Tuesday, January 17, 2006

What Church?


The first comment from yesterday's post raises the next question: what is the church? Our Reformed confessional heritage can be both gift and burden for all such questions, but on this one it does offer much to consider. I believe it is the Scots Confession that says the marks of the true church are that the word of God is rightly proclaimed and the sacraments are rightly administered. I can't help a day-after-King-Day provocation: perhaps the fire hoses of Birmingham were baptism, the lunch counter sit-ins were the Lord's Supper, and "I have a dream" was the word proclaimed.
In addition to the marks of the church, he constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) names certain purposes or ends of the church. Among them is "exhibiting the kingdom of God to the world." The Beloved Community is one compelling image of that kingdom.
Of course there are many ways to be the church and few will ever be called to look much like the Civil Rights Movement, but, as Martin Luther suggested, a church that "gives nothing, costs nothing and suffers nothing is worth nothing." Radical generosity, costly grace and redemptive suffering may just be additional "marks of the church."
Nevertheless, no matter what vision pertains -- whether conservative or progressive, Reformed or Roman, movement or institution -- the present moment demands that we think seriously about the question: is the church necessary? Why? Why not? What do you think? How does your own experience with church shape your response?

Monday, January 16, 2006

Why Church?

When I began this blog in November of 2004 I posted an e-mail from a friend who was asking, essentially, "why bother with church at all?" Martin Luther King Day is a perfect opportunity to grapple again with that essential question.
Why consider the necessity of the church on King Day? After all, King was often extremely critical of the church. In his Letter from the Brimingham Jail King wrote that "the judgement of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an errelevent social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I am meeting young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust."
On the other hand, I have always suspected that the Civil Rights Movement, at its best moments, was, precisely, the church at its best. King suggested as much in ending his famous letter when he prophesied that "One day the South will recognize its real heroes. ... They will be the young high school and college students, young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders courageously and nonviolently sitting-in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience's sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage" -- in other words, they were being the church.
Indeed, as Douglas John Hall notes in Why Christian?, "The first Christians were not thinking in institutional terms at all, they were thinking in terms of a movement" (page 127). Of course, as both the early church and the Civil Rights movment learned, if any movement is to be sustained over time various institutional forms become necessary. The movement gave birth to, among other institutions, the NAACP, the Congress on Racial Equality, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The first Christians, and all of the rest of us for 2,000 years, have built, reformed, reshaped and rebuilt the church in thousands of institutional incarnations.
This King Day comparison is not without incongruencies, of course. The Civil Rights movement was not an entirely faith-based enterprise. It did not requiring creedal statements or confessions, (although it issued manifestos, including many of King's speeches, that are confessional statements). Nevertheless, I think it is a useful comparison because it can help us ask central questions about the church: in what way is it a movement? to the extent that it is a movement, toward what is it moving? what institutional forms, liturgies and traditions serve the direction of the movement? which ones distract from that direction?
Ultimately, these questions help refine our approach to the central question my friend's e-mail raised: is the church necessary and, putting my own, self-interested cards on the table, why does it remain necessary?

Friday, January 06, 2006

New Year

The new year might be time for some good reading. Especially since, as a form of self-punishment masquerading as "professional responsibility," I am trying to make it through the first book of the Left Behind series. Sack cloth and ashes would be easier. Forty days of fasting would be more pleasureable. But if I could break the fast with something from David James Duncan it might make the whole thing go down a bit easier. Duncan wrote one of my favorite novels, The Brothers K. It sits on my bedside table and I pick it up now and then just to enjoy the way he uses words. He tells stories of faith better than just about anyone I know, and obviously it gets him in a bit of trouble now and then, as this passage suggests:
AFTER THREE DECADES OF INTIMACY with some of the world's greatest
wisdom texts and some of the West's most beautiful rivers, I assumed I'd
escaped the orbit of organized religion. Then came a night in
Medford, Oregon. After giving a literary reading to a warm,
not-at-all-church-like crowd, I was walking to the car when one of the
most astute men I know -- my good friend, Sam Alvord -- clapped me on
the back and amiably remarked: "I enjoy your evangelism."
I was flabbergasted. Evangelism? I was a story-teller, not one of
those dang proselytizers! The evangelists I'd known since childhood
thought the supposed "inerrancy of the Bible" magically neutralized
their own flaming errancy and gave them an apostolic right to judge
humanity and bilk it at the same time. The evangelists I'd known
proclaimed themselves saved, the rest of us damned, and swore
that only by shouting "John 3:16! John 3:16!" at others, as if
selling Redemption Peanuts at a ball game, could we avoid an Eternal
State of Ouch.
Then honest Sam tells me: "I enjoy your evangelism"?
Shit O. Deer.

That's pretty much the way I felt the first time somebody suggested to me that I might be
well-suited for ministry.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Christmas Peace

Never forget that we are called first to be makers of peace. As senseless, endless war rages in Iraq, the Christmas Truce of World War I should give us pause to remember that soldiers do not make wars, generals do. This is a story worth remembering. John McCutcheon wrote a beautiful folk song that tells the story. You can listen to the story and a bit of the song through the Public Radio Exchange. Search "Christmas in the Trenches." Perhaps some troops in Iraq may experience such a moment of peace this year, although the only peace for some is the eternal quiet of the grave.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

A Hoax, and a Ho, Ho, Ho

The story about the Dartmouth student turns out to be a hoax. It was, in many ways, a classic "urban legend." It reflects the fears of our times, that mount with each new revelation about domestic spying. That fear, felt with a particular closeness here in the DC area, certainly made me more than willing to believe the story.
But that's a subject for another day. For now, enjoy this little silliness -- a gift from the world wide web. Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Merry Christmas, Big Brother

The story from Dartmouth , of a student being questioned by government agents after he requested a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" from the library, leaves me wondering just how little one has to do these days to get the national security state's mockers in a twist. Could one simply blog on such words as Marx, communism, terrorism, assassination, 9-11, Bush, peace, redistribution, protest, poverty, war, or Israel? Is that enough to draw down the attention of those who are apparently watching our words? I'm reasonably certain I've used every one of those words in sermons before. Perhaps I'd better stop posting sermons on the church's web site.
Heaven forbid we should organize a congregational witness for peace. We might wind up like those poor Quakers in Florida. I'll think twice this Christmas Eve before making any mention of the Prince of Peace. And that e-mail I sent to Virginia's U.S. Senators about investigating this domestic spying ... on second thought maybe I should try to call that one back.
My high school son is reading Marx's Revolution and Counter Revolution -- just for fun! OK, he's an interesting child. Thank goodness he got that book from the pastor's study and not from the public library.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

All I Want for Christmas ...

All I want for Christmas is a version of Spybot that can tell me when I am under surveillance by the national security state. How about you?

Friday, December 16, 2005

Sleepwalking Through Advent

Advent is the season of watching and waiting. It is a season of hopeful expectation. It is a season of preparation. As the paper fills with news of torture and domestic spying it is tempting to roll over and go back to sleep.

But, above all, this is a season of and for wakefulness.

Of course we know that wakefulness is not always easy. We want to turn away from what is difficult. We want the solace of sleep. This is nothing new under the sun.

Jesus’ disciples turned away from the terror in the Garden of Gethsemane and they fell asleep. Their sleep did not stop the crucifixion. Nor did it stop the resurrection. Their sleep did not stop the radical reorientation of life that is the gospel, and, of course, neither will ours. As the psalmist says, “In peace I will both lay myself down and sleep, for you, Yahweh alone, make me live in safety.” When the terror is too much, when the valley of the shadow is too deep, God promises to be with us, and keep watch over us as flocks in the night.

Nevertheless, we are called to wakefulness. Even now, in the midst of a season of great darkness; especially now when such a season cries out desperately for light and more light. For advent means coming, and we are called to be awake to what is being born in our very midst.

And what is that, or, more to the point, who is that begin born here and now among us?

It is the one who calls us to awake; the one whose coming radically reorients all of life, even our definitions of what is lowly, what is weak, what is broken.

As Bonhoeffer put it, “Where the understanding is outraged, where human nature rebels, where our piety keeps a nervous distance: there, precisely there, God loves to be; there [God] baffles the wisdom of the wise; there [God] vexes our nature, our religious instincts. There [God] wants to be. … God in lowliness – that is the revolutionary, the passionate word of Advent.”[1]



[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Mystery of Holy Night (New York: Crossroad, 1997) 8.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Imagine

Thinking about John Lennon on the 25th anniversary of his death ...
Imagine there's no empire; no hungry war machine.
Imagine there's no vote fraud; no neoconservative movement no, well ... you can fill in whatever names come to mind.
Imagine justice mattered, and human frailty, too.
Imagine there's no corporate music machine reducing everything to tripe.
Imagine there's no Disney, no Newscorp, and no Fox.
No New York Times to lie or libel; no People full of hype.
Imagine music mattered, and artistic vision, too.
Imagine a middle school ochestra playing Vivaldi and tearing your heart out.
Imagine real religion binding us together not tearing us apart.
Imagine a child ringing a chime, and an old woman singing hymns.
Imagine no wins and losses, but mercy and compassion instead.
Imagine letting go of Truth with a capital T, in favor of love.
Imagine not getting angry when not everyone agrees with you.
Imagine not being right, but still being part of a community.
Imagine not being afraid, and trusting abundance.
Imagine grace.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Happy Holidays!

An informative, and somehow quite amusing, post about the ACLU in this holiday season. Enjoy, and a blessed Advent to you.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

On Being Blogged

The past couple of weeks have been a strange introduction to news making in the age of the blog. As noted a few days ago, the church I serve has been in the news quite a bit of late, beginning with an article on the front page of the Metro section of the Washington Post.
We've learned that one story in the Post will be followed by dozens of others in papers, TV and radio. Somewhere along the line, a news producer told me to check the blogs, where apparently the action of my church's session has struck a chord with many. For some, it is a beautiful message of grace, for others it's "unbiblical" or worse.
For me, it's just been interesting. The range of reaction is fascinating, as the links below will show. The first few are additional news reporting from several sources, the next nine or ten are blogs. There's plenty more like them out there -- including something I ran across in Polish! Who would have thought that a small, mainline congregation in a red state would articulate a policy that caused such outsized reactions? But, then again, isn't "good news from unexpected places" one of the great themes of incarnational theology?
Anyway, here are a few links:
Washington Blade
Arlington Connection
Presbyterian Layman
Here are the blogs -- sorry about mucking up their names:
Monday Morning
Liberal Rage
Get Religion
McCornick
Dailykos
Beliefnet
Feministing
Editor-at-Large
Wyclif
So, what do you make of all this? Much ado about ... something ... nothing ... a third thing?

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving

Here's a song from my daughter, for Thanksgiving:

In our house, we're reading books
We're playing games
and some of us are cooks.

We're kickin' off shoes,
and kickin' up heals.
Some of us are dancing on bannana peels.

In our house, we're gonna have fun.
The clouds are parting and here comes the sun.

Everybody's jolly and nobody's sad.
Your momma is dancing with your dad.

In our house, we're playing guitars.
We're sitting on the porch
and wishing on the stars.

Monday, November 21, 2005

In Case You Missed It ...

Well, in case you missed this story, the church I serve has been much in the news during the past week. It has been interesting to say the least. I'll blog on it after the media buzz dies down and I've had some time to reflect. In the meantime, it is worth noting that the response to this decision has been overwhelmingly positive. The full policy is available on line. We welcome all thoughtful responses -- hate mail we can do without.

Monday, November 14, 2005

A Good Read on a Good Question

I've never claimed to be a "moral giant," but it doesn't take a moral giant to understand that torture is wrong. It just is. One visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial museum is more than enough to teach most of us that simple truth. So I've been wondering just why the administration seems so determined to hold open the torture option against overwhelming public opinion and the express wishes of a near-unanimous U.S. Senate. After all, we've fought wars before against brutal regimes who used terrorism and torture (see the link above or consider Vietnam). But even in the worst of those conflicts, the nation never articulated anything evan vaguely resembling an official sanction of torture. Now the administration balks at inscribing in law a prohibition against torture. Why?

A post on Common Dreams today offers the best theories I've read.

Friday, November 11, 2005

The Unexamined Life

The news this week brought together two seemingly unrelated stories that are signs of the times, although it's tough to tell just which way they're pointing. First, Tony Blair last a key vote when parliament voted down a security bill. Closer to home, an appeals court judge told the Tampa Bay Bucs to stop patting down patrons upon entering the stadium to watch NFL games.

Defenders of the patdown policy and of Blair's proposal said such restrictions are necessary because "we are at war."

That may be, but I still do not believe it when they tell me that limits on our freedom are necessary to stop the terrorists who, we are told, hate our freedom. Such justifications make me wonder why, if the terrorists hate freedom, they don't attack Canada or Sweden or one of the dozen or so democracies around the world that are arguably more free than we? More than that, though, I do not believe it when they tell me – through their actions – that the unilateral projection of American military power is going to make me safer and the world more free.

If we are to make ourselves more secure and the world safer for freedom, we would do well to turn back to Plato now – not in moderation, but in following the Delphic oracle’s other wisdom: the unexamined life is not worth living. We are living a remarkably unexamined national life. Our actions as a nation since the crimes of September 2001 have been those of a wounded animal, and no wounded animal can make the world safe for itself or for others.

Indeed, if we are, as Aristotle argued, the “rational animal,” our actions since September 2001 have completely dehumanized us. Leaving aside the insanity that is Iraq, so many domestic actions have been completely irrational. Policies promulgated under the so-called Patriot Act and under numerous state and local initiatives only appear rational when one accepts their premise of extreme risk. But the premise itself is based not on reason but on emotions – chiefly deep-seated fear, constant unease and a deep desire to exact revenge for the horrors of September 11.

Fear rises subtly every time one stands in security lines at an airport, yet reason would tell us that any one of us is still far more likely to die in an accident on the way to the airport than to be the victim of any air piracy. This is true even as we see the latest news of bombs in Jordan. Fear rises subtly every time one walks through a security checkpoint to enter a museum on the Mall, yet reason would tell us that we are far more likely to die walking across the Mall from heart disease than we are to be the victims of bioterrorism. Fear rises subtly at each report of another horrific suicide bombing, yet reason would tell us that we are far more likely to be the victim of random street violence in our nation’s capital than we are to be the victim of terrorism, even if we lived in Jerusalem rather than in DC or New York or LA or any other large American city, never mind any smaller American city where the irrational fears still rule the day. And yet we do not question or remark upon the public and economic policies that, in large part, reinforce the life styles that are at the root of the very real dangers of heart disease, traffic congestion, home-grown violence, and so on and on.

And finally, fear rises subtly whenever the national security budget is defended by reference to September 11, yet reason – or, at least, history -- would tell us that we are made far less free and even less secure in a hyper-militarized state than we would be in a nation whose aims were less overtly imperialistic.

Reason has given way to fear, and as my favorite philosopher, the Jedi master Yoda, reminds us, fear is the path to the dark side.

Indeed, if we would pause for a long moment in our head-long rush toward a militarized police state, we might realize that fear is what drives our “enemies” toward the dark side. When internet polls – admittedly far from scientific but nevertheless interesting indicators – suggest that more of the world’s people fear the United States than fear Iraq or North Korea, a people with even a shred of capacity for self-reflection ought at least to be curious about that fact. Rather than ask, as so many did four years ago in wide-eyed naivety, “why do they hate us?” we might better ask “why do they fear us?”

A reasoned dialogue would no doubt raise questions about the rise in religious fundamentalism in the developing world, and the lack of effective public responses to religious violence in many (especially Middle Eastern) nations. That same reasoned dialogue ought to press the nations of the world toward increased responsibility for their home grown fanatics. And that reasoned dialogue may well acknowledge some clearly defined uses for international military force where the fanatics have gained control.

My own deeply held commitment to Christian nonviolence insists that any such role be limited to policing and peacekeeping, but sometimes my Calvinist roots remind me that in a broken world our choices are never between a perfect good and a clear evil, but rather more often between lesser evils. At such points, I reach the end of reason and am reminded that fear is, after all, the opposite not of reason, but of faith. And clearly, such times as these call forth deep faithfulness.

But no matter what questions any reasoned dialogue raises about “them,” if such dialogue raises questions about “us,” about our national life, then we have a responsibility to address them. And clearly such a dialogue will raise questions about such things as America’s role in the vastly unequal distribution of the world’s resources; about such things as the remarkably undemocratic international institutions -- beholden to America and its interests -- that underpin global inequality; questions about such things as America’s role in supporting repressive regimes over the course of the past half century and overthrowing them when their utility is exhausted; and questions about such things as America’s perceived and articulated imperial intentions.

We have a responsibility to address those questions. More than that, as Reinhold Niebuhr's great prayer for serenity reminds us, we have a responsibility to act on them. For if serenity, comes from accepting the things that cannot be changed, then justice and the peace that rests upon justice comes with the strength “to change the things that should be changed.” Until we engage in a faithful and reasoned dialogue, we cannot lay any claim on the wisdom to know the difference.

One could certainly argue that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” (sic) requires such reflection and such action, and I would agree. But more than that, we owe it to ourselves and our posterity. If an unexamined life is not worth living, nothing short of our national life is at stake. If we are, indeed, rational animals, nothing short of our own humanity is at stake. If we are, after all, children of a loving God, nothing short of our deepest faith commitments and our ultimate concerns are at stake. Let the national examination begin.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Still Walking With the Wind

I was going through some old files this morning and came upon a sermon that got me fired from a job about five years ago. As the congregation I currently serve announces a new policy concerning weddings and holy unions (we will no longer function as agents of the state in an unjust system that unfairly denies to same-sex couples the full legal rights and recognitions of marriage), it struck me that the words from half a decade ago remain pretty fresh. It's a little long for a post, but I am wondering again, as I consider a job lost years ago, "was it something I said?"

Almost 40 years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. gave voice to a vision. He articulated a dream that many of us still share: a dream of a beloved community, a community gathered at table, a community, he said, where “black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics” would be able to sit together at one table and sing together in one voice: free at last, free at last.

This morning, I want to suggest to you that the work of dreaming is not yet done; the vision of the beloved community is not yet realized; there are yet more places to set at the table of brotherhood … and sisterhood. I have a dream today to share with you.

You see, I am utterly convinced that if Dr. King were alive today, his roll call to the table would have sounded something like this: black people and white people; sisters and brothers, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, gays and straights … singing together, free at last.

Dr. King claimed that his vision was deeply rooted in the American Dream, and so it was. But his vision was also deeply rooted in gospel truth. In expanding his dream today, my vision is deeply rooted in the American Dream. It is deeply rooted in Dr. King’s dream. And it is deeply rooted in gospel truth, as well.

Now some might say it is a risky rhetorical strategy to lay claim to the American Dream at a time when there is shrinking support in legislative halls for expanded protection for gays and lesbians. And some might say it is risky strategy to lay claim to Dr. King’s vision and image knowing full well that King was quite conservative with respect to sexual politics. And still others might say it is risky strategy – indeed might charge that it is heretical -- to lay claim to gospel truth when the church seems bent on narrowing its vision.

Nevertheless, as our denomination debates an amendment to our church constitution that would bar our ministers from performing ceremonies of Holy Union between same-sex couples, the Sunday of the holiday weekend honoring the life and memory of our nation’s greatest prophet of freedom and justice is the right time for some risk taking. It is the right time to say “no” to Amendment O.

So let’s examine these three rhetorical risks and see if we can uncover together a prophetic truth that outstrips all rhetoric just as it touches real lives in our churches.

The first risk is the easiest to answer. Even in the midst of our deepest divisions about church polity, the Presbyterian Church has stood firmly for full civil rights and protections for sexual minorities. We do not struggle there. We proclaim with one voice – albeit a bit of a weak one from some quarters in the church – that all Americans are entitled to their full claim on the American Dream. So my vision is deeply rooted in the American Dream.

The second risk is a bit tougher, because here we are moving into the realm of interpretation. King died before the sexual revolution made it remotely possible for gays to leave the closet and lay claim to full civil rights, much less full ecclesial ones. But in choosing this day to speak to these issues, I am in pretty good company. Members of Dr. King’s family, including Coretta Scott King, and many of his closest aides have argued persuasively that Dr. King’s vision of the beloved community was evolving at the time of his assassination, and they believe he would have been out front in the march toward justice for sexual minorities.

In his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King answered his white clergy critics who had called him an “outside agitator,” saying, “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.”

For Christians, any understanding of justice must be based on love. Dr. King understood this and preached it often. In his letter from jail, King challenged the church to join the struggle, because his dream was founded first and foremost on that gospel truth of justice based on love.

Unfortunately, in the midst of the current crisis, it is precisely the church that is framing issues of justice on a legalistic interpretation of a handful of passages of scripture, while ignoring the very real pain suffered by individuals who are locked out, left behind, ignored, scorned and even hatefully spited because of their sexual identity. And this injustice is done in the name of a certain conception of the gospel.

So my most risky rhetorical strategy is to lay claim to that same gospel truth. But truly, this is the only claim that matters.

Now some will argue that scripture is clear with respect to issues of homosexual behavior. Those who disagree with me – and let’s be clear: there are many who do -- will point to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, to the Leviticus Holiness Codes, and to Paul’s letters to the Romans and the Corinthians as the seven citations of the Biblical witness against homosexuals. There are almost as many interpretations of these passages as there are interpreters. And the interpretations vary widely with respect to meaning, context and centrality of the passages.

But without dragging through the mud of exegesis here, let us at least agree that what’s going on here is precisely that: the interpretation of texts. I am interpreting several this morning: the “text” of the American Dream; the “text” of Dr. King’s dream; and the “text” of gospel truth. We cannot come to any text – holy scripture or the Sunday Times – without interpreting.

Let us also agree that the central text at stake – the Biblical text – is inherently a living text. It is the live word of the living God, as the theologian Walter Brueggeman puts it. And the evangelical truth of scripture is focused on and lives out of its main claims not its lesser claims, as Brueggeman argued last fall at East Liberty. The dispute lies here: what is central, what is provisional in scripture?

The sodomy of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, the particulars of the holiness codes, the examples in Romans and Corinthians are lesser claims, just as those passages that for so many years were used to deny women their rightful and ordained places of leadership in the church are lesser claims. Issues of context and translation support that claim strongly although we do not have the time this morning to trace out the arguments.

Indeed, as the Methodist clergywoman Maurine Waun writes, “The pain of sexual minorities is, at this moment, so ponderous and so enormous that the church is missing the mark by not even daring to look beyond the scriptural debate toward the hurts and issues of persons who are bravely and genuinely struggling in their everyday experience.”

No matter where you stand on Amendment O, or on ordination standards, these genuine struggles – and this deeply felt hurt – compel us to be welcoming and open to individuals in this house no matter what their sexual orientation.

Looking beyond the scriptural debate, however, does not necessitate looking beyond scripture. Our passages this morning from Amos and Isaiah are central. They are central to my sense of call and ministry. They are central to my understanding of justice. They are central to my understanding of gospel truth.

We must come to these texts with imagination. We are called to do so, and we do so all the time. Through our faithful imaginations the live word of the living God moves beyond itself in ways that were previously unavailable to the community of faith. Dr. King imagined a beloved community in which, as Amos said, “justice would roll down like water and righteousness like an everflowing stream.” Dr. King dreamed that “every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places shall me made straight and the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.” Now Amos, in chapter 5, and Isaiah, in chapter 40, were not thinking about Martin Luther King having a dream … but he did.

And now, so we are called to dream, to catch the wind of the Holy Spirit blowing afresh and anew and carrying us toward the beloved community. We stand, on this Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday Sunday morning, in a long line of heroes of the faith who have caught the wind and walked with it.

Congressman John Lewis, who, as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in August of 1963 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial delivered the speech preceding Dr. King’s, relates a story in the introduction to his memoir of the Civil Rights Movement. Now you should know that John Lewis is, along with Dr. King, one of my heroes of the faith. Lewis was born less than 100 miles from where I was born. And this story goes back to his rural Alabama roots. Let me read it to you:

On this particular afternoon – it was a Saturday, I’m almost certain – about fifteen of us children were outside my Aunt Seneva’s house, playing in her dirt yard. The sky began clouding over, the wind started picking up, lightning flashed far off in the distance, and suddenly I wasn’t thinking about playing anymore; I was terrified. I had already seen what lightning could do. I’d seen fields catch on fire after a hit to a haystack. I’d watched trees actually explode when a bolt of lightning struck them, the sap inside rising to an instant boil, the trunk swelling until it burst its bark. The sight of those strips of pine bark snaking through the air like ribbons was both fascinating and horrifying.

Lightning terrified me, and so did thunder. My mother used to gather us around her whenever we heard thunder and she’d tell us to hush, be still now, because God was doing his work. That was what thunder was, my mother said. It was the sound of God doing his work.

But my mother wasn’t with us on this particular afternoon. Aunt Seneva was the only adult around, and as the sky blackened and the wind grew stronger, she herded us all inside.

Her house was not the biggest place around, and it seemed even smaller with so many children squeezed inside. Small and surprisingly quiet. All of the shouting and laughter that had been going on earlier, outside, had stopped. The wind was howling now, and the house was starting to shake. We were scared. Even Aunt Seneva was scared.

And then it got worse. Now the house was beginning to sway. The wood plank flooring beneath us began to bend. And then, a corner of the room started lifting up.

I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. None of us could. This storm was actually pulling the house toward the sky. With us inside it.

That was when Aunt Seneva told us to clasp hands. Line us and hold hands, she said, and we did as we were told. Then she had us walk as a group toward the corner of the room that was rising. From the kitchen to the front of the house we walked, the wind screaming outside, sheets of rain beating on the tin roof. Then we walked back in the other direction, as another end of the house began to lift.

And so it went, back and forth, fifteen children walking with the wind, holding that trembling house down with the weight of our small bodies.

More than half a century has passed since that day, and it has struck me more than once over those many years that our society is not unlike the children in that house, rocked again and again by the winds of one storm or another, the walls around us seeming at times as if they might fly apart.

It seemed that way in the 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement, when America itself felt as if it might burst at the seams – so much tension, so many storms. But the people of conscience never left the house. They never ran away. They stayed, they came together and they did the best they could, clasping hands and moving toward the corner of the house that was the weakest.

And then another corner would lift, and we would go there.

And eventually, inevitably, the storm would settle, and the house would still stand.

But we knew another storm would come, and we would have to do it all over again.

And we did.

And we still do, all of us. You and I.

Children holding hands, walking with the wind.

Today in the church we are buffeted by winds of strife. That wind, that strife, threatens to tear the house apart. The splinters are evident already and when the wind of strife blows them they strike deep wounds into individuals in the house.

But we are called, by another wind, to join hands, to walk with the wind and to hold the house together. For in the midst of the wind there is a dream. In the center of the house rests a table. And around the table, we can still be gathered: black folks and white folks, Protestants and Catholics, gays and straights -- one people sharing one hope, one faith, one Lord. Free at last. Free at last.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Signs of the Times

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, said Dylan. Of course, Jesus said you can tell the signs of the skies and still not know the signs of the times. All I know is Cheryl Swoopes is out of her closet while Harriet Miers is going back into hers. Here in Washington it is chilly today. The winds are calm. The grand jury is quiet. But I think I can begin to see a little light in a dark sky.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Choose Hope

One of the most pernicious false gods that we cling to here in the new Rome is the illusion of control. But even here, we have no control over the time in which we live, and often no control over the events that mark our lives.

Nevertheless, we are given the choice of how we shall live in the time we are given and how we shall respond to the events that mark our time.

Most of us have very little control over the institutions where we work or go to school, we have no control over our family of origin, but we can choose how we respond to the stresses of our jobs or school life or family life. It is often overwhelmingly tempting to respond to work or school or family with cynicism.

In fact, it is often hip, stylish and celebrated to be cynical. Sometimes it’s fun, and it can often be genuinely funny – think Seinfeld for a moment. And in this city in particular, it is often expected and it is certainly easy to turn to cynicism.

But cynicism is not a faithful response to the world. We are called to a stewardship of attitude.

This is not a call to naiveté, or to Pollyanna-ish living. Critical engagement with the world is crucial. But when life places before you hopelessness and hope, faith demands that we choose hope.

That may just be the most difficult choice we are ever called to make. Choosing hope requires taking responsibility. Abandoning hope lets us off the hook. At the same time, choosing hope requires that we trust others. Abandoning hope allows us to slip into a splendid isolation where we can wallow in hip, detached despair or sink into genuine depression. Choosing hope draws us deeply into the messiness of real life and real community. Abandoning hope allows us to dwell in dark fantasy.

Friday, October 14, 2005

The Future?

I watched Seabiscuit last night with a group from church. It's a charming film with a classic triumph of the underdog theme. Throughout the movie, Charles Howard, played by Jeff Bridges, aims at "the future." As the American waster frontier settles, the sky becomes the limit. As the American economy falls into the Great Depression, Howard still believes in the power of the future.

It was an interesting film to watch with a group from a church whose future has been in doubt for many years, and continues to be an open question as we stumble along from one crisis to the next.

It leaves me wondering, is there a future for the progressive church?

We all know that the so-called Christian Right is an extremely powerful cultural and political force in the nation. The Christian Right dominates the cultural perspective on Christianity so much that most folks outside of the walls of progressive churches do not even know that such a thing as progressive Christianity exists.

Years ago, when I worked for a short while on the Nuclear Freeze campaign, I recall the shock that a friend expressed when he learned that I was going to the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. "What’s a good progressive like you doing in a divinity school?” he wanted to know. I tried to explain that there was a tradition of progressive Christianity, but he had never encountered it. Most folks haven’t.

For most Americans, Christianity has become synonymous with a particular legalistic, conservative, evangelical movement whose vocal, media-savvy leaders are quick to condemn anyone who sees the world differently than they do.

Gays and other sexual minorities? An abomination. Women? Remain silent and “gracefully submissive,” in the words of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jews? In need of salvation. Feminists, lesbians, the ACLU, People for the American Way? Responsible for September 11, according to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

At a meeting of conservative Presbyterians a while back, one speaker said that liberals were like bugs devouring the foundation of the church. He called for stomping as the appropriate response to such an infestation. I’m not sure, but I believe they broke into a spontaneous version of “Guide My Feet” at that point!

In the face of such attacks from some conservatives and such widespread ignorance from the population as a whole, we have to ask: is there a future for progressive Christianity?

As for me, I firmly believe and have dedicated my own life to the conviction that God is calling forth a progressive, inclusive, engaged, diverse church upon which to build the beloved community. Now this future remains to be worked out in our living together as church.

Yes, there is a future. But whether it is a future of exile, decline, death and memorial stones or a future of foundation stones and building together and vibrant worship and call and response … remains to be worked out in our living together as church.

Indeed, the foundation was laid for a progressive, inclusive and diverse church by Jesus himself, as one can see in passages such as Mark 7:24-37, where Jesus encounters the Syrophoenician woman.

What might the future look like, if we live into our calling? A progressive Christianity will not be afraid. It will welcome contact and dialogue and deep conversation with other cultures and traditions including with our conservative, evangelical brothers and sisters, and it will be open to being transformed itself in and through such relationships, just as Jesus was transformed in his meeting with the Syrophoenician woman.

Now most commentators don’t want to read it this way, but the plain and clear story line here shows us that Jesus is changed by his encounter.

Jesus went to a Gentile region to get away. A Jewish healer and prophetic teacher ought to be able to rest in quiet anonymity for a while in the region of Tyre. Yet a gentile woman comes and pleads for healing and wholeness for her daughter.

Jesus tries to brush her aside – after all, he is Jewish and is focused on the spiritual condition of his own people. Yet her faithful pleading opens him up to the possibility that his mission is broader than he had previously understood.

In this moment, Jesus comes to more fully understand that, as William Sloan Coffin put it, “There is no way that [faith] can be spiritually redemptive without being socially responsible. A [faithful person] cannot have a personal conversion experience without experiencing at the same time a change in social attitude. God is always trying to make humanity more human.”

In this encounter with a marginalized woman, Jesus becomes more human, he becomes more clearly a child of a loving, merciful, just creator.

As Bonhoeffer put it, “Jesus tells us: You are standing under God’s love; God is holy and you, too, are to be holy.”

And in this story from Mark, Jesus radically expands the reach of that good news. For the good news is not just to one sect, defined by a set of legalistic boundaries designed to keep folks out. No. The good news is for everyone, for we are all heirs to the promise of wholeness and healing that is proclaimed through Jesus.

There is no East or West, male or female, slave or free, Gentile or Jew, black or white, straight or gay – for we are all children of the same God.

Jesus goes way out of his way to demonstrate this when he travels to the Decapolis on his way back to Galilee. Going by way of the Decapolis is like traveling from DC to New York by way of Cleveland – only more so, for the Decapolis was an unclean region avoided by Jews. Perhaps more like Pittsburgh!

His route and his actions – healing a Gentile from an unclean region – proclaim good news for all people. Jesus shows us here that grace is abundant; that the power of healing and wholeness is everywhere for everyone.

The people were astounded beyond measure, scripture tells us. Why? Was it the miracle healing? No doubt that was part of it, but healers were not uncommon. The larger miracle was this: for a people used to hearing that they were unclean, excluded, beyond salvation, Jesus proclaims this good news: God’s radically inclusive love for all people brings healing and wholeness to all of our wounded and broken lives; God’s radically inclusive love brings peace into our warring lives; God’s radically inclusive love for all creation brings light into the present darkness.

This is the foundational truth upon which we will build the future for progressive Christian faith and life. This is the bright light that will illuminate the way for that progressive life and faith to journey toward the future of God’s calling. And this promised future marks the most profound difference between progressive Christian faith and life and its other.

For, as William Sloan Coffin suggests, the theology of the Christian Right offers a present that has only a past. To that I say God calls forth a bright new morning -- in this place; at this moment.

God is calling us to risk the new day, to step into a bright new morning – a new morning of restored relationships following a long night of barriers and barbed wired; a new morning of reparation in our streets following a long night of injustice; a new morning of peace following a long nightmare of warfare; a new morning of light and more light following a long dark midnight. Arise, our light is come!

Hey, maybe the progressive church is just a beat up old undersized race horse that just happens to be the wave of the future. It could happen.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Katrina Diaries: From the Gulf Coast to the Gulf War

I left the coast Thursday evening and drove as far as Birmingham before sleepiness caught up with me. Even there, in the lobby of the hotel where I spent the night, I found reminders of what and who I was leaving behind: FEMA forms for reimbursement for those seeking shelter from the storm.

On Friday morning I detoured into downtown to walk through Kelly Ingram Park past the 16th Street Baptist Church. There, while sitting on a statue commemorating the children of the Birmingham campaign of 1963, I was reminded of others seeking shelter. A homeless man approached me and asked for a couple of dollars for food. I asked him if there was somewhere nearby to eat and he pointed across the park. I said, “are you hungry?” and, when he nodded “yes,” I said, “come on, I’ll buy you some breakfast.”

We walked through the park and shared bits of our stories. His name is Theodore. He is 30, African-American, born in Huntsville. I am almost 45, white, born in Tuscaloosa. Two sons of the Southland whose journeys crossed momentarily in this park in which the right to journey together was secured.

We talked a bit about what had happened in the park when I was a child. I shared with him how my own sense of ministry, and my own feeling of being called into ministry were shaped by the memories of what people of faith had done in places like Kelly Ingram Park to transform the world we grew up in.

He told me he wanted to find a job as a painter. I asked him if he had any construction experience and, when he said “no,” I suggested asking the folks at the 16th Street church to connect him to someone who could teach him to hang drywall. If you can hang drywall you can make a living on the Gulf Coast for years to come. There will be jobs for drywall workers far after the last volunteer pastors have left the coast.

In the grand scheme of things, hanging drywall – or ripping it down when it’s been flooded out – are probably more necessary jobs than pastoral ministry. In any case, such work certainly offers the great satisfaction of immediate results.

I left the Gulf Coast in time to make it back to Washington for the major demonstration calling for an end to the Gulf War. Alas, that work offers no immediate results. It is, however, inextricably bound to the work on the Gulf Coast and to the fate of folks like Theodore in Birmingham and in cities across the nation.

As Martin Luther King said in calling for an end to the war in Vietnam, “a nation that year after year continues to spend more money on national defense than it does on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Signs and symptoms of spiritual death are all around us in the American empire. We continue to be, as Dr. King noted 40 years ago, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. Our coarsened culture has become also the greatest purveyor of cheapened sexuality, mass consumerism and hyperindividualism.

Despite what some preachers will contend, and despite what some passages of scripture seem to suggest, I cannot believe that God sends down huge storms to destroy wayward societies. But the still, small voice of God does speak through the whirlwind, calling us in the wake of Katrina to refocus our priorities, to rebuild the commonwealth, to restore justice to the public square and repair the breaches of the cities’ streets to live in. In such work, a profound joy meets our time’s deepest need.