Category Archives: commentary

Wikipedia, The Great Evangelist

4 Replies

I have no idea where I heard this the first time, “For every bear you see when hiking, nine bears see you.” Given that I’ve taken treks during which I saw 3-4 bears, I get a little shaky at thinking about 25-30 bears seeing me. That’s probably a high estimate, but- in general- more bears see you than you actually spot with your own eyes.

This leads me to tell you that, in the past 10 days, two separate people have told me that they learned about a) the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and b) Lutheranism through Wikipedia.

That’s right. Wikipedia.

Wikipedia!

The first person, “A”, was looking for a church with a specific social bent. A read on Wikipedia (!) that the ELCA was a gay-friendly denomination. Technically, this is true about the denomination, but not necessarily true of all congregations. A visited Lutheran Church of Hope, felt very welcomed, but was a little overwhelmed by the structure of Lutheran liturgy, more formal than A’s previous experience. A asked questions of me, the pastor, about what was confusing. (Yes, please!! Ask away! Even if you aren’t visiting.) In the exchange about the service, A told me that everything a person wanted to know about the ELCA, but didn’t know who to ask was available on Wikipedia.

The ELCA wikipedia page has LOTS of information. Most of it seems correct, if very technical. There is a long comparison chart between the ELCA and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that I’m not sure is necessary, but maybe someone finds it helpful.

Things on the Wikipedia page that I would find useful if I was looking for a denomination:

ELCA clergy tend not to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but see validity in various scholarly methods of analysis to help in understanding the Bible. (Questions are allowed!)


Like other Lutheran church bodies, the ELCA confesses at least two Sacraments, Communion (or the Eucharist) and Holy Baptism (including infant baptism). (What’s a sacrament? I’ll follow the link, but these two sound good.) 


Unlike certain other American Lutheran church bodies, the ELCA practices open communion, permitting all persons baptized in the name of the Trinity with water to receive communion. Some congregations also commune baptized infants similarly to Eastern Orthodox practice. The ELCA encourages its churches to practice the Eucharist at all services, although some churches alternate between non-communion services with those containing the Lord’s Supper. (Everyone participates. I like inclusion.) 


The ELCA ordains women as pastors, a practice that all three of its predecessor churches adopted in the 1970s. Some have become synod bishops. The most recent ELCA hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, includes alternate gender-neutral invocations and benedictions in all settings. (Women get to play! Women get to lead! Everyone has a role!)


The Church maintains full communion relationships with member churches of the Lutheran World Federation (which is a communion of 140 autonomous national/regional Lutheran church bodies in 78 countries around the world, representing nearly 66 million Christians), the Moravian Church in America, thePresbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion), and the United Methodist Church. (These Lutherans play well with others. Do these other churches all get along with one another in the same way? They do not, but Lutherans join in for Jesus.) 


As a Lutheran church body, the ELCA professes belief in the “priesthood of all believers” as reflected in Martin Luther’s To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, that all baptized persons have equal access to God and are all called to use their gifts to serve the body of Christ. (Sounds good to me.) 


Things on the Wikipedia page that are a little overwhelming: structure of the church, long discussion of ELCA v. LC-MS, history of the ELCA via predecessor bodies.  


Of course, if one was really curious about a denomination, it’s all there in spades. 


The second person, “B”, called to see about pre-requisites to communion after reading about Lutheranism, wishing to attend a Lutheran church, and desiring to take Holy Communion for the first time ever. I explained that an openness to the presence of Christ was the only pre-requisite and B explained about reading about pre-requisites on… Wikipedia’s page on Lutheranism. In conversation, B held forth that Lutherans were most aligned with Person B’s own beliefs in the areas of Holy Communion, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the two natures of Christ.


Given that I’m not certain everyone in the congregation I serve holds the same thoughts on those three things, I went to Wikipedia to check it out on those three counts. 


Lutherans hold that within the Eucharist, also referred to as the Sacrament of the Altar, the Mass, or the Lord’s Supper, the true body and blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine for all those who eat and drink it, a doctrine that the Formula of Concord calls the sacramental union. (Technically, yes. We believe that the bread and wine remain what they are, but that the presence of Christ comes to us through them. How? We have no idea, but who are we to doubt that Christ will show up where he promises to be?)


Lutherans are Trinitarian […] Lutherans reject the idea that the Father and the Son are merely faces of the same person, stating that both the Old Testament and the New Testament show them to be two distinct persons. Lutherans believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. (Yep, the doctrine of Trinity… making a beautiful relationship confusing since, what, 431 A.D.?)

Lutherans believe Jesus is the Christ, the savior promised in the Old Testament. They believe he is both by nature God and by nature man in one person, as they confess in Luther’s Small Catechism that he is “true God begotten of the Father from eternity and also true man born of the Virgin Mary“. (Do you know what Lutherans talk about even less than the Trinity… the two natures of Christ.)

So, Wikipedia’s page on Lutheranism… technically correct and way overwhelming. It’s like my whole church history class, plus Lutheran history crammed into one loooooong page, with enough rabbit hole links to keep you occupied for days. 

Why am I bringing this up? Well, like the bears you see, I now know 2 people who have sought out Lutheran churches because of Wikipedia. How many bears people are looking at those pages and not visiting, calling, or asking? How many people are turned off by the pages? 

Most people I know end up in a congregation because they are 1) invited by someone they know or 2) are in close proximity, but either way they stay because they are welcomed and feel connected. 

The need for welcome and connection remains, but the ways people are finding churches is changing. There’s a lot more information out there that people are, apparently, more likely to seek out first before they set foot in any building, tent, or worship space. 

There are fairly serious implications to this. We must make sure that our congregations are up to date on new media and that it looks good and inviting. Your fellowship hour may be AMAZING, but no one will know if your webpage looks like no one cares. 

Secondly, we must keep an eye out for other information about our denominations. Google your denomination (and your church). What comes up first? Is it the first thing you’d want people to see? 

Thirdly, you (and I) are still primary communicators of what it means to Christian and, after that, a particular flavor of Christian. Do you know what you believe? Do you know why? Faith stories aren’t just for pastors. Nor are the clergy the sole keepers of denominational information. You don’t have to have all the doctrines memorized by name, but it’s worth considering, deeply, why you believe what you believe. 

After all, what will you talk about during a power outage when Wikipedia’s unavailable?  


Keep Me Burning

Leave a reply

One of the things I do each week is put a fresh candle in the Eternal Lamp. I counted once and I estimate that I’ve already done this over 150 times. Same motions, same prayer…

No matter how many times I will do this, the thing that keeps me doing it is knowing that it’s not really me keeping the flame alive.

Welcome to Lent.

I’m a Religious Voter, Too!

2 Replies

Lately, as the primary season ramps up, I’ve heard the phrase “religious voters” more and more often. Usually this is shorthand for a certain type of conservative voter. Among other feelings, the phrase “religious voter” used in this way makes me angry because…

I’m a religious voter, too!


The American College of Catholic Bishops does not speak for me. Dr. James Dobson doesn’t speak for me. Neither Rick Warren nor Rob Bell nor Barbara Brown Taylor speak for me. The current presiding bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson, (a man I respect and admire), speaks for my denomination, but does not speak for me. As a clergywoman, I would not presume to assert that I speak for those who worship within the congregation I lead with regard to most political issues. (This congregation is also full of religious voters.)

As a religious voter, I care about:

  • The health of all Americans – This means, among other things, that I have concerns about the affordability and accessibility of good healthcare for men and women. This means I believe that an ounce of preventative care is worth a million dollars worth of cure. I believe that education and information about communicable diseases, including honest information about contraction and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), is helpful and life-giving. I believe that good healthcare for women, including (but not limited to) contraceptives, pre-and-post-natal care, information about heart disease and breast health, is key to the success of all communities. This is not an inclusive list of all my healthcare concerns, but the tip of the iceberg. 
  • Food and farms– I care about the continued success of family farms, real food, and balanced eating. I have serious concerns about the continued government subsidies of the meat and dairy industries, as well as the support genetic engineering of corn and its use in non-whole foods and non-human foods. I have serious concerns about the lobbies of Con-Agra, Monsanto, and others who are cornering conversations not only about food production, but land use and seed sales to other countries. I am concerned that the gap between people who eat “whole foods” and “processed foods” grows wider every day and concerned that there are costs associated with that gap that we will pay for years to come. This is not an inclusive list of all my food and farm concerns, but the tip of the iceberg. 
  • The poor and the very poor– The gap between the haves and the have-nots is not simply about some people sharing what they have. It’s about acknowledging how our communities work. How we still use phrases like “across the tracks”, “in the ghettos”, and “impoverished communities” as codes for racial profiling and deliberate deprivation of community resources. I’m concerned that we have decided the children of certain groups “will never be able to” ____________ and we allow those children to believe that myth. I’m concerned that we hold up certain success stories as individual commendations without pointing to the communities, teachers, pastors, counselors, social workers, family members, and others who made that individuals success possible. No one is an island. This is not an inclusive list of all my concerns about the poor and very poor, but the tip of the iceberg. 
  • Standing– I’m concerned that the government gets a say in who can be married and who cannot. I don’t think the government should have a say in this. In fact, I believe the government should treat everyone who pays taxes as an individual, with no commentary or reward for other relationships. I do not think corporations are individuals, despite their tax level. I do think all tax-paying entities, individuals and corporations, would be able to give more to charities if their tax burden was decreased. Charitable organizations of all kinds do much of the work that either the government cannot (or SHOULD NOT) do efficiently or that is not done by government organizations. This is not an inclusive list of all my concerns with regard to standing and taxation, but the tip of the iceberg. 
  • Members of the military, military action, and foreign relationships– I resent the use of members of the military as pawns in campaigning. No one wants to see people who volunteered (or were volun-told) their lives for this country lack for safety in combat, struggle with mental or physical issues, or be used as guinea pigs. All of these things happen. In addition to failing to protect our current members of the military and our veterans, I would like for someone to be honest about the commitments that have been made around the world with use of our armed forces. Someone, ANYONE, go ahead and take a deep breath and start naming names of where we have people and why. Be honest and say we won’t leave Korea, Japan, Eastern Europe, or close Guantanamo and say why. The secrecy and the distortion of information has to stop. Yes, I believe there are things that are important for national security, but I also believe that national security has become a code word for dishonesty and misuse of resources, fiscal, physical, and human. This is not an inclusive list of all my military and peace concerns, but the tip of the iceberg. 
I’m a religious voter, too. These are but a few of the things I think about. Is anyone interested in my vote? In my concerns? In the future of America… or do you just want to win this election? 
I want a representative (presidential, senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial, mayoral, etc.) who is actually concerned about doing the right thing. Not getting votes, being re-elected, or having a pristine legacy, but about doing the right thing for the right reasons. 
You can tell me that’s what all politicians think they’re doing… the right thing, but I don’t believe it. I’m not saying that what I want is the right thing, but if people who were interested in serving the public, instead of revenge through policy and rhetoric, I believe our campaign cycles would look and sound very different. 
Where’s my candidate?!? 

I’m a religious voter, too. 

God’s Punctuation (Sermon 2/12/12)

Leave a reply

Epiphany 6 (NL, Year B)
12 February 2012
Mark 7:1-23
            Some of you may remember George Burns and Gracie Allen. Some of you may have heard of them. Some of you may have no idea what I’m talking about. Burns and Allen were a comedy duo couple in the first half of the last (20th) century. He was the straight man to her comedy lines and they were very successful on the radio, on stage, and on television. Their television show was on from 1950- 1958. After having some heart trouble, Gracie decided to retire. George attempted the show without her for one year, but it didn’t work without Gracie. She died of a heart attack in 1964. When George went through her papers, he found a note she wrote to him, which included the line, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.”
            Never place a period where God has placed a comma. George Burns took this reminder from his beloved that his life on earth wasn’t over yet. He went on to continue acting, directing, and writing until he died at the age of 100 in 1996, always missing Gracie, but continuing to truly live his own life. Never place a period where God has placed a comma.
            I was thinking about this phrase with regard to our text today because it is hard to know if the Pharisees thought there was a period at the end of the law or a comma. It is too easy for us to immediately make the Pharisees the villains of any gospel story in which they appear. The organ music ratchets up, “Dum dum dum”, and we practically see them holding their capes up and cackling.
           
            That’s not exactly the most accurate picture. What is that the Pharisees are upset about in this chapter? They are not thrilled that the disciples are not washing their hands before they eat. It’s not just that the disciples aren’t hygienic, but that they are not performing the rituals of cleanliness before eating and not just for their hands, but also their dishes, cookware, and so forth.
The Pharisees are a reform movement. (What, reformers already?!?) They are trying to help people understand and live out the written and oral laws. Why do those laws matter? As the saying goes, “cleanliness is next to godliness”. Both the written law (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) and the oral tradition are aimed at keeping the community of the Israelites pure. When the Israelites are wandering in the desert, they have with them the Tabernacle of the Lord. This is where presence of the Lord dwelled, God’s RV if you will. The Lord is holy. The presence of the Lord is holy. Where that presence lives needs to be holy. The people who enter that presence better be holy. And it helps if the people around them are… holy. Laws about cleanliness, sacrifice, and punishment are also about keeping the community holy so that the presence of the Lord can and will remain there.
Cut to the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. Part of their mission is to help people understand and follow the myriad rules for cleanliness so that they will continue to be a holy people and, thus, so the presence (and, possibly, the favor) of the Lord will be with the Hebrew people. This does not seem quite so evil, when you consider the oppression of Rome and the long history of struggle to survive.
Then Jesus enters the picture and he touches dead people, women who are bleeding, and a leper. He eats with Gentiles and sinners of all stripes. His disciples were not chosen because of their success in Hebrew school (shul), but on their willingness to follow. Furthermore, he is teaching these disciples (and everyone else) to disregard the laws that regulate cleanliness and, thereby, holiness. This Jesus is not just a threat to the power of the Pharisees. That’s not their problem. The way they see it, he has the ability to destroy the holiness of the community by making it impossible for God to dwell with God’s people.
Where they see a period, Jesus is a comma- a place where God has broken into the story and is altering the narrative. The story is still the same, but now God is telling it through Jesus in the world.  Jesus tells the Pharisees that it is not that the laws or the traditions are wrong, but that theyare going in the wrong direction. By continuing to focus on minutiae as holiness, the Pharisees are missing the forest for the trees. Is it right to allow your elderly parents to have a leaky roof because you financed a new wing to the church (synagogue)? Is it right to proudly carry your beautiful offering of birds past many hungry beggars? Is it right to have prayed a formula perfectly and then to be so proud of how much better you can do it than others? This is the point that Jesus makes to the Pharisees and that he makes to us as well.
These are some of the questions for us as individuals, as a congregation, as part of the Church catholic. Are we worried about the mechanics of our spiritual life or are we actually concerned with our own actions? Let’s say no one here has any sexual sins, thefts, murders, or unrestrained immorality on their record. That leaves greed, deceit, arrogance, envy, insults, and foolishness. If anyone here is totally free of those, I invite you come forward and take over because I may well have done two or three already this morning.
            Does how you live from day to day reflect the idea that God is still acting? In Mark, the purpose of Emmanuel… God-with-us… Jesus is to give us a deeper understanding into God’s desires and actions. But it’s not just touchy-feely, it’s a deep, gritty, too bright revelation that God is present at all times and God cares about us doing the right thing for the right reason.
            The very traditions and habits we think are helping us to live faithful lives may very well be getting in the way of living in the way God is calling us. That includes our attachment to this space, our feelings about the order of worship, formulas we’ve developed for spiritual practices, the excuses we give for not having spiritual practices… all these things can become the minutiae of holiness that prevents us, like the Pharisees, from seeing Jesus right in front of us.
            Never place a period where God has placed a comma. By embracing the idea 1) God continues to act and 2) God continues to bring us to a deeper understanding of God’s written word, we are living into the truth that we are known and loved by a living God. Through the Holy Spirit, we are called out of the distraction of details. We are called away from the habits of religiosity that can themselves become idols, gods of false hope and comfort. We are not defiled by what comes into us, but by what we do and we must be honest with ourselves about the wrongs we do. God already knows them. We are called into wholeness, into holiness with the God who made the whole world a tabernacle. We reflect the holiness of that relationship by how we treat the world around us. We are participants in this relationship, not performers hoping to get the motions right to appeal to a God who appears and disappears on a whim. We are participants in the relationship, which means our input matters. We are living with and in a living God.
            George Burns’s life wasn’t over when Gracie Allen died. There was a comma. God continued speaking through his life for over 30 more years.
            God’s presence is not limited to the tabernacle of the ancient Israelites or to physical body of Jesus. God’s presence is in the world, in every place, through the power of the Spirit. That same Spirit that continues to refresh us with deeper understanding of God’s revelation… That same Spirit continues to shape us… cleanses us… makes us holy places where God can and does dwell…
            The God of creation has not stopped creating… The God of our salvation has not stopped saving…. The God of renewal has not stopped reforming… A light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.
Never place a period where God has placed a comma.
God is still speaking.
Amen.





** “God is still speaking” is one of the mottos of the United Church of Christ (UCC). They also quote Gracie Allen. Having recently spent sometime with UCC clergy, I’ve been turning over the idea in my head ever since. 

Unexpected, Mysterious and Fun

2 Replies

I’ve been trying to think of what to say about this article from the New York Times, in which the author calls himself a “None”- meaning no religious affiliation. It’s not this designation that bothers me. I’m also not too upset when he goes on to comment on how many such Nones get turned off religion by religious people. Been there, seen that, had it happen to me.

Here’s the thing that gets me:

We are more religiously polarized than ever. In my secular, urban and urbane world, God is rarely spoken of, except in mocking, derisive tones. It is acceptable to cite the latest academic study on, say, happiness or, even better, whip out a brain scan, but God? He is for suckers, and Republicans.I used to be that way, too, until a health scare and the onset of middle age created a crisis of faith, and I ventured to the other side. I quickly discovered that I didn’t fit there, either. I am not a True Believer. I am a rationalist. I believe the Enlightenment was a very good thing, and don’t wish to return to an age of raw superstition.We Nones may not believe in God, but we hope to one day. We have a dog in this hunt.Nones don’t get hung up on whether a religion is “true” or not, and instead subscribe to William James’s maxim that “truth is what works.” If a certain spiritual practice makes us better people — more loving, less angry — then it is necessarily good, and by extension “true.” (We believe that G. K. Chesterton got it right when he said: “It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.”)By that measure, there is very little “good religion” out there. Put bluntly: God is not a lot of fun these days. Many of us don’t view religion so generously. All we see is an angry God. He is constantly judging and smiting, and so are his followers. No wonder so many Americans are enamored of the Dalai Lama. He laughs, often and well.

This gets my dander up in a variety of ways. First, and you may read however much defensiveness you wish into this because I can’t stop you, I appreciate reason and science and I don’t check my understanding of either at the church door. I don’t expect anyone else too.

But I take my reason and science right in there with me and somehow, someway, somewhere… they encounter mystery. It’s not hocus-pocus or woo-woo, it’s something intangible, indescribable and desirable.  Mystery is not automatically irrational, it’s just inexplicable.

Truth isn’t what works. What’s true is true, regardless of our ability to believe it. All of which means that I could be wrong in what I believe. I could be a little wrong (this life could be all there is). I could be a lot wrong (see: Reformation, the). I could be going to hell (does that really need parenthetical explanation?).

When Eric Weiner says that God is not a lot of fun these days, I think he might be talking to the wrong people or listening to them. The loudest voices don’t speak for God. They speak for themselves or whoever is paying them. They don’t speak for me. Speaking for myself, I have a darn good time.

Being religious, for me, is full of surprises, moving moments, laughter, questions and
discussion. And I see lots of people around me having a good time as well. I saw people laughing together tonight as they distributed food. I heard clergy laughing today as they pieced together sermon ideas for this week. I heard children giggling through the Christmas story and I heard adults chuckling about how to tackle serious issues related to healthcare.

I’ve said the wrong words during church, choked on what I was singing when a spider jumped on music, forgotten major points of what I was going to say and even skipped elements of the service. Nothing happened. To me that’s not because there is no God, but because God isn’t worried about that.

I don’t think God’s worked up about perfect worship. Solemn faces. Pristine on-key singing. Regimented liturgical actions.

For me, my life of faith is on the edge, pushing the envelope, and skidding right up to the altar rail and thinking, “The Spirit led me back again! All right! We must be okay! Grace wins again!” Because I believe in a God of fullness, a fleshed out God who lives and breathes in all creation. The God who made me laughs, because I laugh and I am made in God’s image.

I believe this. I believe it is true, but my faith doesn’t make it true. It either is true or it isn’t. And I am living, whole-heartedly, like it is.

Which brings me back to mystery. Just because you can’t pick apart and explain every detail doesn’t make something unreal, dishonest or untrue. In age of science and reason, I think it’s good for all of us to know that there are things we cannot explain, we cannot fully grasp, we cannot totally control. That’s right. We’re not totally in control and it SUCKS to admit it.

Some things are mysterious. The pull and push of certain sounds, sights and smells can be unraveled and unraveled, yet still remain, in part, unexplained. And here’s where I think some Nones (not necessarily the author) and certain religious fundamentalists are singing from the same page. Everything has to have an explanation. Either it’s God or science. Having an explanation is about control.

Mystery. Learn to live with it. Learn to embrace it. Roll in it and let it wash over you. Babies in hay, stirring songs, sunrise, sunset, quiet nights, bustling cities, bread and wine and thou, fire, flower buds, blue skies, water, first words, last words, kisses, and amazing coincidences.

There will be some things you will never explain. This is most certainly true.

And you just have to laugh about that.

Father Knows Breast

6 Replies

Today I was at a sushi bar and a Dominican priest was seated one chair away from me. I knew he was Dominican because he had a white robe and a large wooden rosary- like other Dominicans I have known.

I wonder if I should greet him. Why? I’m not Catholic. He doesn’t know I’m clergy (no collar on today). He probably wants a peaceful lunch. I want a peaceful lunch.

I do not leave well enough alone. I ask if he is, in fact, Dominican. Yes, new in town (of several months). We know someone in common. We talk briefly about where we’re from. All good. No problems.

I’m reading from a Nook and he has a paperback by Wallace Stegner.

Him: We’re thinking about starting a Theology and Literature group. I’m checking out Stegner.
Me: (Trying to make a joke) So, not Father Greeley. (A Roman Catholic priest who is a prolific writer and some of whose novels are famously or infamously sexy.)
Him: No, not Father Greeley. Too many breasts.
Me: (Raising my eyebrows) Well, breasts don’t usually hurt people.
Him: No, but the breasts are all anyone can think about.
Me: Well, there are vows about that.
Him: Well, what are you reading there?
Me: (looking at my screen, open to a historical romance/novel): It’s full of breasts.

… and it kind of trailed off from there and we ate in silence.

I was fine with our conversation until he said, “There are too many breasts.” If he had said, “There’s too much sex.” That’s a different thing and, for me, it would have been putting men and women on an equal sexual plane. To say that there are too many breasts, though, and that the breasts are distracting was very irritating to me. Perhaps there is a preponderance of breasts in Greeley novels, but it never seemed that way to me. Yes, I’m reading into an encounter with a man I don’t know, but his response to me (focused on women’s bodies as distractors) seemed rooted in distaste. So was it women in general or just me?

I finished lunch first and so I attempt to offer an olive branch by saying, “It was nice to meet you. I hope you enjoy your time here. Happy Advent.” He murmured the pleasant responses and then I said, “Dominus vobiscum.” (Latin for “The Lord be with you”) I had hoped that he would respond, “Et con spirito tuo,” (and with thy spirit), to show a sense of shared history (in Christ) and collegiality in ministry. The thing is that in Catholic tradition, only the priest would normally say the phrase I spoke. And I did know that.

He looked at me and said, “Nice translation.”

Sigh.

Was I as nice as I could have been? No, I was not. I had hoped for a shared conversation with someone close to my age about what it means to live as a religious leader. I have not yet come to accept that this will never happen with someone who believes that my ministry is not valid (good, but not valid) and that, in any count, it exists outside the One True Church.

And there is something sad about a young man who has taken a vow of chastity, uttering the phrase, “But the breasts are all anyone can think about.” Does this come from sacrificing his own sexual desires for the sake of his vocational call? (Possibly) Does it stem from teachings that may still exist in some Catholic churches or seminaries about women, women’s bodies and female sexuality? (Possibly) Am I way off the mark? (Possibly)

The story that made me a little giggly at first now makes me sad because I feel the great divide between myself and a peer who will never see me as an equal. And it’s a loss to both of us to learn from one another and to the catholic Church as a whole that we are so divided.

The other thing that occurs to me, though, is that I need to wear my collar more often. I was just reading on the Miss Representation website about the absence of women in certain roles and jobs in society. For the most part, if you can’t see it, you can’t be it. Meaning young women often don’t consider careers in which women are less visible or non-existent.

My visibility as a called and ordained minister of the church of Christ matters because people need to see women in this role. Girls and boys need to see women clergy- in the pulpit and on the street.

And if you see my collar or stole and all you can think about is the breasts, that’s your problem.

Mary didn’t feed Jesus Similac.

Dominus vobiscum.

Verbage

Leave a reply

I’m at a continuing education conference that is turning out to be really excellent. One of the things that happens when you get a bunch of people in the same profession together is that they will get on each other’s nerves. In clergy circles (of the same denomination), there can be little tweaks in verbage or theology that can cause eye-rolling and snarky comments like you wouldn’t believe.

(What? You thought we were all sitting around singing Kum-Ba- Yah?)

In reality, there is always truth to what is pointed out to you, it is just that it can be hard to hear it.

Two phrases that have been pointed out by people I know well (and like) are:

1) “We worship # on Sunday.” A phrase that I never use in my daily life comes up immediately with other clergy because one is quickly asked, “How many do you worship on Sunday”- meaning “How many people attend worship on Sunday?” The great pastor from Sitka Lutheran in Sitka, Alaska says, “We worship God with about this many people.”

It’s such an awesome point to make. Too often pastors and lay leaders are put in the position of being made to worship (or bow down to) statistics like attendance, activities and output. I don’t worship 50 people on Sunday. I worship God with about 50 others and we have a pretty good time.

2) The other phrase is a sneaky pronoun. “My congregation” “My building” “My people” It’s easy to become proprietary about one’s call, location and congregation. I very consciously refer to the church’s administrative assistant as just that- working for the congregation (with me), not for me. Occasionally, I know I’ve said “my building”, not because I have any designs on it, but it simply happened. I think (!) I most frequently say “our/ours”. Nevertheless, I do hear people talking about “my people”.

I think this is problematic in that we forget that we all belong to God, first and foremost. This language use first came to my attention in October through the pastor at Shishmaref Lutheran in Shishmaref, Alaska. For whom are we working? With whom are we working? The words we use matter.

Words have power.

Ten Years Later

3 Replies

In the summer of 2002, I worked in New York City through Lutheran Disaster Response (then Lutheran Disaster Relief) leading day camps in congregations that had experienced serious loss on 9/11/01. Not just the loss of the understanding of the world as they knew it, but loss of life.

I worked with children who had parents who came home and parents who didn’t. I talked to spouses who waited and were reunited. And some who weren’t.

All week I tried to put some order into my feelings. I never tell these stories. They are too raw, too hard, too stark. Two weeks after the camps ended, I moved to Nome, Alaska. I didn’t process when I could have and trying to do so now is like trying to rework plaster that has set.

So as I turned over the hard shape of this experience this week, I wrote this in my journal:

Anyway, I want to write a blog post about my memories, but I am not sure what to say or how to talk about the end of my memories. That I had to shut some of them away so that I could move forward. There are memories that are paralyzing in their truth. We have to dim them, fade their edges, fondly tuck them away and allow a burnished fire to peek through the keyhole of our memory trunk. We cannot live with their undimmed fullness in our lives. It is too much. This is not to say that we would ever forget. We just are incapable of remembering so intensely that it hurts. Constantly.

In order to live, in order to do service to life and to the memory of the dead, we go on and we put on foot in front of the other. We are not disrespectful. We have not forgotten. As long as we breathe, we remember, but we also want to live.

In living, we allow those who have died, both too soon and in their time, to continue in us. Through DNA and stories, through impressions and legacies, through gifts and habits.

That is all I have to say. 

Amen. 

Who? What? When?

Leave a reply

I recently read a book about Rabbi Hillel called If Not Now, When?. (I reviewed the book here.) Among his other wisdoms, Hillel was patient with people who said they were too busy to study the Torah. He listened to their well-intentioned promises to do it later, when they had more time. He replied, however, that no one ever gets more time. (Ask most retired people if they have more space in their days now.) If you aren’t making time for it now, when will you realistically do it? We all know about activity (and acquisition) creep. And we all know what it means to be busy.

If not now, when? I have many answers to that questions, but if I am honest, they are all excuses.

When I read the Epistle lesson for this week, I think Paul has a similar question to the Roman Christians: “If not you, who?” He writes, “The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'” (Romans 10:11-15) If you (Roman or modern-day disciple) do not share the joy of your salvation, who will? 

Is there a better time? A better person? Not for the mission God has for you. 

I wrote an email this morning to a group of people whom I have known for several years. I pointed out that I hadn’t heard from many of them and that I was lonely for their companionship. One of the recipients called me with an hour of me sending the email. I was amazed and grateful. If I had read an email like mine, it is likely that I would have begun to compose a response. I would have planned to send it tonight from home. I would have decided to give myself a couple more days to think and then the message would have slid down the inbox and I would have forgotten. 

But, no, she felt the Spirit’s call at that minute and called me and we had a great conversation. We can all follow that example of heeding the Spirit’s urging and ignore the other voice that says, “You don’t know what to say. Maybe she’s busy. Wait until you have a few more minutes.” God does lead us through these moments that are the reality of living in faith and sharing it. We must trust the Spirit. 

If not you, who? 

If not now, when? 

Yelling in My Head

6 Replies
So I don’t have enough time to write and you don’t have enough time to read all that I would like say about this article from the Mat- Su Valley Frontiersman: Faith : What the Bible says about a modern controversy. To sum it up: the pastor/commentator argues, through the apostle Paul, that because wife’s body belongs to her husband and his to her- there cannot be rape in marriage. That is to say that if a man and woman have made a commitment before God and the state, there cannot be forced sex in the relationship.
Apparently, the state says there can be and the state’s against it, where it occurs. However, according to Ron Hamman, pastor of the Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla, God says there can’t be. Ron argues, even if there was forced sex (rape) in a marriage, you’d need witnesses to prove it according to the biblical standard. Well, Ron, most Christians I know stopped bringing in witnesses to prove the existence (and tearing) of the hymen on the wedding night a while ago. If I don’t have witnesses to that incident, I can continue to claim my virginity, yes? (The existence of my son would, technically, refute it.)
Ron, friend, you mention Matthew 18 with regard to the biblical injunction for witnesses. Let me point out, in all humbleness, that the passage in question is for the reproving of members of one’s own congregation, as opposed to suing them and making a show in public. This is about sin between members and pertaining to the life of faith, not about issues which actually have legal standing and bearing. Issues like, say, rape. You take two or three people with you, so that the reproof may be documented. Thus if the sin continues, you have witnesses to the fact that you encouraged it to stop. You may have to take the additional step of removing someone from the congregation, except that then Jesus goes on to say you owe your brothers and sisters forgiveness many, many times because of what you have been forgiven yourself.
Be that as it may, there is NO point where Jesus says you should continue to endure humiliation, bodily harm and subjugation. There is no point where Jesus says turn the other cheek so that your other eye may be blackened. There is no point where Jesus says the God-given gift of sexuality and sexual practice should be torn from you because someone else knows what is best for you. To return to where you are being hurt and demeaned is not forgiveness, but to give up on the promise of new life that God has for all. Freedom in Christ does not mean slavery to someone who claims to love you, but whose actions are otherwise.
Brother Ron, with the witnesses of the readership of this blog, I condemn your use of Scripture to manipulate women- half of God’s human creation. I stand against your argument to allow rape within marriage. I damn your twisting of the freeing word of God to hold people to an idea of marriage that does not promote faith, service or growth in the love of the Lord. I reprove you for putting women down, attempting to remove their joy in their bodies and for condoning violence in marriage. Shame! Shame on you!
Have you turned away from your sister in faith when you saw bruises, the origin of which you could guess, because that was “between her and her husband”? Have you sent back a quaking daughter to her father because he was her “covering”? Have you refused to intercede between a woman and her adult son because he had the “equipment” that made him right in God’s eyes and, thus, in yours?
Brother Ron, faith without works is dead and the fruit of your faith is rotten to the core. When you demean women, you dismiss God’s work in them and through them. You destroy their power to raise up strong daughters and sons. You fail completely to follow Jesus’ example of love to all whom he encounters, including those with vaginas.
You say, “The sad part is that it is this kind of Christianity that is ruining America.”
Indeed.