Of anger indulged and tears unbidden
The celebrant was a priest from the diocese of my sojourn.
You know, the one where the Bishop won't license me when the time comes.
The celebrant wore jeans, a white short-sleeved clergy shirt, and a stole. He indulged every neo-hippie, look-at-me tic he could come up with. I can't begin to imagine where he came up with the order of service. His sermon was a mélange of what I think was meant for poetry -- not, I think, of his own composition -- and aimless musings. He had his pre-teen daughter serve in effect as deacon. At the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer he removed his stole and put it around her neck. She stood in front of him -- between him and the altar -- for the whole prayer. Unless my eyes deceived me, she held the elements as he recited the institution narrative. Certainly she raised the bread at the invitation to Communion. She even proclaimed the dismissal.
By the time the Sacrament was being administered, I was thoroughly angry. Being unfit, in that state, to receive Communion, I began instead to think:
This -- this -- is OK in the Diocese, but I am not. This priest, who last year celebrated on the Fourth of July with an American flag wrapped around his neck as a stole, is perfectly fine; but I am not.
Because he's straight.
The Canon of the Cathedral, who preaches vapid mother-goddess sermons and Lord knows what else, is fine; but I am not.
Because she's straight.
(Supposedly.)
And I stored up all these things and pondered them in my heart. And by the time I left the chapel, I was beyond angry. I was furious, enraged.
Because it really is all about sex, and I shouldn't for a moment let them tell me otherwise.
It is not about Scripture.
It is not about tradition.
It is not about doctrine.
If it were, Father Flag-Stole and Canon Mother-Goddess would be no more welcome to exercise their eccentric vocations in the diocese of my sojourn than I am welcome to exercise my utterly conventional vocation in it.
It really is all about sex, and I shouldn't for a moment let them tell me otherwise.
And then standing in line for lunch, my rage overflowed into tears.
And for a moment -- just for a moment -- I understood why so many of my brothers and sisters in this church are so angry, and so impatient.
I understood why the very mention of a "Windsor Bishop" provokes scorn and derision.
And I prayed that I would be forgiven the indulgence of my anger, and that the tears that had come unbidden would be wiped from my eyes.
For he that has called me is faithful.
Labels: Acknowledge and bewail, Bishops, Service notes, Sewanee, The current unpleasantness, Topic H
posted by The Postulant @ 3:14 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Followed a link from Jared to your blog... Bravo!!!
For what it's worth... you're not alone.
This is good. Here's hoping we can think this life of ours through - together - in Christ.
Postulant -
Thank you for sharing this. It's heartfelt, and I, as an openly gay priest in a liberal dicoese, often need to be reminded that all is not yet well, no matter what Julian of Norwich may say.
RFSJ
With all due respect, you should blame Father Flag-Stole and Canon Mother Goddess for leading you and many in the American church for the past two or three decades to believe ANY doctrinal silliness - be it liturgical or moral - is acceptable. It is all too true that our common life suffers on several fronts, the issue of human sexuality being only one. That issue, like so many others (communion without baptism for instance), is a presenting issue - even if it is the most publicised (to respond to your argument that it’s all about sex). The underlying issue of clear theological reflection is at the bottom. Think seed/flower or germ/disease.
The conclusion you draw is rather troubling: the body puts up with Problem A, therefore it should also tolerate Problem B. (I do understand that you would rather have Problem B and not Problem A.)
The assumption you make and obviously wish us to share is that Problem A is equal to or worse than Problem B (although it is clear you feel that problem B is not a problem at all).
Hopefully the bishop in question will handle Problem A in time as it is directly related to the sloppiness in theology that has given us Problem B in other dioceses. He, at the very least, is to be commended for preventing Problem B heretofore.
Standing in the rain in January can bring pneumonia. Sloppy theology (and concomitantly sloppy liturgy) brings bad doctrine... like the notion one can be an orthodox Anglican and engage in behaviours consistently proscribed by sacred scripture, discouraged by the councils of the church, and loathed in Christian history.
A question I would like to leave you with is this: How can you realistically envision an Anglican church (not talking parish here) that affirms every point of orthodoxy SAVE for the issues of human sexuality. Can you really establish a barrier against all the other theological nitwits? Do you really think The Episcopal Church - even if it gets rid of the rest of the Anglican Communion - is just going to let THIS ONE aberration in coherent theology (your pet favorite I suppose) in and NOT pantheistic pluralism, communion without baptism, systematic denials of every point of the three historic creeds, the condemnation of scripture as Anti-Semitic, the reading of other religious texts in divine service, prayers to pagan gods, Druidism, the likes and leadership of this Muslim-Christian priest out in Seattle? Do you really think that everything is going stay nice and Orthodox save for your one issue? That church is limited to the imagination.
My friend I feel for you. Because some of your would-be supporters, the folks who have commented on this very thread probably espouse at least one from the above laundry list.
Two words, Anonymous, Lambeth 1930.
Post a Comment
<< Home