Mississippi and the lateral moves for civil rights

In case some of you don't know, I am an Episcopalian in the Mississippi Diocese. There are things that are wonderful and beautiful about this diocese. For one, it is a tight knit community. No matter where I am in the state, there is a likelihood that I know someone there who is Episcopalian and would be more than willing to help me out. We look out for one another. 


There are some things, however, that concern me. Mississippi as a whole has a reputation for being reluctant and resistant to change. While Episcopalians in this state consider themselves to be exceptions to that rule, we still succumb to that stereotype. We still confuse holding onto tradition with living out the mission to step outside of our comfort zones to fulfill the mission of Christ.

The biggest example as of late is the response made by the head of the Mississippi diocese. I am reluctant to mention this, because I consider him a friend of mine. That does not, however, excuse him.

This year at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, there will be a revolutionary bill voted on. This bill would approve of and support Same-Sex Couple Blessings of Unions. While I take issue with blessings of unions (See post New York: Civil Unions V. Marriage) I applaud and look forward to how this will all play out. 

At the annual gathering of Mississippi Episcopalians, the bishop had an opening address that mentioned this vote. This is an excerpt from that address:

 "Having said all that, it probably will surprise some of you, when I say, I have not been willing to authorize liturgical rites of blessing as part of that support. I recognize to many that this refusal appears to give lie to my professed pastoral care and concern. That perception is a burden I have chosen to bear since I became your bishop. In lighter moments, I prefer to think of myself as a walking paradox."

Full address here: Bishop's Address 

The concerning thing is that I've always thought (and maybe I am wrong and maybe I made this up) that the thing that the Bishop was waiting on to act towards full religious rights for Lesbians and Gays was official approval from the national church. So, here, with the possibility for approval, is a statement saying that not only will he not vote for it, but will not act on it if passed. The approval will be there, no doubt. 

I imagine there were diocese taking similar stances when it came to women's ordination and the ordination of African-Americans. We're not even talking ordination here. We're talking about recognizing, blessing, and celebrating loving, committed relationships. We will be found to be on the wrong side of history, again. 

This grieves me and I continue to pray for the hearts to turn towards the movement of the Holy Spirit. 

Please do not interpret this post to undermine and lash out at our diocese or the Bishop. I respect and love this diocese and our Bishop. I think that makes this hurt even more. 

I hope and pray for the best. I guess it just might take longer than I expected.

 
 

Life in a montage

Just recently a friend of mine and I were talking about how life should be documented in montages. This revelation came up because we discussed how we rarely remember the good things in a year because the challenges and the hardships and the suckiness usually takes most of the room.

Think about it. Wouldn't it be nice to have a video montage (complete with appropriate soundtrack of course) of all the times you were happy and had fun and enjoyed yourself for each year? I guess it would be the tech-y version of a scrapbook.

But then, I kept thinking and started looking seriously at this (as I am prone to do). What kind of disservice would it be if all the challenges and bad times were glossed over for a feel-good video mixtape. I mean, sure, I'd like to forget a couple of years. I'd like to forget them for the heartbreak and frustration and stress that have accompanied them. But what kind of person would I be without them? I know it's cliche but I wouldn't be who I am today had not those sucky things happened.

I suppose this whole fascination is one of the things that draws me to historical research. Writing and studying history is always colored with this kind of debate. Much of historical writing (current scholars included) focuses on a highlight reel of events to present a solidly argued picture. Wouldn't a complete picture with the tiny nuances, even the nuances that would undermine the original argument be more fair to the reader? But also, wouldn't the tiny nuances overload the mind and understanding?

We live in a society run by storytelling and when it comes down to it, history, much like the way we view our own lives, ends up being told in narrative form. A year in someone's life is not a streamline story. It's got subplots upon subplots and plots that stop mid-run and never complete. It has characters that vary from significant to people who are never to be remembered. And yet, when you see someone at a wedding or at a homecoming and they ask you how you've been, you have a narrative to tell them, your own personal highlight reel.

What's your story?