By Michael Thompson
“This fellow eats with sinners and tax collectors.” Luke 15
As our General Synod approaches, the issues before our church come into sharper and shaper focus, and the volume of the commentary – both the sheer amount of it, and its loudness, grows. In a fractured world, there is before us the specter of a fractured church. All it will take for that to be realized is for us to persist in seeing each other as “positions” instead of persons. And in particular, to see each other as “outside” and “inside”, or “onside” and “offside.”
We are not the first generation to be tempted in that direction. In the time of Jesus, there were hard boundaries, boundaries that defined a person as clean or unclean, as included or excluded, as “us” or “them.” I have absolutely no doubt that if we come to General Synod looking for reasons to impose such boundaries, to build such walls, we will find them.
But if we come to General Synod looking for persons, and if we can imagine for a moment that our walls and boundaries are not God’s dream for us, then something else, something quite powerful and transforming, can happen. We can meet each other, not as members of some sub-culture, either safe or suspect, but as members by baptism of a single Body, grafted into a single Life that lives for the sake of the world.
When Jesus sits down with tax collectors and sinners for a meal, he is offering a parable of the Kingdom, as surely as when he tells of the prodigal, the unjust steward, the mustard seed. He cuts across the grain of “how it is” and offers a hint of “what it may become.” And when we gather around any of the tables to which Jesus invites us, we might find ourselves surprised, might discover that this parable, in which we are now part of the cast, is as difficult and angular now as it was then. It brings to mind Robert Frost’s poem, Mending Wall, a meditative exploration of our need to separate ourselves from one another – “Good fences make good neighbours” and on “Something” (we might be so bold as to say “some-One”) who doesn’t love a wall.
In his poem, Frost muses, “If I were to build a wall, I’d ask to know / What I was walling in or walling out….” And later: “Something there is that does not love a wall, / That wants it down.” And so he veers into the path, not just of a homely truth about a particular and pointless wall, but of a Truth embodied in the living Word of God as he sits with tax collectors and sinners.
We could make a list of notorious walls – the Berlin Wall, the security fence that carves Palestine into bantustans, the security fence along the U.S. border with Mexico. Older walls – the Wall of Hadrian, preserving an enclave of Roman civilization against the untamed Celts, the Great Wall of China. And older walls – of Jericho, of Jerusalem. All dividing the world into a safe and sane “us” and a volatile, inscrutable “Other.”
And the message of all these walls is that we are dangerous to each other. We are competing for some scarce something that we have and they want. Energy, water, wealth, truth, status. Whatever it is that builds walls, it divides us from one another – renders us suspicious, hostile, anxious. In the absurdity of post 9-11 North America, we trade away the very thing we claim to value – individual freedoms – in order to preserve them. We have lost our minds, or at least the part of our minds that can reflect critically, seek understanding, resolve complex issues and make reasonable choices. The reptilian “limbic” brain with its “fight or flight” is no invention of post-modernity. It has been with us always. It builds walls and arms us behind them. It makes hostility of difference, threat of diversity, makes an enemy of the Other.
There are two possible responses to Jesus’ table fellowship with Others. One is to probe his acts for meaning – for how they might effect some long-desired transformation within and among us. Some who stood by made this response, became disciples, followers, re-learned their humanity from its most competent practitioner. The other response is to bend the wall around him, so that he becomes not “us” but “Other”, and as “Other,” enemy. No student of history could ever imagine anything but a sticky end for Jesus, an undefended Other unprotected in the midst of a threatened and hostile “us.” And a sticky end it will be, it will always be, for those who serve the “Something” that, the Someone Who “doesn’t love a wall.”
But on the third day, a stone moves in that wall. Something, Someone is happening, breaking through what must be to assert what may be, lifting us out of our ghettoes (chosen or imposed) into an unwalled Kingdom. And if, in this meantime that really is a mean time, we must have walls that protect, and therefore must risk walls that assail, we can no longer, after this Jesus lives and dies and is alive again, believe that walls are the best we can do. There is another way. Because of that way, we – tax collectors and sinners? – gather at Jesus’ table. Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wants it down.
Sometimes the purpose of our ministries is clear, transparent, and agreed, though even a simple maintenance bee can surface diversity – even conflict. One thing is certain about this General Synod. There will be disagreement as well as common cause, and strongly held positions (and the persons who hold them) will come into conflict. I am quite certain that some thing or another than I hold dear will be called into question, that I will be called to participate in something uncomfortable or even disagreeable during common worship, that someone will have as hard a time understanding me as I have understanding another. From across Canada, from the increasingly diverse communities in which our churches serve, bearing startlingly different, even divergent convictions about the nature and the mission of God, and about the manner of our contribution to that mission, we will gather in Winnipeg. A community of persons, meeting.
Something that doesn’t love a wall, some One Who doesn’t love a wall, is calling us together. In our parish churches, in our parish councils and vestries, in our congregational meetings, in our regional councils and deaneries, in our synods and synod councils, that living God who calls us together has been calling for a long time.
Calling for us to meet, enjoy, and delight in the friendships that are nurtured – can only be nurtured – in the Body of Christ, where difference is just difference, and Christ is all, in all.
Calling us to offer the world an image of that other way, of the stone that moves on the third day, “breaking down the dividing wall of enmity” (Ephesians 2.15). In our baptism, God brings us into the community of witnesses to a new humanity – “one new humanity in place of the two” (2.16). And this is our witness – that as persons we choose God’s gift of communion, not as the absence of conflict and disagreement, not as the absence of friction and irritation, but as the lived faithfulness that does not allow those things to outweigh the saving and reconciling work of Jesus.
Perhaps more than anything we will vote on (or avoid voting on), this witness is the work to which God calls the General Synod, this is the parable we are meant to tell by the nature of our meeting, of a common humanity in a dangerously fragmented world, held together not by a common mind or even common sense, but by a common Saviour who doesn’t love a wall.
Rev. Dr. Michael Thompson is Rector of St. Jude, Oakville, chair of the Communications and Information Resources Committee of General Synod, and a delegate to General Synod.
Comments (23)
Michael, beautifully said, from my point of view, which is certainly close to yours. However, I can intuit the responses of some other readers, which is that you are Sitting Lightly to The Truth, and Ignoring the Clear Word of Scripture, and so on. It won't be easy, as you say!
Best, DG
Don Grayston
Vancouver BC
Posted by Don Grayston | April 5, 2007 11:57 AM
Posted on April 5, 2007 11:57
As a young member of our community I too have seen these walls. At univeristy where I attend school, I see many more. As I walk though my student center I am surrounded by different campus groups with very different opinions. Even in my residence living with members of other faith's there is a wall that keeps poping up "oh I can't do that, becuase its a sin" for something as simple as a shirt. From my experience and hopful nature I have found that in conversation and love the walls can be brought down and understanding can be reached. I hope that as I attend General Syonod that I will find the love of Christ in our community, and that with respectful conversation, an understanding can be reached between people. Maby not agreement, but understanding, where choices can be made and the love of chirst can be seen in our own diverse community, joined together in Christ
Posted by Stephanie DeForest, Dundas Ontario | April 5, 2007 12:49 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 12:49
However, Michael, you may recall how Frost's poem ends:
... I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me -
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Who is the "old-stone savage"? Us or them? And though I too don't take kindly to walls, have we reached the point where we need a "good fence"? I ask... I don't know...
Posted by Neale Adams, Vancouver BC | April 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 12:51
I wonder if people really stop to consider much of what they say. Christ was always known to be amongst sinners and like many say a church is a hospital for souls not necessarily a seat for the overly righteous. You will note that at no time did Christ ever say that he forgave a sin and it was permissible to go and sin again. In his forgiveness was the hope that the sinner would see the fault and cease.
Every sin no matter what is is has the element of choice. Do we override it through desire to be better or do you give in to what ever the desire of the moment is.
I find it odd that the church has, through its desire to be inclusive , done what Christ himself would not do and that is over ride the word of God and change many unacceptable behaviours to non sins by the word of a man alone.
I do not think that any person no matter what their sin or unacceptable behaviour should be excluded from our church. No person should have the curse of being unacceptable in Gods love or sight imposed by another person. There is one judge alone and we will all be looking to the log in our own eye when we stand before him.
We should all remember his most important commandment. Love the Lord god with all your heart and Love thy neighbour as you love your self.
As for imposing walls on others . The walls people build are made by themselves. They have the choice to follow the word , which at sometimes requires sacrifice, at which time they remain part of the family or they may breach the covenant and hope that The Lord will accept and forgive there transgression. Man does not make rules for God and in forgetting this we might be losing site of our commitment which is not only to ourselves but to our children and our Lord.
Posted by William Grain, Halifax | April 5, 2007 1:08 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 13:08
Walls can be useful in keeping Christians/Anglicans safe from the mine fields of modern life. There are many mines planted by humanist, secularist, scientist, political leftest that can blow up and seriously damage the spiritual life of Christians who step on them. The church can use walls to keep non-suspectiing Christians safe from these mine fields. There are so many university age students who come to the university with what they think is a strong faith and consider themselves faithful Christians. They leave the university unchurched and often carry negative stereotypes of other Christians around with them for a long, long time. Walls can keep them on the right path until they are savvy enough to navigate through the minefield of modern secularist society.
Posted by k.m.wilkening, toronto | April 5, 2007 2:29 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 14:29
Thank you, Michael, for a thoughtful, insightful essay. Would that everyone would see the issue in the same way you do.
I yearn for the day when all Anglicans can be included in the circle, when there are no walls dividing one Anglican from another, walls built on foundations of gender orientation, skin colour, socio-economic status, age, or any other 'difference'. It is ironic that the theme of this coming General Synod is 'Draw the Circle Wide' while there are yet people with trowels, bricks and cement who are still keen on maintaining the walls that make drawing the circle wide difficult!
I recently attended an excellent presentation on the St. Michael Report, given by the Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews, Chair of the Primate's Theological Commission. I am grateful to have had that opportunity and I would urge all members of the Anglican Church of Canada to attend such an event. However, despite the fact that, at its Diocesan Synod in 2006, Rupert's Land passed by a healthy majority a motion to support those in committed same sex relationships, there are still people who see homosexuality as a choice or a lifestyle, and therefore sinful.
In Christ
Rene Jamieson
St. John's Cathedral, Winnipeg
Diocese of Rupert's land
Posted by Rene Jamieson | April 5, 2007 4:14 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 16:14
I write as a senior member of our beloved ANGLICAN CHURCH having been myself confirmed and married, had all our children baptized and confirmed, and have had two children married and three grandchildren baptized all within its walls. I have also witnessed the wedding of two female cousins and subsequent child offspring from that union and, alas, more recently, the break-up of a marriage in my own offspring. In spite of the divergent paths being taken in our family, I continue to love them all, as I witness the fraility of our church institutions to deal meaningfully with the realities of life in 2007. I fear for the upcoming General Synod vote, as the result may well alienate our church and its message even further from the real world's activities of today. Can we not live and worship together with divergent views and lifestyles bearing in mind the second great commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
Posted by H.R.Hayman, London, ON | April 5, 2007 4:24 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 16:24
The Anglican church is not the only church to know the presence of God. If we (Anglicans) maintain walls to control membership, those feeling slighted who seriously seek God will find God somewhere else. The question then becomes "Are we willing to sacrifice Anglican faith tradition by keeping boundaries intact?" I wonder how important that is to God?
Posted by Faye Tetford, Yarmouth, NS | April 5, 2007 10:27 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 22:27
Well put, Michael. However,two can build a wall; the neighbour or oneself. I don't know if Frost contemplates breaking down the wall. Berlin is our active metaphor. Israel too. I'm a wall breaker. It goes with the wide open spaces of my habitat. Cities are filled with walls. It's called multiculturalism. I believe General Synod will get it right and that we will face off-shore interference for some time to come. But that will be a small price to pay for finally being ourselves openly.
Posted by Harold Macdonald, Matlock MB | April 7, 2007 3:14 AM
Posted on April 7, 2007 03:14
By the way; apologies to aboriginal peoples are pious but imprecise. Apologize for what? It seems that the Assembly of chiefs is blocking realistic changes which will provide education to aboriginal youth. A lot of money has been assigned to aboriginal problems. For years. But the problems still exist. Is this because the chiefs are getting in the way? What was so wrong with Minister Nault's programme that it was summarily scrapped by Paul Martin who supplanted it with Kelowna. A lot of money but no accountability. The chiefs are front and centre. The Liberals block the charter of rights being applied to aboriginal peoples. Why? We need someone to tell us what's actually going on before we rush into apologies. Like, "who's on first; and what's on second, etc". Harold
Posted by Harold Macdonald, Matlock MB | April 7, 2007 8:44 PM
Posted on April 7, 2007 20:44
I recently had an email from a lesbian acquaintance of mine asking for a gay friendly parish in downtown St. John's. This young woman is also deaf. She grew up Roman Catholic and has indicted that she feels ostracized by her faith of origin due to her sexual orientation. There are some insurmountable walls for gays and lesbians within that faith community. It is sad to think that I cannot comfortably refer her to an Anglican Parish in her neighbourhood. I will speak to my parish priest but I think that in the end I shall have to refer her to a United or Unitarian Church.
Posted by Derrick Bishop, St. John' NL | April 9, 2007 7:21 AM
Posted on April 9, 2007 07:21
Walls are good, as a full reading of Robert Frostt's poem says. They provide shelter and security, and build the most beautiful of cathedrals. Fractured walls are dangerous; walls with gates and doors are much better. My favorite is the wall that runs through Wellington, New Zealand, around the Karori sanctuary so endangered, flightless birds are safe from cats and rats.
Compared to most religious groups our walls are very low, and that is part of who we are. They are also dangerously fractured and need repair-a process that we can see happening in the Primates meeting in Dar-Es and can continue at General Synod in Winnipeg.
Civility and politeness are good, but we must remember the slave holders of the eighteenth century were the most genteel people on earth. In the context of a very time pressured meeting with three minute talks, give me clarity every time.
Faye and Derrick, you are right to remind us that we are part of the church and not all of the church. In small town Saskatchewan, it's usual to have people from several denominational backgrounds within our Anglican churches.
John Rye,
Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan
Posted by Dr. John Rye | April 11, 2007 8:38 AM
Posted on April 11, 2007 08:38
To draw the circle wider and to have a church without walls separating Christians within would seem to be consistent with the general theme of scripture. The Way of Jesus does not appear fence out those who have faith.
It always troubles me when people speak of over riding or violating the word (uttered/ written linguistic sounds or representations) of God. I find none in the Bible. The Word (logos, divine reason) of God is expressed throughout the Bible in the struggles of humanity to comprehend, recomprehend and document that which we still struggle to comprehend. But, Jesus said the key is love.
The word builds fences and walls; the Word builds compassion, justice, freedom, equality. The word gives false security; the Word gives the kingdom here on earth. The word petrifies ideas; the Word creates forever towards His purpose - love.
Draw the circle wide, remove the fences and walls within, draw the circle wider.
Dale Sparkes
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Posted by Dale Sparkes | April 11, 2007 10:20 PM
Posted on April 11, 2007 22:20
I found this "sermon" on walls somewhat odd. It seems Michael Thomspon sees all walls as bad, as evil. Refering to the Berlin Wall, or the Wall the Israelis are building is dramatic and sensationalistic. I happen to like walls. I think walls are important and have a purpose. I admit, when I think of walls, I thought first of fences and walls in fields, in an agricultural setting, and the if one looks hard enough, one will find a door or a gate set in a wall or fence. I.e. a wall may mean one isn't ready enough or mature enough to enter into a new territory.
I assume Michael Thompson is thinking of gay and lesbian Christians in this sermon. But may I refer back to the 1970's, when the topic was women's role in society? We had a set of walls and fences that told us how men and women were to behave in society. Well, some of those walls got knocked down. But I still think we need some walls. As a male, I cannot live all my life in constant situations of mixed company. I need some times to be just with other men.
But I don't see walls coming down in the discussion about Christian homosexuals. I see the walls getting stronger. And in this sermon, I read the thoughts of a radical, determined liberal minded person, writing passionately to other persons, who are likewise radical, liberally minded.......I am sorry, but I feel somewhere in all this, there is a confusion between a pseudo-passion (present day Anglican activism) and the genuine passion of Christ. There is something wrong somewhere, and it hasn't clearly been stated yet.
David Kellett,
Vancouver,British Columbia.
Posted by David Kellett | April 19, 2007 1:50 AM
Posted on April 19, 2007 01:50
If we (Anglicans) maintain walls to control membership, those feeling slighted who seriously seek God will find God somewhere else.
Well I left the anglican church because after synod it will condone sin, the question is hardly who we are turning away but who are we pushing out and why? Plus how many empty churches is it ok to sell a year?
People want to know what god thinks?
Read on, it is written. Will the church condone all the sins to make sure everyone feels welcome until no one is left?
Or is Christianity nothing to do with Anglicanism.
New Testament,
Matthew 10:14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.
Matthew 10:15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!
Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
Romans 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Romans 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Romans 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Romans 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Romans 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful;
Romans 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
1 Corinthians 10: 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.
1 Corinthians 10:7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1 Corinthians 10:8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,
1 Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 6:-19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
Collosians 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Collosians 3:6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience
2 Peter 2:6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 1:8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes[o] an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelation 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
=================================
For over 40 years I was an Anglican. How can I go to a church which feels immoral?
Don't worry I won't be the last to go.
Posted by Gary Hollingshead, Winnipeg | April 21, 2007 9:28 PM
Posted on April 21, 2007 21:28
What concerns me with all this talk of division within the Anglican communion is how we can ever expect God's church of many different colours and opinions to become one, as Jesus wanted, when we can't even accept differences amongst ourselves. Shouldn't we love one another because of our differences rather than in spite of them? How can we ever hope for peace in the world when we are not even at peace with ourselves? If we can't be an example to the world, who will?
Jack Pigden
Brighton UK
Posted by Jack Pigden | April 25, 2007 5:32 AM
Posted on April 25, 2007 05:32
To all who will listen and hear,
Millions of Bible believing Christians including myself would like to know exactly when Our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ gave the Anglican Church of Canada and the US permission to change scripture or twist his word. Didn't Lord Jesus command us to repent or else? Doesn‚t that mean turn from your sins or else? Do you not understand this command? Didn't Lord Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses and not change them?
Didn't The Lord God say Heaven and Earth will pass away before one stroke of the Law does? Did Lord Jesus not show compassion towards sinners but still hated their sins? That meant love the sinner and hate the sin. What is your obligation to our most Holy Father in Heaven? Is it to pervert his Word and conform it to the sins of a dysfunctional world? Or is to share the truth of the Gospel and show this world that Jesus is the truth the life
and the only way? I tell you in truth, accept all of him or none of him !
So please show us anywhere in the 66 books of his word where it says a same sex marriage is a holy union in his sight or it is ok for man to lay with man or woman to lay with woman. The last time I looked in his Word all these acts are still a sin in his eyes. Actually he said an abomination in his sight. Also please show us all where it says a unrepentive sinner should be ordained and teach the Gospel or even be a member of His Church.
In Christ I Trust
Glen Wilson
Barrie Ontario
Posted by Glen Wilson | April 28, 2007 4:41 PM
Posted on April 28, 2007 16:41
I was so saddened by Gary Hollingshead, Winnipeg, post of April 21. As a new Anglican (2 years), I consider myself a "fragile Anglican". Forty-seven years ago, I was told by my Roman Catholic parish priest that my mother, on her death-bed, could not receive the last rites because she was a "a woman living in sin". You see, my parents were not married. As a French-Canadian Roman Catholic, my mother could not obtain a divorce, let alone an annulment. She left a very abusive marriage in 1942 when her three children were able to take care of themselves. She met my father, a Eastern Orthodox Croatian immigrant who, too, had left a family in Yugoslavia in 1927. I was, according to the Church at that time, "illegimate", and therefore denied baptism until I was 10 years old. I spent the next 45 years vowing I would never let a church, whatever denomination, ever put their "claws" into me.'
Now, as I approach my 60th birthday in three weeks, I reflect on my life. At twenty-five, I came out to myself as a gay man. At twenty-nine, I met my partner. For many years, we 'hid in the closet' until at some point some fifteen years ago, we could no longer live a life of hyprocrisy. On May 7, 2006, on our thirtieth anniversary of partnership, we were married according to the laws of Ontario and Canada. We will be celebrating our first wedding anniversary (and our 31st anniversary of partnership) in a few days. Our wedding was attending by 282 members of our two families and loving friends from around the world.
My partner, a "craddle Anglican" had tried on so many occasions to get me to go to Church with him on Sundays. I would always refuse. I was a "Christmas churchgoer" . . . yes, the music of the Christmas season was the lure! I would attend "Pride Sunday" service when he became a member of an affirming and welcoming Anglican parish. Gradually, I accepted to attend one of the church's outreach ministries and met the most wonderful woman who was the associate priest of that parish. Through discussions with her, it became apparent that she was a "dangerous woman" as I dubbed her . . . I kept saying, " . . . if anyone ever brings me back to church, it will be that woman!" It was in November 2004 when I first attended a service. I was still an "occasional" attendee (Christmas) and then, in April 2005 something most wonderful happened. I am still not sure what happened. I can only say that the Holy Spirit was doing the work of God. Six months later, I asked to become a member of this parish. I have found a spiritual home and a community that truly "does their Christianity" as I am fond of saying.
In May 2006, when we were married, civilly by a justice of the Federal Court of Canada, a dear friend our ours, at a community centre, surrounded by our 281 loving and supportive guests, this was preceded by a wonderfully inclusive Sunday service at the church where our rector, associate priest, postulant (who was subsequently ordained deacon and later received into the priesthood and is now curate of our church), the director of music, made every effort to include us and our upcoming marriage ceremony that afternoon into the service (our best men read the lessons), the sermon dealt with the issue of the refusal of the church to bless or, Lord forbid, marry us, and the congregation including about 175 of our guests joining the congregation (no, not the clergy as this would have violated the directions of the bishop) delivering a blessing upon us. It was a truly a moment where the presence of God, The Son, and The Holy Spirit was felt by all. As sad as it was that we then had to go elsewhere to be married, it was the most exhilarating morning I've ever witnessed. This was echoed, and is still being echoed a year later, by many who were there that morning and later in the afternoon at the marriage ceremony.
To suggest, as Hollingshead does, that " . . . people want to know what God thinks" . . . God was there on that morning on May 7, 2006. Over 400 people in attendance that morning know that God thinks.
Last September, my letter to the editors of The Anglican Journal, was published ("A Fragile Anglican . . . ") where I wondered, as a very new Anglican, if the Church would "leave me" because of the issues surrounding same-sex relationships. I also stated, however, that I knew that God would never leave me nor would Jesus ever leave me. I'm still not sure if MY church (yes, the Anglican Church is my church!) will leave me come this June. I still maintain that God and Jesus will never leave me. I live and pray in hope that the delegates at General Synod 2007 will be able to see the grace of God and the lesson taught by his Son, Jesus Christ, that LOVE is all that is needed. The rest is rhetoric.
I am saddened that Hollingshead chose to leave the Anglican Church. I have found my spiritual home and my Church at The Church of St John The Evangelist in Ottawa . . . a church that is truly affirming and welcoming . . . a church and a congregation that truly "does" its Christianity and doesn't pay lip-service to it. I am truly blessed. I hope that General Synod will be able to see that it's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trangendered "queer" children as whole and important and must be included in all aspects of church life, church doctrine, church philosophy. We ARE God's children and God is NOT going to leave us . . . will the Church leave us? I pray it will not. I pray that God's wisdom will prevail and that the "men" of the Church who have created the institution will see that it is their duty, their obligation, to fulfill the desires of God that His children be one.
Frank Kajfes
Ottawa, Ontario
Posted by Frank Kajfes | May 1, 2007 12:52 PM
Posted on May 1, 2007 12:52
The poem ( Mending Fences by Robert Frost) which Michael used is ironic. The the poets neighbour quotes his father's saying, " good fences make good neighbours.", and will not see behind the saying, because he loves having kept the heritage of it. But in the eyes of the poet the context makes it foolish. A wall to keep cows from wandering about, means good neighbours, but when the fences hold back nothing but wandering apple trees and savage ravening pine forest, walls are useless, and so the saying for all its heritage is not much help in the realtionship between the two men.
Mr. Hollingshead of Winnipeg wishes to point out the passages which he finds clear on the subject of Gay and Lesbian relationships, and their role in the Church. Mr. Wilson of Barry Ontario, wants to know when we were given permission to " change scripture or twist his words".
There may be answers to these questions, but it would be long in the telling, and the comments, I note, don't readily admit to another position. So it is difficult to say much of anything. Polite silence usually does not mean consent, as Henry discovered with Thomas More. and so the silence which follows such bombastic comments is usually polite disagreement.
Having said that, I have often been charged with saying exactly the wrong thing when silence is called for:) And so I will take my courage in both hands and make some observations:
As with the favoured saying of the poet's friend, taken as a gift from his father, has less use in in the inappropriate situation of the wall between wood; so the inappropriate quoting of scripture is equally felt strongly and heard ironically. Context changes it and the search for how to articulate this dissonance is what is happening in the debate. Louder and Louder assertions will not avail, but will eventually sound hollow.
I will further note that the Church felt no compunction to make the words of the Scriptures inviolate until the 4th century. People were making up their own collections of letters and gospels until that time, and it was Constantines needs which made the Councils happen. For better one presumes, but maybe not for ever.
I will also note that "bible-believing" is not an Anglican self description. It comes from a less tolerant, less self-reflective tradition which will not talk with the modern age but only to it.
Further, it occurs to me that no matter what my sins, over my many years in the Church, it was always left to God to decide when they would be dealt with. No one bashed me over the head about any of the things which I did which were objectionable. I was simply welcomed, valued, called, and when it was time, the Holy Spirit made a change. If I was recieved this way, I don't think it impossible that others would be received in like manner.
It gladdens my heart that Mr. Kajfes has found a home within the Anglican Church. It is clear that he has done so with a sense of trepidation, and discernment, and like me some welcome.
Posted by Hugh Matheson, Kenora Ontario | May 2, 2007 5:14 PM
Posted on May 2, 2007 17:14
I have certainly been comforted and encouraged by the positive message from Hugh Matheson of Kenora, Ontario.
After much reflection and continued study in the scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, I would like to refer Mr Hollingshead and others to the following web sites that puts into perspective the biblical passages used to clobber homosexuals by those who do not feel that we have the inerrant right to be God's children. The 'hate the sin but love the sinner' attitude brought forth by many can no longer be tolerated by those of us who believe that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is a child of God and, according to Jesus' most basic of commands, is to be loved without reservation.
The late Coretta Scott King said it so beautifully in her statement: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry
in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
I believe that many of the conservative Anglicans, many who belong to Essentials and other organizations of the conservative wing of the worldwide Anglican Communion, who continue to argue with such vehemence that homosexual Anglicans are less than deserving of God's and Jesus' unwavering love, are misguided. The recent posting by Essentials on their web site commenting on the Statement by the House of Bishops and addressed to the members of General Synod, is clearly an example of this homophobia, particularly in chapters 3 (a) and (b). And they dare talk about "Pastoral Care"?? What a sad comment on their paranoia.
Bibical scholars and theologians of the divergent reglious rainbow have long since proferred analysis and study that has debunked the myth of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.
I would like to refer readers to the following websites for exploration on this this topic:
WWW.EPISTLE.ORG which offers an series of essays by Bruce L. Gerig on "Homosexuality and The Bible" and to WWW.GODMADEMEGAY.COM where "A Letter to Louise" by the Rev Bruce W. Lowe, a retired American Baptist minister can be found. The letter to Louise is awe-inspiring. Indeed both authors have written the inspired Word of God.
Both these authors outline the biblical passages, both the "clobber" passages and the "affirmation passages" that clearly indicates that it is the interpretation of scripture that is clearly stuck in the societal and historical context of a world that is no longer the one in which we live in the twenty-first century.
Whatever happens after June 2007 will be the decisive effect of the decision made by General Synod on the issue. A decision will be made. Some of us will be pleased, some will be disappointed regardless of the outcome. It may not settle the matter either way until everyone can see that the Anglican Church of Canada, in particular, and the worldwide Anglican Communion can acknowledge AND accept the diversity of our people.
Again I ask . . . will MY Church leave me? Will I once again be rejected? Will I continue to be a second-class citizen of the Church? I have no doubt that I'm a first-class citizen of the Realm of God. He knows, I know. I do care what my fellow Anglicans and Christians think, but will it prevent me from fighting for justice? NEVER! I am hoping that my "activism" can continue within the structure of the Anglican Church of Canada. I am a "fragile Anglican" . . . but I'm not a fragile child of God. I am, perhaps, an angry child of God, but then there are many examples of how angry Jesus could be when he confronted injustice.
My courage comes from Him, my Lord Jesus Christ who was the ultimate "REBEL WITH A CAUSE" . . . a radical champion of justice. His command was simple . . . love.
With blessings and with hope
Frank Kajfes
Ottawa, Ontario
Posted by Frank Kajfes | May 4, 2007 11:27 PM
Posted on May 4, 2007 23:27
As a young (I am 25) Anglican, I am just learning that our Communion has a narrative of "unity despite diversity". I guess this is what Michael Thompson refers to. And maybe it is true; look at the ordination of women, abolition of slavery, even the genesis of the Anglich Church itself.
But is this really what happened? Or is it more that the Communion was decentrallized, and for a long time most were more culturally Anglican than anything else, didn't really bother too much with doctrine, and thus turned a blind eye. Is this the same as "unity"?
Regardless, I wonder, what is our common ground? What is it that unifies us? There are theological answers, but for Frank and Gary... can we even talk?
And yet what issue is of more importance than reconciling convictions with diversity?
I believe we can, but it requires hard work. I guess this is where the Spirit can help?
Posted by Naomi Adams, Victoria | May 26, 2007 1:46 AM
Posted on May 26, 2007 01:46
I will refer all to the words of UBI CARITAS by Maurice Durufle . . . the words say it all:
Ubi caritas et amor [where there is charity and love] Deus ibi est [God is there].
Congregavit nos in unam Christi amor [The love of Christ has gathered us together]. Exultemus et in ipso jucundemur [Let us rejoice and be glad in it]. Timeamus et amemus Deum vivum, et ex corde diligamous nos sincero [Let us revere and love the living God and from a sincere heart love one another].
Which means that anything else, including what is posted here, is but the rhetoric of man (and woman). None of it matters if there is no love as taught to us by our Lord,Jesus Christ.
Posted by Frank Kajfes, Ottawa ON | May 31, 2007 10:04 AM
Posted on May 31, 2007 10:04
I want to apologize to my friend Michael Thompson. For three years or more, there have been dialogues, presentations, panels, and articles on the blessing of same-sex unions in numerous formats in the Diocese of Niagara, to which he and I belong. I have been involved in a number (probably too many) of these events.
Michael, what grieves me is that those of us who cannot see our way to blessing same-sex unions have done such a poor job of making our point-of-view clear. I think (or at least hope) you know that I love your heart and your mind, and am jealous of your "way with words." So if someone like you doesn't "get it", what hope is there that the church as a whole will come to a common mind? We don't even agree as to what the issue is! I find myself tempted to despair.
Unfortunately, I don't know if I can state my case any more clearly than I have tried to do before: the question at issue is really not about inclusiveness. As you rightly say, the invitation to Jesus' table is for all. That is both its delight and its challenge. You and I agree about this. This ought to be a no-brainer for anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus.
But the whole point of Jesus' inclusive table-fellowship was that all, specially the marginalized and the "sinners", should hear his message of the Kingdom, and should know that they are invited to the life of discipleship as followers of Jesus.
We know too that not everybody who came to the table was willing to move on to become a disciple. For some the cost was too high. And for those who did choose to leave the table with Jesus and to follow on the road of discipleship, their experience was demanding and life-changing, as well as joyful. Indeed, it was a life of crucifixion and resurrection, as Jesus warned that it would be. And it continues to be so.
The real question is therefore not whether the invitation of the gospel is inclusive. The question is what it means for a gay or lesbian person to be a disciple. And there, I know, we would differ.
I feel very badly that I (and others) have not made this clearer. I hope that, as you go to General Synod, you will be gracious enough to represent this view better than we have done ourselves.
Yours in Christ,
John Bowen
St. John the Evangelist, Hamilton ON
Posted by John Bowen | June 12, 2007 5:33 PM
Posted on June 12, 2007 17:33