This has been an extraordinary time in my life as a priest. It is very difficult to capture the fullness of this intense experience, which has lasted a very long ten days. Over that time, we all formed a little community, almost a village: I would see the same people in the lobby, in the elevator, at the hotel Starbucks, in the alternate deputy seating, etc. They became my neighbors in a strange way. We did laundry together, we were at the gym together, we would nod and smile. I noticed that over the course of these 10 days, we became more disassociated with where we came from, and more strongly associated with what we were doing together. And although I have been blessed by several new friendships with some brothers in Christ with whom I will keep in touch, I don't think the disassociation was a healthy thing. Frankie Rodriguez+, Calvary, Richmond, said, "This is not the church: this is a political, legislative body. This is not the church." And I think he's right. It's not the church: the Church is in our parishes; the Church is not a political body -- it is the Body of Christ. Although privileged to serve you and our diocese in this capacity, I am ready to come home. I'm ready to be present to you, my brothers and sisters of "Dunstanland," and to know the Presence of the One who binds us together in love.
This is my final blog from General Convention, and I think it has been a worthwhile experiment. I've really been trying to think about how I can communicate with the parish in new ways even when I'm home. A weekly meditation or update? I don't know. But I have so valued your thoughts and prayers, the comments that some of you posted, the emails of support and good thoughts that some of you sent: although wrapped up in this intense experience, writing this blog has been a tether attaching me to the church I hold most dear: St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church, 14301 Stuebner Airline, Houston, in the great State of Texas!
Good night, and see you soon.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Fr. Rob Goes to Anaheim
Dear Dunstanland: this morning, the House of Deputies approved by over 2/3 margins in both orders Resolution C056, which asks the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to collect and develop theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same-sex unions. By God's grace, I was "lucky" enough to get to the right microphone in time to speak against the resolution before the 35 minutes allotted for debate ran out. The debate was broadcast over the web live, including my speech, which was immediately transcribed and placed on at least one live blog. Let me share with you my memory of what I said while it is still fresh, in order to have it in the record correctly.
"Good morning, Madame President, Price from Texas [actually I forgot to say my name, and the president was forced to interrupt me half-way through]. I rise to speak against this motion. This resolution takes us in a direction that is directly contrary to a unified witness to God's ordering of human love and relationships that runs like a golden thread through the entire Scriptures: from Gen. 1 and 2, through John 2, through the prophets, through Ephesians 5, through the Book of Revelation. Now I am catholic, and I believe in the development of doctrine; I have enough humility to admit that I might be wrong, but the theological case for this resolution has not been made. We have not done the work required to contradict the Scriptural witness required for passage of this resolution, and it should be defeated. In the meantime, we CAN care for the pastoral needs of our gay brothers and sisters: it's called the internet! So experiment, make stuff up, share it with each other -- we all know you're doing it anyway! -- but please to do not use the theological apparatus of the church to do something that will burn our house down. We don't need it; I urge defeat of the motion. Thank you. [my one minute was up and the mic went dead during the last sentence and a half]."
So, friends, I was able to say my peace, and I will return to my house justified, as they say in Westerns. Let me repeat what I have said from the time I was interviewing for the call to be Rector of St. Dunstan's until this very hour: I celebrate the continuity of Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This continuity is expressed in the Scriptures and the whole counsel of God, as interpreted by the Tradition. One part of that continuous witness, however, is that God is on the side of sinners. All persons, no matter their background, baggage, history of sin, or situation, will receive pastoral care in the love of Jesus Christ at St. Dunstan's Church. However, that pastoral care will not include a same-sex blessing while I am Rector. At the same time, I will lay my body down before a gay person is run out of this church: you will have to come through me to get to them.
And on the Communion: I do not know what it means to be a priest unless I am in communion with my bishop, as long as my bishop is in communion with the Communion.
None of this has changed! All of these things remain the same today, and will be the same tomorrow. That's the continuity of the Rector, which I think is perhaps one of the most important aspects of being a presbyter and leader of God's people.
"Good morning, Madame President, Price from Texas [actually I forgot to say my name, and the president was forced to interrupt me half-way through]. I rise to speak against this motion. This resolution takes us in a direction that is directly contrary to a unified witness to God's ordering of human love and relationships that runs like a golden thread through the entire Scriptures: from Gen. 1 and 2, through John 2, through the prophets, through Ephesians 5, through the Book of Revelation. Now I am catholic, and I believe in the development of doctrine; I have enough humility to admit that I might be wrong, but the theological case for this resolution has not been made. We have not done the work required to contradict the Scriptural witness required for passage of this resolution, and it should be defeated. In the meantime, we CAN care for the pastoral needs of our gay brothers and sisters: it's called the internet! So experiment, make stuff up, share it with each other -- we all know you're doing it anyway! -- but please to do not use the theological apparatus of the church to do something that will burn our house down. We don't need it; I urge defeat of the motion. Thank you. [my one minute was up and the mic went dead during the last sentence and a half]."
So, friends, I was able to say my peace, and I will return to my house justified, as they say in Westerns. Let me repeat what I have said from the time I was interviewing for the call to be Rector of St. Dunstan's until this very hour: I celebrate the continuity of Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This continuity is expressed in the Scriptures and the whole counsel of God, as interpreted by the Tradition. One part of that continuous witness, however, is that God is on the side of sinners. All persons, no matter their background, baggage, history of sin, or situation, will receive pastoral care in the love of Jesus Christ at St. Dunstan's Church. However, that pastoral care will not include a same-sex blessing while I am Rector. At the same time, I will lay my body down before a gay person is run out of this church: you will have to come through me to get to them.
And on the Communion: I do not know what it means to be a priest unless I am in communion with my bishop, as long as my bishop is in communion with the Communion.
None of this has changed! All of these things remain the same today, and will be the same tomorrow. That's the continuity of the Rector, which I think is perhaps one of the most important aspects of being a presbyter and leader of God's people.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
On Being a Christian in Corinth
There was a young Christian in the church in Corinth named Euphrosynos: Fro for short. Fro was upset by what was going on in his church. Now it should be noted, his church had already created a reputation for itself: Peter, Apollos, and Paul had all preached there. They were a wealthy and influential church. A church many were proud of, but not in a way with which Paul was entirely comfortable. He was always a bit of a fussbucket about things. But when the great fathers left, factions began to develop among the Corinthians as some identified with the international apostolates of Peter or Paul, or vaunted the autonomous Apollos as the greatest.
Amidst this factionalism, several moral and doctrinal (actually, liturgical) changes and challenges came upon the community. First, and most blatant, Matereros was sleeping with his mother-in-law. Matereros was a very nice guy and helped other Christians out -- he was wealthy -- but, hey, that's just not right, man. But secondly, and more importantly, the dominant group of Christians in Corinth -- the strong -- had changed practice of the Eucharist that Paul had handed on (traditio) to them. They had changed the words that Paul had used, and more seriously, they were conducting the services in such a way that the very core truths proclaimed in the Lord's Supper were being betrayed. Finally, they seemed unwilling to do anything about Matereros' behavior, which caused them to be made a laughingstock, even in libertine Corinth. Fro was distressed, because the Strong simply scorned Fro and his friends for their weakness and simplicity, and refused to stop practices that would eventually separate them from what Paul called the Body. As a result of the factionalism, no local solution was politically possible: someone needed to tell Paul what was going on, and seek his help.
Fro and his friends hoped that the Strong would listen to Paul, for he had planted the church in Corinth. Although they claimed autonomy and self-sufficiency, they needed to be reminded that they had not started de novo (as Flavius, a recent Roman convert would say), but were part of a worldwide missionary movement. Although the elders of Corinth could ordain locally who ever they wanted, and adopt the liturgy to local needs, they also needed to recognize that the truth which their presbyters proclaimed and the liturgy expressed was not their own, but was Christ's, and given to them as a gift through the apostolic mission of Paul. There were accountable to Thessalonica, Galatia, and all the churches that sprang from that mission just as they had. Besides, Fro recalled that Paul had never vaunted himself, but had focused them on the work of Christ on their behalf.
Letters describing the situation in Corinth were being sent, along with trusted messengers. Now Fro and his friends had to wait for the response. Fro knew that they had to be patient, because, hey: boats are slow! And the messengers might be caught in storms and delayed. But they lived in faith that a response from Paul would come. But what should they do in the meantime? Found the Second Church of Corinth? The Orthodox Pauline Church of Corinth? Attempt to involve the secular Imperial authorities?
Upon reflection, Fro resolved to live into his name: Euphrosynos, "merry," "joyful one." He continued to remain a faithful member of the church in Corinth, even as he refused to support the faithless practices and preaching of the Strong. He also reflected on the members of his own household who did not know Christ, who had not yet received the new life of the Spirit. Fro decided to focus on them until the much-anticipated letter came. He and the other "weak" had much they could do together to serve those without hope in the world (he cribbed that from Paul). He would share his joy with them, a joy that no church or Strong Man could ever take away from him or from those with whom he shared it.
And the Rector told them many such parables, and said, "He who has ears listen, and he who can read, open 1 and 2 Corinthians."
Amidst this factionalism, several moral and doctrinal (actually, liturgical) changes and challenges came upon the community. First, and most blatant, Matereros was sleeping with his mother-in-law. Matereros was a very nice guy and helped other Christians out -- he was wealthy -- but, hey, that's just not right, man. But secondly, and more importantly, the dominant group of Christians in Corinth -- the strong -- had changed practice of the Eucharist that Paul had handed on (traditio) to them. They had changed the words that Paul had used, and more seriously, they were conducting the services in such a way that the very core truths proclaimed in the Lord's Supper were being betrayed. Finally, they seemed unwilling to do anything about Matereros' behavior, which caused them to be made a laughingstock, even in libertine Corinth. Fro was distressed, because the Strong simply scorned Fro and his friends for their weakness and simplicity, and refused to stop practices that would eventually separate them from what Paul called the Body. As a result of the factionalism, no local solution was politically possible: someone needed to tell Paul what was going on, and seek his help.
Fro and his friends hoped that the Strong would listen to Paul, for he had planted the church in Corinth. Although they claimed autonomy and self-sufficiency, they needed to be reminded that they had not started de novo (as Flavius, a recent Roman convert would say), but were part of a worldwide missionary movement. Although the elders of Corinth could ordain locally who ever they wanted, and adopt the liturgy to local needs, they also needed to recognize that the truth which their presbyters proclaimed and the liturgy expressed was not their own, but was Christ's, and given to them as a gift through the apostolic mission of Paul. There were accountable to Thessalonica, Galatia, and all the churches that sprang from that mission just as they had. Besides, Fro recalled that Paul had never vaunted himself, but had focused them on the work of Christ on their behalf.
Letters describing the situation in Corinth were being sent, along with trusted messengers. Now Fro and his friends had to wait for the response. Fro knew that they had to be patient, because, hey: boats are slow! And the messengers might be caught in storms and delayed. But they lived in faith that a response from Paul would come. But what should they do in the meantime? Found the Second Church of Corinth? The Orthodox Pauline Church of Corinth? Attempt to involve the secular Imperial authorities?
Upon reflection, Fro resolved to live into his name: Euphrosynos, "merry," "joyful one." He continued to remain a faithful member of the church in Corinth, even as he refused to support the faithless practices and preaching of the Strong. He also reflected on the members of his own household who did not know Christ, who had not yet received the new life of the Spirit. Fro decided to focus on them until the much-anticipated letter came. He and the other "weak" had much they could do together to serve those without hope in the world (he cribbed that from Paul). He would share his joy with them, a joy that no church or Strong Man could ever take away from him or from those with whom he shared it.
And the Rector told them many such parables, and said, "He who has ears listen, and he who can read, open 1 and 2 Corinthians."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Best of the Worst
"It's the best of the worst." That's how the canon to the ordinary in an orthodox diocese described the recently passed Resolution D025. You might hear about this through the media, and you will certainly hear about it in the church's life, so let me break it down for you from my perspective.
First, it is written in very gracious language: it does not have the abrasive, in-your-face tone of many of the resolutions dealing with sexuality. It was purposely written to be eirenic, and it starts out with a commitment to the Anglican Communion and a statement that being a part of the Communion is important to the American church. But then it goes on. It essentially quotes from a resolution from a previous convention that basically says, in layman's terms (if you'll pardon the pun): "we have gay folk in this church, they are in loving committed relationships that look like marriage to us, they are in ministry at all levels, including the episcopate, and we like it that way." In a sense, although the facts that it describes are disappointing from an orthodox perspective, they are, in my judgment, facts. It's all true, as long as one takes the "we" to mean a majority of dioceses (although those dioceses do not have a majority of the people in the pews in their membership). There's a big part of me that welcomes the honesty with the Communion. I'm glad that the national leadership is saying, "hey, this is the case. This is what's happening in our church." The Communion can now decide how it wants to respond. This part of the resolution doesn't say anything that anyone with much awareness of the American church doesn't know already. It doesn't hurt anything, and probably helps, to say what is true. And in the last clause of Do25 it recognizes that there are people in the Episcopal Church who are "not of one mind," so it does recognize that we exist: frankly, that's an advance from the party line of the last several years.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. DO25 goes on to say that the American church is going to run things according to its own canons. This means the ordination of gay folk to the episcopate, whether the Communion likes it or not. Many of us are reading this section of D025 to be a repudiation of B033, which was the resolution from 2006 in which the EC committed itself to "exercise restraint" in ordaining homosexual persons to the episcopate and blessing same-sex unions. This in itself is a disappointing turning away from the Communion. But on the other hand, it simply recognizes the facts on the ground that B033 didn't restrain anybody from anything they wanted to do. So, again, I find myself putting trust in the truth: now we (the national church and those who control the levers of its power) are communicating honestly with the Communion. The Communion, in my judgment, can and will take it from there. It may take longer than we want, but there will in the end be a response.
So what does this mean in Dunstanland? Nothing! Nothing has or will change in how we do ministry or our commitment to living the Gospel. As I've said before to some of you, the best revenge is living well, and for Christians that means growing in faith, growing the church. For the record, all three of our bishops voted against D025, so not much will change in the diocese, either.
I am truly feeling led to respond to this by redoubling my efforts to grow St. Dunstan's. When confronted with the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses said "All those who are on the side of the Lord stand with me!" The sons of Levi came to Moses' side and took the lives of their brothers for God's honor. In the New Covenant, we are called not to take life but to give it. In the face of faithlessness, let us give life to as many of our brothers and sisters who will receive it, to the glory of God. Let us share the redeeming love of Jesus Christ, and bring as many of our neighbors as God gives us into a relationship with Him. All who are on the side of the Lord stand with me! Are there any Levites out there?
First, it is written in very gracious language: it does not have the abrasive, in-your-face tone of many of the resolutions dealing with sexuality. It was purposely written to be eirenic, and it starts out with a commitment to the Anglican Communion and a statement that being a part of the Communion is important to the American church. But then it goes on. It essentially quotes from a resolution from a previous convention that basically says, in layman's terms (if you'll pardon the pun): "we have gay folk in this church, they are in loving committed relationships that look like marriage to us, they are in ministry at all levels, including the episcopate, and we like it that way." In a sense, although the facts that it describes are disappointing from an orthodox perspective, they are, in my judgment, facts. It's all true, as long as one takes the "we" to mean a majority of dioceses (although those dioceses do not have a majority of the people in the pews in their membership). There's a big part of me that welcomes the honesty with the Communion. I'm glad that the national leadership is saying, "hey, this is the case. This is what's happening in our church." The Communion can now decide how it wants to respond. This part of the resolution doesn't say anything that anyone with much awareness of the American church doesn't know already. It doesn't hurt anything, and probably helps, to say what is true. And in the last clause of Do25 it recognizes that there are people in the Episcopal Church who are "not of one mind," so it does recognize that we exist: frankly, that's an advance from the party line of the last several years.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. DO25 goes on to say that the American church is going to run things according to its own canons. This means the ordination of gay folk to the episcopate, whether the Communion likes it or not. Many of us are reading this section of D025 to be a repudiation of B033, which was the resolution from 2006 in which the EC committed itself to "exercise restraint" in ordaining homosexual persons to the episcopate and blessing same-sex unions. This in itself is a disappointing turning away from the Communion. But on the other hand, it simply recognizes the facts on the ground that B033 didn't restrain anybody from anything they wanted to do. So, again, I find myself putting trust in the truth: now we (the national church and those who control the levers of its power) are communicating honestly with the Communion. The Communion, in my judgment, can and will take it from there. It may take longer than we want, but there will in the end be a response.
So what does this mean in Dunstanland? Nothing! Nothing has or will change in how we do ministry or our commitment to living the Gospel. As I've said before to some of you, the best revenge is living well, and for Christians that means growing in faith, growing the church. For the record, all three of our bishops voted against D025, so not much will change in the diocese, either.
I am truly feeling led to respond to this by redoubling my efforts to grow St. Dunstan's. When confronted with the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses said "All those who are on the side of the Lord stand with me!" The sons of Levi came to Moses' side and took the lives of their brothers for God's honor. In the New Covenant, we are called not to take life but to give it. In the face of faithlessness, let us give life to as many of our brothers and sisters who will receive it, to the glory of God. Let us share the redeeming love of Jesus Christ, and bring as many of our neighbors as God gives us into a relationship with Him. All who are on the side of the Lord stand with me! Are there any Levites out there?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A Very Good Thing
Today the Convention passed a very exciting piece of legislation that could have a direct beneficial impact on our parish. By an overwhelming margin, the Convention voted $3.5 million to support "The Episcopal Church's Strategic Vision for Reaching Latinos/Hispanics." It is a strategic plan (hey, we're doing that, too!) that was put together by people in the field, like our parish's friend, Fr. Alejandro Montes, who was a major contributor. It already provides invaluable research into the different demographics in the Hispanic community, and what segment of that community is most effectively reached by Episcopalians. It also suggests strategies for parishes to consider. Finally, the Vision for Reaching Latinos/Hispanics has been backed up by serious resources, which include grants for parishes seeking to start Hispanic congregations. I think we should pursue a grant and see if that might kick-start our parish's long-standing desire to reach our Spanish-speaking neighbors for Christ. Anyway, this resolution is really something where the Convention managed to make evangelistic mission a priority.
Shocking factoid to grapple with: the US has the second-largest culturally Spanish population in the world. We are second only to Mexico, and ahead of Spain!
Tonight's dance card was filled out by the Living Church Foundation dinner with a speaker's panel on "A Future for Catholic Anglicanism?" As you can imagine, I was highly interested. Another opportunity to build relationships with folks who believe that a vibrant and robust Trinitarianism, expressed in a sacramental and liturgical faith, is Anglicanism's gift to the Christian family. One of the ten laws of Anglican Catholicism, as articulated by my new friend, Dr. Christopher Wells, is that we believe that our Church is "incomplete." That is to say, that we as Anglicans do not believe that we are the perfect form of the Church; we believe that we have much to learn and to receive from other Christians. I'd say that we are living this out especially at our 9 a.m. service, where we are borrowing music from the contemporary and emergent Christians communities and employing it to express our sacramental faith. What other things can we learn so that we can be more effective preachers of the Gospel? Time will tell, and the Holy Spirit will teach.
Shocking factoid to grapple with: the US has the second-largest culturally Spanish population in the world. We are second only to Mexico, and ahead of Spain!
Tonight's dance card was filled out by the Living Church Foundation dinner with a speaker's panel on "A Future for Catholic Anglicanism?" As you can imagine, I was highly interested. Another opportunity to build relationships with folks who believe that a vibrant and robust Trinitarianism, expressed in a sacramental and liturgical faith, is Anglicanism's gift to the Christian family. One of the ten laws of Anglican Catholicism, as articulated by my new friend, Dr. Christopher Wells, is that we believe that our Church is "incomplete." That is to say, that we as Anglicans do not believe that we are the perfect form of the Church; we believe that we have much to learn and to receive from other Christians. I'd say that we are living this out especially at our 9 a.m. service, where we are borrowing music from the contemporary and emergent Christians communities and employing it to express our sacramental faith. What other things can we learn so that we can be more effective preachers of the Gospel? Time will tell, and the Holy Spirit will teach.
Sabbath Day
Today started out in legislative session, and I have been tracking along much better. It really does take a day or so to learn to follow along. Cecilia+ came back at noon, so I'm back to blue (the color of the alternate deputy nametags). It was fun while it lasted! I spent the afternoon catching up on my Bible reading, writing some notes back home, making phone calls, etc. I got out for a run since the weather has been absolutely glorious (mid 80's and dry and sunny). I quickly got into a residential neighborhood and enjoyed the smell of home. Perhaps some of you can identify: your home place has flowers and plants that just smell a certain way in the summer, and you don't realize the absence of the smell until you go back home. I just breathed it in as I ran, and savored being home deep in my lungs.
The Saturday night of convention is the night of the "seminary dinners," in which the various seminaries have functions for their alumni. Since mine didn't invite me (good luck in the next campaign, Berkeley!), I went to two. First, I went to Trinity's dinner (Trinity School for Ministry is an evangelical seminary in Ambridge, PA) and met some new friends. Then, I went to Nashotah House's reception (that's the Anglo-Catholic one in Wisconsin). I saved Nashotah for last because evangelicals, being earnest hard-working folk, are early to bed types, and true to form they wrapped up at 8 sharp and served not a drop of Merlot or anything else that makes these functions worthwhile. I was certain, though, that the Anglo-Catholics would just be getting warmed up, and they did not disappoint! There was plenty of hospitality to be imbibed, and it was a joy to connect to old friends from Incarnation, Dallas, who are on the board of the seminary. Folks drifted off to the next party by 10 -- there are no legislative or committee sessions scheduled tomorrow -- and I came back to the room to blog and go to bed.
Good night, Dunstanland!
The Saturday night of convention is the night of the "seminary dinners," in which the various seminaries have functions for their alumni. Since mine didn't invite me (good luck in the next campaign, Berkeley!), I went to two. First, I went to Trinity's dinner (Trinity School for Ministry is an evangelical seminary in Ambridge, PA) and met some new friends. Then, I went to Nashotah House's reception (that's the Anglo-Catholic one in Wisconsin). I saved Nashotah for last because evangelicals, being earnest hard-working folk, are early to bed types, and true to form they wrapped up at 8 sharp and served not a drop of Merlot or anything else that makes these functions worthwhile. I was certain, though, that the Anglo-Catholics would just be getting warmed up, and they did not disappoint! There was plenty of hospitality to be imbibed, and it was a joy to connect to old friends from Incarnation, Dallas, who are on the board of the seminary. Folks drifted off to the next party by 10 -- there are no legislative or committee sessions scheduled tomorrow -- and I came back to the room to blog and go to bed.
Good night, Dunstanland!
Celebrity sightings
My son, Matt's, comment when he read my blog was "it's long." Ah, the honesty of children. So here's a short one. Tonight (Friday) had some celebrity sightings: Gene Robinson, Katherine Schori, and my favorite, Fr. Cutie of Miami, walking around with his new bishop. Kate wants me to get a picture with him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)