Monday, November 05, 2007

They want pictures ...

Our friends over at Stand Firm have put out a call for pictures.

The initial call for photos of Bishop Marc Andrus speaking at the October 27th anti-war rally in San Francisco has been broadened to "Episcopal clergy pictures .... identified and then verified in reports that they attended -- and naturally, we would appreciate pictures of Episcopal bishops and clergy who participate in other such displays of their values -- not limited to gay pride parades -- as well, again identified and verified in textual reports."

Here's a start from my own photo album as I am HAPPY to share these outward and visible signs of core biblical values of peacemaking, inclusion and respecting the dignity of every human being.

I'll dig around and see if I can find some more: I know there's one somewhere of the rector getting arrested at the Federal Building, but in the meantime here's a start ...



May 2006 Immigration Rally


The Reverend Zelda Kennedy

The Reverend Anthony Guillen &
The Reverend J. Edwin Bacon


The Reverend Susan Russell
w/Presbyterian colleagues
The Revd's Susan Craig and Bear Ride

============

October 2005
.
Stop the War Rally


Me again


The Reverend George Regas

====================


June 2004 L.A. Gay Pride


The Reverend Pat Hendrickson
The Reverend Kate Lewis


The Reverend Malcolm Boyd
The Fabulous Mary Bruno
The Right Reverened J. Jon Bruno
The Reverend Susan Russell
The Reverend J. Edwin Bacon
.
UPDATE: Others have "gone and done likewise:"

34 comments:

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

I'm checking with The Oasis to see if they have any available. I've offered to post them on my blog. With pleasure.

Doesn't Oasis CA have pictures, too? C'mon.

Anonymous said...

In a non-polemical spirit, I would like to ask what tensions do you, Susan, or any other regular commentator on this blog, feel, as a Christian, with (let's call it) the wider gay community, and especially the kind of blatant paganism or hedonism of at least some aspects of certain parades. I mean, for me, I have experienced huge tension between my faith and some of the subcultures that I have dealt with,---actually been immersed in: the frat life of university culture, the love of money among financial colleagues, and the locker room ethos during my years as a high school and college athlete, to name three. But I don't sense much wrestling by my gay Christian friends with the secular gay culture(s). I can see why, in an effort to be affirming, one does not confront other people but I can't for the life of me see why some would be part of the sensationalist hedonism of SF's gay pride parade. This is worrisome to me and makes me ask all kinds of questions about capitulating to culture and other things.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

The shepherd goes where the sheep are.

Remember the "left ninety-nine to find the one" story? My lived experience is that the outward and visble witness of "The Episcopal Church Welcomes YOU!" calling LGBT people into communities of faith is worth showing up for.

Can't speak for others.

Fr. John said...

Yes, Elizabeth, we have photos too. I've posted a few on my blog at http://www.revkirkley.blogspot.com/.

BTW "Anonymous" - the "tentions" I feel with the LGBT community are essentially those I feel with the larger culture: violence, sexism, racism, consumerism, hedonism, etc., etc. Queer folk certainly have no monopoly on sin!

Christ came to call sinners, not the righteous. That includes me, praise God!

Enjoy! John

RonF said...

Hm. Well, Jesus ate with the tax collectors and the whores. It was the right thing to do. On the other hand, he did not counsel them to continue to be tax collectors and whores. IIRC, he suggested to at least one woman that he refused to condemn to "go and sin no more".

Those (such as yourself) who support the LGBT community always take pains to stress that what you are supporting is to place homosexual relationships on an equal status with heterosexual relationships; thus, you feel that committed monogamous homosexual relationships should be eligible to be sanctified through Holy Matrimony. It's clear, though, that at the "gay pride" parades there are numerous examples of people who are celebrating and promoting hedonistic relationships that are the equivalent of fornication, adultery and worse.

There are lots of places to meet with the LBGT community that do not celebrate such things. When you are at a "gay pride" event, do you counsel the participants in the hedonistic displays not to do so? I realize that this is a very hackneyed phrase these days, but what do you think Jesus would have done? Does not your presence without doing so tend to lend the Church's support for such? It seems to me that there is much work that you can do (and in fact actually do) that could lend support to the LBGT community's causes without supporting this kind of behavior.

Allen said...

The Shepherd goes where the sheep are but does not jump over the cliff with the herd of swine.

Anonymous said...

Good on yer, Susan!

Have you noticed how the conservative religious point of view expressed by your opposites is now being conflated with a conservative political viewpoint?

With the same undertone of violence as expressed in political discourse?

Can't wait till they accuse you of "not supporting the troops"....which I'm sure is coming. I can't wait.

"Here I stand, I can do no other" indeed!

IT

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

allen ... last one of those I'm going to "moderate" up. If you want to refer to LGBT folk ... or anyone else for that matter, as swine then find another blog to do it on.

Allen said...

Susan,

When Jesus himself said, "don't cast your pearls before the swine" He must have thought that some folks earn that description by their actions and attitudes. I did not refer to LGBT folks as swine because of a lifestyle that is different than others. However, videos and photos of "swinish" behavior by too many very lewd and loud LGBT folks during the various parades should be an embarrassment to anyone. THAT's what I refer to when I say that THE Shepherd (Jesus) did not follow the swine over the cliff.

Jack Sprat said...

I was with Bishop Marc when he got arrested here at the Federal Building in San Francisco in the spring. I seem to recall photos of the event -- maybe on his blog? My vicar was there, as were many other priests and lay leaders.

It was a wonderful, eye-opening day.

-J

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

allen --- hmmm ... interesting exegesis.

I stand by the shephered goes where the sheep are ... and there are plenty of LGBT outside the fold because they think we think they're swine ... wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that some of them act like it?

And isn't our job to proclaim the good news that all are beloved of God?

Food for thought ...

Jack Sprat said...

Susan:

I don't like to engage people in pointless discussions, but I feel compelled to say at least this: having been on the board of Washington DC's gay pride in my distant past, I can guarantee you that about 90% of the people who participate in the event are so mainstream and (shhhhhhhhh) boring, that no newspaper or tv report will show them. Instead, the media runs to the outrageous few, either because it's fun, it's interesting, or it sells advertising.

Our demographic research showed that the vast majority of people who come to the parade are from the SUBURBS.

But hey, what's the point in arguing with someone blinded by hatred (and fear)?

-J

Allen said...

Susan,

Indeed, all are beloved by God. I can't seem to recall how love equates to endorsement though.
Jesus ate with sinners but he didn't smile and strip naked with them. Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery, but he didn't join in a parade of fashionable adulterers and revelers. Would Jesus have been in the San Francisco Pride parade where the opening banner touts that people should "F-word" responsibly? The only comparable venue for Jesus was when he was found at the table eating and confessionally engaging with individuals, not smiling and waving in silence.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

allen ... "smiling and waving in silence?"

Come ride with us next year ... we sign "This Little Light of Mine," "Jesus Loves Me," and "Joy to the World" ... we chant "Two, Four, Six, Eight, Jesus Love you Gay or Straight" ... we hand out "The Episcopal Church Welcomes YOU!" flyers ... It's a GREAT opportunity for evangelism ...

Ann said...

Swine - hmmm - well they are a lot smarter than sheep. I will have to dig out my photo of me and my HDS classmates at the first March on DC - with our Simply Divine t-shirts.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Allen has ever been to the beach on spring break weekend. Trust me, the vast majority of Gay Pride parades are completely vanilla compared to what the heterosexual undergraduates are doing.

But they don't view all straight people as prostitutes and pedophiles if straight people act over sexed.

Go figger.

IT

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

Susan,

You have been much more tolerant of Allen than I would have been.

I guess that's because I look so
much younger than you. (Heh, heh!)

BTW, Lyn and Cy will be at the CTB meeting. She's the keeper of the pictures. Ask her for some.

Anonymous said...

S -

How about adding a couple of more core values? Sometimes this looks like Niebuhr's description of contemporary theology: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministration of a Christ without the cross".
--- the fabulous J

Father Tom said...

Susan+ the photos on your blog are great. And thank you for being a Good Shepherdess among us all. We appreciate you and your Christ-centered vision.

Suzer said...

Good point, IT. Allen, you might try going to a beach on a college spring break weekend and start righteously preaching about abstinence, virtue and monogamy. That'll gain a lot of converts, I'm sure.

I was remembering an Elvis impersonater contest my partner and I attended this summer, which was soooo much fun, but the event also struck me because it was just as outrageous, if not more so, than things I've seen during the Pride parade. I was just as "shocked" by some of the Elvis hip grinding and kissing and hugging of women (strangers) and blatant heterosexuality as I have been "shocked" by occasional displays at Pride. Each one was pretty equal, I'd say. And, of course, all the impersonaters were doing was recreating actual Elvis performances. Which were tame, compared to what we see on music videos now. Even so, my rather prudish sensibilities were a bit uncomfortable watching the Elvis's bump and grind.

I was proud to see this year's Atlanta Pride Parade had so many church groups in it, with a large number of folks marching behind "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" banner. I am saddened, though, by the number of GLBT people I meet who look at me like I'm crazy because I'm a Christian. They can't imagine why someone would want to put themselves through what they see as hateful oppression to remain part of a church. Too many GLBT people have resigned themselves to having a personal relationship with God outside of a church community, and refuse to even hear of attending a church service for fear of, well, attitudes like Allen's.

Suzer said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention, some of the outfits the Elvis "fans" wore were just, if not more, revealing than costumes I saw at Pride. I'm just sayin'.

The young fogey said...

1. Immigration is a tough one. I sympathise with open-borders people but if you filter out the racism of the anti- crowd they have a point. Economics: unlimited wants and scarce resources. A country can only handle so many new people at a time and what about charity and duty to one's own citizens?

What the police did at MacArthur Park is unconscionable.

2. We're singing from the same hymnal about the war. Support the troops: bring them home now. Thank you.

As I imagine we are with Bishop Harris about Palestine. I dare say according to many at Stand Firm I'm a terrorist!

3. As a citizen I agree that what one does in that department is one's own business as long as it's not a public health hazard. I'll go one further and say get the state out of the marriage business. Your religious groups would have the right to do what you want and conservative ones the right to do what they want.

I don't think one has the right to hijack a denomination and change it to say what one wants. Conservative Episcopalians for example have as much right to freedom of association without harassment as the gay-pride parade.

Excellent point, commenter no. 2 (Anonymous).

Frair John said...

YF-
Freedom of association is one thing. Insisting on taking that which dose not belong to you and tossing loyal Episcopalians out of their building is quite a different thing.
If the "Conservtives" want to start their own Parishes and denominations, fine. They may not, as a mater of law and simple logic, may NOT do it in buildings that belong to TEC.

The young fogey said...

Friar John,

Asking the bishop for a deal isn't stealing but other than that I agree with you.

Frair John said...

Yf-
I really didn't mean to say it was. i would say that the Bishop has more of an obligation to those who stay.
But a Bishop wanting to walk off with his entire diocese might well be.

The young fogey said...

FJ,

The issue of a diocese trying to leave is nearly new; conservatives have compared it to the Southern dioceses splitting off in the US Civil War.

As I say the only inevitables in this row whichever way it goes - no matter which side is chosen to remain Anglican - are some parishes will split and a few others will be squashed. Either way it turns out some people will get hurt.

If 815 is correct and only a small minority want to leave the Episcopal Church then any outcome, including the Episcopal Church being dropped from the Anglican Communion and the conservatives named the Anglican church for the US, wouldn't affect 90 per cent of Episcopalians in any way. No-one can shut you down nor in a free society should they.

But here's what I've been asking:

If the Episcopal Church or Anglican Communion is not the one true church, and as a young Anglo-Catholic I wasn't taught that (branch theory and all that), are the leaving groups 'leaving the church'?

And on the other hand if schism really is the worst thing so unity matters above all else including doctrine ('never mind; let's gather at the Lord's table') then... with whom should one have sided in November 1534, Thomas Cranmer or Thomas More? One may have had differences of opinion with the Pope but he was England's lawful patriarch just like one can argue credibly that TEC owns the cathedral in Pittsburgh.

(Does the civil authority really get to call that shot? Then why aren't we supporting Mr Bush's adventure in Iraq?)

Frair John said...

YF- As has been pointed out elsewhere, the "departure" of the Diocies in Rebel States was never recognized by theose who remained loyal. In other words, they could have called themselves the Confederate Church, but it didn't matter teh PECUSA simply didn't recognize the right to leave. Guess who won that argument? Pointing to the Civel War only showes just how much these guys have bought into the neo-con world view as a whole.

As for the idea and reality of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith I would argue that at one level there is no "leaving" it. Baptism is, last I checked, indelable and since to be Baptised is to be a part of the Church, at the minimum, then nobody is really leaving anybody else.
On the other hand, where the Donatists, the Lollards or the Paulicians members of the OHCAC? That is, at least partialy an academic question. I'm not (in this context) accusing anybody of anything, I was just wondering how far we can stretch the concepts.

RonF said...

Friar John said:

They may not, as a mater of law and simple logic, may NOT do it in buildings that belong to TEC.

TECH may yet prove to have the law on it's side; apparently we'll see, and it's my guess we'll see it work out on a state-by-state basis if there are congregations in a given state with the money to take TEC on, and a bishop who's willing to defy Scripture enough to take them to court.

But from a moral viewpoint, a parish's buildings are just that - the parish's. They raised the money and paid for building them and maintaining them. They were never intended to be TEC's - the authority of our episcopal structure is spiritual, not temporal. What TEC is asserting through the Dennis Canon and subsequent attempts to enforce it in court is theft, and no color of law will change that.

RonF said...

Suzer, I'll certainly agree that there are pretty blatant displays of heterosexual behavior on the beaches during spring break, and many other places as well. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the Church endorses such activity, and whether or not marching in any parade, gay or straight, where such behavior goes on is an appropriate and effective ministry both to the participants and the witnesses.

RonF said...

Young Fogey said:

I don't think one has the right to hijack a denomination and change it to say what one wants.

Friar John said

Freedom of association is one thing. Insisting on taking that which dose not belong to you and tossing loyal Episcopalians out of their building is quite a different thing.

I actually found myself in agreement with these statements. I had to read the explanations that followed them, though, to understand that they were being advanced to support a viewpoint opposite of mine.

Frair John said...

RonF- There is plenty of precedent from the Supream Court that is on the side of TEC.

I would tell you that the "moral" issue is not as strait forward as you seem to want it to be. The difference between "stuadrdship" and "investment" is huge. When you give money to the church you give up "control." You don't own your parish, the Church dose. Beside the ecclesiastical issue we come to the cold, hard fact that parishes exist because Diocies create them. If it weren't for the action of the Diocies, there would have been no parish to leave. it may gall the sence of "fairness" that Americans love so much (especialy when it is their ox being gored) but it is simple. We do not own our Parishes, to say otherwise is to fly in the face of the way we view the Church, which is an awfully wierd place for a supposed "traditionalist" to be.

RonF said...

When you give money to the church you give up "control."

Was that Church or church?

When people in my parish give money on Sunday, they are giving it to the parish. They are not giving it to either the Diocese or the National Church. If you doubt that I invite you to come to our annual meeting and listen to the discussion regarding the line item in our budget for our (voluntary in Chicago) giving to the Diocese.

I'd be quite surprised if any other parishes have a particularly different attitude. I'd also be surprised if they thought that the money they give was under anyone's control besides the parish's Vestry. I know; I sign the checks for my parish, and nobody from the Diocese or the National church can do that. And the checks I see handed in are made out to our parish, not to "The Diocese of Chicago" or "TEC". We (my parish) are the entity being given this money, and we are receiving it for our needs and ministries, not as an agent of TEC.

TEC is (supposed to be) our spiritual guide, not our temporal master. It's quite true that parishes were started by TEC, but again that creates a spiritual obligation, not a monetary one.

That spiritual obligation is on both sides, BTW.

uffda51 said...

Folks, it’s just a parade. Politicians and Catholics marching in the St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York are not assumed to be endorsing public drunken revelry.

The people who run soup kitchens have found they have the best results when they put the kitchens where the hungry people are. The food is free and there is no litmus test required to be served. Do we not want to welcome the spiritually hungry to TEC?

Suggesting that churches that participate in gay pride events are endorsing the behavior of people like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard is absurd.

Frair John said...

RonF-
That you have an incomplete ecclesiology is not the issue. Preceptions are not the issue. The issue is the actual ecclesiology of TEC. That you all have such a limeted understanding of Church (or church for that matter) is more an issue for your clergy than it is a matter of law.