previous

Where I Work and Where I Stand
May 19, 2007 - 5:41 p.m.

next

Clearly I'm getting less and less conscientious about blogging. Of course, I also just got back from "Deacon's School," a sort of one-week "this is the practical stuff they didn't teach you" crash course in ministry. It was enjoyable, but oy was it exhausting. And as for blogging, there was one computer running dial-up, for 15 new or almost deacons and up to five session-leaders at a time.

So I didn't want to be the jackass who hogs it for an hour.

Speaking of slow, Diaryland is at a crawl these days. I'm already running a mirror blog over at Blogger, and am contemplating shutting down the Diaryland account altogether. There's little to keep me at Diaryland, other than the "Buddies" whose blogs I read...but I can swing by and check those without updating here. We'll see. I know there was a reason or two I didn't switch months ago. Now if I could just recall what those reasons were...

In real-life news, I am now officially working for St. Jude's as "lay pastoral assistant." That will last until I'm ordained, on Pentecost, at which time "assistant curate" will kick in. The church itself is quite lovely and the parish has a wonderful physical plant.

My office is very nice, indeed...not the typical image of the curate's office at all (except for all the Youth Ministry material laying about). So I'm at a new place...trying to learn new names.

I've never been good with names. Rather, I remember the name but forget that it goes with what face. So I remember meeting Betty, but I'll be damned if I can find her in a room. Likewise, the face is familiar, but the name is lost in the pile. I've tried repeating the name over and over, saying it three (or four or five or six, etc.) times during conversation...no good. Five minutes later it's gone. I think my first task as assistant curate will be to institute a strict "no name tag, no coffee" rule for coffee hour.

There's big fun coming in the Diocese of Niagara - we're about to elect a new bishop. I'd be considering this fact in a rather impartial manner - "Oh, this will be interesting...I wonder who they'll pick." - until I realized that, as a freshly minted deacon, I'd be voting. There's a good deal of prayer and thought to do before June 2.

It's amazing how even the least political people, the ones you expect to be prayerful and serious about the matter, end up asking for whom you'll vote or trying to push you one way or another. (FYI - I won't be giving any indication for whom I'm voting, so don't bother looking on here.) I acknowledge that it's an important choice and that people want to make sure it's made the "right way," but really...

The Anglican Church of Canada is also up for some fun. We're about to head into a General Synod which will address the question of blessing same-sex marriage. While it's looking doubtful due to a bishop's letter that suggested a whole lot of movement but not blessing marriages, we can always hope and pray.

Though I'm not a delegate to General Synod, and thus not voting (or perhaps because I'm not voting), this is one position I'll tell to anyone who asks. I think the church is being called to greater inclusivity and openness. I think Jesus set up a very clear paradigm of welcoming all people, of acknowledging all honest love and of being true to who we are created to be.

If blessing same-sex marriage sounds contrary to scripture, check out some of the lovely things Old Testament scripture says about non-Jews (Joshua would be a good place to start, along with Ezra and any number of the Psalms). I hope that we've moved beyond trying to establish racial "purity," yet there it is in scripture...a lot of times right alongside passages commonly used to denounce homosexuality.

This said, I am a member of an episcopally lead church. It is part of who I am, not to mention my understanding of church, to follow the lead of my bishop. I do have the ability to influence who that bishop will be, but once he or she is elected I'll be under a vow to minister under his or her authority. I might become a constant nag, agitating for change, but until the canons are changed I'll not flout them. If General Synod says "No" and Niagara's bishop isn't willing to say, "to heck with that, yes" then I'll have little choice. It's not a matter of my conscience but rather of the source of my ordained authority, the authority which makes officiating a wedding possible in the first place, which rests with the episcopal office.

I suppose that sounds rather cowardly; all I can say is that it swings both ways. North American Anglicans are currently arguing that African bishops have no business meddling in our dioceses, a very sound and solid argument that has its basis in canon law and the right ordering of the episcopacy, as well as in the root concept of episcopal authority. But if we want the stability and historicity that maintains diocesan boundaries, we have to accept the same boundaries on priestly and diaconal powers. To do otherwise is to deny the ecclesial structure that has guided the church since the first Pentecost. Picking and choosing when to guard the integrity of the episcopate is not only hypocritical, it's also bad theology.

So if he or she says "no" to same-sex marriage, I'll obey the bishop against my will, though it would grieve me to do so. But I'll also obey him or her against the will of the wider church, should it come to that. Should the Episcopal Church U.S.A and the Anglican Church of Canada go ahead with same-sex marriage (or even just the Diocese of Niagara) and be ostracized from the rest of the Communion, I'll be right there with my bishop, taking names to perform the first authorized same-sex blessings in my parish.

|