Communication

In the News

Address to the Trustees of the Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, MA
The Rev'd Elizabeth Kaeteon, rector and pastor
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul, Chatham, NJ

I am pleased and privileged to be here with you this afternoon to be a representative voice of the alumni/ae of this wonderful, outstanding seminary. I must leave early to catch a flight back home for a Vestry meeting tonight, but I would not have missed the opportunity to be with you today because I care deeply about this school and am passionately committed to its mission.

There are many ways to address the question of the use of the EDS Chapel as a sanctuary - in the fullest sense of that word - for the marriage of same sex couples. I want to very briefly address three components: legal, theological and vocational.

In terms of the legal issues involved, I want to begin by stating what I learned from Dan Stevick in a course on Episcopal Liturgy and Polity. In his wonderful succinct way, which quite correctly assumed that short statements were easier to learn and retain, he taught: "National canon always trumps diocesan canon. And, national canon is always trumped by the rubrics." He also taught that "liturgy precedes theology." I may not remember what I had for breakfast this morning, but here I am, 18 years later, still able to recite lessons learned in seminary.

I completely understand the logic of the bishops in this diocese in their decision. The national canons are clear in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. And, one might rush to say that the prayer book is also clear. However, I direct your attention to the rubrics found on page 13 of the BCP - specifically the third paragraph: "For special days of fasting or thanksgiving, appointed by civil or Church authority, and for other special occasions for which no service or prayer has been provided in this Book, the bishop may set forth such forms as are fitting to the occasion."

I think this is the rubric which trumps national canon. It allows for the development of an interim liturgy - until the national canons can catch up to the reality of the church - which may creatively and legally address the "special occasion for which no service or prayer has been provided in this book" for the "special day... appointed by civil... authority."

I want to stress the INTERIM nature of this liturgical development. I do not wish to create a situation of segregation which insists that the living waters of our faith be distributed from separate but equal fountains. Rather, I believe that this is the kind of creative, generous, and reconciling response that allows justice to be served without delay (and therefore not denied) and yet within the parameters of our institutional life of faith as defined by canon and rubric.

It also proves Dr. Stevick's well-taught axiom: "liturgy precedes theology." Thank goodness Mary said yes to God before the church could define the theology of the Incarnation or develop a theologically sound liturgy of baptism! Liturgy, indeed, precedes theology. But bold, decisive, prophetic action that is obedient to God's call precedes even liturgy.

And yet, it is directly to the point of theology. What I learned here about the nature of God is that God's first impulse is always to love. That Jesus, Emmanuel, God-made-flesh, is both love incarnate, love divine. And, that the Holy Spirit, God's own Ruach which God breathed over the chaos which was before creation, continually inspires us to "do a new thing" and empowers us to take our place as co-creators (and, Blessed Sue Hiatt would say, "co-conspirators") with God.

What I learned here about the nature of leadership in community is that I am to model that understanding of God - to have as my first impulse the generous, gracious, inclusive love of God. To incarnate that love in every fiber of my being. To be inspired and empowered to do a new, creative thing whenever the church-as-institution (as any institution is wont to do) seeks first not the risky Realm of God but rather, the security of its own salvation and preservation.

I learned that "perfect love casts out fear" in ways that are too numerous to mention here in this very short amount of time. Suffice it to say that it allowed this second generation Portuguese-American woman, who came to this prestigious (and then, very WASP-y) seminary with her partner and six children, to dare to dream the dream of God that I be one of God's priests. I learned that fear makes one miserly and stingy, constantly in search of the "bottom line," willing to cry "Peace, peace, when there is no peace," able to sacrifice justice on the altar of expediency, content with even the illusion of security rather than embrace "the peace of God, which is no peace, but strife clothed in the sod."

It was here, living and working and learning in the seminary which loved so perfectly it cast out the fear of merger and joined with another seminary, that I learned about the important merger of the pastoral and the prophetic. It was here that I witnessed a seminary which had cast out the fear of retribution when it hired two of the eleven women "irregularly" ordained in Philadelphia that I dared to dream the dream of a God of full inclusion. It was here, on my way to chapel, where I daily passed the statue of Jonathan Myric Daniels, who was martyred for the dream of God of racial equality. He is dead, but it was here that I learned that they can - and will - kill the dreamer, but they cannot kill the dream.

If other generations of seminarians will learn these lessons, then you, as Trustees, must not focus simply on theology or solely on the legal implications of this complex issue. I understand that you have a sacred trust as fiduciary agents of this most amazing seminary and that your first impulse is one to protect and conserve, and I thank you for bearing the burden of that responsibility.

I urge you, however, to consider carefully the vocational implications of the questions raised by the use of the chapel as a sanctuary for ALL God's people. What is it that God is calling us to do? In the midst of this Kairos moment in the church, what is God's dream for this seminary and the role it will play in the church? Can we dare to dream that dream? Can we find the creativity, the generosity and the reconciling nature of God which is within each one of us and use it, not for our own glory or the glory of this seminary, but rather, for the glory of God? That all who see and know of our deeds will give God praise - and even enthusiastically send a seminarian to this school, or make an additional and substantial contribution to enable our mission?

Once we respond faithfully to these questions of vocation, the theological, legal and even fiduciary implications of our decision will be in service of what God is calling us to do.

At least, that's what I learned here as a seminarian. And, I trust, this vocational response remains the primary lesson that this seminary teaches - by word and deed and example.

Thank you.