Woe to you, hypocrites!

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

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

Grand and Old and...Party?

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

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.

Popular

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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...)

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

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

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

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

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

Church People Gather to Discuss Sex

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.