1 Corinthians 13 for the Holidays

This is cool. I like it better than the original. (But will have to deny that in court, or give up my Lutheran Seminary Credential. The Lutherans, they just luuuv Paul.)

Anyway, surf over to Gallycat's blog and read this:

http://gallycat.blogspot.com/2006/12/something-i-got-from-my-mom-well-timed.html

WWWJB

That's "What Wall Would Jesus Build?" of course.

Today's Star carries an article headlined "Muslim group asks congressman to apologize." You can read the whole thing by clicking above. (The headline's different online. I have to say that, because I am an English major, and don't want anyone thinking I wrote it incorrectly, or something horrible like that.)

It seems that Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode Jr. is one of the many folks unhappy that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison--a Muslim--wants to be sworn into office with his hand upon the Qu'ran. The stated objection is some nonsense about how every American leader has been sworn in with his (and they probably are saying "his") hand on the Bible. This is patently untrue, but truth is increasingly unlikely to serve as a litmus test for public statements in Our Nation's Capitol.

So Rep. Goode sent out a letter in which he touted his zero tolerance policy on immigration, saying: "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Of course, this dustup really isn't about the Bible and the Qu'ran, which are, after all...um...books. [Side story: I went to San Francisco State University, which is a wonderfully diverse community, accepting of a huge variety of lifestyles, "Christian" not necessarily one of them. I got over it--hey, I usually understood their point of view. But I was annoyed, or at least bemused when a young woman in one of my classes said, at least three times, "most of the bad things that have happened in the world throughout history have been done by the Bible." I wish I could draw, because I've had this cartoon in my head ever since that day, of a Bible, decked out like Rambo, rushing around in an evil stupor, leading crusades and burning witches and bad stuff like that.]

Anyway, as I said, this isn't about the Qu'ran and the Bible. It's about Muslims and Christians. It's about how Christians have been in the majority in this country, especially when one looks at the annals of leadership. For a lot of years now, this country has been run by white, Christian men. (Presumably straight, but that one is up for review.) And those white, Christian men like it that way. Most people like being in charge, or at least like to have their opinions count more than other people's.

So now there are Muslims in this country, and one of them has been elected to the US Congress, and lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Clearly the new terrorist plot is to have Muslims elected, one at a time, to the congress, so that they can take over this country.

In 434 years, which is when they would have a majority under that plan.

Those of us who live in and around Kansas City should probably be grateful to Rep. Goode, along with Senator-unelect George Allen. (If that isn't ringing a bell, here's a memory-jogger: "macaca"). For a brief moment in time, Virginia is replacing Kansas as "most backward US state." And since most of the folks I know who don't live here do think I live in Kansas (we really do need to improve our secondary schools' geography classes), it is good to get Kansas out of the spotlight. For the people of Kansas and the people of Kansas City. Missouri. And Kansas. It is confusing, isn't it?

But all kidding aside (hard for me but I can do it), this is truly sad. That walling ourselves off from the huddled masses yearning to breathe free can be considered a legitimate "policy" is beyond me. Truly disturbing is the desire to wall ourselves off from other American citizens, just because they practice a different (and very much related) religion.

We keep hearing about the "global economy." We are increasingly caught up in the World Wide Web. The walls between peoples are coming down. That's a wonderful development here in the global village.

It's certainly a development which should be applauded by Christians. Perhaps Rep. Goode and his comrades ought to spend less time worrying about folks putting their hands on the Bible, and take some time to put the Bible in their own hands. And open it up. Try Galatians, chapter three, last verses:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, seed heirs according to the promise.

Pink Christmas

I love Christmas. It is truly the most wonderful time of the year, as the song says.

But I also reside within two bodies which can be challenged by the holidays.

The first of those bodies is my physical body, which is gayer than a three dollar bill.

The second is that branch of the Body of Christ which we call Abiding Peace Lutheran Church. Within that body are the most wonderful people one could hope to meet. Many of them are also "three-dollar-bill-like."

This is a prayer for my sisters and brothers in the Pink Triangle Nation. May God surround you with joy and hope this Christmas. May you be loved and accepted for who you are. May your families, and extended families, and in-laws, and neighbors treat you with all of the affection, kindness, and respect you deserve.

The holidays can actually be a little rough on us homos. Family is at the center of the holidays, and it sucks when your family doesn't seem to have the same value as a "normal family." Or when the older generation asks every member of the younger generation about their love lives--except for you, because they don't actually want to know. Or when the person you've shared your life with for twenty-five years is introduced once again as your "friend."

Or when your mother-in-law sends you a copy of her E-Christmas-Card, and it waxes rhapsodic about what each of her children, grandchildren, and sons-in-law are up to, and how proud she is of them. You, her daughter's partner, have apparently been on a desert island all year, because you are strangely absent, and apparently didn't even accompany your partner on her fabulous vacation to Hawaii.

That last one isn't about me. It's about someone else who went to Hawaii this year. And I'm not bitter, either.

Just a little sad, and a little tired of those emotional left hooks out of nowhere. I'll have a little eggnog and get over it. Because I am blessed with a terrific wife and terrific friends and a really amazing church family. So little slights are a small cross to bear.

If you are carrying a big cross this holiday season, reach out. Find a church, call a friend, do something wonderful for yourself. You are a unique part of God's creation. You are beautiful. You're created in the image of God--you have to be beautiful. There's no other option.

If you are reading this, and you are one of the beautiful straight people who treat gay people just like you treat everyone else: thank you. You probably don't know what a gift you are. You are the face on our hope for the future--the time when we can look forward to Christmas without bracing ourselves.

May this Christmas be a time of hope and joy for all. And may you get everything you want, and especially what you need.

Grace Is Making a Comeback

The name, Grace, that is. According to the online Baby Name Wizard, Grace was the fourteenth most popular name for girls in 2004. This surpasses the popularity the name enjoyed back in the 1890's, when it ranked number eighteen.

Grace has rebounded nicely. Back in the seventies, Grace had fallen to a dissappointing three hundred seventy one on the list. Three hundred seventy one with a bullet, apparently.

Were I a sociologist, I might have a lot of fun figuring out why Grace dropped so low in the "Me Decade." Aw, heck, it's just nice to see it back.

All I Want for Christmas Is a New President

That is all. My whole Christmas list. Okay, if Santa brought me a papasan chair I wouldn't complain. But I'd trade every dream gift I could imagine for someone leading this country who would work for the good of the nation. The whole nation. And while we're at it, how about the world? The whole world.

It has been absolutely depressing to watch George W. Bush receive the Iraq Task Force report. It's so painfully clear, since prevarication isn't his strong suit (apparently practice doesn't make perfect), that he has every intention of fighting the recommendations he doesn't like. From what I've read, that's going to be most of them. He says things like "there are some...interesting recommendations in the report." "Interesting?!" That's what you say about a casserole you don't really like, to spare the chef's feelings.

So things will continue to spiral out of control, the civil war will continue to get worse, and we'll continue to waste time arguing about whether it is in fact a "civil war." Because when people are dying by the hundreds and thousands, what you really need to worry about is semantics.

All I want for Christmas is to be a shepherd on a hillside and hear the promise: "Peace on earth, goodwill to all." And to know that my country is invested in that promise, even more than it is invested in Exxon-Mobile.

Okay Tavis...

See, Tavis is giving me a hard time because I've been back from vacation for a couple of weeks and haven't written anything. The thing is, my mom was here and I was behind at work and oh never mind. I just haven't written anything.

So here it is, though anyone who isn't into college football won't be all that interested.

I rooted for the wrong team a week ago. I thought I was rooting for the right team--USC--because they were number two in the BCS standings and the good guys--Michigan--were number three. So I wanted UCLA to beat USC, so that Michigan could play Ohio State for the National Championship. See, we only lost to Ohio State by 3 points when we played them in Columbus. A rematch in a neutral place (which is what bowl games and the championship are supposed to be) would be a great game.

Against the odds, UCLA beat USC. I'm not surprised USC lost--I just thought Notre Dame had a better shot at knocking them off than UCLA. The Trojans were #2 by virtue of playing in the Pac Ten and because they were nearly unbeatable in the Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush era.

So here's the thing. USC was #2 and they lost. Michigan was #3 and didn't play. But for some unbelievable, unknown, ridiculous, stupid, assine reason, Florida, which lost to Auburn earlier this year, jumped over Michigan into the number two spot. As Chris Berman would say "What?!" Michigan lost by three points to Ohio State, the number one team in the country. Florida lost by ten points to Auburn, a team not even in the top ten. Florida had to work very hard to beat a sorely lacking Florida State team (arguably Bobby Bowden's worst team ever, which isn't that bad, but still...).

Being knocked out of the #2 slot was always a possibility. A rematch for the title game is a stretch. The only way it would happen, according to all of the analysts, was if the Michigan/Ohio State game was really close and USC lost.

Three points. Close enough for ya? Oh, and USC lost.

Okay, so it's all done, and we'll play in the Rose Bowl. Which used to be the prize winning the Big Ten, but turns out this year to be the runner-up prize. The Rose Bowl is great. It is. It's the Granddaddy of bowl games, rich in tradition, and played on New Year's Day, when bowl games are supposed to be played.

But here's the thing, the thing that has always been wrong, historically, with the Big Ten/Pac Ten Rose Bowl matchup (which is no longer a shoe-in with the BCS): now we have to play a bowl game against USC at home. So much for the old bowl neutrality.

When you can't get a break...

Actually, this could be a good break. Michigan will win the Rose Bowl. Not to sound like Joe Namath or anything, but the Maize and Blue will break the Trojans (he he he). At home. And Ohio State will steamroll Urban (The Pope) Meyer and his choppy Gators. So in the end, we will know who the best two teams in college football are. And we'll have to be satisfied with being number two, since we don't get another shot at number one.

Last night Stephen Colbert said the best thing I've heard about this whole BCS mess. He thought it only fitting, since the BCS is decided by electronic voting, that the two teams vying for the national championship are from Florida and Ohio, the states which gave us the two terms of George W. Bush.

Out of the Ether!

Okay, so the Phill Kline post reappeared when I posted just now (see below). Cool.

Blogging Loser Award

Forgive me Father, for I have procrastinated. It has been two weeks since my last blog post.

It's only been a week since I wrote my last entry, though. So I think I get a minor indulgence for that, yes? A week out of blogging purgatory?

I wrote a long entry on Phill Kline's unbelievably unethical behavior at churches in Kansas, complete with a great Lee Judge cartoon from the KC Star. But Blogger ate my homework. Really. I went to post it and it disappeared into the cyberspace ether. I'll try it again.

I'll also be more regular for the next couple of days, and then we'll see what happens on vacation...

This is today's cartoon from Kansas City Star political cartoonist Lee Judge. Touche, Monsieur Judge.

I wrote a while back about the email memo Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline sent out to his staff, headed "church efforts." In the memo, Kline described the importance of securing preaching gigs at supportive churches, followed by off-site money-raising rallies. The memo specifically instructed staff to have the pastor invite five "money people whom he knows can help."

The choice of pronoun is a good indicator of what sorts of churches Kline has been visiting during this election season. The whole memo is an indication of what is seriously wrong with churches becoming too involved in election politics.

Yesterday the Kansas City Star reported that the former Attorney General of Kansas, Bob Stephan, had resigned from his advisory post within the Kline campaign, citing the memo and Kline's visit to The Light of the World Christian Church. Kline preached there in July. After he preached, the church made a donation of $1339 to SWT Communications, a company which "produces radio programs and church events and retreats." SWT Communications is operated by Deborah Kline, who happens to be married to Phill Kline. A month before Kline preached at The Light of the World, SWT made a donation of $1,181 to the Phill Kline campaign.

You can't really call it money laundering, though the money seems rather unclean to me. You can't call it illegal, since you'd have to prove that the church intended for the money to go to the Kline campaign, and SWT's donation was made beforehand.

Phill Kline defends these actions by admitting he's "been speaking to churches for years." He considers the money an offering for the service he provides to the churches.

My church pays an $80 honorarium to guest preachers. Admittedly, we're probably on the low end of the spectrum. I know some churches pay more. I don't know of any who offer amounts in excess of a thousand dollars. That seems a little high. And a little dumb, if you know the money is going to replenish the stocks of a company contributing to a political campaign. Just because you can't prove that it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't grossly unethical.

I know we're supposed to expect this of our elected politicians. I know we're supposed to just shake our heads, and wonder what they'll do next. But I'm sad. I'm sad that a politician can expect people to just shake their heads and move on when he uses houses of God in this manner.

And I am deeply sad that houses of God allow themselves to be used in this manner. It's one thing for our politicians to have a credibility problem. I'm not saying it's okay, because it's not. We ought to expect more. We ought to demand more.

But when our churches have a credibility problem, we're in deep trouble. Churches have to be above reproach. They just do. The mission of the church is to preach the gospel to the whole world. That work is difficult enough in times when our churches are thought of well. The work is severely compromised when churches become ATM machines for politicians, and thoughtful people are tempted to shake their heads at us, and wonder what will happen next.

Fantasy Football Awards--The Winner Is...

...me!

The award? Worst Fantasy Football Coach of the Week

I'm so proud.

I actually was feeling pretty prideful, after I had the only team in my Fantasy Football league to go 4-0. I thought I was a fantasy genius.

So this week, I, the genius coach of the team called Luther's Lions (the great Reformation-era fantasy team) made the following move: traded Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for Chiefs quarterback Damon Huard. I also traded Jets kicker Mike Nugent for Chiefs kicker Lawrence Tynes. This wasn't a horrible trade--Nugent hasn't done squat for me, and I'd be fine at kicker if whatever is wrong with Adam Vinatieri would get right. I figured Tynes would have some field goal opportunities at Pittsburgh--since they would be tough in the red zone. But your kicker can only get points if his team can get across the fifty yard line once in a while.

I started both Huard and Tynes, along with Larry Johnson, on Sunday. I got a total of 5 points from Huard and Tynes. You have to know a little something about fantasy leagues (and the way points are scored in our particular league) to know how bad that is. Suffice it to say, it is bad. Really bad. Even in Pittsburgh, I was hoping for somewhere north of 20 points from them.

Larry Johnson got 8 points. And will start for me every week, because he is still the best running back in football, and all of the bandwagon-jumping negative commentary will just ratchet up the desire in his belly which makes him the best running back in football. He nearly had his head torn off last week, and was back in practice a few days later.

But here's how I won the Worst Coach of the Week Award: barring something crazy, I will lose by several points to a guy who didn't even start a quarterback. Both of his were on their bye week, so he just went without. He will beat me soundly, unless the Chicago Bears defense doesn't score five points against the Arizona Cardinals. Again, you have to know how the scoring works, but that is about as likely as George W. Bush appearing in a tie-dyed t-shirt and Berkenstocks at an anti-war rally.

Which reminds me...there are actually more important things in the world than Fantasy Football. And even regular football.

It's still a tough morning to be a Chiefs fan. Hopefully they just decided to get all of their really sucky play out in a single game. If so--good strategy.
I'm off to look at the waiver wire now.

The Root of All Evil

Sometimes the lectionary is a real bear. For the second week in a row, I'm having a hell of a time with my sermon. I meant to say hell. Because I'm feeling a devilish desire to duck out from underneath the gospel lesson (Mark 10:17-31--the story of the man called to "sell everything...give the money to the poor, and come and follow" Jesus). It is really tempting to just preach about something else.

I mean, come on! We just did divorce, and "traditional marriage" (arguable, absolutely, but it's a tricky lesson anyway). And now it's the call to give all we have.

The average Bible tries to help us, by telling us that this is a story about a "rich man," which could mean that this lesson is really about the call for rich people to give all that they have. Talk about the temptation in the wilderness. This really does feel like the preaching wilderness.

Yeah, I'm being dramatic. But it is truly a challenge to preach sermons which touch people, which call people into discipleship, and to be pastoral about it.

And like most preachers, I'm a little shell-shocked. I actually did have someone leave the church after I preached a stewardship sermon a few years back which invited people to eschew the call to "give until it hurts" and simply "give until it feels good." As many times as I looked at that sermon, I couldn't figure out what was offensive about it. But money is just so tricky. Our stuff is just such a potent intoxicant. That's why this lesson is in the lectionary, isn't it? Because we need to be reminded that discipleship is a call to give up and give in and give away. And take on the joy of walking with Jesus.

That might work. If I can get through the middle part.

Rev Gals Friday Five

Every Friday there are questions to answer over on the Rev Gals blog. Here's my first completed homework assignment. The subject is groups.

1. Tell us about any group(s) you currently belong to. (e.g. book club, knitting circle, walking buddies, etc.)
I belong to a really terrific covenant group. There are five of us, and we meet every other week for an hour (or a bit more) to touch base with one another on life, ministry, family, and whatever else is impacting our worlds. We're committed to accountability--we hold one another accountable for balance (always fun in the ministry), health, and truth, among other things. It's a really good group of folks, and invaluable to me.

2. Do you feel energized or drained by being in a group situation? If the answer is "it depends," on what does it depend?

It depends. :) I'm an introvert, so group situations can be draining, especially if I'm in a group of strangers. It always takes me a little while to warm up in the big groups, like Synod Assemblies and Convocations. That's partly the big group thing, and partly the "gee, I wonder which of these folks wish the lesbian pastor would fall off of the edge of the world?" thing. Yeah, paranoia--that's what I meant.
I can be energized by groups of people whom I know well, like my covenant group, and groups from my church.

3. Is there a role you naturally find yourself playing in group situations? That is, do you naturally fall into the leader role, or the one who always makes sure the new person feels welcome, or the quiet one who sits back and lets others shine, or the host?

I'm the leader at church, the quiet one in other groups, the host at home (at least I used to be). I'm the joker a lot of the time. So I guess the short answer to this question is "no."

4. Handshakes vs. hugs: discuss.

One of the few times I wish I was a man. (The other big one is when needing to pee outside.) I like the handshake, but don't always know if it is appropriate. I like the hug, but...see previous answer. We are huggers at Abiding Peace. I know that's a little scary for new people, but hey, it's cleaner than shaking hands. And we love each other at church. And don't feel bad about it either.

5. Ice breakers: a playful way to build community in a lighthearted manner, or a complete and utter hell of forced fun and awkwardness?Bonus: If you answered "playful and lighthearted," share your favorite ice breaker.

How about "necessary evil?" I like them as long as they aren't too forced (and especially don't make you do anything ridiculous) and don't go on too long. They can be a nice way to get to know a few people in a group, if you know no one.

I have always relied on the M & M game. You give everyone a few M & M's, and then start a question around the circle. Each time someone answers a question, they eat an M & M. When little colored circles appear on peoples' palms, the game has gone on long enough. This icebreaker is easy, doesn't require you to do anything ridiculous, and, hey, there's chocolate.

And another thing...

Okay, while I'm asking questions I sort of know the answers to...here's one that's been rolling around in my head for a bit.

On the three big network nightly news shows, there are two new anchors who came to prominence in this country on morning shows. One is Katie Couric. Perhaps you haven't heard, but she is now anchoring the CBS Evening News. Just kidding. Of course you've heard, because it was a fascinating topic for newspapers, entertainment news shows, and even political cartoonists, for months. The general consensus seemed to be that Katie lacked the credentials to be a serious nightly news anchor, because she was on The Today Show, which does more fluffy stories than a nightly news show.

The other new anchor is Charlie Gibson, who comes to the ABC's World New Tonight from Good Morning America. Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen one story, or cartoon for that matter, suggesting that this transition is troubling in the least.

Granted, Charlie Gibson has probably never been described as "perky," the favorite adjective attached to Katie Couric. But it seems like there has to be more at play here. Good Morning America is just as fluffy as The Today Show, so what's the deal? Could it be simply that we don't want a woman--especially a perky one--sitting in the chair once occupied by Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather?

That doesn't seem quite fair. Maybe I'm just being sensitive. I can be sensitive. I'm a woman after all.

The Hillary Pillory

I'm a little confused, and wonder if others are too. Once again, the source of my confusion is The Rev. Jerry Falwell.

This week's Falwell Folly is a statement made at the Values Voter Summit, a gathering of conservative pastors and church leaders. He was talking about the 2008 presidential election. Here's the LA Times account:

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."

Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

According to Falwell and Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council, the Lucifer comment was meant to be humorous. I would submit that whether he intends it that way or not, a lot of what Jerry Falwell says is humorous. But it's an uncomfortable humor, the sort one hears privately from folks discussing Hugo Chavez' speech at the UN last week. A sort of chuckle-groan.

I'd ignore this comment, as part of my spiritual discipline of not wasting brain cells considering inflammatory, quasi-religious nonsense. But he's not the only one expressing this sentiment. (Though so far he's the only one to privilege the Clinton candidacy above the as-yet-unnanounced Party of Satan on the evangelical motivator scale.)

So here's where I'm confused. There are a lot of people contemplating runs for the White House in 2008. Some of them are staunchly in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, and universal health care. Some of them are staunchly opposed to the Iraq war, and favor at the least a timetable for withdrawal of our troops.

It would seem as if "'Values' Voters" (whatever that means) would be more motivated by one of these candidates. And Hillary Clinton isn't one of these candidates. She's been pretty moderate in the Senate, ostensibly for the purpose of representing her New York constituents, which is what she was elected to do. It's hard to imagine her moving to the left in a presidential run, since the country as a whole isn't exactly left of New York State.

So what is it about Hillary Clinton that will so motivate evangelical voters? It can't be her voting record. Her Traditional Marriage street cred is pretty good: she's against gay marriage, and has demonstrated remarkable commitment to a philandering husband. I still love Bill Clinton, but it's fair to say a lot of women would have divorced his charming derriere. She continues to support the war (if not Donald Rumsfeld), and to speak out against the withdrawal of troops. She would still like health care coverage for all Americans, but has backed way off of a comprehensive plan like the one which never got out of the starting gate in 1993.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton has disappointed those who thought that she would be a true progressive in the Senate.

So what is it about her that would, according to Jerry Falwell and some more highly respected pundits, send conservatives to the polls in droves? I guess the devil is in the details.

Ten Things Which Are Wonderful

• Having a day off
• My wife's cooking
• Being greeted by the dogs which love you unconditionally
• Preaching to people who are actively listening
• NPR
• Football season
• Freshly cut grass
• Laser printers
• A sunny Fall day
• Office supply stores

Yes, I'm feeling very blessed today. What ten things are you thankful for in this moment?

Why I Don't Title My Sermons

Ever since I was a seminary student, preaching quarterly at my "teaching parishes," I've avoided titling my sermons. I had to do it for a church I preached at twice while on internship--they were insistent. I think it's fine if people want to do it, but I'm part of the generation of preachers trained in more inductive methods, and sermon titles seem to work at cross purposes to inductive preaching. You don't tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em until you've told 'em.

This morning's Kansas City Star offers some reinforcement for this decision. As many of you likely have, I've been watching with interest the unfolding story of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, which is under IRS scrutiny for what has been described as an "anti-war, anti-poverty" sermon preached two days before the 2004 election. The IRS is considering revoking All Saints' tax exempt status, for "implicit endorsement."

There are numerous troubling details in this case. First, the sermon was preached by a guest preacher, not someone on staff at All Saints. That may or may not be relevant. Allowing someone the pulpit does imply a certain level of endorsement of the message, inasmuch as you can know what the message will be. Second, by all previous accounts, the preacher spoke about issues which should be important to voters, but specifically refrained from endorsing a candidate or a party. Those are the lines one cannot cross--you can't endorse a candidate or a party. The tax code is unspecific on talking about war or poverty. Indeed, I'd hope it would be difficult to preach if these subjects were off the table.

*Okay, I have to tell this only-semi-related story: I was at an event last night called "Walking the Talk of Welcome," sponsored by a group with which I'm involved here in KC. The former moderator of a local UCC church was speaking about the process their church went through to become Open and Affirming. She talked about the effects of their decision, noting that a few people had left during the process, but only one had left after the vote to become ONA (yes, really, that's how it's abbreviated). The former moderator didn't think, however, that the person left because of the vote, because he or she, upon leaving, declared "We just keep talking all the time about the poor." Egads.

Back to the matter at hand. I've been firmly on the side of All Saints, and certain that they were getting railroaded. I'm still on their side, but I did gasp just a little upon reading in today's Kansas City Star that the title of the precipitating sermon was "If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush." Specifically stated in the sermon was the (surely true) opinion of the preacher that Jesus would be firmly against the Iraq war and President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war.

I would love to hear how others receive this information. Did the preacher go too far? Where is the "endorsement line?" What is kosher, if you will, and what is not?

This is a very complicated situation, and there are no easy answers. The preacher was apparently critical of both candidates, but I'm just not sure I would have named them in a sermon title. This is a moot point, of course, since I don't do sermon titles. If I did do sermon titles, though, I hope I would consider the human tendency toward binary thinking and the proximity of the election, and not use the words "Kerry," "Bush," and "debate" in my sermon title. It just seems like you're setting them up to hear you endorse someone, and even if you want that someone to be Jesus, some will take away a different message.

I do preach political sermons. I preached about the war, and continue to do so. I know I cross lines that many of my colleagues would never cross. But I think preaching is essentially the practice of placing scripture in the context of our lives, and I don't know how to do that without crossing over into subjects that can be considered political. It seems to me that Jesus talked a lot about subjects which cross over into the political. Questions of wealth and poverty, discrimination and inclusion, power and powerlessness are at their essence political questions. I'm not sure how to preach to the context of my congregation without addressing these things.

The situation with All Saints is also, quite clearly, a political one. There is a line which cannot be crossed, and it is possible that All Saints crossed it. I don't happen to think so, but that's obviously debatable. But the politics in this go beyond the situation at hand.

I'd like to hear a little debate on the role conservative churches play in electing candidates, and why All Saints is under scrutiny while they apparently are not. It would appear that the mistake All Saints made was not blowing with the right wind.

Recently someone leaked a memo from Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who is running for re-election. The subject line of the four page email was "church efforts," and it contained instructions from Kline to his staff on how to "get him into pulpits" and raise money at as many churches as possible between now and election day.

I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Here are a couple of quotes from the memo:

"Get the pastor to invite 5 'money people,' whom he knows can help."

"Goal is to walk away with contact information, money and volunteers and a committee in each church."

The plan is to have Kline preach, then get the "money people" to host receptions, off of church property, to raise money.

Perhaps the off-site fundraisers get these churches and pastors off the hook. I know that we would draw the line at inviting a candidate to preach who was running for election. As I've already said, allowing someone the pulpit does constitute an implicit endorsement. I can't even imagine the prospect of helping the candidate "walk away with contact information, money and volunteers, and a committee" in our church. . Apparently the IRS has a different opinion, because I haven't heard that they were going to be investigating any of the churches implicated in this memo. And there were specific churches implicated. More churches will be implicated as this strategy comes to fruition.

It's messy business, the mixing of religion and politics. There are a lot of things I would like to say in the pulpit which I feel I cannot say. There are things I feel I should say, things I think Jesus would say, which I do not say in the pulpit. And there are a lot of things I have the freedom to say because I'm in a really great congregation which allows me more of that freedom than many would.

Ultimately, we have to do our best to be true to the gospel and keep out of trouble with the government. And that may be easier said than done.

Today's chuckler from The Onion

The links in the story text don't work. Sorry about that. You really don't need them, but you can always get to The Onion by going to www.theonion.com.

New Bill Would Defend Marriage From Sharks
WASHINGTON, DC—Congressional Republicans cited the saw-edged teeth of the shark community as a direct threat to married couples everywhere.
READ MORE

Community!

My friend Polly sent out an email recently inviting us to check out RevGalBlogPals. There's a box in the left margin of this blog so you can check it out, too. Or you can just click here. I'd recommend it. There you'll find a wonderful community of women in ministry. One could spend quite a bit of time reading the blog, and navigating around in the links to all of the other blogs. One shouldn't, of course, because one has work to do. But one could...

Size Matters?

Okay, so maybe I just don't get it, the whole size thing.

[Pause for snickering.]

I'm the pastor of a small congregation. That is the plain truth. I keep thinking (and being told) that I need to find a different adjective. Like...? "Diminutive?" "Cozy?"

We're small. We worship 16-22 people on an average week. We want to have more folks. We know we need to grow. We're committed to mission in the name of Jesus Christ. And we are growing--slowly, but it's happening.

For the time being, though, we're small. What is stunning, and wonderful, is that we're still here. This congregation has gone through a lot. I view the "family" metaphor for church with a hermeneutic of suspicion, but this congregation has endured more than some families which crack apart. They have weathered some pretty troublesome members. They decided to sell the only church building they've ever had in order to continue the mission of the congregation in a more conducive setting. They called a lesbian pastor and waited to see if they would be kicked out of the only denomination they've ever known.

And they are still here. Better than that, they are thriving! The Word of God is proclaimed in our midst, in word and deed. The community which gathers--twice a week, at least--is strong and loving. This is a congregation of folks who really understand ministry, and who are truly focused on the heart of the gospel: love of God and love of neighbor.

But it seems as if every conversation I have with someone who wants to know how we're doing goes like this:

Concerned Person: "So, how is Abiding Peace doing?"
Me: "We're great. The community is really healthy; we're moving forward in the new location; things are going really well."
Concerned Person: "How many people in worship?"

The conversation ends shortly after I offer our latest attendance figures. It seems as if nothing I say matters, if we're not worshipping at least fifty or a hundred or a hundred and fifty or whatever the current "must have" number is for Sunday worship.

I understand this; I really do. Inertia is a dangerous thing in ministry, and low numbers can be indicative of mission drain.

They can also be the beginning of a great success story. The story of Abiding Peace Lutheran Church isn't finished yet. It's going to be great, too. So it would be nice if people could just take a breath and wait for the next chapter, which, I promise, is coming. We're just deep in the creative process. Get the Pulitzers ready.

Remembrance

A lot of things have happened in the last five years. Some were good--this nation was unified in an unprecedented way after September 11th, 2001, and the world was with us. Bad things have happened as well, and it is particularly troubling to see the degree to which deeply painful images (like the one to the left) have been used in service of political ideology, especially over the past couple of weeks.

Today is not a day for ideology. It is a day for remembrance. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives five years ago today. Over three thousand children lost a parent. This is a day to pray for them all, and to hope that nothing like that day ever happens again.

There must be a time for reflection upon the events of the past five years, especially those which relate directly to the events of September 11, 2001. We need to think about the course we're on, and where it will get us.

But today is not that time. Today we grieve and pray and hope, trusting that God is holding us all, especially those whose lives were touched more directly by that horrible day. May God bless them and comfort them today.