What's in a Name?

The NAACP held a funeral for the "N Word" on Monday in Detroit. I think this is a great thing. It seems like a way to move beyond an era in which people could be tagged with this vicious epithet in an attempt to take their dignity and power.

I think it's a good idea, but I say that from the privileged position of one who has never been subjected to the "N Word" and can't really imagine the totality of its power. Honestly, I really don't deserve a full say in this debate, and neither does any other person who can't really know what it is like to have the baggage of that word heaped upon him or her. Frankly, it's probably rather patronizing for me to say that this is a good thing. But hey, it's my blog, so I get to say what I want. We're talking about a very ugly word, and I think it would be good to bury it deep underground, as long as we don't now think that racism has been eradicated by a symbolic gesture. Sadly, racism is alive and well, and it will take a lot of pine boxes (and education, and dialogue, and changes of mind and heart) to lay it to rest.

This all gets me thinking about another debate in which I do have a stake. I like the word "queer." I find it to be a useful word, when applied in the proper context (in other words, when not hurled out a car window as a slur). It's inclusive, and avoids the alphabet soup of "LGBTQSAetc."

Or is it inclusive? "Queer" seems inclusive to me, because I think of myself as queer. There are a lot of folks who would accept one of the above soup letters, however, and would not ever in a million years call themselves "queer." So it is simultaneously an inclusive and exclusive word, depending again on the context. For many folks, that word is as offensive as the "N Word." This is generational and regional and surely cultural. When I was in Berkeley, I met almost no one who disliked the word "queer." Here in the Heartland, I have met several, and have taken to using the word much less often, so as not to run the risk of offending anyone.

"Queer" is an insider word, at least outside of academia, where "Queer Studies" programs are taking off. It's a word that certain people will get away with using, and others will not. That may be a problem; I don't know.

I actually don't know what to do with the word altogether. Should we bury it? Reclaim it? Use it selectively? Some other option I haven't considered?

Justice is blind, which means it can't see, see?

Q: Why did Scooter Libby lie to the Grand Jury?
A: Because he thought he could get away with it.

Q: How could he think that?
A: Because he was right.

Consider the Appostrophe

Woe is me! I just re-read my "Sortadox" post and noticed yet another missing appostrophe. Ugh! My pride quotient went down for sure.

I have bit...complained for years about our decline in punctuation dexterity. Semi-colons are a big problem. People shouldn't use semi-colons if they don't know what semi-colons do; they should just use a period or a comma.

But the most abused punctuation symbol by far is the lowly appostrophe. Professional signs are made--seemingly every day--with things like "Marys Rib's and Chicken," written on them. Shouldn't Mary--or the professionals who made her sign--know the difference between a possessive noun and a plural noun?

Sure, we all know what that sign means. Yes, I should just relax and go on with my life. But it grate's on my sensibility's.

So it is an exercise in humility to read my own blog and see that something I read through several times has two missing appostrophes. Perhaps now I will be less bit...irritated when Mary makes a mistake. It could happen to anyone.

Boomer's Not a Baby

Boomer Grigsby is going to play fullback for the Chiefs this year.

Perhaps you're thinking "So what?" You may even be thinking "Who the heck is Boomer Grigsby?" Perhaps you are one of the oh-so-unfortunate souls who don't live for football, and who therefore fall into a deep six month depression as soon as the golden rays of summer fade from the sky. (Football is a great cure for that. Seriously. Try it. Then you just have to get from February to April, and there's Easter in there to help.)

Boomer Grigsby is, or was, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs. He has played special teams, mainly, for the last couple of years. (Note to football challenged: The special teams are the prettiest and smartest fellows on the field. Okay, not really. They are the kicking and return squads.) Special teams players aren't on the field a whole lot. They were on the field punting too much last year for the Chiefs, but that's another story.

So Boomer wanted to play more, and he decided to talk to Coach Herm Edwards about switching to fullback, which he has sometimes played on the practice squad. But before he could approach the coach, Edwards came to him to ask if he'd consider moving over to the other side of the ball.

C'mon, admit it--that's a great story. You don't have to be a football fan to do a little "awwww" at that one. Especially if you hear what Boomer says about the switch: "I just wanted to play and help the team, do whatever I could to get out on the field."

That's a great attitude. If you've got an attitude like that, you're probably going to succeed. You may not succeed at the first thing you try. But that's part of life--trying things and finding we're not as good at them as we thought we'd be. Or finding that there are too many roadblocks along the way to success at that particular thing.

It's easy to give up and feel sorry for ourselves when we've given a lot to the pursuit of a particular dream and we come up short. But we can't do that. We've got to go on, to find another avenue, to try something new, to switch to fullback, if that helps.

I'll be praying for Boomer Grigsby this year. Not because I want the Chiefs to be successful--which I do, but I think praying for it would be a bit odd. I'll be praying for Boomer because he has shown courage and fortitude, and it would be nice for those attributes to be rewarded. I suppose they already have been. He's getting to take on a new challenge, and he seems like the type who will consider that reward enough.

Just Something Fun

Your Pride Quotient: 37%

You're a little prideful, but nothing out of the norm. Like everyone, you enjoy attention. But you're also good at sharing the spotlight!

How Much Pride Do You Have?

How about "Sortadox"?

We need some kind of name for the folks who live between a conservative orthodoxy and atheism. New York Times columnist David Brooks suggests that the space in the middle is the land of the "quasi-religious."

Yuck.

You can read his column here.

According to Brooks' definition, Yours Truly--Lutheran pastor, lover of Setting Two in the old green Lutheran Book of Worship--may be "quasi-religious." I don't &#$% think so. Okay, I really only meet one of the criteria for quasi-religiosity, but since the figureheads at the top of the two other categories are the Pope and Christopher Hitchens (author of one of the big anti-religion books on the bestseller list), I feel like a person without a country. I'm most certainly not an atheist like Hitchens, and the current Pope and I are not exactly philosophical soulmates.

Here's David Brooks' definition of the "quasi-religious:"

"Quasi-religious people attend services, but they’re
bored much of the time. They read the Bible, but
find large parts of it odd and irrelevant.
They find themselves inextricably
bound to their faith, but think some of the
people who define it are nuts."

Like I said, I can only check one of those boxes. I'm only bored in church some of the time. I only find small parts of the Bible odd, and "irrelevant" is a word I'd be hard-pressed to apply to scripture. I absolutely do, however, find some of the people who define Christianity to be totally bonkers. But that's more a comment on the media and the public imagination (not mutually exclusive categories, mind you), and whom they allow to "define Christianity." If the bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson, got to "define Christianity," life would be good.

Mr. Brooks speaks very highly of the "quasi-religious." He includes in that category Abraham Lincoln, "the Protestants...[who] built Victorian England" and the "Jews...[who] helped shape 20th century American culture."

Okay, so first of all, a lot of the folks who "built Victorian England" were probably Anglican. So they're not really Protestants at all--they live in another middle land that needs its own name. Queen Victoria herself may be excluded by David Brooks' description, which is pretty funny. Though she was German and known to attend Presbyterian services as well as Anglican, so maybe not. I digress, but the point is that a New York Times columnist ought to know that a whole lot of Anglicans don't consider themselves Protestants. At least if he's going to write with assumed authority about religion, that is.

Back to the matter at hand: we need a name for the folks who live in the liminal space between religious absolutism and atheism. I suggest "sortadox" with tongue firmly in cheek, but it's better than "quasi-religious." What we really need is a name that doesn't scream "relativism!"

That's the philosophy those of us in the middle get tarred with by those on the edges. We're just mired in relativism. We think we can pick and choose what stuff we like in the Bible. Or we don't have the guts to question the big propositions of the faith, like the atheists and agnostics do.

In most of our churches, the conservative movement calls itself "confessional," or something close to that. I guess "confessional" is the new "orthodox." They call themselves that not so much because they need a name for their movement. It's because they need a name for ours. "Confessional" is a feat of diction much like "Pro-life." Who in the world wants to oppose a group which calls itself "Pro-life?" Doesn't that make you "Anti-life?" Same principle with the "confessional" groups. If they call themselves "confessional Lutherans"--shall we say--then the rest of the Lutherans--the ones who don't believe that the church will turn into a pillar of salt if it blesses the marriage of two men--those folks are "unconfessional," or "non-confessional," or some other really insulting thing. As if those of us who want the church to err on the side of love have left the foundations of the church in the dust.

Actually, in the Lutheran church, I have to say, with all due humility, that the folks who aren't part of the so-called "confessional" movement, seem to know Lutheran theology a little bit better. At least when it comes to good old biblical hermeneutics (that's a fancy grad school phrase meaning, basically, the method we use to read and interpret the Bible). Lutheran theology teaches that we read scripture through the lens of Christ. Where scripture seems to show us something that opposes the gospel, we are taught that the particular text is not authoritative. What is most authoritative is the witness of Jesus Christ. And I'll argue to my death that he always erred on the side of love (sure, tough love sometimes, but always love, and always inclusion).

The "confessional" folks need to spend a little time with Jesus, I think. And a little less time with Leviticus. Or a little more time with Leviticus, which condemns a whole host of practices (yes, within the Holiness Code, right next to the "lie with a man" stuff). A whole host. Of practices. Which you all are practicing. Every day.

Like hypocrisy, for instance.

That's my quasi-religious take on that.

Check This Out!

Click above and check out a You Tube video on the Giraffe Heroes Project. Thanks to my friend Charlton for sending it. If you prefer to just look at a website, it's www.giraffe.org

We need to find and recognize heroes these days. There are so many people doing amazing things out there in the world. Maybe if we spend more time celebrating them and less time lamenting the mess our government is in and the high price of gasoline, we might just find that we're not in as much trouble as we thought.

Bizarre

We live in a strange world. Fred Phelps (or at least Westboro Baptist Church) picketed Jerry Falwell's funeral.

New and Improved! Gun Control

Apparently there is a new gun control movement sweeping the country. I read it in the paper. A bunch of wacky peace-lovin' fruitcakes. These people have the audacity to suggest (apparently for the first time) that perhaps we don't, in fact, need semi-automatic handguns in our country. Well, ordinary citizens don't need them. The militias invoked by the Second Amendment--police, Swat teams, National Guard--those folks might still need them.

While they're at it, these gun control nuts go way out on a limb to deny that the Second Amendment protects each and every American's right to own any gun he or she chooses and to carry it anywhere he or she damn well wants.

The suggestion that this is a "new" movement in response to the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech--followed just a week later by a shooting at a mall here in Kansas City--would be laughable, if anything about this could be considered funny. It isn't. The NRA isn't funny. People who would argue for concealed carry rights and armor-piercing bullets and semi-automatic handguns aren't funny. The rising toll of gun violence in our cities and our township and our schools is not funny. None of this is funny. It is sad and tragic.

A lot of folks have been arguing for a long time that we need stronger gun control in this country. Much stronger. In case my sarcasm isn't sharp enough, let me say that I am one of those nutty people. Have been since before last week.

We gun control nuts start talking about gun control when mass murder happens in our country because we think maybe an appeal to emotion will succeed where all other appeals have failed. You know, appeals like reason, sanity, statistical evidence (as a letter writer to the Star pointed out yesterday, the per-capita rate of gun-related deaths in Great Britain, German, Japan, France and Canada is one in 390,000; in the U.S. it is one in 10,000), common sense, civilization, correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. There are other appeals, but those will do for now.

We have too many guns in this country. It is too easy to buy a gun in this country. Ordinary citizens (sane and not so much) who aren't actually members of the militias the Constitution protects are able to buy guns they don't need and shouldn't have. Far too many of the "legal" guns fall into the wrong hands. Some of those hands are small. Children are being killed by guns in this country and that shouldn't happen. Ever.

Almost no one in America wants to take guns away from law-abiding sportsmen and sportswomen. That is a straw person argument and the NRA darn well knows it. Almost no one in this country is hunting turkeys and deer with semi-automatic handguns and armor piercing bullets. This isn't about hunting and it isn't about militias. It's about the Cult of Personal Freedom--the idea that we're allowed to do whatever we want because we're Americans and that's why they fought the Revolutionary War after all. I hope it won't be much longer before we all realize what the rest of the world seems to have figured out: that dog won't hunt.

New Digs!!!

Yes, I am a bad blogger. It isn't that I have ignored my blog. It's more that I've ignored just about everything for a few weeks now. Except our new space. And my wife, who would probably argue with her inclusion in the not-ignored-since-the-week-before-holy-week list.

I've said several times that if you had told me as a seminarian that I would pastor a church in a storefront I probably would have cried. It wasn't exactly my "ideal ministry situation." But after worshiping in a banquet hall space sharing its back wall with a bowling alley, I have to say: the storefront--not so bad.

Actually, the bowling alley was not so bad either, though it did create a rather odd atmosphere for Good Friday. But Linda, who ran the place, was really great to us, and we were able to take a breather, which we needed. I think we were ready to move on when we did, which is always a good thing.

And the new place is fabulous! It really is. It's a storefront. It's not in the best shape. It's small. But it is ours. And Niki made it feel wonderful with perfectly chosen colors and accoutrements and layout, which she worked with and worked with until she had everything right. And it is right. Garryl and Bob were here all week, practically, helping with moving and setting up. Scott was here nearly all week as well, and gave us the thrill of doing a baptism on our first Sunday in the new space! Rick was here to help unload chairs and to answer all the questions the rest of us can never answer. Valorie, Sheryl and Lisa took time off from work to be here. Valorie and Rick painted my office at night after they both worked at their regular jobs. Brandon and Tavis took an office full of boxes and more boxes and made a space you could actually work in. Then they went out and got shelves and a big cabinet to put the rest of the stuff in. Trudy came down and helped set up the space. And has given us the perfect pieces of furniture for the sanctuary. I've probably forgotten someone. I hope not. Dona joked on our first Sunday that it might be easier for those who weren't here helping to raise their hands. We didn't do that, of course. There are good reasons why others were unable to help that week. I know they were praying for the workers and for a blessing on our new place. It's just been amazing to see the community give so much of their time and themselves to make this our own place.

If you had told me in seminary that I would be lucky enough to become the pastor of a community this giving and loving and kind, I probably wouldn't have believed you.

God is great. The people of Abiding Peace are most certainly created in God's image.

Act Now!

I knew the name Lou Sheldon looked familiar. When I saw his name in my inbox, I had that oogy feeling in the pit of my stomach that said he was one of the guys who send out emails like this one:

ACTION ALERT
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen Hate Crimes Bill Will Move Quickly!
Begins to Lay the Legal Framework Whereby Bible-believing Pastors,
Business Owners and Individuals can be Persecuted and Prosecuted.
It is vital that Bible-believing people immediately contact their U.S. Representative and Two (2) U.S. Senators.
We must defeat H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, by Congressman John
Conyers, Democrat from Michigan, who is Judiciary Committee Chairman! Also, it is expected that Senator Ted
Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, will soon introduce similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
Without your action, this anti -Christian legislation will pass -- under the guise of hate-crime prevention -- and accomplish
the following homosexual goals:
 Silence the Bible-believing Churches, Pastors and Christians
 Criminalize so-called “hate speech,” – which is any speech that is critical of homosexuality or cross -dressing
behaviors. The suppression of free speech will be justified by the claim that such speech “incites” individuals to
commit violence against homosexuals, cross -dressers etc. Any remarks about homosexuality, such as reading
Bible passages, preaching on these passages, telling a person they can come out of the homosexual lifestyle, etc.
will be deemed critical remarks and will be ruled to be outside the bounds of First Amendment protections for
pastors, business owners and individuals.
 Elevate homosexuality and cross -dressing behaviors such as drag queens, transsexualism, she -males, etc. to the
status of federally-protected minorities. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law.
 Interfere with local law enforcement by elevating every alleged incident of “hate” against a homosexual or
cross-dresser into a federal crime.
 Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to
promote homosexuality and cross -dressing as normal behaviors.
The passage of H.R. 1592 will be a serious threat to free speech and freedom of religion. This so -called Hate Crimes Bill
begins to lay the legal framework to persecute and prosecute those who refuse, for moral and religious reasons,
to agree or teach their children tha t homosexuality, transgender, cross-dressing etc is normal and desirable.
Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning homosexuality could be considered an incitement to violence and punished with
a fine or prison.
This has already occurred in Sweden, Canada, and England and efforts are underway in Brazil to punish any person who
speaks out against homosexuality.
139 C Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003 (202) 547 -8570
100 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 350, Anaheim, CA 92805 (714) 520 -0300
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
 Send an urgent email to your U.S. Representative and 2 Senators – http://www.traditionalvalues.org/hc /
 For more information on Hate Crimes go to – http://www.traditionalvalues.org
DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR CHURCH AND 10 FRIENDS.
(end)

As a Bible-believing pastor, I certainly don't want to be prosecuted for any sermons I preach about homosexuality. I'm sure there was a time when the stuff I preach about homosexuality (you know "love your neighbor," stuff like that) would have been highly inflammatory.

Who knew that a hate crimes bill was really an underhanded attempt to target "Bible-believing pastors, business owners and individuals" and to create anti-Christian policies? We'd better all contact our two (2) senators today!

I do think they should change the name of the bill. The "Pro-homosexual/Drag Queen Hate Crimes Bill" will never pass.

"Dr." J

I love Rev. Jerry Johnston. He is my brother in Christ, and I love him.

I'm afraid I don't have a lot of respect for him, but I love him. I have prayed for him several times in the past nine days, ever since the Kansas City Star ran five separate pieces on First Family Church Rev. Johnston--who calls himself "Dr. Jerry," even though he doesn't have a doctorate...or a Bachelor's degree.

I deserve no kudos for saying I love Rev. Johnston and am praying for him. Truth be told, I wasn't all that sad about the Star hatchet job. Some yucky stuff is going on at First Family Church. It likely goes all the way to pastoral misconduct, though all the Star unveiled was a ridiculously high level of secrecy about the financial dealings of the church.

I disagree with Pastor Jerry about just about everything, but it is this financial stuff that is galling. He repeatedly declares that it is "common practice" in the church for parishoners to be kept in the dark about the church's spending, including things like the pastor's salary.

Poppycock.

In any church I have known, the people of the church have the right to an accounting of every dime the church spends and what it is spent on. After all, the assets of the church--money and property--belong to the parishoners. Except in congregations in which some property is owned by the denomination. Want to bet that denominations who own church property know about the finances of those congregations?

My church met on Sunday to go over the budget for our new worship space. We're spending around $8,000 on the new space, which is probably what First Family spends on copier paper in a year. But we walked through the budget, line by line, allowing folks to raise any concerns and ask any questions. There weren't many, but it was still an important thing to do. Everything the church does should be out front and beyond scrutiny. Otherwise you wind up in the paper.

I hope it turns out that the people who have devoted time and money to the ministry at First Family have gotten what they paid for. I guess that will be true either way.

Nonviolent Semi-civil Action

I tried to pull into the parking lot at Penn Valley College yesterday. I was met in the driveway by two young women, one of whom asked "Are you part of the peace caravan?" I paused for a second, not sure if I wanted to admit that I wasn't joining the peace caravan--I was staying for the vigil and then going home to spend the waning hours of the afternoon with my wife.

Since I paused, she asked a clarifying question. "Are you going to have your car decorated and go with the caravan to the Ammunition Plant?"

"No," I answered.

"Okay," she said. "The parking lot is for the people joining the peace caravan. You need to turn around and go to the next road; turn left and park in the parking garage."

I drove into the parking lot, circled around, driving by dozens of empty spaces, and dutifully drove out, parked in the parking garage and walked back to where the "Bullets Fail, Let Peace Prevail" peace rally and vigil, marking the fourth anniversary of the war on Iraq, was taking place.

The anniversary is actually today. But the rallies and vigils were held over the weekend, in order to garner maximum participation.

There were about two hundred people at Penn Valley College.

The population of the Kansas City metropolitan area is just under two million. So one person in ten thousand in the metro was at the rally.

Of course, if we are statistically equivalent to the rest of the country, a third of the people in the metro wouldn't have been at the rally because they still believe the war in Iraq is an okay thing.

So really, one out of every 6700 people in the metro who feel that the war is not an okay thing was at the rally.

By contrast, there were 4000 people at the taping of Extreme Home Makeover, which built a house north of the river last week. That works out to one person in 500 in the metro. I don't think that figure has to be adjusted, because surely there can't be that many people in the metro who are against building a house for a deserving family.

Okay, here's the point I am not making: the people of the Kansas City metro are apolitical schlubs who would rather get on national TV than speak out against a morally bankrupt and devastating war. I don't think that is true at all.

In fact, I think that there could have been four thousand people at the peace vigil/rally. (For a superior market share!)

But people don't know what they're going to find when they go to a peace rally/vigil. No matter how careful you are with your language, people will translate "rally/vigil" into "protest" in their heads in a nanosecond. A lot of people aren't comfortable at a protest. Okay, yeah, this number is higher here than other places I've lived, like, oh, Berkeley, CA.

The "protest" thing keeps a lot of people away. Especially people with kids. And as hard as the organizers of these events have tried, I noticed yesterday that the numbers were down from past events, and that there was a glaring decline in the number of kids there. And even though the posted rules for the rally forbade violence, even the spoken kind, a speaker (or two) always crosses that line.

People also don't know if they are really welcome at peace rallies. I don't really know how to address this--do you appoint a cadre of "greeters?" It probably couldn't hurt. I do know that when you show up and are told you can't park in the half-empty parking lot next to the action, but you should drive a couple of blocks away and park, you're likely to feel just a little unwelcome. Even if you understand why they wanted all the cars in the same area.

Maybe I'm sensitive to "unwelcome-ness" because I'm a mission pastor trying to help grow a congregation. But I think it's a basic human need, the need to feel welcome.

AND...welcome-ness is especially a Kansas City metro thing. We are heartlanders, midwesterners...The People of the Great Plains of Potluck Grub. We place a high value on making others feel welcome. And we place a high value on feeling welcome. So when we go to a strange place--a church, say, or a peace vigil/rally/protest--we will judge the event based on whether we felt that our presence there was welcome and appreciated.

I did feel appreciated yesterday. I'm sure I was welcome, as were the other folks on the lawn. I was glad I went. If for no other reason than that I got to see and hear my congressman, the Rev. Emmanuel Cleaver, II, who speaks eloquently and passionately about the war, as he does about so many important issues.

I was sorry there weren't more people there, though, since I know the poor turnout is read as lack of political will in Washington, and that means Dick Cheney saw his shadow yesterday and we'll have at least six more months of war (over and over).

There has to be a better way. How can those who want this disaster to end gather together in a positive way, and make their voices heard? I really want to know.

Dialing Down the Rhetoric

A very interesting conversation is taking place over on Andy's blog. He is concerned about the level of vitriol in church convention dialogue about homosexuality. I already wrote a long comment there, so I will just commend it to you. You'll want to go to his entry of Feb. 26th in order to pick up the whole thread.

This Is Not a Political Post, But It IS about Gay Republicans

Apparently, if you want something to be apolitical, you just have to say that it is.

A short item in today's KC Star reports that Mary Cheney has declared that her decision to have a baby with her longtime female partner is "not political."

"This is a baby," said Cheney. "This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue."

The blessing part I agree with wholeheartedly. I also believe that there will be a day when the rest of that statement is true. That will be a great day. After all, it is generally not a "political" decision when a straight couple chooses to have a child. At least not "political" in the sense of "political football."

Mary Cheney's decision to have a child and raise it with another woman is, however, a political football with extra air. That's because her party (she's a proud Republican just like dear old Dad) has made gay marriage a primary plank in its platform. Mary Cheney herself is on record against gay marriage.

The primary argument against gay marriage is the Family Argument. You know this one: "Marriage is for producing children...children need a father and a mother...gay people can't be married because they can't produce a child without help, and will certainly screw up the raising of said child."

You don't just get to say "this isn't political." The truth is, a lot of things are. Especially things which have to do with how we all live together out there in the polis.

You really don't get to pick and choose what is "political" when it suits you. Mary Cheney and her mother, Lynn, were more than happy to hit the talk show circuit after John Kerry made a comment about Mary Cheney's lesbianism in a debate in 2004. It was a positive comment, but Republicans in general, and the Cheney family in specific, saw it as purely political. (I saw it as dumb. Calculated and dumb. The point was most certainly to point out that the Emperor's daughter has no clothes.)

This is what Lynn Cheney said about Kerry's remark: "This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

So it's "political" to name Mary Cheney as a lesbian (which wasn't a secret--it's not like he outed her--he just used her to point out that Vice's daughter has a funny relationship to The Platform). But her decision to have a child and raise it in one of those households that will lead to the fall of Western society is not "political?" Quick, get down before you fall off of The Platform!

One more thing, and then I'll try not to write anything about queers or Republicans for a while. That is not a promise--you know how "political" I am.

Another little item in the paper (I'd link them, but neither is on the Star site) informs us that Lance Kinzer--an Olathe Republican in the Kansas House--is introducing HB 2299. The purpose of HB 2299 is to "prohibit local governments from setting up registries or recognizing 'any domestic partner relationship not recognized under state law.'" The precipitating event is Lawrence city officials' consideration of a domestic partner registry. Since the Kansas Constitution now bans gay marriage, Rep. Kinzer wants to make sure that no municipalities offer protection to gay couples, either. (The Lawrence registry would cover unmarried straight couples, but I'm willing to bet that this part of the proposal isn't what sent Kinzer to his computer keyboard.)

As long as the Grand Ole Party continues to fight against civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, a lot of what we do is going to be "political." The decision to marry in a church will be a political one--there will be people who think it's wrong out there in the polis, and probably in our families. The decision to have a child will be political. Especially when you try to protect the child and the "non-biological parent" legally. In many states, like, oh, Missouri and Kansas, you'll find that you can't. So if something happens to the birth parent, the remaining parent will be at the mercy of the birth parent's family and the legal system.

This stuff is real, and it is political.

I really, honestly, think it is wonderful that Mary Cheney is having a baby. I really, honestly, wish she could do so without public scrutiny. But we don't get to choose what the public scrutinizes. The public is insatiable. They love their politics.

Oxymorons and My Brilliant Wife

On the way home from church on Sunday, as I slid down in my seat and prepared for the long winter's nap awaiting at home, The Wife and I were talking. About gay Republicans.

Okay, to be honest, I was talking, and she was listening. It's fair to say that I have a stronger opinion on gay Republicans than she does. I think the idea is a sort of philosophical oxymoron. It isn't an actual oxymoron--there are certainly gay Republicans. They have their own club: the Log Cabin Republicans. I guess they have their own syrup, too.

Which explains the stickiness I feel whenever I am confronted with the idea that in 2007 someone would be gay and Republican. I mean, this party has done what it can to paint gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as a deviant cabal whose "agenda" includes destroying the institution of marriage. Gay people are the fuel Republicans throw on the flames of public opinion when the war takes a turn for the worse.

So we're driving along and I'm preaching about this (it is still Sunday morning after all). I'm asking rhetorical questions about what would lead someone to be part of an organization that actively campaigns against that person's best interests.

So Wife says, without missing a beat, "Isn't that what your church does? You're still a member of it."

I laughed, feeling a certain kinship with Sarah (Genesis 18:12: "So Sarah laughed to herself.") Like Sarah, also married to someone unassuming and faithful beyond belief, I didn't have an answer. Not a good one, at least. It's not a new question, of course--"Why do you stay in a church that continues to delay justice for its gay and lesbian pastors?" This was the first time, though, that the question was lobbed back to me from within one of my little ideological rants about stuff that doesn't make sense to me.

The short answer is, of course, that I am Lutheran. I am proud to be Lutheran. And there are great people in the ELCA, which will eventually welcome all of its children to "full participation."

Until then, yes, it will be hard to be a gay pastor in a church that doesn't want me. But I knew that going in.

Maybe it does make as much sense to be a lesbian pastor in the ELCA as it does to be a gay or lesbian Republican. Maybe it makes more sense to be a gay Republican. At least you'd get to sit with everyone else at the conventions. I have to sit in the back at the Synod Assembly, and have been warned more than once not to venture onto the floor when the Assembly is in session. I think they're afraid that my Gay Agenda Superpowers will take over and corrupt the proceedings.

Hey, if I had superpowers, I wouldn't be sitting in the back.

Tax Breaks are Broken

Ooooh, a political post. I have to do it though, after listening to the States of our Union and our State.

We need massive reform of our nation's health care system. Forty percent of Americans don't have any insurance. Costs have spiraled to the point where we pay nearly twice what other developed nations pay for health care. Prescription drug costs rise in direct proportion to the profits of big drug companies, which, I'm willing to bet, are in direct proportion to the number of lobbyists they employ.

This is a mess. And the solution, according to conservatives, is tax breaks.

Not cost controls. Not negotiation with drug companies. Not universal coverage through a comprehensive plan.

No. Tax breaks. The president and the governor of Missouri believe that if you give someone without insurance an extra $2400 off of his or her taxes, he or she will spend the money on health insurance. At least they say they believe that.

Call me a cynic, call me a Democrat, call me crazy--but I don't think people will spend their tax break on health insurance. And here's why: we live in a consumer society. We consume. Consume, consume, consume. That's what we do with our money. Buy stuff. Sometimes it's stuff we need. Increasingly, it's stuff we don't need, which helps explain why we are now a nation with "negative savings" (we owe more than we have), while the economy continues to improve.

Here's the thing about health care: you don't have to pay for it to consume it. Which is a good thing. I'm certainly not advocating a system in which those who don't have insurance don't receive treatment. I just think we need a system in which everyone has insurance. Or, better still, a system in which everyone has health care, and no one has to have insurance.

Because what we have now is a system in which those who have insurance pay more, because the only way for those who don't have insurance to get health care is to use the system on an emergency basis. No preventive care, just visits to the emergency room. Study after study shows that preventative care is much cheaper than treatment. Especially treatment in the emergency room. But we continue to err on the side of treating people on an emergency basis and sending them into bankruptcy when a catastrophic event occurs.

That doesn't work, and doesn't even begin to address the cost side. We have got to do the hard work that will lead to coverage for everyone, and a system in which all split the costs--which will be significantly lower without the presence of whole industries devoted to keeping them higher.

Sometimes the best choice is no choice at all.

Success

This is one of those posts I don't usually write, because what's rattling around in my brain has already formed the foundation of a sermon, and I don't like to publish early sermon musings. (Hate to spoil the surprise, ya know.)

But I just can't get the two meetings I attended today out of my head.

Our synod's Urban Ministry Task Force met this morning. The primary topic of the meeting was the most promising of our three inner-city parishes.

We heard a report about that church, which, of course, included numbers. These reports virtually always include numbers. The numbers are these:

Persons fed by the parish's Saturday feeding program: 160-190
Persons who attend Sunday worship: 30-40

Then we went on to discuss and disect the parish in question. One of the pastors at the meeting, a person I like and respect, made the following comment: "[Inner-City Lutheran Parish in Question] has gotten money from the synod on more than one occasion, and so far, they don't have any successes to show for it."

There was general agreement around the table about the veracity of this statement.

I didn't say what I was thinking, and for that I am sorry. What I was thinking was "Are you all nuts?" What I said was, "How are we defining success?"

It was supposed to be one of those ask-a-hopefully-thought-provoking-question moments, but alas, someone took it literally and gave me a definition out of the book of Acts, Chapter Two.

I am not unfamiliar with Acts, Chapter Two. In fact, if you go to my church, you are probably laughing now, because you have heard me use this chapter of scripture far more often than any other.

What we are taught about the church in Acts Two is that the church is the assembly of believers which "holds all things in common" and provides for all of those who are in need.

I don't recall anything about minimum church membership.

I'm sensitive about this, of course, because 30-40 members at worship is a short term goal in my congregation. We're not there yet. We will be, and it's because we "hold all things in common," and have worked very hard at being a community which provides for the needs of its members, and attends to the needs of the larger community as well. Though we've fallen off on the latter, since we've been in temporary digs. We need to get back there, because Acts Two says we should, and that's good enough.

I guess what I'm struggling to understand is how a church community which feeds nearly two hundred people on Saturday, and gathers thirty to forty people to hear the Word of God on Sunday can not be considered "successful."

After the meeting, our Area Ministry met, and I sat next to a mission developer fairly new to our synod. He was asked to share what was going on in his church. So he started with numbers, since that's where you start. His church is now worshipping 240-260 members each Sunday.

There was a collective "mmm" of appreciation for this news. It is good news, I think. But I am not sure that it is news which surpasses the 160-190 hungry souls fed by the first parish. And I'm not sure why we think it is.

Happy Birthday, Dr. King

Yes, I'm late. Especially since the MLK holiday actually fell on his real birthday (Jan. 15) this year.

But I just wanted to say happy birthday and thank you to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I believe anyone who tries to work for justice owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. King. He taught us that it is possible to work for change in a way that is powerful, intelligent, and dignified.

I know that I fall short of his example often, but I try to get close. And I lean on his spirit for help.

Nancy Pelosi: Gaying Up the Country

Ah, the Daily Show. Source of almost everything I know about conservative TV hacks like Sean Hannity.

Tonight the Daily Show aired a clip from Mr. Hannity, in which he poked fun at new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge to use the first 100 hours of the new session to make this congress something of which the American people can be proud.

Hannity called it "100 hours to turn America into San Francisco." (I think that was the exact quote. I know the "100 hours" and "San Francisco" parts are right.) I don't know what else he said. I don't watch Sean Hannity, which should shock absolutely no one who knows me.

I'm totally biased about San Francisco, of course. It appears that a lot of the country is biased about San Francisco, or at least the part of our country that gleans its information from sound bites like "San Francisco Liberal..." My bias does differ a bit from theirs, due in no small part to the fact that I have actually been there. Went to college there, in fact. I think that makes me a San Francisco Liberal. It's probably also why I'm gay.

Nah. A seminary in Berkeley made me gay. Or at least God had something to do with it.

Anyway, I think the whole San Francisco Liberal thing is funny. It's such crude shorthand. True, San Francisco is full of liberals. But Sean Hannity might be surprised at how many conservatives also live there. Actually, I doubt he'd be surprised at all. We're talking about a city with a very high cost of living. Not so many social worker types left. Investment bankers are now living in their flats. You can't have that many people making that much money in a city with that large a business district and not have a pretty substantial conservative element.

But the shorthand works--facts be damned. Everybody knows what Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove (who no doubt first carved the phrase in political bedrock) mean when they say "San Francisco Liberal." They mean to invoke half naked drag queens and topless dykes-on-bikes parading down Market Street. Pot smoking on the sidewalks. Acid dropping in the parks. A city so hedonistic it would make Caligula blush.

San Francisco does have its moments. Halloween is a freak fest. The Pride Parade is always good for a little public nudity (though it's pretty vanilla any more, compared to the seventies and eighties). If you hang around the Castro District long enough you'll probably see something interesting.

But San Francisco is, for the most part, a city like any other. Except for the bookstores. There are a lot of bookstores. And the tolerance. There is a lot of tolerance.

If the 110th Congress can turn America into a tolerant nation with a lot of bookstores in 100 days, I for one will be a happy camper.