PeacePastor

Writing Something

2010-08-24T06:09:00.000-07:00

My blog needs updating. My girlfriend told me, and I know she's right, not that I received her right-ness with appropriate grace and gratitude.

So I do need to write something and maybe I'll write about writing. Specifically that we ought to all be doing more of it, since it's really suffering. I love all the great social media out there, and texting, and the other opportunities creeping up--opportunities to mangle the English language and send grammar to an early grave. Really I do.

But I had to give up Twitter, since 140 characters means writing "u" when you mean "you." And using numbers as words. I've tried it out when texting (since you only get 160 there). Doesn't really work for me.

I think we should all try our hands at formal writing, by which I mean writing that uses letters only. If you need to write about numbers over ten, then you can use numerals. But otherwise, letters. And complete sentences, though they can be fragments, if you know what you're doing. Seriously. Fragments are an appropriate way to indicate emphasis. Really. They are not not not an appropriate way to communicate generally in written discourse.

So that's what I think. I think we should all write more. Except for Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg. They should write less. Maybe just on Twitter.

Gay protest signs (funny)

2010-08-23T20:49:00.000-07:00

The Joy of Candidacy, Part Three

2010-05-14T08:56:00.000-07:00

I am a candidate for ordained ministry again. It's an odd place to be, since I've been an ordained minister for nearly a decade.

But the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has declared itself open to receiving lesbian and gay candidates in Publicly Accountable, Lifelong, Mutual Same-gender relationships (PALMS) on its roster, so I am a candidate once again.

Which means going through candidacy again. For the third time.

Yay.

The first two times weren't bad, really. I had a really terrific candidacy team in the Sierra-Pacific Synod (the northern halves of California and Nevada). They wanted me to be approved, even to the point of tacitly encouraging me to bend the truth in order to do so. And they were loving and kind when I stubbornly refused to play the "I'm in compliance right now (here in this office)" game. ("Now available from Hasbro! Hasbro, for all of your integrity-compromising needs.")

The second trip through candidacy was with the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, which accepted all of my ELCA paperwork (and kept copies of it all, which has turned out to be a Godsend). I also had to write an essay about how my sexuality would influence my ministry, which felt like one of those "you need to do something special for us so here it is" requirements. But I wrote it and I'm sure I'll come across it any time now and enjoy reading it again. Or laugh. Laughing is a distinct possibility.

ECP is now Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, and it will always be my primary home. Were it not for the pioneers of this movement, dozens of us would have been left out in the cold, like so many of our sisters and brothers in other denominations. I am proud to be "extraordinarily ordained," and grateful as hell to all those who worked so hard to pry open the doors to ministry.

The ELCA's doors are sort of open now, though I am not steeled for bureaucracy as I should be, having been sheltered by ECP-then-ELM all of these years. The institutional church is a whole different animal.

Case in point: Since it has been (just) over ten years since I was postponed by an ELCA candidacy committee, it appears that the Synod has shredded my paperwork. They can't find my file, and think it has been "disposed."

Ouch. Since I was postponed, I assumed that they would hold my file open. Or at least check in before chucking it.

First rule of interfacing with bureaucratic institutions: Never assume.

ELM, my one true love, has my paperwork. Most of it, anyway. They kept it in a fireproof vault, and have already sent a copy to my new Synod. I'm searching through old floppy disks for my approval essays. Have found two of the four. I think the other two are on the hard drive of the office computer at my internship site. A computer which has surely been discarded long ago.

So the search for hard copies commences.

Breaking News: Conference of Bushes to Decide Fate of Pines

2010-03-01T06:36:00.001-08:00

For immediate release.

Chicago, IL, USA. The Conference of Bushes of the largest denomination of trees in the U.S. will meet this month in Chicago to weigh in on a procedure to receive pines to its Roster of Ordered Timbers.

The rules and procedures of Every Leaf Counts in America (ELCA) have long denied pine trees leadership roles, although the evergreens have been allowed to participate in the laitree. "We welcome pines to full participation in the life cycle of the ELCA," declares a letter from the Conference of Bushes written in 1993.

According to the earliest botanical manuscripts, especially the authoritative Historia Plantarum by Theophrastus, pines are considered needle-bearers rather than leaf-bearers. This distinction has long been understood as an unsurmountable barrier to coniferous service on the ELCA Roster of Ordained Timbers.

"The taxonomy is simple. The Botany is very clear about this," says Roy Oaken, president of Leaves Alone, a splinter group promoting leaf purity within the denomination. "Pines do not produce fruit. They are unable to make nuts. The Botany declares that we should 'be fruitful and multiply.' Pines do that, but not in a normal way, and we don't want our saplings learning about that or being told that it is okay. Our roots have grown a certain way for thousands of years, and we simply will not change our roots because the larger plant kingdom is suddenly more accepting of pines."

[Broadcasting note: In a departure from standard usage, the last two letters of Leaves are accented. Proper pronounciation of the organizational name is "Leave-us Alone."]

In August of 2009, members of the ELCA met in Assembly in Minnesota, one of the most densely forested states in the country, considered a sort of "tree Mecca." Two thirds of the trees at the Assembly were from the laitree, with the remaining voters perennials from the Roster of Ordered Timbers and the Conference of Bushes. The Conference of Bushes is made up of elected representatives of each of the sixty-five regional synods of the ELCA (including Sumac-Zion, a non-geographical synod). Bushes enjoy higher status in the denomination by virtue of being closer to the ground.

The Assembly voted to alter its traditional practice and allow certain parks and woods to accept pines as Ordered Timbers. No ecosystem that did not wish to have pines in leadership roles would be forced to do so. Still, for those evergreens which have been standing up against their exclusion from leadership, the decision was monumental.

"This is the day we've awaited for so long," said Ash Virginia Pine, director of Even the Leafless Matter (ELM), which rosters conifers unwilling to adopt counterfeit leaves in order to be accepted on the Roster of Ordered Timbers. "Our trees are just like the other trees serving in leadership positions across our forests. Science has shown that needles are, in fact, the same as leaves. They just look a little different and are a lot stronger. We actually consider our pines to be pretty special, and to have a particular role to play in the larger society. Think about it: across the country there are pines in millions of living rooms at Christmastime. The plant kingdom--indeed the whole world--is moving toward acceptance of pines. It is time for the ELCA to grow taller and accept our unique gifts."

Though the vote took place back in August, a plan to actually receive pines barred from the Roster has been slow to germinate. The plan will require layers of fertilizer from several constituencies across the denomination, including the Department of Vocation and Ecosystems, the Forest Council, and the Conference of Bushes.

The Conference of Bushes meets March 4-9 to look at a proposal for including ELM trees on the Roster of Ordered Timbers. ELM members are hopeful that the proposal will not include a rite of re-ordering, which would be tantamount to being torn up by the roots.

Rick Steves: Travel Guru, Lutheran, Pot Smoker

2010-02-24T08:35:00.000-08:00

I love that one man is all three of those things. I love Rick Steves. And I love that he is brave enough to say what very few Lutherans would ever say outside of their homes, let alone to a Christian Century reporter--that he smokes pot.

I don't mean to suggest that smoking pot is something of which one ought be proud. Neither should one be proud to be a drinker or a television watcher. All of those drugs cause a lot of problems in our world. And the majority of users of alcohol, television, and yes, marijuana, are not harming themselves or others.

I don't smoke pot. I have, and I didn't like it. I quit when I was fifteen, to the chagrin of my stoner friends, who would occasionally try to saddle me with a contact high by blowing a "power hitter" in my face. Yeah, I probably should have found some different friends, but we moved to California just as I started high school, and the stoners are the most permeable membrane in high school culture. That's my 'scuse, and I'm stickin' with it.

I don't smoke pot, but I'm not all that concerned about most of the people who do. Alcohol creates many more problems in our lives, our families and our society, and I've never been able to figure out why it's legal and pot is not.

In fact, legalizing marijuana could actually solve a few problems, like the myriad issues of an illegal drug trade, the funding of dangerous cartels in Mexico and Central America, and the overcrowding of our jails. Let's concentrate on the drugs which are truly dangerous, and on those who abuse marijuana...oh, and alcohol, while we're at it.

Rick Steves said that out loud to Christian Century magazine. That is wicked, dude.

First the Train Left the Station. Now It Has Left the Tracks

2010-01-20T06:56:00.000-08:00

I'm so sad about Massachusetts; all I can do is write. Maybe this isn't the end (cue very psychedelic Doors song). Maybe we'll still get a health care bill that's worth a darn. But this morning I'm afraid that all that work has been in vain again, and I just can't believe that this desperately needed reform was derailed by:

1. Martha Coakely not knowing who Curt Shilling is. C'mon Boston--I know you love your teams, but c'mon!

2. A lawyer who once did a Cosmo centerfold posing as "Everyman."

3. The Washington bubble.

4. The ability of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to convince people that they don't need something they really do need. And to further convince them that the message that they need it is some kind of plot to hurt them.

5. People who already have universal health care deciding that the rest of the country doesn't need it.

Is Grease Really the Word?

2010-01-06T18:54:00.001-08:00

I was on call tonight, and didn't have to go in. Since it has been snowing (again!) all afternoon, that was a wonderful gift.

In an embarrassment of riches, VH1 is showing "Movies that rock!" and tonight's is Grease. I saw Grease three times in the movie theater--at a time when I could hardly afford to see a movie once. Even if it was a buck fifty.

Grease is a sausage movie. Don't think too hard about it, and don't look too close. Just enjoy it. Yes, Olivia Newton John is in high school. Yes, that car got itself built and painted. Yes, all of these improbable love stories, including the one between the greaser and the uber-naive Australian virgin, will work out. I love this movie, because it enables me to suspend disbelief and believe that it all works out in the end, no matter how crazy mucked up it is all the way through.

It also takes me back to a time when I thought everything was simple that way. Before I realized that I didn't admire Rizzo--I was crushing on her. And Stormy Ruecastle (with whom I took the bus every morning in fifth and seventh grade--Stormy was a year ahead of me in school and she and her best friend Rene were the coolest girls ever. On the planet, I mean.) It was a simpler time.

And Grease was the word, which really sums up the whole thing, don't you think?

Would Jesus Withhold Mission Support?

2009-12-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

That's always a good question, right? What would Jesus do?

Some of those who stand in great certitude about what Jesus would do are withholding their money from their ELCA congregations. Whole congregations are withholding mission support from the ELCA churchwide organization.

Forty-five people lost their jobs at churchwide, in part as a result of this withheld support. Budget cuts are more complex, of course--it's a bad economy and we continue to decline overall.

But a whole bunch of those people lost their jobs because of financial blackmail. Maybe that's harsh, but I don't think so, and if it is, then it is deservedly harsh. Our congregation disagreed with decisions made by churchwide for years, and never once voted to withhold funds. We would have considered it unjust. I would have considered it immoral. A good portion of the money that goes to churchwide funds disaster response, water programs in the 2/3 world, the ELCA World Hunger Appeal.

If we're going to call ourselves members of the ELCA, then we should commit to the organization, and that means supporting it with our dollars. It's no different than being the member of a congregation. If you commit to the organization, you are expected to support it. That's part of the commitment.

So, congregations withholding your money: please stop. Or withdraw altogether, as would be more honest and fair.

Money is a tool and we should definitely allow our values to direct our spending. But just as I don't shop at Walmart, I don't park in their parking lot, either.

Are We "Post-label"? Should We Be?

2009-11-19T07:22:00.000-08:00

I was part of a panel yesterday at St. Paul School of Theology here in Kansas City. The panel was sponsored by Sacred Worth, a group at the seminary which supports and celebrates its LGBT students, most of whom are closeted because they are on the ordination track of the United Methodist Church, and there's no Extraordinary Methodist Ministries and someone should really start one...but that's another post.

At the forum, a topic was raised which has been rolling around in my head for a while now. A young man I know and like very much asked how welcoming churches ensure that their LGBT members are known for more than being LGBT. The responses from panel members then went mostly to the "labels are so not helpful" place.

I see where that thinking arises, and I understand it. It would be great if we lived in a world in which all were loved and valued equally, and perhaps the need to name ourselves by gender, sexual orientation, affinity, political persuasion, etc. is simply perpetuating the divisions in our society. Maybe if we stopped using labels we would stop needing them. "We borrow our authority from the future" is the way that Pastor Jeff Johnson--one of the deans of LGBT inclusion in the Lutheran church--has put it.

I see that thinking, but I raise you this: we don't live in that world of peace and harmony and equal value. We live in a culture which still privileges straight over gay, white over black (brown, yellow). We live in a world in which women are still paid significantly less for doing the same work as men and are denied opportunities in nearly every field. And as long as we live in that world, I think it is important to name those inequalities, and to claim our wholeness as black people, gay people, transgender people, women, Latino/a/s, queers, radicals and youth. If I left you out, please name and claim yourself.

Not naming ourselves doesn't keep us from being what we are. Not naming ourselves doesn't alter the field of disproportionate allocation of resources upon which we play. In fact, here's my big fear: when we do not name those who are pushed to the margins, we will default to privilege. When we do not have Black History Month, we'll continue to celebrate White History Month. Every month. And yes, that still makes the "score" eleven to one, and that's a big problem. But it's a start.

What do you all think? Are labels not helpful? Is there a way to usher in a new world without them? Or do you need to be named for exactly who and what you are?

Writer's BLOCK

2009-10-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I actually do mean to have "BLOCK" in capital letters, even though that is the online equivalent of shouting. I'm having one of those days when I feel like shouting, mainly because I can't seem to write and I need to write because on Sunday I have to preach just like almost every Sunday and yes, that does get to be a little creatively challenging. Or it gets to be challenging to my creativity--that's more correct.

I'm thinking I'll write here and maybe that will help me write there.

So there was this guy Martin Luther and he had a hammer. He hammered in the mo-or-nin'. At least, I assume he used a hammer and the Peter, Paul and Mary reference works better if he did.

He had a hammer and he thought of ninety-five ways to say "The church is in error and the pope is a bad man and indulgences suck." A bit of an over-writer, Luther. Much different from an underwriter, which is someone who tries to deny you insurance.

Luther wasn't about denying. He was about affirming--affirming the relationship between people and a loving God who also wasn't about denying. The church had begun to proclaim a god (yes, I also meant the small "g") who was capricious enough to send folks to some mythical joint called purgatory until their families ponied up enough money to get them sprung. Because apparently this god was deeply invested in how many cathedrals could be built in his name (definitely meant "his").

That reminds me...so I was reading the Word Alone Network News. (I'd link Word Alone, but I love you, gentle readers, so I don't want you going there. And besides, you all know how to work Google.) Word Alone is a conservative Lutheran organization dedicated to the idea that we must so fear and love God that we should follow scripture exactly as written (in Leviticus 18 and the other 4 passages, that is, but not the rest of Leviticus except where convenient and not Mark 9 where Jesus offers some really clear teaching about divorce). So the recently divorced president of the Word Alone Network is writing about the outcome of the Churchwide Assembly, and she was writing about this guy named God who didn't look familiar to me at all.

Is there more than one? We do seem to act that way sometimes. I'm not really claiming to be right here (though I do think that I am). I'm just sad that we can just all get along and we went through the Reformation over whether God saves us by grace or because we're good and we are still busy telling each other to be good and ignoring the plank in our own eyes.

And I'm no closer to a sermon now but maybe just a little and I meant to write that contradiction in the last sentence of this post.

Not a Vagabond Any Longer

2009-10-13T20:46:00.000-07:00

I seem to have bought a house. It's not totally final yet, but things are looking good. So I have answered my beloved's request to take "vagabond" out of my little subtitle/descriptor/bio thingy at the top of the page.

It's late and I'm tired, but also wanted to say this. Barack Obama makes me proud to be an American. I don't love everything he's done, but he is a good man and he's doing as good a job as anyone could do right now. I think.

Oh, and I still love my Wolverines and those really awful Chiefs. These are the times that try fans' souls...

CWA: What Does This Mean?

2009-08-24T09:09:00.001-07:00

I've been asked a lot over the past week what the decisions made at Churchwide would mean for myself and my congregation. It's kind of funny, really, that after all of these years of praying, begging, cajoling and demonstrating, the answer is actually "not a whole lot."

Oh, and also, "a whole lot." Great Lutheran paradox, that.

My congregation already has a pastor in a "same gender, life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship." Okay, I'm fudging "publicly accountable" a little, since we are waiting until we live in the same state to take the ELCA up on its support of our getting married (they'd never say "married," but I can. Married married married. That's what they voted on and they know it.).

Our congregation is under censure by our Synod (the regional body--in this case Missouri and Kansas). Under the terms of our censure, we're not allowed to serve on committees of the synod or churchwide expressions. Which does leave us feeling a little cut off, and provides a great excuse to stop paying benevolence to the Synod--which I'm proud to say we have not done. We have done our best to stay in relationship with the larger church, and I'd say it has been mainly mutual. Bishop Mansholt has been expecially gracious in extending a hand of friendship to Abiding Peace.

But being under censure for eight years kind of sucks, and we'll be glad to have it lifted.

And I will be glad to stop suffering the little indignities that arise so often, especially around the first weekend in June, when the whole Synod meets in Assembly. I'll be glad to receive mail from the larger church addressed to "Rev. Donna Simon." I've been ordained almost nine years; I think it would be nice to be addressed properly. Someone in the Synod office actually works overtime making sure that I know that he or she doesn't recognize my ordination. I get mail addressed to "Ms. Donna Simon." If you left off the "Ms.," I'd just think you weren't using titles, and blow it off. But "Ms." says what it is intended to say: "This is the best you're going to get from us."

We submitted a resolution to the Synod Assembly this year, signed by over a hundred people. When it appeared in the Assembly notebook, I notice that my name was one space off of the line at the left margin. This was because they had deleted "Rev." from in front of my name, and hadn't gotten it pulled all the way back to the margin.

Little indignities. Sitting in the back. Not having a title. Sometimes not even having a name. I saw a dear friend, Pastor Karen Parker, at Churchwide. We had a class together while I was in seminary--a writing class with Brian Wren--go ahead and be jealous, those who know who Brian Wren is. I have seen Karen around the church over the years, and it was so nice to see her. We were chatting and she asked for my email address, which I started to give her. Then she said, "Oh, I'll just look you up in the Directory. I raised an eyebrow and she quickly realized why. "I guess I can't do that," she said. "Soon," I said, and we both smiled.

It will be nice to be in the Directory. It will be nice to maybe even get to help lead worship sometime at a Synod Assembly. Other than those things, not much changes for me. I'm already called as an out pastor, and I am committed to seeing our church grow and flourish.

I love that the opportunities for call will come to others, though. I love that I can say I'm proud of one of the churches which is extending a true hand of love and hospitality to God's lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and gay children.

What does this mean? All are welcome in this place.

CWA Wrapup, Very Brief

2009-08-24T09:07:00.000-07:00

We will call and ordain lesbian and gay persons. We will bless same-sex unions.

More work is needed, as we are still allowing a lot of opting out on both of these.

But for now, we dance.

CWA Day Four

2009-08-21T13:06:00.000-07:00

Today is the day. On the agenda: The four recommendations of the ELCA Sexuality Task Force, which--if passed--lead to the conditions under which a lesbian or gay pastor in a "publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationship" could serve an ELCA church. We're not quite actually affirming the right to call a gay or lesbian pastor, since we're still allowing congregations (and perhaps synods, bishops, etc.--it's not clear) to respect their own "bound consciences" by refusing to call someone. It's a step on the pathway to full inclusion, and a good one.

I need to be in the hall, so will cheat and give you the ELCA News Service report on what has happened so far. Nutshell: We moved the resolution calling on ELCA members to respect one another's bound consciences to number one and approved it after lengthy conversation. (And can I just say that it is baffling to me that people would actually stand at a microphone and argue about whether or not we should respect one another. I wonder sometimes if they actually listen to what they're saying. A guy actually said earlier that "the purpose of the church is to provide standards for rostered leaders." Yes, he said "the." Definite article. Tautological argument. The church exists to provide standards for leaders of the church. Here I thought it was to be about Christ's mission on earth. Silly me.)

The second item up was Recommendation Two, which allowed for congregations that wish to do so to publicly affirm "life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships." A lot of conversation again (though I think less than on the first recommendation, which is bizarre to me). Then the question was called, and it passed by just over sixty percent and we cried, likely not for the last time today.

Back at the beginning of the day, the former governor of Minnesota (and what's with Minnesota governors?) offered a substitute to the four recommendations which mirrored the current policy language. Blah, blah, blah, and it received just 33.9 percent. We see there, though, that the supermajority would not have carried, so that vote on Monday is looming large. Speaking of which, they tried it again, inviting the Assembly to vote on whether a two-thirds majority should be required for resolutions related to ministry policy. It recieved just over forty percent, seven percent less than it received on Monday. They should probably quit while behind.

On a personal note, I am tired tired tired, but feeling wonderful. Colleen has been an amazing partner, supportive, helpful and loving. I am so glad to be here to witness this moment in the life of the church. And am going back to witnessing it now.

MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) -- Voting members of the 2009 Churchwide Assemblyof the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are in the middle oftaking steps to make it possible for the Lutherans in same-genderrelationships to serve as professional leaders in the denomination.The churchwide assembly, the chief legislative authority of the ELCA,is meeting here Aug. 17-23 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. About2,000 people are participating, including 1,045 ELCA voting members. Thetheme for the biennial assembly is "God's work. Our hands."Voting members have begun considering four distinct resolutions Aug.21, which are designed to change current ELCA policy that requires thedenomination's professional leaders to abstain from "homosexual sexualrelationships."The resolutions are contained in a report and recommendation onministry policies developed by the Task Force for the ELCA Studies onSexuality.A majority vote is required to pass each of the four resolutions.With a 771-230 vote, the assembly amended and approved a resolutionthat states "that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministrypolicies, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love theneighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all."With a 619-402 vote, the assembly approved a second resolution thatcommits the ELCA "to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to doso to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountably life-long,monogamous, same-gender relationships."Prior to considering the two resolutions, voting members defeated a"substitute" motion with a 344-670 vote to strike out all four resolutionsand replace it with the following: "rostered leadership of this church whoare homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain fromhomosexual sexual relations and practicing homosexual persons areprecluded from rostered leadership in this church." Albert Quie, votingmember from the ELCA Minneapolis Synod, made the substitute motion.As voting members were considering resolution two, Edward A. Kirst,voting member from the ELCA Northeastern Ohio Synod, made a motion torequire a two-thirds vote -- instead of a majority -- for approving theremaining resolutions. That motion was defeated with a 407-576 vote.During the afternoon plenary, voting members will consider the tworemaining resolutions -- that the denomination find a way for Lutherans insame-sex relationships to serve as ordained ministers and otherprofessional leadership roles in the church, and that the denominationconsider a proposal for how it will exercise flexibility within existingstructures and practices to allow for Lutherans in same-sex relations tobe approved for professional service in the church.

CWA Day Three

2009-08-20T07:32:00.000-07:00

Pretty uneventful day yesterday. A tornado hit the Convention Center and we passed the ELCA Sexuality Statement by the exact number of votes needed (676 to 338).

Just another day in the life of the Body of Christ, which is nudged forward and sometimes blown off of its heels by the Holy Spirit.

No one hurt in the tornado, though it did halve the steeple at Central Lutheran across the street. Central is the church which is graciously hosting Assembly members for worship and meals. They've set up an open-air restaurant in front and a pub in back. Both are in pieces now, and it is sheer blessing that the tornado didn't touch down during a mealtime or happy hour.

I missed the vote on the Sexuality Study, having made plans to share dinner with Lyle, a dear former member at Abiding Peace. But my friend Jen sent a text when it happened, and we rejoiced. I was surprised, since there was so much bickering back and forth about the statement, that I didn't think they'd get to a vote, even after extending the debate (hence my absence--I wouldn't have scheduled dinner during a Plenary).

The Goodsoil worship service was scheduled for last night, and it was grand that the vote did in fact happen, because we were buoyed by the good news, which just made the service that much more special. There had to be well over 500 people over at Central. Perhaps closer to 800 or more. The very large sanctuary was full. Barbara Lundblad (Numero Uno Preacher in the World) preached, and the music was great.

The air in that sanctuary was electric, and it is clear that a great healing is taking place. It will not be finished here; much more is needed. And we still have the vote on the ministry standards coming. That is the policy change in which we have invested so much fear and hope.

Pray for the Assembly. Pray for the church. Pray for those who will celebrate and those who will mourn. Pray for God's will to be done.

CWA Day Two

2009-08-19T06:01:00.000-07:00

First, an apology. The email access at the Convention Center isn't what I hoped. I thought I'd be able to get WiFi in the Plenary sessions, but it's not available. So I'm sending less than intended.

Second, I'm totally sharing Ruth Ellen's drinking game idea with everyone I know.

CWA: Day Two

The ELCA has voted in Assembly to launch the Lutheran Malaria Initiative. We will begin with at $2.8 million grant and then raise funds to do our part toward the very attainable goal of eradicating malaria. The initiative will concentrate on sub-Saharan Africa, though the hope was expressed from the Assembly floor and the dais that it will expand to other parts of the world in which malaria takes lives.

We also talked about human sexuality—the sexuality of gay humans, that is. We moved into a Quasi Committee of the Whole, which is fancy legal language for “a big structured conversation.” Persons line up at green and red microphones and get three minutes to share their feelings about the matter at hand—in this case, the ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality.

Folks at the green microphones felt that we ought to finally move forward toward real welcome of our transgender, bisexual, lesbian and gay neighbors.

Folks at the red microphones felt that we ought to quit talking about feelings. This is the Tactic Du Jour for the red mic crowd. Assign all impetus toward change to the realm of “capricious emotion.”

We heard this argument in a slightly different way at Synod, from the gentleman who argued that we seemed to be deciding policy “based on some kind of wishy-washy love thing.”

Is feeling such a bad thing for the church? Shall we really not use emotion as one (and it is only one, not the sole basis of our platform) deciding factor in making change?

Churchwide Assembly. It Begins.

2009-08-18T04:49:00.000-07:00

Greetings from Minneapolis, Land O' Lutherans!

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's eleventh Churchwide Assembly has begun. Last night the first Plenary session was held, and the session, scheduled for two and a half hours, only went over by slightly more than an hour. This is a vast improvement over the Orlando Assembly back in 2005, when the first session went until 11:30 at night. Our Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, joked that it was 11:30 in Orlando when we ended, so those who had money in a pool should probably consider it a draw. He is a real card, our bishop.

This session went long, just as did the one in Orlando, because up for consideration was a change in the proceeding which would require a 2/3 "supermajority" to change the current ministry standards in the ELCA. This is a maneuver by conservatives to keep the standards as they are: sans homosexual participation.

A little backstory: We have reached the end of an eight year process of study mandated by the 2001 Churchwide Assembly. The ELCA convened a Sexuality Task Force, wrote a Statement on Human Sexuality, and made recommendations on changing our ministry standards to allow congregations to call openly gay pastors if they wish to do so.

This is a big deal.

So the question came up: how much of a majority do we need to pass these ministry recommendations? The Social Statement will need 2/3, per the ELCA bylaws. But changing standards and practices is usually a simple majority vote. The Church Council (the one for the whole church) recommended to recommend a simple majority, which is what it took to enact the policies, so there's some parity there.

The conversation was lllonnnng, and it veered rapidly into debate over the proposals, and not the procedures required to pass or deny them. Bishop Hanson admonished the speakers to avoid this veering, to little avail.

Long story short (too late!), the vote was evennnntually taken, and only forty-seven percent of the Assembly voted to require the supermajority. Since the change required a two-thirds vote, this means it failed by a bunch. Good start to the Assembly, I think.

Here's the News Service release:

ELCA NEWS SERVICE
August 18, 2009
ELCA Assembly Defeats Super-Majority Requirement
09-CWA-O3-MS
MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) -- Voting members of the biennial assembly of theEvangelical Lutheran Church in America turned back a motion that wouldhave required a two-thirds majority for changes in policies relating to the rostering of clergy, associates in ministry, diaconal ministers and deaconesses. The vote, with 57 percent in opposition, came late in the evening of the first day of the gathering. A vote to allow people living in committed same-gender relationships to be on the professional rosters of the ELCA is scheduled for Friday, Aug. 21.The action leaves in place a recommendation that a simple majority vote be sufficient for the proposed policy changes. By vote of 979-24 the assembly adopted the order of business as recommended.

Get a Job!

2009-06-26T08:26:00.000-07:00

I was talking with a dear friend and member of my church last night and she was sharing her frustration with the comments of Rep. Cynthia Davis of Missouri, who represents a wealthy suburban district outside St. Louis.

Rep. Davis has suggested that young people old enough to get jobs should be working at McDonald's, where they will get a free meal during their shift, rather than having lunch at churches offering free lunches over the summer.

(Parenthetical Thought: Maybe I should work at McDonald's. The Bristol makes us pay half price for lunch, which makes most of the menu out of reach for servers who are making an average of $25-30 for a lunch shift.)

Back to Rep. Davis. Her comments are dumb. And typical of social and fiscal conservative thought. If you are having a hard time, you should get a job. And ya know--they're right. Working is the best way to make money, if you don't happen to be part of a wealthy family in, say, suburban St. Louis. Of course, it is a lot easier to get a job if you happen to have all of the privileges of being from a wealthy family in suburban St. Louis.

And that's all I'm going to say about this, because my friend Andy has written an insightful, wise, brilliant blog article about the whole thing. Read it here.

Stop Talking, Reverend. Please.

2009-06-16T08:27:00.000-07:00

I have defended Jeremiah Wright in the past year. He has used language I wouldn't use, but we do not preach in the same context. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and have even blogged about how unfair it is to lift words and phrases out of the man's sermons in order to somehow taint him, and by extension, Barack Obama.

But I wish now that he would go on retreat and spend some time alone with God, working through his prejudices. Because when one doesn't have the sense to avoid making blatant anti-Semitic statements into a microphone, it's time to go up on the mountaintop and get straightened out. (Yes, I said "straightened." It's only a word, and it has more than one meaning. In this case it means "subjected to a little can of divine whoop-ass.")

Asked by a reporter whether he had talked to his former parishoner Barack Obama, Wright answered "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. He'll talk to me in five years, when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office." You can listen to it here if you have the stomach.

Questioned about the remark later, Wright said that he misspoke.

You think?

Unfortunately, he elaborated. What he meant to say was "Zionists."

Oh, well that's alright then.

I wonder who stayed up all night thinking of that clever semantic dodge?

Here's what he should have said: "Yeah, that was an awful thing to say. I had no idea that I was capable of such a hateful stereotype, and I'm ashamed to have said it. I apologize to the Jewish people, and to anyone who was offended by my remark. I am going up on the mountaintop now."

Panic in the Streets! Digital TV is Here!

2009-06-13T08:32:00.000-07:00

Seriously, and I do mean seriously: if the conversion from analog to digital television signals is catching you by surprise, as it is some 16,000 people in the KC Metro today, then you obviously don't watch television. Because if you do watch television, you've been bombarded with reminders that you have to do something to your TV if it isn't digital-ready. You've also been bombarded with ads which suggest that you'll lose your signal if you don't subscribe to a cable provider. The premise of these ads is completely untrue--you just need a converter box, which costs an average of ten bucks if you use the free coupon the government sent out. It makes one wonder how much money Time Warner and Comcast paid to facilitate the switch, which is surely making them a fortune.

I'll just be glad when the switch is completed today, so that the constant reminders will cease, and I can return to the wholesome and educational programming normally on my television.

That Wishy-washy Love Thing

2009-06-07T06:27:00.000-07:00

Sunday, June 7, 2009. Lindsborg, KS. Central States Synod Assembly--Day Four.

This would be a very long blog entry if I tried to capture all of this Synod Assembly in a single article. So I'll try a few impressions first, with a promise to write more later. Right now I'm actually still sitting in a session, so just impressions for now.

First, the Synod Assembly is a yearly gathering of ELCA members, rostered leaders (clergy, Parish Ministry Associates, Associates in Ministry, etc.), synod staff, and churchwide leaders. The Central States Synod is comprised of all of the congregations and associations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America located in Kansas and Missouri. The Synod Assembly is the highest legislative body in our synod.

We've all been in Lindsborg, Kansas ("Little Sweden!") since Thursday afternoon. There's been lots of business, but really we've been focused on sex. Again. Not sex, really, but human sexuality. Not human sexuality, really, but homosexuality. And not homosexuality, really, but the burning question before our denomination: Will we let gay and lesbian persons who admit that they are not practicing celibacy to be pastors in our church?

We're also talking about the blessing of same-sex unions, but that issue doesn't seem to have the heat around it. Not sure yet what to make of that. It seems like the two are connected, actually...

We had conversation--a one hour "Committee of the Whole," more about this later--about a Statement on Human Sexuality which will be affirmed (we hope) by vote at the Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis in August. We voted to memorialize (this is church speak for "ask") the Churchwide Assembly to affirm the Statement. That vote passed by one vote more than a two-thirds majority. A good mandate, I think.

We had conversation--another one hour Committee of the Whole--about the Recommendations of the ELCA Task Force on Human Sexuality. I'll say more about the conversation in a later entry. After lunch, we voted on memorials to churchwide affirming the recommendations, which would allow for the recognition of persons in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships," the rostering of such persons, and a commitment to "honor the bound conscience" of persons who disagree across our church.

Some quick thoughts:

Tone of the Assembly: Anxious but respectful. There were few nasty remarks made at the microphone, and the only time the listeners reacted to what was being said was when a guy started in with Sodom and Gomorrah, which he informed us is "about homosexuality." About a hundred people said "no" at the same time, which is an interesting sound. Then the chair told us to settle down.

Number of hugs, high fives, winks, pats on the back, fist bumps and collegial arms-around-the-shoulder I received: I have no idea. I lost count somewhere after a hundred. Apparently people want this change to happen, realize that I will be a big beneficiary of the change, and are okay with that.

Final proof that conservatives just don't get Jesus: The most fascinating line of the whole Assembly was uttered at a red microphone during the discussion of the ministry recommendations on Day Three. The gentleman, having waxed irritated for a minute or so about how he didn't understand why we're even doing this, said, "I've looked at the [Sexuality Statement], and as far as I can tell, it seems to be based on some kind of wishy-washy love thing.

Yes, we mustn't be making decisions based on some ethic of love. Egads.

Out Is In

2009-06-02T06:09:00.000-07:00

Here's one for the "Things You Already Knew" category. This just in from CNN: the generations are split about same-sex marriage. Forty-four percent of those polled recently by CNN believe same-sex marriages should be legal. Fifty-four believe they should not. Two percent apparently believe there is another category between "legal" and "not legal."

When you poll 18-34 year-olds, the number jumps to 58% in favor of legal same-sex marriages.

Yeah, so that's all stuff you probably already knew. The numbers continue to improve week by week (at least from my perspective); you probably knew that as well.

And here's something you probably knew intuitively. According to CNN polling director, Keating Holland, "People who say they have a gay friend or relative support same-sex marriage. Most of those who say they don't know anyone who is gay, oppose gay marriage."

People who know gay people like us and think we should be able to get married. People who don't know us (or think they don't) are probably more likely to see gay marriage as a sterile "issue."

Not everyone can come out, but the more of us who do, the more of us there are out there to know. And the more of us out there to know, the better we'll be doing.

So thanks to all of you who are out there. Thanks to all of you who live your lives without apology and allow your friends, coworkers and relatives to know you and love you. Thanks to all of you allies who love and support your LGBT friends and relatives.

We're coming a long way, friends. It gets better every day.

The Rock Obama!

2009-06-01T20:32:00.001-07:00

I keep telling people they need to see this great bit from Saturday Night Live. I can't get a nice video posting from Hulu, but you can watch it if you click here.

You'll probably have to watch an ad first. Sorry about that. It's worth it, though. At least I think it is.

Who Is My Neighbor?

2009-05-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

My next door neighbor was murdered by her husband during Holy Week. Probably Tuesday. The police obtained a search warrant and found her body on Maundy Thursday. She left a couple of daughters and a bewildered family.

It's hard to know what to do in a situation like this. The family isn't here. I did light a candle and place it in front of the house when we found out what had happened. But all gestures seem inadequate. She was a lovely woman, as far as I could tell. We honestly didn't have much contact, which also now seems inadequate. We chatted, most often about the weather. Kansas City affords a lot of weather-based conversation starters.

It's hard to wrap your mind around something like this. These are the things that happen on Law and Order, not in a bedroom two yards from where I'm sitting as I write this.

In the weeks since her death, the landlord has been readying her flat for rent, and the family has been packing up her stuff. At least I assume it's the family. About every third day, another box of her belongings appears on the curb. It's a stark reminder of the tragedy, and to be quite honest, I'll be glad when it stops. That's a lot of mortality out there on the concrete.

Toilet Troubles

2009-04-27T10:02:00.000-07:00

You know, there are certain things I take for granted. A lot of them, actually, being a rather privileged white American with an education and a career I love.

I never have to worry about being fed. I can't eat out every night, but I always have food.

I take my health for granted.

I take clothing and shelter and access to clean water for granted.

And I take my toilet for granted. It's not working today. The water on my bathroom floor is not clean and I'll spare you the rest of the details. I'm sure one or two of you are grossed out by the fact that I've used the word "toilet" twice in this post already.

You take a running toilet for granted. When you don't have one, it really puts a crimp in the day. I'm trying to figure out whether to go to the gas station or just go out for lunch. (In order to use the facilities, that is. Oh, and eat, because now I'm having a kind of icky day and would like to take myself to lunch, which I can probably afford, though not every day. Things I take for granted.)

Nothing like a little sewage on the floor to get you to think about your priorities.

That's Abraham Lincoln's outhouse in Springfield Illinois in the picture, by the way. Lincoln couldn't take a toilet for granted. Such a great man and he had to go outside.

Though I'd kill for an outhouse today.

What If God Was One of Us? Or at Least Hanging Out with Us...?

2009-04-24T09:42:00.000-07:00

Today's Onion has a finely written piece about God showing up at First Presbyterian Church. You can read it here.

Typical of The Onion, the article is a great piece of satire, and it also has some inner poignancy. I can't help but wonder what it would be like if God did show up at our services one Sunday. Would God be pleased? Would God find us too informal, or too structured, or just right. I like to think we're just right, but that's because the service reflects my own informality and also my fine Lutheran piety.

What do you all think? What if God showed up at our/your church?

Googly

2009-04-06T20:22:00.000-07:00

Okay, so there's no way for Google to check for strange juxtapositions.

But this is odd, to say the least. I'm trying to find a recipe for a cherry cake-ish dessert for our Seder on Thursday. We're serious about the Seder, so it needs to be kosher. I bought kosher cake flour, which has a recipe for "apple kugel," and I bought cherry pie filling. So I'm just trying to find a nice kosher recipe that will put it all together. So I google "seder fruit cobbler cake flour," and I get this (do note the final juxtaposition):

"Easy Peach Cobbler Recipe - Recipe for Easy Peach Cobbler - Cake Mix Recipe ... Recipes - Home CookingChicken Soup RecipesPassover Seder FoodsHow to Cook Bacon ..."

Iowaaaat?

2009-04-06T20:04:00.000-07:00

That title is mine.

But the best line about the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision that the state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection belongs (surprise surprise) to Jon Stewart.

Iowa, now the state more progressive than California.

Yes.

I live below that state.

Yes.

I got a ticket there once.

Maybe I'll send them some more money, just as a little thank you gift.

Hee hee.

Thanks, Iowa. You were already the best state to drive across (seriously--no state is more consistently beautiful than Iowa). Now you are the most equal state in the whole Midwest. Good for you!

A Plea from Donna's Palm Pilot

2009-03-27T11:38:00.000-07:00

Hi there. Donna's Palm Pilot here. I hold her calendar, because she has all the organizational skill of a Bassett Hound. I need to ask for a favor, especially from you churchy folks.

Please, I'm begging you: stop scheduling things for the week after Easter. So far we have had to pick from 2-3 conflicting events every day that week, and Saturday the 18th and Sunday the 19th are the equivalent of scheduling armageddon. There must be 20 different places we could be that weekend (when, by the way, we have church, because unlike every other pastor in the free world, Donna doesn't take Low Sunday off).

The thing is...we don't really want to be anywhere that weekend. It's the weekend after Easter. We're both ready for a break. I've been ringing alarms and popping on and off for four days straight the week before. Well, weeks beforehand actually, since Donna can never remember what time she decided for the Seder.

I'm sure I speak for the calendars and devices of all of the other leaders at Abiding Peace as well. It isn't just Pastor Donna who works hard Holy Week. The good people of Abiding Peace are busy cooking and leading worship and helping set up and clean up. And they don't get to count any of that as work. So give them a break as well and don't ask them to come to things that weekend after Easter either.

I know you scheduling people wait until after Lent and Easter to plan your events and trainings and parties and concerts and meetings. I know you check your own Palm Pilots and Blackberries and notice that April 18th is the first Saturday after Lent and Easter. But there are actually thirty-six other Saturdays in the year.

Wouldn't it be possible to schedule a few things on those Saturdays?

Just asking.

Thank you for your time and your consideration of this request.

The View from the Back of the Bus

2009-03-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

The ELCA released a document called "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" last month. This is the result of eight long years of "study" and conversation and general unease, ostensibly around "human sexuality," but really around "gay human sexuality." We're not actually studying straight humans, because we're already marrying and ordaining them. We studied them a long time ago, apparently, and didn't find them objectionable.

You can download the document here: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx I will warn you now that it is long. But...as a special bonus for those who order today...you'll also receive the "Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policy." That's the somewhat shorter document that proposes that we sort of adopt a policy for some synods and congregations--only the ones who want to--to call a gay or lesbian pastor, if they are so inclined.

I am really glad that we're making progress. I really am. We would be one of the only Christian denominations in the country with openly gay and lesbian pastors (accent on "openly"--we've all got gay pastors) if the recommendation is adopted. We already know that there are synods and congregations which will follow the procedure and open their call processes to gay and lesbian candidates. Probably not the synod in which I reside...

...and that's a bit of a rub. Not the part that makes this about me, exactly, but the part that makes this about all of the qualified candidates who still won't be considered, because the ELCA would make considering gay and lesbian candidates totally voluntary. A bishop whom I like and respect very much said this today in a press release: "No congregation or institution will be forced to call a leader they do not wish to call."

It is true generally in our denomination that a congregation can never be "forced" to call a minister they don't wish to call. Our pastors are called, not appointed, as in some other denominations. But it is also true that we don't allow congregations to close their call process to candidates on the basis of other considerations, like race or gender. So the Sexuality Task Force recommendations allow for a separate-but-equal sort of system, in which the vast majority of congregations will likely still choose not to consider gay or lesbian candidates.

So I'm a little grumbly about the whole thing, and would really like to know what some of you gentle readers think.

So what do you think?

An Elegant Couple

2009-03-04T12:16:00.001-08:00

When Sean Penn accepted the best acting Oscar this year, he expressed pleasure with our nation (yes, he really did) for "electing an elegant man president."

"Elegant"--that's a nice word for Barack Obama, especially if Penn meant it the way I think he did--something akin to "rich in complexity and eloquent." No one with full faculties could deny that our president is both.

But if President Obama is elegant, the First Lady is uber-elegant. And together, they are simply lovely. Not just because they make a striking picture. It's clear from the picture here that they are attractive people. But this picture shows a lot more than that. It shows two people who like one another and share a level of intimacy and joy in each other's presence. They are so cute the Secret Service guys don't know what to do. I imagine they ought to figure it out, though, because they're going to be privy to a lot of scenes like this.

Okay, so I really like these two. I like pretty much everything about them. I admire them. But it's not just hero worship. I think they are what we need in this nation, and for our relationship with the rest of the world. I love the idea that these are the two folks who will present the face of America at state dinners throughout the world. I love that they are passionate and fun-loving and smart, smart, smart. It is right and salutary to have a couple in the White House whose personal relationship is an asset to their life and ours.

So maybe I have a slight case of hero worship...

But look how gorgeous they are. How can you help it?

Council Meetings

2009-02-09T16:44:00.000-08:00

A person shouldn't be blogging during a council meeting.

Should she?

Tavis?

Underpants

2009-02-06T10:31:00.001-08:00

You ever notice how some words are just funny?

Lukewarm

2009-01-02T15:02:00.000-08:00

I just heard this on NPR: "The White House continues to urge Israel to do their best to limit civilian casualties [in Gaza]."

I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable. The White House should be insisting that Israel stop attacking civilians. Anything less than that is a travesty.

I'm not defending Hamas, but I'm tired of this nation being an apologist for Israeli agression.

"My Right Wing Homophobic Friends Tell Me..."

2008-12-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

Okay, I actually don't have right wing homophobic friends. Acquaintances, yes--I work in the church, after all. But the people I call my friends don't actively campaign against my right to marry. I try to be a forgiving friend, but I do have certain standards. I don't hang out with people who can't get past outdated and untrue stereotypes about what it is to be gay or lesbian.

Rick Warren, in his interview with Ann Curry, starts a sentence "My gay friends tell me..."

Really? You have gay friends? Really? Do they know that you believe them to be promiscuous and unworthy of marriage?

Or is "my gay friends" just another little rhetorical flourish, like "Joe the Plumber" (whose name isn't really Joe, and who isn't really a plumber) and "compassionate conservative" (which is, at least, the latter)?

Why We're Upset

2008-12-22T09:36:00.001-08:00

From the very first--roundly untrue--line of this interview, Pastor Warren is arrogant and dismissive. The choice of him to give the invocation at Obama's ordination is a real blow.

So It Happened...

2008-12-09T07:43:00.000-08:00

...that I actually agreed with Jonah Goldberg.

This doesn't happen very often. Our paper, The Kansas City Star, carries Jonah Goldberg once a week, on the right-hand side of the opinion page. Yup, they're still putting the liberals on the left, and the conservatives on the right.

If they were creating a perfect representation of the political spectrum, though, Jonah would disappear, as he is too far right to appear in juxtaposition to whichever liberal columnist we're running that day. He'd have to be off the page, over next to your cereal bowl.

I digress. Jonah Goldberg is a big time conservative; that's all you need to know. He is Editor at Large of National Review online. We never agree on anything, though I don't know everything he thinks--he may well love chocolate covered toffees, and so do I.

In his column this week, Jonah Goldberg took on "gay-rights groups." He seems to believe that they are aligned on gay marriage and other issues. Apparently he doesn't know much about these groups...just a little swipe at my people, don't get upset.

Anyway, while I didn't much care for Mr. Goldberg's thesis, that the "gay-rights groups" are "aggressors in the culture war" (seriously--what does any of that mean?), I had to admit that he was right in calling out some of the tactics of the "No on Proposition 8" forces.

Specifically, he was perturbed by a television ad in which two Mormon missionaries knock on the door of a lesbian couple, announce that they are there to "take away [their] rights" and yank off their wedding rings. As they leave, one says, "That was too easy." The other responds, "Yeah, what should we ban next?"

I don't know which of the many, many diverse gay rights groups was responsible for this ad, but I hope they're not too proud of it. It suffers from the sort of stereotyping and hyperbole which have dragged down our political discourse for, well, always. The sort we should be leaving behind, not dragging into a legitimate fight for equality and respect. You don't get respect by acting like an eighth grade schoolyard bully.

So when Jonah Goldberg says that this ad is shameful, I agree with him. When he says that it shows "gay-rights groups" as a vicious monolith, we part company.

It's still okay to ask why the Mormon church, with its own checkered past regarding observance of national marriage law, feels so strongly that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual relationships and families. It's okay to question the tactics of the "Yes on 8" folks, who suggested that little kids were going to be indoctrinated into The Gay Lifestyle, if Prop 8 didn't pass.

But must we play in the mud in order to make our own case? Justice is justice. It will be great when all of our gay rights groups learn that it speaks for itself.

Proposition 8, The Musical

2008-12-04T07:13:00.000-08:00

You'll want to watch this more than once, because it's that good, and if you're like me, you'll notice a new star on each viewing.

Prop 8, The Musical

McCain

2008-12-04T07:08:00.000-08:00

That's how Missouri went. Adios "Bellwether State." Hola "Northern Annex of Dixie."

Seriously, we elected a white Democratic governor by a wide margin (60-40). And then a bunch of the people who blackened in Jay Nixon turned around and blackened in John McCain. Not sure what to make of that, except that we've still got some demons to exorcise down here in the Show Me State.

'Nuff said.

The One Who Is Not For You...

2008-11-11T06:23:00.001-08:00

It's taken a while to wrap my mind around this election. On Tuesday night, I shared champagne with several of my favorite people, toasting the wisdom of a people who chose an articulate, intelligent, compassionate man to be their president. We understood the weight of this moment in history, and there were wet shirt collars all around. We shed tears of joy, delighted that a man so worthy, and his beautiful family, will soon occupy the white house. I think we also shed tears for the pain this country has endured, steeped in its own racism, for so long. I hope we have turned a corner. The election is a great symbol, but I'm not sure that we can declare victory in the cause of civil rights for African Americans. Too many barriers remain--visible and invisible.

The struggle for civil rights is a long one--a frustrating back-and-forth dance, dependent upon the fickle hearts of the American public.

Speaking of civil rights...as much as Tuesday night rocked, Wednesday morning sucked. There's probably more eloquent language, but "sucked" is the right word.

I wasn't expecting much out of Florida, or Arizona. I wasn't holding my breath on Arkansas, either. And all of them threw their electoral weight behind that made up political trope: "traditional marriage." Not too surprising, and not desperately disappointing. It's safe to say that the LGBT community isn't hanging its hopes on Florida, Arizona and Arkansas...

But woe to you, California, my erstwhile home. Proposition 8 was a beacon of hope to those of us living in the hinterlands. (Object to the word "hinterlands?" Let me tell you how Missouri voted. See next posting.)

Yes, Prop 8--which reverses California's ruling allowing same sex marriage--lost by a much smaller margin than the last No Gay Marriage proposition. It picked up 8 points. And the groups vying to get it passed--the Mormon Church, the Knights of Columbus and other relics of a bygone era--had to spend $32 million to achieve their evil purposes.

Still, it sucked. One civil rights movement made strides last week, and another took it in the gut. Sadly, the stories overlap. African Americans in California voted 69% for Proposition 8. The fact that African Americans came out in unprecedented numbers to support Barack Obama may have tipped the scales. Ouch.

Even worse, once again The Church was out in front opposing the rights of lesbian and gay couples. There were some victories. The bishop of the Sierra-Pacific Synod (basically the northern halves of California and Nevada) made a public statement opposing Prop 8. At a rally in San Francisco, no less, which will require him to take meetings now with churches in Lodi and Stockton. Kudos to you, Mark Holmerud!

I'd like to think that progressive people know that some churches worked to defeat Proposition 8. Some of them do. I'm inclined to think, though, that most of them, especially those who are queer, just looked at the campaign for Proposition 8 as another black ball in the box against The Church.

Those of us trying to speak a word of hope to the LGBT community from mainline church pulpits already feel like Sisyphus a lot of the time. Proposition 8 just made our rock bigger.

So I guess we go back to the gym and get ready to roll that rock back up that hill one more time.

Woe to you, hypocrites!

2008-10-15T06:50:00.000-07:00

This cover article in Gospel Today magazine provoked a strong reaction in the Southern Baptist Convention. Lifeway Stores, a Christian bookstore owned by the SBC, pulled the magazine from the shelves of one hundred of its stores, because it considered the article on women leading fundamentalist churches to be too incendiary.

The Southern Baptist Convention, as you probably know, has long barred women from the pastorate, reitterating their position in 1998 when they revised their "Baptist Faith and Message" statement. The message puts it clearly:

"While Scripture teaches that a woman's role is not identical to that of men in every respect, and that pastoral leadership is assigned to men, it also teaches that women are equal in value to men."

The updated statement clarifies a woman's "equal value" thusly:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

To support these positions, the SBC refers to several passages in scripture (nearly all--I know it's shocking--in the Pauline epistles). The one most frequently cited is 1 Timothy 2:12, which attributes the following to the Apostle: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man."

In a related story, prominent officials within the Southern Baptist Convention have lauded the candidacy of John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Richard Land thinks it is peachy to have the governor of Alaska--wife and mother of five--assume the role of vice president. He has no problem with her becoming president, should that be necessary. Land sees no conflict between stated SBC positions on the place of women in public and private life and its support of Palin. "There's no disconnect or inconsistency whatsoever," he recently told The Washington Post. "We don't go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage."

So apparently the authority that the president would have over men (say, um, the entire armed forces--or at least the male majority within them) isn't a problem.

The Post article offers this helpful clarification: "Land said the Southern Baptists' position allows for a wife to work outside the home, so long as her husband agrees -- and Todd Palin has long backed his wife's career in public service."

So here's a question: What if Todd Palin tells his wife it is okay for her to be a pastor?

Job Posting

2008-10-06T07:26:00.000-07:00

Wanted: Chief Executive for Wealthiest Nation in the World

Educational Qualifications: A College Degree of Some Sort. Grades not important.

Experience preferred, but will train qualified applicant. Current training team willing to remain in shadows if allowed.

Other Qualifications:

1. Applicant should be person with whom others would be pleased to share a libation.

2. Applicant should be familiar with and able to utilize colloquial speech.

3. Applicant must have at least one referential word or phrase which he or she can demonstrate initiative in utilizing. Examples: "Decider" "Maverick"

4. Applicant must not be able to pronounce "nuclear."

5. Offspring active in local athletics is a plus. Uncontrollable daughters are a definite plus.

Oh, Jon Stewart, Lend Us Your Wisdom

2008-09-05T14:42:00.000-07:00

Grand and Old and...Party?

2008-09-05T09:37:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched the end of the Republican National Convention, and I'm pretty sure I saw John McCain give a concession speech. I was puzzled when he shifted there at the end from a toned-down form of the same vague policy outline and sharp attack on all-things-Democrat that every other speaker at the RNC had given. I was puzzled because he shifted into something worthwhile and inspiring. Forgive my cynicism, but I honestly didn't expect that, given the tone of the rest of the convention.

Those people are mad. Mad, mad, mad. They keep trying to spin blatant self-interest and oligarchical politics into "family values" and it's looking more and more like lipstick on a pig.

So they go on the attack.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to the concession. See, here's what has happened: John McCain, who is probably a good man, and who has served his country with honor, lost control of his campaign. He wanted to run a relatively (this is politics we're talking about) decent campaign and talk about issues. I really believe this, despite all evidence to the contrary. He began the election cycle with good advisers who would help him do that.

Then Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, and Obamania took root in wider and wider crop circles. McCain's camp panicked and called in the dogs. And by "dogs" (to mix metaphors), I mean the minions of Karl Rove, who is not a good man and who has not served his country--or anyone else--with valor, honor or any other virtue I can think of, unless you count success as a virtue and I do not.

The Rovites drove the McCain campaign to the right. They convinced the candidate that campaign ads with substance were "old school," and the thing to do was associate the other guy with Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. Just throw that out there and let paranoia and latent racism do the rest.

Then they convinced their candidate, Mr. McCain, to abandon his choice for a running mate, Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, the "Independent Democrat" cast into the role of this year's Zell Miller, wasn't going to give McCain any sort of Conservative Street Cred. Obama had had the sense to pick a running mate who filled in some of his gaps, notably foreign policy experience. McCain had a relatively moderate record (for a 21st century Republican) on right wing red meat, so he needed someone that the Phyllis Shlafly/Tony Perkins crowd could get excited about. Plus, there are apparently a whole bunch of Hillary Clinton supporters just dying to vote for the Republican ticket.

Is there such a thing as a "zero issue voter?" I can't imagine another way to explain how anyone could go from supporting Hillary Clinton to supporting John McCain. I just can't. She's not even a reasonably moderate Democrat. She's a liberal. It's (at least in part) why I like her, and why I'm still mad at her about the war.

And you'd have to be a character in a Twilight Zone episode to shift allegiances from Clinton to McCain now, since said Rovites talked their candidate into choosing as a running mate someone who shares in common with Mrs. Clinton the fact that they both have ovaries, and not a damn thing else I can think of, except for initial support of the bloody Iraq War. It's a wildly cynical, totally pandering choice, and I just can't believe John McCain went there willingly. I think he just gave in. And after last night, I can't help but also think that a little part of him gave up.

Which is why he finished his speech last night with a call to service. He wanted to say something of substance in this campaign before it goes totally south. And he did.

From here on out it gets ugly. The mudslinging has been immediate and breathtaking. Yesterday, Sarah Palin accused the Obama campaign of "spreading lies" about her family. When asked, no one in the McCain/Palin camp could name a single person in the Obama/Biden camp who had said anything negative, not to mention untrue, about her family. Barack Obama has declared any negative comments about her family off limits to his campaign staff, and promised to fire anyone who slings any mud at her private life. But the truth has left the building. From here on out we get the muddy and the muddier.

So thank you, John McCain, for reminding us last night that we are called to serve. Thank you for your brave service to our country. I hope that the rest of this campaign affords you some opportunity to continue serving the best interests of America, but I'm afraid I'm not holding my breath.

God and Country Buffet

2008-09-02T07:12:00.000-07:00

I'm just back from a really fabulous weekend in Branson, Missouri, with two really fabulous people, Rick and Valorie. I'm pretty sure I'd have a good time with them anywhere, but we sure had a good time in Branson.

We engaged in some very Branson-y pastimes--went shopping at not one, but two outlet malls, which is something I like more than I like to admit. I have a little trouble getting motivated to actually go shopping, but once I'm there, I rather enjoy it. Especially at the outlets, where you can get really awesome Van Heusen shirts and Bass shoes for cheap cheap cheap. And I bought three good bras, so now I'm good for another seven years (which would be the last time I bought decent bras. Yes that's pathetic, but have you ever had to buy bras? It's not much fun. I never even know what size I am, since it seems to change. Okay, that's probably enough blogging about bras.)

We also ate at the breakfast buffet twice, which is really a lot less all-you-can-eat than one could enjoy in almost four days in Branson. Seriously, we could have packed on five, ten pounds. But we were reasonably good. We went to the grocery store and bought healthy food and ate meals at our condo. We ate out at a few restaurants, but we didn't go overboard. And we worked out every morning except for Labor Day which is a day of rest dammit.

And we went fishing with Val and Rick's equally fabulous friend, Martin. Twice. Valorie caught a very nice bass the second time. And we hung out at the pool. Played miniature golf on the course at the condo. Did one touristy thing--The Butterfly Palace and Rainforest Adventure--which was really pretty nice, if a bit expensive.

I did not count, so this is an unofficial statistic, but I am reasonably certain that Branson has more churches and American flags than any other city in the world. Definitely more churches flying American flags. Definitely more blurring of the line between Christian faith and American patriotism. Actually, the line is pretty much invisible in Branson.

But other than some vague discomfort at the sense that I was in a town that would definitely have been the setting for an Orwell novel had George ever been there, I had a really good time.

It did seem like the perfect place to be when John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate. But surely that is another entry.

If you haven't yet seen the Paris Hilton "ad" responding to the McCain camp using her in their ad, click here and watch it: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

Great stuff. Really great stuff. I have newfound appreciation for Ms. Hilton.

It appears that the criticism of Barack Obama is actually going to center on his popularity. I guess the argument is that a lot of people like him and that's bad...

Can someone explain to me why we should be suspicious of the fact that Senator Obama is drawing a crowd?

Learning What It Is To Be Poor

2008-08-20T08:36:00.000-07:00

I went to a Poverty Simulation yesterday. Jerry, one of the amazing organizers at Communities Creating Opportunity (CCO) asked if I wanted to go, and I jumped at it. Though I wondered how it would be. I've been to exercises like this that are designed to help one understand the plight of others, but they are often heavy-handed and didactic.

This one was not. It was tremendously well-done. An organization called MACA (Missouri Association for Community Action) has put together a whole experience. If you want to read about it, their website is http://www.communityaction.org/. Click on "poverty simulation."

We were each given an identity when we arrived. We went to our family groups, where we had a whole packet of stuff. There were sheets of information about our family: what our income sources were, what our bills were (when things had to be paid, etc.), etc. You got "transportation passes" and an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card if you had benefits like food stamps or other aid. You got some possessions which you could pawn, if you had to.

Our family was not on the lowest end of the income scale in this country. We had two cars for four people, and monthly income of about $1700, including disability and food stamps.

The exercise is conducted in fifteen minute sections, each representing a week. You have to figure out how to get to where you need to go, do all of your shopping, pay your bills, go to work in that fifteen minutes. And you need a transportation pass to go anywhere. If you work (I was the father in the family and I worked), you needed five transportation passes for each week of work. We started the week with six. I went off to work with my five, but then I couldn't go to the bank to cash my check. I had to go to the check-cashing store and pay extra to buy more transportation passes. And I only got one bill paid, because I ran out of time. Up went my blood pressure, and I wondered what it must be to have to decide how to get places, which bill to pay this week, whether you should pay the bank or the check cashing stand to cash your paycheck, since you don't have a bank account.

Of course, it took three weeks to save enough to pay our mortgage. We did finish the month with some money, but we encountered no contingencies. Some families arrived at the bank to find that they had outstanding loans. Some were given green cards which informed them that they had had an accident, or the car broke down, or some other contingency that wreaked havoc upon their income.

Oh, and there were thieves afoot. I dropped twenty-one transportation passes on my chair and went off to do something else, and they disappeared. We got to buy them back from the gentleman who stole them.

I was amazed at how much stress I felt from the beginning of the exercise. We tried to prepare beforehand, but we found ourselves running around some of the time trying to take care of things. And we surely cheated, borrowing transportation passes from one another in the middle of the room. If I were really stuck at work with no transportation, I'm not sure my mother-in-law would materialize out of thin air to get me to Point B.

I am a pretty aware person, I think. I think about, and pray about, poverty in this country. But it was eye-opening to walk in the shoes of someone who is struggling to get by day to day. I've certainly lived hand to mouth before, but never with a family, and I've been blessed with good health and a good education. I've been privileged, in other words. I'm privileged now.

So, of course, the question is "how can I use my own privilege to improve the lives of others?" Working on it. All suggestions honored and appreciated.

The Tyranny of Tomatoes

2008-08-11T08:48:00.000-07:00

In the past week and a half, three people have given me tomatoes. One person has brought tomatoes three times--my neighbor, Franco, who is the loveliest person I've had the pleasure of living next door to in a long time.

I have a lot of tomatoes. Garrison Keillor, the great Lutheran sage, has a wonderful monologue about tomato season in Lake Wobegon, which includes leaving bags of tomatoes on neighbors' porches, ringing the doorbell and running away. The tyranny of tomatoes. We wait and wait for them, but when they arrive, they can be a little overwhelming. And then they disappear.

There's probably an interesting analogy to be drawn between fresh, local tomatoes and enthusiastic new church members. I don't think I'll draw it. Use your imagination.

I'm ever so grateful to receive all of these tomatoes. I truly, truly am. I can't drive yet, and there is no grocer in my neighborhood, so fresh food that comes to the door is a Godsend. I'm almost out of the leftovers of all the meals I cooked with my mom. Almost--there's still a slice of quiche left. I had to throw out the dregs of the meatloaf we cooked a week and a half ago.

I'm just not sure I can eat all of these beautiful tomatoes. I'm not sure I should eat them all, because I'm not good at eating just a tomato. I prefer to put tomato slices between two pieces of toasted wheat bread with mayo and bacon. Now that's a good summer sandwich. Healthy, too...all those fresh tomato slices...and, um, bacon and mayo.

The other thing that is delicious with tomato is fresh mozzarella. Give me enough tomatoes, and I can go through an 8 oz. ball of mozzarella in a couple of days. All you need is fresh basil (I keep a plant in the house at all times) and balsamic vinegar to make a nice little vinaigrette. Recipe for a nice little balsamic vinaigrette: drop a crushed clove of garlic in the vinegar, add some herbs, a dash of sugar, and salt and pepper. Let that sit for a half hour or so, fish out all the big chunks, and wisk in olive oil. Simple and delicious. Add a bit of dijon mustard if you like.

I do love tomato season. I just hope pretty soon it gets back to being running season, or it's going to be "buy bigger clothes season." I really must learn to eat a tomato all by itself.

With maybe a sprinkling of fresh parmegian cheese and a drizzle of olive oil.

Holy Wholly Holey

2008-08-05T08:33:00.000-07:00

I had surgery last Tuesday. That was a first. "Major surgery," said the paper they sent home with me from the doctor's office. I think that just means they make a reasonably big incision. Which they did. One side of the abdomen to the other, coming dangerously close to Linus, and if you don't know what that means, it's just as well, though I will say that it isn't shorthand for some anatomical part. Dirty mind. Tsk tsk.

It's been almost a week, so I am now forgetting that I still have this hole in my abdomen and sometimes I stand up a little too fast and am sorry. I remember whenever I try to roll over in bed. Sleeping on your back is overrated. Other than that, everything is going swimmingly. My friends and my parishoners (not at all mutually exclusive categories) have been quite lovely. I've got new plants to kill and cards and a basket full of goodies, including an eye shade that has come in handy several times already.

And my mom is here, which is so nice. I do love my mom, and so far we've been together nonstop for over a week--except when they were making my new scar--and we are still liking each other. And we've seen movies. We watch a movie and then we watch another one.

Recommendations:

If you haven't seen Juno yet, get thee to thy Netflicks queue.

The Water Horse is very sweet.

The Other Boleyn Girl was an interesting look at the wives of Henry VIII. I'm glad I didn't pay $10, though.

Up the Yangtze, which we saw at the theater, is a terrific exploration of the gradual flooding of the Yangtze delta as the Three Gorges Dam is completed. Two million people will be displaced by the time the project is finished.

Boanerges

2008-07-25T10:04:00.000-07:00

I really love going to daily mass. I love beginning the day with scripture and prayer among the community of the faithful. And I love being reminded of events on the church calendar which might otherwise escape my attention. For instance, today is the feast day of St. James, brother of John, son of Zebedee. I am so glad to be reminded of this, because I'm rather fond of James and his brother John. You kind of have to be fond of them together, since they don't seem to have done much apart.

I like these two because they are good, faithful disciples who also happen to be delightfully human. As such, I identify with them rather easily.

In the third chapter of Mark's gospel, Jesus calls the sons of Zebedee "Boanerges", which is a Greek rendering of an Aramaic word which Mark tells us means "sons of thunder." We'll have to take Mark's word for it, since the scholars aren't entirely sure on that front.

I'm glad to take Mark's word for it, because I love the image of James and John as The Sons of Thunder. They're blustery and strong and hasty. They come to Jesus and ask permission to sit at his right and left hand when he "comes into his glory." Even worse, in Matthew's retelling of that story, they send their mother!

While it is presumptuous, of course, to ask for the seats of greatest honor for life eternal, that's not their greatest sin in making the request. If we believe what we say when we recite the creeds, that Jesus is "seated at the right hand of God," then the seat to Jesus' left is, um, God's. So one of the Sons of Thunder (unwittingly I'm really hoping) asks to sit in God's chair.

When I was on internship, I took a group of students to Washington, DC, and we got a tour of the Federal Reserve. This included going into the boardroom, where we took turns sitting in Alan Greenspan's chair. It felt powerful. Then when we passed him in the hallway outside, I felt like I should apologize for pretending to be him, however briefly. The truth is, I couldn't be Alan Greenspan for five minutes.

Or God. I couldn't be God for a nanosecond.

And neither could the Sons of Thunder.

What they could do was accompany the Son of God, during some very significant moments--on the mountain of Tabor at the Transfiguration; at the Garden of Gethsemane just before Jesus was arrested. They were his friends; he chose them, along with Peter, to be with him in moments when he drew near to God. They never quite understood what happened on the mountain, and they fell asleep in the garden. But they were there.

Sometimes the best we can do is to try to be with Jesus. Try to walk the pathway he would walk, and to be with the people he would be with. Knowing all the while that we're not him, and we sure aren't God. We're just our imperfect human selves--full of thunder and laughter and tears.

But hang around Jesus long enough and crazy things happen. The next thing you know you've got your own feast day.

MISSING!

2008-07-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

Saint Francis is missing. Not the actual saint, of course, but the statue we brought from our old building to our new location. The new location is a storefront, which has benefitted greatly from the addition of a few well placed touchstones from our former life in Ye Olde Church Building. The concrete statue of St. Francis was one such touchstone.

Concrete.

Weighing in at a venerable eighty to one hundred pounds.

Heavy.

So we didn't worry too much about him being out in the planter box in front of the storefr...church. In fact, it was lovely to have such a grand symbol of compassion for all living beings marking our front entrance. It made the place look like a church, and not a chiropractor's office.

I have to use past tense, because a couple of weeks ago, St. Francis disappeared from the spot he had been occupying for well over a year now. No ransom note. No evidence of foul play. Just a big hole in the ivy where once stood a medieval saint.

Francis would likely forgive this bit of petty larceny. But he is a saint. I am not a saint, so I am irritated.

Someone has stolen our statue, and I'd like to have him back. St. Francis was performing a number of functions and we wanted him to continue to perform them. He was saying something about our community--that we are lovers of living things, that we have our roots in the church catholic. He was doing outreach to people in the neighborhood. One of our neighbors brought regular offerings and laid them at his feet. This was a cool thing--we had an ecumenical planter box! I liked that.

I don't know if we'll get a new statue. That's the second one stolen, which is disheartening. We had a nice lion and lamb statue, which I bought at Hobby Lobby for twenty bucks. It was also a nice symbol, and it was disappointing when it disappeared. A little more understandable, I guess, since it was made of plastic and not solid concrete.

In response to the theft of St. Francis, the nicest woman I know said "I hope they got a hernia." Yes, we are upset.

I love being a church close to the street, but I guess it has its drawbacks. We're not leaving, though. It is good to worship amidst one's neighbors, both the ones who bring flowers for a saint, and those who steal statues.

Newsworthy

2008-07-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

Heard this morning on NPR:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has nothing official on his calendar for today. Presumably he will be preparing for his visit to the Middle East..."

I love NPR. But I have to admit that even in the era of the 24 hour news cycle, Barack Obama's empty calendar just doesn't seem like news to me.

Inclusive Worship

2008-06-10T06:37:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from 8:00 Mass at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in my neighborhood, yet another of the distinct blessings of living in Columbus Park.

I arrived shortly before the service began and took one of the few remaining seats. I'm still learning a few of the responses to the various petitions in the Mass. I'm Lutheran, so the whole thing is very familiar. There are a few responses, however, that are particular to a Catholic service. So I'm listening to the couple on one side of me, and the lady on the other side, trying to pick them up, and eventually I realize that I'm not going to get anywhere doing that. Because the couple is responding in Spanish. And the lady is responding in Vietnamese. I speak a little Spanish and no Vietnamese, and tend to use English for worship.

It was great!

I'll pick up the remaining couple of phrases eventually. But I will never be able to trade the experience of sitting in worship with people praying in (at least) three languages. Isn't that what the house of God is supposed to sound like?

Inclusive Language

2008-06-09T19:57:00.000-07:00

My seminary is in Berkeley, California. I love Berkeley. It is a world unto itself, a place where one can be just about anything and it is allowed. Maybe not Republican. But then again, maybe so. In Berkeley, we were all about inclusivity. At the seminary, and in fact throughout the Graduate Theological Union (the consortium of nine seminaries of various traditions), there was an Inclusive Language Policy. The Policy stated that students should make every effort to use gender-neutral language for God and for humanity. In fact, they could be penalized for failure to attend to language inclusivity.

Inclusive language is a good thing. It's a bit difficult to understand yourself as created in the image of God if that image is male and you are female.

Inclusive language can open us to new possiblities. But it can also be a barrier. I've spent some time lately rethinking the word "queer." (With a little help.) I like the word. I've used it. I used it a lot when I lived in Berkeley. I recently came across a grade sheet about a paper I wrote subtitled "Why Queer Christians Stay in Mainline Churches."

I used the word because it kept me from subtitling my paper "Why Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning People Stay in Mainline Churches." "Queer" is a nice shortcut. It includes a lot of people. Or it is meant to, anyway.

The thing is, the word "queer" is harsh and abrasive to a lot of people as well. So it can exclude a lot of people who would never identify as "queer," even though they locate themselves in the alphabet soup of LGBTQ.

Our Synod--the Lutheran church body which oversees congregations in Missouri and Kansas--isn't all that worried about inclusive language when it comes to LGBTQ, or God, for that matter. But the Synod is attentive to being inclusive of all the people who are in a room at a particular time. This is a good, welcoming practice.

One of the linguistic impulses the Synod follows is the use of the phrase "rostered persons" to denote clergy and persons in other called ministries. We have Associates in Ministry, for instance, who are not clergy, but are in called positions, serving the church in a variety of capacities.

So we're at worship yesterday--a Lutheran service with a very evangelical sensibility (go ahead, try to make sense of that). And the Creed was a responsive reading (don't even try to make sense of that), with the responses broken into three categories: men, women, and rostered.

I laughed, at first, because the idea that those are three distinct categories is sort of amusing. But the categories are shorthand, of course. "Men" and "women" are actually the categories for male and female laypersons, and "rostered" is the category for persons in called ministries--clergy, AIMs, other professionals like pastoral counselors.

Which means that the three categories were inclusive of everyone in the room, I think. Except me. I am not a layperson. I'm clergy, but I'm not "rostered" clergy. So I didn't really know when to speak, which kind of sucks when you're being asked to profess your faith, and I rather like doing that.

This is not a huge deal, but whenever it happens--which is more often than I'd like--it is a good reminder that our efforts to be inclusive may, in fact, exclude folks. If you've ever made the mistake of trying to name all of the affinity groups in a room and left someone out, you already know this. People don't like to be left out. All people. I think. Or maybe just some.

Gay Marriage! (for now...)

2008-05-28T19:20:00.000-07:00

Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Unless you have been pinned under something heavy, you surely already knew that. I got seventy-twelve emails about it. All were effusively positive, because those are the people I hang with, the ones who would be delighted when justice comes.

But there was a sort of caveat underneath all of the emails and forwarded emails from our friendly LGBT rights organizations. They all said "Victory! For now"

We were urged to send money today to fight the right-wing attack machine, which has been poised, waiting to swoop down like one of the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz. They have petitions. They have money. They have pastors, ready to denounce this travesty of judicial activism. They are determined to get a measure on the ballot in November which would nullify the Court's decision.

This is all most certainly true. If you do any organizing or have played in the activist sandbox, you know you have to be ready for the next attack on your values at all times. The evildoers do not rest, and neither must we.

But it would be nice to be able to savor a victory once in a while. Since I spent most of my adult life (and those crazy high school years) in California, I was feeling rather proud when the news came out. I wanted to feel that pride just a little bit longer. I wanted to revel in the possibilities that this decision could bring about, in places like, oh, Missouri. I wanted to dream a little, about a world in which LGBT people are no longer asked to wear that invisible triangle of shame.

Yes, I am whining. A lot of great things have happened for us in the last few years. I know it takes time. But I want it all now. I want it to be over--the fighting, the bickering, the hate crimes, the discrimination. I want it to be over for good, not just for now. I want the churches that call themselves "Christian" to pay just a bit more attention to the teachings of Christ, and a little less to the teachings of Pat Robertson.

Rant over. I need to write a check to the California Equality Commission, so that they can rage against the machine.

Mea Maxima Culpa

2008-05-28T19:13:00.000-07:00

Yeah, so I'm a bad, bad blogger. If anyone is actually still checking here, do accept my apologies. A couple of things happened this month, and last month, and I had to drop "blogging" down lower on my list of guilty pleasures.

I moved, and love my new neighborhood. I'm sure there is a Columbus Park blog entry coming. Or two, or six. I uprooted my dog, and that's one of the things I'm claiming fault for in the title line there. She's still getting used to not having her yard or her beagle. Though she does like going for more walks again. In Columbus Park (!).

So life goes on and we're adjusting very well, actually. Loving a lot of the new things happening. Bewildered at the prospect of starting over again, and also thrilled and a little nervous.

Okay, friends, that's all the abstract emotional stuff you're getting out of me today. What I really want to talk about is Gay Marriage, so that's next.

Benedict the Wise

2008-04-19T17:40:00.000-07:00

It should surprise no one to hear that I was not overjoyed to hear that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been chosen as the new pope when John Paul II died. Cardinal Ratzinger was pretty tough on gay and lesbian Catholics, and by extension (since Catholic doctrine has far-reaching impact) on gay and lesbian people all over the world.

But I must say that Pope Benedict XVI was pretty stunning in his first visit to the homeland this week. The New York Times has quite the spread on the visit, for those who haven't seen all of the details.

Given that I know and deeply love a Catholic or two, I paid attention to the Pope's visit. I was rather surprised when he addressed the abuse scandal before even deplaning. I was even more surprised when he granted an unrestricted audience to three abuse victims. These two gestures surely did more to bring a bit of healing to these deep, deep wounds than anything that has been done in the past decade. I think it took personal courage and deep faith for him to so clearly take on an issue that has been swept under a series of rugs for as far back as anyone knows.

Part of me does feel kind of bad that all CNN wanted to talk about was clergy sexual abuse while the pontiff was here, but he did bring it up, and of course the media were going to go there.

So--a great moment for the Roman Catholic Church, and a great moment of grace and hospitality for the man who (rather aptly, it turns out) named himself Benedict.

Stolen from The Onion

2008-04-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

So I'm a blog loser. Lots going on these days.

Here's a little article from The Onion I thought was funny.

Gay Guy's Gay Thing Goes Well

ROCHESTER, NY—According to gay sources, local gay guy Joshua Norstrand's latest gay dance party or art thing was attended by as many as 50 other gays. "Josh's [gay] events are always a big hit," said fellow gay guy Michael Whitmore, who thankfully did not go into detail about whatever goes on at those things. "What can I say? The [gay] man was born to entertain [other gay men]." Norstrand could not be reached for comment as he was reportedly on a business trip for his job as a gay web consultant.

And Now, for Something Lighter

2008-03-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

How do I love The Onion? Let me count the ways...

Church People Gather to Discuss Sex

2008-03-28T10:44:00.000-07:00

I went to a "hearing" on our draft Sexuality Statement last night. Hearings are being held around the church, in our 64 synods. This was actually only the second one, churchwide. I promised to report back to Lutherans Concerned, our friendly advocacy/fellowship/all around good folks organization. So I figured I'd paste part of my report here, after scrubbing some of the names and such. There are some line numbers referenced. If you're really curious, the document is on the ELCA website. So here it is, for any who are interested:

The meeting was at Trinity Lutheran in Lawrence, Kansas. In attendance were 17 total people:

8 were pastors, one of whom is a recent PhD currently applying at seminaries.

5 were laypersons from local congregations: Abiding Peace, North KC; Immanuel, KC; Trinity Lutheran, Lawrence (host congregation--two attended from Trinity--one was our moderator and did a fine job); Peace in Manhattan, Kansas. Abiding Peace is the only RIC church in that list.

1 works out of the Synod office

1 was our synod bishop, Gerald Mansholt (I'm not taking out the bishop's name. It's pretty public :) ).

1 was an assistant to the bishop

1 was adjunct to the Sexuality Task Force until two years ago. The Sexuality Task Force is supposed to have a representative at each hearing, and he was ours, though he said himself that they were "digging deep" in inviting him, and it was probably because the closest Task Force member is in Denver. I was glad he was there, because he is a great straight ally and eloquent speaker. He did not speak much until the end, when he did express some hurt on behalf of the Task Force folks who worked hard on the document. I think we understood his point. He was not able to answer many questions on the document, since he wasn't there when they put it together, so in that way he may not have been the best rep.

As far as I know, I was the only non-heterosexual person in the room.

The Discussion

We took the full two hours allocated, with a little break to move from the large sanctuary to the small chapel, which facilitated much better conversation (and was a lot warmer :) ). The bishop opened us with prayer, and I was asked to say the closing prayer, which I appreciated.

We began by trying to understand what the purpose of a Social Statement is. I'd say there is a lot of confusion around this topic. The church hasn't done a great job of clarifying the role of a Social Statement. The Task Force rep. wasn't quite sure if you could say they're used to set policy, and the bishop didn't seem all too clear either. A participant pointed out the part of the statement which suggests that they are used to lead to policies, but that is a little murky as well, since later it says that not all church members need agree with a Social Statement. The comment was made, only half facetiously, that only clergy need to agree, since they'll be subject to the subsequent policy.

I tried to get clarification about the impetus behind the Social Statement, which I understood to be determining policy regarding same-sex unions and ordination of folks in same-sex relationships. I said it seemed to me that it was these two issues which led the 2001 CWA to request a Task Force. There was agreement on this, so I made the comment that it seemed like it would be a long way from the Statement to policy, since ordination isn't mentioned and blessings are only mentioned in passing. No real clarity emerged on this, though we were reminded that the Task Force will make policy recommendations next February. Later we heard the timeline on this, which is a bit curious, if correct:

--The recommendations are made in February,2009, and sent first to the Conference of Bishops and the ELCA Church Council. Those two groups will meet in April (or the latest of the two meetings is in April). Then the recommendations are released, which means that most substantive conversation will likely have to occur at Synod Assemblies. It also seems possible--and maybe likely--that this timeline will preclude most synods from developing resolutions around the recommendations, except in an ad hoc manner, if that is allowed.

The majority of folks in the room were in favor of change in current policy. A couple didn't say much, so it is hard to know where they stand. The bishop's assistant is definitely "stand-fast," as were two of the pastors. One of those pastors expressed the common concern that this is a church-dividing issue which we are not ready to tackle. The other is a mission pastor in our synod. His concerns are couched in the language of "evangelism," which he is always quick to remind us is the "E" in "ELCA."

His position is one we must know and combat, I think. His credential--to use organizer language--is that his is the "fastest growing church in our synod." This was actually the first thing he said at the meeting. It seems to give him the sense that his words deserve extra weight. His church presents its mission as reaching out to the unchurched. His definition of "unchurched" seems to include mainly very conservative folks. He also mentioned wife-beaters, twice. He claims to be moving them all more to the center, which he may well be doing.

Here are some of the things The Mission Pastor had to say:

--The Statement is "wishy-washy" about sin. Lutheran theology teaches that we are all sinners (hum along if you know this one). The Statement seems to tell lesbian and gay people that they are not sinners, and we (Lutherans) don't teach that. That sort of teaching "provides ammunition for 'The Enemy,' however you define 'The Enemy.'" (This is verbatim; I wrote it down.) He went on to talk about how we (Lutherans) lift up all sorts of examples of sin, and don't rank them. For instance, we would call it sin for a pastor to drive a giant, gas-guzzling SUV.

I pointed out that we don't legislate against pastors who drive giant, gas-guzzling SUV's, so it would seem that we are in the business of ranking sin. He conceded that point, and I jumped out of my seat and ran around the room pumping my fist. Just kidding. Well, he did concede the point.

TMP used the language of evangelism over and over. We've heard his point before, and it will be compelling for CWA (Churchwide Assembly 2009) voters, and the synod assembly voters sending memorials (recommendations to the CWA). Here is the argument: The church will not be able to reach out to "the unchurched" if it adopts a policy which those people will consider "out of step" with society.

TMP didn't speak much to the theology of the document or to the biblical underpinnings, except for the sin stuff, and the acknowledgement that he knew that he was "being Pauline" on this subject. He noted that Paul, in trying to grow the church, "was willing to tell women that they should shut up in church," because that teaching would appeal to the people Paul was trying to reach.

This was a new argument for me--gay people are expendable because that will appeal to "the unchurched," just as women's voices should be silenced if it appeals to men.

Go ahead, shudder. I couldn't last night, but you're not sitting in that chapel.

TMP said several other things. The other one you might enjoy (and by "enjoy" I mean "lose your lunch") was prompted by a young woman (27), who spoke up for those who will also be lost to the church, if change doesn't happen. TMP acknowledged that younger people have a different attitude toward same-gender relationships, and that if he went to the youth in his congregation and told them we have to love and respect those whose sexual orientation is different from ours, they would all "go down to the local treatment center and start working with people who are drinking and using drugs because they're so torn up by their sexual orientation."

Yes.

I swear.

Didn't need to write that one down--it's burned into my brain.

Some of the more neutral conversation included:

--Lifting up the sections on children and youth as well-written, specific, and providing clear teaching. One participant asked if slavery was mentioned, and we noted teaching on sexual exploitation which would seem to include slavery.
--Questions about the foundational language of trust, which permeates the document. Our TF rep said he was actually surprised by the language, since he didn't recall it being a fundamental idea in their earlier conversations. The group seemed to feel that the language was appropriate.
--The explication of Lutheran theology, while long, was generally considered quite good and helpful.

Those favoring change made some of these comments/arguments:

--There is a false dichotomy at work in the church, and underpinning the beginning of our conversation last night. It says we are choosing between doing nothing and changing. The reality is that we're doing something now: we're refusing to ordain gay and lesbian persons in relationships and to stand up for gay marriage. This something is causing a lot of people pain.

--There is a real anti-gay bias evident in the document.

--The privileging of heterosexual marriage is insulting and unfair. The sections on "Marriage" and "Same-Gender Committed Relationships" (predictably) received the most scrutiny. There was anger over the sentence beginning at 1127 which describes "those who regard same-gender sexual relationships as sinful" without comment (and therefore with tacit allowance or even approval). The same holds true for the statement starting at 1142 which allows that "In their pastoral response [to those in same-gender relationships,] some pastors and congregations will advocate repentance and celibacy."
-->Is our church really willing to say that it is okay for pastors and congregations to regard g/l relationships as "sinful" and to "advocate repentance and celibacy."

--LGBT people are fast losing patience with the language of "welcome," when it is accompanied by teachings which are equivocal and even cruel. This one was mine. It was the big thing that I wished to get across, and I hope I did. I said that as a pastor I could no longer hear the word of welcome coming from the ELCA, and that it was becoming increasingly difficult to ask my congregation to hear such a word of welcome from a church which calls our relationships less worthy.

--Of course there was real pain around the "definition of marriage" section, 1151-1155. A number of people expressed passionate disappointment with the language of this part of the document. One woman pointed at me and said she was really hurt that her church would teach her that her marriage is more valuable than mine. She then shared that she doesn't believe this to be the case.

--Side note: the woman above has a lesbian sister. We continue to see that change is rooted in relationship. We've got to get LGBT people and allies out to our churches, somehow.

I think that is most of what I found striking last night. Our bishop, who has been on a long journey of acceptance, said directly to TMP that he heard his concerns about change and its effect on our outreach, but that he had also just read Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" again, and believed Dr. King was right in calling white pastors out for saying "now is not the time." I don't think our bishop will be out front on this. He is very clear that the semi-local-option adopted at last year's CWA (which could allow ordination of gay pastors) requires "a planetary alignment" and won't apply in his synod (I think this part was for me :) ). I did appreciate his prophetic voice at the end, when he offered those comments. I always appreciate his struggle to be faithful and pastoral to the many folks of different opinion who people the ELCA churches of Missouri and Kansas.

So that was the night. I took along one member of our congregation, who said a couple of the best things said all night. So once again, I'm disappointed in my denomination, proud of our congregation, and hopeful that we will be the change we seek.

4000 Reasons

2008-03-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

Four thousand American soldiers have now died in Iraq. I still haven't heard a good reason why. But I can think of four thousand reasons why this war should have been stopped before it began.

Estimates of the number of Iraqis killed vary widely, from 80,000 to over a million. Over two million have been displaced--no disputes there.

What a horrific tragedy this is, and I use that word advisedly. As an English major, I was taught to be very judicious in my use of the word "tragedy." It should refer to a great fall caused by hubris--human pride mixed with arrogance and brought out by temporal power.

That sounds about right.

The Wright Stuff

2008-03-18T08:38:00.000-07:00

A Prayer:

Please, Lord, don't ever let a member of my congregation run for president. For then Inquiring Minds will comb through my sermons in search of salacious and controversial words and sentences.

And they will find them, because, like Pastor Jeremiah Wright, I am not as smart as other preachers. I am not careful about what I say. I do not swear "Do not offend" as my Preacher's Oath.

I, too, have made the outrageous statement that ours is a racist country, which continues to provide advantages to those with lighter skin, and unequal access to those with darker skin.

I have preached about politics, as if the gospel somehow applies to the public sphere. I have named names--the names of those who would make war in The Name--Yahweh, for instance.

Lord, I really hope I'm never a famous or interesting pastor, because my words will not stand up to public scrutiny. If the requirement for preachers is that they dance along the top of a fence, speak in generalities, bow before Caesar, and favor prosperity over truth--I'm toast.

May it ever be so.

Amen

Stuff I Wonder About 1

2008-03-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

Why isn't "pounds per square inch" abbreviated "LSI?"

Is that "Draft" or "Drift"?

2008-03-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, our denomination, released its Draft Statement on Human Sexuality today. This statement is the result of six years of study by the Human Sexuality Task Force, which was constituted by the 2001 Churchwide Assembly. The Task Force released study documents--the obsequiously titled "Journey Together Faithfully" I & II--and collected responses from across the church. All that work turned into the Draft Statement.

If you understood all of that, you may be a Mainline Protestant.

One of my colleagues said recently that he wasn't particularly interested in seeing what the Draft Statement on Human Sexuality said, since it was his opinion that it wouldn't say anything.

I had higher hopes. I've watched our church wrestle with human sexuality (which is, of course, church-speak for "homosexuality") for twenty years now. We tried to get together a statement on human sexuality back in the early nineties. Someone leaked it to the press, the New York Times announced that the Lutherans were "affirming homosexuality and masturbation" and that was all she wrote for Attempt One.

But this is Attempt Two. It's 2008. Surely we're ready to Journey Faithfully into the twenty-first century Together. Surely it is time that the church take the position that gay and lesbian relationships are worthy of the same respect and ecclesial fortitude as straight relationships.

Alas, my colleague was right, and I have never wanted less to be a Lutheran.

This is my favorite paragraph:

It is only within the last decades that this church has begun to deal in a new way with
the longing of same-gender persons to seek relationships of life-long companionship and
commitment and to seek public accountability for those commitments. In response, this
church has drawn deeply on its Lutheran heritage to dwell in Scripture and listen to the
Word of God. This listening has brought biblical scholars, theologians, and rostered and
lay persons to different conclusions. After many years of study and conversation, this
church does not have consensus regarding loving and committed same-gender relationships.
This church has committed itself to continuing to accompany one another in study,
prayer, discernment, and pastoral care.

Apparently a few decades is a short amount of time. Depends upon your perspective, I think. If you're waiting for the church to decide what it thinks about someone else, a few decades may feel short. If you're waiting for the church to decide how it feels about you, a few decades is an excruciatingly long time.

Of course, in using the language of "the church," I've fallen into the same hole the Task Force is trying to write its way out of. As long as we're waiting for "the church" to have consensus, we'll study ourselves to death. There are nearly five million members of the ELCA. No--they don't have consensus on human sexuality. They don't have frigging consensus on weekly communion! Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think that the people of "the church" asked the Task Force to do six years worth of thinking and studying and to make a suggestion about what we as a church were going to stand for.

Apparently we stand for not being able to stand for anything. Please forgive my bluntness, but the idea of "continuing to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, and pastoral care" makes me want to vomit. We just did "study, prayer, discernment, and pastoral care." Six bloody years of it. On top of the twenty years we did before that. If we spent six years and a couple million dollars to learn that we need more study, we could have been feeding hungry kids in Africa.

It's only a draft. It may get better. I'm going to take some deep breaths now and calm down. Then make some notes for the synod listening post next month.

Here's a Good Conversational Name Drop...

2008-03-04T15:03:00.000-08:00

...well, in my Old Testament class at Yale...

Yale has opened an Old Testament class to online participation. Go here to check it out.

Hat tip to LutheranChik, who rocks always!

Religious Landscaping

2008-03-02T15:45:00.000-08:00

Sorry--I know this graphic is hard to read. That's as big as I can make it.

You may have seen the report out last week from the Pew Religion Forum which outlined "America's Religious Landscape." It told us a lot of stuff we already knew, like "Americans are increasingly unaffiliated religiously." (Though some are religiously unaffiliated). The survey confirms that denominational identity is increasingly unimportant, which we also already knew, though it still makes those of us with denominational affiliations in our job titles a little queasy.

It used to be easier to answer the question "Why are you a...[insert religious affiliation here]?" You were a Lutheran because your parents were Lutherans and you were raised in the Lutheran church and it seemed fine and fine is good for Lutherans. We're good with fine.

That sort of denominational default ended a while ago for many people. I'm a Lutheran because my friend Sara took me to her church when I was 11 and I fell in love. With the church. We moved before I could fall in love with Sara, though I think the reverse is not necessarily true but I digress.

So none of this is big news, though the flip-flop in percentages from Mainline Protestant to Evangelical Protestant is still startling. They're growing. We're not. Lots of people have guessed why, but I don't like most of the answers.

Here's what I want to know: Why do we go to a particular church? I'm not concerned with denominations here, necessarily, though that's salient, of course. Mostly I want to know:

Why does a particular faith community make your heart sing?
What's the thing that gets you out of bed on Sunday morning (or Saturday morning, or out on Saturday evening or Wednesday evening or whenever you go out to practice your faith)?
What can't you live without?

Outrageous

2008-02-29T10:04:00.000-08:00

I saw and heard a couple of things yesterday that have got me thinking. I was on my way to a meeting in Kansas and drove by a home on a major street which had a large, hand-lettered sign out front. I was driving, so I couldn't write down the message on the sign, but here's what it said, to the best of my memory:

"Just be glad
that we are killing
more of their children
than they are
of ours.
Happy Holiday"

The "Happy Holiday" part is definitely right, and creates a pretty bizarre juxtaposition. I'm not sure which holiday is meant. Which is the "let's celebrate the children we've killed in our war" holiday?

I wondered whether the sign was meant to be satire, but I'm inclined to think that it is not. Someone actually feels that way, strongly enough to put those feelings on a sign. Which leads me to ask: how is it that someone can feel that way to begin with, and feel so strongly that way that the person is willing to put it on a sign right next to a heavily trafficked street? (Roe Avenue at about 60th, for those who are local)

Even if it's meant to be satire, the language is so violent and objectionable as to fail miserably. At least as "front yard, general-public-accessible satire."

I was sad about this first, and then outraged. I wanted to turn around and go to the person's door and try to have a conversation with him or her. Or maybe I didn't want a conversation, exactly. I wanted an opportunity to simply express the hurt I felt reading that sign, the hurt I felt knowing that someone who lives in the same general area I live in has such blatant disregard for the lives of Iraqi and Afghan children.

I didn't, of course. I was late and I probably wouldn't have anyway because I'm a coward and I can blog about these horrible things instead of doing something real. Plus, I'm reasonably certain that person owns a gun. Or two.

So my meeting went on forever, and three hours later I was driving home and "Studio 360" was on NPR. The featured interview for the episode was one taped with the writer Susan Sontag. I came in late, but it seemed like the theme was "images of voilence and war," or something similar. Sontag talked about images that she had seen which had affected her deeply, and they did a couple of segments on war movies and photographs.

At one point Sontag talked about the ability of an image like a photograph to evoke moral outrage. Then she said that she couldn't understand why people had a puzzled reaction to the atrocities of war. She said she was tired of people wondering why an SS officer could tear babies from their mothers' arms and send hundreds to the gas chamber by day, and then go home and play a little Shubert and entertain the kids before supper.

Her point was a good one--that human beings are capable of any manner of violence, a truth borne out by all of history. She felt that it was somewhat disingenuous to be shocked, or surprised, when someone commits a horrific act, since people have been doing that stuff since Cain killed his brother (she didn't say that, but it's my frame of reference and I'm stickin' with it).

I understand her point, but I still want to reserve the right to be puzzled and outraged. I just can't resign myself to the notion that somewhere in the Kansas City metro, there are people who really devalue the lives of children enough to express the sentiment on that yard sign. And no, a cruel yard sign is not the moral equivalent of Nazi atrocities, but it is the sort of thinking expressed on that sign that leads to the sort of moral equivocation we're experiencing as a nation right now.

See, I need to be able to ask the question, Is the United States of America really debating whether or not it is okay to subject someone to waterboarding? Have we really succeeded in pretending that some people are not as human as other people, and therefore different rules apply to those people?

I don't understand it. I don't understand that sign, and I don't understand how we've gotten to this place. So I gotta ask, even though I already know I won't like the answers.

Ship of Fools

2008-02-24T16:55:00.000-08:00

Okay, you guys have to check this out:

www.shipoffools.com

Great stuff. Here's my favorite link on the site:

www.nonraptured.com

It's the site for those who will be left after Pat Robertson and James Dobson go up the great escalator.

Theodicy

2008-02-24T16:34:00.000-08:00

It's one of those great Divinity School Words: "theodicy." It refers to the constant human struggle to understand how evil exists in God's world. Or how God allows evil to exist. Don't ask me--I've never totally understood it.

But our most excellent local religion columnist, Bill Tammeus, has written a great column this week which takes up the issue of theodicy. He starts with some questions he received from a reader, who noted that the figures for church attendance in Sweden seem to belie that country's commitment to caring for "the least of these." They're good questions, and Tammeus does a great job grappling with them. Give it a read:

http://www.kansascity.com/living/columnists/bill_tammeus/story/500831.html

I'm so glad I didn't take a drink of my tea...

2008-02-21T17:25:00.001-08:00

...before I read this in this morning's paper:

David Letterman, on Fidel Castro stepping down: "Experts (say) he'll either be succeeded by his brother Raul, or by his idiot son, Fidel W. Castro."

Seriously, tea would have come out of my nose. Letterman, still funny after all these years.

Missouri Looking Good

2008-02-16T08:41:00.000-08:00

In the three years before I moved to Missouri, I lived in two college towns and a suburb in New England. One of the college towns was quite liberal. The other one was Berkeley. And New England is New England. Stodgy liberalism--strange, really.

So Kansas City was a shift for me. Is a shift. Some of the stuff that I read each day in the Letters to the Editor continues to curl my toes, even though I've lived here seven and a half years. Recently it's been the letters of support for the mayor of Kansas City, who appointed a woman to the Parks Board who turned out to be a member of the Minutemen. When the mayor refused to ask her to step down, even after we lost a couple of conventions over the flap, there were dozens of letters proclaiming the Minutemen a "patriotic" organization and applauding the mayor for refusing to back down to "blackmail" from La Raza and the NAACP. Ouch.

The good thing about living in Missouri, though, is that we have Kansas right next door. There are wonderful people who live in Kansas. Some of them go to my church, which is about a mile from the Kansas border. Lots of great Kansans.

But crazy stuff happens in Kansas. There's all the evolution stuff, which sets the population of Kansas up to look like extras in Inherit the Wind. In black and white, even. There's the District Attorney who is obsessed with outlawing abortion.

And then this little gem from outside of Topeka on Thursday. It seems that St. Mary's Academy was preparing to play a high school basketball game, when the school's Athletic Director discovered that one of the referees for the game was a woman. He declared that she could not officiate the game, because a woman should not have authority over boys.

Go ahead, laugh. This is funny stuff. This would have been funny in 1978. It's downright hilarious in 2008. And sad and wrong and dumb.

If you want to read the whole article, go here for a fair and balanced AP story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330642,00.html

For whatever reason, the story is not on the Kansas City Star site, though the Star broke it. But AP has the details right. All those unbelievable details.

And one really great detail. After Michelle Campbell was removed from the refereeing duties in the game, school officials went to two other (male) referees and asked them to step in. Upon hearing the details of this little officiating "emergency," both refused, and walked out with Campbell.

Lots of great Kansans. There's two of them now. Unfortunately, the headline for this story won't read "Two Officials Stand Behind Removed Female Official." It'll be more likely "Crazy Stuff Keeps Happening in Kansas." From now until crazy stuff stops happening, I guess.

Confession

2008-02-16T08:30:00.001-08:00

Okay, yes, I am a sucky blogger of late. I just can't tear myself away from Bad Girls.

That's not really true, though I am kind of obsessed. There are so many bad lesbian love stories on TV, and the Brits finally gave us a good one. Of course, one of the women enters the relationship straight, because the entertainment industry just can't figure out how to have two lesbians fall in love. One of them always has to be previously straight and fall backwards into the relationship, kicking and screaming. Why is that?

Anyway, if you've got LOGO, check out the first three seasons of Bad Girls. I've seen most of it now, so I'll try blogging more than once every couple of weeks. Sorry about that.

Significant Others

2008-01-24T07:02:00.000-08:00

I started to write all of this in a comment box, since I was responding to Amalia's comment on the last post, but it got kind of long and is probably more of a new entry.

I've heard about the "drop your family" exercise, probably from Kelli. It puts me in mind of a confession I need to make.

I was on retreat at a Catholic monastery last week--very progressive place, for Kansas--a Benedictine center where 168 sisters live together, and provide hospitality in the form of a very nice retreat place called Sophia Center. I was having dinner with one of the sisters, and she asked me about family. I talked about my mother and my brother, and then she said, "Yes, but don't you have a nuclear family." I panicked and said--really awkwardly--"uh, no." And then sat there thinking, "You're wearing a wedding ring, you dope. It's not like she can't figure it out. She lives with 167 nuns." (Nothing against nuns, certainly, but my gaydar was working overtime.)

I hate feeling the need to hide my family, and I almost never do it. But once in a while I just don't feel like I have the emotional stamina to go into it all, to change the tenor of a conversation or make others uncomfortable (and if that isn't a really stupid reason to lie to people, I don't know what is.)

So thanks for letting me confess. I did tell my spiritual director about my "nuclear family" the next day, since we were going to be spending an hour together. And she was great. Chances are very high that the sister at dinner would have been as well. I just didn't give her a chance.

Dafinitions

2008-01-22T15:06:00.000-08:00

Yeah, so it's been forever since I've written anything and I don't have time again, and so here's a little something I got in an email, since it made me laugh out loud. Lazy way out? You make the call.

In case you missed it, this is the Washington Post's Mensa Invitational which once again asked readers to take any word from thedictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, andsupply a new definition. The winners are:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders thesubject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an ***hole.
3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lastsuntil you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stopsbright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows littlesign of breaking down in the near future.
6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purposeof getting laid.
7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and theperson who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are runninglate.
10. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
11. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extracredit.)
12. Karmageddon: It's when everybody is sending off all thesereally bad vibes, and then the Earth explodes, and it's a serious bummer.
13. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the dayconsuming only things that are good for you
14. Glibido: All talk and no action.
15. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarterwhen they come at you rapidly. 16. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just afteryou've accidentally walked through a spider web.
17. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
18. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

Let's Give 'Em Something to Talk about

2007-12-28T12:30:00.000-08:00

It happened again. I was having a perfectly lovely conversation with someone I had just met, someone who is also a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the conversation got around to the Great Debate. You know the one I mean.

She had let me know that she knew "all about" my journey with the ELCA. If you're new here, you really only need to know that I live in a weird liminal space in my denomination. I'm not allowed to be on the clergy roster because I am a lesbian in a committed relationship (and choose--it's all about choice--not to lie about that). But I serve an ELCA church. Like I said, a liminal space.

The lady and I were having a very nice conversation. I'm not sure how it even got around to the subject of the Great Debate. I guess it just always does.

So there we were, talking about the church's struggles with its gay and lesbian members and pastors, and she looks at me and says, "Well, as a straight person, I just wish we could quit talking about it all the time."

I can only hope that I didn't roll my eyes, because, like I said, I was enjoying our conversation. I found this lady's sense of humor and presence absolutely delightful.

But gee, I'm tired of hearing that sentence. I'm tired of what seems to lurk beneath that sentence: a sense that lesbian and gay people in the church are somehow interested in prolonging the discussion of our sex lives.

Um, because we're really not. I say that with some confidence. I have yet to meet a gay or lesbian Lutheran who relishes the fact that our intimate relationships, our love lives, and "what y'all do in bed" is fodder for church assembly conversation and debate. I don't know any gay or lesbian Lutherans who like being "studied."

I'm leaving out transgendered and bisexual Lutherans because I'm afraid we've only just begun to study them. We've had some conversation about bisexuality, but it hasn't really gone anywhere. The church has yet to actually legislate around gender identity or bisexuality. You're only precluded from serving a church if you are in a "homosexual sexual relationship." So the defining issue is still "what y'all do in bed."

Sleep, mainly.

Look, here's where the confusion arises. I hate this debate. I hate being studied. But if we're ever going to have justice, this unequal, uncomfortable conversation has to take place. The alternative is to continue the longstanding, unstated "don't ask, don't tell" policy we have used for years. And at this point, there are just too dang many of us to try to cram back into that closet.

So as a lesbian, I wish we could quit talking about it as well. Yesterday. But I guess there's no other way through the crucible moment than to play with fire.

What's the Matter

2007-12-28T11:12:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I let the Huckabee ad sit for a little while, and I still don't like it much. I know he's going after a particular demographic--right wing evangelicals (no, that is not necessarily redundant). But sitting in front of a floating cross and doing your best to show that you are the Real Christian in the race is creepy, and scary, and smacks of propaganda at best and fascism at worst.

I know politicians are opportunists; that's the way it's done. But using the birth of Christ is too much for me. There's no need for Mike Huckabee to remind people that he is a person of faith--he's a Baptist pastor, for goodness' sake. There's also no need for Mike Huckabee to remind people of faith that Christmas is about the birth of Christ. And there's no point in trying to remind those who don't care, as well. People aren't going to discover the true meaning of Christmas in a campaign ad.

But clearly it is important for Mike Huckabee to position himself as the candidate of the religious right. I'm a little surprised that he seems to be their only candidate. After they elected, and re-elected George W. Bush, one would think the Republican party would throw a few more bones to the Christian right. But nearly all of the GOP candidates seem to be folks who not only won't excite this part of the base, but are more likely to irritate them.

You wouldn't want to irritate Pat Robertson, would you?

Actually, maybe so. The problem with the Christian right is that their most high profile folks seem to prone to spectacular rises and equally dramatic falls. Here are a few names to illustrate my point:

Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Ralph Reed
Ted Haggard

All of these fellows, with the possible exception of Ralph, are the punch lines to a barrel full of jokes. Ralph Reed is just a guy who rode the coattails of the "Christian Coalition" to a position of influence and subsequent corruption. He was once the darling of the party. By 2006, he couldn't get himself elected Lieutenant Governor of Georgia. Ouch.

There are a bunch more names. Certainly we can add Pat Robertson, who is no longer relevant in national politics since his mouth just won't stop venturing into Crazy Town.

In the interest of fairness and balance, there are plenty of scandals on the other side of the political/religious fence. But it's just more interesting when pretenders to the throne of American morality fall on their derrieres (or the attractive derrieres of secretaries and male prostitutes). Americans love irony, even if we can't always recognize it. It's dang funny, and tragic, when Larry Craig, virulently anti-gay senator, gets caught soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.

Since it's more interesting, it's a bigger liability. It's safe to assume that none of the candidates will ask Senator Craig to campaign for them. Even in Idaho. I'm thinking Mr. Potatohead will get you a lot more votes in Idaho.

Votes are the bottom line. As much as money seems to be the measure of viability in politics today, ultimately you don't get elected unless people vote for you. While the Christian Right comes with a whole bunch of votes, it also comes with a whole bunch of baggage. And it seems as if the Republican party isn't so much interested in carrying those bags across the election day threshhold any more.

A link to the Huckabee Ad: "What Really Matters"

2007-12-21T09:01:00.000-08:00

I can't use the link in my own blog entry, so I thought that might happen to others as well. Here's a link you can use instead. If you just want to go to YouTube, be careful. There are new satires of this ad popping up by the minute. Here's a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xn7uSHtkuA

What Really Matters

2007-12-19T11:43:00.001-08:00

What do you all think of this?

Scapegoats

2007-12-18T11:50:00.000-08:00

"You shall not oppress a stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." --Exodus 23:9

It seems as though every election cycle has a scapegoat now. In the last election, it was the failed war in Iraq. Candidates defined themselves as for it or against it, and the minority and majority parties switched places. (Though, sadly, you can hardly tell, a year later.)

Usually, though, the scapegoat has a face. In the 2002 and 2004 elections, it was gay and lesbian people, especially the ones demanding recognition of their relationships. Candidates stood up for "traditional marriage," constitutional amendments to prevent something that was already illegal were added to the ballot, and more Republicans were elected, vowing to return America to some glorious heyday that never existed.

This year the scapegoat is The Immigrant. Now all of the ills of our society can be blamed on the strangers who come into this land of opportunity seeking a better life. Especially the ones who do so without benefit of legal papers which declare that they have a "right" to be here.

I use the word "scapegoat" quite intentionally. Here are the two definitions of "scapegoat" at Merriam-Webster online:

1: a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur

2 a: one that bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility.

Webster's says the goat wearing the people's sins was sent "into the wilderness." Other sources claim the goat was thrown over a cliff. Either way, things didn't go well for the goat.

Things aren't going very well for undocumented workers these days, either. They are "bearing the blame" for a whole lot of stuff happening in this country. The talking heads on television and AM radio claim that "illegal immigrants" have driven down wages, escalated the drug problem and (this is my favorite) brought thousands of cases of leprosy into the US.

Okay, so the leprosy thing is something Lou Dobbs got from a virulently anti-immigration source, and it has been disproved, though Dobbs stands by his figures. He actually said, "If we reported it, then it must be a fact."

Today's phrase, class, is "circular logic." Who can use circular logic in a sentence? Lou?

If you'd like to read a Wall Street Journal blog on this, click here.

Friends, what's wrong with our country is not the fault of undocumented workers. Though the reverse of that sentence is less true. The truth is that we have exploited undocumented workers for many years, and this election-time scapegoating is just another example of it. We've allowed undocumented workers to provide a wage buffer for industries like farming, construction, and the service sector.

And yes, that has kept wages low. But blaming the workers for their own low wages is just more circular logic. I'm guessing that they would take more money if you tried to give it to them. The truth is, this little "look the other way" system of hiring undocumented workers has worked to the advantage of American companies and consumers for a long while now. A lot longer than this issue has been on the political radar.

I'm not saying that it is right. It's wrong--deeply wrong. I'm just pointing out the naked emperor. If he gets dressed, lettuce is going to cost $3 a head. So all of this posturing is just that, since the pro-business, pro-industry, pro-capitalism candidates who are blustering about "illegal immigration" have no intention of biting the hand that feeds this nation.

People of faith should be outraged by all of this. Hospitality to strangers is a fundamental tenet of pretty much every major religion. It is certainly a foundation of the Abrahamic traditions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

God destroyed the city of Sodom because of the people's inhospitality to strangers among them. Funny, we've gotten a new millenium's worth of scapegoating from dramatically misreading that story...

Some of our churches have been standing up for the immigrant. I'm hoping that mine will be one of them, but that is, of course, up to the people of Abiding Peace.

The thirteenth chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews starts this way: "Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it." These verses are a reference to Genesis 18, in which Abraham warmly greets visitors. Those visitors are representatives of God, though Abraham is at first unaware of this fact. They're also the same visitors who are received so poorly by the people of Sodom.

There's not much gray space here. There's no getting around God's demand that we show hospitality to the stranger. There's no nuance here. It's just what we are called to do.

God has entreated us to throw open our doors and our arms to those who are strangers among us. And isn't that more fun than drumming up irrational hostility, anyway?

Would You Buy a President from This Woman?

2007-12-14T14:10:00.000-08:00

Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Barack Obama, and she went on a whirlwind campaign tour with him this week.

I really didn't need to tell you that, did I?

It's all the news. Oprah and Obama on the road. People crowding into hockey stadiums to see Oprah. Oh, and to hear Barack Obama.

Look, I think it's great. Oprah is a powerful woman, and she throws her power around in some really good ways. If she wants to help get Barack Obama elected, I say "good for you!" Indeed, it might just be good for all of us.

What's been really amusing this week, though, is to listen to people answer the only question the news media seems to have about this whole thing: "Does Oprah's endorsement make you more likely to vote for Obama?"

The first response most people have is a little laugh. A little "oh, my dear, please!" laugh. Then they generally say some version of "Certainly not!"

A woman on CBS Sunday Morning (which we record, of course) said that she would choose her own president, and Oprah's endorsement wouldn't sway her vote. The interviewer (a clever and creative soul--you have to watch that show if you don't already--but don't stay home from church to do it) actually asked a follow-up question: "Has Oprah ever convinced you to buy a book?" The woman answered, "All of them."

So Oprah can tell us what to read...but not who should be president. Because that is a "community decision" and "an individual choice" and "a personal responsibility." These are all paraphrases of statements I heard people make about Oprabama.

So true. It is the responsibility of every American of voting age to give careful consideration to the choice of a presidential candidate. Oh, and drag your behind to the polls and vote. Shirking this responsibility is shameful. Sorry, but it is.

I agree that one oughtn't let Oprah make up one's mind. One's mind should be open to all of the choices, and one should do the research needed to choose the best person for the job, whoever that person should be.

But in the midst of all of the pooh-poohing of the "Oprah factor," a Gallup poll was released this week as well. The nice folks at Gallup asked folks whether they would vote for certain types of candidates--you know, like Mormon types. Seventeen percent said no, they wouldn't vote for a Mormon candidate. Here's the rest of the data, with the category first and the percentage of those polled that absolutely will not vote for that sort of person:

Catholic 4%

Black 5

Jewish 6

A woman 12

Hispanic 12

Mormon 17

A homosexual 41

An atheist 48

I suppose I should be happy that I am currently less reprehensible to the average American than an atheist. Yeah, not so much.

So all week long we heard all of this rhetoric about the importance of choosing the best possible candidate. But Gallup calls random people on the phone and the truth comes out. The best possible candidate had still better have the right stuff (and I mean that as a euphemism for genitalia and pigmentation and sexual orientation and religious beliefs, just in case it's unclear).

Apparently everyone is happy with a white, male, straight, Protestant candidate. Because, hey--they've been running the country since, well, forever, and look how well it's going!

World War III

2007-12-07T05:52:00.001-08:00

It's Pearl Harbor Day, a day when we're reminded of the horrors of war. I was at Pearl Harbor a year ago; it's a sacred place.

Below is an article from the Washington Post that reminds me that we're going backward when it comes to peacemaking.

Bush told in Aug Iran may have halted nuclear program

By Tabassum Zakaria

Reuters

Wednesday, December 5, 2007; 11:21 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program, the White House said on Wednesday, a day after Bush said he was not given a full report on the issue.

A new intelligence estimate released on Monday said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, raising questions about whether the president was aware of that when he increased his rhetoric against Tehran.

Some Democrats seized on this week's intelligence report to suggest Bush took an aggressive stance against Iran even though he knew that U.S. intelligence had a different picture of the threat posed by Tehran.

During a news conference on Tuesday, Bush said he was informed of the intelligence report last week, but said U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell told him in August there was new information on Iran.

"He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze," Bush said.

On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said McConnell told Bush in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program and that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment on Iran.

I'm going to be accused of bashing the president here, because "politics" is such a dirty word that one can't discuss foreign policy without being accused of partisan hackery. So I'll say it right up front. I think he's a bad president. I'm not sure he's a bad man, and I was quite touched by his conversation with Jenna on Ellen Degeneres' show this week. He obviously loves his family very much. He is also funny and charming.

But I think he's a bad president. I think our country is in serious danger, danger we weren't in seven years ago. I think we are largely unaware of the damage that has been done to our relationship with the rest of the world. I don't think that's bashing. It is my opinion, based on information like that in the article above.

This administration has been laying the groundwork for war with Iran. I think if you asked them, they might even admit that. It's pretty clear. So this report is alarming, since the president actually used the phrase "World War Three" in a speech in October regarding the Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

If, back in August, the US Intelligence chief told him that it was likely, or even possible, that they had suspended their program, then this saber-rattling is not only dangerous (which it would be either way), it is also unfounded.

It may be that this Intelligence Estimate is wrong. The President has certainly asserted as much all week. That is most assuredly a possibility. We know that the intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program was wildly innacurate. Or it was made up--history will have to let us in on that one.

I'm pretty sure history will report that this administration has handled truth in a devastatingly careless way. Yeah, they all do. Yeah, it's been raised to a new art form since 2001.

I am a liberal.

I'll give you a sec.

Over the shock?

Okay. So anyway, I'm naturally suspicious of conservativism--although this is more a function of my faith than my political leanings. I just can't find support for most conservative positions in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. And I'm doing my best to try to follow that guy--failing gloriously at times, but trying. So yes, I have suspicion of those who don't put emphasis on caring for the poor and who are actively working against the marginalized. And that description fits a lot of conservative platforms, though it certainly doesn't fit all conservative people.

But this isn't about conservatives, anyway. This is about neoconservatives. This is about an agenda which sure seems to be hellbent on "World War III." The current administration bends facts until they break, manipulates (or dismisses) intelligence, and foments fear of The Other in order to advance its goals, which seem to have something to do with taking over the Middle East.

Does the President really want us to believe that intelligence chief Mike McConnell came to him and said "We have new intelligence about Iran," and the President of the United States said "Okay, Big Mac, thanks for lettin' me know."?

Are we supposed to believe he didn't ask what the intelligence was? Or does he--does this whole neoconservative steamroller--just not care what we think? Do they think we'll go blithely on with our lives, paying no attention to the man behind the curtain, fiddling with our remote controls while Washington burns?

I think they might.

Christmastime is Here!

2007-11-29T06:26:00.000-08:00

If you know me at all, or have heard my phone ring ("Linus and Lucy"), or notice my blog profile picture or have seen my tattoo (!), you know what I was doing Tuesday evening at 7 p.m.

Watching a little piece of imperfect perfection called "A Charlie Brown Christmas..."

...in November, which was, I'll freely admit, weird. But, look, the best we're going to do is to get the Christmas season to start after Thanksgiving (key word: after), so even though it was a little early for The Greatest Christmas Special Ever, I'll take it. Besides, now I can watch it again, closer to Christmas. I have a copy. Of course. A VHS copy, in a box with frayed corners, because it's that old. I got it at a Shell gas station sometime in the eighties, for like five bucks with a fill-up.

I don't know how many times I've seen "A Charlie Brown Christmas." It came out the year I was born, so I often feel like it's my special special. (Because no one else was born in 1965, I guess--I don't know why my mind works the way it does).

I still laugh at the jokes. I still find them timely. Five cent psychiatric advice, a figure skating dog who can also play every animal in the Christmas play, a preschooler who simplifies her wish list for Santa to "cash--tens and twenties," a poor schlub who doesn't get any cards and picks a hagard Christmas tree, and a little prophet whose "trusty blanket" can perform all sorts of spacial miracles.

It is the little prophet who provides what I have to think is the greatest moment in all of TV--a moment that only happened because Charles Schulz was a very stubborn man. When Schulz got together with fellow animators Bill Melendez and Lee Mendleson to talk about the special, he broached the idea of having Linus read from the Bible. His colleagues were...um...hesitant. Nobody had ever done that before. For Schulz, this was the point, and it becomes the central point of the whole show: the meaning of Christmas can get lost in a sea of aluminum trees "and presents for pret-ty girls."

So he said "If we don't do it, who will?" and Linus walked onto the stage at Somewhere-in-Minnesota Elementary School and recited six perfect verses from Luke's Gospel--King James version, because this is the one time when the King James trumps.

Want to see it? Click here.

You Better Watch Out

2007-11-27T06:23:00.000-08:00

An article in today's KC Star reports that Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher working in northern Sudan has been arrested for allowing her class to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

The kids in the class are seven years old.

Officials in Sudan allege that allowing a stuffed bear to bear the Prophet's name is an insult to Islam.

Yeah, maybe she should have realized that she might get this kind of reaction. And yes, it was probably a bad idea to send a letter home telling the parents that she'd let the kids name the bear "Muhammad" and that they should take a picture with the bear. Sudan is in the grasp of a really rabid religious fundamentalism that has cost the lives of a pretty substantial portion of its citizens, so it would be wise to be extra careful. A parable there, perhaps...

So, okay, it was a lapse in judgment, though certainly a well-intentioned one. Her letter noted that the bear was "intelligent," which is surely why the kids wanted to name it after the Prophet.

If Gibbons is found guilty, "she will face punishment, possibly including lashes."

This is appalling. To quote four dark-haired chicks, "What's Going On?"

In a related story, hate crimes are on the rise in the U.S., right alongside Christian fundamentalism.

Yeah, I know the difference between correlation and causation. I make the case anyway: there is a link between those two events. The kind of fundamentalism that sets marginalized people in its crosshairs can lead to violence against those people. Its rhetoric is violent, and not all of its adherents are stable and nonviolent.

Kelly Fryer has taken up this very topic on her blog, "Reclaiming the 'F' Word." (The "F" is for faith. What were you thinking?) She includes a disturbing video of Rev. Ken Hutcherson at a Microsoft shareholders' meeting. Rev. Hutcherson threatened the company with a boycott (which turned out to be imaginary, not ready-to-launch-with-a-phone-call as he asserted) over their support of gay rights initiatives in Washington state. Read through the comments, where Kelly takes on the question of the link between the Christian right and hate crimes pretty forcefully.

Here's the thing about this kind of fundamentalism: it picks and it chooses. It divides and it conquers. It is an imperial ideal, a ruse, really. It takes the language of faith, and the holy words of a religion, and bends them and twists them, until they support hateful works.

It is not patient. It is not kind. It is envious, and boastful and rude. It is especially arrogant. It insists upon its own way.

The good news is that this kind of fundamentalism does end. As soon as enough people stand up to say "Excuse me, but that's not what our scripture says. That's not what Jesus taught. That's not what the Prophet wanted."

I realize I'm not being particularly charitable (or merciful, to quote myself back to me, from the fraction of my sermon which was actually spoken aloud). But there is grave danger afoot. Our country has been coerced into war abroad and fierce battles at home, by people who claim Jesus Christ and don't seem to have even a fleeting acquaintance with him. And we've only just begun to see the effect of it all, at least those of us who aren't connected to the war personally. Some have suffered and died for the new "Christian" Imperialism.

And while we're at it, why don't we stop calling it "fundamentalism?" Is hate a "fundamental" of Islam or Christianity? Not last time I looked (and I do know just a little bit about Islam, having had a very good class at the UU seminary in Berkeley).

I'm thinking "religious detrimentalism" might be a better term. That would separate opportunists using religion to advance their own interests from sincere people of faith who are also evangelical Christians, or strict Muslims. This isn't about liberals vs. conservatives. There are conservative people who are doing their best to live out the call of their Lord. We disagree, but at least we're reading the same book.

I just think it is time to take that book (or those books, to include the Koran) out of the hands of the people who are using them but not actually reading them.

Frustration, Thy Name Is Sermon

2007-11-24T13:54:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I've been writing all day. On a sermon I started on Tuesday. I've written five or six pages, easily. I have one useable page.

Aaaargh.

Every once in a while I ask myself why I would knowingly accept the call to a position which requires one to write an A paper every week.

Seriously--no one wants to hear a B sermon, do they?

I realized after a year or so that I had to let go of the idea that all sermons must be perfect.

But I never really let it go...

People are trusting me with their time. I have a responsibility to use that time wisely, to give them something to take home with them, something which helps them to function better, or lifts them up, or challenges them.

Right?

Of course right.

I'm going back to it now. Perhaps if I write six or eight more pages, I'll have a couple more pages I can use.

Smile. Sigh. Pray.

Signs of Life

2007-11-13T09:06:00.000-08:00

It happened again this weekend. I was at an event at which there were a lot of LGBTA people (A for Allies). I was talking to a guy late in the day and he mentioned that he had lived "north of the river," near where our church, Abiding Peace, used to be located.

He said he never came to our church, but he knew about us. Then he said that he used to drive by Abiding Peace and feel so grateful that we were there, with our rainbow fish on the sign and our lesbian pastor. "It made me feel like I wasn't the only one up there--like I wasn't alone."

He was visibly moved, telling me this. I was moved hearing it. It doesn't matter how many times someone tells me how important it is for Abiding Peace to be "out there," I still sometimes forget. I fall into that church trap of measuring effective ministry by numbers of persons in seats on Sunday morning. I need to be reminded that Abiding Peace does ministry by existing, by sticking rainbows on our signs and having the audacity to suggest (publicly!) that God loves and values everyone.

I hope soon there will be a time when you don't have to drive by certain churches to have that message reinforced. But until that time comes, we'll just keep on doing our ministry of existence, so that no one has to feel like "the only one."

RIP, "Values Voter"

2007-11-13T06:48:00.000-08:00

Rev. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani for president.

That is all.

Yet another reason that...

2007-11-09T06:34:00.000-08:00

...Pearls before Swine is the greatest comic since Peanuts.

The High Cost of Hate

2007-11-06T06:23:00.000-08:00

So I've been thinking about the verdict against Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. Though it's true that very little moral ambiguity surrounds Westboro, this whole lawsuit thing raises some very uncomfortable questions. Or perhaps I should say it highlights some questions that have been floating about since Westboro started picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in the line of duty.

Setting aside the court case, the judgment, and all of the delicious (for Westboro) publicity, I'm wondering about the nature of the outrage that allowed this judgment. I think it is fair to say that the lawsuit, and the judgment, are motivated by outrage, and understandably so.

Fred Phelps and his family (who make up nearly all of Westboro Baptist Church) have been picketing funerals for a decade now. Most famously, they protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard in 1998, after Matt was beaten and left for dead on a fence in Laramie, Wyoming. They have protested at the funerals of numerous AIDS victims, and at the funeral of a San Francisco lesbian killed when she was attacked by pit bulls outside her apartment.

Funeral protests have gotten them a lot of attention, and they like attention.

There's been a shift in the reaction to those protests, though. While there was a general sense of disgust at the Westboro folks picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and at Matt Shepard's funeral, I don't recall anyone trying to pass a law against it, or sue the Phelps clan over it. Those things didn't happen until Westboro began picketing the funerals of service members.

I think the reason behind this disparity was expressed by someone who called in to "Voices," the Kansas City Star's voicemail-to-the-editor service. Here's that recorded message:

"Regarding the Fred Phelps situation: What’s at issue is not the church members’ right to free speech, but that the protests are done in a place that causes harm or distress to people having nothing to do with their issue. The Constitution was written to give us freedom, but not freedom to harm other people."

If I understand what that caller is saying, and I think I do, what is really troubling about Westboro picketing service member funerals is that the service members are not necessarily gay. Gay is definitely Westboro's "issue."

I think that caller speaks for a lot of people, as evidenced by the marked increase in moral outrage (and legal maneuvering) after Westboro shifted its funeral focus from AIDS victims to service members. The sentiment seems to be that if you actually are what a hate group targets you for, it is somehow more okay for you to be the victim of their hate.

That kind of sentiment goes a long way to explain a lot of the persistent "isms" in our society. Underneath the tacit tolerance of glass ceilings, unequal access, and even hate crimes is the notion that a lot of the anger and discrimination directed toward African Americans, Latinos, Asians, women and LGBT folks is probably justifiable, or at least understandable.

As Jon Stewart said last week, "You've come an imperceptibly short way, baby."

I think the time has come to set our resources toward The War on Hate. All of the other wars would surely end if we could win that one.

First Church of Chicken Little

2007-10-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

Last week, the Central States Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America held its annual Bishop's Convocation, which is your typical professional leaders' conference. The bishop chooses a topic, invites speakers, and we learn and worship and play for three days.

I love the Bishop's Convo, for a whole bunch of reasons. There are often very good speakers; it's a pretty laid-back affair; there's the Area 7 "hospitality" room (that's church speak for food and drink of the most delightful kinds); you get to go to the Lake of the Ozarks in the middle of fall, which is nice; and I like seeing everyone.

It's always a little scary to go to Convo, since I know everyone isn't always glad to see me. Inevitably there will be someone who stands up on the floor and expounds upon our call to hold people's sinful feet (and other parts) to the fire. The year we talked about "sexuality" (which is church speak for "homosexuality"), I couldn't quite make it through the last session. My dear friend and colleague Tim--who is currently on internship in Oregon--came with me that year, and we made it until the last day, when we felt that our dignity had been attacked quite enough, thank you very much. So we left an hour early and had a fabulous ride home, complete with show tunes and a wrong turn through Gravois Mills, Missouri, where the Baptist Church had on its sign out front: "Homosexuality is an abomination." We stopped and took a picture of Tim by the sign, looking as gay as possible, and another picture of the wrought iron words along the stair rail: "All are welcome."

Yeah, sometimes churches are bad at irony. Or really good at it, but unaware they're practicing it.

Case in point: The people who lead the church of Jesus Christ are pretty cynical about the church and the world. I know some cynicism is going to be the order of the day when you're in a profession that asks you to be equal parts fundraiser, counselor, volunteer coordinator, community leader and proclaimer of the gospel. Most of our pastors are underpaid and overworked. And when we get together all by ourselves, there's gonna be some whining.

But, hello? Were there people who went to seminary thinking they were going to work a standard forty hour week and make a barrel of money? We joked about weird hours and bad pay for four years, even as we borrowed money we could ill afford to pay back. That's what you sign up for. As Niki's friend Lisa P would say, "Build a bridge. Get over it."

What is more troubling to me, though, is listening to people talk about "The Church" as the place where people just want to be spoon-fed "feel-good" messages and not asked to do much.

I don't find that to be the case. At least not in my parish. I'm willing to bet that it isn't the case in most of our parishes. I think most of our parishoners want to be challenged by the gospel, to hear the call of Jesus as a mission for their lives. I know the folks I preach to each week do. I know the folks in most of the churches in town with which I'm acquainted do.

I think there's a kind of fatalism creeping across the church today. We're struggling--financially and spiritually--and folks are growing weary. To hear some of them talk, the sky is falling on us. People are chasing after the idols of money and cable television, and soccer is played Sunday mornings on suburban fields across the U. S. The church is no longer at the center of community life. It's no longer a given that people will be in church on Sunday morning.

Unless we give them a reason to be there. Unless we offer them something they can't get on a soccer field or a television. The church has something no other institution or pursuit has: it has Jesus. It has the witness of the apostles. It has the ability to create communities of the gospel. You can't get that anywhere else. You can't get someone to love you as neighbor, the way Jesus taught us to love each other, anywhere else.

I think it's pretty important for the people who lead Christ's church to practice that kind of love for their people. Both their parishoners and the people who walk by their doors. I think it's pretty important for us to speak and act lovingly, even when we're in the safe space of a professional leaders' conference.

Doubtless it could be said, "physician heal thyself." Some of the cynical words I heard at the Convo were coming out of my own mouth. My cynicism tends to be directed primarily at the world, okay, the world of Washington DC, mainly, but still it is probably counter-productive. I'm going to work on that. And I'm going to pray for us all, that we'll find the courage to lead with love, to practice the kind of acceptance we see modeled by our Lord. That we'll be a little less anxious about the future, and a little more trusting in God's promise.

Feel free to call me on it, too. I don't mind my feet being held to that particular fire.

Now Isn't that Special...?

2007-10-16T12:35:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Lutheranchik, whose blog is so much better than mine.

She found this letter to the editor in her local newspaper. The writer is concerned about the "Gay Bill of Special Rights," which I assume is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the "Thought Control Bill," which I assume is HR 1592, the legislation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories protected under hate crimes statutes.

For the letter-writer, these are "special rights." The right not to be fired for being a gay man is a "special" right. The right not to be excluded from a job because you are a lesbian is a "special" right. The right not to be beaten on the street because you are transgender is a "special" right.

I know, this debate is old and at least dry, if not totally stale. Still, this writer offered a new reason (or vocalized an old reason, perhaps) for people to lobby against these protections for LGBT people. These protections, she writes "would invite hordes of other groups of all sorts to demand their own rights."

My, we wouldn't want to have that, would we? People running around the United States of America demanding their rights! Heavens to Betsy.

(And who is Betsy, anyway?)

Anonimity

2007-10-13T10:00:00.000-07:00

Hey friends, I have a request. I know Blogger gives you the opportunity to be anonymous when you leave comments. In fact, if you don't have a Blogger account, you have no other choice than to post as "Anonymous."

But I would appreciate it if folks would sign their posts, at least with a first name. I do that when I sign on in other formats, and I notice that most people do that here. I think it helps keep the dialogue on a respectful and decent level.

You are more than welcome to get on here and disagree with me, especially when I'm being petulant (as in the first lapel pin post). But I blog under my real name, and I'm willing to be accountable for what I say. And to apologize when I am being petulant, which I did.

I really want people to feel free to speak their minds. If the only way you can do that is anonymously, then by all means, be anonymous. But if you wouldn't mind leaving your name, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!
Donna

Okay, Less Wheedling, More Info

2007-10-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

My last post was a little strong (sorry), and engendered a strong response from someone who thought I was speaking ill of the American flag. Let me be a bit less obtuse. The post was about flag pins, not The Flag. I love the American flag. It is a great symbol of our country, which I also love.

You're right, Anonymous (more on that in a separate post), I don't love the war. But that post actually wasn't about the war at all. It was meant to be a clear reference to what I thought was a ridiculous attack launched at Barack Obama for not wearing an American flag lapel pin.

See, I think symbols are important, but symbolism is just that: symbolism. It isn't patriotism. Flying the flag, or sticking it on your car, or pinning it to your lapel doesn't make you a great American. Just like wearing a cross necklace doesn't make you a faithful Christian. Those symbols can represent your patriotism and faith, but they shouldn't be mistaken for patriotism and faith.

Which is the point Barack Obama made when a reporter asked him why he's no longer wears a flag lapel pin. He gave what I thought was a thoughtful and reasoned response:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Here's the whole article from the ABC News site: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3690000

Fox News grabbed this story and ran with it, attacking Senator Obama's patriotism with abandon over the next day or so. I realize that it was a custom made bite, and those are more important than detailed information about the candidates in the current political climate. I also realize that these tactics are employed by both sides. The Democrats had a twelve-year-old read their statement about the President's veto of SCHIP legislation last week. I thought that was a cheap attempt to inject pathos into a situation that was plenty full of it already.

It seems that our country is at a crossroads. We need strong leadership, and we're responsible for choosing the majority of our leaders. It would be nice if the media would focus on helping us to understand where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they wear on their lapels. That's all I was trying to say.

On pins and wheedles

2007-10-11T12:58:00.000-07:00

Are you kidding me? Seriously. This is the mark of a person's patriotism?

Of course it isn't. But in a pinch it will work as yet another pathetic salvo in the culture war as fomented by Fox (please don't make me say it...no...noooo...okay...) News.

Good for You, James Dobson!

2007-10-02T06:26:00.000-07:00

The honchos of the Christian Right met in Salt Lake City last week to discuss strategy.

Kind of like the Sermon on the Mount. The big guys talking about strategy. Positioning. Sound bites.

Well, there are certainly sound bites in the Sermon on the Mount, anyway. It remains to be seen whose bites will have more enduring appeal, but I have my suspicions. Hey, Jesus does have a pretty good head start.

The biggest bite coming from Utah was the declaration that The Christian Right (which is remarkably good at speaking with one voice) will be really really mad if Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate like Rudy Guiliani. In fact, they will find themselves a nice third party candidate to vote for. And make all of their millions of faithful followers vote for that guy too. (I'm assuming it's a guy--that seems pretty safe.)

Good for them! That's the way it's supposed to work. You examine your values, study the words of, say, the Sermon on the Mount, and then decide whom you will support. Based on principles, not power.

(Having done that myself, I have to say that I wouldn't vote for Rudy Guiliani either.)

Okay, so I know that this is really a power check. James Dobson and Tony Perkins and the rest of the wild kingdom of fundamentalism are trying to see if they have any relevance left in the big scary world of politics. The answer is "not nearly as much as you want." Which is bad news for them, and mixed news for the rest of us.

Fundamentalism gave us George W. Bush, and this travesty has gone on long enough that I don't even have to comment on that. Just say it--they are responsible for the current administration. They know it and we know it and if they are happy about it, it's a nostalgic happiness, because their influence is waning, and everybody knows that as well.

I find that to be a good thing, generally, as I disagree with the Religious Right about most social matters. (Though we are not on opposite sides on abortion. We're not on the same side either, but you simply can't say they're wrong to fight for the rights of unborn children. I wish they'd choose to fight for better child support enforcement and widely available birth control, but there's where we disagree again.)

Here's the thing, though. The Religious Right has been rendered increasingly irrelevant in national politics because they don't play the game very well. They actually expect to get everything they want from our very broken political system. Even the brazen idealists no longer expect that. We've started settling for people who are "electable" and then looking the other way as they compromise compromise compromise. On their promises, on their integrity, on our future.

So I say "good for you" to the religious right for sticking to their guns and expecting the system to serve them. We could all take a lesson from that. If only they would take a lesson from us in return, we might start getting somewhere.

For The Bible Tells Me So - Trailer

2007-09-30T06:54:00.001-07:00

Just Wondering

2007-09-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

I Love My Team

2007-09-07T07:05:00.000-07:00

I don't remember when I became a Michigan fan. I think I was born that way, though if someone wants to argue that it's a choice, I'll probably give you that one.

I have been a Michigan fan for as long as I can remember, and I wish to be buried in my rattiest Michigan sweatshirt. (Someone please tell The Wife, as she is unlikely to read my blog ever.)

I still love my team, even after the Greek tragedy that was last week's loss to Appalachian State (say App-uh-latch-un, that's the way they like it. Really.) I may love the Michigan Wolverines just a bit more now, because it's sometimes easy to be a Michigan fan. Seriously--do any of us want to be married to someone who is perfect? Nah. Too much pressure.

So I love my team, and I love my friends, who have sent funny email and left funny phone messages. I particularly liked Andy's voicemail asking for a North Kansas City venue in which to hold a memorial service for the national title hopes of the Michigan Wolverines. That's good stuff.

By the way, if anyone wants to place a little friendly wager on this week's game, you can have Oregon and ten points. The spread is eight, but I expect we'll win by twenty. And every other game this year.

I love my team.

Ten Percent Voldemort?!

2007-09-07T06:59:00.000-07:00

Just noticed that. I don't remember giving high value to any sociopathic tendencies in the quiz...

Perhaps my subconscious is just a teeny bit evil.

My Harry Potter Alter Ego--Remus Lupin

2007-09-05T12:35:00.001-07:00

Remus Lupin

90%

Albus Dumbledore

90%

Harry Potter

85%

Hermione Granger

80%

Ron Weasley

75%

Severus Snape

65%

Ginny Weasley

65%

Sirius Black

60%

Draco Malfoy

50%

Lord Voldemort

10%

Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...?
created with QuizFarm.com

"Bathroom Lovin', Had Me a Bla-ast"

2007-09-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

Ew.

Great column this week by Rhonda Chriss Lokeman regarding the Larry Craig mess. She and her female friends have discussed it and agreed that you'd have to look far and wide to find a woman who would solicit (or have) sex in a public restroom. I have to say I've never considered it myself.

So I guess this really isn't about sexual orientation. Or is it just gay men who like a little love in the washroom?

Nah. Actually, researchers have said that a lot of the men hooking up in semi-public venues are actually straight, and looking for a little release with no attachments.

Which means that Senator Craig could very well be telling the truth when he states--with emphasis--that he is "NOT gay."

It's interesting to me that he saved his big boy Senate voice for denying (yet again) that he is a gay man. Shouldn't he be more interested in denying that he solicited extramarital sex in a bathroom?

Or does he believe that the one will follow from the other? As long as people believe that he's not gay, they'll believe that he wasn't soliciting sex in the men's room.

Or worse, they don't really care if he was trying to get a little something in the restroom, they actually only care whether he's gay.

Is being gay really more disturbing than being an adulterer? Or a hypocrite?