Inhibited by broken promises

I've been dreading going to church tomorrow, because I'm afraid my priest might ask, "How are you?" It's always such a complicated question to try to answer honestly, or accurately, since my mood can change from one day to the next. I will say that this was a rough week, and it took me most of that time to get over my disappointment of last weekend.

So what word would I use to describe how I am, or how I'm feeling? A few came to mind. "Grounded" was one that sounds pretty neutral, especially this past week, when so many jets were grounded to have their wire bundles in their wheel wells inspected. It is also fitting, because my organic veggie seeds arrived this week. So I've started planting them, hoping they'll be seedlings by mid-May.

But in the Episcopal Church's climate this week, the word "inhibited" came to mind. I feel inhibited. I'm not feeling personally inhibited as if I did anything wrong that would cause me to be kept silent. But the thing I was hoping would happen since last November won't ever happen, and now I am left feeling pretty much like the wind has been sucked out of my sails, that I am out of ideas, and that my hope has died. ("Zombie of the Church" just came to mind, too. But I think I'll keep that one to myself, hoping something will improve my mood soon.)

The gardening idea is still a "go". But I've all but lost interest in promoting it, even though I'll bring my seeds on the 27th (if nothing has sprouted by then) in case there is any sort of Rogation Sunday thingie that will be going on.

We talked briefly about the upcoming Animal Rights National Conference in August, where I'll be a speaker on the topic of animals & religion. I mentioned that the person who submitted my name asked if I knew of any bishops who might be interested in going to speak too. I had some in mind. My priest suggested another one, who happens to be retired. Somehow it came up in conversation that the clergy who are more likely to feel free to talk about animal issues are those who are either non-parochial or retired. And after the flak our Presiding Bishop got from the conservative bloggers, I felt like I was opting toward suggesting the retired bishop.

That whole idea brought up a Catch 22 in my mind -- knowing that non-parochial or retired means that this is a topic that will never get discussed in our churches in a meaningful way. Congregational life. It's a pit, because no one wants to ruin the tranquility, or get anyone riled up enough to leave. (I don't count. I'm just one person.) So this is what it boiled down to for me:

"...the thought occurred to me that the problem with the Church is that it allows 'the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God' to orchestrate for us what is safe and acceptable to talk about in a public forum, and, that the churches are unwilling to 'renounce them'."

How is it that the Church expects people to publicly renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God as part of their Baptismal promises, when the Church will not?