My good friend Lisa, in her post today, alerted us Piskie readers to the actions of the Diocese of South Carolina, which she charged might be "secessionist and duplicitous".

I responded, because it showed me the clear, highly charged path between conditions and actions. It's almost as clear as the path that creates a lightning bolt between cloud and ground:

Since 2009, TEC has not received a pledge from the DofSC greater than 0.7% of its income. By contrast, even the DofLouisiana has pledged in the 10-11% range; NC is at 21%, and VA is above 17%. SC is de facto in secession.

I have two proposals, one hard line, the other softer. Hardline? Adopting the principle that one puts one's money where one's mouth is, I propose we replace the entire SC standing committee and bishop based on their failure to do their part to uphold the Church to which they claim to belong. IOW, show me your commitment to TEC by your pledge and its fulfillment. This is the God of Judgement, in spades. There will be winners and losers.

The softer line entails more work. Organize. Create a coalition. Invade the state as CORE did the South in 1961 with its Freedom Rides. Enlist Integrity, HRC, and any other organizations willing to participate. Visit the churches in the DofSC. All of them, if you have the staff. Engage the vestries and clergy. Ask for time to speak to "adult formation". Put human faces to labels like "gay" and "lesbian". You want friends? Be a friend. There are dozens of ways by which you can do this, you know them, you can't do it just by e-mail or Twitter or blogs. You have to be there and make the commitment to be a real friend. Visit a sick relative, hug a stranger, make a phone call in support of a parishioner's need. The softer line converts adversaries into friends. Net, no losers.

The bishop's stance? Up to his congregations. The change starts from the ground up. When the civil rights movement changed us forever, some fifty years ago, did you see the change coming from the top down? Weren't you listening?

 I recognize the risk I have created, that I might be thrust into a leadership role in such an effort. Understand that I greatly prefer a consultative role. I recognize that such a role transfers responsibility to another, whose values may not coincide with my own. I have not given sufficient thought to the morality of such a decision.

Chick-Fil-A wants a return of patriarchy

Interesting comment by Biblically-challenged Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit."

Hmmm, what would that be? Well, for certain, it's not "one man and one woman" in a peer-to-peer relationship. It's one man in a superior relationship to at least one woman. For King Solomon, it was one man--him--and 700 wives. Oh, and to keep tradition alive, he also had 300 concubines. Talk about a sex drive, wowee! He even made time for the Queen of Sheba, giving her "all her desire, whatsoever she asked". If this is the "biblical definition of the family unit," count me in!

The traditional middle-Eastern definition of marriage is one man and one or more women, all of whom are considered property. Women are subordinate in all things to men. In biblical times, consensual sex was unknown or even forbidden. I read somewhere (but don't have the reference), that in Assyria ca. 1000 BCE, consensual sex was a capital offense. Men had sex with their subordinates: women, slaves, apprentices etc. Sodomy was an act of domination of one person over another, which is why it was eschewed in Mosaic law. The servant of the centurion that Jesus healed more than likely satisfied his master's sexual needs, not just his need for polished armor. Even today, traditional weddings feature the father "giving" his daughter to the groom, as if he had received a good bride-price for her.

So, when Dan Cathy defends his anti-gay stance and contributes millions to "Christian" organizations that oppose homosexuality (however they define it), I infer that he longs for a system of patriarchy that we in the Western world abandoned in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Mr. Cathy is welcome to his beliefs. Most of our society, however, is not there with him. And, I'm not in any of his restaurants for the foreseeable future.

Reclaiming the faith

Yesterday, Saturday, June 2nd, The Episcopal Church created through ordination a new priest, Dan Puchalla (pronounced, the 'c' is silent). In my most humble opinion, Dan's talent for preaching will grow beyond what it is today. This will be something rather remarkable, considering his current skill at cutting through all the euphemisms to address the nature of Christianity today.

Dan's take on being a priest today?

You can’t be a pastor or a proctologist without people wondering what’s wrong with you that makes you want to do that kind of work.

Early on, Dan acknowledged to his congregation that he was gay, but this was his main point:

And even if most pastors experience this to some degree, you have to acknowledge how much worse it is for gay pastors. When most gay men my age think of pastors, they’re not thinking “potential boyfriend material.” They’re thinking, “ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, sexist pig.”

On Pentecost, May 27th, six days before his ordination, The Rev. Daniel Puchalla unloaded on those who have to this point framed the Christian response to issues of sexuality.

The prevailing bigotries of Christianity don’t offend me primarily as a gay man, as one whom they continually attack and demean. These prevailing Christian bigotries offend and grieve me as one who follows Jesus as my Lord, one who by the water of Baptism has been buried with Christ in his death and raised to new life in his resurrection, as one who has been sealed by the Holy Spirit and marked as Christ’s own for ever, and as one ordained to be a minister of the Word of God.

Rev. Dan characterized Pentecost, as revealed to us in Acts 2:1-21, as an apocalyptic nightmare for those who were comfortable with the status quo, for anyone who believes God's Spirit can be contained in any way,

for those who thought God could be contained by adherence to a moral code and a religious practice. Let today’s Pentecost be an apocalyptic nightmare for any who would use the Word of God to propagate sexism, heterosexism, racism, jingoism, or economic injustice.

Read Dan's sermon in its entirety. It is full of radical truth. It does not comfort us, indeed, it challenges us to be prophets ourselves:

Holy Spirit, put your holy fire not just upon our heads: Put it in our bellies. Put it on our tongues. Make us instruments of your justice. Make us witnesses to the true gospel of Jesus our Savior. Make us see visions and make dream dreams and make us prophesy that your Kingdom is at hand.

Final straw: I gave up on a goal today

I have, finally, given up entirely on being part of a Piskie (Episcopal Church) organization that was, I thought, congruent with my own views: equal treatment, all the sacraments for all the baptized, that sort of thing. Today was the last straw, and it was only a straw that did it, although the tipping point was reached a bit earlier. Here's the history of my disenchantment with a group I thought I could be a part of, not realizing they had their own internal rules.

In 2007, I consented to helping re-form the local chapter. I consented to co-chairing the chapter. When most of the organizers promptly bailed out after the chapter was formed, I consented to chairing the chapter. Help from the membership was not present.

Help from the National organization was, in Kelvin numbers, in the single digits. They sent pitiful tracts, in quality and quantity, for the table at Diocesan Convention. Communication and support, in Kelvin numbers, brought the numbers lower, not higher. This was truly a wilderness experience. As Convener, I should have the privilege of delegating authority, but there was no one who would step forward and help out.

Fast forward to 2011. With a new burst of energy from our newly-elected Convener and a grant from the national organization, we planned, organized and executed a film festival, in two venues, South Side and North Side. National accepted our plan and sent us a 50% advance on the grant. We did it. The South Side was predictably barren: our posters were removed or never posted, our 'net ads never appeared. The North Side received a better fate. Three or four ancillary groups helped us spread the word, we got help from the venue's press, and our premiere of Gene Robinson's second film provided enough spark to make the festival a success, but only marginally so. The festival ended in February. It is now May, and the Convener has yet to submit a final report. Without this report, there are insufficient funds to cover my expenses.

In March 2012, the national organization asked me to represent them at a two-day meeting of a delegation headed for our triennial General Convention: set up a table, network, schmooze, help out, whatever: represent the organization. I did this, willingly, cheerfully.

Now, here we are approaching our General Convention. The national organization asked for volunteers, and I responded immediately. Less than two weeks ago, I received a form email stating that I was not selected to represent the organization.

Oh, yes, the final straw? The Tiger Lady of the organization runs a blog. I submitted a response to one of her posts this morning. It probably wasn't as weighty as it could have been, but I put some time and energy into it, nonetheless. She threw it away.

Oh, yes, I have an ego, and I genuinely appreciate a kind word and the acquiescence of a blogger to post my occasional contributions, some substantive toward the blogger's POV, others less so or even challenging.

Too much to do to waste more time on these insults, I'm off to helping others treat us all as equals. It's a major task, here in darkest Indiana. I shall be busy. All the best to those who are overwhelmed with talent that you have no need of mine.

More Roman Idolatry

Whatever happened to the Jesuits? There used to be an intellectual underpinning to pronouncements by RC bishops, some academic justification to their beliefs. For that matter, there used to be an active discussion of current topics inside the Roman Catholic church. One could vigorously disagree with some Bishop's ill-considered sermon or article and retain one's credentials.

No more. The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops published a statement last week, entitled "Marriage and Religious Freedom". You can find it here. It is not a scholarly document, thus there are no footnotes or other references to support or justify their statements or opinions. Their principal thrust, as I read it, is to claim that Federal or State governments are pressuring poor, innocent religious organizations to "treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct," in violation of the religious organizations' First Amendment right to vilify the same. Clearly outrageous, governments imposing rules on the religious. There are two problems with their umbrage, one tactical, the other strategic. I'll discuss the tactical issues first.

According the the First Amendment, there should be an impenetrable wall that keeps a religious organization from getting involved in a governmental one, and vice-versa. How is it that any part of the U.S. Roman church could be pressured by any U.S. government agency, unless there were some connections? Uh-huh, it seems that Catholic Charities has been largely funded by government grants. This means that this lovely piece of business, conducted by one arm or another of the Roman Catholic Church, is largely funded by taxes collected from all citizens. Should you be a gay or lesbian couple seeking to adopt a child, you would be eligible by right of your status as taxpayers but still ineligible by the rules of Catholic Charities. Net, you are paying for rights that are denied you by a government-sponsored agency.

Now, perhaps, we see the problem from the Roman bishops' perspective. They want to continue to feed at the public trough but bridle at the idea of complying with requirements with which all of us who wish to receive public funds must comply. All their pious bullshit regarding the protection of the "true definition" of marriage is just a smokescreen for their refusal, on their own sectarian grounds, to follow the rules. So much for the tactical argument.

Regarding strategic issues, read the open letter again. Show me any reference to a God of love. From the first epistle of John, we know that God is Love, and from Genesis, we know that we are made in the image of God. Where do the bishops acknowledge that all of us are creatures capable of love? Are LGBT persons not capable of expressing God's love as fully as straight folk? By what authority is this opinion expressed?

The bishops' letter does not acknowledge that marriage is a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Thus it denies that the will of the Spirit goes where it chooses and conveys God's grace on whomever it wills. By claiming that "marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake," the bishops succumb to idolatry. I pray that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy return to its own root document, the Holy Bible, and humbly acknowledge that God can grant his/her blessing on any union, gay or straight.

Trust me, I have seen enough unions, both gay and straight, to know which are blessed and which not. The Roman Catholic church does no good by declaring one group of Christians "intrinsically disordered," whatever that means. I cannot understand how any member of a celibate order is able to rationally identify what is "ordered" and what is not.

Lambeth Noisemakers

Well, Lambeth 2008 has begun. 680 bishops and primates from around the world all at Canterbury. My own diocesan, Jeff Lee, has posting updates on YouTube here, here and here.

The noise of Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul and Bishop Jack Iker, of course, gets all the press. Archbishop Deng, most likely speaking for the Global South, released a statement of his bishops in the Episcopal Church of Sudan. Some snippets:

We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman.

So much for respecting the dignity of every human being. There are millions of gay men and women living in life-long commitments to each other that the church has actively oppressed, demeaned and even killed them for centuries. This historic position directly conflicts with Jesus' life and teaching, that care for God's people should have priority over any exclusionary or discriminatory institutional policy.

We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS.

Oh, silly me. It's not the homosexuality that's at issue, it's the practice. Straight folks can have sex, but gays must remain chaste. Rubbish.

++Deng Bul expresses a flawed theology. He's given ground on homosexuality, admitting it as an emotional condition. He acknowledges that God created gays and lesbians. What kind of God would create them but then restrict the joy of sexual activity only to heteros? He wants us to "respect the authority of the Bible," the book that states that God created his world, saw it was good, and loved it so much he sent Jesus into it. ++Deng Bul's God is a cruel god. That kind of theology doesn't respect the Bible.

"Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ," the statement reads, and then asks the churches in Canada and the U.S. to deny rites of blessing or ordinations to our gay brothers and sisters and to stop litigating to recover stolen property. This isn't love, it's the opposite of love, it's fear. The Bible tells us not to be afraid, even in the face of really embarrassing news like the Annunciation, or throngs of angels appearing in the sky over Bethlehem, or an empty tomb.

The ECS statement says that reviving the oppression and discrimination of gays and lesbians is "essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion." That's not true. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in an attempt to assuage the anxiety of the Global South, refrained from inviting +Gene, yet 200 or so bishops still boycotted the Conference. They've shown no inclination to listen to anything other than their own prejudices. They want to create a rigid, confessional church and call it Anglican and Episcopal. If they succeed, I'll find somewhere else to worship. I don't feel like being oppressed by a church.