthusiasm as well as her knowledge of the local musical talent make our music ministry truly ecumenical. We sing a broad spectrum of pieces with a number of talented musicians.
This year was another wonderful service. It has me thinking about Mark Harris' recent post.
"Then BabyBlue wrote a note to that blog entry. You can read it HERE: She asks, "And what of charity for all, malice toward none? What if we all just agree to separate for a period?" Again, in the midst of all the mutterings, a gentle reality check. Early on in the development of the Covenant idea the Rev. Dr. Katherine Grieb, one of our two representatives on that group, suggested to the bishops that perhaps we ought to consider a time out. She said, "I suggest that we enter a five-year period of fasting from full participation in the Anglican Communion to give us all time to think and to listen more carefully to one another. I think we should engage in prayerful non-participation in global meetings (in Lambeth, in the Anglican Consultative Council, in other Communion committee meetings) or, if invited to do so, send observers who could comment, if asked, on the matter under discussion. We should continue on the local level to send money and people wherever they are wanted. (This is not about taking our marbles and going home.) We need to remain wholly engaged in the mission of the church, as closely tied as we are allowed to the See of Canterbury and to the Anglican Communion as a whole. But we should absent ourselves from positions of leadership, stepping out of the room, so that the discussions of the Anglican Communion about itself can go on without spending any more time on our situation which has preoccupied it."
This past week I was with a good friend and suggested the same. Now this is not exactly what BabyBlue was asking for, but at least the idea that the Episcopal Church might "fast from full participation" was working at something of the same hope - that we might "step out of the room." Perhaps across the great divide we can do more than Dave Walker suggests, politely chuck used vegetables and rotten eggs at one another.
I do not believe BabyBlue's remedy is the answer, but there may be some other possibilities. More importantly, her remark triggers a conversation that we ought to take to heart. Are there ways to admit the separations and live with them for a while?"
At first when I heard this idea put forward, I was hesitant. Is not separation a sign of defeat? But as I reflect on what is suggested and my own experiences with the local ministerial, I begin to see some real value. I think that one of the reasons we are able to work so well on ministerial is our ability to separate ourselves. We can listen respectfully to each other and work together well because we are not trying to prove we are right by proving the other wrong. We are able to see our focus in fostering a sense of God's presence in our community and finding ways to help people express it and give thanks for it without falling into too much disagreement. We are able to let go and let others express themselves without censoring or critizing what they have said because we respect that they have the right to their beliefs.
The speaker today, by virtue of being our newest member, was the Seventh Day Adventist member. We worked together as a planning group to chose a theme and readings for our worship. He then put together his talk without further input from us. I may not have agreed with all that he said, although there wasn't much to disagree with, but I respect what he had to say because I know it comes from his faith and from his heart. Even had I found major disagreement with what he preached I would not have made an issue about it because I can respect his understanding of the scripture and the interpretation for how it should be lived out in our lives.
I think that this is all possible because I am not emeshed with him. I can hold myself separate. Maybe Anglicans worldwide to need to stand separate from each other in order to come together in common service to God. That separation will give us the chance to focus on other more important service to God such as feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, and working with God to bring about the kingdom. Maybe in that work we can find the unity that is so lacking right now.
I truly wish it could be done without separation for I believe we each have much to offer. But I begin to see that it is not possible to do so right now. There is too much history between us. Each of us feels we have too much at stake in what is happening. My experience with the ecumenical community here gives me hope that if we can separate and then work together on what is really important without our various polarizations coming into play, we might be able to work more fully together in the things that really matter - discernment of God's will for the restoration of creation and acting upon that discernment, each of us with our own understandings and skills without constantly trying to prove how right we are in our understandings and how wrong the other is. Maybe we could then truly celebrate our diversity and the wondrous gifts that God has given us, using those gifts to draw us together in praise and service.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Friday, June 06, 2008
BBQ
Today we held our fundraiser for community outreach.
We are a small church in rural Saskatchewan. We cannot meet our yearly expenses without drawing down on our savings. Even with extra fundraisers, we don't come close.
Our community holds community days once a year. They're happening this weekend.
Last year we held a BBQ at the community days to raise money to get school supplies for children whose families could not afford them. We were able to make that project extend for two years. We were so happy with last year that we decided to do it again this year.
We needed a new project as last year's still had funding. So we decided this year to raise money for the local Family Centre to co-sponsor a family fun day. This would involve rental of the local pool or bowling alley and a BBQ.
We did well for small town Saskatchewan. We should be able to completely sponsor the fun day with what we raised.
I love this on two levels. The first is that we did raise enough money for the project. The second is what it teaches us about stepping out in faith. It's been threatening rain. We had gorgeous weather - not too sunny but yet warm enough for people to eat outside at the tables. It also teaches about how we will suceed when we work for the kingdom - when we look beyond ourselves and our own needs to helping others with their needs.
We actually did better than last year and last year was a bit of fluke. We couldn't get the day we wanted last year. Although we did luck out and find a c0-sponsor that hadn't already been approached by the time we started looking. We managed to get the same co-sponsor again this year. They're an awesome help. They supply the location, the burgers and buns. The town supplies the tables which they drop off and pick up. We supply the BBQs workers and extra supplies.
Fun was had by all. It got a bit overwhelming at one point. One of the BBQers figured that we sold 40 burgers in five minutes. It was all we could do to keep up.
I prayed hard over this project last year because I knew that if we failed last year, they wouldn't try again this year. I prayed again this year because they work so hard and have such big hearts. Our prayers were answered in spades. Thanks be to God.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
We are a small church in rural Saskatchewan. We cannot meet our yearly expenses without drawing down on our savings. Even with extra fundraisers, we don't come close.
Our community holds community days once a year. They're happening this weekend.
Last year we held a BBQ at the community days to raise money to get school supplies for children whose families could not afford them. We were able to make that project extend for two years. We were so happy with last year that we decided to do it again this year.
We needed a new project as last year's still had funding. So we decided this year to raise money for the local Family Centre to co-sponsor a family fun day. This would involve rental of the local pool or bowling alley and a BBQ.
We did well for small town Saskatchewan. We should be able to completely sponsor the fun day with what we raised.
I love this on two levels. The first is that we did raise enough money for the project. The second is what it teaches us about stepping out in faith. It's been threatening rain. We had gorgeous weather - not too sunny but yet warm enough for people to eat outside at the tables. It also teaches about how we will suceed when we work for the kingdom - when we look beyond ourselves and our own needs to helping others with their needs.
We actually did better than last year and last year was a bit of fluke. We couldn't get the day we wanted last year. Although we did luck out and find a c0-sponsor that hadn't already been approached by the time we started looking. We managed to get the same co-sponsor again this year. They're an awesome help. They supply the location, the burgers and buns. The town supplies the tables which they drop off and pick up. We supply the BBQs workers and extra supplies.
Fun was had by all. It got a bit overwhelming at one point. One of the BBQers figured that we sold 40 burgers in five minutes. It was all we could do to keep up.
I prayed hard over this project last year because I knew that if we failed last year, they wouldn't try again this year. I prayed again this year because they work so hard and have such big hearts. Our prayers were answered in spades. Thanks be to God.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Gay Pride and a Feminist
In a week and a half Saskatoon will be holding its Gay Pride Parade. At first I thought that I would not be able to go as it's my daughter's grade 12 grad and she informed me it was a no-brainer as to where I should be. However, God works in wonderful ways. It turns out that Jay wants her hair done at a small salon in the city right on the parade route. The appointment will take one and a half hours so athough I may not be able to march in the whole, I will still be there for some.
Each year that I am here there seems to be a theme in the questions I am asked. The first year was - "So, what do you think about this whole gay thing?" The second year the question was around same-sex couples raising children. The third was - "Why can't they just stay in the closet?"
This year is - "Why do they have to have a parade? You don't see so&so's insisting on one. I have thought on this a bit. I haven't come up with a whole response but I do have some thoughts. (Surprise! Surprise!) I am not going to defind the right to march as that is a given. I think that this question is an extention of last year's question. It comes from our own discomfort with our sexuality and the tradionally perceived roles of the sexes.
There is now a tacit acceptance that same-sex couples exist. People realize that they are not going to go away and the old euphemisms we used to hide them will no longer work. But we're still uncomfortable so we prefer couples remain where we don't have to acknowledge the relationship.
The Gay Pride Parade challenges that. The very fact that we are uncomfortable should challenge us to look more deeply. Instead, the reason given for opposition barely scratches the surface. We know that it is not PC to wish GLBTTs back into the closet so we voice our concerns by pointing out that no one else holds special parades. We won't mention Anglicans parading in downtown Saskatoon (albeit a relatively short distance) in 1976 from the Cathedral to a larger church. After all, that was a religious procession. Nor will we mention cross town walks on Good Fridays. Those are a form of the Stations of the Cross. Nor will we mention Marches for Jesus.
I would point out to those who question that the parade is a statement that gays are no longer willing to live in the closet in which society has placed them. "Fine," is the response. "But they are no longer in the closet. Why do they have to be in our face about it?"
Unfortunately, our very discomfort shows the whys. Because society still wants them in the closet. We still don't want to see that sexuality and relationship is not just a man-woman thing. We still don't want to publically acknowldege that sex is good in itself, that it can be fun, wholesome, and meaningful without producing children.
And, of course, there is the discomfort over the challenge to stereo-typic roles. It's a threat to see women dressed and in the role of male husband. Heaven forbid that women should ever discover that we can survive and find meaning in life without a man. Or the challenge to those of us who choose to emphasize our femininity but, due to socialization, feel that our very femininity is inferior.
And, certainly, only women should ever wear skimpy clothing to sell our sex. Men doing so is just gross. Who do they think they are? (I will admit that the Saskatoon parade is actually quite sedate in this matter but people conflate it with the parades that get TV time.) Only cheer leaders should advertize their sex.
And then there are the male couples. We all know that, because the ideal couple is male-female, one of those men has got to become like a woman. And the female role is definitely inferior - so one of those men must be letting all of his macho brethern down. How could he?
So, for me, it is not just about being gay or being hand-holding same-sex couples in public. It is, on a less public and acknowledged scale, also about challenging centruies old mis-perceptions about human sexuality and proper (and inferior) role of the feminine.
On the 14th, I will march with my friends to state their right to live their lives fully in public - to the potential for which God has created them. But I also march as a feminist demanding that we celebrate the whole range of sexuality and that we accept all as valued and equal.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Each year that I am here there seems to be a theme in the questions I am asked. The first year was - "So, what do you think about this whole gay thing?" The second year the question was around same-sex couples raising children. The third was - "Why can't they just stay in the closet?"
This year is - "Why do they have to have a parade? You don't see so&so's insisting on one. I have thought on this a bit. I haven't come up with a whole response but I do have some thoughts. (Surprise! Surprise!) I am not going to defind the right to march as that is a given. I think that this question is an extention of last year's question. It comes from our own discomfort with our sexuality and the tradionally perceived roles of the sexes.
There is now a tacit acceptance that same-sex couples exist. People realize that they are not going to go away and the old euphemisms we used to hide them will no longer work. But we're still uncomfortable so we prefer couples remain where we don't have to acknowledge the relationship.
The Gay Pride Parade challenges that. The very fact that we are uncomfortable should challenge us to look more deeply. Instead, the reason given for opposition barely scratches the surface. We know that it is not PC to wish GLBTTs back into the closet so we voice our concerns by pointing out that no one else holds special parades. We won't mention Anglicans parading in downtown Saskatoon (albeit a relatively short distance) in 1976 from the Cathedral to a larger church. After all, that was a religious procession. Nor will we mention cross town walks on Good Fridays. Those are a form of the Stations of the Cross. Nor will we mention Marches for Jesus.
I would point out to those who question that the parade is a statement that gays are no longer willing to live in the closet in which society has placed them. "Fine," is the response. "But they are no longer in the closet. Why do they have to be in our face about it?"
Unfortunately, our very discomfort shows the whys. Because society still wants them in the closet. We still don't want to see that sexuality and relationship is not just a man-woman thing. We still don't want to publically acknowldege that sex is good in itself, that it can be fun, wholesome, and meaningful without producing children.
And, of course, there is the discomfort over the challenge to stereo-typic roles. It's a threat to see women dressed and in the role of male husband. Heaven forbid that women should ever discover that we can survive and find meaning in life without a man. Or the challenge to those of us who choose to emphasize our femininity but, due to socialization, feel that our very femininity is inferior.
And, certainly, only women should ever wear skimpy clothing to sell our sex. Men doing so is just gross. Who do they think they are? (I will admit that the Saskatoon parade is actually quite sedate in this matter but people conflate it with the parades that get TV time.) Only cheer leaders should advertize their sex.
And then there are the male couples. We all know that, because the ideal couple is male-female, one of those men has got to become like a woman. And the female role is definitely inferior - so one of those men must be letting all of his macho brethern down. How could he?
So, for me, it is not just about being gay or being hand-holding same-sex couples in public. It is, on a less public and acknowledged scale, also about challenging centruies old mis-perceptions about human sexuality and proper (and inferior) role of the feminine.
On the 14th, I will march with my friends to state their right to live their lives fully in public - to the potential for which God has created them. But I also march as a feminist demanding that we celebrate the whole range of sexuality and that we accept all as valued and equal.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Unbind Him
I was on a panel yesterday at conference in the city. The panel was on sexuality, spirituality, and worship. I was really struck by what one of the panel members had to say. He spoke to the readings that we have been hearing in Lent. He mentioned the gospel for this Sunday, the story of Lazarus.
He mentioned the call to come out, which given that the context of the whole conference was a theme of celebrating courage - past and present - was a pretty powerful statement. It was at the College of Education and spoke to the issue of human sexuality in the context of education. So the call to come out had real meaning and power for a number of young people there. The panelist then went on to speak of Jesus' command to unbind Lazarus and related that to the church being commanded to help unbind those who have answered the call to come out so that they may have the full life that is promised to us. (Yes, you can see there is an influence of this in the gist of my sermon, which I mention in the post below.)
I found this man's talk very inspiring and enlightening. As a member of the Church, I have recommitted myself to the unbinding of the things which hinder all people from experiencing the full and abundant life that Christ has promised us. I'm not sure what my next step will be or if my steps will even be any different than what I was already going to do. But I have been inspired to continue.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
He mentioned the call to come out, which given that the context of the whole conference was a theme of celebrating courage - past and present - was a pretty powerful statement. It was at the College of Education and spoke to the issue of human sexuality in the context of education. So the call to come out had real meaning and power for a number of young people there. The panelist then went on to speak of Jesus' command to unbind Lazarus and related that to the church being commanded to help unbind those who have answered the call to come out so that they may have the full life that is promised to us. (Yes, you can see there is an influence of this in the gist of my sermon, which I mention in the post below.)
I found this man's talk very inspiring and enlightening. As a member of the Church, I have recommitted myself to the unbinding of the things which hinder all people from experiencing the full and abundant life that Christ has promised us. I'm not sure what my next step will be or if my steps will even be any different than what I was already going to do. But I have been inspired to continue.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Jesus called to Lazarus - Come out.
Today was a major day in the life of my parish. We had to make a decision that would affect our future.
For the last few years the writing has been on the wall. We have been dipping into our savings in order to make ends meet. We figure we have between 5 - 8 years left.
In January we entered into visioning with the Luterans and Presbyterians as I have mentioned before. Today we dealt with the motion that came forward from the last joint meeting. It really was a make or break decision. Yes, it was only for worship on a trial basis over the next 9 months or so but if we voted no, it would most likely make the next few visioning sessions a little stressed and break the trust and relationship we have been building over the last two years. There is a lot of history behind this that I won't go into.
I spoke on the readings today. For the last few years we have been preparing for death - afraid to move forward, at times preparing to close our doors in a few years. In a way, we have been living in a death mentality, in our tomb, afraid to face the life to which we are being called. Jesus is calling us to come out of that tomb - to enter into life and light. Lazarus made the decision to come out even with the things that still bound him to death - the grave cloths - and made is entrance into life more difficult. When the decision was made and Lazarus was committed to it, Jesus turned to the people there and told them to unbind him. Jesus has given us the gift of the people around us to help us unbind ourselves from that which holds us to the path of death, to that which restricts us from being free to live the abundant life that Jesus promise. Not that I really thought the sermon would determine the outcome of the vote but it did allow me to express my hopes and frustrations for the congregation.
Anyhow, the result of the vote was unanimous. All voted in favour of worshipping together weekly with the other two congregations for a trial period till the end of the year. We will revisit the question then to see if it will become permanent.
How this group of wonderful people has grown over the last few years - ready to look beyond themselves to other possibilities, ready to embrace life, to trust in the Spirit. Not that we haven't had moments where we have slid or where we have become frustrated. Five or six years ago, they had a similar decision to make and voted against it. Even those who were so hesitant back then were strong supporters today, speaking out in favour very well and encouraging the others. I was so proud to be a member of this congregation today. I have to admit that if you had asked a year and a half ago if I thought we would be where we are today, I would have serious doubts.
What thrills me the most is that it is not all about money. It is about worship and relationship. Yes, our financial fears play a role but listening to the conversations over the last few weeks, I have heard the people talking about how energetic, how inspiring, how life-giving it is to worship with the other two congregations. It is the support of the larger numbers, the support and care of the other two communities, and the music that has reached those who regularly attended our joint worship. I have listened to members of the congregation talking on coffee row about the life in our church and the life with the other two congregations.
I think about what is going on in the wider Anglican Church and all the talk about doom and gloom. Here in St. Paul's, our life goes on. We have chosen to answer Jesus' call to come out of the tomb, to come out of death into life and light.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
For the last few years the writing has been on the wall. We have been dipping into our savings in order to make ends meet. We figure we have between 5 - 8 years left.
In January we entered into visioning with the Luterans and Presbyterians as I have mentioned before. Today we dealt with the motion that came forward from the last joint meeting. It really was a make or break decision. Yes, it was only for worship on a trial basis over the next 9 months or so but if we voted no, it would most likely make the next few visioning sessions a little stressed and break the trust and relationship we have been building over the last two years. There is a lot of history behind this that I won't go into.
I spoke on the readings today. For the last few years we have been preparing for death - afraid to move forward, at times preparing to close our doors in a few years. In a way, we have been living in a death mentality, in our tomb, afraid to face the life to which we are being called. Jesus is calling us to come out of that tomb - to enter into life and light. Lazarus made the decision to come out even with the things that still bound him to death - the grave cloths - and made is entrance into life more difficult. When the decision was made and Lazarus was committed to it, Jesus turned to the people there and told them to unbind him. Jesus has given us the gift of the people around us to help us unbind ourselves from that which holds us to the path of death, to that which restricts us from being free to live the abundant life that Jesus promise. Not that I really thought the sermon would determine the outcome of the vote but it did allow me to express my hopes and frustrations for the congregation.
Anyhow, the result of the vote was unanimous. All voted in favour of worshipping together weekly with the other two congregations for a trial period till the end of the year. We will revisit the question then to see if it will become permanent.
How this group of wonderful people has grown over the last few years - ready to look beyond themselves to other possibilities, ready to embrace life, to trust in the Spirit. Not that we haven't had moments where we have slid or where we have become frustrated. Five or six years ago, they had a similar decision to make and voted against it. Even those who were so hesitant back then were strong supporters today, speaking out in favour very well and encouraging the others. I was so proud to be a member of this congregation today. I have to admit that if you had asked a year and a half ago if I thought we would be where we are today, I would have serious doubts.
What thrills me the most is that it is not all about money. It is about worship and relationship. Yes, our financial fears play a role but listening to the conversations over the last few weeks, I have heard the people talking about how energetic, how inspiring, how life-giving it is to worship with the other two congregations. It is the support of the larger numbers, the support and care of the other two communities, and the music that has reached those who regularly attended our joint worship. I have listened to members of the congregation talking on coffee row about the life in our church and the life with the other two congregations.
I think about what is going on in the wider Anglican Church and all the talk about doom and gloom. Here in St. Paul's, our life goes on. We have chosen to answer Jesus' call to come out of the tomb, to come out of death into life and light.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Venables to visit Fort Worth
Episcopal Cafe has this item here.
My first reaction is "where the h*** are the people who speaking out definitively against this. What is with the huge silence. And then I realized, it really is too late for anyone to speak out. The time when it would have made a difference has passed.
I'm assuming that the powers that be did not want to offend anyone - did not want anyone walking off in a huff - and so they stood by and did nothing. It is an attitude that I have had to deal with and am still dealing with. I had phoned someone for some advice over a recent event in the life of my parish - an event that can end in very positive life for the congregation ifs it is handled well, but I also need the support of higher up. The person I phoned did not want anyone offended in the decision making process and almost completely tied my hands as far as working toward a positive outcome in fear that someone will be offended. After I hung up the phone I turned to my husband and said, "Well, he/she has already managed to have one person offended."
The point is that you cannot go through life without offending someone. My congregation will not make this decision without ticking someone off regardless of what decision we make. The best we can do is let people know that we understand and accept their feelings and opinions and that we care for them and wish them well for their future. You cannot move forward without leaving some behind, as regrettable as that may be.
I believe that a stand should have been taken a while back. Border crossing is wrong because of the chaos that results - I have no problem with creative chaos but I do have a major problem with destructive chaos. Maybe TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are wrong in their support of full inclusion (although I don't believe they are). Instead of trying to appease each, would it not have been better, when it was realized it wasn't go to happen, to take a stand one way or the other, let the chips fall where they may, and wish those who left well in their future. Maybe it would have left the possiblity of reconciliation in the future more open. It would not have resuled in the chaos that currently exists with lines blurred and everyone offended on one level or another. It would have resulted in all of us getting on with our lives and the mission of the church as we best discern it.
There are times when we need to hold the line and work to keep everyone together. There are times when it is best if we let go. It is now to late to go back to who and what we were. I believe that it is time that we cut our losses. The powers that be need to speak out and let things happen. We can then deal creatively with what is left. If it means that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and various other provinces are unable to continue in the present arrangement, then we can creatively come up with a way to support each other and work to fulfill Christ's commission. If it means that those who do not support full inclusion on all levels are unable to continue in the present arrangement, we need to give them our blessing and wish them well in their future.
As my parish visions to move forward, one of our biggest stumbling blocks is letting go of our building. It is not as bad now as it use to be but it is still a concern in our talks with the other two congregations. When it was the major stumbling block, it had become an idol that we were placing before God in total disregard for the commandment that speaks to having no other gods before God. Trying to keep everyone at the table in the Anglican Communion has become like that. There was a time when it was good and right that we try. The time has passed. Unity has become an idol before our commitment to and mission with God. We can see this in the negative results around the life of various provinces and dioceses, let alone on the parish level.
A number of years ago the small village I was in faced the closure of its school. I had two children in the school at the time. As parents and community members we fought that closure but lost again at the next level. We then accepted it and did our best to help our children to adjust to their new school in the next town. Some older members of the community felt we had not fought hard enough. But I realized that although we needed to fight the decision to close the school on a number of levels, not the least being the process and underhandedness of the school board making and implementing the decision, we could only do so to a point where it began adversely affecting our children and making the transition very difficult. We did the best we could within the existing structures but were then able to let go for the good of all concerned.
I look on the current situation in that light. The powers that be have done the best they can but now (and actually much too late) it is time to let go of the past and forge a new future from what is left. I'm ready regardless of whether that leaves the Anglican Church of Canada in or out of the Anglican Communion. I wish those who cannot see their way to full inclusion well either in or out of the communion. May they find the abundant life that is Jesus' promise to us all. I sincerely hope that the rest of us will as well.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
My first reaction is "where the h*** are the people who speaking out definitively against this. What is with the huge silence. And then I realized, it really is too late for anyone to speak out. The time when it would have made a difference has passed.
I'm assuming that the powers that be did not want to offend anyone - did not want anyone walking off in a huff - and so they stood by and did nothing. It is an attitude that I have had to deal with and am still dealing with. I had phoned someone for some advice over a recent event in the life of my parish - an event that can end in very positive life for the congregation ifs it is handled well, but I also need the support of higher up. The person I phoned did not want anyone offended in the decision making process and almost completely tied my hands as far as working toward a positive outcome in fear that someone will be offended. After I hung up the phone I turned to my husband and said, "Well, he/she has already managed to have one person offended."
The point is that you cannot go through life without offending someone. My congregation will not make this decision without ticking someone off regardless of what decision we make. The best we can do is let people know that we understand and accept their feelings and opinions and that we care for them and wish them well for their future. You cannot move forward without leaving some behind, as regrettable as that may be.
I believe that a stand should have been taken a while back. Border crossing is wrong because of the chaos that results - I have no problem with creative chaos but I do have a major problem with destructive chaos. Maybe TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are wrong in their support of full inclusion (although I don't believe they are). Instead of trying to appease each, would it not have been better, when it was realized it wasn't go to happen, to take a stand one way or the other, let the chips fall where they may, and wish those who left well in their future. Maybe it would have left the possiblity of reconciliation in the future more open. It would not have resuled in the chaos that currently exists with lines blurred and everyone offended on one level or another. It would have resulted in all of us getting on with our lives and the mission of the church as we best discern it.
There are times when we need to hold the line and work to keep everyone together. There are times when it is best if we let go. It is now to late to go back to who and what we were. I believe that it is time that we cut our losses. The powers that be need to speak out and let things happen. We can then deal creatively with what is left. If it means that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and various other provinces are unable to continue in the present arrangement, then we can creatively come up with a way to support each other and work to fulfill Christ's commission. If it means that those who do not support full inclusion on all levels are unable to continue in the present arrangement, we need to give them our blessing and wish them well in their future.
As my parish visions to move forward, one of our biggest stumbling blocks is letting go of our building. It is not as bad now as it use to be but it is still a concern in our talks with the other two congregations. When it was the major stumbling block, it had become an idol that we were placing before God in total disregard for the commandment that speaks to having no other gods before God. Trying to keep everyone at the table in the Anglican Communion has become like that. There was a time when it was good and right that we try. The time has passed. Unity has become an idol before our commitment to and mission with God. We can see this in the negative results around the life of various provinces and dioceses, let alone on the parish level.
A number of years ago the small village I was in faced the closure of its school. I had two children in the school at the time. As parents and community members we fought that closure but lost again at the next level. We then accepted it and did our best to help our children to adjust to their new school in the next town. Some older members of the community felt we had not fought hard enough. But I realized that although we needed to fight the decision to close the school on a number of levels, not the least being the process and underhandedness of the school board making and implementing the decision, we could only do so to a point where it began adversely affecting our children and making the transition very difficult. We did the best we could within the existing structures but were then able to let go for the good of all concerned.
I look on the current situation in that light. The powers that be have done the best they can but now (and actually much too late) it is time to let go of the past and forge a new future from what is left. I'm ready regardless of whether that leaves the Anglican Church of Canada in or out of the Anglican Communion. I wish those who cannot see their way to full inclusion well either in or out of the communion. May they find the abundant life that is Jesus' promise to us all. I sincerely hope that the rest of us will as well.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Reach Out for Kenya
This came from Amnesty International yesterday.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/kenya-action
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8721569146
"Reach Out for KenyaFebruary 27th is International Day of ActionMore than 1,000 people have been killed and over 300,000 displaced from their homes since violence broke out in response to elections in Kenya.
Immediately, Amnesty International sent a mission to investigate the human rights situation and help mobilize international action to protect civilian lives.
Although the violence has abated, there is an uneasy calm as the mediation talks take place, led by Kofi Annan.
Amnesty International urges Kenya's leaders to ensure the human rights of Kenyan people are protected.
An international day of public and online action this month will demonstrate solidarity with the people of Kenya and call on the Kenyan government to protect people from politically-motivated and ethnic violence.
On 27 February, people can show their outrage at the continuing human rights abuses in Kenya in a series of events organised by Amnesty International; including an online Facebook action and a series of street demonstrations.
The disputed election of 27 December 2007 sparked an outbreak of fighting and a series of grave human rights violations. At least 1,000 people have been killed so far, while more than 300,000 have been displaced.
Amnesty International's recent visit to Kenya found evidence of unlawful killings, the ethnically targeted forced relocation and burning of homes by armed militias, excessive use of force by security officials, sexual violence against women and girls, and violations of freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International has also documented death threats against human rights defenders and activists.
The death toll includes hundreds shot dead by police, who were deployed to quell the post-election violence and break up mass protests against the election called by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) opposition party.
Subsequent violence has seen increasingly organised attacks by ethnic militia and youth gangs against people of Kikuyu ethnicity, which has led to retaliatory attacks by Kikuyu militias and youth gangs.
There is particular concern at the ethnic dimension to the political violence and its possible long-term implications for Kenyan society.
Amnesty International calls on the Kenyan government to protect the people of Kenya, many of whom have endured unrelenting suffering in the last two months. Kenyan leaders must end the cycle of impunity that perpetuates the politically motivated violence in Kenya."
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/kenya-action
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8721569146
"Reach Out for KenyaFebruary 27th is International Day of ActionMore than 1,000 people have been killed and over 300,000 displaced from their homes since violence broke out in response to elections in Kenya.
Immediately, Amnesty International sent a mission to investigate the human rights situation and help mobilize international action to protect civilian lives.
Although the violence has abated, there is an uneasy calm as the mediation talks take place, led by Kofi Annan.
Amnesty International urges Kenya's leaders to ensure the human rights of Kenyan people are protected.
An international day of public and online action this month will demonstrate solidarity with the people of Kenya and call on the Kenyan government to protect people from politically-motivated and ethnic violence.
On 27 February, people can show their outrage at the continuing human rights abuses in Kenya in a series of events organised by Amnesty International; including an online Facebook action and a series of street demonstrations.
The disputed election of 27 December 2007 sparked an outbreak of fighting and a series of grave human rights violations. At least 1,000 people have been killed so far, while more than 300,000 have been displaced.
Amnesty International's recent visit to Kenya found evidence of unlawful killings, the ethnically targeted forced relocation and burning of homes by armed militias, excessive use of force by security officials, sexual violence against women and girls, and violations of freedom of expression and assembly. Amnesty International has also documented death threats against human rights defenders and activists.
The death toll includes hundreds shot dead by police, who were deployed to quell the post-election violence and break up mass protests against the election called by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) opposition party.
Subsequent violence has seen increasingly organised attacks by ethnic militia and youth gangs against people of Kikuyu ethnicity, which has led to retaliatory attacks by Kikuyu militias and youth gangs.
There is particular concern at the ethnic dimension to the political violence and its possible long-term implications for Kenyan society.
Amnesty International calls on the Kenyan government to protect the people of Kenya, many of whom have endured unrelenting suffering in the last two months. Kenyan leaders must end the cycle of impunity that perpetuates the politically motivated violence in Kenya."
Inegrity Workshop
A few years ago, partly as a result of a decision that was a public relations disaster, the bishop gave permission to form a chapter of Integrity Canada in our diocese. Shawn Sanford Beck was named chaplain and did a fantastic job of drawing people together. When Shawn's license was not renewed, I was named chaplain. There was controversy over the appointment as no one had thought to discuss it with Integrity. When I realized this, I tried to do something about it but made little headway. I discussed it with Integrity members and at first we decided to treat my chaplaincy as an interim one until the group could meet with the bishop. By the time we met with the bishop the group was more at peace with accepting me and I remained chaplain.
Interestingly enough, part of the reason I was chosen chaplain, was that Shawn had been very open and outspoken about his decision to say yes the next time he was asked to do a blessing of same-sex relationship. The powers that be thought that I might temper the group so that they wouldn't become outspoken. My understanding of chaplaincy is to facilitate the growth of the group and ensure that sacramental ministry is provided. It has been wonderful to see this group come into their own. In January they passed their own constitution. They have taken up a request of the bishop to help bring about dialogue in the diocese. There is life and purpose in the group and although our membership numbers have not grown, the commitment of the people has. We are also looking outward at other groups to see if we can help or partner in any way. My role has become smaller and smaller as members of the group start utilizing their gifts in leadership. It is absolutely fantastic to see this group come into their own.
Below is a info-letter that has gone out to the priests of the diocese to promote the workshop the committee has developed with input from interested persons around the diocese.
TOGETHER IN FAITH; ONE IN CHRIST
A Workshop by Integrity/Saskatoon
An Invitation to a GLBTT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Two-Spirited) Workshop
The full and equal inclusion of gay, lesbian, and other sexual-minority Anglicans in our Church raises issues that probe our deepest understanding of the Christian faith. Silence has proved ineffective for resolving these divisive issues and the continuation and growth of the resultant discord has reached the point where it threatens the very structure of the Church. Resolution of these issues will allow us to begin to heal and to get on with our witness to the Gospel of Christ however; this resolution will require the development of an informed opinion and a mutually respectful dialogue in the presence of the Holy Spirit. At present no structure or process exists within our Diocese to initiate this resolution and begin the necessary dialogue and healing.
At a meeting of Integrity/Saskatoon in September 2007, the Right Reverend Rodney Andrews, Bishop of Saskatoon discussed the various issues and needs in regards to meeting this impasse with the membership of Integrity. Bishop Rodney made several suggestions on processes that Integrity could follow to address those concerns; Integrity responded to the Bishop’s suggestions by developing a one-day workshop entitled “Together in Faith: One in Christ” designed to give participants the facts and interpersonal skills needed to reach a level of understanding and spiritual growth which, it is hoped, will permit us to go forward together in faith as a people who are one in Christ.
This workshop has been prepared by the Integrity Education Committee with professional assistance from Integrity/Canada, Affirm United, and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Canada and also incorporates the findings from two, pre-workshop, brainstorming sessions held last autumn with participants from the parishes of Saskatoon. Following this workshop Integrity/Saskatoon will set up a series of smaller workshops to be held in parishes outside of Saskatoon. This current workshop is scheduled as an all-day event for Saturday, April 12th at Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, in comfortable surroundings with wheelchair accessibility and ample parking.
DATE, TIME Saturday, April 12th, 2008; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
PLACE Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, Saskatoon
FEE $25.00 per person (Integrity/Saskatoon will provide subsidies where needed); includes lunch and coffee breaks. Please make cheques payable to Integrity/Saskatoon.
CONTACT Tom and Rose Rogers, 1534 McKercher Drive, Saskatoon S7H 5E1; Phone: (306)373-5165; E-Mail: rogerstr@shaw.ca .
DEADLINE March 31, 2008
Interestingly enough, part of the reason I was chosen chaplain, was that Shawn had been very open and outspoken about his decision to say yes the next time he was asked to do a blessing of same-sex relationship. The powers that be thought that I might temper the group so that they wouldn't become outspoken. My understanding of chaplaincy is to facilitate the growth of the group and ensure that sacramental ministry is provided. It has been wonderful to see this group come into their own. In January they passed their own constitution. They have taken up a request of the bishop to help bring about dialogue in the diocese. There is life and purpose in the group and although our membership numbers have not grown, the commitment of the people has. We are also looking outward at other groups to see if we can help or partner in any way. My role has become smaller and smaller as members of the group start utilizing their gifts in leadership. It is absolutely fantastic to see this group come into their own.
Below is a info-letter that has gone out to the priests of the diocese to promote the workshop the committee has developed with input from interested persons around the diocese.
TOGETHER IN FAITH; ONE IN CHRIST
A Workshop by Integrity/Saskatoon
An Invitation to a GLBTT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Two-Spirited) Workshop
The full and equal inclusion of gay, lesbian, and other sexual-minority Anglicans in our Church raises issues that probe our deepest understanding of the Christian faith. Silence has proved ineffective for resolving these divisive issues and the continuation and growth of the resultant discord has reached the point where it threatens the very structure of the Church. Resolution of these issues will allow us to begin to heal and to get on with our witness to the Gospel of Christ however; this resolution will require the development of an informed opinion and a mutually respectful dialogue in the presence of the Holy Spirit. At present no structure or process exists within our Diocese to initiate this resolution and begin the necessary dialogue and healing.
At a meeting of Integrity/Saskatoon in September 2007, the Right Reverend Rodney Andrews, Bishop of Saskatoon discussed the various issues and needs in regards to meeting this impasse with the membership of Integrity. Bishop Rodney made several suggestions on processes that Integrity could follow to address those concerns; Integrity responded to the Bishop’s suggestions by developing a one-day workshop entitled “Together in Faith: One in Christ” designed to give participants the facts and interpersonal skills needed to reach a level of understanding and spiritual growth which, it is hoped, will permit us to go forward together in faith as a people who are one in Christ.
This workshop has been prepared by the Integrity Education Committee with professional assistance from Integrity/Canada, Affirm United, and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) Canada and also incorporates the findings from two, pre-workshop, brainstorming sessions held last autumn with participants from the parishes of Saskatoon. Following this workshop Integrity/Saskatoon will set up a series of smaller workshops to be held in parishes outside of Saskatoon. This current workshop is scheduled as an all-day event for Saturday, April 12th at Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, in comfortable surroundings with wheelchair accessibility and ample parking.
DATE, TIME Saturday, April 12th, 2008; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
PLACE Queen’s House Retreat and Renewal Centre, Saskatoon
FEE $25.00 per person (Integrity/Saskatoon will provide subsidies where needed); includes lunch and coffee breaks. Please make cheques payable to Integrity/Saskatoon.
CONTACT Tom and Rose Rogers, 1534 McKercher Drive, Saskatoon S7H 5E1; Phone: (306)373-5165; E-Mail: rogerstr@shaw.ca .
DEADLINE March 31, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Leo
Updated:
If anyone is reading this please send prayers up for our cat, Leo. He belongs to our two children still at home. It has been and down and up day. We took him into the emergency clinic in the city yesterday. He was in pretty tough shape - kidney failure. He was fairly dehydrated. They kept him in over night and gave him fluids. He did start eating as well, which he hasn't really done for a few weeks. They told us this morning that he was doing better but then phoned and told us he desparately needed a transfusion. We rushed in after the service and the news was not good. We decided to bring him home for one last night and take him to our own vet tomorrow to have him euthanized. It was a tough decision.
The vet went to get things set up for us to take Leo home. She and her assistant came back and told us that when they got to him, he looked better so they took another blood sample. His red count was up a fair bit - still a concern but not dangerously low as it had been in the morning. We decided to bring Leo home for the night and take him to a vet friend of our son's in the morning. Please pray that things improve. Leo is only 4 years old - pretty young to have kidney failure and we have been trying to figure out what he may have accidently eaten or drank to bring this on.
He's an amazing cat - can't decide if he's cat, dog, or human and shows traits of all three. He loves old boots. He's got personnality plus and has given us many laughs with his antics. My own cat, Max, is lost without him as he has never known a time separate from him. When I brought Max home as a kitten, Leo mothered him, which was good because Max's mom had basically rejected him.
Updated: Monday afternoon.
By 9:00 last night we figured that Leo would not make it til morning. He surprised us and did so. He was more energetic and drinking water. He ate a breakfast of ground buffalo - his favourite. We went into the vet with our hopes up, knowing that this vet did not like euthanizing animals. Unfortunately, the news was not good. Leo's condition had probably been there from his birth. As the vet talked we could see signs that he had been going downhill for a while now. Any measures we could take were for comfort only. We made the tough decision to have Leo euthanized. It's been hard to come home without him and still see traces of him all over the house. My youngest is taking this hard but believes we made the right decision (he had a voice in that decision as well - he didn't want to see Leo suffer anymore).
We give thanks for Leo's presence in our lives these last 4 years. He brought us a lot of joy and laughter. We give thanks to God that we did have that last night with him, to say good-bye and let go.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
If anyone is reading this please send prayers up for our cat, Leo. He belongs to our two children still at home. It has been and down and up day. We took him into the emergency clinic in the city yesterday. He was in pretty tough shape - kidney failure. He was fairly dehydrated. They kept him in over night and gave him fluids. He did start eating as well, which he hasn't really done for a few weeks. They told us this morning that he was doing better but then phoned and told us he desparately needed a transfusion. We rushed in after the service and the news was not good. We decided to bring him home for one last night and take him to our own vet tomorrow to have him euthanized. It was a tough decision.
The vet went to get things set up for us to take Leo home. She and her assistant came back and told us that when they got to him, he looked better so they took another blood sample. His red count was up a fair bit - still a concern but not dangerously low as it had been in the morning. We decided to bring Leo home for the night and take him to a vet friend of our son's in the morning. Please pray that things improve. Leo is only 4 years old - pretty young to have kidney failure and we have been trying to figure out what he may have accidently eaten or drank to bring this on.
He's an amazing cat - can't decide if he's cat, dog, or human and shows traits of all three. He loves old boots. He's got personnality plus and has given us many laughs with his antics. My own cat, Max, is lost without him as he has never known a time separate from him. When I brought Max home as a kitten, Leo mothered him, which was good because Max's mom had basically rejected him.
Updated: Monday afternoon.
By 9:00 last night we figured that Leo would not make it til morning. He surprised us and did so. He was more energetic and drinking water. He ate a breakfast of ground buffalo - his favourite. We went into the vet with our hopes up, knowing that this vet did not like euthanizing animals. Unfortunately, the news was not good. Leo's condition had probably been there from his birth. As the vet talked we could see signs that he had been going downhill for a while now. Any measures we could take were for comfort only. We made the tough decision to have Leo euthanized. It's been hard to come home without him and still see traces of him all over the house. My youngest is taking this hard but believes we made the right decision (he had a voice in that decision as well - he didn't want to see Leo suffer anymore).
We give thanks for Leo's presence in our lives these last 4 years. He brought us a lot of joy and laughter. We give thanks to God that we did have that last night with him, to say good-bye and let go.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Busy, Busy, Busy
I have been very aware that I have not blogged for over a month. I can't believe how busy my life has been and it doesn't improve any in the next two months. I will seriously have to look at learning a little two letter word. I've had one day off so far this month (and that was to go grad dress shopping with my daughter) and they're few and far between till the end of April. Hopefully, I can schedule a week of holidays for a personal retreat in May.
Retreat in January was mandatory. I hate silence. I can be silent but to sit through a meal with friends I haven't seen in a year and not talk is just not right. And in the evening, after our last meditation and compline, it would be wonderful to sit around that old field stone fireplace and share ideas. It bothered me even more when I went through that particular room at 10:00 one night and not a soul was there - yet in a small room, tucked away in a corner were a crowd of talkers. I understand the value of silence and I have no problem with it except at meals and in the evening. I wrote a page long comment on the evaluation but I doubt that it will get anywhere.
Synod is coming up. I ended up as chair of Nominations and Elections. Guess who has never even been on that committee before. It wouldn't be bad if our Canons were not out of date with the reality in the diocese. Oh and the timing of our next synod in relation to the timing of the next General Synod isn't the greatest either. I'm having nightmares over this.
There are a few tasks that I really enjoy and that feed me rather than drain me. I continue to be chaplain to Integrity. The growth in this group is absolutely wonderful. Although we have grown numerically, that is not the growth I am talking about. It is the growth of the individuals for which I am thankful.
I have also been asked to be on a panel at a Breaking the Silence conference to speak about spirituality and how I handle things related to human sexuality in my parish and community.
I get to also lead a workshop on prayer for the local parish nursing program. I love doing that.
And the fourth thing that will feed my soul is a conference in the mountains. The main speaker is Diana Butler Bass. It comes at a super busy time - the weekend between Easter and our Synod - but I know I will find a source of energy there to carry me through.
But in the midst of these things that give me peace are other responsibilities. I am on the the visioning committee. I believe that we have come up with a good plan to move this diocese forward. I can only pray that the earthly power that be backs us to the hilt. One of the things that came through so loudly and clearly during our consultations with the people of the diocese is the fear that this plan will come to naught. I would hate to see them let down.
And then there is the compensation committee. That takes a fair amount of meeting time. I wish I could give more effort to it but I just don't have the time available - at least not until after synod.
Of course, I didn't think I was busy enough, so I took on emergency pastoral care for a three point parish 1 1/2 hours away and in a different diocese. I really need to give my head a shake but I know these people are going through a rough time. How could I refuse.
But the dear Lord decided that life still isn't full enough for me. My parents phoned me last week to let me know that they were moving from their two bedroom house to a one bedroom seniors apartment within a month - the apartment is available on Palm/Passion Sunday. So now I have to find time to help them organize and pack. I am in charge of the china, books, and spare bedroom.
And then, a joyous event that makes my life even more hectic but for which I am deeply thankful. We are in the midst of a four month visioning process. We meet once a month with two other congregations - Lutheran and Presbyterian - and then once a month with just our own congregation. We are trying to determine if there is a future for these three congregations in closer relationship. At the last meeting of the three congregations a motion was put forward that we , for a trial period, worship together all the time instead of just once a month. It was passed by the people there. Now I need to take it to a congregational vote. The other two congregations do not have to do such as thing as their polity does not insist on it. The nightmare here is determining who is qualified to vote. I won't go into the three days of hashing it out between my mentor, my archdeacon, and my bishop. I was away in Alberta with a prior commitment to my daughter for those three days so it was an interesting time with a phone permanently attached to my ear at times. It wasn't until Thursday, after driving into the city for a meeting, that I all of a sudden realized that I hadn't even given thought to this Sunday's service. Friday was spent putting the notice of the parish meeting out, meeting with representatives from the other two congregations and mine to work out some details on the original proposal - clarifying things for the parish meeting and trying to research for Sunday's service.
Please pray for my congregation and its meeting on March 9. Those who are the solid attenders and supporters are enthused about this proposal but there are others who haven't participated enough to realize what a blessing our joint worship is. This congregation split on a somewhat similar vote about 5 years ago.
Sometimes I wonder if I'll make it through. But on the other hand, I know that when I have, it will not have been on my strength alone. Being busy actually reminds me to rely on God all the more and I become so conscious of the Creator's presence in my life on many levels.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Retreat in January was mandatory. I hate silence. I can be silent but to sit through a meal with friends I haven't seen in a year and not talk is just not right. And in the evening, after our last meditation and compline, it would be wonderful to sit around that old field stone fireplace and share ideas. It bothered me even more when I went through that particular room at 10:00 one night and not a soul was there - yet in a small room, tucked away in a corner were a crowd of talkers. I understand the value of silence and I have no problem with it except at meals and in the evening. I wrote a page long comment on the evaluation but I doubt that it will get anywhere.
Synod is coming up. I ended up as chair of Nominations and Elections. Guess who has never even been on that committee before. It wouldn't be bad if our Canons were not out of date with the reality in the diocese. Oh and the timing of our next synod in relation to the timing of the next General Synod isn't the greatest either. I'm having nightmares over this.
There are a few tasks that I really enjoy and that feed me rather than drain me. I continue to be chaplain to Integrity. The growth in this group is absolutely wonderful. Although we have grown numerically, that is not the growth I am talking about. It is the growth of the individuals for which I am thankful.
I have also been asked to be on a panel at a Breaking the Silence conference to speak about spirituality and how I handle things related to human sexuality in my parish and community.
I get to also lead a workshop on prayer for the local parish nursing program. I love doing that.
And the fourth thing that will feed my soul is a conference in the mountains. The main speaker is Diana Butler Bass. It comes at a super busy time - the weekend between Easter and our Synod - but I know I will find a source of energy there to carry me through.
But in the midst of these things that give me peace are other responsibilities. I am on the the visioning committee. I believe that we have come up with a good plan to move this diocese forward. I can only pray that the earthly power that be backs us to the hilt. One of the things that came through so loudly and clearly during our consultations with the people of the diocese is the fear that this plan will come to naught. I would hate to see them let down.
And then there is the compensation committee. That takes a fair amount of meeting time. I wish I could give more effort to it but I just don't have the time available - at least not until after synod.
Of course, I didn't think I was busy enough, so I took on emergency pastoral care for a three point parish 1 1/2 hours away and in a different diocese. I really need to give my head a shake but I know these people are going through a rough time. How could I refuse.
But the dear Lord decided that life still isn't full enough for me. My parents phoned me last week to let me know that they were moving from their two bedroom house to a one bedroom seniors apartment within a month - the apartment is available on Palm/Passion Sunday. So now I have to find time to help them organize and pack. I am in charge of the china, books, and spare bedroom.
And then, a joyous event that makes my life even more hectic but for which I am deeply thankful. We are in the midst of a four month visioning process. We meet once a month with two other congregations - Lutheran and Presbyterian - and then once a month with just our own congregation. We are trying to determine if there is a future for these three congregations in closer relationship. At the last meeting of the three congregations a motion was put forward that we , for a trial period, worship together all the time instead of just once a month. It was passed by the people there. Now I need to take it to a congregational vote. The other two congregations do not have to do such as thing as their polity does not insist on it. The nightmare here is determining who is qualified to vote. I won't go into the three days of hashing it out between my mentor, my archdeacon, and my bishop. I was away in Alberta with a prior commitment to my daughter for those three days so it was an interesting time with a phone permanently attached to my ear at times. It wasn't until Thursday, after driving into the city for a meeting, that I all of a sudden realized that I hadn't even given thought to this Sunday's service. Friday was spent putting the notice of the parish meeting out, meeting with representatives from the other two congregations and mine to work out some details on the original proposal - clarifying things for the parish meeting and trying to research for Sunday's service.
Please pray for my congregation and its meeting on March 9. Those who are the solid attenders and supporters are enthused about this proposal but there are others who haven't participated enough to realize what a blessing our joint worship is. This congregation split on a somewhat similar vote about 5 years ago.
Sometimes I wonder if I'll make it through. But on the other hand, I know that when I have, it will not have been on my strength alone. Being busy actually reminds me to rely on God all the more and I become so conscious of the Creator's presence in my life on many levels.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Monday, January 21, 2008
Response from the ABC
Finally!
On the home page of the Anglican Church of Canada, a link to an article about a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even an apology for taking so long to respond due to work load in December.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
On the home page of the Anglican Church of Canada, a link to an article about a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even an apology for taking so long to respond due to work load in December.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Our Lady of Sign - Updated
Wandering around the internet last night around midnight I came across this post at An Inch at a Time. Then this morning I came across this at Episcopal Cafe and this at Desert's Child. Being a female priest and a feminist I loved this comment at Episcopal Cafe by EH Culver:"Two things: 1) several years ago a friend gave me a copy of an icon, "Our Lady of the Sign," In which the infant Jesus is sitting on the BVM's lap, and her hands are in the "orans" position. According to my friend, now an Episcopal priest and a Wise Woman if I ever knew one, in Eastern iconography Mary is never depicted without Christ, and in this icon she is presenting him to the world, as the priest presents His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.2) In a lecture this past fall a respected scholar and UMC elder made the point that the Incarnation is the best argument for the ordination of women. If Mary, a woman, could carry the Body and Blood of the Lord in her womb, why should a woman not hold the same Body and Blood at the altar?"
Here are icons of Our Lady of Sign:
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Update
As per the comment below here is a link to Luis site. Luis Gutierrez
Friday, January 04, 2008
Anglican Bloggers
Go to The Cartoon Blog by Dave Walker to find out about a new group on Face Book.Dave writes: "I have decided that whilst procrastinating from my main task, that of producing one good diagram a day, I will attempt to mend the rift in the Anglican Communion using various methods.
Part one is the formation of a Facebook group entitled ‘Anglican Bloggers‘ which is for all bloggers and blog commenters with an interest in Anglican things."
Part one is the formation of a Facebook group entitled ‘Anglican Bloggers‘ which is for all bloggers and blog commenters with an interest in Anglican things."
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Birth or Death?
The Journey of the Magi
T.S. Eliot
T.S. Eliot
A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For the journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.'
And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly.
Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wine-skins,
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory
All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set downT
his set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death,
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.
For years January 6th meant Ukranian Christmas Eve in our family. My husband is half Ukranian and we are fortunate that it is his mother that is Ukranian. Fortunate because it meant, when she was younger, that she went all out with the meal Christmas Eve – all twelve courses.
Now, with the family moving away (from Vancouver to Halifax, from Saskatchewan to Texas) we are no longer able to gather on January 6. It is a loss but, on the other hand, January 6 has once again become a time to celebrate Epiphany. So, this Sunday the wise men will make their trek across our living room to the crèche. This year I placed the wise men in my “desert” arrangement. I don’t have sand but I do have rocks and candles as well as various wood carvings from Africa. I find it interesting that I did so because this Sunday’s visual will involve a container with sand and rocks (desert) and one candle in the centre (the star). I got the idea from Billabong.
As I was doing research for my sermon, I stumbled across T.S. Eliot’s poem printed above. I found out it speaks to Eliot’s struggles as he came to Christianity and the Anglican Church. There is much symbolism here as we all think of our struggles with faith. But for me, this year, the poem has some interesting insights as to what my little church faces.
We know that in 5 to 10 years, if things stay the same, we will be closing our doors permanently. We know that if we want to prevent this we have to start planning now. But it is not an easy decision. Come the new year we are entering into a visioning process with two other congregations of two different denominations to see if there is a future for us in shared ministry of some sort. I wish I could sell the process to my people by being all upbeat and paint rosy pictures of the possibilities. It is not that I don’t support the process – I do or I wouldn’t be promoting it. It is not that I don’t think some sort of shared ministry is the way to go – I do think that it opens exciting possibilities. It is that it is like going into any relationship – there will be times when it will be very rocky and desert-like and we will want to pull back. I also believe that if we persevere, we will find life.
What intrigued me about Eliot’s poem was the bit in the last verse where he writes: “Were we led all that way for Birth or Death?” I think about that in the context of the people I am serving. They have come so far – we celebrate 100 years in just over a year, which I realize in terms of Europe is mere infancy but for rural Saskatchewan, that’s a good number of years. We are going into this process to see what it is that God desires for us. But in the process we will face death. We will face the death of the way we have done church for the last 100 years. We will, in all likelihood, face leaving our building behind. We will face no longer doing things entirely in what we have come to understand as Anglican. Our community as we know it will no longer be the same. We will have to start looking at and considering the traditions of others and how we can work together in those traditions which means leaving behind some of the traditions we have come to value. Regardless of whether we decide to go into some sort of relationship or not – we face death. But the death we face going into relationship is a harder death because our future is totally unknown – if we just shut our doors we know what the future is and once it’s done, it’s done. If we go into relationship, we will also be facing a desert time as we work anew to discover who we are.
And yet, should we decide to set out into the desert, we will be looking at birth. There are so many possibilities. There are things we cannot do now because we are aging and few in number. Our mission is vastly curtailed by lack of energy as we die. By joining with the other two congregations, we don’t necessarily become younger, but we do gain more energy. The three of us worship together once a month. The energy at that particular service is amazing. The things that we can do with the music and with other parts of the liturgy are exciting. And the things we learn about through our differences and similarities are life-giving and faith strengthening. We will be looking at the birth of a new community with endless possibilities for mission and future direction. We will be looking at the birth of new revelations of God in our midst and new ways of expressing those to the larger community behind us.
Birth or Death? Both and both are to be celebrated and mourned. But through both will come life, for at the centre of it all will be God and God’s light will guide us.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas
Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom God favours!
Luke 2:14
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
All things came into being through him,
and without him not one thing came into being.
What has come into being in him was life,
and the life was the light of all people.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God,
whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify to the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He himself was not the light,
but he came to testify to the light.
The true light,
which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world came into being through him;
yet the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
and his own people did not accept him.
But to all who received him,
who believed in his name,
he gave power to become children of God,
who were born,
not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man
but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us,
and we have seen his glory,
the glory as of a father's only son,
full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-14
For thus God loved the world,
so that he gave the only son,
so that everyone trusting in him,
might not destroy themselves,
but may have eternal live.
John 3:16
and on earth peace among those whom God favours!
Luke 2:14
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
All things came into being through him,
and without him not one thing came into being.
What has come into being in him was life,
and the life was the light of all people.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God,
whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify to the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He himself was not the light,
but he came to testify to the light.
The true light,
which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world came into being through him;
yet the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
and his own people did not accept him.
But to all who received him,
who believed in his name,
he gave power to become children of God,
who were born,
not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man
but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us,
and we have seen his glory,
the glory as of a father's only son,
full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-14
For thus God loved the world,
so that he gave the only son,
so that everyone trusting in him,
might not destroy themselves,
but may have eternal live.
John 3:16
(as translated by my Greek class in 2004)
I came that they may have life,
and have it abundantly,
John 10:10b
I came that they may have life,
and have it abundantly,
John 10:10b
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Work's Righteousness?
A few years ago I had a defining moment in my faith life. My daughter had been in the hospital with an appendicitis attack. I was told she needed surgery. I went to phone my parents to pray for her. In that moment I realized that I could not pray. It was not that I couldn’t say the words and mean them. It was that I honestly did not believe that God would answer me because I was so unworthy. I was not the person that God desired me to be. But I could phone Mom and Dad and have them pray because they were good people with strong faith and God would listen to them. I knew there was something wrong with this thinking but set it aside because I still had my daughter’s surgery with which to deal.
One day, shortly after, I was in the church on a Saturday, setting up something for the Sunday School’s participation in the Sunday worship. I don’t remember what I was thinking or doing exactly but I do remember getting this revelation. Yes, I was not the person I could be. And yes, I was not worthy. But it didn’t make a difference. God loves me. Nothing I did or didn’t do affected that love. God’s love was unconditional. God loved me!!!!!
It is amazing how much that revelation freed me. My faith life changed. It began to grow. About three months later I got the call to the priesthood. A call I would never have answered before that revelation.
Where am I going with this? I entered into a discussion and in that someone remarked that there was a danger, if the church focused so much social justice, of coming to believe or rely upon work’s righteousness. This was after I had said something about believing that the Incarnation was about redeeming the world, but that I believed social justice was very much a part of that redeeming. I mentioned that my call to social justice came out of my knowing God’s grace deep within my soul.
Does focusing on social justice bring one close to work’s righteousness? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe that my small efforts for social justice will earn my salvation. I already have my salvation. That is shown in the whole of the Incarnation. I don’t have to earn it.
“We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: …”
It is so strange that this prayer that paralyzed me because of my focus on my unworthiness is the same prayer that has given me so much freedom. It is the prayer that reminds me of my freedom. All I did was remove my focus from my unworthiness - which places me in the centre of the prayer - to God's great mercies - which places God in the centre of the prayer. Now in response to that - I work, in God's name, with God's guidance, to try and bring that freedom to others. I don't work for my salvation. I work because of my salvation - huge difference.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
One day, shortly after, I was in the church on a Saturday, setting up something for the Sunday School’s participation in the Sunday worship. I don’t remember what I was thinking or doing exactly but I do remember getting this revelation. Yes, I was not the person I could be. And yes, I was not worthy. But it didn’t make a difference. God loves me. Nothing I did or didn’t do affected that love. God’s love was unconditional. God loved me!!!!!
It is amazing how much that revelation freed me. My faith life changed. It began to grow. About three months later I got the call to the priesthood. A call I would never have answered before that revelation.
Where am I going with this? I entered into a discussion and in that someone remarked that there was a danger, if the church focused so much social justice, of coming to believe or rely upon work’s righteousness. This was after I had said something about believing that the Incarnation was about redeeming the world, but that I believed social justice was very much a part of that redeeming. I mentioned that my call to social justice came out of my knowing God’s grace deep within my soul.
Does focusing on social justice bring one close to work’s righteousness? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe that my small efforts for social justice will earn my salvation. I already have my salvation. That is shown in the whole of the Incarnation. I don’t have to earn it.
“We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: …”
It is so strange that this prayer that paralyzed me because of my focus on my unworthiness is the same prayer that has given me so much freedom. It is the prayer that reminds me of my freedom. All I did was remove my focus from my unworthiness - which places me in the centre of the prayer - to God's great mercies - which places God in the centre of the prayer. Now in response to that - I work, in God's name, with God's guidance, to try and bring that freedom to others. I don't work for my salvation. I work because of my salvation - huge difference.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)