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?

I am not Michele Pfeiffer (spelling?)

This week has been excruciating at school. My students' average on my test hovered around a 50, I discovered "fat bitch, fat bitch Montgomery" scribbled on TWO of my textbooks in class, and I feel like I've tried EVERYTHING in the book to get my students to give two shits about their education or at least to sit down and listen.

I was out at dinner with a fellow teacher trying not to talk about school (and largely succeeded in doing so), but eventually got into how I have never been bad at something until now. I am used to doing well, if not rocking out everything I get myself into. School, jobs, sports, being a good person. I've never not given a shit and I've never given up. This year has been the first time in my life that I've genuinely wanted to give up and I would have quit long ago had it not been for my Mom threatening me (well not so much threatening as telling me I'm not going to quit and I know better than to cross Becky Montgomery... I love you Mom).

So why? Why am I so bad at this job?

We got to talking and the point came up that I've never not given a shit. These students don't give a shit about their education. They don't value it. They've got other priorities. I know there are students of mine who do give a shit and that is awesome and I'm glad I've got them. The majority though, don't care enough to even turn in assignments and aren't afraid of zeros in the gradebook. These students also come from difficult situations and some, if not most, do not have parents who continuously check in on progress in school.

In the conversation she mentioned that I might do fantastically well in teaching at a middle class, mostly white school. And while I feel that is partly a compliment (saying that I could do well), I don't know if the fact that it would have to be a middle class, 'white' school is comforting.

So, as much as it hurts me to say, I cannot relate to my students at all. I've never given up. I've always been ambitious. I've always been resilient about my education, even when facing the difficulty of the situation around my medical leave from Sewanee. I went back and graduated cum laude (and was so close to Magna cum laude that it still pisses me off). I have a masters. I'm going back to get a phd.

Also, I've never been in a school situation with the socioeconomic class that I teach. I went to school in Pass Christian, largely a middle class school. I was in advanced classes with students who cared. I remember only one class in which I was in the general population in class and I distinctly recall being pissed off at the students who caused disruptions in class. After Pass Christian, I went to Mississippi School for Math and Science, surrounded by over-achievers. Then Sewanee, a small private liberal arts school. Then Ole Miss. I have not been in a situation where I'm not surrounded by middle class (or above) students. Until now.

The thing that really bothers me is that I've spent the majority of my academic career studying the African-American Civil Rights Movement. My research, my reading, my understanding is about how oppressed people stood up and pulled themselves together to demand rights. I do not see hardly any of this character in my students. Partly I think it's because it's not there, but even if it is there, I do not think my life experience is that in which I could recognize it.

I. Suck. At. Teaching. This. Population.

Also, I want to be friends with them. I like a lot of my students. Some of them are hilarious and a lot of them are good kids. My relationship with kids through Camp and my youth group has been one of listening to what is going on in their lives and giving counsel and playing around with them. A teacher doesn't play around with students. A teacher controls the environment and gets them to learn. Sure, there are some times when I can bond with a student, but that's rare. 

I know there might be a couple of kids that I'm reaching and I may never know or find out that I've reached them. I can't help but think now that I'm not improving their education. I can't get the class to calm down enough to get through to improving their education.

What's worse is that I don't feel like my students are going to like history after being in my class. That gets me upset worst of all. I love history. I love the way it makes me think. I fear that I'm creating hatred for history. Although, if I remember correctly, I never liked history until my Junior year in high school when I had US history at MSMS.

I am trying something different in the classroom, however. Most of the time this year, when the students got really out of control, I would have gut reactions to them and get really angry at them. Now, when I get to that point, I take a deep breath and say to myself "they're kids and they need help" and that changed my viewpoint about the situation and my response.

I've just got to make it to the end of the year. I'm no Michele Pfeiffer and I'm not the teacher in the freedom writers and I'm not Antonio Banderas in that movie where he changes lives in the kids by getting them to dance. I am Margaret Blount Montgomery and I have only succeeded this year in proving to myself that I can handle extreme stress and not explode.

I'm not going to grovel for crumbs.

I’ve been reading the gospels with the bishop of Mississippi and now twice I have seen the story of the Canaanite woman coming to Jesus asking for her daughter to be healed. It has bothered me both times. He answers her pleas for help with the statement, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She responds with something along the lines of “but even dogs eat the crumbs of the table.” After that statement, Jesus heals the woman’s daughter.

            I did some searching on google and there are some that say this was a way to prove that not everything asked for is granted immediately. That theory doesn’t suffice in my book. Jesus was extremely mean and the way this story unfolds is unfair. This woman has to prove to Jesus that she’s worthy. If you look at it, that can translate into we have to prove we are worthy of salvation and healing. This goes against everything we are taught about grace. Grace is not earned, it is there for those who accept it. Basically this woman, after being belittled and called a dog, shrugs it off and replies with a kind of desperation. I don’t know about you, but if God or Jesus belittled me, I don’t think I would take that in stride. I’d walk away and not look back.

            Something else I couldn’t shake was how closely this can compare to the way that most of the wider Christian world views homosexuality. I’m assuming that because the woman in the gospel was a Canaanite it colored things differently and presented a general negative stereotype. Homosexuality has a similar negative stereotype, one that often results in hatred and discrimination. Some feel that being a homosexual should deny that person salvation, that it is an unforgivable sin. The “God hates fags” group and many others see gay people as if their sexuality were the only thing about them.

            In this whole discourse about gay rights politically and gay rights in the church (to marry, to be ordained), time and again the gay community is told that we should be examples of great Christians and citizens to prove to others that we are indeed people deserving of equal rights.

            How is that not different than Jesus only healing after the woman proves her faith. She’s called a dog and she has to then convince Jesus that she’s not and that she’s faithful. Gay people are called dogs (much worse, in most cases) and treated as though they are not deserving of rights, let alone salvation and the love of God and fellow Christians. So, in that vein, I have to prove myself to be a good person to debunk the stereotype of Godless homosexuals.

            I shouldn’t have to prove myself to be a good Christian before I am granted the ability to get married in the church or to be ordained in the church. I should have those rights even if I am a horrible person. These rights, like grace, shouldn’t be earned, they should just be there. Unconditionally.

            I’m getting tired of responding that, “even dogs eat the crumbs of the table.” That table is God’s table and I’m a child of God. I’m not going to grovel at the feet of those who want to deny me the food of salvation because I don’t have to grovel for God’s grace. Homosexuals and those in the queer community shouldn’t have to grovel and prove themselves, but in this world at this moment, that’s exactly what we’re being told is the best thing to do.

Wise up world. God grants all people grace, unconditionally. It’s about damn time you do the same.

Long time, no write

Taking a step back   

            It’s officially lent and it’s taken me a while to figure out my routine. I like to take something on as well as give something up. One of the best reflections I have heard about lent is that lent is not meant for you to give up chocolate. There is a tricky part to Lenten disciplines. It’s important to have a practiced discipline and to exercise self-control, but you have to be careful to do it for the right reasons. For example, I could give up something like chocolate (popular discipline), but if I am doing that just to lose weight or because I think it might be easy, I would be doing it for the wrong reasons. However, if I give up chocolate to reflect and educate myself on the way corporations abuse workers and the environment in order to make it, it takes on a new meaning.

            This lent, the bishop of Mississippi has thrown down a challenge to read the four gospels over the 40 days. Having been a person who has valued faith over scripture, I have decided to take this challenge on. Granted, in order to achieve this I will be required to read quite a bit each night, but I think it will be important for me to do this so that I can further my relationship with God.

            I do think that the harder task I have given myself is to be optimistic about every day. My job teaching 7^th graders has been the most stressful experience I have ever faced. I’m not used to being bad at something, but I find myself struggling to just get by and hope that my students are learning something at all. I have taken on a pessimistic view of the difference I feel that I am making. I have gained through this a profound respect and appreciation for all of my teachers throughout grade school. It’s not easy.

            Lent is about stepping back and examining your life. Taking stock of what is important as well as what is lacking in your life is an important discipline. Understanding and recognizing parts of your life that inhibit the openness to Jesus and a relationship with God is a big part of stepping back. When I step back from my own life, I see that I am rushing through this part of my life, hoping for more fulfillments in the future. A friend of mine and I play the game of “future me.” Future Blount Montgomery never procrastinates, is fit enough to run a marathon (but chooses not to because Saturdays are writing days), and has written a couple of books that have done very well. While this is all fun and sometimes the game becomes completely in jest (future me is the owner of the New Orleans Saints, for example), there is something telling about this game. Too often we put off improving ourselves and becoming who we are meant to be until our future selves arrive.

            For lent, I am going to put off thinking about my future self. For lent I am going to focus on the present me. For lent I am going to put all my being into being ready for Easter.

New York, New York!

Tonight the state senate of New York passed a bill for gay marriage. Not civil unions. Marriage.

Some say, "why such a big deal if it's a civil union or a marriage?"

In my opinion, calling the commitment of two members of the same sex 'civil unions' gives the connotations of a second-class distinctions. Straight couples get to call their union 'marriage' and the same privilege should be extended to gay couples.

When I find someone that I love and care for and want to make a commitment to for the rest of my life, I don't want a certificate saying that I have a civil union. I don't want a church service that is simply "same sex blessing." I want to get married. Does that mean I want all the fuss and frill and lace and production? Maybe, maybe not. But I want a church and a state that will acknowledge my commitment as a marriage and a service that has the appropriate wording.

The tides are slowly turning in the right direction.

Teaching

Obama in his state of the union a while back made a bold statement that if we really wanted to do a great service to our country, we should teach. I agreed with that completely. The teachers and professors in my life have expanded the way I see the world and have challenged me to think for myself and have given me the confidence to see how I might influence and interpret the world around me. I cannot thank them enough for that.

However, Obama wasn't talking about just teachers in general, he was singling out teaching and learning in the fields of math and science. Which, by the way, has been a goal mentioned with almost every president we've had since WWII. I'm not arguing that we don't need math and science teachers. They are very important and the students of the United States need to be able to compete on an international scale.

I'd like to point out that our students in this country also have severe problems reading, writing and understanding their country's history. This is intolerable. Yes, math and science are important, but if a student doesn't have the skills to write or comprehend writing, then math and science are almost null and void. You can't walk around life without the capacity to read and write. You just can't. You don't have to be a novelist or anything, but you need the critical thinking skills that accompany reading and writing to think for yourself and to express yourself in the written form. Even scientists and mathematicians need the skill to write in order to share their work.

And then there's history. When the children here as well as many adults know nothing about the men and women who have created this country and the events that turned the tide, there is a great disservice to this country. The revolution? "We fought the british." Civil War? "The North and the South fought over slavery" World War I? "Don't know... Hitler?" The Great Depression? "We were broke" World War II? "Hitler and the Japs"

The sad thing is that there are even Americans out there that don't understand even the basic ideas that these event occurred or the reasons behind them. History isn't just about knowing one's country, it's about a sense of pride. It's about, once again, being able to critically think about things that have not only happened in the past, but that are happening now and will happen in the future.

So, yes Obama, let's get science and math up to par with the rest of the world, but don't forget English, History and liberal arts in general, because while scientists and mathematicians better the world with innovations, Historians, writers, and everyone benefits from a good liberal arts education. They are made better because of it and thus our country is made better.