Last week, the Central States Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America held its annual Bishop's Convocation, which is your typical professional leaders' conference. The bishop chooses a topic, invites speakers, and we learn and worship and play for three days.
I love the Bishop's Convo, for a whole bunch of reasons. There are often very good speakers; it's a pretty laid-back affair; there's the Area 7 "hospitality" room (that's church speak for food and drink of the most delightful kinds); you get to go to the Lake of the Ozarks in the middle of fall, which is nice; and I like seeing everyone.
It's always a little scary to go to Convo, since I know everyone isn't always glad to see me. Inevitably there will be someone who stands up on the floor and expounds upon our call to hold people's sinful feet (and other parts) to the fire. The year we talked about "sexuality" (which is church speak for "homosexuality"), I couldn't quite make it through the last session. My dear friend and colleague Tim--who is currently on internship in Oregon--came with me that year, and we made it until the last day, when we felt that our dignity had been attacked quite enough, thank you very much. So we left an hour early and had a fabulous ride home, complete with show tunes and a wrong turn through Gravois Mills, Missouri, where the Baptist Church had on its sign out front: "Homosexuality is an abomination." We stopped and took a picture of Tim by the sign, looking as gay as possible, and another picture of the wrought iron words along the stair rail: "All are welcome."
Yeah, sometimes churches are bad at irony. Or really good at it, but unaware they're practicing it.
Case in point: The people who lead the church of Jesus Christ are pretty cynical about the church and the world. I know some cynicism is going to be the order of the day when you're in a profession that asks you to be equal parts fundraiser, counselor, volunteer coordinator, community leader and proclaimer of the gospel. Most of our pastors are underpaid and overworked. And when we get together all by ourselves, there's gonna be some whining.
But, hello? Were there people who went to seminary thinking they were going to work a standard forty hour week and make a barrel of money? We joked about weird hours and bad pay for four years, even as we borrowed money we could ill afford to pay back. That's what you sign up for. As Niki's friend Lisa P would say, "Build a bridge. Get over it."
What is more troubling to me, though, is listening to people talk about "The Church" as the place where people just want to be spoon-fed "feel-good" messages and not asked to do much.
I don't find that to be the case. At least not in my parish. I'm willing to bet that it isn't the case in most of our parishes. I think most of our parishoners want to be challenged by the gospel, to hear the call of Jesus as a mission for their lives. I know the folks I preach to each week do. I know the folks in most of the churches in town with which I'm acquainted do.
I think there's a kind of fatalism creeping across the church today. We're struggling--financially and spiritually--and folks are growing weary. To hear some of them talk, the sky is falling on us. People are chasing after the idols of money and cable television, and soccer is played Sunday mornings on suburban fields across the U. S. The church is no longer at the center of community life. It's no longer a given that people will be in church on Sunday morning.
Unless we give them a reason to be there. Unless we offer them something they can't get on a soccer field or a television. The church has something no other institution or pursuit has: it has Jesus. It has the witness of the apostles. It has the ability to create communities of the gospel. You can't get that anywhere else. You can't get someone to love you as neighbor, the way Jesus taught us to love each other, anywhere else.
I think it's pretty important for the people who lead Christ's church to practice that kind of love for their people. Both their parishoners and the people who walk by their doors. I think it's pretty important for us to speak and act lovingly, even when we're in the safe space of a professional leaders' conference.
Doubtless it could be said, "physician heal thyself." Some of the cynical words I heard at the Convo were coming out of my own mouth. My cynicism tends to be directed primarily at the world, okay, the world of Washington DC, mainly, but still it is probably counter-productive. I'm going to work on that. And I'm going to pray for us all, that we'll find the courage to lead with love, to practice the kind of acceptance we see modeled by our Lord. That we'll be a little less anxious about the future, and a little more trusting in God's promise.
Feel free to call me on it, too. I don't mind my feet being held to that particular fire.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Now Isn't that Special...?
Hat tip to Lutheranchik, whose blog is so much better than mine.
She found this letter to the editor in her local newspaper. The writer is concerned about the "Gay Bill of Special Rights," which I assume is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the "Thought Control Bill," which I assume is HR 1592, the legislation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories protected under hate crimes statutes.
For the letter-writer, these are "special rights." The right not to be fired for being a gay man is a "special" right. The right not to be excluded from a job because you are a lesbian is a "special" right. The right not to be beaten on the street because you are transgender is a "special" right.
I know, this debate is old and at least dry, if not totally stale. Still, this writer offered a new reason (or vocalized an old reason, perhaps) for people to lobby against these protections for LGBT people. These protections, she writes "would invite hordes of other groups of all sorts to demand their own rights."
My, we wouldn't want to have that, would we? People running around the United States of America demanding their rights! Heavens to Betsy.
(And who is Betsy, anyway?)
She found this letter to the editor in her local newspaper. The writer is concerned about the "Gay Bill of Special Rights," which I assume is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the "Thought Control Bill," which I assume is HR 1592, the legislation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories protected under hate crimes statutes.
For the letter-writer, these are "special rights." The right not to be fired for being a gay man is a "special" right. The right not to be excluded from a job because you are a lesbian is a "special" right. The right not to be beaten on the street because you are transgender is a "special" right.
I know, this debate is old and at least dry, if not totally stale. Still, this writer offered a new reason (or vocalized an old reason, perhaps) for people to lobby against these protections for LGBT people. These protections, she writes "would invite hordes of other groups of all sorts to demand their own rights."
My, we wouldn't want to have that, would we? People running around the United States of America demanding their rights! Heavens to Betsy.
(And who is Betsy, anyway?)
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Anonimity
Hey friends, I have a request. I know Blogger gives you the opportunity to be anonymous when you leave comments. In fact, if you don't have a Blogger account, you have no other choice than to post as "Anonymous."
But I would appreciate it if folks would sign their posts, at least with a first name. I do that when I sign on in other formats, and I notice that most people do that here. I think it helps keep the dialogue on a respectful and decent level.
You are more than welcome to get on here and disagree with me, especially when I'm being petulant (as in the first lapel pin post). But I blog under my real name, and I'm willing to be accountable for what I say. And to apologize when I am being petulant, which I did.
I really want people to feel free to speak their minds. If the only way you can do that is anonymously, then by all means, be anonymous. But if you wouldn't mind leaving your name, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
Donna
But I would appreciate it if folks would sign their posts, at least with a first name. I do that when I sign on in other formats, and I notice that most people do that here. I think it helps keep the dialogue on a respectful and decent level.
You are more than welcome to get on here and disagree with me, especially when I'm being petulant (as in the first lapel pin post). But I blog under my real name, and I'm willing to be accountable for what I say. And to apologize when I am being petulant, which I did.
I really want people to feel free to speak their minds. If the only way you can do that is anonymously, then by all means, be anonymous. But if you wouldn't mind leaving your name, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
Donna
Okay, Less Wheedling, More Info
My last post was a little strong (sorry), and engendered a strong response from someone who thought I was speaking ill of the American flag. Let me be a bit less obtuse. The post was about flag pins, not The Flag. I love the American flag. It is a great symbol of our country, which I also love.
You're right, Anonymous (more on that in a separate post), I don't love the war. But that post actually wasn't about the war at all. It was meant to be a clear reference to what I thought was a ridiculous attack launched at Barack Obama for not wearing an American flag lapel pin.
See, I think symbols are important, but symbolism is just that: symbolism. It isn't patriotism. Flying the flag, or sticking it on your car, or pinning it to your lapel doesn't make you a great American. Just like wearing a cross necklace doesn't make you a faithful Christian. Those symbols can represent your patriotism and faith, but they shouldn't be mistaken for patriotism and faith.
Which is the point Barack Obama made when a reporter asked him why he's no longer wears a flag lapel pin. He gave what I thought was a thoughtful and reasoned response:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
Here's the whole article from the ABC News site: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3690000
Fox News grabbed this story and ran with it, attacking Senator Obama's patriotism with abandon over the next day or so. I realize that it was a custom made bite, and those are more important than detailed information about the candidates in the current political climate. I also realize that these tactics are employed by both sides. The Democrats had a twelve-year-old read their statement about the President's veto of SCHIP legislation last week. I thought that was a cheap attempt to inject pathos into a situation that was plenty full of it already.
It seems that our country is at a crossroads. We need strong leadership, and we're responsible for choosing the majority of our leaders. It would be nice if the media would focus on helping us to understand where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they wear on their lapels. That's all I was trying to say.
You're right, Anonymous (more on that in a separate post), I don't love the war. But that post actually wasn't about the war at all. It was meant to be a clear reference to what I thought was a ridiculous attack launched at Barack Obama for not wearing an American flag lapel pin.
See, I think symbols are important, but symbolism is just that: symbolism. It isn't patriotism. Flying the flag, or sticking it on your car, or pinning it to your lapel doesn't make you a great American. Just like wearing a cross necklace doesn't make you a faithful Christian. Those symbols can represent your patriotism and faith, but they shouldn't be mistaken for patriotism and faith.
Which is the point Barack Obama made when a reporter asked him why he's no longer wears a flag lapel pin. He gave what I thought was a thoughtful and reasoned response:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
Here's the whole article from the ABC News site: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3690000
Fox News grabbed this story and ran with it, attacking Senator Obama's patriotism with abandon over the next day or so. I realize that it was a custom made bite, and those are more important than detailed information about the candidates in the current political climate. I also realize that these tactics are employed by both sides. The Democrats had a twelve-year-old read their statement about the President's veto of SCHIP legislation last week. I thought that was a cheap attempt to inject pathos into a situation that was plenty full of it already.
It seems that our country is at a crossroads. We need strong leadership, and we're responsible for choosing the majority of our leaders. It would be nice if the media would focus on helping us to understand where the candidates stand on the issues, not what they wear on their lapels. That's all I was trying to say.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
On pins and wheedles
Are you kidding me? Seriously. This is the mark of a person's patriotism?
Of course it isn't. But in a pinch it will work as yet another pathetic salvo in the culture war as fomented by Fox (please don't make me say it...no...noooo...okay...) News.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Good for You, James Dobson!
The honchos of the Christian Right met in Salt Lake City last week to discuss strategy.
Kind of like the Sermon on the Mount. The big guys talking about strategy. Positioning. Sound bites.
Well, there are certainly sound bites in the Sermon on the Mount, anyway. It remains to be seen whose bites will have more enduring appeal, but I have my suspicions. Hey, Jesus does have a pretty good head start.
The biggest bite coming from Utah was the declaration that The Christian Right (which is remarkably good at speaking with one voice) will be really really mad if Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate like Rudy Guiliani. In fact, they will find themselves a nice third party candidate to vote for. And make all of their millions of faithful followers vote for that guy too. (I'm assuming it's a guy--that seems pretty safe.)
Good for them! That's the way it's supposed to work. You examine your values, study the words of, say, the Sermon on the Mount, and then decide whom you will support. Based on principles, not power.
(Having done that myself, I have to say that I wouldn't vote for Rudy Guiliani either.)
Okay, so I know that this is really a power check. James Dobson and Tony Perkins and the rest of the wild kingdom of fundamentalism are trying to see if they have any relevance left in the big scary world of politics. The answer is "not nearly as much as you want." Which is bad news for them, and mixed news for the rest of us.
Fundamentalism gave us George W. Bush, and this travesty has gone on long enough that I don't even have to comment on that. Just say it--they are responsible for the current administration. They know it and we know it and if they are happy about it, it's a nostalgic happiness, because their influence is waning, and everybody knows that as well.
I find that to be a good thing, generally, as I disagree with the Religious Right about most social matters. (Though we are not on opposite sides on abortion. We're not on the same side either, but you simply can't say they're wrong to fight for the rights of unborn children. I wish they'd choose to fight for better child support enforcement and widely available birth control, but there's where we disagree again.)
Here's the thing, though. The Religious Right has been rendered increasingly irrelevant in national politics because they don't play the game very well. They actually expect to get everything they want from our very broken political system. Even the brazen idealists no longer expect that. We've started settling for people who are "electable" and then looking the other way as they compromise compromise compromise. On their promises, on their integrity, on our future.
So I say "good for you" to the religious right for sticking to their guns and expecting the system to serve them. We could all take a lesson from that. If only they would take a lesson from us in return, we might start getting somewhere.
Kind of like the Sermon on the Mount. The big guys talking about strategy. Positioning. Sound bites.
Well, there are certainly sound bites in the Sermon on the Mount, anyway. It remains to be seen whose bites will have more enduring appeal, but I have my suspicions. Hey, Jesus does have a pretty good head start.
The biggest bite coming from Utah was the declaration that The Christian Right (which is remarkably good at speaking with one voice) will be really really mad if Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate like Rudy Guiliani. In fact, they will find themselves a nice third party candidate to vote for. And make all of their millions of faithful followers vote for that guy too. (I'm assuming it's a guy--that seems pretty safe.)
Good for them! That's the way it's supposed to work. You examine your values, study the words of, say, the Sermon on the Mount, and then decide whom you will support. Based on principles, not power.
(Having done that myself, I have to say that I wouldn't vote for Rudy Guiliani either.)
Okay, so I know that this is really a power check. James Dobson and Tony Perkins and the rest of the wild kingdom of fundamentalism are trying to see if they have any relevance left in the big scary world of politics. The answer is "not nearly as much as you want." Which is bad news for them, and mixed news for the rest of us.
Fundamentalism gave us George W. Bush, and this travesty has gone on long enough that I don't even have to comment on that. Just say it--they are responsible for the current administration. They know it and we know it and if they are happy about it, it's a nostalgic happiness, because their influence is waning, and everybody knows that as well.
I find that to be a good thing, generally, as I disagree with the Religious Right about most social matters. (Though we are not on opposite sides on abortion. We're not on the same side either, but you simply can't say they're wrong to fight for the rights of unborn children. I wish they'd choose to fight for better child support enforcement and widely available birth control, but there's where we disagree again.)
Here's the thing, though. The Religious Right has been rendered increasingly irrelevant in national politics because they don't play the game very well. They actually expect to get everything they want from our very broken political system. Even the brazen idealists no longer expect that. We've started settling for people who are "electable" and then looking the other way as they compromise compromise compromise. On their promises, on their integrity, on our future.
So I say "good for you" to the religious right for sticking to their guns and expecting the system to serve them. We could all take a lesson from that. If only they would take a lesson from us in return, we might start getting somewhere.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
I Love My Team
I don't remember when I became a Michigan fan. I think I was born that way, though if someone wants to argue that it's a choice, I'll probably give you that one.
I have been a Michigan fan for as long as I can remember, and I wish to be buried in my rattiest Michigan sweatshirt. (Someone please tell The Wife, as she is unlikely to read my blog ever.)
I still love my team, even after the Greek tragedy that was last week's loss to Appalachian State (say App-uh-latch-un, that's the way they like it. Really.) I may love the Michigan Wolverines just a bit more now, because it's sometimes easy to be a Michigan fan. Seriously--do any of us want to be married to someone who is perfect? Nah. Too much pressure.
So I love my team, and I love my friends, who have sent funny email and left funny phone messages. I particularly liked Andy's voicemail asking for a North Kansas City venue in which to hold a memorial service for the national title hopes of the Michigan Wolverines. That's good stuff.
By the way, if anyone wants to place a little friendly wager on this week's game, you can have Oregon and ten points. The spread is eight, but I expect we'll win by twenty. And every other game this year.
I love my team.
Ten Percent Voldemort?!
Just noticed that. I don't remember giving high value to any sociopathic tendencies in the quiz...
Perhaps my subconscious is just a teeny bit evil.
Perhaps my subconscious is just a teeny bit evil.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
My Harry Potter Alter Ego--Remus Lupin
Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...? created with QuizFarm.com |
"Bathroom Lovin', Had Me a Bla-ast"
Ew.
Great column this week by Rhonda Chriss Lokeman regarding the Larry Craig mess. She and her female friends have discussed it and agreed that you'd have to look far and wide to find a woman who would solicit (or have) sex in a public restroom. I have to say I've never considered it myself.
So I guess this really isn't about sexual orientation. Or is it just gay men who like a little love in the washroom?
Nah. Actually, researchers have said that a lot of the men hooking up in semi-public venues are actually straight, and looking for a little release with no attachments.
Which means that Senator Craig could very well be telling the truth when he states--with emphasis--that he is "NOT gay."
It's interesting to me that he saved his big boy Senate voice for denying (yet again) that he is a gay man. Shouldn't he be more interested in denying that he solicited extramarital sex in a bathroom?
Or does he believe that the one will follow from the other? As long as people believe that he's not gay, they'll believe that he wasn't soliciting sex in the men's room.
Or worse, they don't really care if he was trying to get a little something in the restroom, they actually only care whether he's gay.
Is being gay really more disturbing than being an adulterer? Or a hypocrite?
Great column this week by Rhonda Chriss Lokeman regarding the Larry Craig mess. She and her female friends have discussed it and agreed that you'd have to look far and wide to find a woman who would solicit (or have) sex in a public restroom. I have to say I've never considered it myself.
So I guess this really isn't about sexual orientation. Or is it just gay men who like a little love in the washroom?
Nah. Actually, researchers have said that a lot of the men hooking up in semi-public venues are actually straight, and looking for a little release with no attachments.
Which means that Senator Craig could very well be telling the truth when he states--with emphasis--that he is "NOT gay."
It's interesting to me that he saved his big boy Senate voice for denying (yet again) that he is a gay man. Shouldn't he be more interested in denying that he solicited extramarital sex in a bathroom?
Or does he believe that the one will follow from the other? As long as people believe that he's not gay, they'll believe that he wasn't soliciting sex in the men's room.
Or worse, they don't really care if he was trying to get a little something in the restroom, they actually only care whether he's gay.
Is being gay really more disturbing than being an adulterer? Or a hypocrite?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
We believe that we are justified by God's grace...
Mike Vick apologized yesterday. It was a good apology. It started off well, with Vick apologizing to the NFL Commissioner, his team, and everyone else he lied to when he told them to their faces that he wasn't involved in dogfighting. That apology was needed and expected.
What I appreciated, though, was the apology to the kids out there, and the suggestion that they "use me as an example." He admitted that he "needed to grow up." Yeah, maybe he's stating the obvious. But it's a good message, and one which may actually do some good. So much bad has come out of Michael Vick's behavior over the past few years; I hope some lesson can come out of all of this.
We'll hear about his "fall from grace" for a while now. He'll be referred to as "disgraced." In human terms, those are apt descriptors. But people of faith ought to be careful with them. The third chapter of Romans teaches that being "dis-graced" is an impossibility, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." God heaps grace on us all, because there would be a lot left over if it only went to those who deserve it.
I believe that yesterday we saw a man who had sinned a whole lot, and fallen remarkably short of God's desires for his life. We saw him lower his head and offer a good apology that can't begin to make up for the harm he has caused and the pain he has inflicted.
And maybe we saw how hard it is to be God--to keep forgiving, to keep taking us back when we are unfaithful, to keep showering grace upon us when we screw up. I'm sure glad God is God and I'm not. I couldn't do it nearly as well.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Are You Feeling SSAD?
Hey--since satire keeps getting me in trouble, how 'bout a little irony? Or borderline irony--you know, kind of like that Alanis Morissette song "Isn't It Ironic?" in which almost nothing she listed was, in fact, actually ironic. "A no smoking sign on your cigarette break" is sad (or maybe not--the life you save could be your own), but not really ironic.
And speaking of sad, have you heard the one about the new disorder affecting 5-10% of the population? It's called Same Sex Attraction Disorder, or SSAD.
I hadn't heard of it either, until very recently. It was all the rage at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly--in certain circles.
It's a recent thing, I guess. Not same sex attraction. That's as old as the hills. But the redefinition of it as a disorder is new. In the early seventies, all of the major psychiatric and psychological associations stopped classifying homosexuality as a disorder.
So guess who is reordering us disordered?
If you said NARTH, take ten dollars from petty cash. If you don't know who NARTH is, take twenty dollars and stop reading now. Go to a movie. You are blessed and I don't want to corrupt you.
Okay, for those who are still reading, NARTH is the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. NARTH promotes...wait for it...reparative therapy for gay men and lesbians. Members of the Association wear black capes and plastic face masks and duel with light sabers...oh hang on, that's a different group.
NARTH sells the snake oil of "conversion" to disturbed parents and desparate gay and lesbian people who believe that it is impossible to be gay and happy. (snicker snicker)
That's the point: the invention of this new disorder is an in-your-face reminder that those of us who are attracted to our own gender aren't gay, we're ssad. I can't quite figure out who invented SSAD, but if you Google it, the first thing that comes up is NARTH. If you try Wikipedia--which I do, but only for stuff like this--you won't find an entry on SSAD, but you will find a guy named Richard Cohen, who wrote a book in 2001 called Coming Out Straight. In that book, he used the term Same Sex Attraction Disorder. If you want to read about him, go to Wiki yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Cohen
Mr. Cohen is kind of creepy, and I don't want to take too much space on my blog for him, and his "holding therapy."
I just want to know why these folks can't simply accept the fact that a lot of gay and lesbian people are reasonably happy, productive members of society. We're not disordered (at least not because we're gay), and we're not hurting anybody. We make good teachers and soldiers and pastors, and, yes, florists and decorators.
Fix somebody who is broken, would ya?
And speaking of sad, have you heard the one about the new disorder affecting 5-10% of the population? It's called Same Sex Attraction Disorder, or SSAD.
I hadn't heard of it either, until very recently. It was all the rage at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly--in certain circles.
It's a recent thing, I guess. Not same sex attraction. That's as old as the hills. But the redefinition of it as a disorder is new. In the early seventies, all of the major psychiatric and psychological associations stopped classifying homosexuality as a disorder.
So guess who is reordering us disordered?
If you said NARTH, take ten dollars from petty cash. If you don't know who NARTH is, take twenty dollars and stop reading now. Go to a movie. You are blessed and I don't want to corrupt you.
Okay, for those who are still reading, NARTH is the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. NARTH promotes...wait for it...reparative therapy for gay men and lesbians. Members of the Association wear black capes and plastic face masks and duel with light sabers...oh hang on, that's a different group.
NARTH sells the snake oil of "conversion" to disturbed parents and desparate gay and lesbian people who believe that it is impossible to be gay and happy. (snicker snicker)
That's the point: the invention of this new disorder is an in-your-face reminder that those of us who are attracted to our own gender aren't gay, we're ssad. I can't quite figure out who invented SSAD, but if you Google it, the first thing that comes up is NARTH. If you try Wikipedia--which I do, but only for stuff like this--you won't find an entry on SSAD, but you will find a guy named Richard Cohen, who wrote a book in 2001 called Coming Out Straight. In that book, he used the term Same Sex Attraction Disorder. If you want to read about him, go to Wiki yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Cohen
Mr. Cohen is kind of creepy, and I don't want to take too much space on my blog for him, and his "holding therapy."
I just want to know why these folks can't simply accept the fact that a lot of gay and lesbian people are reasonably happy, productive members of society. We're not disordered (at least not because we're gay), and we're not hurting anybody. We make good teachers and soldiers and pastors, and, yes, florists and decorators.
Fix somebody who is broken, would ya?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Reasons I Need to Move, #27
I was about a mile from my home in beautiful suburban Lee's Summit, MO, yesterday when I noticed this bumper sticker on the car in front of me. At first I laughed, because I figured it must be satire--you know, kind of like the "Gay Shame Parade" article from the Onion that I posted, which apparently offended someone anonymous who took it literally, which one ought not to do with satire.
>Other empirical evidence which led me to conclude that the bumper sticker must have been satire: this car had no fewer than eight bumper stickers. The only people in Missouri who have that many bumper stickers, in my limited experience, are other leftist pinko Berkeley types like me.
>Empirical evidence which led me to conclude that the bumper sticker was, in fact, not meant as satire: well, I was in Lee's Summit (most recently made famous as the opening location of the movie Jesus Camp), AND the other bumper stickers all made specific reference to a particular branch of the military, except for the one which said "The Iraq War Is Keeping American Families Safe."
Really? American families are safer because thousands of members of those families are being killed and maimed in Iraq. Not to channel Jon Stewart too heavily, but really?
And you love wiretaps. Really? That's some effusive emotion to be ladling out on a surveillance technique. Whether the technique is invasive, unconstitutional, even immoral, or not, is beside the point. (Though worth considering sometime. Maybe the Congress will get on that in a few years...) But I've got to ask the person in that car in front of me one more time, because I just can't wrap my brain around this: do you really love wiretaps?
I love my wife. I love my dogs. I love my mother and my brother. I love our cat, though she just tolerates me. I've been known to say I love Lake Viking, our other residence in rural northern Missouri, where people are, generally, less right wing than my neighbors in Lee's Summit (see post title).
I've been known to say I love clam spaghetti. Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole. But I think it pales in comparison to "loving" wiretaps. I think no matter your political persuasion, it should be troubling that people are willing to take the discourse to this level. The level which says "I think my government ought to be allowed to do whatever it wants, as long as it promises that its actions are promoting the general welfare. And I will support my government, most especially its ever-expanding executive branch, with inflammatory rhetoric."
See, 'cause here's the thing. I really don't believe that the person driving that car really "loves" wiretaps. I'm willing to bet that the person driving that car wouldn't know a wiretap if it was right outsider her house, which it very well might be, though I'm sure it is her assumption that the FBI has carefully avoided tapping the lines of any red-blooded American, and is only listening in on terrorist communiques.
I'm also willing to bet that the person driving that car is a good person, with fine values--a parent (it was a big car), a taxpayer, a citizen. I'm willing to bet that she just wants to feel safe, wants her family to be safe, and feels a little bewildered that the safety rug seems to have been pulled out from underneath us. And in the absence of viable courses of action, sometimes you've just got to rely on your government, which is, after all, tasked with the job of keeping us safe.
But who protects us from ourselves? Who protects us from becoming so afraid that we're willing to say we love wiretaps?
I really wish that bumper sticker had been meant as satire.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I LOVE The Onion!
Posted in The Onion Daily Dispatch today: an article entitled "Small Town Holds Annual Gay Shame Parade."
The Onion is a satirical newspaper. Don't read this if you don't have a warped sense of humor like mine. I'd link it, but sometimes their links shift, so I'm just going to copy it (and hope that's not illegal...):
GRAND PLAINS, NE—A tight-knit rural Midwestern farming community commemorated the demonization of homosexuality Sunday with its annual Gay Shame Parade, a three-decade-old tradition that has become a cornerstone of the town's cultural identity.
The second-place float in this year's parade cruises down Grand Plains' picturesque Main Street.
The Onion is a satirical newspaper. Don't read this if you don't have a warped sense of humor like mine. I'd link it, but sometimes their links shift, so I'm just going to copy it (and hope that's not illegal...):
GRAND PLAINS, NE—A tight-knit rural Midwestern farming community commemorated the demonization of homosexuality Sunday with its annual Gay Shame Parade, a three-decade-old tradition that has become a cornerstone of the town's cultural identity.
The second-place float in this year's parade cruises down Grand Plains' picturesque Main Street.
"Every year, the whole town turns out to enjoy Nebraska's famous summer sunshine, sample foods, browse the craft bazaar, and shame homosexuals for their repulsive, decadent behavior," said Frank Mitchell, mayor of Grand Plains, NE and parade marshal. "This year was our biggest turnout yet. Everybody had so much fun ostracizing the gays."
The parade featured the usual assemblage of police cruisers, fire trucks, antique cars, and farm equipment, which local residents had draped in red-white-and-blue banners that read "Burn in the Eternal Flames of Hell!" City Councilman Fred Brandeen, this year's "Jesus," entertained children by making mock finger-wagging gestures of admonishment and passing out buttons bearing the parade's traditional slogan: "NO!" Members of the Grand Plains Area Wives Association followed behind with a 15-foot hand-sewn banner, cosponsored by Jerry's Auto Body, which read: "GPAWA and Jerry's Cringe To Think What You're Putting Your Family Through."
Organized every year by the Grand Plains City Council and a coalition of area churches, the Gay Shame Parade has been an annual event here since 1977, the year that citizens first became aware of gay people's existence.
"To see a whole community rally together like this around a good cause—it's really an inspiration," said Ellen Lundblom, a mother of four enjoying the festivities with her youngest son, first-time reveler Timmy, 3. "If I were a lesbian, this would have really made me feel awful about myself."
"My favorite part was the balloons," Timmy Lundblom said. "They had all different colors of angry frowny-faces on them."
The event got off to a rousing start with the Grand Plains High School Cougars marching band playing such classics as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers." The mood grew palpably more sober during the middle portion of the procession, as members of the Grand Plains Baptist Church marched with folded arms in stony, judgmental silence and stared at the spectators lining the streets as if to ask, "Are you gay?"
The spirit of levity returned, however, toward the parade's finish, which featured balloon giveaways, a float contest, and an appearance by 6-year-olds Christopher Weiland and Courtney Wendt, who were crowned "Junior Mister and Miss Heterosexual" on Saturday. The parade concluded with a group reading of Leviticus 20:13.
After the last bit of confetti fell, spectators praised the parade's highlights, including a float, presented by local Little League team the Tigers that depicts a mother, sitting alone with her head down on a kitchen table, crying. The first-place ribbon went to "Sodom and Gomorrah," a miniature version of the two Biblical cities engulfed in flames. The float's designer, McPhee's Department Store window dresser Bruce Carlson, was not able to accept his prize, however, as he was away visiting an aunt in Lawrence, KS for the weekend.
Despite the pageantry, parade organizers stressed that the event has a serious message.
"Everyone loves a parade," PTA chairwoman Agatha Buell said. "But it's about a lot more than the clowns, the decorations, and those Shriner fellows in their tiny cars. It's about making folks feel sickened by the deviant homosexual lifestyle, like God wants us to."
Spectators couldn't help but be delighted by the parade's surprise finale, when, after dutifully leading the marching band for the entire mile-long parade route, local music teacher Colin Atherton was marched past the county line and told never, ever to return.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Churchwide
I decided not to go to the Churchwide Assembly this year. The Assembly started on Monday, and I've spent the week wishing I was in Chicago with my ECP colleagues and other friends from all over the church. (ECP: Extraordinary Candidacy Project; a roster of Lutheran candidates and ministers who will not pledge allegiance to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy.)
There were good reasons not to go to Churchwide. I can't really afford it, since we made an unexpected trip to San Francisco for a friend's ordination in June. A good part of the Assembly's time will be taken up once again with the topic of "human sexuality" (which is Church Speak for "those gay and lesbian people." Just once I'd love to see the Assembly have a tense, emotional conversation about heterosexual sexual activity.)
It's hard to go to these things. People walk to microphones and offer impassioned pleas to keep openly gay and lesbian candidates from becoming rostered pastors in the denomination we love. It's hard not to take those pleas personally, even though (to my knowledge) none of those people have ever known me, and don't likely know any of us who are serving openly. They probably do know some closeted pastors, though they may not know they do.
Still, I wish I was there. There is a ministry in being present. So I will be present in prayer, and hope that others in my congregation and other congregations across the church are also present in prayer, invoking the Holy Spirit, who is most certainly spending the week in Chicago.
There were good reasons not to go to Churchwide. I can't really afford it, since we made an unexpected trip to San Francisco for a friend's ordination in June. A good part of the Assembly's time will be taken up once again with the topic of "human sexuality" (which is Church Speak for "those gay and lesbian people." Just once I'd love to see the Assembly have a tense, emotional conversation about heterosexual sexual activity.)
It's hard to go to these things. People walk to microphones and offer impassioned pleas to keep openly gay and lesbian candidates from becoming rostered pastors in the denomination we love. It's hard not to take those pleas personally, even though (to my knowledge) none of those people have ever known me, and don't likely know any of us who are serving openly. They probably do know some closeted pastors, though they may not know they do.
Still, I wish I was there. There is a ministry in being present. So I will be present in prayer, and hope that others in my congregation and other congregations across the church are also present in prayer, invoking the Holy Spirit, who is most certainly spending the week in Chicago.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Truth is Beauty
Lindsay Lohan got arrested. You may have been in Outer Mongolia and not heard about it yet. She was driving on a suspended license, with alcohol in her system and cocaine in her pocket.
The cocaine wasn't hers. It belongs to a friend, she says.
Barry Bonds is about to break Hank Aaron's home run record. The steroids in his pocket are something he knows nothing about. All he's ever used is an herbal cream his trainer gave him. Completely legal...unless someone was lying to him...
The Attorney General of the United States was on Capitol Hill again this week. He was called to explain the continued downward spiral in that cabinet department known (with increasing irony) as Justice. He explained nothing, beyond the fact that he apparently can't remember what he had for breakfast. How the man ever passed a bar exam is beyond me.
Okay, it's really not. Because, like virtually everyone else watching his performance (and there is truly no other word for it) before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't believe that he couldn't remember the things he said he couldn't remember.
Just like I don't believe that the cocaine in Lindsay Lohan's pocket belongs to a friend, and that Barry Bonds has never knowingly taken steroids.
In Bonds' case, it explains so much. I was a Big Time Giants Fan when we traded with Pittsburgh to allow Barry to come home to the Bay Area. I remember those first couple of years when my friends and I would marvel at his off-season conditioning. He just kept getting bigger. And we just thought he lifted a lot of weights. (Oh, and pinstripes are slimming, so a Giants uniform made him look bigger.)
Sometimes I long for that naivete. Because it sure seems like we're being lied to on a regular basis, and are becoming conditioned to simply accept it. The fact that Alberto Gonzalez is still the Attorney General is a travesty, but it seems like it's going to stay that way for a while. Just as we will continue an ill-advised, illegal, immoral war, the justification of which changes more than Lindsay Lohan's mug shots.
The cocaine wasn't hers. It belongs to a friend, she says.
Barry Bonds is about to break Hank Aaron's home run record. The steroids in his pocket are something he knows nothing about. All he's ever used is an herbal cream his trainer gave him. Completely legal...unless someone was lying to him...
The Attorney General of the United States was on Capitol Hill again this week. He was called to explain the continued downward spiral in that cabinet department known (with increasing irony) as Justice. He explained nothing, beyond the fact that he apparently can't remember what he had for breakfast. How the man ever passed a bar exam is beyond me.
Okay, it's really not. Because, like virtually everyone else watching his performance (and there is truly no other word for it) before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't believe that he couldn't remember the things he said he couldn't remember.
Just like I don't believe that the cocaine in Lindsay Lohan's pocket belongs to a friend, and that Barry Bonds has never knowingly taken steroids.
In Bonds' case, it explains so much. I was a Big Time Giants Fan when we traded with Pittsburgh to allow Barry to come home to the Bay Area. I remember those first couple of years when my friends and I would marvel at his off-season conditioning. He just kept getting bigger. And we just thought he lifted a lot of weights. (Oh, and pinstripes are slimming, so a Giants uniform made him look bigger.)
Sometimes I long for that naivete. Because it sure seems like we're being lied to on a regular basis, and are becoming conditioned to simply accept it. The fact that Alberto Gonzalez is still the Attorney General is a travesty, but it seems like it's going to stay that way for a while. Just as we will continue an ill-advised, illegal, immoral war, the justification of which changes more than Lindsay Lohan's mug shots.
Friday, July 27, 2007
How Jaded Are We?
Got this quote in an email from Sojourners today:
"Not surprisingly, the poll data showed that white evangelicals were somewhat more permissive toward torture than other religious groups."
This quote is from the New York Times. The Times may be biased. Oh, heck, The Times is most probably biased.
But still, how can it be "not surprising" that people who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ are "somewhat more permissive toward torture." Is it "not surprising" to The New York Times, or to the rest of us?
And if it's not surprising to the rest of us, are we outraged?
"Not surprisingly, the poll data showed that white evangelicals were somewhat more permissive toward torture than other religious groups."
This quote is from the New York Times. The Times may be biased. Oh, heck, The Times is most probably biased.
But still, how can it be "not surprising" that people who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ are "somewhat more permissive toward torture." Is it "not surprising" to The New York Times, or to the rest of us?
And if it's not surprising to the rest of us, are we outraged?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)