The new season of the CBS series "The Amazing Race" will include a contestant team described as "Married Ministers" -- Episcopal priest and deacon Kate Lewis and Pat Hendrickson!
Here's another picture of the happy couple at an L.A. Pride Eucharist a few years ago:
.
What a GREAT opportunity for evangelism -- to reach out to the unchurched-but-watching-reality-shows population who have no idea there's actually a church where not only can two women be clergy but can live happily ever after together AND make fools of themselves on Reality TV!
Go get 'em, Pat & Kate!
22 comments:
You go ladies! What a wonderful statement you make being together and RACING to win!
This is very cool indeed!
RFSJ
Oh, The Bullies will dine out on this story for a whole day - and then they'll move on to the news about some church leaving TEC, the rapidly declining rates of membership in TEC, or the latest orthodox priest being ordained bishop in one of the Splinter Groups.
At this point, we're able to write their scripts.
Meanwhile, life goes on and, you should excuse the expression, progress is made.
This is way cool. With evangelism like this, we'll continue to make progress.
WOO HOO!!! KOWABUNGA!!!
Oh my goodness, they were at the Clergy Call! How funny -- I've bought plane tickets for Amazing Race contestants.
--Abbey
This is so great. Thanks for letting me/us know. I don't know that I would have heard about it otherwise.
And just as Elizabeth predicted, the bullydox at SFiF are yowling right on cue. You can just about set your watch by 'em.
Wow! I had the best time with them at La Valle's in Berkeley at Epiphany West in January this year.
They are a wonderful couple!!
I sent the story to everyone I know. I got it off some online gay news site - I forget which. This Sunday I will have to find out if the good Rev. Michael Hopkins and Deacon John Clinton Bradley can be persuaded to follow suit. Heh, heh, heh. This is great stuff.
It's good to read how the usual dozen +/- bloggers on this site are pleased.
Allen,
Who was it who described a puritan as someone who is terrified that somewhere, someone, is happy? Of course we are pleased. After all, this little church of ours needs some positive publicity, and among the youth of America, this will be.
It is not impossible that some lesbian / gay folks will see the show and decide to check out the church. If they ae not in some center of homophobic hate like Springfield or Fort Worth, they will be welcome and we may actually get to tell them that Jesus loves them too.
Yeah, I can see where that would upset some people.
FWIW
jimB
So your example of married ministers are two people who are not married?
ron ... CBS is the one who labelled them "married ministers" ... And although we're not "there" yet in terms of civic or sacerdotal equality I figure a couple who consider themselves married in the sight of God are married enough for me!
They're great people; I know them from Epiphany West, but the last time I saw them was when we visited the same church in NOLA on the same evening, on entirely separate mission trips.
You go, women!
There was a cartoon in the San Francisco Chronicle a few years ago, in which two women wearing wedding dresses were faced by a cheerful priest in a collar.
"Let me be sure I've got this," says one of the women. "You won't let us be together unmarried, and you won't let us marry."
"Yes,", beamed the priest, "you've got it!""
IT
"What a great opportunity for evangelism"...
Evangelism is defined as the practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-christians. Exactly where again does it say in the bible that this relationship is blessed? How is this supposed to show the Gospel? Radical love?? Inclusion? How our those who believe the Word of God (as written, not as reported by the "interpreters") included in TEC. Where is our "listening process"?
I pray for you all.
Cyndee
eRon,
About 10,000 years ago, when I was taking sacremental theology from the Jesuits, I was taught that it is the couple who by their personal declerations before God and the community, marry themselves.
The clergy are there as witness, recorder (when the church worked this out they were about the only literates) and to seek (deacon) or announce (priest/bishop) God's blessing on the new household being established. To my knowlege that is not only classic Roman it is fairly decent Anglican theology too.
If that is so, then I submit the ladies are, 'married' especially if as I suspect they did make their decision publicly before an appropriate witness. The sad fact that our secular society which has a perceived interest in the establishment of households and therefor incents some marriges is too blind to notice does not change this fact.
All of which brings me first to the thought that we should get our clergy out of the secular marrige busiess. It totally muddies the waters.
Secondly, it explains some of the angst over blessing ceremonies in the right wing. If we let them up on the dias before the altar, and we let them make their promises and be prayed for or blessed there, then, then {gasp} they are married. And once black folks, oops I mean Indians, err ah lesbians, ere slaves, ah, whatever, get marrige, they will want, you know, equity! That could really cause some problems with the tax code.
Yup.
FWIW
jimB
CBS is the one who labelled them "married ministers"
Ah - sorry, I don't watch "reality" shows and I wasn't aware.
I figure a couple who consider themselves married in the sight of God are married enough for me!
Interesting comment from someone who's job includes conducting marriages. Me, I figure that you have to be married to be married.
ron ...
You don't have to "watch reality shows" to get the CBS reference ... just click the link in the post to the CBS website.
As for who's "married" and who's not, for me it really does come down to the difference between the sacramental nature of marriage (the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace) and the civil nature of marriage (which is about equal rights and responsibilities.)
I personally think clergy should get out of the civil business and stick to the sacramental business.
Many believe that the relationship of these two women represents, according to Peter Akinola, a “satanic attack on the church.” This television show presents an opportunity for millions to see how absurd this contention is.
As for the interpretation of the “Word of God,” the Gospel of John, the last written of the four gospels, differs from the synoptic gospels in very significant ways. Augustine, Anselm, Luther, and Tim LaHaye all interpret the Bible differently, to say the least. Who has the correct take on the word of God? What will the correct take be 500 years from now?
Finally, how logical is it to forbid gay marriage and then condemn a gay couple for not being married?
And..won't it be great if they actually win!!! If I didn't already watch I would now...important for everyone to know that we're all a little "out there"...
Jesus must be SMILING...
Sheila M-M
REv. Susan wrote:
"I personally think clergy should get out of the civil business and stick to the sacramental business."
Jim Wrote:
"All of which brings me first to the thought that we should get our clergy out of the secular marrige busiess. It totally muddies the waters."
Great minds etc. Yes, getting out of the civil business would be a good thing. We need to be a sacremental people, an activist people, but not an agents of governement people.
FWIW
jimB
Post a Comment