Ponderings on a Faith Journey

What is Happening? A Sermon

2012-01-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

Mark 1:21-28

Jesus walks into the synagogue at Capernaum, immediately heads to the pulpit, and without so much as asking for permission from the synagogue leaders, starts preaching. After that, the place falls into chaos.

That’s because, no sooner had Jesus started preaching, when suddenly, a man stood up in the sanctuary, and started shouting Jesus. The man, whom Mark says was possessed by an evil spirit, screamed at Jesus, demanding to know what Jesus would do with “us?” Are you going to destroy us? After all, “I know who you are.” Yes, “you are the holy one of God.”

Picture yourself in such a congregation. How would you have responded to all of this commotion? Would you have been amazed and shaken, as Mark suggests was the case for this congregation? I expect that like us, this congregation liked things to be done “decently and in order.” What would you make of both the preacher and the respondent to this preacher? Would you call the police?

As Mark tells the story, the congregation was first amazed at Jesus’ authoritative teaching, contrasting his teaching with that of the religious leaders. In hearing this story we must be careful not to read into it an anti-Jewish bias, while recognizing in Jesus a message that is both prophetic and challenging to our own religious and cultural sensibilities.

There is in this story, a question posed to us – who is this person and how should I respond?

Although they were amazed at the teaching, they were also shaken by the encounter with the man possessed with evil spirits. They watch breathlessly, as Jesus demonstrates his authority over the demon by “harshly” demanding that the spirits be silent and then to come out of the man. We’re told that at that moment, the evil spirit shook the host and with a scream left the man’s body.

As the people in this congregation, people like you and like me, tried to make sense of the scene, they asked a question: “What’s this?” What’s happening here? Surely, we would be asking the same kinds of questions!

Then Mark writes: “Right away the news about him spread throughout the entire region of Galilee.” Even without Facebook and Twitter, news spread quickly about this new teacher.

The question of the hour wasn’t just: What happened here? A more important question was: Who is this person who has turned everything upside down? How would you have responded to him and the chaos that he stirred up in that congregation? What would you be thinking?

We might not be the most formal congregation in the world, but we like things done decently and in order. That’s why we have a bulletin that lays out the service so that everyone knows where they need to be and do at the appropriate moment. There’s a time for prayer and a time for song, a time for preaching and a time to gather at the table. Just so everyone knows their place, the names of the person doing each job is noted. Sometimes we make adjustments, but there is still a sense of order to our responses to the needs of the moment. We’re not used to the kind of commotion Jesus caused in that congregation.

What would happen here if some somebody walked in off the street and headed to the front, took the microphone – probably from the preacher – and starting talking – without permission? I know I’d be a bit concerned, and I expect the Elders might be concerned as well. But then to complicate things, what if someone got into a frenzy, stood up, and started arguing with this strange preacher? Wouldn’t we also ask the question: “What’s this?”

I expect that this story could raise a deeper question in our hearts and minds. As we ask the question: Who is Jesus? We also ask a related question: What does this Jesus who always seems to be disturbing the status quo want from me?

Albert Schweitzer, a famous doctor, missionary, organist, and bible scholar, wrote a book more than a century ago about the “search for the historical Jesus.” He concluded that at the end of the search, the people seeking after the historical Jesus end up looking down into a well and seeing their own reflection. When they asked who Jesus was, they ended up with a person who looked just like them and thought just like them. In the end this “historical Jesus” served to validate their own ideas and ideologies.

So, is Jesus nothing more than a reflection of our own imaginations?

Last Sunday a group of us went to the DIA and took in the “Rembrandt and the Face of Jesus” exhibit. Although the exhibit focused on Rembrandt’s paintings of Jesus, the exhibit placed his perspectives in the context of other artistic creations.

What stood out for me was the revelation that Rembrandt used a young Sephardic Jew living in Amsterdam as his model for Jesus. This made him unique, because most artists of that day portrayed Jesus as a good northern European man. This Euro-centric vision of Jesus can be seen in the picture on our bulletin this morning. For most Europeans then, and probably most European and American Christians today, Jesus looks like a good blue-eyed blonde European male – with long hair and a beard! Rembrandt, however, turned things upside-down by trying to portray Jesus in a way that reflected his Jewish humanity.

So, who is the real Jesus? How does he affect the way you live and think? Does he make you uncomfortable, as he made the attendees of this synagogue? Does he challenge your sense of identity? How do you experience his call to discipleship? Would you be willing to drop everything, like Andrew and Simon, James and John, and follow him on a journey that often is uncomfortable and challenging?

In an earlier presidential election cycle, a candidate said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher. Unfortunately, no one asked him why Jesus was his favorite teacher of wisdom. What was it about Jesus that informed his world view? What difference would the teachings of Jesus make in the way he would lead the nation?

Many of us have a rather domesticated view of Jesus. He’s our savior and our friend, but not much more. We tend to ignore what Peter Gomes, the late chaplain at Harvard, called “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus.” We know that the gospel must have been scandalous to some, because it upset enough people, that Jesus ended up dying on a cross. But, what is it about the gospel that can be truly scandalous?

In Mark, the scandal begins here, in the synagogue at Capernaum, where Jesus’ teaching and actions amaze and shakes up the people. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus preaches in his home congregation, and causes such a stir that they the people not only chase him out of the synagogue, but they also try to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:28-30).

So, who is this Jesus, who causes such a scandal?

Many years ago, back when I was but a youth, The Doobie Brothers had a hit song. Maybe you remember it – “Jesus is Just alright with me.” Is Jesus just all right? Is he nothing more than a domesticated savior whom I turn to when I need him, but who I ignore the rest of the time? Is he nothing more than a religious symbol that is useful in supporting an agenda? Or is his message of God’s realm, a message that is expressed in his words and in his actions, something that changes the way we look at life and live our lives in this world?

Yes, who is this Jesus? And when he steps into our midst, what happens to us and to our world?

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, Michigan
4th Sunday after Epiphany
January 29, 2012

The Hyphenateds -- A review

2012-01-28T16:51:00.000-05:00

THE HYPHENATEDS: How Emergence Christianity is Re-Traditioning Mainline Practices. Edited by Phil Snider; Foreword by Phyllis Tickle. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011. Xxii + 162 pages.

It’s no secret that Mainline Protestantism has experienced significant decline over the past fifty years. If you’ve been to a typical Mainline church you’ll likely notice that those present are relatively order than the general population. Many pundits have put this branch of the Christian community on a death watch. Although the theology and social views (especially on issues such as homosexuality) of this brand of Christianity would seem to position it well to attract younger generations (GenX and Millennials), such has not been the case. Despite attempts to contemporize worship and become less traditional, these churches (my church) continue to struggle.

Despite the apparent downward trend, there are signs of hope springing up here and there. This doesn’t mean that the present rate of decline won’t continue for the foreseeable future (with such a large percentage of membership being over 65 this is inevitable), but not all is gloom and doom. There are examples of new and interesting forms of church life emerging. These forms of Christian community track with the theology and even some of the traditions of existing Mainline Christianity, but they seem to be metamorphosing into new forms and expressions that may in the end look very different from what we know as Mainline Protestantism today.

Phil Snider, a Disciples of Christ pastor, with Emergent inclinations has gathered together a set of essays written by other Emergent-inclined Mainliners. The Emergent Church movement had its birth among younger evangelicals who found the theological and social constraints of evangelicalism problematic. As they “moved left,” they began to encounter younger Mainline Protestants who also were on a journey toward something new and engaging. They are not, Snider insists, “abandoning the traditions that have shaped them; rather they are attempting to faithfully appropriate their beloved traditions in new and innovative ways.” They are, he suggests, seeking to retradition the church so that new life can emerge (p. xvi) As a result of these conversations a new breed of Mainliner developed – a hyphenated Emergent-Mainliner. Thus we have Presby-mergents, Luther-mergents, [D]mergents, Angli-mergents, and more.

The book, which carries a foreword by Phyllis Tickle and an afterword from Doug Pagitt, contains essays from thirteen Emergent Mainliners. In their essays they express appreciation for their varied traditions, hopes for a new way of being church, anger at the way church is practiced, and critique. Some of the writers, including Carol Howard Merritt and Nadia Bolz-Weber are widely known, while other names may be new to many readers. There will be essays that one finds resonating, and others that do not. Each reader may respond differently to the perspective of a given author.

In my reading I found several of the essays especially poignant. The first essay of the book is written by Bolz-Weber, an Emergent Lutheran pasturing in Denver, and carries the title “innovating with integrity.” She expresses the desire of many Mainliners who wish to push boundaries, to innovate, but wish to remain true to the core values and theologies of their tradition. She writes:

The core holds the history, the tradition, and the money. It includes the ecclesial structures, the traditional churches that have existed for generations . . . The innovative edges then are emerging churches, multicultural ministries, and any ministry being established outside the structure of the ELCA, especially by seminaries and laity in response to their context. (p. 5)

The question that flows from this continuum of core and innovative edge is whether there is sufficient respect at both ends, but especially at the core, for the other. Are the voices of the Millennial Generation, for instance, being heard? In a similar fashion, Stephanie Sellers, an Episcopalian, raises the question of how to balance freedom and order in a church that has valued tradition and order. Going forward, however, how does it allow sufficient freedom to contextualize itself so as to be present in and with a new generation?

Sometimes structures, which have served church and clergy well, have conspired to shut down innovation. Elaine Heath, a United Methodist, notes that the principles of guaranteed appointments have made it difficult for Methodists to engage in the kind of bi-vocational ministries that allow for a more incarnational presence. You can serve as a bi-vocational pastor, but such an appointment does not allow one to have the same voting privileges as full-time clergy (ordained elders), or to serve as a district superintendent or bishop.

So, if you are an innovative, missional, creative, bivocational local pastor who is good at planting and leading emerging faith communities on the margins of society, you will never become a district superintendent, never become a bishop, and never be able to offer to the ailing UMC at large the ecclesiological medicine it needs in order to become healthy again. (p. 33)

There is in this vein at times deep anger at the way the structures are laid out and how they may conspire against innovation and even radical Christianity – as seen in Christopher Rodkey’s “Satan in the Suburbs,” which offers what seemed to me to be a diatribe against the church and its use of ordination to control.

Some of the essays, such as Carol Howard Merritt’s explore the cultural terrain of emergent/mainline ministry, while Matt Gallion, a graduate student in religious studies explores postmodern philosophy, which has been a key component of the emergent conversation. Gallion calls on emergent Mainliners to face the truth that if it is to “radically enact or incarnate transformative change – as it purportedly desires to do – then it will have to face its overwhelming similarities to classical liberalism and move beyond them” (p. 89).

These essays that I’ve highlighted offer a taste of what can be found in this very important book for the Mainline Protestant church. I didn’t agree everything I read and I didn’t find equal value in every essay. That is to be expected from a collection of essays. However, this is, as Doug Pagitt suggests, a family conversation. The idea of being hyphenated reminds us that there is often discomfort in bringing together different families, to form a new family identity. Pagitt writes of the feeling among many Mainliners attracted to the Emergent Conversation – their family of origin is too important to let go of the name.

This is, in my opinion, where the hyphenateds of the emerging church world find themselves. They recognize they are in a new relationship, but they also know where they came from. They want to be fully in the emerging family, but as a product of another family. (p. 156).

How all of this will work out is unknown. Will one of the family names get dropped over time, or will this new hyphenated identity enrich the broader Christian conversation? As Matt Gallion notes, this new identity must be more than simply repackaging traditional liberalism. It can’t be another gimmick to grow a dying church. It must contribute something of value to the realm of God.

One thing that can be said for the convergence of the emergent church movement, which has evangelical origins, and the Mainline, is that the ethnic and gender representation has been broadened. One of the criticisms of many Emergent gatherings is that the stage is dominated by white males. In this conversation, a significant portion of the contributors are women (six of thirteen), some of whom are persons of color.

As a Mainline Pastor who has been engaged in this conversation, though I am of a generation older than most of the participants, I am grateful to Phil Snider and to Chalice Press, for making this volume available to the church. May it stir a conversation that can lead to transformation of the church so that it becomes flexible and innovative enough to engage the world that exists and will exist, even as it seeks to be true to its core.

War Horse and Red Tails -- Thoughts on 2 War Movies

2012-01-28T10:06:00.001-05:00

On back to back Fridays, Cheryl and I took in a movie. We saw War Horse a week ago and then yesterday we went to see Red Tails. Both are war movies, though they focus on two different wars. Both are moving and well made movies. Both have famous producers/directors who have made blockbuster movies -- Spielberg and Lucas. The two movies tell different sides of the story of wars.

When we went to see War Horse, we actually thought we would see Sherlock Holmes, but I had mixed up the times, and so we "accidentally" saw War Horse. It was much different than I expected, and I was deeply moved by the story that focuses on a horse and his master. Joey is a beautiful horse, fit for racing, but ends up owned by a family that needs a plow horse. When the family suffers financial hardship, Joey is sold to the military, and becomes the cavalry horse for a British officer. We see the war essentially through the eyes of Joey, who becomes the property, at least momentarily of a British officer, a couple of young German soldiers, a young French girl, then again the German army (pulling massive guns), and then miraculously is saved from "no-man's land" between the German and British trenches by the shared efforts of a British and a German soldier. In the end the horse ends up with the British, and ultimately to Albert, his original master, who is now a soldier. It is a story of loyalty, bravery, and serves as a witness against the glory of war.

I had focused on the loyalty angle as I was watching the movie, but reading a reflection on the movie by Psychologist Richard Beck, I was introduced to another side of the story. As Beck points out in the course of the movie, the lines between "us" and "them" are blurred. Joey becomes the symbol, Beck suggests, of the "war horse" that all participants become.

In all this we begin to see that Joey isn't the only warhorse in the film. Joey is a symbol of something much darker. The first warhorse in the film is actually Albert's father. And Albert soon follows.

Everyone, German and British alike, is found to be a "warhorse." And we leave the film thinking that the real enemy isn't the man in the other trench.

We're all just warhorses, we come to realize. The real enemy is war itself.

Red Tails offers a different kind of story. War isn't the enemy, necessarily, in this movie. Instead, the enemy is prejudice. This is the story of the Tuskegee Airmen, an all-black fighter wing that distinguished itself with gallantry and success during World War II. At a time when the U.S. Military still considered African Americans unfit for duty, these men proved themselves to be brave and competent, becoming one of the most decorated units in the Army Air Corp.

Red Tails is the story of highly skilled and determined men who are fighting for a nation that refuses to recognize their full humanity. This is not just the story of a war, but about a struggle for dignity. And in the course of the movie, we see how this struggle emboldens, empowers, and yes, liberates young men from the bonds of an American culture that was then deeply entrenched with bigotry. And ultimately, it is the efforts of these young men that lead Harry Truman to desegregate the military, which leads ultimately to the process of desegregation in America. The Red Tails not only helped win a war, they helped set in motion societal changes that changed the face of America.

You will likely watch these two movies with different sets of lenses. One calls us to recognize the horror that is war. The second movie calls us to recognize that military service often calls forth from human beings their best, and their efforts can have a salutary effect on humanity. War remains hell, but out of the pit of hell comes something good.

After watching both movies, we must recognize that war remains with us, and that the opposing sides in these conflicts -- the soldiers in the trenches -- are human beings. We must also recognize that as much as the efforts of these young men served to change the way Americans understood race, bigotry remains part of our national fabric. Thus, gratitude must be expressed to Spielberg and Lucas, people who know how to entertain us, for telling stories that challenge heart and mind.

Reading the Common English Bible

2012-01-27T09:32:00.000-05:00

In 2011 we observed the 400th anniversary of the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible. The KJV reigned supreme for more than 300 years, with true challengers emerging only in the mid-20th century, as new understandings of translation theory and new textual discoveries began to make themselves felt. There are a few folks left that not only prize the KJV, but hold tightly to its authoritative status. It's as if good old King James I was God incarnate. But even most conservative Christians today embrace modern translations.

It's possible that we've reached the point of translation saturation, but new translations continue to emerge, giving the reader of Scripture more and more choices. For the past twenty years or so, I've been using the New Revised Standard Version. It is a well-attested scholarly translation that takes into consideration contemporary concerns about gender inclusion. It retains a strong sense of formality that resonates well when read publicly, but the success of the New International Version has pointed to the need for a translation that is even more contemporary in its feel, while being more reflective of the ethos of the Mainline Protestant community. It is good to remember that theology does influence translation!

For this reason the publication of the Common English Bible is a welcome addition. It is accessible while seeking to steer close to the original texts. I have been using the New Testament for more than a year, and more recently had the opportunity to start using the Old Testament. I'm not a biblical scholar in the professional sense, so those more adept with the languages can offer their own assessment, but I find this to be a most excellent text.

From the website we learn that the purpose of this Translation is as follows:

The Common English Bible is not simply a revision or update of an existing translation. It is a bold new translation designed to meet the needs of Christians as they work to build a strong and meaningful relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

A key goal of the translation team was to make the Bible accessible to a broad range of people; it’s written at a comfortable level for over half of all English readers. As the translators did their work, reading specialists working with seventy-seven reading groups from more than a dozen denominations review the texts to ensure a smooth and natural reading experience. Easy readability can enhance church worship and participation, and personal Bible study. It also encourages children and youth to discover the Bible for themselves, perhaps for the very first time.

The translators and the team of readers that offered response to the translation before publication straddles a cross-section of denominational traditions. This cross-section is seen in the publishers that cooperated in its production:

The Common English Bible Committee meets periodically and consists of denominational publishers from the following denominations: Disciples of Christ (Chalice Press); Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (Westminster John Knox Press); Episcopal Church (Church Publishing Inc); United Church of Christ (Pilgrim Press); and United Methodist Church (Abingdon Press). Abingdon Press is the sales distribution partner for the CEB.

As part of an ongoing CEB Blog Tour, of which I've been a participant, the publishers of the Common English Bible have empowered bloggers to offer a free Bible to readers. I've been remiss in making the offer of late, so if you're interested -- give your name in the comments and I'll be in touch and we can pass on the information to the CEB folks!

You can, of course, get a copy from Amazon as well -- just follow this link:

CEB Common English Thinline Bible Bonded EcoLeather Burgundy

Hearing God's Message -- A Lectionary Reflection

2012-01-26T09:53:00.001-05:00

Deuteronomy 18:15-20

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

Mark 1:21-28

Hearing God’s Message

How does one know the voice of God? What helps one discern when God is speaking and when God isn’t? These are important questions, as people of faith desire to know what God is up to and what God would have us do. We needn’t embrace a deterministic world view to concern ourselves with such questions, for in our prayers we do desire to enter into conversation with God. Sometimes we have difficulty with this need because the voice we hear seems to be different from what we expect.

Our ability to hear God’s voice and sense God’s presence is that we now live in a de-enchanted world – our view of the world, in the words of Rudolph Bultmann, has been demythologized. It has been laid bare and we find it difficult to find underlying meaning and purpose. It appears to many people, that we are alone in this world. It’s true that there are still remnants of an older worldview that clings to extreme supernaturalist views of the world, but that world continues to shrink.

We want to believe, with the ad writers of the United Church of Christ that “God Still Speaks,” but how will we hear that voice? How will we recognize the prophet that arises from our midst so that we might heed that voice? Will we be amazed and even disturbed by the words and actions of those who bring this word into our midst, a word that often unsettles the status quo?

With these questions in mind we come to the lectionary texts for this Fourth Sunday of Epiphany. The Gospel of Mark guides our journey, seeking to reveal to us a Jesus that we sometimes can’t get our heads around. As the title of a Peter Gomes book puts it – the Gospel of Jesus is often scandalous. So, as we tend to these texts, from Deuteronomy, from 1 Corinthians, and from the Gospel of Mark, how do they help us hear the message of God?

The reading from Deuteronomy raises an interesting point. According to this text, the people have asked Moses to ask God to provide them a prophet, a spokesperson, once Moses is gone, so that they can hear the message of God without having to risk encountering God face to face. They find it difficult to listen to God’s voice and look at the fire of God. It has become apparent to them that to encounter God “face to face” is too overwhelming. To do so would lead to their deaths. Do we feel the same way? Do we have this striking sense of God’s presence that is so overwhelming that we shrink back, or is ours a domesticated God, one that is easily handled? Are we feeling the need for a mediator? Or can we handle it on our own? If we live in a de-enchanted world with a demythologized gospel, then do we have anything to fear from being in the presence of God? Have we relegated God to being the “man upstairs,” a sort of feeble grandpa who we trot out on special occasions or entreat when we need a few bucks to tide us over? Sometimes it seems as if there is no fear of staying too long in the presence of God, and I wonder – is this a good thing?

The good news for the Israelites is that the LORD God hears their pleas and promises a prophet who will arise from among the people. This person will receive the words of God and tell the people what God had commanded. Anyone who doesn’t heed this word will be held accountable. There is a catch, however, as God will hold accountable the person who “arrogantly speaks a word in my name that I haven’t commanded him to speak.” In other words, choosing to speak on behalf of God is a dangerous calling – be sure you are hearing correctly!

The Corinthian letters are, I believe, important voices in the modern world. They speak to a church living in a deeply pluralistic setting. Paul must help them navigate their context. We may not embrace all the we find here, but it is a reminder that we live in a world full of diverse voices, not all of which are in sync with the desires and purposes of God. In this particular passage, Paul speaks to Christians who believe that they have reached the pinnacle of spirituality. They believe they have sufficient knowledge (gnosis) to make them immune from any temptation to follow after competing voices. Paul speaks of this “knowledge” as leading to arrogance, an arrogance that stands contrary to the love that is God. In this situation, the issue is eating meat sacrificed to idols. These Christians seem to have demythologized their context, and since the best meat in town is to be found at the local temples, why not dine there? After all, these so-called gods are empty idols. They have embraced the message that there is but one God, and therefore all other “gods” are mere idols. Paul’s view is a bit less de-enchanted. Yes, there is but one God, and these idols, are mere statues, but there are spiritual realities that they need to take into account. But more importantly, they need to be aware of their brothers and sisters whose world view is much less de-enchanted. For them to dine at the Temple could lead them into worshiping this other deities, leading them away from their encounter with God through Christ.

Paul acknowledges that knowledge (gnosis) is good, but knowledge can puff up with disastrous consequences. Therefore, focus instead on love of your brother and sister who may not be as “strong” as you are. Recognize that your freedom could cause them to stumble. Is that steak so delicious that you feel it necessary to destroy their faith to have a taste? What if you’re freedom leads some of your brothers and sisters to worship false gods? Is it worth it? Paul suggests that such arrogance is a sin against Christ, because it is a sin against one’s brother or sister. Thus, Paul decides that if food causes the downfall of a brother or sister then he won’t eat meat again.

This is an important text because it affirms the importance of community. I should take into account my sister or my brother in the faith when I choose to act. My freedom in Christ is circumscribed by my love of neighbor. Having said this, I need to acknowledge the danger of legalism. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many examples of people using this text to limit freedoms. Don’t have a beer; don’t go to a movie, etc. So, freedom should be circumscribed by love, but freedom should not be circumscribed by legalism. I realize that in my current context as pastor of a Mainline Protestant church, my situation is different than it was years ago when I was involved in a rather conservative Pentecostal context. But that experience is a reminder that legalism is also a threat to our ability to hear the voice of God. But, the key here is to keep our own behavior formed by love of neighbor.

Finally we come to Jesus’ visit, with his disciples, to the synagogue at Capernaum. Something to note here is the use of adverbs like immediately and suddenly. Mark’s account of Jesus’ ministry is an active one. Jesus doesn’t saunter up to the synagogue and have a seat; instead he enters the synagogue immediately and begins to teach. And events don’t just emerge slowly, they happen suddenly, such as when a person with an evil spirit stands up in the synagogue and screams at Jesus – accusing him of coming to destroy the demonic spirits.

Such is the nature of this encounter that the people are amazed and shaken. Wouldn’t you be in a state of shock if someone came to church and just strode up to the pulpit and began preaching? As a pastor, I’d surely ask some questions about why a person would do such a thing. I don’t care if this preacher teaches with such authority that the people are amazed – there’s such a thing as decency and order. It would be nice if this preacher would give me a chance to sit down and discuss when and where this conversation should take place.

Added to this preacher breaking into the service and demanding the pulpit, you have the additional frenzy caused by the demoniac who stands up and shouts at Jesus. Yes, everyone would be in shock.

But the story is complex. Jesus has come to the synagogue and has begun teaching, but the demons not only fear being destroyed, but they inadvertently identify Jesus – you are the holy of God, they declare. When Jesus hears their affirmation, he silences them. There’s something odd about Jesus’ power encounters in Mark – he’s not eager to receive the witness of these entities. And yet, this encounter serves to affirm the message – there’s something unique about Jesus. He has a new teaching – the gospel of the reign of God – but he also has power over unclean spirits. As you would expect, the news spreads quickly. Soon the entire region of Galilee has heard the news. There is a new prophet in town, and he seems to have the power of God within him.

As we hear this text, it calls forth from us a response: Who is this person? What is he? What do I make of him? It was a question asked then and it’s again being asked. We in the Mainline Protestant community, especially those of us engaged in interfaith work, this question is central. Historic Christian teaching insists that Jesus is the unique revelation of God. No one comes to the father, except through Jesus. There are increasing numbers of people in the church today who are uncomfortable not only with an exclusivist message, but even one centered on Jesus. So, who is Jesus? How does he speak and embody the realm of God for us?

As we ask these questions about Jesus, as they are raised by the text, we need to acknowledge that there is present in this passage the possibility of anti-Jewish sentiment. Jesus’ teaching is contrasted with the scribes (legal experts – CEB). And there’s the presence of the demoniac in the synagogue. Yes, we need to be wary of expressing perspectives that would denigrate the Jewish people, even as we seek to hear God’s voice in the person and message of Jesus of Nazareth.

As we listen for God’s voice this Fourth Sunday of Epiphany, what are you hearing? Is it a surprising message? A challenging one? Does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Read the texts for the week from the CEB, click on texts above.

Knowledge and the Danger of Arrogance

2012-01-25T10:34:00.000-05:00

¹ Now concerning meat that has been sacrificed to a false god: we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes people arrogant, but love builds people up. ² If anyone thinks they know something, they don’t yet know as much as they should know. ³ But if someone loves God, then they are known by God. (1 Corinthians 8:1-3 -- Common English Bible.)

I'm not preaching on this text from 1 Corinthians 8 this Sunday (it is the lectionary selection from the Epistles), but I thought it interesting for a time like this. Paul isn't discounting education, which is important. The knowledge that he speaks of here is one that leads to arrogance -- knowledge that puffs up, leading one to believe that one is better than the other.

I'm hesitant to bring up a text like this at a time when there is political gain to be gotten from attacking education and knowledge -- especially scientific knowledge. There is political gain from misrepresenting history. But despite the hazards, I think it is important to hear this word about arrogance, especially during a political season.

As you ponder this text, here this word from Kenyatta Gilbert concerning Paul's admonition:

The person who loves God discovers a truth: knowledge corrupts if not chastened by humility. [In Ron Allen, et al., ed. Preaching God's Transforming Justice: A Lectionary Commentary, Year B, p. 85]

A Call to Teamwork -- by the President

2012-01-25T09:18:00.002-05:00

Last night's Presidential State of the Union laid out a laundry list of accomplishments and and things yet to be done. The President spoke of foreign policy victories and economic improvements at home. Things aren't "good" but they're getting better. No, not everyone is feeling it yet, but all the markers suggest slow and steady improvement -- despite partisan gridlock. The President called for investment in the national infrastructure and pursuit of clean energy. He suggested that the rich could pay more in taxes so that others could have a fairer shake (that didn't go over well with the opposition).

Now, I'm not going to rehearse the State of the Union Address, though I thought it was an excellent speech. Yes, it was a political speech -- most are and this is the beginning of a lengthy election year -- but it was also an address to the nation, a call to action on behalf of the common good.

What I do want to pick up on was the call to being a team. The President suggested that if America works together nothing can stop it's success. Whatever your view of war and the military, something in the President's analogy about team work exhibited by the military has to resonate.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. (Applause.) Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

One of the things the President reminded us of was that no who is successful got there on his or her own. Somewhere along the way someone, likely many someones, were there to help. And very likely, the government played a role.

Those of us who watch team sports know that a team can have the best player in the world, but without a strong team that player won't truly succeed. Tom Brady is a great QB, but without good receivers and a strong offensive line, he'd be nobody. Tim Lincecum went 13-14 last year despite posting one of the best ERA's in the National League. Why so many losses? The team didn't score runs. Most of those losses came in games where the Giants scored one or fewer runs. Team work is essential.

The President pointed to the troops and commended them for their dedication and their team work -- and suggested we might benefit as a nation by following their example. Indeed, the church could learn from following their example.

Teamwork -- it is indispensable for an athletic team, for church, for nation. Does it mean we all agree? No. But it does mean that we agree to work together for the common good. It means that we learn to listen to each other. It means we put the other first by loving one's neighbor as one's self.

Whether we agree on all the particulars of the President's speech, may we agree to come together to work for the good of all. Oh, I'm not naive enough to believe that it will happen over night, but can't we begin to work together, even at the edges?

Politics -- What should we do with it?

2012-01-24T10:40:00.000-05:00

It's a political season. Last night there was another debate -- number 18 with a myriad more to come. I don't watch them, the analysis is often more interesting and revealing. What is most interesting to read are the fact checkers. The misstatements are fast and furious. Are they intentional? Possibly. Are the result of ignorance of the facts? Possibly.

Tonight the President will give his State of the Union Address. Will it have a political tone to it? Of course, it's an election year and this is one of the few moments that he has to present his side of things.

Will everyone lay down their arms and welcome one another in a new bi-partisan fervor that will put the country first? Hardly. The right will find things they hate, even if the President re-gifts to them one of their own positions. Will the left find things to hate? Of course -- it would be nothing new.

Is governing getting more difficult? Indeed!

We live in an age of instant communication and analysis. Opinions sprout long before the facts get analyzed. Rumors spread and take on a life of their own. As wonderful as social media is, it has its limitations and drawbacks.

Politics is seen as dirty business, which is unfortunate. Politics is the way in which a democratic society functions. It involves organization and sharing of ideas. But, the system isn't working. In fact, some reforms have made things worse. I'll give you an example: Earmarks.

People hate earmarks, but earmarks help the system work. Now that we've essentially eliminated them, there are no incentives to get anything done. All we can do is stonewall and filibuster. There is little leverage in the system, and thus the system is grinding to a halt. I have no way of exchanging my support for your venture, because you have nothing to give me in exchange. I need a bridge, you need money for a new school in the inner-city. How do we make this work?

Term limits is another reform gone bad. Because term limits breed inexperience into the system, someone picks up the slack of experience -- lobbyists. You see, by the time a person has gained enough experience to understand the way the system works, they're term-limited out. But, they have learned enough to be dangerous outside the system. Corporations and other entities wanting to influence the system know where to go to influence legislation -- former legislators needing a job.

Politics isn't a necessary evil, it is the foundation of a free society.

So, I want to leave this discussion -- or open it up -- with these words on what democracy needs, as posited by Parker Palmer:

Democracy needs and, at its best, breeds people who have minds of their own. Individual entrepreneurship and personal creativity have given rise to advances in everything from business to technology to the arts. Independent thinking can also help get the ship of state back on course when ideological conformism leads us astray. And yet anyone who does not understand that the self is interdependent with others does not understand what it takes to be entrepreneurial, creative, and political, let alone what it means to be human. [Palmer, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit, p. 66].

Think on these things during this political season!

American Divide -- Sightings

2012-01-23T09:03:00.000-05:00

Why is America so divided? Why is the 99% falling so far behind the 1%? Why is the church losing ground? Martin Marty takes up the critique of our contemporary situation by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. Murray suggests that social policy that emerged in the 1960s has lead to a breakdown in society and development of a "cultural inequality." There may be some truth in what he says, even if there is much that is debatable -- at least from what I read in the WSJ article Marty points us to. I'd like to invite you to take a look, and offer your thoughts -- what is the cause of the divide?

********************************

Sightings 1/23/2012

American Divide

-- Martin E. Marty

Next week Crown Forum will publish Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 . The weekend Wall Street Journal gave a generous two-page preview. The foretaste in the Journal presented no surprises, since the author, Charles Murray, offered the standard American Enterprise Institute blame-throwing: “As I’ve argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration” of the culture, beginning with economic change. No doubt these urgent reforms did have a down-side and contributed to the “American Divide,” but this single-explanation approach leaves out too much about the “why” of the in accounting for the way “the working class falls further away from institutions like marriage and religion and the upper class becomes more isolated.”

One might add to the list of the many causes of the divide: cynicism spread by cynical popular culture and mass media; hyper-individualism (St. Ayn Rand) and denigration of community and support of “the common life;” polarization in politics and the loss of civility in “discourse;” quick-fix solutions to problems in religious, educational, and cultural life where patience would have more to offer; certainly the move into the world(s) of virtual reality with artificiality and insubstantiality in the bytes-world; radical pluralism and the jostling it brings. I know, I know: there is an up side to most of these, but we need to remind ourselves of more causes of division and isolation of “classes” than get much attention in Charles Murray’s world.

That being said, Murray is still worth a read, not least of all because of data with which he works and statistics he presents. Of the numerous “worlds” he headlines for the “white working class”: “Marriage down 36 percentage points;” “males with jobs working fewer than 40 hours per week, ” “percentage doubled;” “secularism up 21 percentage points. . . .” Mention “secularism,” and Sightings pays special attention. Murray necessarily has to use broad measuring tools, and concentrates on “people who profess no religion or attend a worship service no more than once a year.” If 38 percent were “secular” by that measure in 1971-76, we do well to pay attention if the figure is 59 percent in the years 2006-2010.

There are other ways to measure “secularism,” and church critics might look at the market-oriented and prosperity gospel churches and see that commitment to God through them may often be defined as “secular.” Still, Murray’s “churchy” concentration indicates what I call “seismic,” not “glacial” shifting.

The church (and synagogue and mosque and “whatever,” as they say in pluralist America), has known other seismic shifts through the centuries but, as many within them remind us, “they’re still here.” One hears many notices of the change, mixed with lamentations, whispered whining, expressions of nostalgia for a world that never was, along with careful analyses and efforts at programming. The theologians would say that all this has something to do with the nature of faith in God, hope for the future, and love for the good, and would ask for more than statistics, market analysis, and blaming. If Murray’s work is recognized as a contribution which merits attention, we can thank the author for it, but set it in a larger context than the one he provides.

References

Charles Murray, “The New American Divide, ” Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2012.

Bill Bishop and Robert G. Cushing, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008).

Very helpful analysis of “seismic shift” change in “the religious marketplace” is offered by C. Kirk Hadaway in a chapter from Church & Denominational Growth (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993).

Martin E. Marty's biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

----------

In this month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jonathan Wyn Schofer explores how late ancient rabbinic narratives understand human vulnerability in relation to the environment, and the ethical instruction inspired by this understanding. Schofer proposes that "contemporary environmental ethics can learn much from considering these perhaps exotic rituals and stories," which "portray people as entrenched in natural processes."

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

No Longer Strangers

2012-01-22T09:17:00.003-05:00

I’m rather new to Troy, having moved here nearly four years ago from Southern California. In many ways this fact made me a stranger living amongst strangers. I did have a congregation to come to, which made it easier for me, but I still had to find my way into this new community so far away from my “homeland” on the West Coast. In many ways, even though I’ve made many new friends here in Troy and its environs, I’m still making a home in this community. I’ve been made to feel welcome, but is this true for everyone who comes to our community?

Sometimes being a stranger is rooted not just in one’s newness to a community. There are other aspects of one’s personage that sets one apart from other in the community. In fact, there may be those in the community who aren’t comfortable with certain kinds of people, people who are different in ethnicity, language, education, economic status, culture, religion, and sexual orientation. Sometimes we tolerate the stranger – “The Other” – without actually welcoming them.

In the biblical story, both in its Hebrew (Old Testament) part and it’s distinctly Christian part (New Testament), the stranger is welcomed into the community. To not show hospitality is deemed sinful. It is a rejection of a person created in the image of God. In Deuteronomy, the directive is to welcome the stranger or the immigrant into the community, because Israel had once been in the same position.

He enacts justice for orphans and widows, and he loves immigrants, giving them food and clothing. That means you must also love immigrants because you were immigrants in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Common English Bible).

One must not forget the powerful message found in Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the way in which the people will be judged – according to the way in which they treated the stranger and the outsider, the one who lives on the margins of society.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who will receive good things from my Father. Inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you before the world began. I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. I was naked and you gave me clothes to wear. I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matthew 25:34-36, CEB).

There are theological reasons why the stranger should be welcomed, but there are also practical reasons as well. Parker Palmer writes: “As long as we equate the stranger with the enemy, there can be no civil society, let alone a democracy where so much depends on holding the tension of our differences without fearing or demonizing the other.” [Palmer, Healing the Heart of Democracy,(Jossey Bass, 2011), p. 96].

The health of our community depends on our ability to welcome the stranger – the one who is different. Fear, unfortunately, undermines our ability to show hospitality and to open our arms to the other. We live in a very diverse community, and our ability to truly be community depends on our ability to not only tolerate difference, but welcome into our lives those who are different. Is it possible for us to no longer be strangers?

Reposted from Troy Patch

Preaching God's Transforming Justice -- A Review

2012-01-21T11:20:00.000-05:00

PREACHING GOD'S TRANSFORMING JUSTICE: A Lectionary Commentary, Year B Edited by Ronald J. Allen, Dale P. Andrews, and Dawn Ottoni-Wilhelm, Editors. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Xxv + 518 pp.

Those of us who primarily preach from the lectionary appreciate resources that address these specific texts. I have a number of these resources, including the recently completed Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, series from Westminster John Knox. This publisher has added another helpful resource to their collection, this one looking at the texts from a social justice perspective. This volume, which looks at the texts for Year B of the Revised Common Lectionary, “concentrates on how the lectionary readings can help the preacher identify and reflect theologically and ethically on the social implications of the biblical readings.” It also highlights twenty-two “Holy Days for Justice,” such as Martin Luther King’s Birthday and World AIDS Day (p. x).

I’ve decided to offer an interim review of the volume, for I am currently using it in my own sermon preparation. I must add that I am friends with one of the editors of this volume, and from a conversation about this volume, I was told that he (Ron Allen) was the primary editor of this volume, and that the other two editors are focusing on years A and C. I’m sharing my thoughts on the volume at this time, because we’re already well into Year B.

The editors, in this case Ron Allen, have recruited a wide range of contributors, some of whom are academics and some are pastors. A quick look at the list of contributors will reveal well known names and some who are much less well known. There are women and men, and people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. What they hold in common is a commitment to social justice and a belief that Scripture speaks to such matters.

The format is simple. A writer takes up the four texts of the day – Hebrew Testament, Psalm, Epistle, and Gospel – and wrestles with it with a social justice lens. The addition of the Social Justice Holy Days is quite helpful, for preachers will often focus on these important issues and having texts and commentary to turn to is important. Additionally, the presence of these Holy Days is a reminder that we live in a broader social context that extends beyond Sunday morning.

As with any multi-author volume there is unevenness in the presentations, but that does not hinder one from hearing the text a new. It is of course, but one resource. It is insufficient on its own, but taken together with one’s other resources, this volume will broader our preaching horizons. It will enable us to see the texts in a new light, for social justice remains a central focus of the prophetic tradition, a tradition that undergirds the preaching tradition. Called to preach, we are called to speak to the questions of the age, and justice is always at the forefront of our questions.

We are blessed to have this new addition to the series of important contributions for preachers that WJK Press has published in recent years. Many of us have found their Feasting on the Word series to be a tremendous blessing to our preaching. Since Ron Allen is the primary editor of this volume, I will also point out the value a three volume lectionary commentary set that he wrote together with his colleague from Christian Theological Seminary, Clark Williamson, dealing with the lectionary texts with the problem Christian anti-Judaism in mind. That series, which has not gotten sufficient attention, underlines the importance of having a variety of perspectives to draw upon as we prepare ourselves to speak from Scripture to the gathered people of God.

If you are a preacher who is concerned about the state of the world in which we live, and you feel called to address the social issues of our day, and you wish to root that message in the Scriptures, then you will find this volume to be of great assistance. And, don't wait to add it to your collection, Year B is moving along quickly!

Hubris!

2012-01-20T09:27:00.003-05:00

Hubris is defined as "excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance." It comes from the Greek word for insolence.

It takes a bit of hubris to run for public office. It takes a bit of audacity to believe that you are capable of leading a nation. I get that. But what happens when it really goes to your head, when you are incapable of seeing the world as it really is? We've seen that in people like Saddam and Qaddafi. We listen to them, and we think of them as being fools.

While Newt Gingrich may not be a Saddam or a Qaddafi, he certainly is one who has not just hubris, but an excessive amount of it. I don't think I could say it any better than his rival Rick Santorum: "Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich. He — he handles it very, very well."

Not only does he exhibit grandiosity, but he has learned to turn that on end so that he can draw power by portraying himself as the victim of some kind of media war against him. Here is a man who is at best amoral, who attacked President Clinton for his moral failures (and Clinton had plenty of hubris and moral failure of his own), even as he was in the midst of a lengthy affair. At the very least there was incredible hypocrisy.

We are all sinners, as Paul pointed out. We are all in need of grace. I have my moral failures and I have a certain amount of hubris as well. I get that. I'm very aware of this, and I'm not an Augustinian nor a Calvinist!

But, I stand amazed at the way in which supposedly "values voters," who seem to be flocking to Gingrich's standard, seem not to care about his character. They don't seem to care about his hypocrisy. They speak of religious values, and yet seem not to care that the one they are supporting is an amoral person. But then they like the way he taps into their sense of resentment and anger.

John King's question last night may not have been posed well and maybe he should have brought it up later in the debate, but it's on the minds of many -- are the charges made by his former wife true? That Newt's mean-spirited attack on the moderator, and as an aside attack on the President, drew a standing ovation from the crowd simply amazes me. But then I shouldn't really be surprised since this has been his tactic since the beginning -- attack the questioner. He did it last night with King and he did it the other night with Juan Williams (who is hardly a liberal), who raised the question of Gingrich's remarks about the poor and about African Americans.

But he's not alone. I see others in public life who are drawing power by playing the "victim" card. The mayor of my own community has been doing this as well. Now, the fact is -- these folks are people who have political and economic power. They're not oppressed. They are people who have chosen to enter the public arena, where you face scrutiny. If you don't like it, then don't go into the arena. But, don't play it for political gain. This is simply another example of hubris.

So, the question is -- how does one have sufficient self-confidence to enter the public arena without falling into the "hubris" trap?

It's Time! A Lectionary Meditation

2012-01-19T19:41:00.000-05:00

Jonah 3:1-5, 10

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

Mark 1:14-20

It’s Time!

Time flies and you can’t get it back once it’s gone. It’s fleeting, so don’t waste it. I’m skittish about such adages, because we live in an age of instant gratification. We want results now, and won’t stand for any delay. At the same time, we can have a lack of urgency about important matters. Climate change, for instance, is one of those issues that is hard to get excited about. We hear reports that the sea might rise an inch or so a year, as the earth warms. It doesn’t seem like much, but it doesn’t take long for it to add up. Oh, it may be a few decades, but time flies by quicker than we think.

Many of our churches are living on borrowed time – the members are getting older and frailer. The possibility of passing on the torch to the next generation becomes ever more difficult, as we kick the can down the road.

We are creatures of instant gratification, but do we have a true sense of urgency about what God is up to in the world? Will we get to matters of God’s realm now or will we postpone to a more convenient time? My own inclinations, at times, lead me to embrace the latter option.

As I read this set of lectionary texts, all of which are rather brief in scope, I get a sense of urgency. The time is short. Don’t waste another moment. There isn’t time to have a proper farewell with one’s parents. Get up and go, for the time is here. The realm of God is at the door. This is the message we hear in Jonah, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, and in the Gospel of Mark (it being the briefest of all the gospels).

Jonah heard the call of God, but he wasn’t interested in heeding it. Going to Nineveh didn’t sound like a very profitable opportunity. They were oppressors of Jonah’s people. They were renowned for the viciousness. What good can come of such a venture? If God wished to judge the city, then let him do it and get it over with. That would benefit everybody. Nuke them! That’s what they deserve, so give it to them. But God was unrelenting. God had a message for the people, a message of some urgency. Get up and go, Yahweh told Jonah. Declare my judgment against this great city, a city so large that it took three days to walk across its expanse. It wasn’t his desire to do so, but Jonah went anyway, and he proclaimed the message: “Just forty days more and Nineveh will be overthrown!” The people heard the message and they responded by proclaiming a fast and by putting on mourning clothes.” Even the king joined with them. There’s a little break between these verses and the closing verse of the lection, where the king gives instructions in response to the word of judgment. The word of judgment had been uttered, and it was heard. Not only did they hear, but the acted with urgency. And God saw what they were doing and God decided to stay the execution. God saw that the evil behavior had ended. And when God saw this, God decided to not destroy the city.

If you read on you discover that Jonah was not at all pleased with this turn of events. There is urgency to get the message out and to respond to it, for repentance and grace are the messages of the day.

Paul’s apocalyptic side gets exposed in this passage. The time is short, so don’t be consumed by worldly things – like marriage and family, joy and even mourning. Be focused. It’s a word that is not easily heard or a way of life that’s easily sustained. There’s little family values focus here – if you have a wife (or a husband), live as if you’re single and celibate. Not because family is bad, but because there’s no time for it. The same goes for those who are sad – there’s no time for mourning. It only distracts you from your calling, but the same is true of those of you who are joyful. Don’t live a normal life. Don’t be preoccupied with the things of this world, “because this world in its present form is passing away.”

This Pauline word has a harshness to it that may be off-putting. It may seem unrealistic as well. But think of the context. Think of the sense of urgency present here. Do we have the same sense of urgency about God’s calling on our lives? Or, are we too distracted with our “things” whether they are our smart phone, our computers, our golf clubs – whatever it is that draws our attention away from the work of God? We all have them, those things that keep us from seeing things as they are.

And so we come to Mark. His is the shortest gospel. He gets to the point. It’s action oriented. John has been arrested, and so it’s time for Jesus to take up the mantle. He’s been baptized and he’s been to the desert. His focus is clear and he sees urgency. “Now is the time! Here comes God’s Kingdom! Change your hearts and lives and trust his good news!” (Mk 1:14-15). Repent, turn around, live a life of trust.

As Jesus goes across Galilee, preaching this “Good News” he encounters two brothers – Andrew and Simon – they’re hard at work casting their nets into the lake. They were, after all, fishermen. It wasn’t as if they were wasting time checking their Facebook pages (as I often find myself doing!) But, Jesus has something else for them to do – something with more urgency – they would join him in his work of spreading the Good News of God’s realm. Instead of trying to catch fish in the lake, they would catch people. And when the call went out, they left their nets “right away.” Not tomorrow or next week, or when they retired, but “right away.” They dropped the nets and followed. The call came with a sense of urgency and they responded with the same sense of urgency.

But Jesus’ wasn’t finished. As Andrew and Simon walk along the lake with Jesus, he sees another set of brothers – James and John. They’re sitting in their boat, busy fixing their nets. Maybe they’d returned from a long day of successful fishing, and now it was time to prepare the nets for the next day. They too were busy, doing “normal work.” But, “at that very moment he called them. They followed him leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired workers.” No long goodbyes, no waiting for replacements. They just get up and follow. Would you? Could you? I don’t know. I did pick up and head off for seminary, with nothing but $500, a broken down car, and no place to live when I finished my nearly eight hundred mile journey from Klamath Falls to Pasadena.

Is there a sense urgency about our faith? Do we concern ourselves with the Reign of God? Are we like Jonah, who goes to Nineveh -- a place of power and prestige, a place that likely would not heed the warning (and if they did, would he like the outcome?) – but does so reluctantly and after running away the first time? Do we find ourselves preoccupied with the things of this world? Are we willing to drop our nets and follow Jesus, fishing for people? Jesus says – Now is the time. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Now, for there is no time to waste!

Rome Pokes Canterbury in the Eye -- Again

2012-01-19T09:21:00.000-05:00

Don't let the picture mislead you -- things aren't all that congenial between Rome and Canterbury. There's a lot of tension and a lot of concern about the relationship. Being a former Episcopalian who is in conversation with local Catholics, many of whom are less than enchanted with the conservative direction in that Church, I'm intrigued by the commentary offered by Peter Williams, a historian of American religion. He draws our attention to the Catholic Church's decision to set up an American home for Traditionalist Episcopalians who wish to leave that church and migrate over to the Catholic Church. This is, as Williams suggests a poke in the eye of the Anglican community. The point in the end, it seems, is that even as the Roman Church is drifting further right and the Anglican community in North America and Great Britain to the left, the opportunity for meaningful dialog is becoming increasingly difficult.

So what is the future of this conversation? What is the future for these churches?

*********************

Sightings 1/19/2012

Rome Pokes Canterbury in the Eye—Again

-- Peter W. Williams

On January 1, the New York Times reported that the Roman Catholic Church had established a “Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter” which will function as an ecclesiastical home for members of the Episcopal Church who wish to transfer their allegiance without giving up the liturgies of the Book of Common Prayer and a married (though all-male) priesthood. Its bishop will be based in Houston, traditionally a hotbed of Anglican unrest in the wake of “the current unpleasantness” over the ordination of gay clergy and bishops and a growing hospitality towards gay marriage. A similar offer to British Anglicans--“the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham”--announced last year drew a rather small number of converts, as well as an unamused response from Church of England officials. These arrangements are similar to those negotiated in previous centuries with various Eastern-rite churches, known collectively as the Unia, many members of which returned to Eastern Orthodoxy after their married clergy met with a hostile reception upon arrival in the United States.

From Henry VIII’s break with Rome until the nineteenth century, Anglican or Roman allegiance carried with it heavy political implications on both sides of the Atlantic. These implications had receded by the time of the Oxford Movement of the 1830s, which signaled a new Anglican sympathy for such Roman emphases as sacramental piety and the apostolic succession. In 1852 Levi Silliman Ives, the Episcopal bishop of North Carolina, resigned to become a Roman Catholic, and a number of other English and American Anglicans with Anglo-Catholic proclivities followed suit. Any chances of serious ecumenical discourse, however, were quashed by Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae, which declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void.”

For decades the two communions kept their distance, reinforced both by social as well as theological barriers. By the 1960s, a number of forces had converged to reduce these barriers. Pope John XXIII convened the ecumenical council Vatican II, which emphasized commonalities with other Christian communions. American Catholic laity, exemplified in John F. Kennedy, now possessed enhanced economic and cultural power that put them on a social level comparable with the Protestant “establishment.”

Since Vatican II, both the American Anglican and Roman Catholic communities have split into complex groups of internal factions. The support shown by the Episcopal Church’s leadership for civil rights and other reform movements undercut that denomination’s reputation as a bulwark of the civic power structure, while simultaneously alienating many members who had valued its traditional conservatism. Episcopalians, traditionally divided into Low Church (evangelical), High Church (Anglo-Catholic) and Broad Church (ecumenical liberal), have experienced attrition from the first two groupings over issues of Book of Common Prayer revision and women’s ordination and, more recently, the acceptance of gay clergy, bishops, and marriage. Evangelical discontents have aligned themselves with Anglican provinces in Africa and Latin America, or with Robert Duncan—sometime bishop of Pittsburgh—and his homegrown Anglican Church in North America. Anglo-Catholics, whose movement to Rome has taken place gradually, are presumably the group most open to the latest papal initiative.

Migration has also been steadily taking place in the opposite direction. Some say that the Episcopal Church might be out of business were it not for the steady, quiet stream of former Roman Catholics joining its ranks. Only continuing Hispanic immigration has kept United States Catholic numbers steady. Many American Catholics remain loyal for familial and cultural reasons, but selectively ignore papal teaching they find irrelevant. Progressive Catholics continue to exist, but with diminished visibility. An influx of younger and foreign clergy reinforces the conservative inclinations of an episcopate appointed exclusively by traditionalist popes, creating an even greater chasm between laity and leadership--the same sort of chasm, ironically, created by the leftward movement of Episcopal clergy and bishops.

Both communities, which have historically seen themselves as “churches”--inclusive, broad-based entities--now find themselves trying to contain major losses brought about by divisiveness among internal factions. In the meantime, the ethos of each community’s leadership--inclusive, democratic, and progressive Anglicans versus hierarchical, traditionalist Catholics--makes the possibility of continued meaningful ecumenical dialogue doubtful at any but the grassroots level. The ecumenical commission ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission), launched in 1967, has encountered increasingly greater frustrations as newer questions of gender and sexual orientation have joined traditional issues such as papal supremacy as stumbling-blocks to enhanced confessional unity. More pokes in the eye may be inevitable.

Peter W. Williams is Distinguished Professor of Comparative Religion and American Studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

----------

In this month’s Religion & Culture Web Forum Jonathan Wyn Schofer explores both how late ancient rabbinic narratives understand human vulnerability in relation to the environment, and the ethical instruction inspired by this understanding. Schofer proposes that "contemporary environmental ethics can learn much from considering these perhaps exotic rituals and stories," which "portray people as entrenched in natural processes."

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Pastoral Letter from Rev. Sharon Watkins

2012-01-18T16:57:00.002-05:00

I received this pastoral letter from Sharon Watkins, the General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). I thought I would share it with you as it speaks directly to matters of public interest, which has been a topic of conversation here. I invite you to think about what she has to say about the world in which we live and the theological lens through which we may view it.

January 12, 2012

Dear Disciples,

Today as I sit to write, it is the anniversary of the massive earthquake that shook Haiti two years ago. We have experienced the shock of other tragedies since then: the earthquake in Japan, storms across North America, and the on-going drought and starvation in the Horn of Africa (to name a few.)

For many Disciples in the US and Canada, however, the disaster that hits closest to home is the economy. We are told the recession is over, yet too many still look for work, too many are still choosing between rent and medicine. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicates: “Conflict between rich and poor now eclipses racial strain and friction between immigrants and the native-born as the greatest source of tension in American society.” ¹

What does the good news of Jesus Christ look like at such a time? The story of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:13-17 gives us some clues.

There is John the Baptist, stunned that Jesus would come to him for baptism. Does “Your Majesty” bow down to a mere “Mr.”? Jesus’ request turned the world upside down! Instead of going to the high and mighty for validation, he did “the limbo” (how low can you go?) and turned to a wild man, asking for immersion in water.

Water, in the Bible, is more than cleansing, bathing, birth. It is also – chaos! In Genesis, God creates the earth by pushing back the watery chaos of space. In the Psalms, watery oceans are the places of monsters and unpredictability. Water, in the Bible, evokes a primal, deep-seated fear of the unknown.

So what happens when Jesus goes into the water? The heavens open. But instead of watery chaos pouring in through those holes in the sky, God’s voice wafts down with blessing, and a dove appears as a sign. “You are my son, my beloved,” says God. “I am pleased.”
Jesus goes through the watery chaos, comes out again to receive a blessing from God and heads into his ministry.

The good news still involves that same progression – from chaos to blessing to mission.

When the walls of water are waiting to burst in, this is when the people of God are at our best. When we follow Jesus right into the chaos and come through on the other side to a blessing and a mission. When against all common sense we rediscover our hope.
Jesus told John, “I must be baptized by you.” It seemed an idea designed to turn the world on its head, making chaos out of the normal human order of things. But Jesus wasn’t afraid of a little chaos. He went for it! And instead of turning the world on its head, the world turned right side up! God spoke. “Beloved, I am pleased.”

When the massive tornado churned through Joplin, Mo., last year, South Joplin Christian Church was not in the direct path of the tornado, but it was severely damaged on the away side of the tornado by debris being swept in by that powerful vortex of destructive energy. The roof of the church was peeled back and the next several days of rain poured down through all floors to the basement.

I had the privilege of joining with the congregation of South Joplin as they dedicated a refurbished building. Beautiful! A blessing, indeed. A couple of weeks ago, South Joplin also opened their refurbished youth center – now a mission station that will house volunteers who come to Joplin to help rebuild. A blessing and a new mission, too. The people of South Joplin Christian Church, like so many others, dove right into the chaos. It hasn’t taken away the pain of loss, but it has given a way forward.

In this year of 2012, chaos may still loom. Decisions beyond our control may affect our economic future. In the U.S., an election year seems bound to unfold with personal attack instead of thoughtful debate about achieving the common good. It’s tempting to give in to cynicism or despair. But Jesus leads a different way – right into the middle of the chaos – in a progression through chaos to blessing and a mission.

As we move more fully into 2012, I offer a prayer that we will, as a church, be willing to head into the chaos of our time with a sense of God’s blessing and a call to God’s mission. Perhaps we will lead a mission trip to Joplin or Tuscaloosa or Southwest Good Samaritan Center. Perhaps we will call our congregation to pray regularly for the healing of the nations. Perhaps we will increase our stewardship for the mission of the church through Disciples Mission Fund, Reconciliation and Week of Compassion. Perhaps we will join with other congregations in our own town to be a blessing to our neighbors closer to home.

Disciples, we are a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. Our calling is to follow Jesus –and that usually means right into the chaos. But also right on through to blessing and to a mission and to a sense of things being right side up at last.

Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
* * *

¹ New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise: January 11, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Learn more about Sharon Watkins at www.disciples.org/ogmp.

As you hear this invitation to respond to the needs of the hour, perhaps the call to engage in a mission trip will come to you. In addition to the possibilities offered by Sharon, I'd like you to consider an urban mission trip to Detroit this summer through Motown Mission and/or Rippling Hope Ministries. Motown is especially appropriate for larger youth groups looking for a week-long event. Consider especially the week Michigan Disciples are sponsoring in June, which we have called Peace Week (June 17-23).

State Neutrality and Religion in the Public Sphere

2012-01-18T09:34:00.000-05:00

Political theorist Jurgen Habermas states that the religious voice is welcome into the public sphere, but this voice requires translation if it is to be received and have influence in that sphere. But, what is the nature of this sphere? What role does the state play in this sphere?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution suggests that the state will not establish any form of religion or impede the freedom of Americans to worship as they please. The question that has been raised historically, but more specifically in recent years, concerns the level to which religion can be present in the public square and what form that can take?

Thus, is it appropriate for schools to require students to pray? The Courts have held that while students can organize themselves for prayer, the schools cannot organize them for prayer.

It's really a tricky thing -- this interaction between religions and the public sphere -- especially in one that is rather pluralistic (and becoming increasingly so).

I want to throw into this discussion the voice of another philosopher and political theorist -- Charles Taylor (a Canadian). In a piece entitled "Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism," Taylor writes that in a pluralist society some kind of neutrality or "principled distance" needs to be kept between religion and the state.

So, as a way of approaching this question he points to the French Revolutionary trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity:

1. No one must be forced in the domain of religion or basic belief. This is what is often defined as religious liberty, including of course, the freedom not to believe. This is also described as the "free exercise" of religion in the terms of the U.S. First Amendment. There must be equality between people of different faiths or basic beliefs; no religious outlook or (religious or areligious) Weltanschauung can enjoy a privileged status, let alone be adopted as the official view of the state. Then 3. all spiritual families must be heard, included in the ongoing process of determining what the society is about (its political identity), and how it is going to realize these goals (the exact regime of rights and privileges). This (stretching the point a little) is what corresponds to "fraternity" [in The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, pp. 34-35]

This appears to be a workable solution -- the state invites the voices of all faiths as well as those who profess no religious position to come to the table. No one's position is favored, but all are equal and included. Of course, in the United States, where Christianity in all its variety, remains the dominant expression of religion, we've found it difficult to maintain a balance. Fifty years ago, Mainline Protestants had a major voice in creating the social/cultural dynamic. Today, their voice is muted, and other voices, including conservative evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics seem to be making more noise. But is their influence greater than before?

So, what should the relationship of state and religion be in an increasingly pluralist setting? Should we push the religious voice out, or find a way to accommodate it? Perhaps by finding ways of translating that voice into more secular forms?

N.B.: As you ponder this question you may find it valuable to check out John Fea's article contrasting the moral visions of Santorum and Obama.

Ministerial Exception -- Sightings

2012-01-17T09:02:00.000-05:00

Is Christianity being discriminated against, as some claim? Or, is religion receiving favors from the government in the form of both tax exemptions and now, with a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court, a ministerial exemption. With his usual wisdom and wit, Martin Marty unpacks the evidence. Take a read, offer your thoughts.

*****************

Sightings 1/16/2012

Ministerial Exception

-- Martin E. Marty

Those who observe United States Supreme Court decisions on “church and state” are dealing with what many call the most important “religious liberty” case in decades, at least since the 1940s. Like so many cases, this one had a parochial start. The details are familiar, and we need not rehearse them all. Let it come to focus on the fact that a Lutheran parochial school teacher had been dealt what to her was a manifest injustice. She countered by seeking to pursue her case in court. Doing so, claimed the church, was counter to church teachings, so it fired her. Had she been a simply secular employee in a simply secular post, the usual standards for administering justice would have applied. But the church named her a “minister,” and argued for a “ministerial exception” to secular standards. The Supreme Court decision left the teacher out in the judicial cold and left many citizen justice-advocates heated up.

So we add a “ministerial exception” to a national vocabulary and code which makes another exception in religious matters, alongside “tax exemption for the churches.” Such a tax exemption practice is so widely appreciated that few think of its rationales and practices. Try getting elected to Congress on a platform which would question and even abolish such tax exemption. Is exemption just? Clearly, it is privileging religion, and many court decisions recognize and affirm this. Once again: is it just? Is it just to the significant percentage of the population which disfavors religion, ignores or disdains its institutions, yet pays higher taxes than if church properties were taxed. Never mind. Without such an exception, religious institutions would not thrive or always survive. So it is regarded, not always with clear rationales, as a public good. Does this mean that the church, which is supposed to be prophetic, has to mute critical roles and support religious institutions even when they have, in the eyes of their critics, malign purposes and malignant practices. Yes. Being uncritical is a price religious institutions pay for the goods they derive for their prosperity in a free republic and letting the institutions go free from taxing is the price it pays when it can only wink at religions damaging the public good, as many of them do.

“With liberty and justice for all . . .” is an ascription in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, one that sets up a difficult balancing act. The founders, among them James Madison and others who quoted Montesquieu, were nervous. They quoted him: granting privileges to religion, as America does, has many upsides, but it can also contribute to downsides. If you want to destroy religion, Montesquieu had advised, give it favor. By granting “tax exemption” and now “ministerial exceptions,” the citizenry and its courts (unanimously in this case of the Supreme Court) are giving favors unmatched by policies of European nations which have or until recently had “established churches.”

These years one hears from some cultural and political factions the gross generalization that religion in general and Christianity in particular are being discriminated against and are suffering from the actions, policies, and expressions of secular society. Cases like the current one counter evidences. There are many assaults on faiths, including Christianity, in the culture at large. But the generally free ride given religious institutions even in a “secular time” should inspire thought: With all its contradictions, the United States remains a wonderful place in which religions can prosper. They do well when they serve the common good freely and openly.

References

“Supreme Court Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.” New York Times, January 11, 2012.

A background item that provides some context for Sightings today on "rights" and "privileges" is this condensation of a lecture: http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3505

Martin E. Marty's biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Remembering Dr. King -- 2012

2012-01-16T06:00:00.000-05:00

Martin Luther King Jr. has become an iconic figure in American life. An assassination will do that for a person. It is convenient for many of us to have Dr. King on our side. Where possible we pick out quotes from speeches that support our causes and while setting aside less convenient words. Thus, we lift up his “I have a Dream” speech and cast aside his strongly worded denunciation of the Vietnam War. But his vision was too broad to be limited to that one word, as inspiring as it may be.

The vision that Dr. King sought to share with the American people was rooted in his commitment to pursue not only civil rights for African Americans but justice for all people. His conscience was raised by the plight of African Americans living in the segregated South, where lynchings and Jim Crow laws sought to keep a particular group of people in their places. This conscience was also formed by his engagement with the teachings of his faith, especially the biblical prophets and Jesus, who spoke clearly about God’s commitment to justice. The prophet Amos, for example, contrasted concern for piety and ritual with a concern for justice, declaring: “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever flowing stream” (Amos 5:24 Common English Bible).

Dr. King was inspired and empowered by a deep faith in God, a faith that reached into the message of the Hebrew prophets and that of Jesus. He sought to offer a vision of justice that was inclusive and liberating. He understood that one’s faith, if it is to be truly lived, should lead to concern for justice – not just for some, but for all.

In his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” which he wrote to Moderate White Clergy, he pushed back against those who had criticized him for pushing too hard for social change. They suggested he focus on spiritual things, rather than social justice. It is a rather long letter that covers much ground, but in it he spoke of laws that were just and those that were unjust, and called for people of faith to recognize that the teachings of their faiths had made it clear that God was on the side of justice.

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

In his famed “I have a Dream” speech, King appealed to the words of the Declaration of Independence, and pushed beyond the Founders narrow vision that limited liberty and freedom to white males and applied them to all humans. He stood with others, including those who fought for the right of women to vote and have their own legal rights, in drawing out the true implications of these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

As we remember Dr. King this weekend, let us take hold of his dream of a world where character – not color – determine one’s future, and let us not forget that we are not there yet. And let us not forget that quest for justice remains with us.

That quest takes on many different forms. At the time of his assassination, he was deeply involved in the quest to end poverty in America. He was also involved in the effort to end the Vietnam War, a commitment that led to conflicts with some of his allies in the Civil Right’s cause. In a sermon given at the Riverside Church in New York City that challenged America’s involvement in a deeply unpopular war, King explained how his journey had taken him from Montgomery to that night at the Riverside Church:

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

We can recognize the power of these words, which define Dr. King’s vision of God’s calling on him and us to speak out for those who suffer, are helpless, and are outcasts. I would only note that in the intervening years we have become more sensitive to the way in which words can exclude, and in this case it is women whose voices need to be added to the full human community. Thus, we can hear in this a call for us as God’s children to embrace one another and pursue justice for all. We may do so fitfully and even reluctantly at times, and yet it is a call worthy of embracing.

Reposted from Troy Patch

Passing the Torch -- A Sermon

2012-01-15T11:00:00.000-05:00

1 Samuel 3:1-10

When Teddy Roosevelt became President in 1901 he was the first President since James Buchanan who hadn’t been directly involved in the Civil War. Though Grover Cleveland did pay a substitute to take his place in the Union Army.

Bill Clinton was the first post-World War II generation President, and since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, it appears that the torch may be in the process of being passed once again.

Passing the torch of responsibility from one generation to the next is inevitable – in politics, in business, in sports, and in the church.

At Central Woodward, we’re blessed with members who can remember the earliest days of this congregation, back when it sat on Woodward Avenue. It’s good to hear your stories, and we’re hoping to get them down on video soon. But a new day is dawning, and new generations are taking up the mantle of leadership. And that’s the way it should be.

The story of Eli and Samuel that we heard read this morning is a “passing the torch” story. In one way it’s a rather sad story, because Eli hoped to pass his priestly mantle to his sons. Unfortunately, they had failed him and now God was turning to someone else. The recent bankruptcy of the Crystal Cathedral is a good warning to those who wish to make the church a family enterprise! It rarely works! But the torch must be passed, and in this case Eli passes it to Samuel.

If we’re to effectively pass the torch from one generation to the next, it’s important that we understand each other. We sometimes hear about a generation gap, but these gaps exist because we tend not to understand each other’s stories and cultures. Generational theory is one way to understand these differences.

To give you an example: Think about the music we enjoy. I’ve heard it said that until Elvis, everyone listened to the same kind of music. After Elvis, music became generational. My mom listened to Engelbert Humperdink, I listened to the Moody Blues, and Brett listens to some Finnish metal band. This gap not only impacts family life, it impacts the church. In fact, there have been reports of “worship wars” breaking out in many of our churches.

So, here’s my question: Since we’re a multi-generational church, how can we effectively pass the torch of faith and leadership from one generation to the next?

I’d venture to say that there are at least five rather distinct generations present this congregation. There’s the World War II generation, which some call the Greatest Generation. Then there’s the so-called “Silent Generation,” followed by my generation – the ubiquitous Baby Boomers. Then there’s the GenXers, a generation that has a rather sparse representation in this congregation. They are followed by the Millennials – that generation of young adults who are under 30 and are the children of the Baby Boomers. And now some of these Millennials have become parents, and we don’t even have a name for this newest generation.

Each generation experiences the world differently. My parents grew up during the Depression, and my father was just old enough to serve in World War II. When this generation emerged from that War, they started families and joined churches. As a result, for a moment in time, the churches grew at a fast and furious pace. But this expansion didn’t last long, because a new generation emerged in the 1960s and 1970s that saw the world very differently. And unlike their parents this new generation was much less likely to join the church.

The two generations that have followed after the Baby Boomers – the GenXers who are children of the Silent Generation, and the Millennials who are the children of the Boomers, are even more likely to absent themselves from the church. That’s one of the reasons why so many churches struggle to attract young families with children.

Since I’m the parent of a Millennial, I’m sort of aware of how they view the world. These young adults who are now ready to take up leadership roles in the church have grown up in a world that never knew a black and white TV, a record player or even an 8-Track player. Instead of a typewriter, all they’ve ever known is the computer and the internet. And they’re children may look at the computer in the same way they look at a typewriter.

Now, although this generation is increasingly uncertain about the relevancy of the church to their lives, they are very open spiritually and they’re interested in finding places of worship and community that are authentic. They don’t just join the church for the sake of joining. There are simply too many options available to them.

Still, like Samuel, many of them are hearing God’s call on their lives. But they’re hearing this call at a time when growing numbers of people are losing confidence in institutions. Like the world into which Samuel was born, many younger adults are struggling to hear the voice of God.

The good news is that God is still speaking, to borrow a slogan from our UCC friends. The question is – are we ready to help these new generations hear that voice?

Eli is one who recognizes the importance of passing on the torch to a new generation, and so he helps Samuel tune in the voice of God. You see, according to the story, Samuel didn’t know the LORD’s voice, and so he didn’t know how to answer.

Although it took Eli three times before he figured out that God was speaking to Samuel, once he figured out that Samuel was hearing God’s voice he helped Samuel train his ear so he could respond to God’s calling.

Eli was Samuel’s mentor, and mentors see leadership potential and invest themselves in the lives of these emerging leaders. In order to take up this role, Eli had to let go of power.

A major reason why things went bad at the Crystal Cathedral was that Robert Schuller couldn’t let go of power when his son became the pastor. As a result his son failed and so did the church.

In our congregation more members are over sixty-five than under sixty-five, and so the day is coming, and is already here, when leadership must be passed on to younger generations.

Passing the torch isn’t easy. But then, letting our children go out into the world on their own isn’t easy. We want to hang on as long as possible to the umbilical chord, but eventually it has to be broken.

As for the “children” – they’ve already cut the chord. They’re taking up leadership. They’re hearing the call. And to give two examples of young adults and youth who have heard the call – I’ll point to Alex, who serves on the Young Adult Leadership Team for the Disciples, and Heidi, who serves on the Disciple Youth Leadership Team. These are only two of our under 30 members who have heard God call their names and have answered: “Here I Am.”

So, where do you fit in this story of Eli and Samuel? Are you called to be a mentor or are you being called into leadership?

Just a word of warning here: Newer and younger leaders may do things differently. They may want to sing different songs or engage in different kinds of mission. In fact, they may stir things up a bit.

Yes, the time has come for a new generation to take up the mantle of leadership by serving as elders, officers, teachers, leaders, and mentors. This passing of the torch, if it’s to be successful will take prayer and patience and openness. But, even as we see the torch being passed, that doesn’t mean that the mentor generations get to retire – there’s too much kingdom business for us to be involved with, for anyone, young or old, to retire!

William Willimon said that he always identified with Samuel, until he was about fifty, and then he began to identify with Eli. Tongue-in-cheek, Willimon says that in Hebrew Samuel means "a person who is from infancy to about forty." [William Willimon, Pulpit Resource, 28 (January, February, March 2000), 13.]

In other words, when we reach age forty or thereabouts, our youthful exuberance and idealism begins to give way to the temperings of maturity and experience.

As a pastor, I’m now well past forty, and so I too am one of the Elis. Who are you?

Is God calling you to take up the mantle of leadership? Or, is God calling you to begin mentoring the next generation of leaders?

How will you answer when God calls your name?

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
2nd Sunday after Epiphany
January 15, 2012

Religious Speech and the Public Sphere

2012-01-14T16:12:00.001-05:00

If people of faith are to be present in the public sphere and speak in a way that can move the political discussion, but do so in a way that recognizes and respects the plurality of positions present, how should such speech be conducted? That is, is it appropriate to enact legislation that is rooted in religious thought or must it be translated?

In a book of essays recommended to me by my friend Saeed Khan, a Muslim scholar, political theorist Jurgen Habermas, engaging with the work of John Rawls, suggests that religious language is permissible in the public sphere, but religious people must recognize that "the potential truth contents of religious utterances must be translated into a generally accessible language before they can find their way onto the agendas of parliaments, courts or administrative bodies and influence their decisions." (Habermas, "The Political," in The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (A Columbia / SSRC Book), pp. 25-26). That is, the wording of laws must take a form that is not religious if it is to be enacted.

He goes on to write:

Instead of subjecting all citizens to the imposition of cleansing their public comments and opinions of religious rhetoric, an institutional filter should be established between informal communication in the public arena and formal deliberations of political bodies that yield to collectively binding decisions. This proposal achieves the liberal goal of ensuring that all legally enforceable and publicly sanctioned decisions can be formulated and justified in a universally accessible language without having to restrict the polyphonic diversity of public voices at its very source. To be sure, the "monolingual" contributions of religious citizens then depend on the translational efforts of cooperative fellow citizens if they are not to fall on deaf ears. (p. 26).

My question is -- what do you think of Habermas's analysis? Is it possible for democracies to function in a way that allows for religious rhetoric, but does so in a way that is more universally applicable to all citizens? And to make this possible are we as people of faith comfortable with a state that is neutral toward competing world views?

Extremists for Love

2012-01-13T09:45:00.000-05:00

In preparation for the observance of Martin Luther King Weekend, I decided to read King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." We all know his "I have a Dream" speech, in which he articulates a vision of equality, when a person would be judged on the basis of character and not color of skin. It is a powerful speech, but perhaps we forget that it is a dream that won't be fulfilled on the basis of simple wishes and dreams. It is a vision that involves direct action, a commitment to making sure that justice does prevail.

In April 1963, when I was but five years old, Dr. King wrote a rather lengthy letter from his Birmingham Jail Cell. He wrote this to Moderate White Clergy, who might have shared the dream, but were unwilling to work for it. Indeed, they chastised Dr. King for his "illegal" activities, and suggested that he be more patient. Dr. King responded powerfully, not only defending his non-violent use of civil disobedience, but placing it in broader context.

As I read the letter, I must look at my own self. I stand in the center, so to speak. I'm not much of a civil disobedience sort of person. I've not put myself on the line to be arrested. I'm more comfortable using other means to achieve the ends of justice. So, I hear this as a prodding to not get complacent about injustice.

I would encourage you to read the letter in its full, to hear Dr. King's powerful message, and to give you a taste I excerpt this powerful paragraph from that letter. Meditate upon it and consider what Dr. King is saying to us today, about the issues that stand before us today. And as you read this, do so in the spirit of hope that Dr. King shared in the final sentence of this letter: "Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty."

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

To read the entire letter, click here.

Here I am, Lord -- Lectionary Meditation

2012-01-12T12:59:00.003-05:00

1 Samuel 3:1-10

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

John 1:43-51

Here I Am, Lord

Sometimes it comes after a bit of hesitation, and even a bit of self-doubt, but ultimately the prophet will come around and answer the call of God, saying something to the effect of: “Here I am Lord, send me.” You may have made this declaration yourself, perhaps singing with deep conviction, or perhaps by rote, the chorus of Daniel Schutte’s song:

Here I am Lord. Is it I Lord? I have heard you calling in the night. I will go Lord, if you lead me. I will hold your people in my heart. (Chalice Hymnal, 452).

David Edwards has set up a similar refrain in his somewhat less well-known hymn “You Have Called Me.”

Who will go into the darkness where my people live in fear?

Who will speak of truth and charity so all of them can hear?

If you go where I am sending you, I will always be near.

Here I am, go for me, here I am. (Chalice Hymnal, 455)

Who has ears to hear? Who has the conviction to answer the call and the courage to follow through on this calling to bear witness to the revelation of God?

On this second Sunday of Epiphany, following upon the celebration of the Baptism of Jesus, which sealed his own calling from God, we hear other call stories – those of Samuel and Philip and Nathaniel. What do these stories say to us about how God calls us? But the question isn’t merely how the call comes, but what this call means to our lives. What is required of us? Perhaps the answer to the question explains the reticence with which the prophets respond to God’s calling. So, shall we go out into the desert? Shall we leave behind the comforts of home to become itinerant preachers?

And as we ponder our own callings this weekend, we cannot do so without contemplating the call of Martin Luther King, Jr. How did his sense of calling express itself? Does it offer us wisdom as to how we should be present with God in the World?

The three texts that lay before us this week have points of connection, but we must not force the connection. I’m aware that the lectionary is not always a reliable witness to the connections between texts. When we read these texts this week, we recognize they have within them a number of trajectories that we could take. And, the reading from 1 Corinthians 6 may offer us the most possibilities, but it can also be the most controversial of the texts. One can take from this a rather moralistic word, but surely Paul has in more in mind than good morals. Behavior here is connected to the ultimate message, which is the way in which we live out the call of God – for as Paul makes clear in Christ we become the Temple of God.

Samuel’s call story is fairly well known to many Christians. His is a miraculous life, for he was born to a woman unable to conceive, but she prayed hard, and her prayers were answered. Her way of giving thanks was to deliver her beloved son to the priest to raise and to mentor. And so Samuel grows up serving at the altar of God with Eli, and his less than honorable sons. The days are difficult. The Philistines are at the door and rarely was a Word from the LORD heard. The people were without a shepherd, or so it seemed. Eli seems honorable enough, but he’s lost control of his sons, whom he assumed would succeed him (why preachers think that it’s a good idea for their children to inherit their pulpits is beyond me – of course I needn’t worry, my son has no interest in my job!).

This particular passage from 1 Samuel 3 finds Eli asleep in his room, while Samuel is sleeping before the altar of God. The text says that as yet, Samuel didn’t know the LORD, even though he was serving at the altar. Being an ex-acolyte I have some sense of what this means, but I never slept in front of the altar. As he is sleeping, Samuel hears a voice, calling his name. Not knowing who was speaking, Samuel went to Eli, but Eli was asleep, and his master told Samuel to go back to sleep. This would happen again, and Eli would reply in the same way. When Samuel heard his name a third time, and perhaps beginning to be perturbed with Eli, Eli realizes that something unique is happening. Samuel is hearing the voice of God, and so Eli tells his young charge to answer the next time with the words “Speak, Your servant is listening.” So, when the LORD calls a fourth time, Samuel is ready, and he responds as Eli directed. From this response comes Samuel’s prophetic career. He becomes the one through whom God calls first Saul and then David.

Samuel hears the voice of God, and responds, but he does so only because he is guided by a mentor. We should never forget the role that Eli plays in this story. He may not have the best of sons (neither would Samuel), but he knew that God must be calling Samuel, and he gave him the guidance he needed, so that the voice of God might be heard. Who is it that has helped us discern the voice of God?

There is another call story in the Gospel of John, but we’ll wait for a moment before getting there. First we hear this word from Paul that concerns the question of freedom and responsibility for those who are called by and filled by the Holy Spirit. Samuel serves God at the altar in the Tabernacle, but in this text the readers are reminded that not only do they serve God in God’s Temple, but they are God’s Temple, and thus, they should behave appropriately. The focus here is on sexual immorality. There are plenty of scholarly examinations of this text, which carries the phrase “the two will become one flesh.” It is a word we hear and reflect upon in weddings, for it is the assumption that in marriage the two become one. Paul is concerned about those who are sleeping with those are not part of the body of Christ, and thus are merging their bodies with those who do not serve Christ. It has led to a whole conversation about being “unequally yoked.” That’s a discussion I’ll leave for another time. Instead, perhaps we would be wise to head the earlier admonition. Being that they have been washed clean (baptism) and made holy God in the name of Christ and in the Spirit of God (do you hear that Trinitarian formula in verse 11?). Being that they have a new status, one that has given them freedom from the bondage of their old lives, they need to be careful about what they do with this freedom.

It is a word of great wisdom that Paul offers: “I have the freedom to do anything, but not everything is helpful. I have the freedom to anything, but I won’t be controlled by anything.” Freedom is ours, but so is responsibility – I shall not be controlled by my desires and my appetites, but instead by the leading of God who has freed me, cleansed me, and made me holy. I am called to live in this fashion – not because it is the moral thing to do, but because I am the Temple of the Holy Spirit. I am the dwelling place of God. It is a difficult word to hear because, well, too often I am controlled by my appetites. I am guilty as charged, and thus I am forced to rely on the grace of God. But grace is no excuse; it is simply a word of new beginnings.

In the Gospel of John we read what appears to be a call story. Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael to be disciples. Jesus finds Philip who finds Nathanael, though Jesus is able to see Nathanael, before Philip ever goes to call him to meet Jesus. But this is more than a call story; it is a continuation of the unveiling of the Word in human flesh, as defined by John in his prologue (vss. 1-14). When Philip invites Nathanael to meet Jesus he points his friend to the testimony of the Law and the Prophets – he is, Philip declares, the one we’ve been looking for. He is, therefore, the Messiah of God. One wonders about Nathanael’s initial perspective, for according to John, Jesus says of this possible disciple: “Here is a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” Could this mean that Nathanael had questions and that Jesus found this attitude to be positive?

When Nathanael asks Jesus how he knows this about him, Jesus tells him that he had seen him under a fig tree even before Philip went to get him. This leads to a confession of faith: “Rabbi, you are God’s Son. You are the King of Israel.” Yes, Nathanael recognizes him to be the Messiah. But Jesus presses – do you say this because I saw you under a tree? This is just the beginning, for greater things will come. And then Jesus says – Heaven will open and you will see God’s angels going up and down between heaven and earth, to where the Human One, the Son of Man is residing. The reference to this opening of Heaven may have two referents – one would be a hearkening back to the story of Jacob’s Ladder, where Jacob sees the heavens open and a ladder going up into the sky upon which angels ascend and descend, leading Jacob o declare: “The LORD is definitely in this place, but I did not know it” (Gen. 28:16 CEB). The second might be the baptism of Jesus, wherein God gave God’s imprimatur on Jesus’ ministry, declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (Jn. 1:29-34).

For John this episode is a revealing of the true identity of Jesus, the Word made Flesh. For John, there is more to Jesus than meets the eye. And the question then is – how shall we respond? What difference does this make to who I am and the way I live in the world? Indeed, will I answer, as does Samuel – “Speak for your servant is listening.”

Rational Animals -- Sightings

2012-01-12T09:05:00.001-05:00

How should we understand the development of moral behavior? Is it religiously formed or could it be innate? Although there is much "debate" in America about evolution, Kristel Clayville notes that there's evidence that we've adopted aspects of evolutionary theory in the way we perceive animals. In addition study of animal behavior gives clues as to the way in which moral understandings develop. It's an interesting article, worth discussing. So, enjoy!

**********************************

Sightings 1/12/2012

Rational Animals

-- Kristel Clayville

Definitions of what it means to be human have been sought out for centuries in many academic disciplines. Theology and philosophy have been at the forefront of this humanistic inquiry, but since Darwin's writing, biology and psychology have posited their own definitions. More importantly, biology and psychology have been used as an interpretive lens on the earlier theological and philosophical definitions of what it means to be human. In the public sphere, the theological and philosophical definitions have taken a back seat to the biological and psychological definitions. While this shift may seem inconsequential, it has a profound effect on the public’s views of morality. Rather than morality having a theological or philosophical center or origin, it is now largely represented in media as the natural outgrowth of human evolution from animals, which situates animals and animal studies as the new center for biological and psychological definitions of humanity. Interestingly, despite the culture wars over the place of evolutionary theory in public life, new and popularly accepted definitions of human and animal relations imply an acceptance of the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory.

Consider several recent books, movies, and news articles about the inner lives of animals that have flooded the market in the past three to four years. Books on bird intelligence, getting into the mind of your dog, cross species friendships, human terrorizing of elephants through environmental destruction, and animal social organization and its implied morality have found homes on bookstore shelves. On the film front, documentaries like Project Nim, which follows the efforts of a Columbia University psychology professor to teach language to a chimp (Nim Chimpsky) have debuted at art house theaters, while big budget films like the Disney film Earth have offered audiences a window into the epic journeys of animal “families.” Human curiosity about animals is pretty normal. Who doesn’t want to know more about how ravens recognize faces and teach their young to do the same? Isn’t it horrifying and illuminating that elephants grieve the loss of a loved one—or that they even have loved ones? Does Nim Chimpsky actually learn to communicate with humans or does he only mimic and placate them? Do social animals abide by a set of morals?

Closer attention to these mass media representations of animals reveals three basic trends in our contemporary relationship with animals and how we think about morality through animals: 1) We are interested in their experience of their world, and study of their experiences shows that animals have much in common with us; 2) We can learn about ourselves and our relationships with other humans by studying animals; and 3) Animals can teach us how to be moral.

The first trend—drawing similarities between human and animal experience—seems sentimental, aimed to circumvent rather than recruit our higher faculties of judgment. Moreover, the books and movies mentioned above draw mainly on narrative conventions to tell us a story about animal intelligence, and in fact these narratives could simply represent what their authors wish were the case—that humans and animals have similar experiences of the world. By extension, the similarities between our experiences of the world and those of animals lay the groundwork for an expansive notion of our duties to animals. None of the narrative expressions of our similarities go so far as to articulate an ethical project, but the implication is that similarities of experience warrant an equality of treatment in the ethical realm. In short: animals are just like us, so let’s treat them better.

While rampant anthropomorphizing may inform the above narratives and their potential ethical projects, the second trend is highly rational and human-centered. An article that represents this trend appeared recently on the University of Chicago homepage, and it reports the conclusions of a study on rat behavior conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists at the University of Chicago. Previous studies on rats had noted that they could sense the emotional distress of other species. Building on these earlier findings, the study investigates whether rats could sense and understand the distress of their fellow rats, and to see what if anything the rats would try to do to alleviate the distress. Pairs of rats were put in cages for two weeks, after which one rat of each pair was freed. A large percentage of the freed rats worked tirelessly to liberate their cagemates. When confronted with the choice between eating chocolate—a favorite food of rats—and freeing their fellow rat, a large percentage of them chose to free their cagemate, then share the chocolate with the newly liberated rat. This study is fascinating for the information it offers about rat intelligence, emotion, and empathy, but the conclusions in the news article were not about the rats themselves. Instead, the conclusions posited that these findings could be used to increase empathy in humans.

Counter to the ethical position that humans are naturally selfish, this study of rats concludes that humans, like other social animals, find helping others to be its own reward. While the impetus of the rat study is to gain knowledge about rat behavior, the conclusions of the article on the study suggest that rat behavior is not an amoral category for the scientists conducting the study. In fact, rat behavior is synonymous with social animal behavior, and the rationale for studying social animal behavior is to study and possibly augment human behavior.

This humanistic, yet scientific enterprise posits psychological similarities between humans and animals on the order of the narratives in the books and movies above. In contrast, the similarities between humans and rats become part of a potential ethical project that is concerned with how humans interact with each other. There were no conclusions offered in the study itself concerning how the inner lives of rats might change the human relationship to rats and other social animals.

A third trend in the study of animals and morality stands in stark distinction to the narratives of animal intelligence and the study of empathy in rats; this group of books posits that animals are moral and that we can learn how to be moral from them. We aren’t learning about animals, and we aren’t learning about ourselves through animals, but in fact we are being taught by animals. The book Unlikely Friendships: 47 Remarkable Stories from the Animal Kingdom presents the reader with photos of strange animal pairs, often predator-prey pairs, along with a narrative of how they became friends and some indication of the depth of their friendship. Here animals function symbolically to ratify human feelings of being innately at odds with others, while also leading us out of our intractable differences. In fact, like these animals who have befriended their natural predators, we too can overcome our differences with one another and live in harmony.

So what can we make of these three trends in the study of animals and morality? All of these trends are represented in academic studies of animals, but these books, movies, and news articles are written for and marketed to the general public, suggesting that some of the assumptions of the academic scholarship have permeated contemporary culture. Most important among these assumptions is a version of evolutionary theory that posits a biological relationship between humans and other animals, and this biological relationship influences the psychological elements of our lives. While this is not a particularly radical statement, its acceptance motivates the creation and consumption of the books, movies, and articles mentioned above. Additionally, this modest acceptance of evolutionary theory by the public shows the extent to which the Judeo-Christian position of "subdue and dominate" has been subverted, at least intellectually, when thinking about animals and our relationships to and with them. Or to put my conclusion in moral terms, the ground of our duties to animals has shifted in the public realm from a theological and philosophical context to a biological and psychological context.

References

Earth. Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, Dirs. Disneynature, 2007.

Holland, Jennifer S., Unlikely Friendships: 47 Remarkable Stories from the Animal Kingdom. Workman Publishing Company, 2011.

Horowitz, Alexandra, Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. Scribner, 2009.

Maia Szalavitz, "Rats Show Empathy and Free Their Trapped Companions," Time Magazine, December 8, 2011.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/08/rats-show-empathy-and-free-their-trapped-companions/

Petersen, Dale, The Moral Lives of Animals. Bloomsbury Press, 2011.

Project Nim. James Marsh, Dir. Red Box Films, 2011.

Kristel Clayville is a PhD candidate in Religious Ethics in the Divinity School and a Martin Marty Dissertation Fellow for 2011-2012. Her dissertation is entitled Responsible Hermeneutics: The Interpretation of Religious Texts in the Environmental Ethics of Hans Jonas and Holmes Rolston III.

----------

In this month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jonathan Wyn Schofer explores both how late ancient rabbinic narratives understand human vulnerability in relation to the environment, and the ethical instruction inspired by this understanding. Schofer proposes that "contemporary environmental ethics can learn much from considering these perhaps exotic rituals and stories," which "portray people as entrenched in natural processes."

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The Unending Debate -- Homosexuality in Suburban American Life

2012-01-11T09:37:00.001-05:00

If you watch TV you will see an increasing number of Gay and Lesbian characters, and they are portrayed more often than not as pretty normal people. Just like you and me (that being we heterosexuals). They have their issues and their concerns, but they're human beings. Growing up there were few if any such characters. The one Gay character I can remember from years ago is Jodie Dallas of Soap (played by Billy Crystal), back when I was in college. When Ellen Degeneres's less than successful sitcom came out -- remember that one -- that is, in my memory, the first time there was a lead homosexual character on TV. There was much cultural angst about the show, but now Ellen is a wildly successful Daytime TV Host.

I take us through this media history as a reminder that the national understanding of homosexuality is changing. It may be true that the Republican Presidential candidates have all agreed to uphold "traditional values," and maybe even compare homosexuality with bestiality, but the nation is moving past such understandings. The number of Americans saying they are okay with Gay Marriage stands at about 50%, with the numbers of those under 40 being much higher. It is true that the Church, even Mainline Protestant Churches, has not made their peace with this trend. Some churches offer an overt anti-gay position, others a "don't ask -- don't tell position, and a small but growing number take an "open and affirming" stance. The struggle is with traditional understandings of marriage, the way we read and interpret the Bible, and the way in which many of us were formed culturally.

Homosexuality has become a major topic of debate in the city of Troy, MI. The debate has been triggered in large part by comments made by the new Mayor of Troy, Janice Daniels. Not long after her election it was revealed that she had placed an anti-gay slur on her Facebook page. Her response to criticism was to offer herself as a victim of political enemies, and she appeared tone deaf as to the concerns of many in the community about her understanding of homosexuality and the way she spoke of it. I wrote a blog post and was interviewed, where I gave my own response to the Troy Patch.

The problem has worsened in recent days after the Mayor met with a group of students representing the Gay-Straight Alliance at Troy High School. Although there is some confusion as to what exactly was said, it appears that she implied or stated that the homosexual lifestyle was dangerous and that she would like to hold an event where a panel of psychiatrists would tell the students why this is true. The mayor claims to have been misrepresented, but at this point has refused to release a recording that would clear this up.

It needs to be said that while there are diverse opinions on whether homosexuality is innate or learned (a majority opinion is that one's sexual orientation is innate -- we're born that way), the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the 1970s. So, it's unlikely that the mayor will find such persons outside a few religiously oriented ones. But that's not what the students hoped to hear when they approached her about having a conversation about why bullying can lead to suicides among gay teens. She doesn't seem to be listening to what they are saying. But then again, are we as a society listening?

I would like to say to the students of the Gay-Straight Alliance -- some of us are listening, but we likely aren't doing enough to stand with you.