Anglican Standing Committee

“The Standing Committee is not new; it is made
up of elected Primates and elected members from the Anglican Consultative
Council and it co-ordinates work in the Communion.” Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity Faith and Order,The Anglican
Communion Office

This quote from the Anglican Communion Office does offer the
kind of assurance that the Rev. Canon seems to want to offer. 

At present, a majority of the Anglican Communion hasn’t the
foggiest how such officials of the Anglican Communion come to have the titles
and positions that they have.  Until
recently I have never paid much attention to such politics.  I have no understanding how Standing
Committee members are elected or who elects them. I have wandered all over the
Anglican Communion website but I do not find their names or where they are
from. But if they have the power to exclude me from the Communion, I damn well
want to know!  I also want to know that
those who represent me can do so without having been relegated to the ‘second
table’ without voice or vote as has occurred recently (without legal support)
and at someone’s fit of pique.

The Anglican Covenant presently uses a governmental process that
is not accessible to the majority of the membership.  It is so removed from the members of our
parishes that it cannot be responsive to the needs of those who fund them or
must abide by their decisions. It smacks of the kind of colonialism that has
fostered the current unrest in the first place. If the Rev. Canon Barnett-Cowan
thinks that a 21^st Century Church is going to put up with that kind
of governmental structure, she sadly mistaken. 

If the Covenant is passed in its present form, a whole new
system of oversight will have to be developed. It will require an elections system that is available to those in the
pew.  It will require a whole new set of
by-laws to run it. 

I have always admired the Common Law system of governance---the
idea that less law is better law.  But
the Covenant will demand a much larger and more unwieldy system of governance.  Instead of being an ‘endoskeleton’ it will be
an ‘exoskeleton’ since it has already set up a system of exclusion.  In all exoskeletal species, this would demand that the Communion be constantly in a form of revision and reformulation of its
organizational structures.  In the terms of government, it will ultimately call for “big government” which we as a Communion cannot afford, nor do we want. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reunificaton/Denominationalism

During the very heady
days following Vatican II, the hope for a “one world, one church” in Roman
Catholicism was strong.  Much was made of
the ‘scandal of denominationalism’ in catholic circles, but the reunion was always
understood to be under the Vatican.  I
was swept up, as a new Christian and a new Roman Catholic with those
sentiments.  At that same time, the
charismatic movement was raising its head in the Church.  That ‘fresh wind’ took the staid practices of
Romanism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism and set the Church on its ear.  Glossilalia, and prayer meetings brought a
liveliness to a religious practice that had grown stuffy and stiff.

For me, there was no
more powerful commentary on the changes of Vatican II than Leonard Bernstein’s
“Mass”.  To the conservative, this
tribute to John F. Kennedy, was a disgrace. But I found in this remarkable musical drama such an icon of the whole
liturgical attempt of humanity’s attempt to seek God that I think it has marked
how I have perceived the creeds’ call to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Church.  Bernstein had caught the
incredible spirit of the age to bring the simple but current into the faith
life.  But unlike, the myth of Eden, the
Church, has never been a single unity—a simple place where perfection began.  From Pentecost, we have been an assembly of
disparate peoples trying to find commonality in Jesus Christ. Years ago Raymond
Brown’s little book, The Church the
Apostles Left Behind captured the struggles that faced the early Church
that the NT seems to gloss over.

If we read the Acts of
the Apostles rightly we find various groups of Christians abounding in the
early church.  And if we study the
history of the 2^nd through the 4^th centuries, we cannot
help but see how the issue of orthodoxy has plagued us.  We will never be one.  And I do believe that it would not be well
with the soul of the Church for us to be so. After pastoring an ELCA congregation for several years, there is no
reason at all I would want the significant parts of Lutheranism to be part and
parcel of Anglicanism.  It is unique and
appropriate for Lutherans.  Each
denomination expresses something that is unique and important to the worship of
all that is Holy—the worship by different human beings of a singular and
indescribable God.

The same thing applies
for the Episcopal Church and the Church of England.  TEC is not a national or state church as is
the CofE.  It cannot be in the light of
the US Constitution and in the light of how TEC understands itself in
relationship to the people of the United States.  I have never quite understood how TEC works
in those nations that are part of Province X but I would hope that their
understanding of the relationship between church and state are appropriate to
their national milieu in the Philippines, or Honduras or the Virgin Islands.

As someone said, all
theology is local—it all has to do with ‘how it plays in Peoria’-- because
ultimately all theology is relational no matter how much the systematic
professors would try to drain relationship from it.

I have often listened
to some Anglo-Catholics bemoan that women’s ordination or consecration will
threaten the reunification with Rome.  I
have NEVER thought of reunification with Rome as a laudable goal for
Episcopalians or for Anglicans. The uniqueness of the RCC’s response to
reformation in the 16^th century marked that denomination with a
character that cannot consider a world-view other than its own. Its emphasis on
obedience and order does not emphasize the liberation and the charisma of
personal responsibility that I find in Episcopalianism. All of these
characteristics are important but not compatible one denomination.   Neither
would I look for a reunification with the Greek or Russian Orthodox churches. Their
forms of spirituality are not, lamentably,  the stuff of the Western minds. Enough time
has gone past for each denomination to have brought their ‘peculiar honors’ to
the Faith of Jesus Christ.  This does not
mean that we cannot glean the greatness of those denominations, but we cannot
regain the fullness of the histories of their traditions.  They can garner from Anglicanism some of the
uniqueness that characterizes us, for the future of the living of
Christianity.  If there is to be any
meaningful reunification, it will come at the local level and most likely due
to economics, however, it will come at the loss of much of the charisma of the
individual denominations.

With the reorganization
of my diocese, I am seeing an interesting trend:  Those churches that left the Iker régime to
stay with TEC but were forced out of their buildings are much more willing to
vision a new way of being Church.  Those
churches that were able because their clergy were willing to stay with TEC with
their buildings, are less likely to care about creative change.  In other words, the status quo has held with
their building. It has always been said that we have an “Edifice Complex” in
the Episcopal Church.  Holy place is
valuable to us.  But a changing world
calls for more flexibility.

If the Anglican
Communion is going to hold together it cannot be with so-called covenants that
are designed to make action by one church an expellable offense.  In order for any Church, national or regional
to be vital means that it must be able to meet the needs of its people.  I have no problem if the Church of Nigeria
needs to make exceptions to the western understanding of marriage to bring the
Gospel to a people who have deeply woven clan issues.  I do not have a problem with those places who
cannot yet embrace the ordination of women because the education of women is
not on a par with men in their societies. But I do have a problem when those local churches tell our church that
they cannot accept us or be in communion with us because we are seeking to
minister to a group that has been excluded from the Church or to ordain those
who are called by Christ to serve in our local churches. I have a problem with
those churches who would bully other churches into compliance simply because
they refuse to be in relationship with us. I have a problem when the lack of education for women is sustained by
the Church as a way to control women or various minorities simply to sustain
male power.  And if numbers of members
are all that is to direct who has say rather than education and reason, there
is no point to church at all.

If the Global South
churches wish to go their own way and not be a part of the Anglican Communion,
I would be very sorry, but I would wish them well. If their history must be on
a track that is different, incorporating more animistic theologies or
syncretism with Islam, or different social customs into their understanding of
what it means to be Christian, I have no problem with that.  But at least acknowledge those social needs
rather than getting outraged at some other Church’s mission to advance the
Gospel.

I do not deny that much
of the kerfuffle in the Anglican Communion at present is a product of the
colonialism that formed us, but we need to be willing to address that as a part
of our discussion with member churches, not pick up our marbles and flounce off
simply because we have not addressed that before.

There will be no
two-tiered Anglican Communion.  We will
either choose to be one or we will choose to walk apart.  It is as simple as that.  I, for one, would choose to be Anglican—but
not one with the present covenant.  It
would be a tremendous loss to Anglicanism if +++Rowan’s legacy would be the
fracturing of the Communion completely.

The So-Called Anglican Covenant

With the rereading of the St. Andrew’s Draft (final draft) of the Anglican Communion, I am still struck with the heavy handedness that this document exhibits. It speaks some interesting things about covenant, but it does not contain the elements that I believe necessary to be covenantal. The purpose of this Covenant is contractual at best. It is an instrument of power, not relationship. The purpose is to rein in any of the national Churches that might find a need to follow Christ into new and important expressions of what walking in holiness might require. Covenants are made between God and humanity in the Bible. Covenants are not made between groups of people, treaties or alliances are made between nations, but nowhere is there an model of covenant being used between groups of humans.

This ‘Covenant’ is more of a constitution than it is a covenant. Perhaps it more emulates the American Articles of Confederation than even a constitution because it outlines an ecclesiology that does not exist for a collegiality that does not exist. As the Rev. James Stockton has commented, it is a “litigational document”. It is trying to develop a pattern that does not work for any of the constituent churches in the Anglican Communion. It certainly is not at all workable for The Episcopal Church with our sense of the egalitarianism of orders. One thing that the Anglican Communion does not need to be is a “litigational” body. We have enough difference among ourselves as constituent regional churches. These differences do not need to be highlighted by a legal constitution.

This Covenant is a bishops’ document. Nowhere in it does it provide a clear place for discussion and presentation of any action to the laity or the clergy. The Covenant seems to assume that the Communion is to be led by bishops and ruled by bishops to the exclusion of anyone else. The Instruments of Communion— funny, I always thought that was a chalice and paten ---are now the Archbishop of Canterbury, the ACC, and the Primates meetings. What about our Synods, our General Conventions, the discussions of lay and clerical theologians, etc?

The Covenant provides for a Standing Committee but provides no mechanisms for how that Standing Committee would be constituted. Who would choose the members so that said Standing Committee could be acceptable by constituent churches? The proposed Covenant makes no provisions.

This document seems to be concerned with immediacy. It requires the whole of the Church to consent to theological, justice or mission demands by a specific member church. This means that the peculiar character of Anglicanism is lost. Perhaps the most endearing quality of Anglicanism is its ability to be a national, or a regional church addressing issues as they present themselves in the local community. Unlike the global Roman church which cannot act until the whole world understands the Copernican centrality of the sun, Anglicanism has always been free to address the needs of mission in a particular area without needing to get a consensus world-wide. What works in San Francisco does not have to work in Timbuktu and vice-versa.

The immediacy that this document calls for is for the slowing down of addressing global concerns. It would require the same understanding of Scripture, the same theological premises, the lock-step thinking that has paralyzed the Roman Church for centuries.

But it is in 4.2.5”If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.” that this document fails to be a covenant. It is here that this document shows itself to be what it was set up to be—an instrument of coercion. Covenants are the result of gratitude and grace. This document has one purpose, to force constituent churches to be whatever the persons in power want them to be. There is no call to discernment; there are no provisions for the gathering to discuss except for bishops. This document allows for power politics to ultimately settle the issues of the Anglican world. This document is based upon expediency and coercion, not the relationships that are necessary to share the mission of Christ.

It is scary to me that the Church of England would consider passing this legislation in their General Synod simply because they were being nice to the Archbishop of Canterbury. And then go on to ignore the legislation in the long run. But other churches would not be that sanguine about such legislation. In true common law practice, we try to minimize law rather than try to legislate for every work of the body. In this case, the legislative principle of the Covenant is not in keeping with the purpose of the document. The purpose, as has been pointed out, is disciplinary, not for greater sense of community. It will ultimately be used by those who find the letter of the law more important than the will of God. And if the past ten years in the Church are of any indication, we cannot afford to repeat that scandal.

A new Spirit is blowing in the world in matters of faith. We cannot embrace a backwards document for the sake of unity if it does not promote important processes for listening, discussion and compassion. We cannot settle for expediency when we need to do the hard work of relationship. The Anglican so-called Covenant cannot be the way of a future Anglican Communion.

Anglican Covenant Coalition

Anglican Covenant Coalition

Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity

noanglicancovenant.org

NEWS RELEASE

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN SEEKS TO STOP ANGLICAN COVENANT

LONDON – An international coalition of Anglicans has been created to campaign against the proposed Anglican Covenant. Campaigners believe the proposed Covenant constitutes unwarranted interference in the internal life of the member churches of the Anglican Communion, would narrow the acceptable range of belief and practice within Anglicanism, and would prevent further development of Anglican thought. The Coalition’s website (noanglicancovenant.org) will provide resources for Anglicans around the world to learn about the potential risks of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

“We believe that the majority of the clergy and laity in the Anglican Communion would not wish to endorse this document,” according to the Coalition’s Moderator, the Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows, who is also the Coalition’s Convenor for the Church of England. “Apart from church insiders, very few people are aware of the Covenant. We want to encourage a wider discussion and to highlight the problems the Covenant will cause.”

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed in 2004 as a means to address divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft of the Covenant, which has been unilaterally designated as the “final” draft, has been referred to the member churches of the Communion. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms which would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion.

. . . 2/

Critics of the proposed Anglican Covenant, including members of the new Coalition, believe that it will fundamentally alter the nature of historic Anglicanism in several ways, including the narrowing of theological views deemed acceptable, the erosion of the freedom of the member churches to govern themselves, and the concentration of authority in the hands of a small number of bishops. Two English groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, ran anti-Covenant advertisements in last week’s Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper aiming to make more members of the Church of England aware of the dangers of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"If the Anglican Communion has a problem, this is not the solution,” according to former Bishop of Worcester Peter Selby. “Whether those who originated the Covenant intended it or not, it is already, and will become even more, a basis for a litigious Communion from which some will seek to exclude others."

The launch of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition website coincides with the commemoration of the sixteenth-century theologian Richard Hooker. “Hooker taught us that God’s gifts of scripture, tradition, and reason will guide us to new insights in every age,” according to the Canadian priest and canon law expert, the Revd. Canon Alan Perry. “The proposed Anglican Covenant would freeze Anglican theology and Anglican polity at a particular moment. Anglican polity rejected control by foreign bishops nearly 500 years ago. The proposed Anglican Covenant reinstates it.”

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition began in late October with a series of informal email conversations among several international Anglican bloggers concerned that the Covenant was being rushed through the approval process before most Anglicans had any opportunity to learn how the proposed new structures would affect them.

-30-

noanglicancovenant.org

Revd. Dr Lesley Fellows (England) +44 1844 239268

Dr. Lionel Deimel (USA) +1-412-512-9087

Revd. Malcolm French (Canada) +1-306-550-2277

Revd. Lawrence Kimberley (New Zealand) +64 3 981 7384

Covenant

At the Lambeth Conference in 2008 this presentation http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1912 was made to the gathering of Anglican bishops by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sachs, Chief Rabbi of the UK. It is a remarkable article on Covenant: what a covenant is, what it is not. It is a worthwhile read not only because it is appropriate as the conversations develop around the Anglican Covenant, but it reminds us that is through covenant that God first called humanity into relationship in the Judeao-Christian tradition.



I was also appreciative of the rabbi’s explanation of what contracts are, the contracts of power and the contracts of wealth that bring order into governance and economics. Sachs states:

The state is about power. The market is about wealth. And they are two ways of getting people to act in the way we want. Either we force them to – the way of power. Or we pay them to – the way of wealth.






But there is a third way, and to see this let's perform a simple thought experiment. Imagine you have total power, and then you decide to share it with nine others. How much do you have left? 1/10 of what you had when you began. Suppose you have a thousand pounds, and you decide to share it with nine others. How much do you have left? 1/10 of what you had when you began.






But now suppose that you decide to share, not power or wealth, but love, or friendship, or influence, or even knowledge, with nine others. How much do I have left? Do I have less? No, I have more; perhaps even 10 times as much.






How simple an explanation! I am so thankful for those who can succinctly illustrate how humanity functions.



In my move to TX, I have come up against “the free market society” writ large. I have spent weeks trying to find a doctor who will take Medicare. It is genuinely scary because I cannot find a SINGLE doctor who will take new Medicare patients. It as if there is a collective idea here that if doctors do not take any new Medicare patients, they can ignore how broken the whole Medical industry is in Texas. They have allowed the Market to dictate the laws of medical practice to the detriment of society. The once noble profession of medicine and its emphasis on healing and caring has been lost to the power and wealth dictates of state and market.



There is a disconnect between the state and the market that only serves those who have opted out of Medicare sometime in their work history. And as I am the last of the “pre-Boomer” generation, the situation of health care in this state is going to get critical very quickly. We, in our nation, and in our world have so dichotomized our existence between state and market that we have forgotten the glue that keeps us from being sterile as a humans.



It is that third way that is at the centre of who we are as human beings that is being left out in the name of free market economy, or orderly governance and it is that third way of caring—the most marked way that makes life worth living, and lifts us from the place of being mere animals to the place where there is nobility to human race.



It is that covenant—that sense of being willing to love that gives purpose to living. Neither the state nor the market has room for love. The political and economic realms cannot entertain such “fuzzy thinking” as caring and sharing. The mechanisms that make them work cannot include the human or the humane simply because we have made science of them both.



It is the third way of faith, whether it is faith in God or in Creation or in humanity, that provides a way forward, a way that does not sterilize that unique quality of humanity, the ever-changing dynamic of Creation or the constantly breaking in of the Holy.



I am unwilling any longer to say that Church (with a capital C) is the way to promulgating love. I have seen the institutional Church depend upon the mechanisms of political power and market economy so completely of late that we have lost our ability to speak the words of Love, Caring, Sharing and Faith. It is as if the church has failed to read its own Scripture when it comes to managing itself and can only use the “world’s” ways. This does not mean that I would abandon the Church. I have been too long a person of her creation that I could not desert her. But at the same time, I cannot find in her the conversations that speak a faith in God, humanity or Creation that can call down that Third Way—those conversations of love that call humanity to its humanness, that calls people to find something beyond power and wealth that gives life to what it means to live in joy and respect with others.



‘The Anglican Covenant’ as it has been promulgated by the Archbishop of Canterbury is a document of governance, not a proclamation of a common call to relationship in the name of Christ. At best it is an attempt at ecclesial posturing and power. It does not speak of relationship and journeying together. It speaks of who may have voice and who may be in communion with us. It is a disciplinary tool rather than a celebration of how God interacts with us and how we share God’s life in the face of state and market.



If the Anglican Communion is to continue to have any on-going conversation with the issues that face our world, we must be free to embrace the issues and speak to the issues that are raised in the particular environments in which we live. Our responses in love that remind us of how God has loved us need to be flexible enough to address the inhumanity of political and market structures in the name of Christ. It is the only way that the Anglican Communion can even hope to be supple enough to meet the new era that is upon us in religion.

It DOES get better!

Once again my friend Elizabeth Kaeton has prompted me to speak. http://www.telling-secrets.blogspot.com/  That is what a good preacher does, she compels you to speak your own truth. And it has been several weeks of hearing “It gets better” from folks all around that has inspired this, my version.


I have known since my youth that I was lesbian. I laugh about that because I didn’t know the word lesbian until I went to college. In TX in the late 50’s and early 60’s I we didn’t use words like that. I don’t even remember when I learned what the F word meant. I certainly was older than all the other kids because they laughed when they used it. I just looked blank. I just avoided the topic of sex altogether. And in a sex-suppressed world of the bible-belt, those of us who were questioning as teens had nowhere to turn for answers. The only sex education was “health” classes and NO ONE was going to say anything there.

I knew about “fairy” boys, those effeminate souls that I met in music school but I wasn’t sure what it meant. I knew that I liked being around other women. I liked their company; I liked their energy. And in college I saw women who were independent from their husbands, who thought independently from the men in their lives and I liked that.

But my images of women as a girl were not images I aspired to. The wives, the mothers, the women of my neighborhood were not women I wanted to be. And it wasn’t until I met the Ursuline Nuns that I finally met women that intrigued me and challenged me to be more than I was. I aspired to be an independently thinking woman like them. But sex was not part of their equation. So as my faith life developed, my sexual awareness did not. I ignored who I was as a sexual being. I knew it was safer somehow. But I missed a LOT!

I never felt “bad” about being attracted to women. For some reason I felt “bad” about being identified as being ‘queer’, bad about being different. That is what society does: It makes one feel bad about not being just like everyone else. But my mother was one of those mothers who didn’t fall for “everybody else is doing it” excuses. “You don’t have to be like everybody else,” she would say. But that did NOT have anything to do about sexuality. We just did NOT talk about it. She would try to tell me things, but I would not allow her to talk to me about it because her experience did not relate to mine.

Once, when I was young, I heard my father say to a bunch of other men who were talking about “queers”, that “if I had a kid like that, I would take him out and drown him.” It is the kind of talk that men of a certain generation did. But it made me quite aware that issues of human sexuality were not safe issues to talk about at home—or anywhere else in TX at the time. I didn’t know other lesbians. Coupled women were not visible in the world that I lived in.

My experience as a novice among the Ursulines acquainted me with women who could think independently. They helped me articulate who I was and how I could live a life of faith without having to be married. It was an important part of my development. Celibacy was a given—it is what supported community. In women’s communities I did not hear the rhetoric about giving one’s sexuality as a gift to God as I think was preached to Roman Catholic men. Celibacy was the foundation for community and so it was seen in a much more positive light. It was less of a notion of abstaining or denying the flesh as it was that celibacy and sexual abstinence contributed to people living together well. And so, when I left the convent, I did not look or long for a sexual relationship, but I longed for that sense of friendship and camaraderie that supported my work, my ministry and my emotional health.

By this time, I knew I was lesbian, but I did not want to identify that way not so much because I feared being gay, I feared that it would keep me from doing the things that I wanted to do in my life. When my friendship with J. developed, we recognized that this relationship supported what it was we wanted to do with our lives as clergy. But the love we had for each other grew.

J. is straight. And we have lived together for 32 years. We are not lovers. We do love each other profoundly. Somewhere I knew that I have been ‘loved into being’ as a person. And each lgbtq person I know has been ‘loved into being’ who they are. And I believe that the healthy straight folks I know have been ‘loved into being’. J has loved me into being more that I was and I believe I have loved her into being more than she was.

Through the early years of our living together when our relationship was mainly economic (we couldn’t afford to live alone) into the years when we need the emotional support to sustain our ministries we have come to have a deep and abiding love for one another. It has gotten better. It has become a relationship full of God’s grace and commitment. That love has transformed us. We have through the years become people that we like and respect. We have become women who have a profound respect for the journey that each person makes to become real and whole and satisfying.

As the reality of same-sex marriage was being discussed in NY I laughingly asked J if she would want to be married. “Yes!” she said unequivocally. I was stunned. “You know that you would be indentified as gay, don’t you?” I said. She said, “That I don’t mind, and our relationship wouldn’t be any different than most married couples our age.” We both laughed. So for the first time, this year I have been referring to J as my ‘partner’ instead of my ‘roommate’ or my ‘colleague.’ This appellation doesn’t quite describe the relationship we have, but it is enough to help others recognize that we are coupled in some rather inadequate way and look to each other to nourish us as we grow older.

The move to TX has made us much more aware of the issues that face lgbt people because there are few rights for lgbt people here. We know that unless we hire a lawyer and make our relationship clear legally, that our common life can be infringed upon by the state. We know that unless we make some clear decisions about what it means to be family, we may not be able to support each other in hospitals or have any say in each other’s health proxies. These are issues that my straight friends do not have to pay attention to. But there are ways to address them even here in the bible-belt. This too has gotten better.

And when I see how many lgbtq folk are out and proud even here in TX after all these years, I KNOW it has gotten better. I am still careful and my bishop still wants me to be careful about how I address others on lgbt issues. But at least I can claim who I am without fear of rejection. I can practice the ministry that I have been called to. And I have certain clarity about those who I wish to make ‘uncomfortable’ with my presence for the sake of the Gospel. It has gotten better and continues to get better.

And to anyone who has become discouraged about being lgbtq: when you find yourself so fearful of life that it has become unbearable, find another gay person or someone who understands what it means to be different and talk. Share what you feel. Listen to those of us who have lived this life in faith, by whatever lights we have walked it. We are here. I am here. It has gotten better. It continues to get better and we would like to walk that journey with you. It does get better.

Bully

I have been going to a number of conferences lately. Some have to do with LGBT issues and some have to do with the Emerging Church. All of it has to do with CHANGE. And change is what I try to facilitate as a pastor/priest—the change that comes as a result of being loved by a God who calls us to be better each moment.


While I was still functioning as the pastor of a parish, someone accused me of being a “gay activist”. I was startled by that. I felt that I had been fairly low-key about being lesbian in a congregation. I didn’t demand that the church fly the rainbow banner. I didn’t call for registry with the ‘affirming’ parishes. While a parish priest or a pastor, one cannot, in my mind, be a one-issue person. The demands of serving a parish require what used to be called a “Renaissance Man” or a person who could address a multiplicity of issues. But LGBT issues have been in the view of the Church of late and what I included in sermons was appropriate, I thought, to address the zeitgeist.

But the events of the past couple of months, with the coming to light of numerous deaths by suicide by young gay teens calls for something more than a passing comment in a sermon, or prayers “for those who are alone.” It requires speaking out like the Ft. Worth Councilman Joel Burns and Bishop Gene Robinson have done to preserve our young people who find that they are different.

LGBTQ teens are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers. Mostly this is due to just not being able to ‘fit in’. The demand for the young to be acceptable to their peers and/ or their families is often so overwhelming that young people do not know what to do if they find that they are attracted to those of the same sex. Add to that the bullying that is so prevalent in our society (not just in our schools) and the demand by schools and parents that the “gay agenda” be kept from our young, means that LGBTQ kids never get to see good and wholesome LGBT folk to emulate.

Kids know that it isn’t just getting through school. Being gay or lesbian is a life-long recognition that you will always be a minority, that you will never ‘fit in’ and that is crushing to adolescents whose only goal at that point in life is to be just like one’s peers. I have not checked the statistics but I would imagine that the level of depression among LGBT kids is much higher than the average population. I know that my own bouts of depression were often rooted in my identity and my inability to embrace my own sexuality. They began in 7th grade and did not stop until I came out.

But it is the culture of bulling that most disturbs me. Trash talk is considered de rigure these days. Sit coms are full of it. Even when there are gay-friendly shows, the humor is still about being different, being on the fringe. We use bullying in sports so that we can win. We use bullying just to get the basic needs from institutions in order to get what we want or need. The police bully the ‘bad guys’. Our political candidates resort to smear campaigns and bullying rhetoric. We resort to lawyers who bully to maintain our rights from other bully lawyers and we bully nations as a normal foreign policy.

An adult gay couple of my friends had to move just this week because their neighbors threatened them and the police would not do anything even when there were witnesses to the harassment. I am leery about putting a rainbow ribbon on my car here in TX or fly a rainbow flag or wear rainbow earrings in this environment where macho still reigns.

The problem with bullying is that the only way that bullies will stop is to ‘bully back’. “Might makes right” is learned early on the school ground and is carried on throughout our lives. Personally I am not easily bullied, whether due to size or sharp tongue, I am not always clear. But I do not like when I must “bully back” just to be heard, or just to get what is just or safe. I do not like what I must become to live peacefully in this world.

Christ was not a bully. Even in the anger he displayed in the cleansing of the Temple, Jesus was not a bully. He called people to hear a radical message in which manipulation and force were greeted with humility and generosity—difficult tools in this post-modern age.

Yes, I am an activist in my retirement. I am an activist that says that LGBTQ kids do not have to abort their lives in their teens because there are those who interpret some scriptural passages wrongly and heap it on youngsters grappling with their own image. As a person of faith I must be willing stand against those whose religion says that they can demonize people who are different because they manipulate some 7 passages of Scripture to ostracize those who march to a different drummer.

I live now on the ‘Buckle of the Biblebelt’ and I must be willing to say to the bullies of the religious right that the time has come to say NO to religious exclusivism for the sake of the Gospel.