There is a scene at the end of the Pixar/Disney movie “Nemo” when the tropical fish finally achieve their dream and make it from the fishtank to the freedom of the ocean. They are giddy, bobbing up and down in the water in airtight baggies. Finally, they calm down and survey their new surroundings and recognize their plight: “Now what?” one of the fish asks.
“Now what?” was the question I was struck with covering the convention at the Diocese of Pittsburgh on Friday. Resolution 1 passed quickly, rubber stamping an earlier decision of the diocese to leave the Episcopal Church seeking leadership directly under the Anglican Communion. The reasons cited were mainly the ordination of an actively gay bishop and the new Presiding Bishop’s approval of that decision.
But, the trick is there is no precedent for such oversight. So, technically these dioceses are still under the authority of the newly elected Presiding Bishop until some agreement is reached within the larger Anglican Communion. This likely won’t take place until the next “Primates” meeting February 2007 in Tanzania.
As I sat in the guest area I couldn’t help but think of all these people, mainly non-ordained, lay leaders in their congregations, called to be in this historic time, making historic decisions. They feel strongly about the issues involved and sit in an unpopular spot. By disagreeing with the elevation of homosexuals into ordained leadership in the church, they are against society and media who regard that as progress.
I sat and spoke with someone who said that he grew up as a Baptist but eventually came to the Episcopal Church because of the middle ground. He wanted to be in a place where there weren’t neat answers for everything, that mystery and the gentle unfolding of truth were appreciated. But, now he feels that he is being forced to make a decision, because the middle ground is annoying to both those on the right and left of the aisle.
I’m still thinking about it all. I’m annoyed by the assurity of both sides. And, I’m annoying to others because I haven’t taken a side, I am still thinking about it all. Do I have to make a decision?
You said, “Do I have to make a decision?” It seems to me one only MUST make a decision if one is in a situation to affect change or maintain the status quo. In other words, unless one is a delegate and asked to vote on the issue then ambivalence is acceptable. My biggest frustration is with those who believe ambivalence is a virtue. It should not be considered a virtue, but rather an occasional necessity.