Even God Stayed Abraham's Hand

For obvious reasons, I don't share a lot of the specific details of the work I do, because a lot of it involves personal stories of people.  But permit me to share a composite story of couples I'll be marrying in the next several months - or, to be more precise, let me share the words I would like to share with the composite parents of these couples.

Dear moms and dads of gay and lesbian kids,

I understand that your children's coming out is difficult for you.  You have had hopes and dreams for your child that you now grieve.  Your image of your child may now be changed, even shattered, as you give in to negative media portrayals of gay men and lesbians and apply them to your beloved children - most of whom do not fit such stereotypes.  

Your own dreams for yourself have have ended.  Your hopes of being a grandparent in the "traditional" way are over, and I am not unmindful of how you see your child's former boyfriend or girlfriend (or former spouse) with children of their own, and how your heart longs for that child to have been yours.  You have had to give up a future you envisioned for your own self.  I can only imagine what this must be like, but I can well imagine your grief and sorrow.

I also know that many of you have religious views which do equate homosexuality with sin.  I could go on and on about our different theologies, but this isn't really the time or place (though if you would permit one suggestion, I'd recommend you looking at Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? by Mollenkott and Scanzoni).

Some of you assume that your gay son and his partner are only in it for the sex and physical attraction, because that's all that you know about gay men.  And since you would not permit your son to be openly affectionate with his beloved (you don't want him to "flaunt" his sin, after all), you have placed him in a catch-22 where he cannot be who he truly is when he is with you, and yet you judge him for what he presents to you because of your own limitations.  

Some of you assume that your lesbian daughters are in a "phase" that they will outgrow.  You may even like your daughter's partner, but you just hope she will be the maid of honor at your daughter's wedding to a man.  Again, you can't permit her to be her true self in front of you, so you have a distorted view of who she is and how she "lives as a lesbian."

Yet, you have raised your children to live with integrity, to live lives that are true to who God has made them to be.  You have raised them to be truthful, honest, and true.  Now, in trusting you with the truth about who they are and who they love, they have chosen truth over lies, integrity over guilt, faithfulness over deception.  So, why are you punishing them for doing exactly what you have raised them to do?

Let me ask you: is this really what you want?  Is this the kind of relationship you want with your child?  Would you truly prefer to have your children lie to you, day after day, by living in a heterosexual marriage that does not meet their needs nor the needs of their partner?  Would you prefer your child to lie to his or her spouse - is that the sort of life you want for your child-in-law?

Your child has a beloved - a wonderful companion who lights up the eyes of your child, who fills your child's heart with love, who shows grace and compassion, who tends to your child's needs and deepest longings, who above all loves your child!  Your child has a companion who shares hopes and dreams for the future, who "completes them" in the way you have always hoped for your child.  And you are missing out on seeing this life.  

I feel sorry for your children, who have parents that don't understand or accept them.  But I also feel sorry for you, because you are missing out on seeing who your child truly is, and all the joy that fills your child's life.  You are the one who is losing out.

Is this what you want?  Do you truly want to sacrifice your children on the altar of doctrinal purity, societal norms, or your own selfish dreams for their lives?  Please remember that in the story of Isaac's binding to the altar by his father, at the final moment God stayed his hand.  The point of the story was not the sacrifice itself, but the willingness to do so.  And you have already demonstrated your willingness to sacrifice your child on your self-made altars.  Perhaps, may I be so bold as to say so, perhaps this letter is the voice of God saying, "Do not lay your hand on the child, or do anything to him [her]."

And you who are Christians may say, "Okay, fine, Abraham was spared the grief of sacrificing a child, but God gave up God's own son and let him be sacrificed," let me say to you: are you God?  Are you better than Abraham?  Do you really want to go there?  Is that really what you think God is asking of you?

Please.  You are not that special, that faithful, that important.

Sorry.  That was not very nice.  What I really mean to say is, please, please, please, do not wait until the final moment to let God's hand stay your sacrifice.  Do not sacrifice any more precious time not knowing your child.  

If you could see what I see, you would know that your child is deeply in love with this chosen companion, and your child is deeply and well-loved by this same companion.  You would see eyes full of deep and true affection, hearts full of love, lives full of grace.  You would see the fruits of the Spirit alive and powerful in their relationship, God at work in their midst.  You would see your child living in truth and integrity, living in faith that God has made them and will be with them now and forever.  You would see everything you hoped for your child, save for the gender of your child's partner.  Is that really more important to you than the life of your child?

Please, for the love of God and all that God has made, for the love God gives to families and for the love you still have in your heart for your child, in the name of all that is holy to you and to me, please, see your child as I see your child, see your child as God sees your child.  And love him.  Love her.  Love them.

Happy Mother's Day

Give some sugar to your mom today, whether it's your birthmom, your biological mom, a grandmom, the mom of your heart, or some other fierce mama you know.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom, Moozie and Susan.  I love you three.  And love to my friends' moms Linda and Anne, who've been so good to me over the years!

I Can't Even Write a Farewell Ode to Our Intern

Over the past seven months, our congregation has been blessed with a terrific intern, Sam.  It's kind of a long story as to how she got to intern with us in SW Iowa when she was going to seminary in St. Louis, but suffice it to say that it was grueling for Sam to commute between the two places.  (Did I mention she was pregnant during this year, and just gave birth to an adorable baby girl 10 days ago?  "Grueling" might be too gentle a term.)  Yet she was, pretty much literally, a "super-trooper," and I never heard a word of complaint.  The children of farmers, she is incredibly practical and this was just something she had to do.

Our congregation was hesitant at first to take this on, but with an anonymous donation from a member toward her stipend as well as scholarships from our association (where is was in care) and conference, we were able to make it financially viable.  And though we are a small church, we found plenty for us to do together.  It was a great experience for both of us; I think I did a fair job as a supervising pastor (and would definitely be better with future opportunities), and Sam and I had terrific conversations about the practice of ministry and whatnot.

The congregation, not surprisingly, took to her leadership well.  They know how to love, support and challenge a minister and a minister-in-training, and she learned a great deal from them.  Most importantly, there was deep and mutual love between our church and Sam, which covers a multitude of sins.

Today we had to bid farewell to Sam, as her time with us came to an end.  She is graduating on Friday and her profile is just about ready to be sent to congregations and conferences.  As part of our farewell ritual, we adapted the "Ritual of Farewell" from the UCC Book of Worship - which I will post when I am next at the office computer.  We also gave her a gift, a beautiful stole (and I'm not at all biased, even though I bought it myself) from Soul Desires in Omaha.  The green complements her coloring, but more importantly, we hope that she will remember the uncommon time we spent together, our church and her, during the ordinary seasons of her ministry with other congregations.

Farewell, and God's blessings, Sam!

You need to add this website to your "favorites" list

This is the website/blogsite of one of my 2030 UCC clergy colleagues.  She's terrific, and so is the site.  Check it out and add it to your blogroll.  I have!

On the UCC and "Official Stances"

PastorJoelle recently asked me via the blog: What is your church's official stance on same - sex marriage?  While I'm not 100% sure if my "church" she meant "congregation" or "denomination," I'm going to take a stab at answering.  

Well, first of all, the appropriate answer to any question that begins "What does the UCC believe/think..." (or "What is the UCC's stand on...") is "It depends."  See, the UCC has very few "official statements."  Our basic unit of life is the local congregation, and we're essentially autonomous in our governance.  Yes, ordination and authorization for ministry happens through the association (in cooperation with a local church, and possibly also a fourth institution, such as a hospital), and yes, the national setting of the UCC (or some part of that national setting) does sometimes makes statements/pronouncements on this matter or that.  But, local churches aren't bound by these decisions - they needn't "obey" or agree with what's said.

Every two years, the UCC comes together in what is called a "General Synod," which has delegates from every association, and we vote on "pronouncements" and "resolutions."   The thing is, General Synod speaks TO the church at large, not FOR the church.  This means that when we get together, we're talking about all this stuff for each other, and guiding the work of the national setting(s) of the church in between General Synods.  STILL, local congregations aren't "bound" by these decisions in the way that a Lutheran or Episcopal church might be.  

All that being said, at General Synod XXV in Atlanta (Atlanta, baby!) in 2005, the General Synod did vote to, among other things, "calls upon all settings of the church to engage in serious, respectful, and prayerful discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender..." (see the full pronouncement here).  It was a contentious and difficult decision.  We lost some churches over this (or, perhaps more precisely, over issues of biblical interpretation that led to the passage of this resolution).  

Yet no church is bound by this.  In fact, it would be perfectly fitting of our polity for a church to engage in just such a discussion and come to the conclusion that marriage should be between a man and a woman only.  Obviously, some churches in the UCC do come to this conclusion.  

As to whether or not the congregation I serve has a stance on same-sex marriage, at this point I can only point to our Open and Affirming statement, adopted by the congregation in 2000: "First Congregational, United Church of Christ in Red Oak is an active and dynamic congregation with a rich history and an exciting ministry to the community.  We welcome into this community of faith, and affirm the participation in all aspects of church life, persons of every age, race, gender, nationality, ability, and sexual orientation.  We will empower ourselves, our children, and one another to be fully present in the world, living in Christ's image and striving for justice and peace."  From this statement (and the text I bolded), and from what I know of the views of most of the people at church, it seems logical that we would affirm same-sex marriage.  But until the congregation has a chance to speak its mind, I would hate to speak for them or name this as their reality.

And in fact, due to a series of interesting circumstances this spring, our congregation has not technically addressed this issue in a formal sort of way.  We will do so on May 17, at forum following worship, and I would covet your prayers as we discern the ways that God is calling us to live into this commitment.  I suspect I know how much of the conversation is going to go, but it's also important for us to check in periodically about how we are living out this commitment.

The church's normal policy regarding marriages held in the church or done by the pastor basically comes down to "the pastor's discretion."  Which means it's up to me, and obviously, I consult with the board, if only to inform them of what I'm doing.  To be truthful, up until this year, weddings have not really been a big deal here.  I've done 1 a year, or 4-5 a year, but never a whole bunch.  With Iowa's marriage equality ruling, I expect that may change.  Finding a balance of serving this need while also serving the not- insignificant needs of the congregation and my own spiritual/familial needs will definitely be a priority in the next several months.

I must also disagree with you, dear PastorJoelle, when you say, "I'm just saying it would be nice to have a little church support and guidance in this matter other than - 'Do whatever you think is best.'"  I love the autonomy of the UCC and while I am sometimes tempted to wish for a bishop's authority, it is never for very long (Bishop Yvette Flunder would be AWESOME, but what if I ended up having to submit to someone like Peter Akinola?  No thanks!)  The UCC takes seriously the "responsibility of every generation to make the faith its own" (it's from our Constitution) and I really appreciate that we have to do the work...and that we are are responsible for the work.

In some ways, it is easier to have an answer one way or another - this way you can agree gracefully, submit gracefully even if one disagrees, or to choose to faithfully dissent.  But, this is not our way in the UCC.  It's a lot harder, and let me tell you - lots of us get really sick of being in the in-between time where all our answers are tentative at best and we have to keep fighting the same battles over and over (and over and over) again.  But, that's the work of Christianity - and a substantial part of the work of the UCC is to disagree in love and find a way to stay together, united in Christ even if not much else.

PastorJoelle, I am keeping your congregation and your denomination in my prayers in this season.  As well, I will remember all those who live in tension between their personal faith convictions and the "official" stance of their denomination/tradition.

Jesus, On the Cross, With a Light Saber

We have some adorable kids at church, and they are hilarious at times.  Several weeks ago, I realized that our kids are entirely obsessed with Star Wars.  It manifests itself in the most ridiculous fashions.  For example, a few weeks ago we were talking about "Holy Week" and I asked the kids to draw a picture of one of the stories we'd been talking about.  This was after we'd created some cool poems about Jesus and the Eucharist.

One of the kids - I kid you not - drew a picture of Jesus on the cross....with a light saber.  Relevant to this conversation is that the light saber was "lit."  It was then that I had to explain to the boy that the whole point of Jesus on the cross was that he did not, in fact, use the light saber when he could have.  I tried to draw a parallel to Obi Wan in Episode IV, sacrificing himself so that Luke and the others could get away...but the kid is only four and his attention was already on to the next thing.

Yes, I actually said that.  Talk about ministry in context, engaging the culture and all that.  Not how I imagined engaging the culture with youth (hello, those movies are as old as I am), but there you have it.  

(Joelle, the answer to your next question will be my next post!)

The Count Now Stands at Five

That is, five same-sex couples who have asked me to perform their marriages. Many come from far away, and I am getting very creative in the pre-marital work I am asking of them (one couple has been together for nearly twenty years), but I have 4 dates on the calendar for the next 13 months, and one couple that will probably get back to me sometime this week. Plus, one heterosexual couple is in the mix, too!

Exciting times, let me tell you.

Oh, wait? Did you hear about Maine passing a law for marriage equality? And NH voting soon on the issue? AND the good old District of Columbia voting to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions? I am losing count of where we are now in this good fight. All I know is, the news keeps getting better and better.

Unless you read my local paper. We have a new thing I sort of like, "Lean to the Left/Lean to the Right" where two staff writers take on an issue from their respective positions. The "left" guy is someone I don't know, but should. His take on marriage equality is very basic, but perfectly appropriate (of course, I always think I'd be more eloquent and perfect in my work...but you reader(s) know that's far from true). The "right" woman is the spouse of a local clergy person. She is nice enough, but if you read today's editorial, I think your head will explode as mine almost did (don't worry, the office is all cleaned up in time for tonight's meeting).

What's weirdest is that it's a basically incoherent rant that barely touches on the issue of same-sex marriage. Just that, you know, one day the world will end and people will look back on 2009 as the year all the debauchery began. (I don't even know what the "Muslim with machine-gun" thing even referenced, either. Anyone?)

All these people are getting married in my state today...

....and I am stuck in Chicago for a conference of 2030 clergy in the UCC.  Figures.  Catch y'all on the flip side.

On the plus side, it is a GREAT event, you should have heard "Men of Destiny," who gave testimony in word and song at tonight's worship service, and you should really get to know my amazing colleagues.  Oh, and if you are in your 20s or 30s and considering ministry in the UCC, you are not alone.

Go Read Pope Laura the Beneficient

(I just added that last part today; she is generous and kind and definitely deserves the title)  

Yes, it is a "response" to something I just blogged, but she raises some key issues about our assumptions of people who live in various parts of the United States.  And yes, isn't it telling that one of the places you'd "naturally expect" same-sex marriage to be a no-brainer (California) is a place where not only is it no longer legal, but also that the marriages performed there in mid-2008 may soon be invalidated....while the fact that today, same-sex couples are getting married in the cornfields of Iowa?

Shameless Self-Promotion...Again

My piece "A Spot of Good News" was front-paged over at Pam's House Blend. Thanks, Pam and co.!

A Spot of Good News

(cross-posted in a slightly different form over at Pam's House Blend)

As you know, I'm a UCC minister who serves a very progressive church in SW Iowa, not a bastion of liberalism by any means.  Steve King, he who feared that Iowa would become the new "gay marriage mecca," "represents" (and I do use the term loosely) the district in which I live.  I also have a part-time gig as a sexuality educator for an affiliate of a national reproductive-health-care organization (that also provides abortions, so I bet you can guess what it is).  My moms are gay, so I generally identify as "queer by proxy."  Oh, and I'm a local school board member.

We hear a lot of bad news about being a GLBT student in public schools. A LOT. I know that many of us have experienced a great deal of hatred and discrimination from our schooling years, and that lots of us carry those scars with us.  So I wanted to share a perfectly delightful story, and hopefully share a vision of what may yet be possible for the many GLBT students who come through our schools in the next few years.  

A few weeks ago, a youth in my church told me that her friend X was planning to bring his male date to prom.  I was kind of thrilled, and a little apprehensive. A few days later, I heard the same thing from our HS principal (also a member of our church), in the context of a marriage equality conversation.  When I commended him for supporting this young man, the principal said, "Well, first of all, it's the law.   And yes, it's great he's bringing his date!"  (Isn't it nice to have administrators who get it, and who are advocates for our kids?)

Our high school prom is a really big deal.  It is held at a local restaurant, and there is a red-carpet walk-in where couples are formally announced. Parents, kids, grandparents, all sorts of community members come, applaud the couples, and take pictures.  I told my youth I was planning to see her at the walk-in, and asked if her friend X was going to.  She said no, it felt like a big enough risk just to bring his date.  I was sad, but after hearing so many horror stories, I kind of understood.  Then my youth texted me yesterday.

"Are u still coming to walk in?"  Well, I sure was planning.  "Well, X is going to do walk-in now and he really wants some positive support."  Well, that settled it.  How could I not go?  

Now, I live in a very conservative part of the state.  I'm pretty much the only pro-choice pastor in the community, and I am certainly the only member of our ministerial association who supports GLBT rights or would perform a wedding for a same-sex couple.  I've been called a blasphemer and probably worse by my colleagues.  There is not a lot of support for things like marriage equality in my community.  For a lot of people, homosexuality = all that ridiculous stuff the Religious Right pushes.

So you can understand my anxiety for X.  Would the community be shocked?  Would they boo him?  Would they throw things at him?  Would they be silent?  Would the announcer refuse to announce the couple?  I imagined all these possibilities.

Well, I arrived a little before the procession began, and it was really neat.  I saw the mom of the youth, and she told me what X's car looked like.  I also saw who the announcer was, and relaxed a little.  He's a cop-turned-post-office-worker, and a really decent guy.  He may not be a GLBT activist, but I couldn't see him embarrassing anyone.

The kids started coming, and they were all announced.  There were several groups of girls, and a few "girl couples," which it was hard to tell if they were "couples" or friends who simply came together.  (Funny how communities have a high tolerance for girls coming to prom with other girls, but guys coming together freaks people out.  Yes, this was another reason for my concern.)  A couple of the girls held onto each others' arms, which I thought very sweet.

Then, X and his date arrived.  X wore a powder-blue tux with a black vest, and his date wore a black tux with a powder-blue vest.  (Cute, right?)  They got out of the car, clutched arms in the very traditional prom date entrance, were announced cheerfully, and walked down the red carpet to applause and photos (including me, calling like a maniac to a kid I'd never met to say how great they looked).

 That was it.  No booing, no whispers, even, that I could hear.  No outrage, no protesting.  Just, two boys walking in to prom, like any other couple.

It is times like this that I'm profoundly grateful for the "Iowa Nice" attitude that lets kids bring their dates to prom and doesn't make an issue of it, even if others don't "agree with homosexuality" (whatever that means).  It's also a time when I realize I need to check some of my own assumptions about this community, and to stop expecting the worst from these largely theologically conservative farmers.

In the midst of so much horror, discrimination and violence, I am just so profoundly grateful for the ways that this community steps up.  Believe me, if it can happen here, then we have won.

Something I'd Never Thought Of ...

A couple of weeks ago, I had lunch with my friends JW and J.  J and I had planned to eat together, and JW, who works near the coffee shop/cafe, arrived not long after and we invited him to join us.  J and I were talking about the Iowa Supreme Court marriage ruling, and she asked me to share my thoughts concerning the arguments that Polk County had put forward.

"Marriage is to make babies, and 'we've always done it this way'" was my snarky summation.  We laughed at the ridiculousness of it, and I noted that I thought it strange that the Polk County recorder had let a relatively inarticulate and obviously out-of-his-depth ADA argue the case.  JW, a local attorney, said, "Well, maybe that was on purpose.  The DA has to enforce the law as it is on the books, but ... maybe they wanted the plaintiffs to win.  It's not like counties never hire outside counsel for cases like this."  

I confess I'd never considered this possibility.  Could it have been that the Polk County recorder and DA wanted to get this case to the SC, and wanted this discriminatory law overturned?  All of a sudden, I was filled with gratitude for this potential legal strategy.  Since I don't know the Polk County recorder, nor their DA, I can't say for sure.  But this actually sounds pretty plausible to me.  Why didn't the DA hire outside counsel for this case - one with national implications?  I am sure there are tons of organizations who could have pleaded (pled?) this case for the DA, maybe even pro bono.  Crazy!

This is relevant because, of course, some local county recorders are trying to get out of their legal obligations by claiming their opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature.   (I think Jocelyn over at wtf would jesus do? or someone at Street Prophets pointed out yesterday that these same people also oppose re-marriage on religious grounds, but they seem to have no problems processing those requests.)  Yeah, not so much, according to the state AG.

Here's the thing: when you work for the government, you are not allowed to discriminate, even if your religious beliefs support discrimination.  When you take an oath to discharge certain duties, you are legally bound to discharge those duties even when you don't like it.  If you decide that you can no longer discharge those duties in good conscience, you are not able to live up to the oath of office you took.  One is not legally required to work for the state, so if working for the state violates your conscience...well, find a new job that doesn't.  It's really not that difficult.

As a local school board member, I'm required in that capacity to uphold the state constitution, not to uphold the Bible.  If I have a religious objection to something, I can't simply say "my religion forbids me to do this, or require me to do this."  I must find a legitimate legal reason to object; or I must abstain.  And if there's a large divide between my personal religious beliefs and my legal duties, I need to consider resigning my position.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out, as next Monday is when counties have to (or get to!!!) start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  A part of me suspects this is a tempest in a teapot, or attempts to stir up trouble where there isn't any, really.....but, we'll see.

Rants and Ramblings on the Death of a Child

I've had the misfortune of attending way too many funerals for young people. Suicides and accidents have been the bulk of these wretched events, but tomorrow I am attending a funeral for an infant, SM, who died about two weeks before she was due to be born. This was a much-hoped-for, much-longed-after daughter and granddaughter; the couple are new friends of ours.

Despite not being a parent, much less one who's gone through the horror of losing a child, I've come to know that people tend to say a lot of stupid, heartless and ridiculous things in such situations. Sometimes, ministers are especially guilty of this. I really hate hearing bad theology at the funerals of children and youth. (Well, I hate hearing bad theology all the time, but bad funeral theology is the absolute worst.) I know that people mean well, and are trying to help and not hurt, but honestly, do they think about what they are saying before they open their mouths?

Here is my top three list of stupid things you should never, ever, ever say to a parent who has lost a child:

3. God had a special task for this one in heaven. I actually heard this in a conversation this week. Long ago, a kid had flu-like symptoms; the family, who didn't have health insurance, couldn't afford a $25 copay to learn their kid had the flu, so didn't go to the doctor. The kid ended up having diabetes and died from the complications. A young friend wanted to know why this little girl had died and she didn't, since she also had diabetes. The above was her mother's response.

Look, I know that it's hard to explain to little kids about our whack health system, but let's be honest: the kid didn't die because God had some special task for her; she died because her parents didn't have access to adequate health insurance. A tragic mistake, not the family's fault...but also not God calling a kid home. Um, no. Whether avoidable, preventable, accidental, or even occasionally intention, whenever when a child dies, it's not God's will. Ever.

2. God's will is mysterious. Really? You think it's God's will that children die? What kind of horrible God do you worship? Keep me away from Him, thank you very much. In a famous sermon by William Sloane Coffin on the death of his own son Alex, a woman says to him, "I'll never understand the will of God." To which he replies, "I'll say you don't!" He goes on to say that at the moment of Alex's death, God's heart was the first to break, and that in all things, God offers us "minimum protection, maximum support."

1. God needed another angel. Really? Do you truly believe that a) God needs anything, and b) that even if God did need anything, God's need could somehow be greater than OUR need? Are you honestly going to tell grieving parents that God needed that child more than her parents and community did? Your god is that needy, that greedy? Seriously? Bullshit.

I get that when we have people we love who are grieving, we want to help. We want to take away that suffering, or at least imbue it with some sort of meaning that will help the grievers get out of bed in the morning.

We also have this thing in our culture where we are stuck in a third-grade notion of God being omnipotent and able to do anything. That's where a lot of this bad theology comes from; we believe that if something happens, it's because it's somehow God's will. But the hard reality is that God is not all-powerful. At least, not here on earth. If God were all-powerful, we'd be getting ready to celebrate SM's birth. There would be no genocide, no poverty, no rape, no hunger, no addiction, no murder, no oppression of any sort. The question of why God permits suffering is intimately tied to things like free will and random chance, and any real answer would be far too long for a blog post. Permit me to say, however, that even when God wants to prevent suffering, God is not always able to do so.

This is not to say that God cannot draw good out of suffering. This is where God is most powerful, I believe - in helping us draw good out of terrible situations. It's not easy, and it's not always possible. It certainly seldom happens in the way we think it will. Even if lives are transformed and realities changed for the better as a direct result of a child's death, it still doesn't make the death "worth it." There will always be a hole where that child should be. And in the end, only the parents parents have the right to say, somewhere down the line, "We miss her, we'd rather have her here, but there are some good things that happened after this horrible death that might not have otherwise happened." We don't have the right to say that for anyone else. Ever.

When a child dies, it is utterly incomprehensible. It tears at the order and fabric of the universe in particularly devastating ways. And yet, it is totally human of us to try to make sense of utter nonsense. I get that. I desperately want to take away some of the grief my friends are feeling right now, and the normal way we think that happens is through an explanation. (What makes this situation even more heart-wrenching is that the doctors don't know why SM died. But I don't suppose that would matter very much anyway; it just maybe gives a focus for the grief.) But let's be honest: if it were you, would any of this stuff make you feel better?

When a kid dies, do your friends and family the courtesy of not making up bullshit reasons for why this happened, especially not bullshit reasons that put God at the center of what happened. Stick with the psalms of lamentation that rail against God if you must. But better yet: just show up. Bring them food. Hug them. Cry with them. And keep your mouth shut.

This, by the way, is how you bring God into the center of such a tragedy.

Youtube Goodness

So, I have this thing where I hate to do something that everyone else is doing.  If everyone is watching "West Wing," I'll resist because it can't be that good, and even if it is, it will probably be cancelled in a season.  (Oops!)  I'll also resist because I've been burned liking something that ends up being totally mock-worthy - see, high school concert, comma, Vanilla Ice.  

It should come as no surprise, then, to know that I've been resisting watching this whole "Susan Boyle" thing on "Britain's Got Talent."  One, I hate reality shows.  Two, I especially hate reality shows that mock other people.  Three, I hate Simon Cowell (in good Christian love, bless his heart).  Did I also mention I'm not a huge fan of musicals?  But tonight, with the buzz still inexplicably growing, I asked Backbencher if he'd seen it and if it was really that good.  "Oh, yes," he said.  "Youtube it now."  

So I did.  And it was amazing!  Her voice is so strong, so phenomenal, so ... great!  Now, it's not the voice of an angel - it's better than that.  It's the voice of a SINGER!!!!  I am not ashamed to say I had tears in my eyes.  I could give you all this commentary about our looks-obsessed culture and how she's a living indictment of it, but I suspect you've heard it.  I admit from the photos I thought she might be "special" in some way, and her story of never having been kissed, living with cats and caring for her mother kind of reinforced that.  

But as soon as she walked up on stage, it was obvious she is a wickedly smart, wickedly funny woman.  She knew her pipes would blow everyone away.  And they did!  Oh, just go see it.  If not for the first time, then go enjoy it again!

All in All, Not Such a Super Day

Wow, what a day.  Taxes were due, and I forgot to ask Backbencher to sign the forms before he left for work today.  Since he works an hour from home, and I wasn't going to drive all the way to his job, and he wasn't going to drive an hour back home, and our post office closes before he gets back from work....we met halfway.  Not how I wanted to start the day.  Plus, we owe some $$$ and of course, quarterly taxes are also due today.  *sigh*

Then, I learned that a couple I am getting to know who were so excited for the birth of their daughter at the end of this month lost the girl on Monday.  I don't know if I can imagine anything worse (and please, don't tell me if you can).  Just please pray for T and J.

THEN, I learned that I actually know the young woman my friends MJ and Guillermo have been supporting at NYU's Relay for Life this weekend.  Lauren Beam and I were on the track team together for a couple of years; she's wonderful and amazing...and has stage 4 colon cancer in her early thirties.  Please support Team Beam here; and if you want to be a real winner, bump MJ Pasion or Guillermo Rojas over the edge in their fundraising - just click their names and donate on their page.

Then, our favorite Chinese place closed tonight.  We waited over an hour for food, but it was totally worth it because it is our last chance to enjoy China Gate.  Godspeed, Kiet and family.

In a totally ironic turn of events, youth group today focused on seeing the glass as half-full versus half-empty.  That, and baseball.  So, on the positive side, I had a great little run today.  And the Chinese food was delicious.

Letters to the Editor

Our local weekly often has "gems" of letters to the editor. If I've written previously, you can bet that they are all about how appalled the reader is that I serve a church because I'm obviously the spawn of Satan or some hedonistic forced-abortion satanista. Or, if they are feeling charitable, just hopelessly misguided and in need of lots of prayers to repent of the errors of my ways and teachings. What can you do? I usually stew for a few minutes, then laugh and laugh.

This week's letter, in response to a quote of mine that appeared in the Omaha World-Herald (the nearest daily), was rather cute. I reprint it here in its entirety and verbatim (except for the town name):
"Saturday morning right on the front page of my newspaper is the United States with a big red dot over Iowa. And in reading about this abomination against God a small church Reverend in XXXXXXX has proclaimed a victory.
We as Christians and disciples of God have again let Satan's foot in the door."

The red dot, if you're new to this site (and God only knows why this would be the post that brings you here, but, hey, welcome, have a seat, enjoy the view) is in regards to marriage equality, which came to Iowa on April 3.

Thank you, Donald Allen of my hometown. It gave me a good laugh; also, I laughed again when my friend JW called to ask if Satan was home. But I just have one question - when were the other times we let Satan's foot in the door? When women started to get ordained? When women were no longer the property of their fathers or husbands? When the abominable snowman was revealed to be a gentle giant who just needed a tooth pulled?

Seriously, Kids, it's a Semi-Colon; how hard is it to use?

Go read Lucky Fresh's rant on the underuse of the semi-colon; it's compelling stuff.

'Nuff Said

On marriage equality as a barometer of religious freedom.

Very Belated Post

I had the honor to speak at the Council Bluffs Marriage Equality Victory Rally on April 3, and yep, I'm just getting around to posting what I said. To be accurate, what I said can best be described as "inspired by" what's below, because at the last minute I decided to go off-script and just speak.

April 3, 2009 ~ At the inauguration of our current president, Barack Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke of “the sweet victory of this hour.” Iowans, these are our words today!!! For we who love justice and equality, for we who wish to affirm that all Iowans are equal under the law, for we who believe that all Iowa families deserve to be treated fairly, this is indeed a sweet, sweet hour, a sweet, sweet victory.

God is good – all the time!

Yes, it’s true. I believe that God has brought us to this day. God rejoices with us as we celebrate the triumph of love over fear, justice over oppression, and holiness in the midst of our closest relationships. God is smiling upon Iowa this day! As an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, I affirm that God is still speaking and God says we are all equal in God’s eyes. We are all beloved of God! We are all free! The sweet victory of this hour is in the ways that all blessed and holy relationships may now be honored fairly by the state of Iowa. Thanks be to God!

Even as I invoke the name of God in giving thanks for this sweet victory, I know that there are some here and throughout our great state who feel this decision is a travesty in the eyes of God. I cannot change your mind. I am not here to change your mind, sorry though I am that we disagree.

I am here to ask to you to acknowledge just one thing: that in our society, marriage often has both RELIGIOUS and CIVIL aspects. This union of religion and civics within the word “marriage” makes lots of people uncomfortable. Believe me, I get it. It is a curious conflation. But it is real.

What we celebrate today is not a religious victory. [It’s not, even for those of us who support marriage equality as a religious issue.] This is a civic victory: that insofar as marriage is a civil contract, the state has no business discriminating against consenting adults who wish to enter into it. What has happened today is that the Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed the equal recognition and protection of the privileges and rights of all individuals in civil marriage, no matter the gender of each partner.

As for the religious definition of marriage … well, the courts have no jurisdiction there. Insofar as marriage is a religious compact, even a sacrament, the state has no business telling religion what to do or whom it must join in holy matrimony. And it does not pretend to. If your religious beliefs or that of your church, synagogue, masjid or other place of worship do not recognize marriage between two persons of the same gender, you are free to go on believing and practicing that belief. You do not have to marry same-sex couples. You don’t have to go to their weddings and you do not have to have those weddings in your places of worship. The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion are intact.

What has changed is only the civil definition of marriage. (only!) But for we who love justice, for we who walk in love, for we who seek liberation for the oppressed, it is enough. It is enough.

And see, if you are like me, and worship in a faith community where all people are welcome to participate in the full life, fellowship and leadership of the congregation, no matter their sexual orientation, now, the same-sex holy unions we perform can now have the same weight and authority as the heterosexual unions we perform. Because brothers and sisters, we have been marrying gay and lesbian couples for years! And we will keep on doing it – this time with the knowledge that we celebrate not only a religious uniting of two of God’s children, but also a legal creation of a family. What a joy that the state has finally caught up with what we have known to be true all along – that love makes a family.

Seven months ago, in the state of California, I had the privilege of uniting in holy matrimony and in civil marriage two women who had been a couple for twenty years. These women had raised three children together and seen more trouble than most of us can imagine. They had loved each other in the closet for most of that time, and they resisted most ways of having their relationship recognized formally. But when the time came for marriage equality in their state, they jumped. They opened their lives up to their friends and coworkers. They called their children and invited them to the special day. They got on their nicest clothes and they walked down a dusty path in a beautiful park and they pronounced their vows to each other, and they kissed, and they were legally married. The law recognized what the spirit had always known – that these two people were meant for each other, now and forever. And on that day, possibly the only person happier than they were was their daughter – the minister who presided at their union. Me.

So you see, this is not only a political victory, but it is a personal and family victory for all Iowa’s families. Thank you, God, for the sweet victory of this hour."

I missed a few good points raised by others, such as the fact that I support marriage equality BECAUSE OF my Christian faith, not in spite of it, but I think the message came through anyway. I also added a couple of points, like apologizing on behalf of Christians everywhere for the abuse GLBT persons have suffered at the hands of "the Church." (I know I can't make up for it, I know I'm not personally responsible for it, but it needs to be said nonetheless.)

It was a great rally and to the best of my knowledge, we had no counter-protestors. The thrill of that day was partly eaten up by the annoyance of the next few days when protests became more formal in the Iowa Legislature, and at the local legislative coffee when the people who represent this district were ridiculous in their assessments.

Our state senator even invoked the tired line of "teaching this to our children in schools" and our state representative went on and on about how the court overstepped its bounds. Why don't these people get that they don't have a right to vote on other people's civil liberties? Do they not understand that the function of a state Supreme Court is precisely to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature? Have they never heard of "checks and balances"? Did they ever show up for their civics classes? The mind boggles.

Wingnuttery Sex Education

Oh, God, Andrew Sullivan found these videos and I must share with you.  I especially love how he calls it "vu-gINE-ul sex" in the 2nd video.  I think it should be pretty obvious why this man has no idea what the clitoris is for, "since it doesn't have a reproductive function."  The horrible misogyny is in really fine form.  (Also, he thinks that sperm sort of hang out in the womb and magically become a baby - no mention of the egg.)

I have no idea who this man is, but he is truly an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity.  

Great Facebook Commentary on Iowa Supreme Court Ruling

All my friends from California told me I was nuts to leave there to come to Iowa to serve a church.  I explained that the privilege of being a straight white woman is that I can go to A LOT of places and speak on a number of important issues, and that people will hear it differently coming from me; and that I had a responsibility as a person of faith to go to some of those more challenging places.  Basically, I came to Iowa to be a missionary for progressive Christianity.

Of course, progressive Christianity is already alive and well in Iowa, but in my part of the state, I really am a missionary.  (And I'm occasionally vilified for this!)  I actually love it.  I shake stuff up here.  And it's odd, because sometimes I get down on myself because I think I should be doing so much more, and I'm really not so radical after all, blah blah blah....until I remember that in this context, supporting marriage equality and a woman's right to choose when and whether to have children is incredibly radical to almost everyone except the people in the church I serve (and even some of them think it's radical).

Well, yesterday was my vindication to all those mockers from CA.  Marriage equality is here to stay - for at least 3 more years, as opposed to the what, 6 months?, it was available there.  Yeah, we totally rock here!  In the immortal words of Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting," "How you like them apples?"  Or, as I kept saying so ineloquently yesterday, "SUCKAs!!!!!!"  (Bless their hearts)

Well, now that that schadenfreude is over (and to any of my friends from CA or anywhere else who wants to get married in Iowa and me to preside, get on my calendar soon because I imagine my dance card may soon begin to fill.......), so many peeps came up with some GREAT Facebook commentary on this decision.  I shall share a few gems below:

From Will, a friend from NYU XC: "A new - and surprising - state slogan: Iowa: more progressive than California."

From Patrick, former camper from Caz, "I think [the ruling] said a same-sex marriage ban was 'totally gay.'"

And some news article quoted a woman at one of the rallies with a sign that said "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed."  Well, I'm already married, but I'm ready to marry you, gay couples in the Outer 47.  Come be blessed by our state and its progressive values.  Even in my part of the state, you'll find plenty who share your joy.

PS Check out Backbencher's post on the ruling.  It's great!  (Partly because he's great!)

State Supreme Court Smackdown!

The ones getting smacked were the people representing the Polk County Recorder's office, of course! Marriage equality has come to Iowa today, and I couldn't be happier!!!!

I also, being the dork that I am, read the full decision (okay, I skimmed parts of it - I understand the difference between strict scrutiny, rational basis, and intermediate scrutiny, so I just needed to know what they used). It is amazing. Read it here. (The six-page summary for you wusses is here.)

The Iowa Supreme Court took every argument that the Polk County Recorder's office raised and thoroughly ripped them to tiny little shreds. Then they poured gasoline on those shreds and burnt them. Then, they took the ashes, and steamrolled over them. It was a thing of beauty. I love when justices do this - it is devastating and marvelous all at once! I had every confidence that the defendants had a weak case, and boy did it show in this decision. And can I just say, "Thank you!!!" to the justices for their strong, reasoned, principled, and thorough work? A-freakin-mazing.

Also, they nicely made clear that this is about CIVIL MARRIAGE and does not affect RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE in any way. Except that now I don't have to feel that I'm participating in a discriminatory act when I sign opposite-sex marriage licenses. And, of course, I can marry gay and lesbian couples, starting April 24. But all y'all who don't want to perform same-sex marriage and who want to pour on the hate over my gay and lesbian friends still are free to do so.

And it was UNANIMOUS! What a great day to be an Iowan!! God be praised! And thank you, God, for justices who do their work mindful of the firestorm it may create but courageous enough to do their job of interpreting the constitutionality of laws nonetheless.

Tomorrow!

Tomorrow is the day when the Iowa Supreme Court will issue its ruling on Varnum v. Brien, a marriage equality case. (That would be "same-sex marriage" for all you folk not totally up on the liberal lingo regarding the issue.) It could very well happen - we could be the next state to support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters when they choose to enter into the civil institution of marriage. Wouldn't that be great?

Some, of course, may wish to enter into the religious institution of marriage at the same time. If so, come to my church! I'll be glad to marry you to your spouse - but you will have to do the pre-marital counseling stuff I require of all couples I marry.

In case you were wondering, I am saving my eloquence for the rally in Council Bluffs tomorrow, where I'll be speaking on behalf of (at least some) communities of faith in support of marriage equality. See you tomorrow at 5:30pm; location to be updated as soon as I know it!

In the meantime, let's pray for equality and justice for all Iowans (it's a Christian prayer, but feel free to translate to your own tradition as is appropriate):
God, in your mercy, you create us for intimacy and love, and you shape our desires in many holy ways. You give us the bonds of marriage that we may make a family with our beloved, and that through our dearest relationships your love may be made manifest. We pray this evening for the state of Iowa and its great people, that we may be a place where all couples may freely marry their beloved. Tonight we pray especially for our gay and lesbian citizens, that come tomorrow, they may share equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Give us courage to speak your love in clear tones, strength for the journey that lies ahead, and grace abundant, as you have so shown us in Jesus Christ. Amen.

In the Local Paper

This was a column I wrote for our local paper; it was published last week, but I'm just getting around to posting it now.

Spiritual Abuse and the Church

One of the most sacred things about the ministry is that people share amazing stories with you – about their lives, their troubles, and the ways God has (or has not) been present in their lives. This is an enormous privilege, one that I do not take lightly. Thank you for sharing your life with me.

But one of the saddest things I have encountered is the number of people who have related to me their stories of spiritual abuse and survival. Here are just a few of the stories I have heard: people who have been browbeaten into submission to some so-called “essential doctrine” of faith; people whose faithful intelligence and probing questions were met with hostility rather than openness; people who have had their humanity denigrated and denied because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their addictions, or their economic status; people who have been told that if they just had more faith, all their problems would disappear; people who have heard for years, even decades, that they are just plain worthless; people whose pasts were constantly held against them, even as they tried to live in a new way. This betrayal at the hands of the church is a grievous wound in the Body of Christ.

How brave are those who dare to share their stories and speak out against spiritual abuse! In rejecting such abuse, a person must separate oneself from the abusive community; but their faith in God’s goodness often endures. When those who have been battered by the church are able to hold onto the core belief in a good and loving God, and even seek out another congregation to grow in discipleship and faith, it is nothing short of miraculous. What courage it takes for those who have been badly wounded by the church to risk entering another community of faith. It would be far easier to reject faith and God altogether, after having been treated so abominably by God’s people.

To you who have been spiritually abused by the church, I apologize. You deserve better. I apologize for my fellow clergy, who are often so zealous in doctrine that they ignore human need standing in front of them. And I apologize for my fellow Christians, who are so blinded by their self-righteousness or struggling with their own feelings of inadequacy that they cannot see another child of God in their midst. I am sorry for what you have suffered by those who have misrepresented Christ. God has made you in God’s own image, and you are a holy reflection of God’s light in this world.

To those of you who believe you are doing God’s work by revealing all the sin of the world and holding it up to account, I say, enough. The world already knows all about the reality of sin and the sharp pain of sin’s wounds. We do not need any more reminders of how broken we are or how damaged this world is. What people need to know about is not sin, but forgiveness; not bleak despair, but enduring hope; not judgment, but grace; not death, but new life. We do need the healing, forgiving love made known to Christians in Jesus Christ. Remember these words of Isaiah, spoken by Jesus at the outset of his ministry: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. The Lord has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Matthew 4: 18-19).

This world needs to be wooed by Christ, captivated by the stories of his power and love, and renewed by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. That cannot happen by crushing a spirit. Doctrine has a place, but if it cannot withstand honest questioning and deep, faithful examination, it is not worth its privileged place in the church.

Those who encounter God will be radically changed – but it is up to God to do the changing and to dictate the terms of that change. Who knows how, when, and in what ways we will be transformed by God? We cannot and should not force that change, especially in others. We can only invite God to be present, to fill our lives with grace, to shape us more fully into Christ’s image – and to trust God to do the same in the lives of others, however God will.

Secrets, Surprises, and Confidences

Today we hosted a surprise baby shower for our pastoral intern.  It was pretty amazing that we pulled it off - not least because we have kids in our Sunday school class who, God help them, simply cannot keep a secret.  Also, I was amazed that Intern didn't think anything was up when her mom, her in-laws, her grandparents, grandparents-in-law, and 1-year-old daughter all showed up for church.  She just thought they were there to hear her preach.

This got me thinking, yet again, about the difference between secrets, surprises and confidences.  Talking about it with one of the newer parents, we arrived at some great definitions for use especially with kids, though they are by no means unique:

Secrets: "covering up wrongdoing."  Asking kids to keep a secret is pretty dangerous stuff.  It's what abusers do to their young victims ("this is just our little secret), it's what corrupt bosses do to their employees ("we'll pay you under the table and keep your employment a secret from the government), and it's what people generally do when they know they're doing something wrong - covering it up.  Secrets, we need to teach our children, are bad.

Surprises: "withholding information to create a pleasant surprise in the near future."  This is what we did with Intern.  We withheld a lot of information so that she could have a happy surprise party in her honor.  I knew she would have been embarrassed to have known about it in advance, but this way, we got to celebrate her pregnancy and the impending birth of her child, and she got to enjoy the generosity of our congregation's love.  A surprise is a special kind of secret - one that is meant to be revealed at the right time, for a positive end.  These are okay to keep - and our kids did a fantastic job keeping this surprise!!!

Confidences: "not sharing information to third parties."  As a pastor, I'm put in the position to keep all kinds of confidences.  About surgeries, illnesses, indiscretions, marriages in crisis, pregnancies of all sorts, and so on.  Part of my vows mean that I don't get to share this information with people, even when I want to or it might make a difference in how another person might treat a certain situation.  I keep a lot of confidences in my professional capacity.

For a lot of lay people, you too keep confidences, even if you don't have "vows" you promised to the church to keep.  Things your friends tell you that they don't want the world to know, vulnerable places in their life or psyche, or just plain embarrassing stories.  Trust is a really important part of friendships, and knowing that you aren't going to tell everyone everything is a good way to be a good friend to someone.

Confidences are meant to be kept, often indefinitely, and I hold them in the highest regard.  That being said, I have been in a couple of situations where I have needed to break a confidence.  I did so with the full knowledge of the person who had revealed the confidence to me.  In one case, it was a case of abuse reported to me which by the law of the state I lived in at the time, I had to report to the authorities, and in another, it was revealing to camp leadership staff a report about something a camper had experienced "down the hill" (not at camp) that was affecting her experience of camp.  (In a few other cases, the person has told me, "It's okay to tell your spouse," and then I use my best judgment as to whether or not Backbencher needs to know the information.)  When I have had to break a confidence, I have told the person involved that I needed to do that and why beforehand.  It saves a lot of drama and preserves one's ability to be trustworthy in future situations.

When someone asks me if I can keep a secret, I always reply, "It depends."  If someone wants me to keep something confidential, I can do that.  If someone wants to plan I surprise, I can definitely do that!  If someone just needs to get something off their chest in a non-confessional capacity, I can probably do that.  But if someone wants to tell me that they are hurting someone or being hurt by someone, that's not the kind of secret I can necessarily keep.*  

In my work with young people in particular, if I'm asked to keep a secret, I say, "I want to keep things confidential - that is, not blabbing information around.  But if you are being hurt by someone, or if you are hurting someone or yourself, that isn't the kind of secret I can keep.  In that case, I need to tell other people so that you can get the help you need.  Because I care about you, sometimes I have to tell someone else."  No person, having heard my criteria for keeping a confidence, has ever chosen not to tell me the situation.

I encourage you all to work to adopt these definitions for use in your personal and professional lives - especially if you work with young people.  J. came up with the "secrets" definition, and I give him full credit for the wording.  

*By virtue of my ordination vows, I must keep confidential anything said to me in a confessional/penitential setting, even if it involves someone abusing another.  It's a specific context, and in our denomination, "confession" isn't as commonly used as it is in other religious traditions.  But it still exists.  In Iowa, as clergy I am not a mandated reporter (though that may change this year), but in my sex educator capacity, I am mandated reporter.  So, for me personally, a lot depends on my professional context.  Also, if my friends want to know that I will keep something silent, it goes "in the vault," where I don't reveal the information to anyone ... sometimes even myself, forgetting about the information!  (I did this when my friend Emily had a crush on Tim, and then couldn't figure out who she had started dating....Kids, it's not a secret anymore as they've been married a few years!)

Something Fun

from the good people at Feministing. Enjoy!

Christ as Sacrament

This was my sermon from last Sunday. The biblical texts referenced are Numbers 21: 4-9 and John 3: 14-21.

What an odd little story we have in the Hebrew Scriptures this morning. It’s not the grumbling of the Israelites that’s odd – we’ve seen that before (see: manna, quail, water at Marah). In fact, this story is the last of five “grumbling stories” of the Israelites during their sojourn in the wilderness following their liberation from Egypt. The odd part isn't even when God punishes the grumblers with a plague of snakes. Retribution theology runs a strong streak through the Old Testament, though it is by no means the only theology represented there. God punishing people for their lack of faith in God’s providence is a common way that humans understand the way God works.

Retribution theology has never made a great deal of sense to me. So, we believe in a loving God who forgives us our sins, who “so loved the world that God sent God’s only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life,” and that same God punishes us for the wrong things we do? Mmmm, forgiveness and retribution in the heart of God seem at the core, incompatible.

And in this story, the retribution aspect of God also seems to make little sense. What makes more sense is the healing that follows. When the people, connecting their grumbling to the snake plague, come to Moses and beg forgiveness for their speaking against God, God gives a command to Moses. “Make a poisonous [or fiery] serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” The bronze serpent raised up in the wilderness becomes a source of healing for the Israelites, rooted in God’s mercy and grace.

Theologian Barbara Brown Taylor points out that this bronze serpent served a sacramental function for the Israelites. “Looking up at the serpent reminded the people to lift their hearts to God,” pointing to the true Source of the healing they experienced. That’s what a sacrament is, you know. The Reformed definition of a sacrament is “a visible sign of God’s invisible grace.” A sacrament is a physical thing that points to God’s intangible mercy.

In the Protestant church, we have two “churchly” sacraments: baptism and communion, or the Eucharist. But these two things are by no means the only things that can be sacraments. If gazing upon nesting bald eagles reminds you to give thanks to the God who made heaven and earth, those eagles too can be a sacrament. If visiting a friend who’s in the hospital or who simply lives alone, or if trying to repair a damaged relationship calls your attention to the God who desires us to be in relationship with each other, then those people can be sacraments to us.

That bronze serpent stuck around, you know. It made the wilderness journey with the Israelites and when the Temple was built, it had a place of prominence. It seems that the people did not easily forget this story of healing and redemption. But over time, the bronze serpent took on more and more prominence in the life of the people. No longer was it a sign or a symbol pointing to the power of God to heal and restore life – it became the object to which people looked for that healing. The people came to believe that the serpent itself, not God, was responsible for their cure. For that reason, King Hezekiah in the book of 2 Kings, several hundred years later, destroyed the serpent when he restored the Temple to its rightful place as a place to worship El Shaddai – the Lord God. It had become an idol, to which the people made offerings, and even had a name – Ne-hush-tan.

Sacraments can easily become idols when we neglect the source of their power in our lives, when we forget that it is not the object that has power, but that to which the thing points – God. Take, for example, wedding rings. They, too, can take on totemic significance in our lives. On our honeymoon, [Backbencher] and I went to a lovely Anglican church for service – in fact, it was the very church where Oscar Wilde had been married (snicker, snicker). When we arrived and sat down, [Backbencher] suddenly noticed that he was not wearing his wedding ring. Like many men his age, he wasn’t used to wearing “jewelry,” and he’d simply forgot to put it on when he got ready that morning. He looked at me, stricken. What could I say? It wasn’t really a big deal. I mean, if he never wore it, that might be one thing. But this was just an honest lapse, a week after getting it. It’s not like he was out trolling for women or anything – he was with me, at church.

My view about our wedding rings is that they are precious gifts to one another that symbolize our love for each other and signify the vows we made at our wedding; they represent our commitment to our relationship. My ring reminds me of my vow, calls my attention to what I have promised my beloved, and invites me to look beyond the ring to what it symbolizes: our mutual love and commitment, and the ways that God has come alive in my relationship with [Backbencher]. However, my ring is not my vow. My ring is not my commitment. My ring is not my marriage. Without this ring on my finger, I would still be married, and I would still have the same promises and commitments as I do wearing the ring.

We humans get like this, sometimes. We mistake a symbol for that to which it points. So it was with the snake in the wilderness, so it is sometimes with wedding rings, and so it is sometimes with Christ. The image of Jesus Christ lifted up – even the image of the thing upon which Jesus Christ was lifted up, the cross – becomes itself the object of worship and sacrifice. It becomes an idol, an object we worship instead of God, rather than a sacrament, something that points to God and invites us to deeper relationship with God.

Idol worship makes our life and faith shallow. If the object is the thing, then we need not plumb the depths and the mystery of what the object represents. We merely go to the object, and offer it our thoughts and prayers. If our ring becomes our vow, then it is the object that has power, rather than the relationship that has power. And if Christ becomes the be-all-end-all of how we relate to God, then we miss out on the depth and wonder that is God at work in the natural world, in other faith traditions, and through the Holy Spirit blowing where it will. Such idol worship will eventually lead to death, the very opposite of that which God intends for us.

But we need not devote ourselves to idols, putting them in the place of God and forgetting the Source of all that is good. Nor do I believe that the answer is to destroy all the idols in the world or anything that might become an idol. You’ll notice that I do in fact wear my wedding ring, that we do celebrate Communion on a regular basis, and that our altar has a cross upon it. In any event, not only is it impractical to get rid of everything that may become an idol for us, but it would be impossible. Humans seem to have an innate capacity and desire for ritual and sacrament, even if it is not within the walls of the church. Anything that could be a sacrament could also turn into an idol.

The key is to keep our attention focused on the physical objects themselves, but on the reality to which they point. Seeing Christ as a sacrament means that he becomes for us a visible representation of God’s love and mercy for all creation. Christ, whom the gospel writer called “The Logos, or Word, of God,” is a manifestation of what John 3:16 declares: “For God so loved the world that God gave God’s only-begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not die, but have eternal life.” We know these words are true because Jesus, in all his words and deeds, is a living proclamation of that truth.

Just as the snake was lifted up to God and gave the people life, so too was Jesus’ lifting up – both upon the Cross and up to heaven – means of bringing us to new life in his name. When we see these events not as things to be worshipped in themselves, we are freed from idolatry and free to see Christ as that for which he truly is: God alive and at work among us, desiring our repentance and making our lives holy and rich. Living sacramentally, with our eyes and souls fixed not on things but on the One who has created all things, helps us do what God would have us do. For the writer of Ephesians tell the truth: We are what God has made us – created in Jesus Christ for good works.

Our calling is not merely to recognize God as the source of life, love and healing, but to reflect that life, love and healing in our own lives. In short, God has created us in Christ Jesus to be living sacraments for the world, so that through us, people would come to see God truly and love God fully.

In this season of Lent, let us celebrate the sacrament of Christ, turn our hearts to all the holiness to which God’s creation points, and embody the Gospel to this hungry, hurting world. Amen.

Bill Richardson Is My Hero...

...but I am definitely over my crush on him. (That's because of the van dyke, which I think has mercifully been shaved by now). He's my hero because when he came to my small town before the caucuses, he said that he supported civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folk. You don't really hear too much of that where I live, unless you're at church and I'm preaching on the subject. So yeah, I was his big cheerleader in our county...for all the good it did.

And now, he's signed a bill abolishing the death penalty in New Mexico. Thank you, Gov. Richardson! His thoughtful and measured words in the press release accompanying the signing were also outstanding. He acknowledges the difficulty in the decision, how he has struggled and evolved on the issue, and he gives credit to people who believe differently than he does. I admit it - I'm still a sucker for his rhetoric (though I'm perfectly happy to the the POTUS that we do!).

Gov. Richardson raises two issues around the death penalty that have shaped my civil/legal opposition to it: the possibility of executing an innocent person, and the disproportionate way that it is applied to people of color, especially poor people of color. I learned growing up that our legal system believed that it was better to let one hundred guilty people go free than it was to jail one innocent person, and for a long time I was naive enough to believe we meant that. I no longer believe we live by that ideal, but I steadfastly believe it's an American value well-worth returning to.* When an innocent person is executed, you don't get to go back and say, "Ooops, sorry, we got the wrong guy."

Also, when I see the atrocious way that poor people and people of color are treated in our legal system, it makes me want to puke. (Frankly, the way people of color are treated in the media's reporting on legal issues makes me want to puke, too. Just try to remember the last time you saw a white person's mugshot lead the evening news, or be on the front page, above the fold. Bet you saw a black person's mugshot within the last two days, either on TV or in the paper.) DA's often cut deals with white defendants, but bring the full weight of the law down on black ones. Often, a white defendant is said to have made an error in judgment, but a black defendant is just a thug. Ineffective counsel is appointed, and they compound the trouble.

Look at the case of Dominique Green - a microcosm for all that can go wrong. The kid did not pull the trigger, but he still was executed. Oh, and did you know that the white people involved in the shooting - including the one who ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE MURDER - all got off? And that the victim's family asked for him NOT to be executed?! Listen to author Thomas Cahill discuss the case on NPR's "Tell Me More." This may be one case, but it represents a system badly out of whack.

My religious opposition to the death penalty, in addition to the religious aspects of the two above-mentioned reason, is shaped a lot by Augustine (don't laugh, Luis or Jocelyn!), who believed that execution robbed the person of the possibility of repenting of their crime and coming to experience God's forgiveness (and perhaps the forgiveness of the victim and/or victim's family).

Also, Ta-Nehisi has a great post relating to the death penalty, conservatives and small government, which I urge you to mull over. I think it will be the subject of my next post.

* Sorry to end the sentence with a preposition, grammar police.

Things That Make You Go "Noooooo!!!!!!"

Our beloved MML is leaving the blogosphere. 'Tis a sad, sad day at Casa Liturgygeek (or, to be more precise, at Office Liturgygeek). This was the first blog I checked in the morning and in the evening - often even before I checked Backbencher's. It has been thought-provoking and a balm to my soul on many day. Yet Matt is a guy with a ton of integrity, so if this is what he thinks is best, you can be sure he's given it a lot of thought and prayer.

And Matt? If you ever decide you want to guest post anywhere, we'd be glad to have you here. Love you!

Beware the Ides of March!

Because, you know, Julius Caesar died on that day.

Abortion and Grammar Fun!

Check out this great post from my new pal over at What The F*%$ Would Jesus Do?  I just love it when other people combine things I love - in this case, a cogent pro-choice argument and a grammar smackdown.  

Also, and totally unrelated, I just love it when a plan comes together....

Guilty; or Beloved Children of God, Behaving Appallingly

What a great, and tragic, way to start the morning.  John Sickels and James Christensen, respectively the former assistant police chief and the police chief of Creston, Iowa, were both found guilty of sexual abuse in the rape of a country club employee in 2008.

It's a great way to start the day because these small-town cops obviously thought they could get away with rape, and they didn't.  When first confronted by DCI, they said there was absolutely no sexual contact whatsoever.  Then Sickels said he put his hand down the victim's pants.  Then he said it was consensual sex.  Apparently, Christensen stroked the victim's hair and tried to shush her during the attack, though he now maintains that he never touched her.

Now, my legal experience (apart from my minor in political science) basically comes from crime dramas on television, but I know that once you tell a story to police investigators, you should stick to it, because otherwise you look guilty as sin.  If you say there was no sexual contact, stick to it.  Oh or better yet! - Tell the truth the first time.  You people are cops, don't you know the rules of interrogation?  My God, I'm a freakin' pacifist and I know this!  (Of course, my father also trains interrogators for the military, so that may also be why I know this....)  If you had sex with her, just admit it.  

If the two cops had led with the story of consensual sex when they were first interrogated, I doubt they would have been convicted yesterday.  Which would have been a pity, because I have been pretty sure they were guilty from the first time I heard this story, mostly because the victim has always been consistent in her story, and the cops have done nothing but lied and changed their stories.  I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial and all that....which I do believe and which I am sure they did in fact receive.  And they are GUILTY!  

It's also a tragic way to start a morning because a young woman was raped, for God's sake, and by those who are charged with protecting citizens and upholding the law.  Rape is not something one just "gets over," like a car accident or something else.  It is an assault on our bodies, the precious gift God has given to be bearers of holy light and to contain our souls, abusing the sacred gift of sex as a weapon of violence and pain.

It's also tragic because these men, no matter how heinous and stupidly they've behaved, are also men with families, and beloved children of God, and they all are going to be in a lot of pain for a long time to come.  The difference, of course, is that the victim did not choose the pain she's experiencing, but these men could have chosen not to cause themselves, their families, or their victim, this sort of pain.  Beloved children of God - behaving absolutely wretchedly.

Pray that the victim can continue her process of healing, and that these men acknowledge the wrong they have done, and that God gives them all a new path forward in life and hope.

Why I Live-Blogged ER, and part of what I love about television

So, I used to watch ER in college, and loved it.  Like some people, I drifted away from it over the years, but kept "in touch" via the commercials and an occasional episode.  This being the last season, I have decided to see how it ends.  And I'm glad I watched tonight with all the old all-stars (or, most of the old all-stars, anyway).....it reminded me of one of the things I love about good television.

See, with good television, the characters continue to live on, even when they're off-stage.  They marry, have children, continue to slay vampires, live, love, experience loss and grace.  Now, sloppy writers try to incorporate the life of the actor into the future life of the character, but good writers really take time to think about the character, not the actor, and how the character would have grown/changed/stayed the same in the time off-stage.

Tonight, we saw how things have turned out so far for many of our favorites from ER.  Mostly they are all doing well, with their lives relatively "together," or more so than when they were living the crazy life on ER.  George Clooney, for example, has really settled down, matured, and is a calm and steady presence in a difficult situation.  Julianna Margulies has really come into her own - with awesome confidence and a real sense of self.  She really is George's equal...and his partner.

Lovely jokes among the cast.  A lovely demonstration of the next generation of ER's staff and that County General is clearly in good hands - and the "two generations" working together is so cool.  And I loved how it ended, with Julianna telling George that "the kidney went to some doctor."  She didn't even know it was their former colleague.  

I also love the way that we can "see" that their ... um.... lives do go on.  (sorry for the wretched Celine Dion reference)  Even after this episode, their lives will continue, and we have both a sense of closure and a little bit of joy knowing some of how it turned out.  

This week I was talking with someone from church who is also a Monk fan.  This summer is the last season, and he said he hoped that Monk finally finds out who kills his wife.  I am more ambivalent.  It would be good to know, but on the other hand, there's a certain bittersweet joy in imagining Monk carrying on in his neuroses and his struggle to understand what happened to his wife, and why.  I like to imagine him going on doing what he did in the time I "knew" him.  In a way, it makes him more real, more human.  

And yes, I know he's a character and not real.  But good television lets you imagine that they are.  

Live-Blogging ER, part four

9:45pm definitely should not flip over to Private Practice at commercial.  I don't even watch this show!

9:46pm back to the ER, and Noah Wyle's surgery.  (Oh, Dr. Benton!  That was his name!)  Way to be an awesome advocate for Noah's health care needs.  Please let it go okay.  (Yes, I pray for television characters.)

9:48PM Way to advocate for the heart patient.....and we are back to Noah's surgery.  Arterial thrombosis....And holy crap Eriq La Salle just schooled the surgeon!  Now we see the benefit of a teaching hospital like County General.

9:50pm fibrillation!  ... and baby momma.  The baby is so cute!  Has Angela Bassett still not figured out that this girl is the mom?  I saw that in the first minute.  (Please - I should write for television.)  She should have figured it out when the girl left the ER the first time.  

9:53pm.  Nice new kidney Noah Wyle.  Only doctors can have this kind of humor.  And only doctors would call urine "liquid gold."  And only a doctor would wait until AFTER surgery to call his almost-ex-wife to tell him about his kidney transplant.

9:55pm - Kid with mom and her new heart.  Seeing the new generation take over....awwww.

9:56pm.  Julianna and George in bed.  Mmmmm.  They don't even know which doctor got the kidney.  That it was their friend and former colleague.  I love that.

Live-Blogging ER, part three

9:35PM OK maybe it's not Jamie-Lynn Sigler.  It's not on IMDB anyway, either on ER's episode cast or her page.  But who is it then?  It sure looks like her.

9:39pm Seriously - no plane?  Jerks!  Of course that would happen.  Loved the bit about the human heart.  And, "Do you like reggae?"  (um, sort of)

"You married a sister?"  Nice.  Nice.  "She's half-Congolese...grew up in Paris."  So....she's not really a sister? ... it doesn't really count?  That's just kind of weird.  Maybe I'm overthinking it.  Maybe he was just trying to tell Eriq something about her.

But Eriq's right.  She should know about it.  And of course he'll do the right thing and stay with Noah.  

"Do you like reggae?"  Nice.  They do do a good job with repeating lines like that in different contexts....good television.

Oh, and yes, I realize I'm using the actors' names, because I've forgotten half of their character names and it's just easier to be consistent and use all actor names.

Live-Blogging ER, part two

What's the kid from Sopranos doing on ER?  She's playing a character named Daria.  Can't think of the actress' name.

9:23 pm ....and there's Eriq La Salle.  So many dreamy guys on this show... Love that they are all, in their own ways, catching up on old times.  Nice to hear how these characters and their lives have evolved "off-stage" over the years.  

9:25 back in Seattle.  George Clooney and Julianna Margulies were among my favorite characters back in the day, so I like seeing them again.  (I also liked Noah Wyle and had a soft spot in my heart for Eriq La Salle's character, in part because of his deaf son.)  These two are an artful team - I'd give them my own kidney if they asked.....

Live-Blogging ER, part one

9:17PM Just got the computer from Backbencher...OMG this ep is amazing!  I knew we'd be seeing Noah Wyle and Julianna Margulies, but George Clooney?!?!?!  He's amazing.  They're amazing.  And Susan Sarandon is just the sort of guest star you want for such an episode.

It's been a long time since I watched ER consistently, but I've totally been sucked in to these eps with the guest stars of the past....

Noah Wyle's character has kidney failure, apparently.  And there's a transplant team from County General that Julianna and George .... oh, wait, George just revealed himself to the gals.  catching up on old times.

9:20pm ooh, evidently G and J have kids.  "girls"

Plus the normal insanity of the ER....God I love this show.

Apparently...

The correct term for one who is from Utah is Utahn.  Who knew?  That's the important takeaway from this article.  Oh, and MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice are teaming up for a concert in Orem, Utah.

And no, Shar, I'm so not going to this concert.  I already saw one of them once; it was more than enough.  I'm not that white.  I swear.  I read TNC and everything!

(h/t Ta-Nehisi Coates)

Something Nice About the Catholic Church

They held a very nice Mass for my grandmother last week.  Props to St. Ambrose Parish in Elkton, Florida and to the priest.  It's a lovely little church in the middle of almost-nowhere near East Palatka, with relatively good memories for me, and if you're ever in the area, please go check it out.  The current priest, Fr. Edward Booth is very good and personable, and of course the former priest, Fr. Patty, will always live cheerfully in my memory as a kind and generous soul in the deeply upsetting situation of my Papa's funeral.  His radiance, a reflection of Christ's light, continues to brighten my memories of this place.  The new priest only added to my fondness of the place.  Also, I love that as you walk in the doors of the church, you are greeted with a picture of Pope John Paul II.  

The new priest did a fine job and I was once again reminded how deeply central to the liturgy the Eucharist is.  (I know, duh.)  Then, we walked - walked! - from the church to the cemetery, with the hearse following behind (until they passed us...).  It was beautiful.  Out of a movie.  Only better, because it was real life.  At the grave, the priest did a very lovely committal.  Then my uncle and cousin got up in turn to share stories of Nana.  

You all will be surprised to know that I didn't share anything at the service; I was content to be a granddaughter.  Also, my uncle shared this passage, which expressed my resurrection hope just about perfectly:

 "I am standing upon the seashore.  A ship at my side spreads her white sails to the morning breeze and starts for the blue ocean.  She is an object of beauty and strength, and I stand and watch her until at length she hangs like a speck of white cloud just where the sea and sky come down to meet and mingle with each other.  Then someone at my side says, 'There!  She's gone!'  Gone where?  Gone from my sight, that is all.  She is just at large in the mast and hull and spar as she was when she left my side, and just as able to bear her load of living freight to the place of her destination.  Her diminished size is in me, and not in her.  And just at that moment, when some one at my side says, 'There! She's gone!' there are other eyes that are watching for her coming and other voices ready to take up the glad shout, 'There she comes!' "

 It is attributed to Henry Van Dyke, and calls to mind of all those who took up the glad shout "There she comes!" to greet my Nana.  Papa.  Uncle Bud.  My maternal grandparents.  Others I do not know and may never know.  What a joy to know she is not, has not ever been, alone.

Thanks be to God for the gift of life in Jesus Christ, and the new life that awaits us beyond the grave.  

The Sacrifice of Women's Bodies

....seems to be pretty acceptable in the eyes of the Catholic Church hierarchy.  Where do I even begin?

First of all, I know this story is kind of old for some of y'all, but have mercy.  I've been in Florida with my family and Backbencher's for the past several days for my Nana's funeral.  

Second of all, let me also acknowledge that some of y'all reading may in fact be Catholic and/or pro-life.  There is much I admire about the Catholic Church, and its relatively consistent ethic toward life is one of those things (I may not agree with their stance on abortion, but at least they oppose war, too....unlike other pro-life, pro-military 'churches' in this country).  But this is ridiculous.

A nine-year-old girl is repeatedly raped by her stepfather.  Repeatedly.  She becomes pregnant with twins - often a high-risk pregnancy even for adult women, and more so in a girl who has barely reached puberty and whose hips have not widened enough to give birth to one child, much less two, even assuming she survives the pregnancy and the concomitant changes to her internal anatomy - as a result of this rape.  Doctors perform an abortion to save her life, and they and her mother are excommunicated by their bishop.

The MSNBC article notes that, "Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion."  Thank you, Archbishop Sobrinho.  Because apparently women's bodies - or children's bodies, in this case - are less important to the church than are the theological ethic of life that leads the church to have what they call a "pro-life" stance.  What is it that Lincoln said? "I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."  Or, again, whose CHILDREN are not better for it.

Some of you may be saying, "What about the fetuses that are aborted?  Don't they deserve to be treated better?"  Here's the thing.  Sometimes that is a false argument - to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus (or, in this case, fetuses).  Without the abortion, the nine-year-old would have died, and so would have the lives growing her womb.  An ethic of life that leads to a forced death - not a death this little child CHOSE (which is the death of Jesus) but one that was forced upon her by her rapist stepfather - is no ethic of life whatsoever.  Again, the sacrifice of women's bodies seems to be an acceptable one of the church hierarchy.  

But I am here to tell you, by whatever authority I have as a child of God baptized into the church of Jesus Christ and as an ordained minister within a mainline Christian denomination, the sacrifice of women's bodies is not an acceptable sacrifice to God.  The sacrifice of human bodies, if it was ever acceptable to God (and boys and girls, that is a debate for another day), is no longer acceptable after the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.  

In short, the sacrifice of women's bodies on the altar of "pro-life" is not acceptable to God.

Oh, and did we mention the stepfather has not been excommunicated by the Church?  Because apparently the ongoing rape of a child is not an excommunicable offense.  I wonder, what would it take for such a one to be excommunicated?  

Creationist Gets Pwned

My, my, my.  I've been trying to figure out from blog-context (blogtext?) what "pwned" meant, to little avail.  I gathered enough to figure out that it is similar to what we old folks used to say about someone getting "schooled," but that was as far as I'd gotten.  (I only use the urban dictionary in extreme cases or if I have some sort of unreasonable deadline.)

Then, I came across this.  (thanks RussellKing @ Street Prophets)  And all became clear.  

Poor Discovery Institute.  Now you know what it means to be pwned, too.  SUCKA!