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.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"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.
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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
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.
Friday, February 02, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, January 29, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 30, 2006
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...
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...
Friday, October 20, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)