Kirkepiscatoid

Ok, it all started when I saw what the new Wal-Mart logo looked like....

Which immediately took me back to the first Kurt Vonnegut novel I ever read in my teenaged years, "Breakfast of Champions,"....


I have never seen asterisks quite the same ever again.

Well, this week has been interesting following my favorite blogs. It kind of started over at +Clumber's place when one of the more famous names in the "orthodite right" had said a few things about his interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to certain forms of sexual behavior. This led to a four part essay over at Jawbones, and another well thought post on the topic over at In a Godward Direction. I found both of these very insightful.

But when I read about what is going on over at the Primate's meeting, and see other news articles and blog posts that some of the primates can't even all have their picture taken together nor share the Eucharist as a group, it troubles me greatly...and as a passionately opinionated person, I'm afraid my first thought has a lot to do with "Vonnegut asterisks." It irritates me to no end that here I am, having enough trouble of my own simply praying for certain segments of this group of Primates and their followers, and the Primates themselves can't even agree on worship and photographs! What's a person trying one's damndest at praying for "Vonnegut asterisks" to do?

There is no doubt, this frustration drives parts of my prayer life to distraction sometimes. Having lived vicariously through the "coming out" experiences of three people close to me, their lives changed my attitude about committed same-sex relationships forever. The catch-22 of "We disapprove of your promiscuous lifestyle and the deceit that may result, but we won't let you enjoy all the rights of an openly committed relationship in the eyes of God and the law," is an impossible dilemma. Society is taking at least baby steps in this regard. Yet Christianity seems, at times, to be backpedaling.

What puzzles me is much of this fight is not over "sin" per se, but interpretation of isolated passages of Scripture.

I always think of the inside joke between me and my priest over Leviticus 21:10:

“The priest who is exalted above his fellows on whose head the anointing oil as been consecrated to wear the vestments, shall not dishevel his hair, or tear his vestments.”

When I acolyte, first thing my priest does after the recessional is throw off his chasuble and hand it to me, then musses and "un-musses" his hair. Leviticus 21:10 is a running joke with us, and I feign fear and josh about the lightning bolt that is sure to zap him and possibly me as an innocent bystander!

Yet if we treat this passage in the same manner as some do the passages that have led to this rift, by that definition I should be making phone calls to the Bishop.

The conversation, in my mind, needs to shift from finger-pointing about sin to talking about the uniformity in which we interpret Scripture. Granted, I am absolutely convinced of my interpretation of these passages, as those who are my polar opposites on that are just as convinced of their interpretation. We simply will not agree. But we should at least be able to share at the Eucharistic table. My family has its share of Vonnegut asterisks. But at least we can seem to "make nice" at the important stuff. I remember my own graduation from medical school. We were two years post experiencing an acrimonious divorce between my parents. But on my desk is a picture of all of the relatives who could attend, in the same picture. "Who stood next to each other" was surprising in a positive way. They went back to fighting like cats and dogs after Graduation Day, but I saw a miracle for 24 hours. So I am not asking for anything from the body of Anglicanism that didn't happen in my own family.

Society evolves. A hundred and fifty years ago some were using Scripture to justify slavery. The Episcopal Church at that time found a way to at least "coexist, uneasily." We would consider Biblical justification of slavery unacceptable and out of date now. A hundred and fifty years from now, we will have debates over other passages as society changes. For all the animosity passed back and forth, I have this overall sense that we are arguing about a blip on the radar screen of the evolution of Christian thought. We are faced with trying to figure the meaning of events thousands of years ago, in a society mostly foreign to us, in a way that continues to have meaning. We are trying to interpret the pressures of an ancient society and their need to worship God in light of a society with totally different pressures. In my own personal faith, it has meant slowly learning to not need a scientific or historical answer for everything. Many of you have watched me struggle aloud on words like "resurrection," "transfiguration," and "ascension." I have had to learn it's not about the "how", it's about the "why."

It seems to me that in order to disagree in a productive fashion, we have to all at least agree to leave all of us to our own beliefs to a large degree. Honestly, that favors a more inclusive body. There's no disagreement when a group of people are excluded--only oppression.