"I am a Christian who happens as well to be gay ... Those realities, which are unreconcilable to some, are reconciled in me by a loving God."
"[My mother] always told me that I must invent my own reality. Reality will not conform to you. You must invent your own and then conform to it. So I did. I am an authentic and an original. ... I will not allow myself to be known simply as an African American, no more than I would allow myself to be known as gay or conservative. They are all bits and pieces of a work in progress. I am a child of God."
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/cambridge/2011/03/peter_gomes_harvard_minister_a_2.html
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Deanery Meeting to discuss the Proposed Covenant
Meeting, 2.13.2011, Deanery Re Proposed Covenant
The first part of the meeting covered some church history, beginning with a review of The Anglican Communion and our differences from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
The Lambeth Conference was then reviewed, in particular Resolution 1.10, of which the relevant subsections are:
c. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
d. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
A timeline of events followed the explanation of Resolution 1.10.
6.2003 Election of Gene Robinson as Bishop
7.2003 General Convention consent to Gene Robinson’s election
10.2003 Primates requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to meet regarding Gene Robinson’s election as well as Canada’s blessings of same sex unions.
11.2003 Gene Robinson consecrated as Bishop
2004 Windsor Report – this was a moratorium on Bishops Crossing Borders (Bishops staying in their own territory), no more gay-lesbian bishops, and no more same sex unions.
2.2005 Primates asked The Episcopal Church to withdraw representation from the Anglican Council
3.2005 House of Bishops agreed to the moratoriam on consenting to any Bishops until General Convention in 2006.
2006 General Convention had no overt language regarding the role of women – as bishops or priests. The Convention had no resolution on same sex unions but called upon the Standing Committee to develop the Anglican Covenant, which should include wording on exercising restraint in consenting to consecrate anyone whose lifestyle presented a challenge to the way of life in the Church.
Late 2007 Nassau draft of The Covenant
Early 2008 St. Andrews Draft
Summer 2008 – Lambert Conference held
Spring 2009 Ridley Cambridge draft of Anglican Covenant issued which is the one that we have currently
Late 2009 Commission Chair, Most Reverend Eames (Bishop of all Ireland) reported that the draft was not a judgment but that it is a process.
Sept 8, 2010 The Episcopal Church will review and present comments and ideas to the revision, particularly number 4 which contains the language concerning behavior, unlike numbers 1, 2 and 3 which are faith based.
The moratorium ended and we (The Episcopal Church) continued as before which seems to be how we seem to behave.
A small group decided that the whole Anglican Communion should subscribe to this Covenant. Despite this, Churches may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. All congregations are to meet, develop suggestions, reports, etc. so that a resolution may be developed. The goal is to have this all ready for the General Convention of 2012. Who knows what will happen at that time.
Purpose of The Anglican Covenant:
1. Strengthen corporate life of Anglican Communion
2. Strengthen common life of Anglican Communion.
What happens if one of the Churches doesn’t approve it (could be the US or CA)?
Could that Church become a second tier Church? What does that mean? Would this have financial consequences for the (C of E) Church of England?
The Standing Committee, a small group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury) would review and make decisions regarding “challenging” behavior mentioned in part 4 of the Covenant.
Do we really need the Covenant? We’ve never had one.
Opinions:
1. It might provide “common rules” for people who immigrate or move within the larger Church areas/countries, making it easier for those in this situation.
2. The Covenant might reduce input by laity in favor of Bishops.
3. Could help with global missionary work.
4. The first three parts which are faith based seem fine, only the fourth is punitive.
5. What is the importance of being part of a world wide congregation? (The U.S. has historically been independent with its own ideas).
6. Effect on congregations. Who are the leaders? How do we decide who they are? (re: the election of Gene Robinson)
7. Who decides who is fit to be our leader? Could it be a Bishop from another country (some Church Bishops outside the U.S. rule with an iron fist, we don’t)?
Submitted by Sue Joslyn
The first part of the meeting covered some church history, beginning with a review of The Anglican Communion and our differences from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
The Lambeth Conference was then reviewed, in particular Resolution 1.10, of which the relevant subsections are:
c. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
d. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
A timeline of events followed the explanation of Resolution 1.10.
6.2003 Election of Gene Robinson as Bishop
7.2003 General Convention consent to Gene Robinson’s election
10.2003 Primates requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to meet regarding Gene Robinson’s election as well as Canada’s blessings of same sex unions.
11.2003 Gene Robinson consecrated as Bishop
2004 Windsor Report – this was a moratorium on Bishops Crossing Borders (Bishops staying in their own territory), no more gay-lesbian bishops, and no more same sex unions.
2.2005 Primates asked The Episcopal Church to withdraw representation from the Anglican Council
3.2005 House of Bishops agreed to the moratoriam on consenting to any Bishops until General Convention in 2006.
2006 General Convention had no overt language regarding the role of women – as bishops or priests. The Convention had no resolution on same sex unions but called upon the Standing Committee to develop the Anglican Covenant, which should include wording on exercising restraint in consenting to consecrate anyone whose lifestyle presented a challenge to the way of life in the Church.
Late 2007 Nassau draft of The Covenant
Early 2008 St. Andrews Draft
Summer 2008 – Lambert Conference held
Spring 2009 Ridley Cambridge draft of Anglican Covenant issued which is the one that we have currently
Late 2009 Commission Chair, Most Reverend Eames (Bishop of all Ireland) reported that the draft was not a judgment but that it is a process.
Sept 8, 2010 The Episcopal Church will review and present comments and ideas to the revision, particularly number 4 which contains the language concerning behavior, unlike numbers 1, 2 and 3 which are faith based.
The moratorium ended and we (The Episcopal Church) continued as before which seems to be how we seem to behave.
A small group decided that the whole Anglican Communion should subscribe to this Covenant. Despite this, Churches may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. All congregations are to meet, develop suggestions, reports, etc. so that a resolution may be developed. The goal is to have this all ready for the General Convention of 2012. Who knows what will happen at that time.
Purpose of The Anglican Covenant:
1. Strengthen corporate life of Anglican Communion
2. Strengthen common life of Anglican Communion.
What happens if one of the Churches doesn’t approve it (could be the US or CA)?
Could that Church become a second tier Church? What does that mean? Would this have financial consequences for the (C of E) Church of England?
The Standing Committee, a small group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury) would review and make decisions regarding “challenging” behavior mentioned in part 4 of the Covenant.
Do we really need the Covenant? We’ve never had one.
Opinions:
1. It might provide “common rules” for people who immigrate or move within the larger Church areas/countries, making it easier for those in this situation.
2. The Covenant might reduce input by laity in favor of Bishops.
3. Could help with global missionary work.
4. The first three parts which are faith based seem fine, only the fourth is punitive.
5. What is the importance of being part of a world wide congregation? (The U.S. has historically been independent with its own ideas).
6. Effect on congregations. Who are the leaders? How do we decide who they are? (re: the election of Gene Robinson)
7. Who decides who is fit to be our leader? Could it be a Bishop from another country (some Church Bishops outside the U.S. rule with an iron fist, we don’t)?
Submitted by Sue Joslyn
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Anglican Covenant
The idea for an Anglican Covenant was first mooted in the Windsor Report (paragraphs 113-120). The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and of the Anglican Consultative Council commissioned a study paper on the idea in March 2005, Towards an Anglican Covenant.
At its meeting in May 2006, the Joint Standing Committee asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Covenant Design Group to further the project. This group gave a preliminary report to the Primates Meeting at Dar es Salaam in February 2007. The report included the Nassau Draft - a draft for the covenant on which initial consultation was taken in the course of 2007.
The draft is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including the introduction, a commentary and a draft appendix.
The Covenant Design Group met again at the end of January 2008, and produced a second report and draft - the St. Andrew's Draft - taking into account many of the submissions to the group. This draft was offered for further reflection to the Provinces, but extensive reflection and discussion were undertaken by the bishops at this year's Lambeth Conference.
The comments and discussion of the bishops were received by the Covenant Design Group at their meeting in Singapore in September 2008 - and a Lambeth Commentary has now been issued which picks up on the many points of the bishops thinking, as well as offering the further reflection of the Covenant Design Group.
In March 2009 the Covenant Design Group considered all of the submissions from Provinces received to that point, along with the bishops’ reflections, and produced a third text, the Ridley-Cambridge Draft, which was presented to the 14th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica in May 2009.
ACC-14 discussed the text in depth and welcomed its development, but expressed concern that the text of Section 4 had not received the same depth of consultation with Provinces which the first three sections had, and consequently requested that a small working group be set up to ‘consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision’, for approval by the Standing Committee.
That group met in November 2009, considered 18 responses received from the Provinces, and revised Section 4 in light of these responses (3 further responses were received after this work was completed). This text was presented to the Standing Committee, which has now approved it for distribution.
It is now with the Provinces of the Anglican Communion for formal consideration for adoption by each Province through appropriate processes. The link to the text can also be found by clicking on the title to this post
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
DADT
In keeping with the theme of Rev. Diane's post below.. a timely piece by Adam Serwer in the Washington Post
Yesterday in Iowa, Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) told the Center for American Progress's Igor Volsky that he is so opposed to the repeal of don't ask don't tell that he would be willing to defund it:
PAWLENTY: We have to pay great deference, I think, to those combat units, their sentiments and their leaders. That's one of the reasons why I said we shouldn't have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstatement.
TP: And rescinding the funds for implementation, implementation of repeal?
PAWLENTY: That would be a reasonable step as well.
Either Pawlenty sincerely believes, against all available empirical and real world evidence, that DADT repeal will harm military effectiveness and that it must urgently be reinstated, or he's just trying to signal disdain for gays and lesbians, including those willing to give their lives in service to their country, to homophobes in the Republican base. Possibly both.
Pawlenty seems to have mistaken DADT for the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, most Republicans actually supported repeal, so unlike the ACA, DADT isn't a gaping emotional wound that needs to be treated. Pawlenty first voiced support for reinstating DADT on the radio show of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who believes sex between gays and lesbians is a form of "domestic terrorism" and wants to ban Muslims from serving in the U.S. military.
A Pawlenty spokesperson tried to hide behind the military leadership in a statement to Politico's Ben Smith, clarifying that Pawlenty does not "support using resources to implement a policy" the "commanding generals" oppose. But with the exception of Marine Commandant General James Amos, the opinions of the service chiefs were mixed, and absolutely none of them have endorsed reinstating DADT, which is what Pawlenty is proposing. Repealing repeal would be a logistical nightmare for the military, and it's unlikely the service chiefs want to spend the next few years refighting DADT repeal.
Pawlenty also seems to have gotten the whole "civilian control of the military" thing backwards. Given that servicemembers and military leadership were far more opposed to racial integration in the 1940s than they are to repealing DADT today someone should ask Pawlenty whether he thought Harry Truman was wrong to order integration of the military in 1948.
More disturbing than Pawlenty's unworkable proposal for reinstating DADT or defunding repeal is that even in 2012, a Republican primary candidate might feel it necessary offer disdain for gays and lesbians as a selling point. Ultimately, though, it feels a little desperate, a way for a relatively bland candidate to distinguish himself from his more colorful rivals. The message was presumably received by Iowa's heavily evangelical Republican caucus voters; we'll find out soon enough how impressed they were.
Yesterday in Iowa, Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) told the Center for American Progress's Igor Volsky that he is so opposed to the repeal of don't ask don't tell that he would be willing to defund it:
PAWLENTY: We have to pay great deference, I think, to those combat units, their sentiments and their leaders. That's one of the reasons why I said we shouldn't have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstatement.
TP: And rescinding the funds for implementation, implementation of repeal?
PAWLENTY: That would be a reasonable step as well.
Either Pawlenty sincerely believes, against all available empirical and real world evidence, that DADT repeal will harm military effectiveness and that it must urgently be reinstated, or he's just trying to signal disdain for gays and lesbians, including those willing to give their lives in service to their country, to homophobes in the Republican base. Possibly both.
Pawlenty seems to have mistaken DADT for the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, most Republicans actually supported repeal, so unlike the ACA, DADT isn't a gaping emotional wound that needs to be treated. Pawlenty first voiced support for reinstating DADT on the radio show of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who believes sex between gays and lesbians is a form of "domestic terrorism" and wants to ban Muslims from serving in the U.S. military.
A Pawlenty spokesperson tried to hide behind the military leadership in a statement to Politico's Ben Smith, clarifying that Pawlenty does not "support using resources to implement a policy" the "commanding generals" oppose. But with the exception of Marine Commandant General James Amos, the opinions of the service chiefs were mixed, and absolutely none of them have endorsed reinstating DADT, which is what Pawlenty is proposing. Repealing repeal would be a logistical nightmare for the military, and it's unlikely the service chiefs want to spend the next few years refighting DADT repeal.
Pawlenty also seems to have gotten the whole "civilian control of the military" thing backwards. Given that servicemembers and military leadership were far more opposed to racial integration in the 1940s than they are to repealing DADT today someone should ask Pawlenty whether he thought Harry Truman was wrong to order integration of the military in 1948.
More disturbing than Pawlenty's unworkable proposal for reinstating DADT or defunding repeal is that even in 2012, a Republican primary candidate might feel it necessary offer disdain for gays and lesbians as a selling point. Ultimately, though, it feels a little desperate, a way for a relatively bland candidate to distinguish himself from his more colorful rivals. The message was presumably received by Iowa's heavily evangelical Republican caucus voters; we'll find out soon enough how impressed they were.
DID YOU KNOW….?
The following was retrieved from an Associated Press report dated February 3, 2011, based on data from the recent Injustice at Every Turn: National Transgender Discrimination Survey about Transgender people:
• 77 percent experience harassment in high school
• 57 percent experience family rejection
• 41 percent attempt suicide at least once
• 26 percent lost a job when their employer discovered they were transgender
• 19 percent have been denied house or apartment rental
• 20 percent have experienced homelessness at least once
• 19% have been refused medical care
• Transgender people are four times more likely to have an income below $10,000 than any other group of people.
• Discrimination is particularly pronounced among the Black Community.
Have you ever thought what it must feel like to have the essence of your very being trapped in a wrong-gender body? And being rejected, harassed and abused physically, emotionally and verbally for being born that way? Just some food for thought… and prayer.
Pastor Diane
• 77 percent experience harassment in high school
• 57 percent experience family rejection
• 41 percent attempt suicide at least once
• 26 percent lost a job when their employer discovered they were transgender
• 19 percent have been denied house or apartment rental
• 20 percent have experienced homelessness at least once
• 19% have been refused medical care
• Transgender people are four times more likely to have an income below $10,000 than any other group of people.
• Discrimination is particularly pronounced among the Black Community.
Have you ever thought what it must feel like to have the essence of your very being trapped in a wrong-gender body? And being rejected, harassed and abused physically, emotionally and verbally for being born that way? Just some food for thought… and prayer.
Pastor Diane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
