Thoughts on Swimming

Recently, I was accused of swimming in a stream that is not the main one. I have to say, I have never thought about that idea very much before. Though I am not entirely sure of the author’s motivation in making the comment, after a few days of reflection, I think my response is one of appreciation. This insight has opened up a whole new set of possibilities for me and my relationship with God.

See, I didn’t choose which stream to swim in, God chose it for me and said, “Hey little fishie, swim there.” All I can do is proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which God reveals to me through the presence of the Holy Spirit. All I can do is read the Bible, study the tradition, seek experiences with the living presence of Christ, and reflect on all of this using the gift of my rational mind. That’s all I can do. And when that is said and done, God says, “Look! Here is Andy Bryan’s stream. Swim and be happy, my little fishie!”

“But God,” I say, “This stream does not appear to be the Mainstream.”

“Not to worry; do not be afraid,” replies God. “It is yours. And it is a very nice stream. It’s where I want you to be for the time being.”

So, why is my stream not yours? I just don’t know – moot question. But I would like for you to show me. I want to hear about your stream, and why you swim in it. I am sure it is lovely! I know it must be, because I know that mine is. Will you let me tell you about my stream, and why I am swimming in it? Maybe after our conversation, I will decide to leap over into your stream, or you will decide to leap over into mine. Or maybe a little bit of my stream will spill over into yours and a little bit of yours will spill over into mine, and we’ll keep on swimming.

The only time I’m ever going to tell you that you may be swimming in a bad stream is if you are hurting other fishies in some way. Maybe your stream has been polluted or been dammed up or someone has built levees along the side and tried to steer its flow. I don’t know. But I do know that if your stream hurts others, this little fishie is going to say something about it. Likewise, I expect the same from you. If my stream is hurtful in some way, please let me know so that I can do something about it.

Too cheesy? Maybe a little bit. Oh, who am I kidding? This post is cheesier than Lambeau field on game day. But the metaphor gets the idea across, I think. And what’s wrong with a big fat cheesy metaphor every now and then?

God chose this stream for me; it may not be the main one, but it is mine. And I am going to swim here at least for a while longer.

Judicial Council Decision Made

Voting 5-4, the Judicial Council decided not to reconsider decisions 1031 and 1032. The UM News story is here, and includes some quotes from the concurring and dissenting opinions. I am pretty sure that I understand the reasoning for the decision, but am inclined to agree more with the four who signed the dissenting opinion than the three who signed the concurring one, of course.
My lament is not that we are a church that disagrees, it is that we are now a church that uses membership as a weapon against those with whom we happen to disagree. And so I ask, using the wisdom of Wesley, "But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we can't think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?"
Wesley's answer to this was, "Without a doubt we may."
Can we answer today with such assurance?

Finally Foster Parents!

After four months of going through the process, 30 hours of in class training, certification in medication, first aid, and CPR, home visits, interviews, and references from family and others - Erin and I received word this afternoon that our paperwork has been approved by the state and we are officially licensed to be foster parents! Now all that is left is to wait for a call from a case worker and prepare to receive a child or two.
Whew! We really need your prayers.

Why 1031? (Winner: Boringest Post Ever)

If you want to read a less boring post, go check out the one I wrote earlier today. This one is not very sexy, but it is a response that I really felt like I should make.

My friend Tim Sisk asked me (twice!) why I want Judicial Council decision 1031 reconsidered. Well, based on my limited knowledge of legal jargon and a rudimentary understanding of the Book of Discipline, here is my long, boring answer. (I hope someone will help me by correcting my misunderstandings wherever you see them!)

Decision 1031 distinguishes between a judicial complaint and an administrative allegation. It says that Bishop Kammerer was acting like this was an administrative allegation, but the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry was talking like it was a judicial complaint. The decision rules that, since the board was using judicial complaint language, the case at hand was in fact “transformed” into a judicial complaint and not an administrative allegation, and therefore the Annual Conference lost jurisdiction.

A judicial complaint is some disobedience, a “chargeable offense,” meaning that the pastor disobeyed Episcopal or connectional authority, and so judicial proceedings ensue. On the other hand, an administrative allegation, like “unwillingness to perform ministerial duties,” can be handled without involvement of the judiciary at all. And so, the Judicial Council had to make ruling 1031 in order to be able to make ruling 1032. That’s what Stephen Fife was saying in his comment a while back – without 1031, there would be no 1032. By making the ruling on 1031, the Judicial Council in effect gave themselves jurisdiction to look at making a ruling on 1032.

But in fact the JC's jurisdiction is very slim, by their own admission, since the question originally came to them as a parliamentary question, and they do not rule on parliamentary questions. But they very conveniently point out that, "However, parliamentary inquiry is clearly not the focus of the member’s inquiry." In other words, the JC was responding to what the member meant to ask, rather than what the member actually asked.

And beyond that, I disagree with 1031 because I think the matter was administrative, not judicial, and so the Judicial Council had no jurisdiction in the matter. I think the issue at hand is not disobedience to authority, but rather a minister unwilling to perform his duties. These duties were being pointed out to him by the Bishop, to be sure. But I simply cannot understand this as a judicial matter. The Judicial Council was splitting legal hairs in order to claim jurisdiction over a matter that was not theirs.

With that said, I do think the Virginia Board of Ordained Ministry set itself up for this, however. In their words, “[Johnson’s] unwillingness already threatens the authority of those who are charged to supervise him. For him to continue would only confuse and erode our understandings of connectional authority and boundary.” This language all but ensured that the Judicial Council would be able to get involved with the case. It appears as though Bishop Kammerer and the Virginia BOOM were not exactly on the same page.

So this is why I think 1031 needs to be reconsidered, as well as 1032. I hope that, where I have my understanding wrong about 1031, somebody will correct me. Now go read something less boring!

"To Stir The Conversation Once More"

With an entry line like that, I just couldn't allow what followed to remain buried in the comments. So, in case you didn't read it in response to my last post, here is what "A" (aka Ashley for short) has to say to "stir the conversation."

Third, to stir the conversation once more... Several years ago, I read an interesting argument (from a guy named R. Scroggs I think) asserting that the Hebrew and NT scriptures addressing homosexuality were very likely condemning pedophilic homosexual acts (older males utilizing young boys for sexual gratification) instead of covenanted relationships between two consenting adults of the same gender. Further, he asserts that covenanted relationships between two consenting adults of the same gender did not exist in the same way they do today. If it is at all possible that the HB and NT scriptures were primarily addressing pedophilia instead of covenanted relationships in their historical context and not ours, how could and should the contemporary UM church (the general conference and judicial council in particular) respond?

Excellent question! Here's my answer:
1 - One possible response is to attack the interpretation for not honoring the Bible as God's infallible Word. 2 - A second would be to differ with the interpretation and offer another one, perhaps even displaying the same kind of in depth, thoughtful, faithful study, contemplation, and analysis, but coming to honestly different conclusions. 3 - A third response might be to agree with this interpretation but continue to accept the status quo in the UM church. 4 - Response number four might be to agree with this interpretation and work diligently to change the language of our denomination to reflect it. 5 - Finally, one might respond to this interpretation by blindly adopting it as the only possible way to explain things, and demonize any who hold a contrary interpretation.

My (biased) observation is that a lot of people have response number 1 and number 4, a bunch of others are at response number 3, and not too many respond with number 2. Only a very tiny number are truly at response number 5. And it is the people with a response number 2 that I value most in the dialogue, because they differ from me and are able to actually converse about things without degrading into a pointless shouting match. (Said another way: They are "foxes" rather than "hedgehogs.")

What about it, A? Others? Conversation has been stirred...

Judicial Council Meeting in KC

The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church has been meeting for the past few days here in Kansas City. (Well, Overland Park, Kansas, to be precise!) I have been there all three days, for an hour or more each day, to be in prayer for the members of the Council and to witness to my belief in the profound inclusivity of God’s grace as is manifest in the church of Jesus Christ. The Council's sessions were closed, so we gathered in the lobby of the hotel, just outside the door of the room in which the meetings were happening.

At the meeting, I joined members of the Reconciling Ministries Network, including staffers Troy Plummer and Sue Laurie. Students and faculty from Saint Paul School of Theology, and several local pastors and church folks were there, also. The main reason for the witnessing presence there was the possibility that the Council may decide to reconsider their decisions 1031 and 1032.

The case goes like this, in a nutshell: A pastor in Virginia named Ed Johnson refused to give church membership to a man on the basis of the man’s sexual orientation. As a result, in June Rev. Johnson was placed on involuntary leave by his conference. In October, the Judicial Council reinstated Johnson, and his bishop, Charlene Kammerer reappointed him to the same congregation. Then Bishop Kammerer and the Virginia Board of Ordained Ministry filed separate motions asking the Judicial Council to reconsider. These motions came before the Council this week.

The most remarkable thing about this week happened this morning, when the Judicial Council invited the members of RMN and the other witnesses to celebrate communion together. The service was led by Bishop Fritz Mutti, retired from Kansas, and Dr. Myron McCoy, president of Saint Paul School of Theology. I was not present, but when I arrived later in the morning, those who had been present described it as a wonderful, holy moment. The power of the common loaf and cup was manifest in the ritual, as people who find themselves quite firmly on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the issue at hand shared together in the sacramental grace of Christ.

All in all, the week was a profound experience for me. I have done protests, vigils, and marches for various things before, but I was particularly struck this time by the gentle relentlessness by which the witnesses carried themselves. There was a calm assurance in the faces of the people there, a strong hopefulness that was inviting and inspiring. We were encouraged all week long to form relationships, both with one another and with members of the Judicial Council, because sexual orientation is not an “issue” to be resolved by a judicial decision or a legislative decree. “Issues” always have faces attached to them, and when the faces become people, and the people become friends, it is far more difficult to simply write someone off as an unrepentant sinner and deny them membership into your church.

One of the neatest elements of our witness was a half dozen doors sent by as many United Methodist congregations in the San Francisco area. These congregations had literally removed a door in their church buildings and painted messages of support and encouragement on them, urging the Council to reconsider the decisions. The doors were painted with bright colors, and filled with the signatures of the congregants. Throughout the week, witnesses in Kansas City held up these doors on behalf of our brothers and sisters in California. (My friend Mandy is going to email me some pictures so that I can post them here.)

The Judicial Council may decide not to reconsider the decisions at all, or to reconsider them at their fall meeting, or they may have gone ahead and reconsidered them this week. Their decisions will be posted on the United Methodist Website, probably early next week.

Reverend Photog

I've started a new blog here called "Reverend Photog" where I intend to post only pictures I've taken. The plan is to post one a day, and I invite you to check it out.

Theodicy Question – the 5-year-old Perspective

My son Wesley is five. Today in the car he said, “Daddy, I just thought of something.” Now, whenever Wes says something like this, I buckle my mental seat belt, because I know that the road ahead is fraught with twists and turns.

Wes continued, “Is Jesus inside of our bodies and controlling us, like whenever we move our arms Jesus is controlling that?”

Hmm … free will, predestination, incarnation – pick your doctrine.

I punted: “Well, what do you think, Wesley?”

“Yeah, I think so. Jesus is inside of us, and he wants us to do good things, so he is probably controlling what we do.”

After a pause, I asked him, “Well, why do you think that people do bad things sometimes?”

Wes did not hesitate, “I think they are like fighting against Jesus, when he wants them to do something they have to fight against him inside and then do something else.”

This is as good an answer to the theodicy question as I have ever heard. Basically, he was saying what Paul said, “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” But Wes was not done.

“And then, once they get done fighting Jesus, they just go ahead and do what Jesus wants them to,” he said.

“When are they done fighting?” I asked.

Wesley thought a moment, then said, “I guess they just get all tired out from fighting so much.”

Then, since we had arrived at preschool, Wesley said, “I’ll race you to the door,” and took off across the lawn without waiting for an answer.

Vegetarian Tendencies Explained At Last!

When asked why I choose not to eat very much meat, I have always had trouble formulating an answer. It is not really a moral stance; it is not really for health reasons; it is not against my religion exactly. I have told people in a pretty vague way that I have a desire to eat lower on the food chain, or I just “don’t like meat,” or just that I really, really like vegetables and fruit.

But now, at long last, I have some language to put into my rationale. According to Rabbi Marc Gellman, the "God Squad" guy, and a “guilt-ridden carnivore”:

The problem is that animals, though obviously not people, are also obviously not things. Animals are sentient beings and their deaths, particularly in the grotesquery of what is euphemistically called food processing causes them great pain and suffering. That is the nub of the spiritual problem. Animals are God's creations that, unlike plants, suffer when they die just to become food for us.

A friend at church sent me the link to his article, which you can read by clicking here. (It’s pretty short.) In it, Gellman writes that there is a “high Torah” and a “low Torah” in the Bible. The “high Torah” articulates how things are to be in God’s realm. Failing to attain that, we ought to at the very least follow the “low Torah.” It is kind of like having a minimum speed limit on the interstate, “Well if you are not going to drive 65, at least keep it above 45.”

His idea is that the highest law of God gives human beings all kinds of plants to eat, but no animals. But since people desire meat, God gave some other rules to follow in the meantime. Like, don’t eat the meat with the blood still in it, for example.

Rabbi Gellman tells gives this midrash to make his point:

The First Hamburger
Once animals talked just like people. Once every living creature ate only grass and nuts and a few berries when they could find them. No living thing ever thought about killing another living thing to eat it, until the day Noah wanted a hamburger.
One night Noah dreamed of a hamburger, and when he woke up, he wanted one really badly. But Noah wasn't exactly sure how to get a hamburger, so he asked his friend the cow, “I dreamed about a hamburger last night. Do you know where I can get one?”
The cow gave Noah a puzzled look and asked, “What's a hamburger?”
“I don't know exactly,” Noah replied. “All I know is that in my dream the hamburger was something delicious between two buns with lettuce, onions, pickles and some special sauce.”
“Have some more grass and forget about it,” said the cow.
Noah asked the snake, who was the smartest of all the animals, “What's a hamburger and how can I get one?”
The snake whispered in Noah's ear, “To get one you have to make one.”
“I don't know how to make one.” Noah sputtered.
The snake laughed, pointed at the cow who was peacefully munching some grass, and said to Noah, “To make a hamburger, you have to kill that cow, chop up her meat, and fry it in a pan--or flame broil it!”
Noah's mouth opened wide, “But...but...the cow is my friend! She is a living thing just like me! I can't kill her, chop up her meat and fry it in a pan! And what is flame broiling anyway?”
By now the snake was rolling around on the ground laughing, “Kid, if you want a hamburger, that's what you gotta do.”
Well...Noah really wanted a hamburger and so that's what he really did! The first hamburger tasted delicious. But when Noah came again to the fields everything was different. When he walked towards the birds, they flew away. When Noah went over to say hello to the cows and the sheep and the buffalo, they ran away from him. Even the fish swam away when they heard Noah coming.
Noah could not understand what had happened to his friends the animals, and he could not find one single animal that would explain it to him. In fact, since the day Noah ate the first hamburger, no animal has ever talked to a person. They are still too angry.

Eat your veggies, everyone!

Cultural Erosion from Within

A bit more thought about the erosion of culture, from my perspective, drawing from the ideas of President Jimmy Carter:

In his book Our Endangered Values, Carter describes American culture, writing that “our people have been justifiably proud to see America’s power and influence used to preserve peace for ourselves and others, to promote economic and social justice, to raise high the banner of freedom and human rights, to protect the quality of our environment, to alleviate human suffering, to enhance the rule of law, and to cooperate with other peoples to reach these common goals.”

The premise of his book is that all this has been and is being threatened by the rise of conservative fundamentalism in religion and government. These neo-fundamentalists (my term) have some dominant characteristics, according to Carter:
1 - Led mostly by “authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others.”
2 - Generally believe that “the past is better than the present” but are not averse to embracing aspects of the modern world as long as they help the cause.
3 - Distinguish themselves from others by claiming “they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant or possibly evil.”
4 - Militantly, angrily, and sometimes violently protect their beliefs and agenda.
5 - Define themselves narrowly, isolate themselves, and “view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.”

It is funny how this list is equally applicable to church people as well as government people. Picture Donald Rumsfeld and then go back and read the list again. To a tee! Now try it with James Dobson. … see what I mean? This fact illuminates the alarming blurring of the boundary between the church and the government in our country. (And by the way, I wonder if this makes things worse for the church or for the government.)

As an American, I want my country to be the way President Carter describes it above – peace, justice, freedom, and all that.

As a Christian, I want my church to be the body of Christ, the cosmic expression of the love and grace of God – unity, acceptance, liberation, and all that.

I have neither one.

In short, I’m not so much worried about immigrants eroding away the American culture; I am worried about my fellow Americans doing so. And so, I would kindly request that all you fundamentalists out there who are ever so subtly stealing away both my country and my church please return them. (I'll start checking area "Lost and Found" booths this weekend.)

Addressing John

One of the best parts about being in respectful dialogue with someone who disagrees with you is that you are compelled to clarify your own perspective. John of Locusts & Honey and I have been in a dialogue of sorts via our blogs around the issue of immigration. In one of his latest posts, John addresses two of my ideas.

First, I wrote this:
Myth - Prosperity is inherently good. Truth - In addition to a lot of good, prosperity leads also to greed, envy, ulcers, and a mile-a-minute pace of life that is not conducive good health.
In response, John wrote this:
If you think that wealth is stressful, you ought to try poverty!
He points out that escaping poverty and attaining prosperity is one of the basic motivators for immigration to this country, which makes the case that prosperity is preferable to poverty. And he correctly asserts that having regular meals and electricity is a good thing. And I agree.

But he has missed my point. I know that prosperity leads to a lot of good, and fully agree with John that poverty is not a desirable state of being. My point is that it is a fallacy to believe that prosperity is good in and of itself. I am not comparing prosperity to poverty here. I am holding up prosperity all by itself to judge it on its own. And my assessment is that inherently, by its own merits, prosperity is a neutral phenomenon. It is what we make of our prosperity that makes it good or bad.

Second, I wrote this:
Myth - there is an American culture. Truth - America is now and always has been vibrantly diverse.
In response, John wrote this:
It's hard to define the self because it's the default 'normal'.
This is a wonderful point! John goes on to say, correctly I think, that it is a good idea to step back and look at one’s self and one’s group from different perspectives, and in so doing one can discover one’s culture. And here I am in the “amen corner” on that, too, in total agreement.

But here’s how we get to the myth: When many people say the “American culture,” I think that they mean the Wal-Mart way of life. (Or, if you prefer, the McDonald’s way of life.) This is what passes for culture in our nation – everything cheap and easily accessible, monolithic and monochromatic.

But really, culture is a rich word, with numerous levels of definition. Here is a quick one from dictionary.com:
1. a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
Other definitions also include the idea of transmission to succeeding generations in the definition. The word is related to the word “cultivate,” which implies the encouragement of health and growth.

Culture, therefore, is a big, big concept. It seems to me that many in America have reduced our culture to an individualized striving to gain and maintain as much material wealth as possible, living in a beige suburban sameness, and accessing the world via automated drive through windows, televisions, and computer screens.

So, I do not think that America is devoid of culture, rather I think that in spite of what many Americans seem to think, America does not have a single monolithic culture. And therein lies the myth. John and I agree on this point more than he lets on, I think. He writes, “All nations are complex entities, the US included.” That’s what I’m sayin’!

Finally, I would like to apologize for a perception that I did not mean to propagate in a previous post, the perception that John calls the “Speedy Gonzalez stereotype.” Please, please understand that in no way shape or form was I intending anyone to read that as negatively stereotyping of Latino culture. Stereotyping is wrong and I abhor the practice. With that said, I completely understand how John got the idea that that’s what was happening here. Just to clarify, I am not implying laziness, but rather a completely different approach to life that very well may enhance our American culture, rather than threaten it. (See the aforementioned “greed, envy, ulcers, and a mile-a-minute pace of life that is not conducive good health,” for example.)

Hey, this is fun! I like dialogue, and I think using the blogosphere to exchange ideas and perceptions is a good thing. I especially like it when a person whom I respect but with whom I disagree is able to articulate our differences in a way that leads to ongoing conversation. John does that very well, and I look forward to more.

Bail Us Out!

I've been ARRESTED along with our church's preschool director, Spring! Click here to help bail us out. Ahhh! Help, help! Oh, the shame of it all ...

Okay, so I'm not really arrested, it's a Muscular Dystrophy Association fundraiser. But seriously, if you want to contribute to MDA, just click here and follow the directions. Thanks!

Spark of Hope?

Israel says at this time they are not going to retaliate militarily for the recent attack in Tel Aviv. I found the story here.

I can't help but feel a tiny little spark of hope at this news. I pray that spark is not quenched, but fear that it might be. Even so, this gesture is remarkable.

"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." - A.J. Muste

For They Know Not What They Do

"I forgive Anthony Warren. What he done to me was wrong," she said. "But I still forgive him."

Real forgiveness probably hurts a lot. It can make you cry. But ultimitately, "Doing the right thing makes you happy."

This is the wisdom of 5 year old Kai Leigh Harriott who was paralyzed from her chest down 3 years ago when Anthony Warren fired a gun at the house where Kai Leigh was sitting on the porch. That bullet shattered Kai Leigh's spine. Warren pleaded guilty yesterday and was sentenced to 13-15 years in prison. It was during these court proceedings that Kai Leigh spoke her words of forgiveness to the man who shot her.

At 5 years old, a lot of what Kai Leigh knows about forgiveness she learned from her mom, who not only spoke gently with Anthony Warren in the courtroom, but actually embraced him. She embraced the man who shot her little girl. How many of us could do that?

And if you watch video of Kai Leigh on the Boston Globe website, you can see something else there, something that comes from within her. She is strong. She is happy. She is not a victim. She is a five year old girl. And she bounces, smiles, and dances with all the energy that a five year old kid is supposed to have, a testimony of the unconquerable vigor of the human spirit, and of the mysterious power of forgiveness to transform lives.

You remember Jesus's response to the soldiers who executed him? He forgave them. That probably hurt. It may have even made him cry a little bit. But still he forgave them. Because it was the right thing to do. This week, a 5 year old girl in Boston understands that better than anyone.

Death and Resurrection

I’m becoming far too good at funerals. A lot of practice just lately. I pretty much have the United Methodist liturgy memorized.

“Dying, Christ destroyed our death. Rising, Christ restored our life. Christ will come again in glory…” And so on.

In a Service of Death and Resurrection, “the facts of death and bereavement are honestly faced, and the gospel of resurrection is celebrated in the context of God’s baptismal covenant with us in Christ” (from the UM liturgy). In other words, we cry and laugh at the same time. There is no emotional language to adequately describe that sensation, laughing with tears running down your cheeks, crying with a smile on your face. But that’s what happens at funerals. We cry because of the pain; we laugh because of the love. And vice versa.

This week Christians live out the death and resurrection of Jesus. Death on Friday, resurrection on Sunday. In just three short days, death and resurrection, the whole kit and kaboodle. Wow. Seems so, I don’t know … anticlimactic, doesn’t it?

I had a memorial service today, another on Friday morning. Seems like we’ve been doing about one per week the past two months. That’s a lot of death. Kind of sucks your energy out, you know? More than that, it just kind of sucks. I’m drained.

There is a prayer in the liturgy that says, “Help us to live as those who are prepared to die. And when our days here are accomplished, enable us to die as those who go forth to live, so that living or dying, our life may be in you, and that nothing in life or in death will be able to separate us from your great love in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

To live as if I am prepared to die…

At a funeral, you tell stories about the person who has died: funny stories, sad stories, ordinary stories mostly. “You remember the time when …” “I love how she always used to …” “One thing about Daddy, he always said that …” Then you laugh together, sharing the memory, sharing the life. And you cry, sharing the pain, sharing the death. And somehow in the midst of that you experience resurrection. Maybe not fully, maybe not crystal clear, but you get a glimpse, anyway.

Maybe that’s what Easter should be, just a group of Jesus’ friends sitting around telling stories about the way he used to feed the hungry and heal the sick, laughing and crying at the same time, glimpsing resurrection.

The Gospel of Judas - Too Cute!

I just read the Gospel of Judas. (National Geographic has it posted as a .pdf file on their website.) My assessment = it’s ADORABLE!

Some observations:
First of all: Jesus is laughing all the time. He laughs at the disciples when they don’t understand something, he laughs at Judas for trying too hard, he even laughs at the “error of the stars,” which as far as I can tell means something about the destruction of the wicked. His laughter comes easily and gives Jesus kind of a carefree air about him. It’s actually nice, a refreshing picture of a Jesus with emotion.

Second thing: it is very, very Gnostic. Jesus is always telling Judas that he is going to tell him all the secret stuff he needs to know. The document itself is filled with obscure, even bizarre cosmology, talking about some twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries and the six heavens for each aeon, which makes like seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and then each of them’s got some five firmaments up in their house, which totals three hundred sixty firmaments, word. (See, I told you it was adorable!)

Third thing: there is a lot of stuff missing, such that it is very difficult to read at times. For example, Judas asks Jesus at one place if the human spirit dies. Seems like a pretty important question! Jesus’ answer is, “This is why God ordered Michael to give the spirits of people to them as a loan, so that they might offer service, but the Great One ordered Gabriel to grant spirits to the great generation with no ruler over it – that is, the spirit and the soul. Therefore, the [rest] of the souls [—one line missing—].” …Gaa! I mean, come on! You just get to the “therefore” and it is gone?!?! What a TEASE! At one point, we actually get this helpful note: “About 17 lines missing.” (Isn’t that just too cute!)

Fourth thing: naturally, Judas looks a whole lot better in this one that he does in the others, say, the Gospel of John, for instance. You almost get the idea that somebody, a couple centuries into it, said, “I’m sick and tired of my main man Judas getting such a bad rap. I’m gonna do something about that!” But the author goes a little overboard, and makes Judas seem like a Rabbi’s pet. I kept waiting for the scene where Judas brings Jesus a nice, shiny, red apple. (No wonder the other disciples didn’t like him!)

Fifth thing: there truly are some beautiful moments that are worth reading. You will not be corrupted by reading it, just confused. But you should read it for the sake of the three or four wonderful, poetic moments of clarity. And it also helps us get a glimpse into the variety of expressions early Christianity took, and as such is a tool for understanding Christian history a little bit better.

The Gospel of Judas is not scripture, it is a document of heresy, but it shouldn’t shake the foundations of anybody’s faith too awful much. It is hard to read because of the confusing Gnostic references and the gaps in the text itself. But read it, and tell me if you don’t just want to pinch its little cheeks and tell it how adorable it is!

A Glimpse of the Eschaton

I got a glimpse of God’s reign Monday at the Royals game.

Yes, the Royals lost (and they lost again today) – nothing new there. Yes, there were the usual inebriated jackasses – nothing new there. Yes, there was a young woman in the right field stands flashing her breasts at anyone in the crowd in exchange for a drink of their beer – somebody remind me what dignity means, again? Yes, there was an enormous crowd and it took us forever to get into and out of the stadium – that will only happen on opening day, guaranteed.

But in spite of all that stuff, I am sure that I witnessed a little bit of the reign of God on earth. Now, this is a metaphor, and all metaphors are limited, and this particular metaphor may be more limited than most, but nonetheless there it was. It all started when my son had to go potty.

“Dad, I gotta go potty,” said Wes. He never plans ahead, but waits until the last possible moment to consider his pottying options.

“Okay, let’s go,” I replied, and we made our way out of our aisle, trying not to step on our neighbors’ feet as we passed (“Dad, I really gotta go!”), up the steps (“It’s a ‘mergency!”), and out into the concession area (“DAD, HURRY!”) … where we found a line of about fifty men backed up coming out of the Men’s bathroom door. Damn.

And here is where the grace of God was made manifest. Apparently, the sight of a five year old boy who really, really needs to go to the bathroom, face contorted in the effort, hands clutching his … jeans … in hopes of preventing an overflow, is enough to make even fifty beery men feel enough of a twinge of compassion to give up their place in line and allow someone else’s need to come before their own. Every man in the line – young, old, white, black, Hispanic, rich, poor, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever – every single one gave up his own place to allow Wes and me to go into the bathroom first. It was a truly universal moment.

We passed by man after man, saying, “Sorry, he really has to go” and “Excuse me, we have a real emergency here” and “Do you mind, he’s about to blow” and stuff like that. Not a single complaint, not a single ugly remark, not a single grouchy protest came our way. All the way up the line, through the door, and to the row of urinals we wove through the crowd. And (pause for dramatic effect) … we made it!

As silly as it sounds, I was actually moved by the gesture. The fifty men in the line, as different as they were, were in that moment united in their compassion for one suffering child. Each one could relate to the situation, I am sure, and so each one displayed a bit of empathy – EVERY one of them. I would understand if three or four had shouted out “HEY!” or “Watch it, buddy!” or something. But no one did. Not a single man.

It was a glimpse of God’s reign on earth because the diversity of that line of fifty men was absolutely united in this gesture of compassion to a stranger. They came together as one in order to help a fellow traveler reach the journey’s end. Yes, it is an insignificant, silly little story. But the church would do well to take a lesson here. That which divides us is not as powerful as that which unites us. And when all is said and done, the powerful force of unity in the cause of serving a neighbor is indeed a glimpse of the fulfillment of God's desire for creation.

Immigration: The Pro-Siesta Perspective

What is “the American culture?”

One of the sub-issues in the larger immigration issues is the argument that immigrants from south of the border are eroding the American culture (meaning, for sake of brevity, the United States’ culture). The argument is: we should exclude immigrants in order to prevent the “subversion of the American culture by massive numbers of Mexican immigrants, who have surplanted (sic) our culture for theirs in large parts of the country with no apparent plans of assimilating. I support this position because I believe that American culture is, for various reasons, worth defending,” writes John from Locusts & Honey.

I am not sure what exactly this entity called the “American culture” is. One thing is certain; it is not as monochromatic as many seem to think. We are an enormous, diverse nation of people of all walks of life, all ages, all races, all nations including those native to this country, all economic classes. We have soul bands and symphonies; sprawling suburbs and crowded cities and tiny little towns; cat people and dog people; Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans; NPR and WWF; etc. etc. Will the real “American culture” please stand up?

It seems to me that identifying the American culture might mean pointing to some of the principles that undergird the milieu I hint at above. Freedom is right up there. Individuality. The pursuit of happiness, and all that jazz. Are these things “culture?” I’m not sure.

Whatever “American culture” is, I think it is clear that one of its most noticeable aspects is its frantic pace. Fast food restaurants, microwave ovens, garage door openers – so much of what we do as a nation is designed to make things happen faster. We are impatient when our computer takes too long to boot up. Our attention spans have been shortened by years of Sesame Street and MTV. Recently I played an online computer game that involves playing four different simple games at the same time on the same screen.

Maybe the United States of America could use a siesta. Maybe an influx of Latino culture would be good for us, in that it would slow us down a little bit. I am definitely over-generalizing here, and running the risk of stereotyping, but there is an observable distinction between the pace of life in North America and the pace of life in Central and South America. I have traveled south of our border three times, to Mexico, Guatemala, and Brazil, and each time there was a palpable lessening of intensity and a more relaxed approach to life in general.

Traveling by boat on the Amazon River to visit a village in the forest, our seminary group had nothing to do but swing on our hammocks and watch the river for 24 hours straight. That, for me, symbolizes the slower pace of life exhibited by our neighbors to the south. Things happen slower, with more intentionality. We have the rat race, rush-rush-rush, gotta meet the deadline kind of life. As opposed to: spend an hour in conversation with a friend, linger over lunch, close your eyes in the afternoon, dinner after dark, and what doesn’t get done today will wait until tomorrow.

Passion for life, devotion to family, the rhythm of the tango, hospitality toward strangers, hand-made corn tortillas hot right off the griddle - these things are good, and not to be feared! In other words, far from being a negative thing, maybe the influence of Hispanic culture in the United States would “erode” some of what is bad here, one example of which is our frantic pace of life. I mean, who couldn’t use a siesta now and then?

Story Time, Everyone!

There is power in personal story. I have linked to three, and invite you to read them at your leasure.

Click here to read a story about a death in the family. (Hat tip.)

Click here to read a story about the experience of being gay in our country.

Click here to read a story about a soldier returning to Iraq after being discharged. (Hat tip.)

Enjoy your reading!

Rambling Thoughts: Preachers

(The following is a post written by Bishop Monk Bryan, my grandfather, whose "rambling thoughts" about God, church, and life in general may become a periodic feature of Enter the Rainbow, depending on how freely he will offer them!)

Of the couple of dozen+ preachers I have heard, most are difficult at times to understand. Though my hearing is not what it was 40 years ago, it is still pretty good. Maybe some of the problem is in the acoustics or speaker system. But most of it is with the preachers.

Going back to [my father, Rev.] Gid J. Bryan about 1938 - every congregation has people with varying degrees of hearing. It is a strain to have to try to hear. Such a person will try for a while, then tire, and close off the sermon. For those people, the preacher may as well shut up and go home.

It is not so much a matter of volume as of pronunciation and projection of voice. [As a preacher in Columbia, Missouri], I used to go into the sanctuary when people were least likely to be there (the doors were always unlocked), take with me the copy of some sermon by some good preacher, and read it aloud from the pulpit. Sometimes I would concentrate on enunciation; sometimes on projection to various areas of the sanctuary, or timing and pauses, or gestures. And I would still get something of the sermon and the preaching style.

Lots of preachers look down a lot. (PREACHING BY READING FROM A MANUSCRIPT IS NOT GOOD.) Others weave their heads from side to side across a mike that functions well in a narrow range of positions.

I have been in a number of services of Holy Communion - thanks be. How, O how, can we ministers read and speak that magnificent ritual in a way that conveys its richness, depth, and meaning? Some go through it in a monotone. [I know one who] reads it as if he wants to get it over with as fast as possible. Do we need to use every sentence of the ritual?

By chance, I watched a Presbyterian minister on TV; maybe an old guy in his late 60s. Obviously, the ritual meant a great deal to him. Inflection, timing, pauses, variation in emphasis and volume. It was so meaningful, I did not care how long it lasted.

Immigration Reform: Item 3

God’s realm is bigger than our nation.

Here’s an idea from Inder Comer writing at Demand More dot org. Click here to read it all.
(Hat tip to Adam C.)

“The land itself contains no dividers -- it is humans, and humans alone, who have cut up the land into different entities. What difference does it make what language my neighbor speaks, or what god he worships? If he is my neighbor, then I have a duty to treat him as such, and he to me. When a man asks another for food to eat or water to drink, what person with a shred of decency would stop to ask for his documents?”

The line drawn between the United States and Mexico is meaningless in God’s eyes. So the question is, “Is it meaningless in ours?” I guess the question also impels us to ask whose concerns we place at the top of our list, our God’s or our country’s. Clearly the United States of America can set any kind of immigration policy it wants to, and right now the nation is headed toward tighter borders. The goal of this move seems to be protecting U.S. lives from terrorists and U.S. jobs from foreigners.

Okay, so I understand that. But should we place that national interest ahead of God’s interest in justice for the poor and hospitality for strangers? I’m not going to do that.

So can we do both? Can we meet our God’s desire for justice AND our nation’s desire for security? I suppose we need to say that if this is an either/or situation, we’re pretty much going to have to go with what God wants. But maybe this is a both/and kind of thing. Maybe there is someplace in between “let them all in” and “kick them all out” where we can all be happy.

From what I have read so far, Senator John McCain’s bill in the Senate comes pretty close to that compromise, at least from the perspective of the nation, but it is headed to a major smack-down conflict with Representative James Sensenbrenner’s bill in the House. These two bills are pretty far apart, and it is not likely that they will be easily reconciled. McCain’s (S.1033) allows immigrants to work, but sets up a pretty rigorous process to make that possible. Sensenbrenner’s (H.R. 4437) just kicks the criminals out, period. The House bill is grounded firmly in the current national ethos that demands stronger borders. The Senate bill is grounded in cautious hospitality that does not go as far as the radical inclusivity of God, but at least faces that direction.

God’s realm is so much bigger than our nation, and neighbors are neighbors regardless of the coincidental circumstances of their various countries of birth. And even if we can’t acknowledge that truth as Americans, can we not at least acknowledge it as children of God?

I am going to encourage my legislative representatives to support the Senate bill, because it is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. But in the meantime I am going to continue to be a pastor and a Christian and a neighbor practicing the radical hospitality that God desires. And that means that, if you want to be my friend, I will not ask you for your papers first.

Update: John the Methodist has written a post about immigration that contrasts with mine. Check it out by clicking here.

Immigration Reform: Item 2

My previous post laid some of the theological framework for the issue of immigration reform. This post will lift up some of what the United Methodist Church has to say on the issue.

The Social Principles of our denomination say, “The rights and privileges a society bestows upon or withholds from those who comprise it indicate the relative esteem in which that society holds particular persons and groups of persons.
“We affirm all persons as equally valuable in the sight of God. We therefore work toward societies in which each person’s value is recognized, maintained, and strengthened.”

Interpretation of this principle hinges in part on what is meant by “those who comprise [a society].” If “those who comprise” the United States are only legal citizens, then this principle does not apply to undocumented immigrants. But if the phrase, “those who comprise it” is an inclusive phrase that takes into consideration all people who are living in the society regardless of official status, then we must conclude that no consideration of legal status ought to be made when affirming a person’s inherent value in God’s eyes, and therefore in ours. We cannot accept policies that deny rights to a particular group of people and devalue them based solely on whether or not they have jumped through all the necessary hoops, themselves flawed, of becoming legal citizens.

Every four years, the United Methodist General Conference passes resolutions, which “state the policy of The United Methodist Church on many current social issues and concerns,” including immigration. These resolutions get more specific and kind of give flesh and blood to the Social Principles. Here is some interesting stuff about immigration legislation from that book:

Paraphrasing from Resolution #266 of the 2004 Book of Resolutions (p. 686), the UMC is opposed to any legislation that 1) requires school districts to verify legal status of first-time enrollees, or 2) bars undocumented immigrants from public colleges and universities, or 3) makes immigrants ineligible for public health services, or 4) eliminates child-welfare and foster care benefits for immigrants, or 5) requires law enforcement agencies to verify residency status of people who are arrested.

Unfortunately, our Book of Resolutions doesn’t give us any guidance on the specific issue of building a gigantic wall around our country to keep people out. But if I had to guess, I would think they would be opposed.

I am proud to be a part of a denomination that takes a stand like this. It is clearly grounded in the particular scriptural concern for the sojourner. It is built upon the Wesleyan tradition of social justice. And it is in tune with Jesus’ own special preference for the stranger and the outcast. The UMC has offered a plumb line by which to measure immigration policy in our nation.

Further, the resolution calls for action. Among other things, United Methodists are to back legislation that defends the poor and oppressed in the “quest for survival and peace,” to “advocate human rights (political, economic, and civil) for all people, including the strangers who sojourn in our land,” provide for community forums for dialogue and education on immigration issues, and to offer “church-based immigration clinics” that would support the legal needs of immigrants.

This is good stuff, the grass roots kind of efforts that rarely get noticed, but can be a powerful testimony to the gospel of Christ Jesus. A congregation engaged in this kind of ministry is a healthy one, indeed. But how many are? How many immigration forums have United Methodist churches hosted? How many congregations run immigration clinics? Maybe more in Texas, New Mexico, Florida?

I really would like to hear of some. If any of you know of such ministries, could you provide a link we could follow? Yes, all over the place there are “Hispanic Ministries” doing some of this. And while that is great, I don’t think that is what this resolution has in mind. Principles and resolutions are wonderful up to a point; what really matters is how they are lived out in the real world.

I hope to write part 3 in this little series about Senate Bill 1033, sponsored by John McCain and cosponsored by Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman, Mel Martinez, Barack Obama, and Ken Salazar. More to come…

Immigration Reform: Item 1

I want to spend some time this week with the issue of immigration. There is little question that it is one of the most important social justice issues of our day. I live in Kansas City, Missouri, right smack dab in the middle of the heartland, and I know that the issue of immigration is not limited to the borders and the coasts, and it hasn’t been for a long time. For example, my daughter’s second grade class of twenty kids represents no less that five different countries.

The immigration system in the United States is a big mess. Anecdotal evidence: there are three families who are members of my church who have immigrated to the U.S., and all three have had problems with the system at some point. And though the three cases feature very different circumstances – a family from Sudan, a single woman from Mexico, and a man from Belgium married to a U.S. citizen – each has had some kind of snafu at some point. These aren’t criminals; these are not people trying to scam the system; these aren’t deadbeats trying to sponge off of U.S. welfare. These are just good, honest people trying to put food on the table, trying to keep their families safe, trying to live the best life they can.

Why should we care? What does this issue have to do with the church? Shouldn’t we just stay out of politics and keep to religion?

We should care because God cares. (Warning: proof-texting ahead):

From Deuteronomy 10: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them with food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” That word translated “stranger” by the NRSV is the Hebrew word GER, which my lexicon tells me means “A sojourner, stranger, foreigner, a person living out of his own country.”

From Ephesians 2: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” This letter was written to Christians trying to figure out if you had to become Jewish before you could be Christian, the answer to which was “no.”

In Matthew 25, Jesus says, “I was a xenos and you took me in.” A xenos is a “stranger, foreigner, or alien.” In Hebrews 13, Christians are encouraged to practice philoxenia, or “love of the xenos.”

I could go on and on with the scriptural references, but I’ll stop there.

This is one reason we should care about immigration in our country today. It should be important to us because it is important to God. This is why we cannot allow U.S. House Bill 4437 or U.S. Senate Bill 2454 to slam shut our border and harshly penalize our brothers and sisters sojourning in our land. Rather than chase foreigners home, we should welcome them with the radical hospitality that our faith calls for. In Christ, there is no Mexican, Sudanese, Belgian, or American, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

The United Methodist Church is very clear about where we stand on this issue, and I’ll write about some of that next time. Until then, check out the legislation currently under discussion in Washington. See if you think it is consistent with Christian values. See if you think it is consistent with American values, for that matter. Armed vigilantes are wandering our borders looking for immigrants to shoot. A U.S. Representative wants to rebuild the Berlin Wall, only this time on the Mexican border. Third and fourth generation immigrants are cheating new immigrants out of thousands of dollars every month. This issue is huge, and it isn’t going away in the near future.

Part II is coming soon…

UPDATE: This post has been re-posted at Wesley Daily. (Thanks, Shane.)

Dancing Tomato at a Busy Intersection

A recent post of a friend of mine has generated some reflection about what the church really is. Click here to read her thoughts, then come back and read mine.

Recently I saw a dancing tomato at a busy intersection. The dancing tomato was holding a sign advertising large pizzas for a low price at a nearby restaurant. Thousands of cars were driving through this particular intersection during rush hour, and each of them was likely seeing the dancing tomato selling large pizzas. I presume that the guy in the dancing tomato suit believed sincerely that his efforts would result in an increase in the sale of pizzas on this particular evening. He apparently believed that, upon seeing a dancing tomato at a busy intersection, scads of drivers would immediately change their evening plans, rush into his particular pizza restaurant, and order as many large pizzas as their arms could carry. “Hey, look at that dancing tomato. Holy pepperoni! Am I ever in the mood for a pizza! And to think I never would have realized that unless I had seen that crazy yet effective dancing tomato.”

How much of what the church does is nothing more than putting a dancing tomato at a busy intersection? How many campaigns to boost attendance and membership are truly evangelism, as opposed meaningless exercises that pander to our insatiable desire for self-promotion? How many mission trips are truly acts of deep sacrificial love, as opposed to surface level attempts to make ourselves feel better by “fixing” someone else’s problem for them? Bulk mailings, anonymous placement of door hangers, flashy lobbies with coffee shops and bookstores, “worship centers” (never sanctuaries) with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in technological gadgetry, fully equipped gymnasiums, marketing departments – What on earth are we doing, for heaven’s sake? (Pun intended.)

And here is my BIG question of the day: When was the last time you heard an intense dialogue about what the church IS, rather than what the church DOES? How many people could finish the sentence, “The church is ….” with a well reasoned, theologically sound answer? Sure, we could say that the church is the people, like the old Sunday School song says. “We are the church together.” But what are we?

The question is about “being,” rather than “doing.” And it seems to me that we need to be able to answer that question again, before we waste too much more time just doing stuff for the sake of doing it. Because it seems to me that a lot of what we are doing is the ecclesial equivalent of a dancing tomato at a busy intersection.

Today's Tidbits

These tidbits are submitted for what they are worth:

Tidbit #1:
In worship yesterday I was loaned three different things to read by members of the congregation.
1) The novel “The Constant Gardener”
2) Barak Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
and
3) the latest edition of “AARP: The Magazine”
I’m not sure what that means about me or about my congregation, but there it is.

Tidbit #2:
The heavyweight champion of the Methodist blog world, Shane Raynor, has re-posted one of my articles on the site Wesley Daily, which collects blog posts from Methodists all over the country. Thanks, Shane!

Tidbit #3:
Today, March 20, Bishop Robert Schnase of Missouri will be in prayer for me, my family, and our remarkable congregation. Every day, the staff of our conference focuses their prayers on behalf of one of the churches in the state. The thing that strikes me about this practice is that the little church with a dozen people receives as much of their prayer energy as the mega church with a couple thousand. Now THAT’S the power of prayer.

Cleansing the Temple: Down with Doves!

“He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take those things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!’” (John 2:16)

Sheesh, what’s Jesus got against doves, anyway?

No, of course it isn’t about doves. It is about exploitation. The system (comprised of money changers, dove sellers, and priests) was exploiting the sacred ritual of sacrifice for the sake of earthly gain - money and power - which those in the system craved even if it meant the degradation of the temple itself.

Here’s the system: In order to be faithful you must make a sacrifice at the temple; in order to sacrifice you must have an animal; in order to have an animal you either drag one all the way from home or buy one when you get there; in order to buy one you cannot use secular coins since they have human images engraved on them; in order to get proper coins you must exchange money; in order to exchange money you have to pay a fee to the money changers, who then give you the right currency so you can by an appropriate animal so you can make your sacrifice so that you can be faithful to God.

It all makes sense; the system fits together quite nicely. However, it is important to point out that Jesus wasn’t only confronting the people (who were probably less than honest) changing money and selling doves, but also confronting the system itself. It is the system that exploits; the people were caught up in the system such that the system had become the focus of attention, rather than God.

It’s a good thing our systems today never exploit sacred things for earthly gain any more, isn’t it? (The preceding was written with drippingly sarcastic tone of voice.) Think of judges demanding granite decalogues on courthouse lawns; think of preachers insisting that there is only one way to think about God; think of legislators legislating that public school students be encouraged to pray; think of school boards treating the Bible like just another history book; just for a few examples. They get a lot of attention, a lot of press coverage, a lot of reaction – all of which generates power and wealth – and yanks the focus away from God. “‘Round and ‘round goes the carousel.”

This week’s gospel lesson is more than a story about Jesus; it is a story about us. Every exploitive system needs overturning, and disciples of Jesus Christ are called to follow his example and turn them over. As the Divine Liberator, Christ sets people free from exploitive and oppressive systems. My relationship with God is far too sacred, far too important, far too precious for me to allow it to be trapped in and exploited by the systems of this world.

Nothing against doves or anything, but if they are keeping me from meeting God, they have to go!

Kansas City's Own Eric Huffman - Big in the Blogoshpere!

My friend Eric Huffman, who serves Revolution UMC in Westport, has a post on Wesley Daily, a cooperative effort of Methodists all around the country. Click over and check it out!

Sex Ed. & Religious Ed. - Contradicting Rationales

In an article in the Kansas City Star last Sunday, I read about an aggressive legislative agenda being pushed by conservative Republicans in Missouri. (Please forgive the use of labels, but I am using them for the sake of brevity. I could use a more descriptive term like "regressive" or something, but that probably would not facilitate dialogue ;) So "conservative" it is.) One of the things that jumped out was a seemingly contradicting rationale motivating two of the bills. If the rationale was to be consistent across the board, one of the two bills would need to go bye bye.

First, there is a bill to limit sex education in public schools.

The second is a bill to increase religious education in public schools.

So basically, we are going to end up with a bunch of pregnant teenagers who have the Bible memorized. (Hat tip to AC.)

The rationale for the first bill is, in a nutshell, "Leave it to the experts." The sponsor feels that human sexuality is a topic best taught by medical professionals. Young people are encouraged to go to their doctors to learn about sexually transmitted diseases, the pros and cons of birth control, and other basic biology.

Now, if this "leave it to the experts" rationale for the conservative agenda was consistent, there would be no bill to increase religious education in public schools, for the experts when it comes to religious education are in the church, the synagogue, the mosque. In fact, there would be a bill to restrict religious education and encourage young people to go to their clergy persons in order to learn about God, heaven, and other faith stuff.

I don't buy the "leave it to the experts" rationale at all. News flash #1: public school students are already having sex. News flash #2: public school students are already practicing religions. Young people are quickly becoming self-proclaimed experts in both subjects. So, you either teach about both topics OR you teach about neither.

You see, sex and religion fall into a category of topics that may or may not be considered "academic." And so, first question: "Should public schools focus exclusively on 'academic' subjects or expand to include other types of subjects?" Then the second question is: "What subjects are 'academic'?" Can you say sexual health is academic and religion is not? Or vice versa? If you want to teach religion as merely history, why not teach about sex as merely biology? If you don't want to teach sex because of moral reasons, why would you want to teach religion with all of its moral implications?

As for me, I am afraid that I am rather biased. I happen to think that the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc.) is the best place for young people to learn about God, and I happen to think that the family is the best place for young people to learn about sexuality. Not the public school. Problems arise, however, when the church and the family fail young people in this responsibility. I fear this happens all too often.

And this systemic failure is a disaster, because then the schools feel like they must pick up the slack, and they start burdening teachers with these undue expectations, and then teachers go on strike, and so no one learns how to read anymore, so no one ever writes any more blog entries about crap like this, and then how would I bore everyone with my opinions about stuff?

But seriously, though, the church needs to step it up a notch and take Christian education back from the public schools. It's our job, let us do it!

Missouri HCR 13 - You Have Got to be Kidding!

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

===
I copied the above from the Missouri House website. There is no way I could have made this up. If you are skeptical, check it out for yourself by clicking on the link. This is an actual resolution, sponsored unapologetically by Rep. David Sater of Cassville, which has been sent to the full House for consideration.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

I copied the above from the United States Constitution, specifically from Amendment I. There is also no way I could have made this up. You can also read this one on the web, but I am sure you know it well enough that you won’t have to. This reflects one of the foundational principles of our country, and Jefferson, Madison, and all those dead white guys thought it was pretty important.

There are so many reasons HCR13 is wrong, I hardly know where to start. This resolution…
- Totally ignores our “forefathers’” systemic displacement of Native Americans and the subsequent destruction of their religious beliefs and practices,
- Completely overlooks the contribution of our foremothers,
- Does not acknowledge the African religious beliefs and practices interwoven into the religious life of America, built on the backs of African slaves,
- Begins with the assumption that there is “a Christian God” as opposed (I guess) to a Jewish God, or a Muslim God, etc. (this assumption is contrary to monotheistic faith),
- Furthermore assumes that this “Christian God” is male, which is a theologically inaccurate perspective,
- Professes to protect the rights of the majority when in reality it is the rights of the minority that need protecting; by definition, the rights of the majority already are protected (that's why they are the majority),
- Purports to uphold the constitution when in fact it is “prohibiting the free exercise” of Christianity by assuming homogeneity and is therefore flatly unconstitutional,
- Assumes that all elected officials are religious,
- Minimizes the importance of prayer by stating that prayer is merely something that has played a “positive role… in this great nation of ours,” rather than intimate communion with God,
- Gives the impression that “voluntary prayer in public schools” is something forbidden, when in fact it is not – it is school-sanctioned prayer that is forbidden,
- Suggests that using public space, maintained by public money, to exhibit specific sacred “religious displays” is not equivalent to endorsing the specific religion being displayed,
- Desecrates the content of these “religious displays” (I assume they mean 10 Commandments, nativity scenes, crosses) by using them in a way they are not meant to be used.

I think that just about covers it. And yes, I already sent an email to my state representative expressing my opinion. (But I was a lot more succinct!)

*Sigh*

I may continue my previous posts' thoughts about entitlement later, but just now my stomach is too upset to even think about it.

Entitlement or Connectionalism?

In my last post I began thinking about what we mean by the term “entitlement,” and why it seems to be such a negative idea for so many. A colleague whose congregation had applied for a grant from the conference shared with me that one of our conference goals this year is “reducing the sense of entitlement” of our churches.

When I heard that, I spoke with a respected friend who is a part of the Congregational Development Team to ask him about entitlement. I asked, “What is the difference between entitlement and connectionalism?” After some thought, he replied that connectionalism implies an outward focus that seeks to build the broader ministry of the denomination, whereas entitlement implies an inward focus in which one is simply trying to get one’s share of the resources.

I think this distinction is helpful, but it doesn’t fully explain to me why a sense of entitlement is a bad thing. A connectional church is centered around the notion that we are all a part of the body of Christ together as a community. In that light, entitlement seems to be a foundational principle of God’s justice. And if you will indulge me in a bit of proof texting, read the following:

+ Luke 18:22: “When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
+ Acts 2:44-45: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.”
+ Deuteronomy 10:17-18: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.”
+ Psalm 10:17-18: “O Lord, you will hear the desire of the meek; you will strengthen their heart, you will incline your ear to do justice for the orphan and the oppressed, so that those from earth may strike terror no more.”

When I was a kid, Mom taught me how to share my toys. When I had a Matchbox car that one of my friends wanted to play with for a while, the right thing to do was to let him play with it. No question about it. The one who has is expected to share with the one who has not.

Extrapolate that principle into grown-up terms like “connectionalism,” and we have to ask some big questions about why those who have and control the resources are trying to reduce the sense of entitlement in our world. Perhaps the intention is to ensure that only the very neediest are given the necessary resources. But I have the feeling that things have been generalized to the point that, rather than “show mercy to your neighbor” (i.e. Luke 10:37) as a foundational principle, we are being told to “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

The way I see things, that may be an American ideal, but it is not very Christian.

(Next question: Why is it only the rich and powerful who decry the culture of entitlement? I welcome your comments, and I will write some more on this topic in days to come.)

Is Entitlement a Bad Word?

Psalm 82 begins:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

I’ve been thinking lately about the attitude of entitlement. Entitlement is a buzzword that raises all kind of red flags whenever it is mentioned. Post Katrina, many people blamed the troubling situation in the Gulf Coast region not on inept responders but on a culture of entitlement. The argument goes: Many in our society have become so dependent upon assistance from other sources that when all that support gets yanked away, they collapse. If they were just more independent and lived more self-sustaining lives, they would not have been in such trouble.

Entitlement is also on the minds of the Missouri Conference of the United Methodist Church, specifically, the Conference Congregational Development Team. One of that team’s stated goals is “reducing the sense of entitlement, which has begun to suppose that if a church is building an addition or adding a new worship service, the funding should in part be from the annual conference in the form of a subsidy.” (That is quoted from a letter from Congregational Development that a colleague shared with me recently.)

Here are some of the questions I have been pondering:
- As Christians, how do we distinguish “entitlement” from “rescuing the weak and the needy”? Why do only the rich and powerful use entitlement as if it is a bad word?
- As United Methodists, how do we distinguish “entitlement” from “connectionalism”? Why is a local church wanting money from the conference “entitlement” but the conference wanting money from the local church “apportionments”?

I welcome any insights you readers of the Rainbow might offer. I’ll write more on this topic in days to come.

This Lent, Go Take a Dump

Lent is a gift from God. God knows we need wilderness space in order to empty ourselves of unwanted skubalon, to the end of knowing God more fully. So, whatever we do during this time ought to be designed to help us know God more fully.

Now hear this: Lent is not “self-improvement season.” When we give up chocolate, (or caffeine, nicotine, television, or some other indulgence) chances are that all it will make us think about will be chocolate (or caffeine, nicotine, television, or some other indulgence). We spend these 40 days (plus a few Sundays) obsessing over how much we are missing our little habit, then on Easter morning, we dive back into it with a vengeance.

The things we do during Lent should help us know God, or we should not do them. So it is okay to give up chocolate, if that helps you to focus on God, in other words, if chocolate is your skubalon. (Read Philippians 3. The polite translations of the word in verse 8 are “rubbish” or “garbage” – what Paul actually meant was “crap.”) In order to get rid of it, it helps to go out into the wilderness and dump it. Lent is that trip to the wilderness. (Yes, you might even say that Lent is the season to take a dump in the wilderness!)

But the point is not just to dump the skubalon, the point is to see God, to know God, to love God, to follow God. I got a lot of help thinking about his from an essay/devotion written by Debra K. Farrington and excerpted on beliefnet.com. Her suggestions for Lent: Have a heart-to-heart with God. Cut back on work. Sleep enough. Give up annoyance (“…try to avoid being annoyed…” – nice!). Seek a spirit of detachment. Pursue God through study. Take care of yourself.

I love these ideas. It is so easy to be distracted by our efforts to get rid of our distractions. So much that the Lenten discipline itself becomes the focus, rather than God. This Lent, I’m going to try to dump my skubalon (tee-hee!) and focus my heart, mind, and body on God.

(Image above is from Hermanoleon Clip Art - a great site!)

Dubai Ports Takeover - My Take

"One of Two Possible Evils" - this is how people are reacting to the U.S. port takeover story.

1) The "anything George Bush does must be wrong" response. Or
2) The "anything remotely connected to Islam must be terrorist" response.

The first reaction is not really fair to the president. (In fact, only MOST of the things he does are wrong - not all.) I mean, the guy is a businessman, surrounded by other businessmen. Of course he would see this only as a business transaction with no greater implications than the bottom line of Dubai Ports, the company in question. It is what we should expect of him, considering where he has come from.

The second reaction is an ugly blend of racism, anti-Islamism, and ignorance. The prejudicial reasoning is, since the leaders of the country in which Dubai Ports is based are Islamic, the chance of terrorism in our ports is elevated. In reality, our global economy and postmodern pluralism has rendered this kind of prejudice nonsensical. It is a world in which Japanese companies build cars in the United States, service calls for U.S. companies are answered in India, and Walt Disney basically runs everything.

I don't know enough about the deal to make an informed assessment of it's merits or problems. But I can at least have a good chuckle at the tizzy everyone is in!