Q & A, part II

Q: What's the Heidelberg Catechism?
A: The 1563 answer to that famous conundrum, "it all depends on what the meaning of is is."
Well, perhaps not exactly. The Heidelberg Catechism developed in the midst of the splintering of the early Protestant movement between its Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinist branches. While the breakup of the Protestant movement can be traced along geopolitical lines in the devolution of the Holy Roman Empire, it also divided theologically. Heidelberg reflects that split, particularly over the meaning of the sacrament of communion.
What did Jesus mean when he said, at the Last Supper, "this is my body"? Luther interpreted the words literally and thus argued that Christ is literally present in the bread of communion. Zwingli understood it metaphorically arguing that Jesus could not have meant this bread is literally my body when he was, in fact, bodily present in the room. Calvin took a third tack, arguing that Christ is spiritually present in the elements of communion. That classic Reformed perspective is reflected in the liturgy of our time when the officiant says "set aside these common elements for a sacred purpose."
On such distinctions churches split and empires rise or fall.
In addition to articulating a Reformed sacramental theology, Heidelberg stresses the essential Reformed commitment to stewardship as a way of living. We are saved, the catechism stresses, in order to serve the purposes of God in the world. As such, how we use the resources at our disposal is a reflection of God at work in our lives.
Here's a taste of the catechism, which opens with this question and response:

Q. 1. What is your only comfort, in life and in death?

A. That I belong--body and soul, in life and in death--not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil; that he protects me so well that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that everything must fit his purpose for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Q & A, part 1

Q: What's a catechism?
A: Well, according to Answers.com,
cat·e·chism (kăt'ĭ-kĭz'əm)
n.

1. A book giving a brief summary of the basic principles of Christianity in question-and-answer form.
2. A manual giving basic instruction in a subject, usually by rote or repetition.
3. A body of fundamental principles or beliefs, especially when accepted uncritically: “the core of the catechism of the antinuclear left, the notion that the threat to peace is technological, not political” (George F. Will).
4. A close questioning or examination, as of a political figure.

Hope and the News

Last Friday I walked in procession with 3,000 or so folks from 48 states gathered in DC to witness for peace. It was cold, snowy and windy as we walked three miles from the National Cathedral to the White House. As we walked we sang songs -- Amazing Grace, Down by the Riverside, O Beautiful for Spacious Skies.
I was with a friend who remembered verse two:
O beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress
a thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.
I don't think they sing that verse in the White House these days, where they acknowledge no flaws yet flout many laws as it suits them.
As is so often that case, the paper of record hereabouts failed in its coverage of the event. Oh, sure, the Post got most of the facts right in its story. But facts are not the same thing as truth.
For the paper to have told the truth, it would have had to report that Jim Wallis spoke truth to power or that the faithful gave a rousing ovation to the offering call or that the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta is filled by a worthy successor to Dr. King, and continues to be a beacon of hope. Don't believe me; check the video of the service at the Cathedral's web site.
To get it right, at the very least, the Post would need to have published a photo like the one here, from the Cathedral's web site, rather than the scary looking tattooed man who made a striking photo, to be sure, of an easily dismissed peace movement.

Not Alone

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Here's another sign of the bending from recent days.
And here's a kids' anthem to go along with the notion:

Bending the Arc

In my tribe we got lots of different faces

In my tribe people come from different places

In my tribe we got lots of different races

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe inspiration fills our lungs

In my tribe every banner will be hung

In my tribe we’re singing songs of every tongue

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe young and old will join the band

In my tribe straight and gay walk hand in hand

In my tribe all the people share the land

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

In my tribe we got joy and pain and sorrow

In my tribe we see a vision for tomorrow

In my tribe we’ve got love enough to share and some to borrow

In my tribe we’re bending the arc with love

Scots

The Scots Confession, written in 1560 by John Knox and five other Scots reformers, is the oldest English language Reformation confession. Knox and his friends worked almost literally under the gun, as their work put words to a vision of ecclesiastic and political unity in a Scotland emerging from a long and bloody fight for independence from both the Roman Catholic French and the Protestant monarchy of England.
While the political intrigue of a Europe emerging from the Middle Ages into early modernity was shaped by the particular institutions and individuals of the time, the broad social, political, economic and intellectual tumult bears some striking parallels to our own age. New communications technologies (the printing press), rapidly expanding trade (flowing forth from Columbus' exploration of the New World), an emerging economic order of capitalism, and the first stirrings of democratic political yearnings (though still two centuries away from the American Revolution) marked the age much as the emergence of the internet, global trade, and post-colonial political yearnings continue to mark our age.
So, in the midst of that world-altering change what did the fathers of Presbyterianism choose to focus on? A church marked by right preaching of the word, right observation of the sacraments, and discipline in ecclesiastical order. Is it any wonder that we Presbyterians are "decent and in order in all things"?
The Scots Confession is a clarion call to commitment to the church (the Kirk, the word Knox chose as closest to the New Testament Greek kyriakon), and its passion is captured in what stand as, perhaps, is most well known words:
"The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there, beyond any doubt, is the true Kirk of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in its midst. "
Against the tumult of the age, the Reformers called the faithful to live in fidelity to the true Kirk. In our age, the question is similar: what are the marks of the church today? What does it mean to be authentically the church of Jesus Christ in the post modern world? How do we confess our faith now? What can the Reformers teach us, who would be reformers still?

Lent

"The purpose of Lent is not only expiation, to satisfy the divine justice, but above all a preparation to rejoice in God's love. And this preparation consists in receiving the gift of God's mercy - a gift which we receive in so far as we open our hearts to it, casting out what cannot remain in the same room with mercy.

Now one of the things we must cast out first of all is fear. Fear narrows the little entrance of our heart. It shrinks up our capacity to love. It freezes up our power to give ourselves. If we were terrified of God as an inexorable judge, we would not confidently await God's mercy, or approach God trustfully in prayer. Our peace, our joy in Lent are a guarantee of grace."

- Thomas Merton, in "Seasons of Celebration"

Well, it's a good thing, too, because Lenten commitments are no easier to keep than New Year's resolutions. Thus, having promised myself that I would keep to the practice of this journal/blog daily during Lent I find the entrance to my own heart narrowed by the fear of not getting things done. So, under an increasing pile of "to-dos" the blogging slides by. But this day will get a double dose.

Nicene

The oldest of the Christian creeds, the Nicene, developed over the course of more than 100 years from its beginnings at the Council of Nicaea in 325 to its adoption as a definitive statement of Christian faith by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It is the most widely ecumenical statement of faith in all of Christianity, being accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and much of the Protestant world.
As with many of the creeds and confessions of the church, the Nicene arose from conflict. Constantine had unified an empire but not a church when he called together more than 300 bishops to meet in Nicaea and settle their theological differences.
The church was divided theologically over a fundamental question concerning the nature of God and the divinity of Christ. Current debate in the Presbyterian church over trinitarian language suggests that the debate remains unsettled some 1,700 years on. The prinicple divide in the fourth century concerned the "substance" of God, and reflected a growing fascination with Aristotle's philosophical language of sustance and word, or ousios and logos -- Greek ideas that far outstrip the English translations. The wording of the creed -- Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father -- reflects the controversy of the time, much of which centered on the positions of a priest named Arius -- for whom a heresy was named! My kind of guy.
The creed remains in use. I'm interested in what its language means to you. What is helpful? What creates stumbling blocks?

Enough

We're doing a Lenten series in our house called "Enough." A group of us is coming together once a week to talk about what it means to live with enough. This evening one of the things we did together was imagine a "perfect day." We went around the group sharing aspects of a perfect day. There were common themes: friends, family, creation, good food and naps. Good conversations and good work were common, as well. I noticed some things that no one included: watching TV, shopping, expensive spas. In fact, the perfect day was remarkably free of consumer culture. So: what's in your perfect day?

Ethics and Doctrines

Just as I am preparing to put up the next post on the confessions, I run across this quote:

"I once took a count of what sort of things Jesus thought important enough to confront people about in the gospel of Luke. Nine times Jesus confronted people for not showing love in their actions. Nine times he confronted folks for their greed and hoarding, which get in the way of single-minded service toward God and loving action toward the needy. Nine times Jesus confronted people for having divided loyalties, rather than serving God alone. Eight times he confronted people for showing by their actions that they did not recognize his authority. Eight times he confronted people who were seeking places of honor and reputation, and urged instead the way of servant-like humility.

"Seven times he emphasized that the crucial question is whether we actually do what he teaches, versus the hypocrisy of claiming to be on the side of righteousness while not doing God's will. Seven times he called people explicitly to repent, to take the log out of our own eye, to stop being self-righteously critical of others and insisting on our own way, and instead to be more humble and loving toward him and toward others.

"It is dramatically striking how Jesus' confrontations, and his pronouncing woe, all had to do with ethics. By contrast, he never confronted people about their doctrines. How far some of us have drifted from the way of Jesus!"- Glen H. Stassen, Incarnating Ethics

Discerning?

I’ve been doing a lot of work on discernment lately, right up to and including laying groundwork for creating a discernment center. Then I ran across an article suggesting that discernment is impossible. The author argued that knowing the mind of God is, in principle, not possible for human beings so, therefore, the whole enterprise of discernment is doomed to failure before it ever begins.

Is the great I Am, a God whose very name surrounds the Holy One in sacred mystery, essentially unknowable? Does the truth that Isaiah speaks, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways God’s ways (Is. 55:8), mean in principle that we cannot discern the will of God? Can we never know God’s ways, or God’s will for our way?

I believe we can. What’s more, I believe that our primary task is to seek this truth and pursue it with all the energy, imagination and passion we have to give it.

After all, the same Isaiah assures us that God does not speak in secret, in a land of darkness (Is. 45:19). And, while we may not be able to boast with certainty about God’s will with respect to every strategy we pursue, scripture is pretty clear about the directions we ought to follow.

What does the Lord require of us? Micah is pretty confident of his discernment of God’s will around that question: do justice, love kindly, walk humbly with our God.

Micah’s words form our listening tube for the work of discernment, our screen for sifting, our framework for understanding. In other words, do the work of discernment on the basis of doing justice, loving tenderly — as the Jerusalem Bible translates it — and walking humbly with God.

We know, from the witness of scripture and from the history of people of faith like Bonhoeffer and King, that God calls us to the work of justice. So, as we listen for God’s call and claim on the particulars of our own lives — where should I work, where should I spend my money, where should I spend my time — we listen with attention to issues of justice that are before us.

Walter Breuggemann says the Biblical definition of justice amounts to this: sorting out what belongs to whom, and returning it to them. With respect to the question of call, what’s at stake is simply this: our lives belong to God, just discernment is about returning those lives to God.

We Need This

The Christian Peace Witness is drawing closer. March 16. Please come if you can. The congress needs to hear from each of us ... from all of us. We need to hear from each other. We need to know that we are not alone. We need to light candles in the darkness and pray for peace. We need to hold hands and then let go to reach out further. We need peace.

Credo

As kids, many of us learned the Apostles’ Creed, the second confession in the Presbyterian Book of Confessions. Why begin with the second confession instead of the first? Well, because “many of us learned” it as kids, and relatively fewer of us learned the church’s earliest confession, the Nicene Creed. Start with what you know!

Or, if you can’t really manage that, start with the beginning: “I believe …”

What does it mean to us to say, “I believe …” and follow that with “God the Father Almighty” and “Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord … Virgin Mary … sitteth on the right hand … quick and the dead … Holy Ghost … holy catholic Church” and so on?

Is “confessing” our belief in these the same as saying “I believe Einstein was right about relativity” or “I believe the Braves will win the pennant” or “I believe the war in Iraq is wrong”? Those statements, whether you agree with them or not, stand open to the judgments of science and history, of knowledge and time, in ways that the Creeds do not, unless we imagine God in the role of ultimate lab technician or final historian.

Even if we imagine God in those roles we ought to acknowledge a couple of things:

First, those roles – scientist or historian – are thoroughly modern notions that would have been utterly foreign to the framers of the early creeds. Second, the creeds themselves never imagine God in such roles even if one accounts for the different cultural referents.

That raises a question: Does “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” spend time judging whether or not our statements of “belief” about the divine godhead are any more accurate than my statement of “belief” – or, is it faith – that the Braves will ascend to their rightful place atop the National League East.

“Belief” – or, is it faith – that, perhaps, is the key question when pondering the creeds and confessions. What does it mean to say “I believe”?

If it means “I give my intellectual assent to this propositional statement,” then I will confess some significant difficulties with the Apostles Creed, and others that we’ll get to in the next few weeks. Confess, or, should I say scruple (and invite you to find the use of this au courant word in this none-too-trendy piece by Nathanial Hawthorne, whose use of the word a century and a half ago I find edifying. To get a handle on its contemporary use in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I recommend reading a post from former GA Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase.)

But I digress. These difficulties that I scruple would have to include, at least, these:

God the Father

only Son

Virgin Mary

ascended into heaven

These few scruples name in shorthand theological controversies concerning the masculine image of God, exclusive salvation in Jesus, the incarnation of the human being Jesus, and the meaning and “location” of salvation. Forests have been felled and libraries filled to give full expression to the various positions on those topics.

What I happen to believe or disbelieve – that is to say, what I think about any one of them doesn’t much matter here. Because the heart of the matter is not what I think, but rather what will matter enough to me to stake my life on.

The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart, here. The first word of the creed in Latin is credo. It is adequately translated as “I believe.” A deeper rendering might be “I give my heart to.” Marcus Borg explains the distinction, if not the Latin, well when he says, “when we say the creeds, we are saying, "I give my heart to God." Which God? The maker of Heaven and Earth. I give my heart to Jesus Christ. And who is that, the one whom we tell stories about as born of a virgin and suffered under Pontius Pilate and so forth? Credo means giving one's heart to God and entering into a relationship of personal allegiance, not to the statements, but to the one about whom these statements are made.”

Richard Rodriguez, in his Hunger of Memory, includes a central section called “Credo,” in which he describes the Latino immigrant Roman Catholic culture of his childhood. He describes there not a set of beliefs written down in church doctrine, but rather an entire web of community that marked the very timing of one’s life: “the Church rocked through time – a cradle, an ark – to rhythms of sorrow and joy, marking the passage of man.” Credo was not words or arguments but the narrative of life itself.

When I consider the creeds and confessions this way – as stories about the God to whom I give my heart – I can recite them faithfully and with integrity. No matter what historic circumstances, what theological or political battles were being waged in the words, I can claim these words – or be claimed by them.

Indeed, the very fact that different historic circumstances will occasion different confessions, reminds me that it is a matter of heart, first and foremost. So I can join my heart to the place the writers of the Apostles’ Creed aimed for in these ancient words and set aside for another time the intellectual arguments over their claims to a lesser truth.

How do you respond to these words? Or picture (which turned up from an image search of credo.)

buzz ... zzz

Some lucky reader yesterday became the 5,000th viewer of this blog. I'd give out prizes if I could. But since that's not gonna happen, here's a little present for you all: it's Yonkle, the Cowboy Jew! Actually, it's a poster for Yonkle, on display at the Ellis Island museum. Sorry the photo is lousy, but, what could be better, I wonder, than Yonkle, for telling the story of America? If Yonkle were around today, you can bet he'd have a You-Tube video floating around!

I Don't Care

Ok, enough with Anna Nicole Smith already. I really, really, really, really, really don't care. I just want to turn on a John McCutcheon CD and forget the news of the day, which seems to be 24/7 about this dead woman's body or baby or whatever. So, here's the song we should be listening to just now; it would be sooo easy to add 10 years of new material:

I Don't Care
Words & Music by John McCutcheon

Where did it come from, this love of the lurid?
When did reality just get too tame
From the Washington Post to the Weekly World News
It seems nobody has any shame
But when gossip abounds I have recently found
A remedy when I despair
To this junk that I see I respond with ennui
And say I really don't care

I don't care
I don't care

Who shot JR? Is Patty Hearst lying?
I don't care
Liz Taylor is marrying, Elvis is dying
I don't care

I don't care
I don't care
Let the rich and the glamorous ruin their lives
Going through fortunes and treatments and wives
And poor Donald Trump, he just barely survives
But I don't care

Rosanne & Tom, they'll not be a pair again
Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan
Does Michael Jordan gamble on golf?
Why does Hillary Clinton tick Rush Limbaugh off?

I don't care
I don't care
Though the National Enquirer says that it's so
For their lies and distortions they're paying good dough
But there are some things enquiring minds don't need to know
I don't care

Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie
They me that Oprah can wear a size 3
There's a piece of John Bobbitt right here on display
And there's OJ on twenty four hours a day

I don't care
I don't care
Though your troubles are mounting and you work like a drone
It's more fun to watch than to live on your own
Do you think Princess Di made those calls on her phone?

I don't care
I don't care
I really, really, really, really, really don't care
It's the same old sad story the whole world around
We build up our heroes wherever they're found
Then spend the rest of their lives tearing them down
I don't care

©1995 John McCutcheon/Appalsongs (ASCAP)

Searching for Mr. Wright?

My sister points out that I've made the N.Y. Times, albeit with my name (de blog) mispelled. Well, if they're searching for a candidate, perhaps I should be, too. So, what to look for? Molly Ivins' "good head of hair and a good line of talk"? When I google image searched "Mr. Right" this picture turned up. Perhaps a certain competence might be important. So many candidates ... and so much time before the election. How to choose ... how to choose? Suggestions for Mr. Right? Or, Mr. Wright?
Of course, the search for a candidate raises all kinds of questions for the so-called Christian Right, beginning with tax exemption! I'm still not sure how Jerry Falwell managed to hold on to any tax exemptions after declaring that anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian had to vote for George Bush.
On the other hand, that also raises for me the question of when it might become a "status confessionis" to oppose a candidate. That phrase come into renewed currency during the struggle against apartheid when the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared that apartheid was a sin and that support for it was heresy. (I highly recommend the Kairos document.) In more narrowly construed politics, for instance, could one confess Jesus Christ and not oppose Hitler? In recent American elections, could one confess Jesus Christ and not oppose David Duke? At what point along that spectrum is the current Administration? Does illegal, immoral war determine one's response? Does the loss of civil liberties?
What is Christian Wright to do? What is the right Christian response to the politics of the day? Just asking -- no endorsement is expressed or implied!

God's Politics

Jim Wallis and the Daily Kos are having a tiff.

It seems that some on the progressive secular front don't see what the church might have to offer, while, as always, many in the church don't want to be "engaged in politics."

One of the great gifts the progressive church could offer to the wider church and culture is some clarity on this relationship between church and politics, especially in this time of deep divisions in our nation’s political life. Perhaps we have something of value to offer in response to the questions that must press in on us given the church’s troubled history of disastrous romances with political power.

These pressing questions seem quite obvious: should the church be involved in politics at all and, if so, how? But in fact, the obvious questions call forth nothing short of rethinking both the church and politics.

We could simply turn away from the political arena altogether. There are some, particularly in more conservative evangelical congregations, who believe the church should focus exclusively on questions of salvation, and they define salvation in purely spiritual, largely individualistic terms.

Against that spirit, we have the image Karl Barth famously articulated of the faithful pastor being one who held the Bible in one hand and the morning paper in the other.

But even if we remain informed and faithful citizens – guided by a Biblical tradition as we respond to the news of the day – we could limit our scope of work to worship, weddings, funerals, Bible study, blanket drives for the homeless, food drives for the poor and clothing drives for the destitute. These are surely important parts of who we are as church, and some feel that such work marks the extent of our calling as church.

Against that vision of church, I would ask, if we are to care for families in their times of joy and of mourning, should we not also care for their situations in the broader community? And if we are to care for the homeless, should we not also care for the medical and economic and social conditions that lead to homelessness? If we care enough to feed the hungry, do we not care enough to work for an end to hunger? If we are called to care for the destitute of the city, are we not also called to care for the ordering of the city itself when that ordering leaves so many struggling on the city’s margins? If we are to be minister of reconciliation, should we not also be engaged in resolving conflicts, including international ones, in a manner consistent with the call of disciples of the prince of peace?

Obviously, if we do such work we will be deeply engaged in politics, and, within the current American political spectrum, we will be engaged in progressive politics.

Although one might declare a scruple ...

Every officer in the Presbyterian church – elders, deacons, ministers of word and sacrament – must answer “yes” to a long list of ordination questions, including this one: “Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?”
So, setting aside for now the monumental question of just what obedience to Jesus means, and likewise leaving aside the question of scriptural authority, what does it mean to be “guided by our confessions”?
What are these documents – some of which go back more than 1,500 years? What meaning do these premodern texts and the Reformation era and 20th-century ones, as well, have for a postmodern age? How ought we to read them? What about the stuff we really don’t like? Or with which we fundamentally disagree? Where did they come from? Who wrote them? Why?
Off and on during this season of Lent, I, and others, will post some reflections on the creeds and confession of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) here, and invite your response. Oh, and what other questions should we pose to these documents?

Pulling the Plug

A friend sent me an e-mail today about a demonstration at an "ex-gay ministries" conference in San Francisco. It was a thoughtful piece of reporting that focused mostly on the perspectives of seminary students at the Bay Area theological schools consortium who led the demonstration. They spoke of the pain that such "reparative" therapies cause and of the conviction that God made us all -- straight and gay. I was with them all the way ... until the last paragraph:

"Unfortunately, the lie has been that people need to change their sexual orientation and taht's just not true," said Caruana, the pastor of Freedom in Christ. "God created us gay. God loves us. God sent his son to save us. All he cares about is our salvation in Jesus Christ and not what orientation we are sexually."

The baby of inclusivity drowns in the bath water of orthodoxy. We need to pull the plug altogether, drain the tub and scrub away the ring of Constantinian theology. Begin with the masculine image of God and tear down the patriarchy step by necessary step straight through wretched atonement theologies and other-worldly salvation and Christian imperialism.

Republican Jesus

A couple of years back, I gave up conservative bashing for Lent. It was way more difficult than giving up chocolate, and I'm not going to try it again this time, as the image here surely indicates. I was searching for images of Jesus, when I encountered Republican Jesus. He's my new hero! It seems like the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls are a bit shaky. I think they should just nominate this guy to replace Bush in 08.

I Love this Game ... sometimes

In case there was any doubt about the singular importance of standing always in the public square squarely for the full equality of GLBT folks, then look no further than the crazy wide world of sports for confirmation. This time, NBA style. Here's an interesting commentary.

Won't You Please Come to DC?

In case you've missed it, please check this link on the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq at the National Cathedral next month. Hope to see you there. Peace.

Why I'll Watch

In case you missed it, there’s a little football game being played this weekend. Last month, when the Network of Spiritual Progressives met on a Sunday evening, we were scheduling for the coming months, and I noted that the date under consideration at the moment would fall on the highest holy day of the American calendar: Super Bowl Sunday.

While my comment was met with some derision by a few of the stalwart progressives, you’ll notice that the February meeting of the Northern Virginia NSP is, in fact, on Feb. 11.. Personally, I’ve never been one of those progressives with a knee-jerk dismissal of sports; probably because I love to play, and only recently gave up my life-long dream of playing professional basketball.

Hey! What was it that Carl Sandburg said? “Nothing happens unless first we dream.”

On the other hand, dreaming won’t make you 6’5” when DNA offers only 5’11 ¾.”

Of course I can recite a sound, progressive critique of the horribly skewed values that lead cities and states to spend hundreds of millions on playgrounds for the rich while neglecting public schools and health care and public safety. And I can join the chorus of complaints about paying worn-out relief pitchers $5 million while paying teachers and firefighters and police officers one percent of that amount. And I can rail against the media frenzy that so easily lets us entertain ourselves to death while an unjust war rages in our name.

All those critiques of misplaced values and misspent money are spot on; but still, I watch the games, and play them myself whenever I get a chance, because I see something when I watch great athletes perform.

I see human beings fully alive, and, as Augustine said, “the glory of God is a human being fully alive.” (Check out the "Human Being ..." pictured above.)

I see human beings fully alive, seizing a moment in time to use their singular gifts and become – for a brief moment – precisely what they are called to be as athletes.

Most of us, of course, will never experience such moments when our bodies behave precisely as our minds imagine and desire. Indeed, few of us experience many moments when we feel that we are using our own gifts to become precisely what we are called to be – not as athletes, surely, but as human beings.

So, I’ll watch the game this weekend with only a smidge of liberal guilt, which I’ll set aside as I witness a small group of men try to live into their own particular calling for the one sphere of their lives lived on the field of play.

I’ll watch with jealousy – not of their skill, nor of their stardom, nor of their salaries. Rather, I’ll watch with jealousy because these guys seem to know, with great clarity, precisely what it is that they are called to do with their gifts.

Granted, if we use Frederick Buechner’s provocative definition of call – that place where your deep joy meets the world’s deep need – one can quickly question what need in the world athletes meet? Most of the answers that one could offer – beauty, excellence, play itself – are gratuitous; on the other hand, most every human culture has celebrated athletic achievement in some fashion.

That our culture and economy have created a place of incredible financial reward for certain highly marketable athletic gifts no doubt helps athletes in some sports reach clarity of purpose. I imagine multi-million dollar contracts have a way of focusing one’s attention! Still, I’m willing to bet that most of the truly gifted athletes we watch play for insane amounts of money would be playing games for nothing if the money were not there.

That’s certainly one way of measuring the deep joy dimension of call: what would you do with your time if money were no object? When Michael Jordan signed his first huge contract, he had a so-called “love of the game” provision included that allowed him to play pick-up basketball games at any time, even though that posed a considerable financial risk to his team if he were injured.

In the end, the way we spend our time is the way we spend our lives. How, then, do we measure it, and dole it out, and decide how to spend what we have been given – life itself, and our several seasons in which to live it?

The Deciders

The weather is back to January. The war continues. Life ... and death go on as before.
So now I wonder: what would it look like across the river in DC if we took Molly Ivins' advice? In a piece last week she wrote,

We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on January 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

Marching around the capitol was a start. Those few miles of walking, a first step. But what would it look like if we the people actually decided and insisted that this war is a disaster and must be stopped now? My favorite chant at every march is "this is what democracy looks like!" I always smile as I join that one, and think, "yes, it's amazing and beautiful and incredibly messy and ineffecient." It's certainly no way to run a war. Is it any way to end one?

Martin Lederle-Ensign

Everybody ought to be able to ego-surf and find themselves somewhere in cyber space. Now my adorable 12-year-old can do so. This is him -- dressed like his dad for Halloween. Very scary.

Wake Up to Peace

It may be a bit hard to tell from this photo, but Saturday was the only warm, sunny day in a stretch of cold and dreary ones in DC. Creation itself cries out for peace.
Saturday evening at a small gathering with Michael Lerner and NSP organizers, a woman from Pax Christi noted the mix of hope and despair. She told us that, having come of age in Poland during the days of Solidarity, she could never succumb to hopelessness. She had witnessed the radical transformation of an entire society. However, she also reminded us that deep suffering had inspired that transformation and wondered how, in a society as affluent as contemporary America, any profound transformation could be inspired.
Her comments burn like fire, and remind me that the first step toward transformation of American society is to ring bells loudly enough to wake people of from the slumber of affluence that numbs us to the suffering in our midst.

Peace!

Whatever the news said about today's peace march in DC, they no doubt missed it. Pictures tomorrow, and some thoughts on a just-ended session with Michael Lerner. For today, at the end of a very long day, suffice it to say "my feets is tired, but my soul is rested." Peace, out.

Amnesia

Over the past week or so I've received several reports and dozens of photos from a young adult mission trip to New Orleans. The work of recovery continues slowly, but the photos reminded me of how much remains to be done. In fact, some of them were almost identical to ones I took in Mississippi 16 months ago when the storm was fresh in mind. The only real difference was that folks down there working in January don't look quite as hot as we did!
So, when I watched President Bush's State of the Union address the other night I listened for word of the recovery. If nothing else, surely the president would use the success of the New Orleans Saints to offer a homily about perseverance, or give a nod to the incredible outpouring of volunteer support. But no, not a single word.
The devastation on the Gulf Coast remains as a reminder to the nation of presidential amnesia. Forgetting all kinds of history -- even when it's not even past -- we surge forward and stumble blindly back into the same mistakes.

Wide World of Religion

This is a bit more devotion than I care to see, but I ran across it looking for pictures of Jesus. Just thought you might like to know. Just scanning the web to bring you the endless variety of human religious expression.

Shalom

Don’t let the sun go down on an opportunity to speak out for peace! Join the Network of Spiritual Progressives and a half million or so of your closest friends in a march for a world without war: Saturday, Jan. 27.

Begin that day with a joyous, interfaith worship service at the Church of the Reformation at 212 East Capitol Street, at 9:00 a.m., then walk together to the rally between 3^rd & 7^th Streets at 11:00 a.m. More details at http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/ .

The United for Peace and Justice-sponsored march pushes off at 1:00 p.m. More rally & march details at: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/.

If you’re interested in participating with NSP folks from Northern Virginia, contact me at revdocdee@verizon.net.

Peace

Reimagining Christianity 2.2

The 12th, and final affirmation holds that loving ourselves includes acting on the faith that we are born with a meaning and purpose; a vocation and ministry that serves to strengthen and extend God’s realm of love. This rings close to the essential Reformed belief that God calls us all to lives of service, or, as Mr. Rodgers put it once, "the meaning of life is service." (Mr. Rodgers was arguably the best-known Presbyterian minister of the last 50 years ... "can you say, 'Presbyterian'?") Quaker educator Parker Palmer puts it this way: "Our deepest calling is to grow into our own authentic selfhood, whether or not it conforms to some image of who we ought to be." Truth faith, whether it focuses on the way to God that Christians find in Jesus or on the way to God that Muslims find in the Prophet or on some other way, is always a way to ourselves -- for our deepest calling is to be that which God made us to be. Are you on the way? What gets in the way? Is you job related to your vocation? Should it be? Who are you called to be? Who are you ... and to whom do you belong? Just asking.

Reimagining Christianity 2.1

Affirmation 11 charges us to care for our bodies, and insist on taking time to enjoy the benefits of prayer, reflection, worship and recreation in addition to work. This affirmation takes the fourth commandment seriously and reminds us of the central importance of Sabbath time. In a culture addicted to work and productivity, this may be the most countercultural idea of all. So, how do you find Sabbath time? Are you able to do so in a practiced manner, or is it random? How does such time shape the rest of life? How do you re-create yourself?

The Sabbath commandment is meant for liberation and not to create rule that condemns -- remember that the Sabbath was made for us, not the other way around. And, if that scriptural reminder to tread lightly is not enough, perhaps this is:

Morris and Lenny are strolling home from shul one Saturday morning. Suddenly a cab speeds past, and their friend, Irving, is running frantically behind it, flailing his arms wildly.
"Well," said Lenny, "I never imagined our good friend Irving was a Sabbath violator! Look at him running for that taxi."
"Wait a minute," Morris replied. "Didn't you read that book I lent you, 'The Other Side of the Story', about the command to judge other people favorably? I'll bet we can think of hundreds of excuses for Irving's behavior."
"Yeah, like what?"
"Maybe he's sick and needs to go to the hospital."
"Come on! He was running 60 miles an hour after that cab - he's healthier than Arnold Schwartzeneger."
"Well, maybe his wife's having a baby."
"She had one last week."
"Well, maybe he needs to visit her in the hospital."
"She's home."
"Well, maybe he's running to the hospital to get a doctor."
"He is a doctor."
"Well, maybe he need supplies from the hospital."
"The hospital is a three minute walk in the opposite direction."
"Well, maybe he forgot that it's Shabbos!"
"Of course he knows it's Shabbos. Didn't you see his tie? It was his paisley beige 100% silk Gucci tie from Italy. He never wears it during the week."
"Wow, you're a really observant! I didn't even notice he was wearing a tie."
"How could you not notice? Didn't you see how it was caught on the back fender of the taxi?"

I have a dream ... if anybody cares

I've been pondering the upcoming King Day holiday, and I ran across this picture from the 1963 March on Washington where King delivered "I Have a Dream."
I've been to rallies and demonstrations on the Mall numerous times, and to several events centered at the Lincoln Memorial, so I've got a sense of scale. I've never seen this many people there. Which makes me wonder -- in the midst of an unpopular war -- what would it take in our time to stoke the passions and turn out the people on such a scale as this? If unjust war, unresponsive government, and attacks on civil liberties don't stir us, what would? Loss of cable service? A shortage of i-pods?
In any case, I hope you'll join me over the last weekend of this month on the Mall to raise our voices against this stupid war. King would be there.

Happy New Year ... Let's Hope It's a Good One ...

I was looking back through some old files and I ran across this, from a speech I gave on the night of the invasion of Baghdad what seems like a lifetime ago. It still amazes me how much of this remains both timely and largely ignored by the powers that be. It's not that we were right back then. Rather, it's that the information available then on which to make these judgments remains both available and, again, largely ignored. Why does a war lurch onward that was wrong to begin with, that was wrong in its reasons, wrong in its execution and wrong in its continuation? I'll say again what I said then: this war is wrong.
So, here's what I said then:

Let’s get one thing straight: this war is wrong! Let’s say it loud so the whole world can hear it: this war is wrong!

I’m a preacher, not a policy maker, but it doesn’t take a policy expert to see that this war is wrong strategically. The risks of attacking and occupying a country at the heart of the Arab world far outweigh the risks of isolating and containing that country. So tonight we say to the world, strategically, this war is wrong!

I’m a preacher, not a politician, but it doesn’t take a pollster to see that this war is wrong politically. It’s not just that American public opinion is so divided, or even that today’s attacks threaten to divide America more deeply than it has been divided since the Vietnam War. No, it’s not just that; it’s this: more than 90 percent of the world’s population opposes this war. That matters. So tonight we say to the world, politically, this war is wrong!

I’m a preacher, not a diplomat, but it doesn’t take a U.N. ambassador to see that this war is wrong diplomatically. President Bush is mistaken: this war is not rendering the United Nations irrelevant. The world’s desire for peace can never be irrelevant to the community of nations. No: what is irrelevant to the community of nations is the American empire’s desire for domination. So tonight we say to the world, diplomatically, this war is wrong!

I’m a preacher, not a historian, but it doesn’t take a scholar nor a great distance in time to see that this war is wrong historically. You see, the greatness of a nation is not measured solely by its accomplishments. The moral greatness of a nation is measured by the means it employs to accomplish its purposes. History will judge us according to the death and destruction that issue forth from the actions initiated today. So tonight we say to the world, historically, this war is wrong!

You know what? I’m a preacher ... but I am also a parent. Last Sunday evening we held a candle light vigil at Forest Hill, and my three-year-old daughter walked with a crowd of about 175 singing, praying, peaceful people of faith holding a flickering flame of hope against the darkness of these days. And when we ended, she looked up at her mother and said, “Mommy, what else do we need to do to stop the war?”

Why can’t our leaders grasp the wisdom in the heart of a three-year-old girl? She doesn’t know much about war, but when she asks about it we just tell her “war means that lots of children get hurt.”

Lots of women, men and children will die in Iraq, and so tonight we say to the world, morally, this war is wrong.

This war is wrong: strategically, politically, diplomatically, historically, morally. This war is just plain wrong!

Tonight our tears flow together into rivers of anguish that threaten to form a mighty flood tide of anger and outrage. Let us channel these rivers of anguish into a force more powerful until justice rolls down like a mighty water and righteousness like an everflowing stream.

I think I heard somebody once say, “blessed are the peacemakers!”

I want you to look at the people standing around you here tonight.

You are blessed! We are all blessed! It might not feel that way today, because war rages and some call us unpatriotic. But dissent in support of the values of freedom, justice and peace is the most patriotic response we can make. But even in the face of suspicion, we are blessed because we are makers of peace.

We’ve got some difficult days ahead of us. That much is clear. But now is not the time to despair, for though our generation is tasting the bitter curse of war, we know that the peacemakers shall be called the children of God. Now is not the time to despair, because there’s too much work to be done. Now is not the time to despair, because no matter how dark this midnight feels, joy cometh with the morning that breaks forth with the bright light of shalom. Now is not the time to despair, for though mighty and awful weapons have been unleashed today, we know that day is coming when we shall beat our swords into plowshares and study war no more!

We don’t need to study any more to know one thing for certain: this war is wrong! This war is wrong and we want peace now!

Merry Christmas from DC

Dining While Gay, and Other Crimes

Of all the things I've seen responding to the local Episcopalians departure from the American Anglican church, this one, forwarded to me by a colleague, is the sharpest. It was written by Jim Naughton.
"The members of Truro and the Falls Church have now declared that belonging to a church that permits gays and lesbians to become bishops is too great a tax on their conscience, while belonging to a church that believes gay people should be imprisoned for eating together in public is not.
"I can suggest three reasons that Bishop Martyn Minns and his flock may have taken this decision. The first is naked bigotry. The second is a willingness to trade the human rights of innocent Africans for a more advantageous position in the battle for control of the Anglican Communion. The third is a profoundly distorted understanding of who Jesus was and what he taught.
"I'd like to believe that the last of these reasons explains the majority of the votes, because I recognize that my own salvation may depend on God showing mercy to those of us who are sincere in our misapprehensions.
"But, if Bishop Minns and his followers do, indeed, believe that gay Nigerians should be imprisoned for visiting a restaurant together, they need to inform us whether they believe gay Americans should be imprisoned for similar activities. And if they do not support the criminalization of such behavior in the United States, they need to explain why they favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy."

Who Do We Shoot? And How ...

When confronted with the overwhelming complexity of Dust Bowl agricultural economics, Pa Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, asked a great question: "who do we shoot?" Pa Joad came to mind when reading an article by Daniel Schrag, a Harvard climate scientist, lamenting the state of public debate about climate change. Having testitfied at a Senate hearing this month, Schrag wrote, "As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them." I just wonder how. How do citizens of a democracy -- so called -- take effective steps on huge, systemic issues when the public institutions of the democracy no longer function? Sure, if the people lead, the leaders will follow -- but how, exactly, does that happen on a scale large enough to make a difference? Who do we shoot? Just asking.

Reimagining Christianity 2.0

Affirmation 10 holds that loving ourselves includes claiming the sacredness of both our minds and our hearts, recognizing that faith and science, doubt and belief serve the pursuit of truth. This seems, again, straightforward and in accordance with the scriptural command to love God with heart and mind and soul. But one doesn't have to look far at all to find faith, science and the pursuit of truth utterly confused. Whether the subject is creationism (check this scary site), atomic warfare, or sexual orientation, the views of science and the "literal word of God" (an interesting phrase when you consider who uses it and who doesn't so much anymore) are held to be at odds in the minds of many.
The heart breaking results of such confusions are plain to see in a piece in the New York Times on gay evangelicals trying to find a faith home. Robert Gagnon, quoted in the Times piece, is correct about one thing: "the concept gay evangelical is a contradiction.” Of course, he's wrong about everything else. The concept is a contradiction precisely because we have for too long allowed the rest of the key words that he uses -- authority of scripture, self-affirming, evangelical -- to be construed narrowly in a discourse controlled by a conservative orthodoxy. The entire enterprise of reimagining Christianity, it seems to me, aims at wresting control of the discourse away from such narrow-minded voices.

Reimagining Christianity 1.9

Affirmation 9 holds that "loving ourselves includes ... basing our lives on the faith that, in Christ, all things are made new, and that we, and all people, are loved beyond our wildest imagination – for eternity."
I suppose that means, "God is good, all the time ... for all time." Pretty basic -- until we actually try living as if it were true, or until we raise questions of theodicy (the problem of evil, as suggested by the picture.)
Both challenges are fundamental. As Bonhoeffer observed, the knowledge that God loves my worst enemy as much as God loves me must challenge the way I view the enemy. At the same time, the knowledge of what the worst in us can result in -- pain, suffering, injustice, war -- challenges our understanding of the goodness of God.
So, how do we trust this affirmation, and how do we live out of it?

Good Intentions and the Road to Hell

I went searching for an image for the "road to hell" and came across, instead, the image here of the road to the Bahgdad airport. It is certainly a hellish route made that way by the intentions -- good or ill -- of the empire and its insurgent opposition in Iraq.
My own intentions had nothing to do with such a route -- just looking for an imaginative way of saying "sorry for being dark for a while."
I don't know if a week with a board meeting, a Presbytery meeting and a newsletter deadline can be called one of "good intentions," but it has certainly overloaded a few circuits, including the virtual ones of the blog.
But the show will go on again soon. I promise. Thanks for checking back.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It's a Texas Turkey! Everything is bigger in Texas -- even the turkeys. You can insert your own political joke .

Reimagining Christianity 1.8

Affirmation 8 holds that loving ourselves means walking humbly with God, acknowledging our own shortcomings while honestly seeking to understand and call forth the best in others, including those who consider us their enemies.
Hm, seeking understanding and calling forth the best from ... our enemies? Sounds risky and naive to me -- a call likely answered with a suicide bomb (do I play the conservative fear card well?)
I'm reminded of something Tony Campolo wrote after 9-11: "What has made it the very worst of times is that it is becoming more and more difficult to get away with talking about Jesus within the church. If you dare to quote Jesus in some Christian gatherings, you are likely to encounter hostility. ... If, without the required apologies, you should quote what Jesus had to say about how to treat enemies, it should be expected that one or more in the congregation will stand up and walk out. This is not a time when there are ready ears for words such as, 'Love your enemies and do good to those who would hurt you.'" (In Strike Terror No More.)
I had lunch this afternoon with some folks from the Rumi Forum, an organization that fosters interfaith dialogue between Muslims and nonMuslims. They spoke of both the difficulty and importance of such work in the post 9-11 world.
At a moment when some in the Christian world consider Islam itself the enemy of the West, seeking deeper mutual understanding and calling forth the best from one another sounds a bit less like risky naivete and a bit more like practical politics -- as the Confession of 1967 suggested a few years back.

Reimagining Christianity 1.7

Affirmation 7: Loving our neighbors includes preserving religious freedom and the church’s ability to speak prophetically to government by resisting the commingling of church and state.
Last week, on a stunningly beautiful autumn day, we loaded up the kids and drove down to Charlottesville to visit Monticello. It was the perfect setting to contemplate the separation of church and state.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote, "Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Of course, Jefferson was wary also of the church mingling in the affairs of state. In 1815, he wrote, "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."
Clearly, he did not think too highly of preachers!
But what happens when "lessons in religion" happen to turn on questions of justice? What is the role of the church in a time of war? What should the church say in the face of unjust economic structures? What of "love of neighbor" pushes us to an understanding of neighborliness that transgresses societal or even legal definitions such as Jim Crow laws, slavery, women's suffrage, same-sex relationships?
Just wondering ... that's all. And certainly no offense to Mr. Jefferson, who is one of my heroes.

Tending Hearts and Bending Arcs

I know many of our hearts are hurting this morning as a result of the passage of the marriage amendment in Virginia yesterday. But no result of a ballot measure – for better or for worse – is going to herald the coming of the kingdom. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Sometimes it seems longer than others, and this is one of those times for GLBT folks and their allies here. But this I know: our fundamental equality does not rise or fall on the result of any election, because each and every one of us is created equally in the image of a loving God.

Let our hearts be reassured by that unshakeable conviction, and let us tend to each other’s hearts with compassion.

While the news on this front was bad, the broader political picture is more hopeful as progressive voices were heard and progressive candidates elected in many places across the country. So maybe the arc bends a bit more today.

The image here -- note the arc -- comes from the Center for the Advancement of Nonviolence.
Now is the time for a season of nonviolence -- especially after the passage of an ugly and violent amendment.

Reimagining Christianity 1.6

Affirmation 6 holds that loving our neighbors means standing, as Jesus does, with the outcast and oppressed, the denigrated and afflicted, seeking peace and justice with or without the support of others.
This is the heart of an authentic theology of incarnation. While classical Reformed understandings of the incarnation focus on the challenge of holding God and the human person, Jesus, in creative and saving relationship, this affirmation pushes us to think of incarnation as an unfolding reality in the world.
This affirmation pushes us to think about location: where do we stand, and where does Jesus stand? Taking the gospels seriously -- especially Matthew 25 -- makes it clear that Jesus stands with the outcasts and oppressed, the poor and the sick, those seeking peace and justice. If we want to stand with him, if we feel any desire to know him and be known by him, we have to go where he is.

Bending the Arc

Every once in a while progressive people of faith manage to get their voices heard above the cacaphony of the "religious loud." When 300 or so Virginia clergy came together over the past several weeks to craft, sign and present a public statement of opposition to the proposed Marshall-Newman amendment to the state constitution we did not come close to drowning out the loud, but we did manage to get heard. The voice we raised helped frame the issue for at least one editorial board that came out against the amendment today. If we do the work of love, we will bend the arc one degree at a time closer to justice.

blogging on ... the antichrist

Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Sunday Doonesbury comic showed college students bent over notebooks taking careful but mindless notes. Realizing that the students aren't actually listening to anything, he professor began spouting nonsense: "Up is down. Black is white. Left is right. Thomas Jefferson was the Antichrist." Without pausing in his notetaking, one student whispered to another, "I didn’t know any of this stuff."
Lecturing is a lot like blogging. Suppose I said, "Bush is the Antichrist"? Would anyone respond with a comment?

Vote No! A Pastoral Plea: Pass It On

On November 7, Virginian's will be asked to write discrimination into a constitution crafted in a spirit of "forbearance, love and charity."
In the name of a narrow and restricted view of marriage based on an impoverished reading of scripture, leaders of the Religious Right are encouraging their followers to support this amendment.
Marshall-Newman is bad law, and such support is bad theology. Bad law and bad theology make a dangerous and volatile mix that Virginia does not need.
Marshall-Newman is bad law because it fails the first measure of good law: clarity of purpose. When two of the commonwealth's statewide elected officials come to diametrically opposed and fundamentally incompatible conclusions about the effects of a proposed constitution amendment -- as Gov. Tim Kaine and Attorney General Bob McDonell have -- you have a recipe for clogged courts and judicial confusion.
Supporting such bad law in the name of one-sided readings of brief passages of scripture taken out of their historical contexts is bad theology. Blaming a loving, grace-filled God for our own human tendency to fear those who are different from ourselves is even worse theology. Acting on those fears in ways that will hurt others is nothing short of demonic. Just as we opponents of Marshall-Newman say "read the whole thing," a faithful response to scripture requires that we read fully as well. A full reading reveals a God in love with all of creation and humankind made fully -- each and every one of us -- in the image of the divine.
As the full text of the proposed Marshall-Newman amendment reads, the amendment could deny legal rights and protections to the more than 100,000 unmarried couples in Virginia -- roughly 90 percent of whom are heterosexual. Domestic violence protections have been threatened in Ohio under an almost identical constitutional amendment.
In other words, a vote for ballot question 1 (the Marshall-Newman amendment) will affect someone you know and it could well hurt them. Passage of the amendment will not help anyone.
That many Virginia families are struggling no one denies. That many Virginia marriages are strained is equally undeniable. Only 17 states have higher divorce rates. Ten percent of Virginians live below the federal poverty rate. Surely these are signs that point to real suffering.
But Marshall-Newman will do nothing to support Virginia families or strengthen marriages in the Commonwealth.
Rather, it seems a smokescreen designed to focus attention on scapegoats instead of on the poverty of ideas that plagues the commonwealth.
In my own Presbyterian tradition we say that we are the church Reformed and always open to being reformed according to the will of God and the movement of the Spirit. In other words, we share a deep conviction that God is not through with us.
Virginia has an opportunity next Tuesday to speak boldly from that very conviction. God is calling forth a new vision of the commonwealth.
God calls us to loving and faithful relationships. Marshall-Newman inscribes hate-filled discrimination into the constitution.
God calls us to be filled with grace and mercy. Marshall-Newman is full of judgment and condemnation.
God calls us to build a commonwealth of belovedness. Marshall-Newman rests on a poverty of compassion.
God is not through with us.
With that deep conviction, I urge you to vote No on ballot question 1.

Reimagining Christianity 1.5

Affirmation 5: Loving our neighbor includes engaging people authentically, as Jesus did, treating all as creations made in God’s very image, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability, nationality, or economic class.
So, is this the gospel or just a manifesto for identity politics? Do we have to treat meanies as creations made in God's very image? Does that mean no more "mean people suck" bumper stickers? How about those with whom we profoundly disagree? Beyond praying for those who persecute us, do we have to engage them authentically? What might that look like?
The rubber hits the road here, and I'm not so sure I like it. It might require me to hold in my heart people I don't like very much, after all, not every neighbor is loveable.
In fact, last night -- Halloween -- some of them stayed hidden behind closed doors, and missed out seeing my middle child trick-or-treating dressed up as ... me! Clerical collar and all. Pretty scary, I assure you.

Yea, Rick!

Rick Ufford-Chase is at it again. Way to go, Rick!
Arizona Daily StarPublished: 10.30.2006
Guest Opinion: Rick Ufford-Chase -- No on Prop. 107
Proposition 107 would explicitly deny any "marriagelike" benefits to persons who are not married and would constitutionally define marriage as being available only to persons of opposite gender. Like the broader society, the faith community is deeply divided on this issue.
My experience as the highest elected official of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from June 2004 to June 2006 gave me a glimpse into the passion and divisiveness of this debate. Though it is clear that there is currently no consensus in our churches to broaden the definition of marriage, our denomination has been clear that we will not become unwitting participants in any movement to isolate gay and lesbian persons as a group, nor will we condone discriminatory practices against the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community from our legislative, executive or judicial branches of government.
This is entirely consistent with our denomination's historic advocacy for women, persons of color, undocumented persons, and those who live with mental or physical disabilities, all of whom also face the possibility of discrimination because of who they are.
I long for the day when all who desire to make a lifelong commitment to one another are able, as I am, to do so within the bonds of the covenant of marriage. Someday, it could happen. After all, the biblical story is full of examples of God's people being surprised by what God had in mind for them.
We Presbyterians believe that God is constantly being revealed to us in ways that challenge, trouble and occasionally delight us. For that reason, I will continue to be in dialogue with my sisters and brothers with whom I disagree about this matter.
As people of faith, all of whom are struggling to be faithful to their understanding of God, we must find respectful ways to wrestle with this and many other issues that divide us. However, what we must not tolerate are laws motivated by hate or discrimination, or that single out an entire class of people to be treated differently from the rest of us.
Prop. 107 would take away domestic-partner benefits such as health insurance from public employees. It would remove domestic-violence protections from unmarried persons. It makes simple things like the right to visit a loved one in the hospital impossible.
Questions of how marriage is defined will continue to be debated within our faith communities and across our society. In the meantime, let's assure that our laws embody the best of what our country has always been: a safe haven for those who might be targeted elsewhere because of who they are or what they believe.
Let's honor our country's history as a place of tolerance, mutual forbearance, care and concern for all members of our communities. Those are values that all of us, both in and out of the church, ought to be able to affirm.
Please, vote "no" on Proposition 107.
Rick Ufford-Chase was the Moderator of the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He now serves as the Executive Director of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship. Write to him rickuffordchase@gmail.com.