We interrupt this blog for an update from the ongoing saga of the Anglican Communion

Sorry...sorry...just can't keep my mouth shut on this one even though I realize 99.9 % of people everywhere don't give a rat's ass about it.

So. The Church of England is having its General Synod (somewhat like General Convention, only annual -- am I getting that right?), and a member proposed a resolution that would recognize the Anglican Church of North America, a group led by the former bishop of Pittsburgh who decamped from the Episcopal Church, as part of the Anglican Communion, in fellowship with the Church of England. This got amended somewhat so that the final resolution, which passed handily, reads:

That this Synod, aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.

[Anyone who's followed this more closely than I please feel free to correct any factual errors here.]

That all seems reasonable enough, but what I don't think the C of E understands is that these are not reasonable people. Allow me to give an example from my own experience.

There was a parishioner, let's call her Madame Flowers. At first glance, she seemed a welcome addition to the parish, well-groomed and active. Active in everything, actually. To the point where it seemed a bit weird.

To make a long story very short, Madame Flowers trespassed into all sorts of areas, would not take no for an answer to anything, accepted no boundaries or limits, and, when on one occasion was escorted by me to the office door to end a conversation, accused me of assault. In short, she was a terribly disruptive presence and the parish, I think, did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of protecting its members from substantial damage. Madame Flowers was in no way evil, in my opinion, but her behavior made it almost impossible for her to remain in the community unless she was willing to make substantial changes, which she was not.

(Let us for the moment gloss over the part where her mother was found mummified in her home while she claimed she had seen her alive just the week before.)

The thing about ACNA that I don't think the C of E understands is that I think most of us are not as concerned about their belief as about their behavior. When I heard that synod had passed this resolution, I tweeted, "Good luck, C of E. You're gonna need it." These folks, for whatever reason, think nothing of trespassing boundaries all over the place and then accusing the people who say no of assault.

Truly, I feel for you. You have no idea what you, in your desire to be reasonable, have gotten yourself into. Blessings. [Insert sign of cross here.]

Teaser Tuesday: a bit of reading fluff

Teaser Tuesdays is a weekly bookish meme, hosted by MizB of Should Be Reading. Anyone can play along! Just do the following:

* Grab your current read
* Open to a random page
* Share two (2) “teaser” sentences from somewhere on that page
* BE CAREFUL NOT TO INCLUDE SPOILERS! (make sure that what you share doesn’t give too much away! You don’t want to ruin the book for others!)
* Share the title & author, too, so that other TT participants can add the book to their TBR Lists if they like your teasers!

And my current reading couldn't be fluffier: Plum Spooky by Janet Evanovich. The following seems like a pretty typical couple of sentences for Evanovich.

Giving and getting the finger is a way of life in Jersey. Still, getting the finger from a monkey isn't normal even by Jersey standards.

(What is it with me and the trained animals?)

Thoughts on the altar guild

A couple of friends and various blogs pointed me to an editorial by Eric Lax in the NY Times, supporting the election of Mary Glasspool, a same-sex partnered woman, as suffragan bishop of Los Angeles. (I’d like to point out that there now seems to be no scandal about electing a woman, as two women were elected that day but only one made headlines. Remember when that would have been A Really Big Deal?)

The article itself is good, but there’s one part that leapt out and grabbed me by the front of my scruffy sweatshirt. Lax pointed out,

Until 1971, when women were first ordained as deacons, the highest post a woman could attain was member of the vestry, the elected group that manages parish business. But even that was uncommon; usually the highest ranking woman in the parish was the leader of the altar guild, which arranges the flowers in the church, sets up the Eucharistic vessels and washes and irons the linens used in the service.

[emphasis mine]

Seeing that was a revelation to me, something which might begin to explain a relationship that has always confused me: the relationship between clergy and altar guild.

Now, I’ve served on altar guilds at two churches; I was the sacristan at CDSP for two years; and I have nothing but respect for the work of the altar guild. But I’m here to tell you, that as a priest, I have never encountered more conflict than with the women of the altar guild. The amount of resistance, anger, and territoriality has often taken me by surprise.

I think this can be summed up succinctly in an encounter I had a few years back. I realized on my way to church on Sunday morning that I had forgotten to tell the head of the altar guild that I had made a change in some part of the set up for that morning. I knew this was going to be trouble and instantly went to the sacristy to apologize and explain. The head of the altar guild let me know in no uncertain terms that my behavior had been unacceptable and ended by telling me, “Don’t fuck with the altar guild.” Not language you hear every day from septuagenarian widows.

I think she said what a lot of altar guild leaders secretly and honestly feel. And part of that, I suspect, stems from the fact that it used to be they were the highest ranking women in the parish, but now where are they? Now that women run the joint, are bishops, priests, deacons, wardens, treasurers, deputies to General Convention – not to mention running the denomination in both houses – what status is there in serving on the altar guild? The truth is, not a lot.

That’s not all there is to it, of course, so forgive me for this superficial analysis, but I do wonder how this loss of status affects the attitudes of the long-time members of our altar guilds. What’s more, how many of them joined because priesthood was not an option? I’m trying to imagine how many bishops, priests, deacons served out their life ministries in the altar guild because there was no other outlet for it. Well, you could also be a DRE—director of religious education—but that position is largely vanished now, while the work of the altar guild is still largely unchanged.

And still largely unrecognized. Do you notice, of a Sunday, that your purificator has been ironed? No? Neither do I. But the altar guild still does it, using those thankless linens that need to be laundered and starched and ironed just so.

The altar guild is a ministry that gets noticed primarily by its failures. The wine isn’t in the cruet? Complain to the altar guild. The chasuble wasn’t set out? Complain to the altar guild. The candle ran out of oil? Complain to the altar guild. That constant castigation might have been a bit easier to take when there was some status in the position. But now I sense that the low status serving on the altar guild currently holds cannot match up to the constant criticism that comes with the job.

I’m just imagining all those thwarted priests ironing linens in dingy sacristies year after year for decades. It makes me sad. The church fucked with the altar guild big time.

Obit lead du jour

I'm afraid Ian Carmichael's subhead cannot compare with that of Ali Hassani:

Ali Hassani, who died on January 16 aged 82, became a circus tumbler after being snatched from a Moroccan marketplace aged only seven; during his decades in the Big Top he once calmly saved a boy from an escaped bear.

No amount of spiffing claret can beat that.

Lord Peter Wimsey died

Does anybody else remember the Lord Peter Wimsey series on PBS with Ian Carmichael? I enjoyed those and thought he was well cast. I love this subhead:

Ian Carmichael, the comedy actor who has died aged 89, was once asked what he would do if he won £1 million. He said he would improve his wine cellar with a lot of "absolutely spiffing clarets".

Sounds like LPW to me. In a cross with Bertie Wooster whom he also played.

Meanwhile, in Uganda...

Two stories predominate the regular Google alert I get on the topic of Uganda: one is the anti-homosexuality bill, still being roundly criticized by church and political leaders outside of Uganda while Ugandan politicians tell non-Ugandans to MYOB, a reaction I can appreciate even while thinking the anti-homosexuality bill is horrible.

"We cannot tell the Senate what to do. We cannot tell Congress what to do. So why do they feel that they can tell us what we should do in the interest of our people?" James Nsaba Buturo, Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity, told AFP.

The other story getting a lot of play that you may not know about is that there are lots of negotiations going on over new oil fields in Uganda. Companies from Russia, the U.K., France, as well as Exxon, "among others," have been trying to get in to Uganda "following the discovery of around a billion barrels of oil in three exploration blocks." As I understand it, there has never been petroleum production in Uganda before. Let's hope they learn something from Nigeria's experience.

I can just imagine how these two very different stories may become intertwined. But what do I know? At any rate, I wanted to give you a heads up.

Obie, please.

This is actually "Bay Area liberal, please," courtesy of James Fallows.