The Rev. Michele Morgan challenges the church to see itself as a sanctuary – a place where people with very different worldviews can stay in relationship.
While the world is becoming more and more polarized, Michele hopes that the Episcopal Church will turn away from this divisiveness. Instead, she hopes that faith communities can demonstrate a ‘new way’ of living deeply in relationship by sharing and appreciating the uniqueness and opinions of each individual.
Michele is currently serving as the Transitional Priest at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Minneapolis.
MIchele, wonderful presentation….Deede and I will vote no as well for tons of reasons.
This was incredibly powerful to hear. I will never think “sanctuary” again without remembering your face speaking words of love to those with whom you disagree, knowing all that that “disagreement” means to you and to your partner and, ultimately, to all of us. Thank you.
Terrific, Michelle. will the Diocese (old word, but I can’t think of another) publish your comments on Facebook or another social media. Your words need to be heard.
well done Michele. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas and wonderings about Sanctuary. Sounds like you’ve been working on this as a rediscovered, or re-imagined, theological concept for a long time.
Thanks Michele. Well done…excellent theology. You express my point view.
I will vote No.
Nicely done Michelle and a great recasting of the idea of Sanctuary. I’m going to put this on the front page of our parish site…. thanks
Thank you Michelle for having the courage and sensitivity to express this with such love . The church is lucky to have you bring new life to old concepts. Terry Roberts
Thanks Michele.
Lovely… In our faith context, that sanctuary is the only real world, and our divisiveness and disrespect a turning away from it. Thank you for calling us home.
I can agree with Michele that we should look at each other as sisters and brothers(or cousins) regardless of our different perspectives. It is like interfaith work. To be open to dialogue with Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist isn’t an endorsement on their complete world view. But the open and honest dialogue does strengthen our ability to understand and not lash out in bigotry or ignorance in relationship to each other. My greatest understanding of the heart of God is that no matter how far we, as individuals, fall short of his expectations, he is always open to dialogue and he always cares about each of his children.
Not only “what would it be like,” but what does it take where it is happening and what would it take to happen a lot more? Maybe “what would it be like,” is the question we need to start to think about what gets in the way, imagine what might replace that and become more open to God’s grace in creating it.
Thank you Michele. I see this as the basic challenge Jesus has put before us – love one another, not just despite our differences, but including our differences. God Bless.
Michele, I too have encountered someone who calls me a friend in one breath, and in the other says they’ll be voting Yes on the amendment to limit the freedom to marry to only heterosexual couples. It’s been a journey *for me* to ask that friend more questions, to find out what has shaped that person’s views, to share even more deeply some of my own painful experiences. What more is there to be done, other than have mercy and walk humbly…?
Blessings,
Liz
Great Job I love it ………. You speak to all issues we really face……….. We all can hear but very few can listen.
You have a beautiful mind. Thank you for offerring a concept of having a safe place to comunicate in the Spirit. I think a true marriage has much more to do with a meeting of the mind and spirit in love than anything else – trust, honor, caring – what is the depth of true relating? I see nothing inherent, statistically or otherwise, that indicates being heterosexual comtributes anything to having a sucessful marriage.
Who am I to judge anyone else’s relationship?
To my way of thinking the real threat to marriage resides in any couple not being in right relationship with each other. Pogo says, “I have seen the enemy and he is us.” I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that anyone else’s choice is somehow a threat to any personal relationship I may have. One of the saddest times I ever witnessed is when a friend of mine was denied access to the hospital room of his beloved partner of twenty years by the family. I just feel that denying love because of semantics or definitions or disagreement in what constitutes a legal marriage does an injustice. I have no personal stake in how marriage is defined but I will vote Yes. I don’t know if those who never have to deal with the nightmare of not being able to be “married” in the eyes of the law understand how incredibly painful and complicated it is for people who have committed to each other to provide what those of us who are “straight” take for granted – health benefits from a husband or wife’s insurance, inheritance rights, the right to be with someone through sickness and health.
I am no theologian, but my understanding of Christianity is that it is a new covenant. I see nothing in the New Testament greater than the comandment to love one another and to judge not lest you be judged.
Yours in Christ.
I very much appreciate these words, which i recall hearing from you at a Clergy Conference awhile back. Of course, words are just happy talk unless we find ways to make it so in our local parishes. (We have made that commitment in our context.) The greater challenge will be to make sanctuary possible within our denominational structures. Can Diocesan Convention, for example, be a sanctuary? Based on previous experience it has been anything but. We don’t need to be captive to that past.
I think I have not read what the ammendment is. I mean to say I would not limit the definition of marriage to be only between a man and a woman. I really think personal matters should not be covered in a constitutional ammendment anyway. Sorry if I misspoke myself. Thank you for briniging the issue of sanctuary to the forefront.
Char
FYI, the wording of the amendment is:
Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota? ____Yes ____No
In my experience at event tables and interacting with neighbors who are less familiar with the issue but who support marriage for same-sex couples, about 1 out 8 or 10 people think they are to vote Yes. But a Yes vote has the impact of PREVENTING same-sex couples from marrying; a NO vote indicates support for marriage for ALL loving, committed couples, and/or support for keeping the government out of all of our bedrooms, and/or an *objection* for limiting the freedom to marry.
(To learn more about how to talk about this important issue and defeat the proposed anti-LGBTQ amendment, go to mnunited.org/faithconversations)
Thank you Michele. I agree! The church needs to be a place were we can talk and safely disagree.