Should I be pleased that my last post received my first spam comment ever...?
Honestly I find it pretty amusing. I'm even going to leave it there. Any new ones, of course, get deleted.
I didn't get the job at Aslan Construction, but with all the prayers heading my way I have hopes for something even better.
Tim and I are off to a weekend-long SCA event. First time camping this year! And first time camping in nylon since Diamond Wars with Tim several years back. I've been spoilt by my canvas and miss my wedge tent terribly. Today is being spent running around like a crazy woman trying to find all my camping stuff.
I've noticed that in my last couple of posts I refer to 'the RevGals' without being more specific. A lot of you who've commented (and posted in your own blogs, and commented on the RevGals blog itself) are still RevGals -- and I don't mean to include you in any grumpy comments I've made! So, er, my apologies, and I'll try to remember to be more specific and say something like 'the people in charge of RevGals' or something.
And as to the grumpy comments themselves, Pastor Peters has rightly reminded me that Jesus called us to love, not blame. I'm tryin'. Some days, I even manage it. Others, as I commented to her elsewhere, it's a good thing God's the forgiving sort.
At the same time, I wonder if I'm the only one this has happened to. Anyone heard of anything else like this happening? Comment anonymously if you feel better that way (I've turned on anonymous comments, but also comment verification because of the spam). Or email me if you feel better that way, and I won't post anything more specific than 'It's not just me' unless you tell me it's okay to.
I hope I'm alone in this.
In other news, I'm (fairly improbably, but whatever) feeling a lot better today. I'll also be away from the computer all weekend, so y'all behave yourselves while I'm away.
Plain Fool, Rae, Jim, I promise I'll post about the Care Package of Doooooooom soon! I've been, er, distracted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hi darling! So glad for how much support you are getting, and that you are holding up under yet another job disappointment. Surely something even better will come along soon or I will really have something to say to, well, Aslan :-) on your behalf.
Please don't feel guilty about your justified hurt and anger, expressed pretty darn appropriately from what I can see. Jesus spoke in a lot more harsh terms and as I always tell my kids it's fine to say "bad behavior" just not "bad person"...If someone is having bad behavior that hurts themselves or others including you, the loving thing to do for them and the victim alike is to politely confront it rather than excuse it.
I don't enjoy such confrontation in many cases esp. at the start of the process but I would sure rather receive it than stay in my blind spots and sins. And some of the best experiences of soul friendship I have have centered around such exchanges which can ultimately be very joyful...Speaking the truth in love to one another, as in Ephesians whatever verse I can't remember right now, is a tough balance but completely what we're about as Christians. (Hence "veritatem in caritate" is so going to be my motto for that coat of arms that you and Chris T. have both kindly offered once I get a sense of the graphic parts :-) ).
I also try to pray for people who have hurt or angered me, as Jesus said--and this is frequently not a Hallmark sentimental prayer, esp. at the beginning of the process, but more like asking God to wake them up and change their ways.... I'm sure such prayers for me have helped along some of the angelic clue-by-fours that have woken me up on things from time to time. And over time the prayers can lead to all kinds of inner healing and heart softening and sometimes to reconciliation/healthy forgiveness/release as appropriate for the situation.
Okay, end of sermon. Love you bunches, best to your Beloveds and furry friends, and have a fantastic weekend with the SCAdians.
P.S. Gracious acknowledgement to the many supportive RevGals, btw, and the technical term you're looking for to describe the decision makers is the board. Good women who do some very good things and birthed a wonderful community--and have some not so good behavior at times, like all of us....And who will hopefully also learn and grow from this whole thing in the end.
I have enough trouble with one relationship, but, if you've got the energy and willingness to work on it, I say, "Go for it." Love is good. No, love is the greatest thing.
Drawing lines in the sand is not great. It's divisive and exclusive.
Hope you're having a good time camping. SCA people seem to have a fun time.
I'm going to comment anonymously here because I am working out my thoughts as I go--and I appreciate your willingness to let me be anonymous.
I didn't know anything about your ouster from RGBPs until I read the letter over there explaining it. So I followed a trail over here. And I have to admit the "polyamory" in the title raised my eyebrows a bit. But I've read your explanations, and I'm trying to think it through. I know it wouldn't work for me, and I'm not sure I like the term "biblical marriage" that someone else used, but I'm not willing to be condemnatory either.
The other issue that is raised for me, though, is whether it is ever okay to have boundaries? To say that God's table is open to everyone is wonderful (and true I think) but what does that mean in terms of our behavior? I don't think it means that "anything goes" so how do we or can we set any boundaries?
I don't mean this in any critical way, but it is, I think, an issue that bears discussion.
I am a priest in a denomination that is being rent asunder by arguments about sexuality (well, even more so about power and authority). I fully accept my LGBT sisters and brothers in the life of the church. But monogamy has always seemed to me to be an important part of what it means to be in a committed relationship, the kind that mirrors the love that we have for God and God for us--maybe because we must commit to one God?
Anyway, thanks for getting me to stretch my thinking, and if you have any thoughts about the boundaries issue I would love to hear them. Peace.
Anonymous, I appreciate your openly shared thoughts. You raise the questions respectfully.
My simple answer is this: it is not our table to guard. God is perfectly capable of "protecting" the body of Christ. I would far prefer to emulate Jesus, who was constantly eating with everybody, catching hell for it, and kept right on doing it. It is God's table. I will be found keeping it open, open, open. It is not mine to close.
Peace,
Mags
Anonymous, for the most part I agree with Mags about the need for radical eucharistic (and other) hospitality after the example of Jesus, whose table it is. However, I agree with you that there is a need for boundaries as well in grave cases, to ensure that those present are discerning rather than abusing the body of Christ in human beings--an equally sacred and real presence to that in the Blessed Sacrament.
In *Torture and Eucharist,* William Cavanaugh makes the case that an appropriate use of excommunication would have been for the government leaders and military officials in Pinochet's Chile who systematically used torture while remaining sacramentally practicing Roman Catholics in good standing.
However, this could hardly be more different from Kate's loving and faithful relationship which includes three people instead of two--like the triune God whom we worship, who is always reaching out to us in a community of love and calling and enabling us to build the same thing, often being pushed beyond our comfort levels and our constant temptations to judge our own paths as superior to those of others.
In terms of the "table" of conversation and community in the blogring under discussion, I would also propose that the behavioral criteria for inclusion, beyond the basic categories which Kate clearly meets, is loving and constructive contributions to community discourse--as hers have consistently been--rather than hurtful ones.
Kate, I'm sorry I didn't stop by earlier. I read about this a few days ago but didn't know what to say. I've now read their statement and it gives me the chills. We all know that web communities like theirs are public, as are many of our blogs. And after even a few years of living with clergy, I know how rumors and misinformation and even truths taken out of context can make life difficult or worse for those working in the church. But...... that's simply no excuse for their behavior. It makes me weep.
I don't know what else to say or what I can offer in support. All I know is that if you've got Mad Priest rooting for you, you must be doing something right.
Klady, thanks for pointing me towards MadPriest! His is one of the blogs I hadn't got round to reading yet, but it's going on my list (along with many others...)
Anonymous, I agree that there should be boundaries. Perhaps my pagan years are showing, though, when I think that as long as someone is genuinely seeking and not causing harm by their actions, there's no reason to exclude them. I agree with Mother Laura's assertation that torture would be a reason to exclude someone -- but it'd have to be something pretty dire, from my perspective.
This isn't something I've given a lot of thought to (still really new to this!) but that's my immediate reaction. I'd like to see further discussion on it, though.
Anonymous, I previously disallowed anonymous comments because I was worried about my ex or his supporters leaving nasty messages about (it happened over on my LJ, alas). That was several months ago and I've got other things to worry about now, so it seemed to make more sense to open it up for folks who might get in trouble otherwise.
It's a committed relationship; it's just got three people in it. I see your points about our relationship with God, though. I can say that having two boyfriends does not appear to have adversely affected my relationship with God, but I might be a little too close to the situation to see potential problems :/
I tend to think of my relationship with God to be closer to a parent-child relationship, personally, and most folks have two parents, more or less. Am I finding justification for what I'd do anyway? That's always possible, but it is something I think about.
For anonymous and anyone else who might answer me:
I am confused as to the basis for objection to multiple marriage. Nowhere in the Bible is it condemned. Nowhere. Nor do I find that surprising - Jewish law allows a husband to have 2 wives provided neither is diminished by the other.
As to your question about boundaries, I have a question: do you want to be the person responsible for turning a single soul away from Heaven?
There is an old story of a sinner that tried to repent, only to be turned away from the church again and again. At long last, the sinner came to the Pope to beg forgiveness for his sins, and the Pope listened to the confession, but was so horrified by the sins that at last he exclaimed "Get out! If I could forgive such sins as that, my staff would bloom." The sinner fled back to the situation he'd come from, but after he'd left, the pope looked at his staff, which had bloomed with a perfect lily.
She has been condemned for something that isn't condemned in the Bible, refused fellowship or even the opportunity to say her piece over her own condemnation, and cast out among the lepers and sinners. All I can say is that that's where Jesus came, not to the fancy Temple. It was the outcast Samaritan who found mercy for his neighbor, not the priest or the Levite. Jesus went to the wilderness, to the hungry, the sick, the unwelcome. I think perhaps that might be the place for those who call themselves his followers.
Plain foolish, I am late responding, but hopefully you will see this.
2nd question first: I don't think it is my role, job, or responsibility to turn anyone away from the gates of heaven--that is up to God. But my question remains....where do we draw boundaries? Is "not hurting anyone" the standard? I just don't know right now.
I have no trouble with same sex relationships, but I've always thought that monogamy is the standard we should uphold in committed loving relationships. Yes, there were polygamous relationships in the bible, but in Christianity, monogamy has been the standard. So I am still trying to think about this some more. And it does lead to other questions: Is there any limit on the type of relationship we might sanction as long as no one is getting hurt? And do we have to worry about who is determining whether anyone is getting hurt? Should we be concerned about chastity (and I don't mean celibacy) at all? These are sincere questions.
I understand your questions, anonymous, and right now I have no answers for you. I'm not trying to stifle debate here -- indeed, rage on, y'all, it's sure to be interesting and everyone's been more than civil so far -- I just have no energy for the debate, myself.
I'm reading this late and there's my name. Eeek. It's a reminder that I keep to myself. I know it's hard. It's hard for everyone. Blessings to you.
Thanks, hun. If'n you'd like, I can remind you sometime too... seems only fair. *wink*
Post a Comment