Stealing Christmas

Last year, I remember reading an account of a church that was taking steps to keep their outdoor nativity set in tact. Tired of having to replace their baby Jesus because of theft (pranks or otherwise), this church had put a GPS- global positioning system- in their baby Jesus, so that they could track the statue if it was stolen. Their story is not unique. All across the nation, churches are resorting to hi-tech tactics to keep people from stealing their Christmas scenery.

I wonder if we couldn't all learn something from an old Christmas episode of the TV show "Dragnet". I watched it over Thanksgiving break with my family. In that episode, the two cops were called to a Catholic Church by priests who noticed that the infant Jesus was missing from their creche. Worried that the worshippers who arrived for midnight mass on Christmas Eve would not be able to celebrate the Christ's Child's birth if the piece was not recovered, they called the police.

Suspects were interviewed. Pawn shops were visited. Hands were wrung in despair. Just when all seemed "lost" (including the baby Jesus), a small Hispanic boy entered the church, pulling a red wagon behind him. In the wagon was the missing baby. "I prayed for a red wagon," the boy explained. "I prayed very hard to baby Jesus. I promised him that, if I got one, that he would get the first ride."

A young boy's faith... A young boy's faithfulness. A young boy who understood the part of Christmas that no one can steal. Not the ACLU... Not a group of frat boys pulling a prank... It's when we celebrate Christmas in daily acts of faith, so sure of our relationship with the One whose birthday it is all about that we will keep our promises to God, and recognize God's faithfulness to us; when we are willing to give Christ the first and the best of the blessings we have... That's when we are living Christmas every day.

And we won't need a GPS to find the Christ Child in our hearts.

Can a 'Holy War' Be Justified, if Not 'Just'?

Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?

President Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was filled with truths- some of them surprising and others difficult to hear, but perhaps none that I want to be true more than the president's statement that "no holy war can ever be a just war". Oh, how I want to believe that truth with all my heart!

The reality is that this truth is not as "black and white" as our president might like it to be. By his own arguments, there may be times when a holy war can be justified, or justifiable. The president believes that there are occasions when force can be justified on humanitarian grounds. He seems to understand that there are people of faith who believe there is no such thing as a "just war", and yet the reality is that there have always been and always will be “wars and rumors of wars… for this must take place.” (Matthew 24:6)

One definition of Holy War is "a war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion." As a member and faith leader of the United Church of Christ, I must agree that any war fought to elevate one religion over another, or to suppress one religion in favor of another, is, as the president asserts, wrong. But what about defending a religion or religious rights?

In the past week, millions of Jews began their celebration of Hanukkah, in remembrance of the miracle that took place during just such a rebellion when the Maccabees fought to restore religious rights to the Hebrew people. Was that not a just holy war? If religious freedom were lost in this country, would that not be just grounds for fighting? It’s not simple enough for a blanket statement such as the one President Obama offered in his speech. I suspect he knows that.

Holy war is also defined as "any war fought by divine command or for a religious purpose". It would be safe to say that the truth the president spoke "lives" in dichotomy with a number of conflicting realities, not the least of which is that the Hebrew Testament is filled with examples of wars that were fought "at God's command". The president acknowledges that simply desiring peace will not be enough to achieve it, for as he says: "Make no mistake: evil does exist in the world."

The president acknowledges the hardest truth of all: “…we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations… will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

The prophet Isaiah informs us that a “new age” will come— the age of peace, when swords will be beaten into ploughshares and spears will become pruning hooks; “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Until that time, the world looks to its leaders to use restraint, govern with wisdom, and practice peace.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't...

This week's question:Christmas decorations at the White House include a crèche in the East Room (despite reports that White House social secretary Desirée Rogers suggested that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas.") Should the White House, whose residents serve all Americans, display a crèche or a menorah or any strictly religious symbols during the holidays?

The President may as well follow his heart and his conscience on this one. He will not be able to please us all. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

The Obamas are a devoutly Christian family. President Obama may serve “all Americans” in a public and professional sense, but as a Christian, he serves God first. As a Christian leader, I would be sadly disappointed if he felt compelled to “hide” his faith “under a bushel”. I would be disappointed if any governmental leader felt that pressure, whether they were of the Christian faith or not.

But that isn’t the main issue here.

“A man’s home is his castle”. If that old saying is correct, then isn’t it also true that America’s “castle”- The White House- is also a home? As such, The White House reflects not only the values of the people, but also of the family who lives there.

Is it his home or isn’t it? I’ve wondered the same thing about my own home from time to time, which, for the past twelve years has been in a church-owned parsonage. We have refrained from posting political signs in our yard, so that there can never be a question of the church’s tax-exempt status. However, anyone who was entertained in our home in the months before the last presidential election would have seen a political bumper sticker attached by a magnet to our refrigerator.

I make no apologies. It’s our home. The White House is a home, too.

The White House may belong to the people of this country, in a figurative sense, but it is not our “home”. Our president and his or her family have a right to choose which, if any, religious beliefs are to be represented in their home. If they are going to be criticized either way (and likely they will), they should be true to their faith.

The Swiss Have Lost Out

It seems that the assumptions made by many journalists may be right: The decision to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland was based in fear and prejudice. The Swiss people have, in my opinion, lost respect, ground and have lost the right to be called a "center for diplomacy".

If this decision had been made for the purpose of protecting the cultural heritage reflected in the architecture of the country, one might see some sense in the decision. But, the examples I have viewed of the minarets that have been built in that country do not tower over or detract from the cathedrals of Europe.

Some say the decision reflects the fears held by the Swiss that their country is being inundated by Muslim immigrants and that simply it mirrors attitudes from around the world fearing Islamic extremists. I have read the rhetoric of a variety of news reports, most of which see this decision as a major error in judgment on the part of the Swiss nation, calling it discrimination and bigotry.

Even the Swiss Bishops issued a statement from the Vatican saying that the decision presents "an obstacle to interreligious harmony".

Whatever the case, one thing is certain. The decision has moved the Switzerland out of its usual "neutral position" and into "reverse". This is surprising from the country that has been considered by many to be a "center for diplomacy". Since 1919 when it became the seat for the League of Nations, the city of Geneva has been "home" to the headquarters of international agencies, including departments of the United Nations and the Red Cross. Geneva has been the site for numerous "Peace Talks" and the Swiss government has maintained a "neutrality" in foreign relations for hundreds of years.

From personal experience, I can attest that it is not always easy to keep a neutral position, as the Swiss government lays claim to. When we moved to our small town of 300, I told our children that the parsonage we live in is "Geneva"- neutral territory. My intention was to stay out of the politics of feuds between families or organizations in this town. On a professional level, we take no sides. On a personal level, it's more difficult.

It would appear the same is true in this case. The Swiss government may be able to remain neutral about things, but clearly the Swiss people cannot. This decision is anything but neutral!

When I fail to remain neutral in town politics, I "lose ground" in the effort to move my community forward in their thinking. The Swiss have lost ground and lost respect in this maneuver.

The Woman in the Mirror

The former Miss Argentina died yesterday following plastic surgery. The surgery was an elective procedure, reportedly on her buttocks. If it weren't so tragic, there would surely be any number of tasteless jokes being bantered about... There probably are some anyway.

For some reason, this 37-year-old woman felt that she needed to change her looks, and that it was worth whatever minimal risk was involved. She is not alone...

In March of 2008, the awareness of just how dangerous plastic surgery can be was raised when a Florida teen died after corrective breast surgery due to a rare reaction to anesthesia meds given during the "routine surgery".

A fellow blogger- a "nurse turned writer" named Marjike, points out that while complications from plastic surgery are "rare", they do happen. The problem, she says, is that people don't take plastic surgery seriously.

She writes on her blog: "Many people don’t see plastic surgery as “real” surgery. The thing is, it is very real surgery. It involves anesthetic, which has risks of its own, and the procedures – all of which have some risk. Is it worth it? Is this search for never-ending youth worth it? Some people think so."

This, for me, is the crucial question. In 2004, ABC News reported that some 9 million Americans had gone under the knife for some form of plastic surgery during the previous year. Some of those procedures were possibly not just "elective" surgeries, but still, the number is staggering to me. Really? 9 million people who are not happy with the way they look?

Oh, I believe that there are many, many more of us out there who aren't really happy with the way we look. We look in the mirror and see those extra pounds screaming at us, or the wrinkles laughing... Even "beautiful people" sometimes have a difficult recognizing their beauty in the reflection that stares back at them. Any 12-Step program or therapist worth their salt will tell you that you have to become content with the inner beauty or it won't matter how you look... You'll still feel ________________. (Fill in the blank: fat, old, dowdy, worthless...)

As for me, I don't like the extra pounds, and have taken many of them off in the past two years. There are many more still juggling there in the mirror's reflection, but they don't scream quite so loudly. I have come to accept the wrinkles that are laughing at me, although, yes, I use face cream much more regularly these days as the 50th birthday quickly approaches.

Most of all, I am trying to recognize the beautiful woman that God created... the child that He/She "wonderfully and fearfully knit" in my mother's womb. (Psalm 139) For, as the Psalmist says, "God's works are wonderful."

I am the mother of a young teenage girl. So far, when we watch reality shows on TV that feature models, such as "Project Runway" or "America's Next Top Model", we are able to appreciate the way that the "right" hair or makeup can enhance what a woman already has, and talk about how the pressures of that "perfect" body image are a bit ridiculous and somewhat impossible to attain. That's how it is so far, anyway.

And we celebrate how beautifully God has created her, inside and out. God's works are wonderful. Let's help our young girls (and boys) learn that. As the song of my childhood goes: "Jesus loves the little children... red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight..."

When we look in the mirror, may we see that we are each a child of God, and oh, so very precious.

I'm Lobbying to Speak the Truth in Love

It would be easy to criticize the U.S. Catholic bishops for the actions involving them in the health-care debate. I doubt that Jesus would approve of the use of lobbyists to forward His Gospel message. And yet, as a pastor in the United Church of Christ, if I point a finger at the Catholic Church for this, there are "three fingers pointing back at me". The UCC is well-known for taking positions on any number of issues.

Am I being critical of the actions taken or am I critical of the stance itself?
Religious leaders have a duty to raise concerns about the moral implications surrounding any number of issues. However, the role of religious leaders in government policymaking should be as the “prophetic voice” and not as the “coercive arm”. There is a fine line between speaking "with authority" as an "agent of Christ" and speaking or acting in ways that abuse the power of that role.

My husband and I have taken care not to abuse the power that comes from being the only pastors living and preaching in a town of 330 people. During last year's elections, while some may have suspected who we intended to vote for, only our children knew for sure. On the other hand, when there is an opportunity to preach and teach "progressive ideas" like: peace, the responsibility to care for Creation, or the worth of all people as part of God's Creation, we believe it is our duty to "speak the truth in love", as is pledged during the ordination service of the United Church of Christ.

Others, often at the level of denominations or organizations, have used more aggressive approaches. The Catholic bishops in this instance may have "pushed the envelope", but they did it legally. The same is true, just barely, of actions taken by other religious organizations and their leaders.

When one of my colleagues, both a UCC minister and a state representative, ran for re-election several years ago, a group affiliated with, but "separate from", one of the large conservative Christian organizations launched an aggressive campaign to try to ensure his defeat. Letters were mailed out to thousands of constituents, filled with half-truths about his voting record, and condemning his association with the United Church of Christ and for having performed ceremonies to bless same-sex unions, both supported and expected by his congregation.

This was "legal" because the group that pays for such activities is separate from the religious ministry, and funded by individual contributions earmarked for such. The leader who founded both organizations holds no standing in any denomination, but make no mistake, he is a "religious leader" in this nation. Perhaps if he held standing somewhere, he might be held to a "higher code".

Religious leaders, at least those in my denomination, are bound by promises made at ordination to preach and teach the gospel “without fear or favor” and to “speak the truth in love.” I would imagine the promises are similar in the Catholic church.

In the Christian faith, we look to Jesus as a model of religious leadership. Jesus had relatively little to say about the political leadership and policies of the day. “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what is God’s”. Still, when one considers that the daily lives of the Jews were governed more by religious law than Roman, one sees that Jesus did, indeed, speak out against injustices and in support of God’s love.

As a pastor, I have the duty and honor to speak out against injustice and in favor of God’s love.

Suffer the Little Children

I just returned home from my daughter's middle school. I've been there many times before... ball games, chaperoning field trips, accompanying the choirs and bands. But this time was different. This time, I was one of about 12 counselors, pastors and teachers, trying to help these young students answer the unanswerable "why?" Sometimes I listened, sometimes I gave little insights into how grief "works", sometimes I just sat with them as they held one another and cried.

There is no answer for them. There is no sense to be made of a senseless situation. One of them realized aloud, "You don't expect it be your classmate. A 90-year-old, yes, but not your classmate."

Another complained about the rumors that had already begun to surface. Yet another said she lived down the street and wondered if she would ever get the images of the flashing lights... the door being broken down... the screaming... out of her head.

My own daughter told another student that she has heard so many stories now, she doesn't really care to know "what really happened".

The reasons don't matter much anyway. Knowing what happened won't turn back the clock. I would imagine his parents are pointing fingers of blame at themselves and each other, or will be, when the shock wears off. That won't help much, either. Perhaps they could have done things differently, but perhaps they, like other parents, were "doing their best".

Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14)

I heard more than one statement from adults in my community that "a child shouldn't have worries that big!" They are right. A child should not have to suffer. But they do. Sadly, they do. Whether their problems are real-- and some of them are-- or imagined, there are many youth who do not have adequate support systems in place to deal with those problems.

Peer pressure, eating disorders, homework, teasing... My generation faced those problems, too. But my generation was more likely to have caring neighbors, stay-at-home moms, or grandparents who lived close by to help us get through our struggles. My generation was more likely to have someone... anyone... monitoring our activities after school and on weekends. My generation was more likely to have more of what the Search Institute calls the "40 Developmental Assets".

The more assets a child has from that list, the less likely they are to be troubled or "trouble-makers." Those assets include things such as:
· families that are supportive, communicate well and stay involved in their children's lives.
· caring neighborhoods and schools.
· a feeling that their community values youth.
· three or more non-parent adults with whom the youth have relationships.
· encouragement from family and teachers.
· a feeling of safety at home, school and in the community.
· opportunities to serve in the community, as well as to just be a part of it.
· clear boundaries from parents, school officials and neighbors

Those of us who are parents, as well as those who work with or care about the youth in their churches and communities can learn something from the tragedy that took me to the school today. Children can and do have problems that are so huge to them that they cannot imagine a way out of them. Whatever else we may do, we must listen to them. We must talk with them. We must build relationships with them. We must help them to trust as many adults in their lives as is possible.

We must, must, MUST "suffer" the children to come... hopefully, to Christ, but at the very least to us, so that the children are not the ones to suffer.

Walking the Via Dolorosa with Mary

I've been thinking about a classmate's observation about the character of Mary as portrayed in Mel Gibson's movie, 'The Passion of Christ". My classmate noted that his observation that "the mother can endure and nearly be indifferent to so much suffering also" was a bit unnerving. It made me pause because I didn't seen her in the this way when I watched the movie.

My husband and I discussed that, for both of us, the scene where Mary follows her son down the "Via Dolorosa"... shocked and helpless to do anything to stop what she is witnessing... with Satan matching her, step for step on the other side of the street... is the ONLY part of the movie that we resonate with.

It's how it has often been for us with our oldest son, as we watched him carry his own crosses, carefully crafted by his abusive birth parents, weighed down by his mental illnesses, sometimes driven by evil to act out and sabotage his future... all the while, we're anything BUT indifferent to his suffering. And equally helpless to stop what we are witnessing.

The movie came out shortly after our son had to be removed from our home to protect our other children. He refused the treatment that would have allowed him to stay in the home. Helpless to stop him from decisions that led to his placement in a juvenile detention setting, we grieved our powerlessness.

I cried through that whole scene, and it had nothing to do with the bloodied Jesus-- I was already numb to that thanks to Mel's violence. It was Mary I cried with, and myself I cried for.

As a Protestant, I have grown up keeping a "healthy distance" from the mother of Christ. Now that I am a mother, I find her quite comforting to have around from time to time.

Jesus Would Insist Upon a Separation of Church and State

Dorothy Okray, on her website of church resources, poses a question for those of us preaching this coming week on "Christ the King" Sunday. Citing the corruption which took control of the Church in the Middle Ages, when the Christianity became the religion "of the state", resulting in a number of autrocities, including regrettably, the "Crusades" and the "Inquisition", Ms. Okray wonders:

"Do you dare preach about the corruption of power in the Christian Church... teaching its past...revealing the sins of the present? In fact, do you preach about the too familiar problem of the desire for power within the local churches? Remember, you can't fix a problem until acknowledge there is one. Think about it."

Hmmm. She poses a good question. One that merits the "think about it" challenge.

As I did just that, a thought came to me that may not be unique, but it was certainly a new awareness for me. I suddenly saw the irony in "Christ the King Sunday" and "Thanksgiving Sunday" falling on the same week. The Pilgrims, who are credited with the first "Thanksgiving feasts", fled to this land to escape the "state religion" of England, and find a place where they were free to express their faith as they wished. The Pilgrims were Congregationalists, my "ancestors" (speaking of my church family, that is). My biological ancestors, however, did much the same thing when they immigrated by masses from Cardiganshire, Wales, to communities in Southern Ohio approximately 200 years later.

Dorothy Okray is right when she speaks of the injustices meted out by early Christianity, as evidenced in the records of history. Once it received the "sanction" of the Roman Empire, the power behind that support was often misused, as power over another tends to be. It is why I am uneasy when the United States government becomes involved at all in matters of the Church. It is all-too-easy for the power behind that support to be abused and misused.

It's why I believe that Jesus himself would have not only encouraged, but insisted, on a separation of church and state.

Jesus said, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)

Reclaiming Christmas as a Holy Day, Not Just a Holiday

No one really knows the exact date of Jesus' birth. It may not have been in December at all. Writings from the early church indicate that the nativity was celebrated on different dates in different places, and some of the patriarch's of the Church were opposed to celebrating his birth at all. But, for more than 1500 years, most Christian churches have traditionally celebrated his birth in December, and as early as 354 AD, the feast of Christmas was placed as December 25th on the calendar.

The name "Christmas" itself is derived from "Christ's Mass", the Latin for which was first used around the year 1063 AD. Ironically, most churches do not offer worship services on December 25th at all, instead celebrating the night before, on Christmas Eve. (The exception to that might be if Christmas falls on a Sunday, but not even that is a guarantee in recent years!)

Christmas is a holy day.

So, why is it that this holy day seems to have been shanghaied by the holiday?

Every year, the holiday gets more and more secular in nature. People who have no church connections or religious beliefs at all celebrate the holiday. True, some of our cherished Christmas traditions such as gift-giving, decorating with greenery and the use of a Yule log all have their beginnings in celebrations that honored various sun gods, but the "guest of honor" is NOT a "sun god", and Jesus is largely missing in many celebrations. One might say that everyone else comes "home for the holidays" except the One for whom the season is named.

Almost as great a concern for me, however, is that every year, the holiday season seems to get longer and longer, so that, by the time people arrive at the holy day, the focus seems to be on anything but the birth of Christ.

This year, it seems to be more extreme than I remember it ever being before.I am writing this blog on Friday, November 13th. I have just arrived home from Christmas shopping in the "big city". I do this early, not because I like it, but out of necessity. The weeks before Christmas are often so full of church obligations that I don't even get a day off! I am not-- let me repeat-- I am NOT in "the holiday spirit", and won't be until, at the very least, the day after Thanksgiving.

In fact, the only holiday I am concerned with right now IS Thanksgiving. It can't come soon enough! Since we will be spending four nights at our family cabin, I am very much in THAT holiday's spirit.

As I drove home today, I noticed a billboard on the side of the road in one of the quaint little suburban towns. It was an advertisement for a "Christmas Holiday Concert", and I thought, "Oh, I wonder when that is going to be." As I drove closer, I noticed the date. The Christmas Concert will be on November 21st!

I shook my head in disbelief and reached to push the button, turning on my radio. My disbelief turned to shock when the song, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" blasted through the speakers of my car. I quickly pushed the button again, and, in the silence, wondered how it got to this point-- that the season of Christmas has become as long as Lent! And Advent-- that blessed anticipation of the joy to come-- is all-but-forgotten in the merrymaking.

Christmas may be a holy day, but the holiday season has become anything but. "O Come, o come, Emmanuel!" Our hope lies in You.

Religious Freedom Extends to Soldiers, Too

This week's question from the Washington Post's "On Faith" online section:

The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on. What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?

As long as death and dying are part of the military, there will likely be a need for religious expression among the troops. What form that religious expression takes is a matter of personal choice, and indeed, personal freedom. It's one of the rights afforded all citizens under the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

If the US military cannot protect the rights of its own soldiers, how can it claim to be protecting mine? Acts of intolerance by any soldier towards another human being, based on differences such as religious beliefs, race, gender, ethnicity, etc., violates the very freedoms that the military is charged with protecting.

The US military has a responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of all US citizens. Those rights include the freedom to worship, or not, the god of one's own choosing. One would presume this also extends to those actively serving in the military.

The military does address religious needs. It provides chaplains, places to worship, and even religious supplies where needed. When the troops are isolated from public options for worship, a demonstrated effort is made to have worship services for the troops. To that accord, it would seem on the surface that the US military has made great efforts to provide for the religious needs of its troops.

Except for one thing: Protecting the religious freedom of the men and women serving in our armed forces requires more than just hiring military chaplains and providing a tent for soldiers to worship in while deployed. It requires, also, that those who purport to be on the battlefields, risking their lives to protect MY freedom, will, at the very least respect those same freedoms for one another.

It is too early to begin to know "why" the suspect of the Ft. Hood shootings did what he did. Reports coming out now indicate that religion may have played a role in the shootings, but not in the way some would think. Family members told reporters at CNN that the suspect had become increasingly frustrated by disrespect shown to him, which he perceived to be due to his religious beliefs. He was reported "taunted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

In my daughter's school, "taunting" would be called "bullying", and there are consequences for those who do it. Those consequences protect the students. There should be consequences in the military, too.

Confronting the Religious Racism Within

The shooting incident this past week at Ft. Hood, Texas, has reawakened an awareness of what I must call "religious racism" in America. The reaction-- very human reaction-- of many to learning that the suspect is a Muslim, reinforces a fear that has been present since 9-11.

My heart has been so heavy since learning of the shooting incident at Ft. Hood, TX. I am going to conceded that I am still working out how to address the issue of religion, but one thing I knew going into the pulpit this past Sunday was that it must be addressed. In fact, God was almost screaming at me to do so.

So, here are a few thoughts that I included in today's message.

First of all, I have heard and read a number of troubling comments since this happened- comments that have linked all people of the Muslim faith into one big pile of muck. This is not a new development. Ever since 9-11, anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim has been distrusted, maligned and sometimes abused-- because we have decided, I guess, that all terrorists look alike, and that all Muslims are terrorists.

This simply isn't true. It's no more true than the fact that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist makes all Catholics terrorists.

When we do this-- when we categorize any group of people as if we can know exactly who they are or what they are like based on what others with the same skin color or ethnic background or religious beliefs have done, we tread into dangerous territory.

If this were a valid way of looking at people, I wouldn't trust many of my congregants-- most of whom were born and raised in rural Indiana. That's because I have learned that, following WWI, rural Indiana was a center for a pretty strong segment of the Ku Klux Klan.

If this were a valid way of judging people, then my congregation shouldn't trust ME. Have you ever heard the word, "welch"? It means to cheat someone out of a gambling debt. In Southern Ohio, where my parents were born and raised, the word means to cheat anyone. If you back out of a debt or a deal, you are a "welcher". The word originates from a slang word for someone of Welsh ancestry. I am more than half Welsh. So, even if you trust me, perhaps you shouldn't gamble with me!

And most of us have heard enough of the scandals that rocked the catholic Church to know you can't trust a male pastor, right? Hopefully there is enough trust between us to know this is ridiculous.

There seems to be news coming out that religion did indeed play a role in the shootings, but perhaps not in the way that we would think. CNN is reporting that the suspect had been frustrated for a long time by how others-- both civilians and military personnel had treated him with disrespect, which he perceived as being because he is a Muslim. In mid-August, he found that his car had a religious bumper sticker that said "Allah is love" ripped from it and the car was "keyed"- scratching the paint. Imagine for a moment if a bumper sticker saying "Jesus Loves Me" was ripped from your car and it was keyed.

It's not an excuse to go ballistic, at least not in my mind. But then I don't know what it is like to be constantly watched, mistrusted, ridiculed or abused for being a Christian. I do not condone what this troubled man did. As a pastor, and as a person of faith, I cannot condone racism either.

My faith tells me that God IS love, and that Jesus loves, not just me, but all people. The God who knit me in my mother's womb, also knit those of different faiths and those of no faith whatsoever. Surely Jesus' Great Commandment did not include hating my neighbor, nor will we ever lead someone to know Christ through violence, prejudice or hatred.

I would like to say that I do not have a racist or prejudiced bone in my body... but the truth is I am human. It is within me to fear what is different. It is within me to judge negatively those whose beliefs are not my beliefs. I am challenged every day to face that truth inside myself.
Only then I can stand before God and ask for both forgiveness and the courage to grow in understanding as God would have me do.

Maybe then I can see Christ in the face of my brothers and sisters... including those whom I perceive to be my enemy.

Jesus had something to say about that, too. "You have heard it said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I tell you to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you... and if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what are you doing that is any more than the others? Do not even pagans do that? be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-44, 47-48)

Perfect? I am not there yet, but O, God, I want to be.

Talking About Options Prolongs the Quality of Life

This week's question at the On Faith page of the Washington Post asks:
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?

The inclusion of provisions to pay for “end-of-life” counseling should be included in any health care reform packages. Erroneously called “death panels for seniors” by Sarah Palin, these provisions would facilitate conversations about life and death in general. As a Christian faith leader, that seems of supreme importance to me.

“End-of-life counseling” does not necessarily prolong suffering. It will not necessarily prolong life, either. But it can, and usually does, prolong the quality of life when it leads to discussions about life and death. How could it ever be a bad thing to talk with someone about their options for the end of life or harmful for a doctor to have a clear understanding of what a person’s personal wishes are?

“There are worse things than dying.”

This is the conclusion my 86-year-old mother reached during a recent discussion about her wishes for whatever time she has left in life. We had this talk when, following a serious heart attack, her cardiologist was insistent that she could no longer live alone. My mother was equally insistent that she is not ready to leave her community and live with me, four hours away from her friends. His grim-reaper warnings that the “next time could be fatal” fell on deaf ears. “There are worse things than dying”, she told me.

As a person of faith, I believe that she is right. I trust Jesus’ promise that “in my Father’s house are many rooms… I go now to prepare a room for you there.”

Ideally, a person would have a spiritual advisor to talk to- a pastor, priest, rabbi… But not all seniors have that benefit. Nor do all seniors come at death from similar perspectives.
While each person faces death in their own way, and different races and cultures may traditionally deal with these issues in slightly different ways, death does come to each of us.

“To everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die…” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2a)

It has been said that some people live until they die, while others come to the end of their life, only to find they never really lived. To live until you die is to prolong the quality of life. Christian faith teaches us that we don’t have to fear death. My mother is right. “There are worse things than dying.”

It’s a conversation worth having.

Religion Holds No Patent on Good

Religion holds no patent on goodness. Nor does a lack of religious beliefs ensure that someone is evil. The answer is not that simple. People are quite capable of “being good”, or “being bad” with or without “God”. Most people are a little bit of both.

In the hit Broadway musical, “Wicked”, the “good” witch, Glenda, asks: “Are people born wicked, or is wickedness thrust upon them?” The question is posed as all of Oz rejoices at the death of the “wicked” witch, Elphaba. Those who have seen the show or read the book are left with no clear answer to that question, though the show makes it clear that neither witch was entirely either. Both had good qualities and both were capable of wickedness… of evil.

The book of Genesis, starts with an explanation of the origins of life: “In the beginning, God created… and it was good.” Whatever else follows in subsequent verses, the Bible makes that much clear. What God creates is good.

If the question is in relation to “being”, then the answer is easy. Whether a person acknowledges God or not, as Creator, God has already impacted that person’s life for the good. As a person of faith, I believe that each person is born with goodness and worth simply because of the One who created and creates.

If the question is whether people can “be good”, in the sense of behaving themselves, living moral and responsible lives without the benefit of religion as a moral compass, the answer may not be quite as easy. One might assume that “having religion” makes it easier to “be good”, but the scriptures are filled with examples of terribly human people who seek to be faithful to the God of Israel, and who fail terribly, over and over again.

His faith in God, which was real and deep, did not keep King David from making terrible choices with terrible consequences. Was David evil? Surely not, though some of his actions certainly were far from “good”. Human beings have a capacity to be (or behave) both good and evil, depending on the situation and circumstances.

Susan L. Nelson, from the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, in a book review of “Evil and Christian Ethics” by Gordon Graham writes: “The Christian narrative places human history within the larger context of a cosmic battle between good and evil, where we are assured that evil does not have the last word.”

“Having God” might not make it easier to “be good”. However, having God- as revealed in Jesus Christ- allows for grace and mercy when wickedness is thrust upon those who seek to be faithful. Most of all, having faith in Christ gives the ultimate hope that, in the cosmic battle between good and evil, good will prevail. According to Gordon Graham, that is the motivation we need to resist the evil, both within us, and outside of us.

Woe to the One Who Teaches a Child to Lie

What does it mean when a person craves attention to the point that he or she will involve a child in deception? According the teachings of Jesus, (Matthew 18:6-7), it would be better to be drowned in the sea with a millstone around your neck than to lead a child of faith astray. "Woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes."

It was a hoax... a lie. And it was of the magnitude that it tricked the world.

Recently, the entire world watched, with an "eye to the sky", desperate to know what had happened to a young boy who was believed to have been inside his father's weather balloon when it broke loose from where it had been tethered at the family's home. When the balloon was finally grounded, the boy was no where to be found. Rescue workers and volunteers scoured the areas where the balloon's path may have travelled. Every news channel was focused on this little boy's fate.

It was a hoax... a lie.

There was relief when the boy was found in the attic of the family home. By the time I began watching the media frenzy, the possibility had already been raised that perhaps the boy was hiding, fearful of being punished. This was the hope that the world was clinging to. Parents wondered what they would do... feel... if this were their own child. Compassion and empathy surely poured into the prayers that were offered from MY living room.

According to CNN, when questioned on-air by his father about why he hid, the little boy responded, "You guys said we did it for the show." Two days later, the boy's mother admitted that the family had concocted the whole thing as a publicity stunt, to make themselves more marketable for "Reality TV".

CNN reported: "The couple hatched the plan about two weeks before the incident and "instructed their three children to lie to authorities as well as the media regarding this hoax," according to the documents."

It was a hoax... a lie... and the children were encouraged, even coached, to participate in the deception.

The response was interesting to watch. Some laughed it off, as if "boys will be boys" explained it all. (The term "boys" evidently included the father.) Some put the father on what seemed to be a "pedestal" of sorts, admiring the craftiness of the one who suckered the whole world into sitting on the edge of a universal "seat". Past hoaxes and hoaxers were given air time, and a "second chance at fame".

Some pointed fingers of blame towards the media in general, and towards Reality TV shows in particular.

Others almost demonized the parents. Angry, and rightly so, over the amount of money that was spent on rescue workers, the local law enforcement hinted that charges may be filed and fines assessed. Members of the media, doubly "honked off" that they had been fooled, were not very positive in their comments.

A few raised questions as to whether the involvement of the children should be seen as child endangerment. When all is said and done, this seems, to me, to be the only issue that really matters. Yes, the money should be repaid by the family. If laws were broken (and surely they were, though I have no personal knowledge of Colorado law), then charges should be filed against the adults.

Child Protective Services has a moral obligation to investigate the family's parenting skills, and to make recommendations based upon what they discover. The decisions made by these parents seems to go far beyond the mistakes that "every parent" makes. ALL parents make mistakes at one time or another. Despite good intentions, sometimes children are unwittingly placed in a potentially dangerous situation. But these parents chose to propagate a lie... a hoax... a deception that involved their children and the safety of all those who worked to try to "save" the child. Woe to the one who teaches a child to lie!

You might say that it was not just the child who needed to be saved. It is the entire family who needs to be saved from an addiction to fame and glory. My prayers are still offered up with compassion. Though I cannot empathize with whatever motivated them to act on this craving for attention, my faith tells me that there is hope and grace and healing for those who seek it.

That is no hoax. That is no lie. That is the Gospel... the good news of Christ.

Never a Bad Idea to Outlaw Hate

This week's "On Faith" question at the Washington Post asks: "Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?

I fail to see how protecting a community from violence and hatred could ever be a bad idea.

How different things might have been for the first Christians if the ancient Roman Empire had such laws in place! When Peter and the apostles preached in the temple, the angry mobs were “enraged and wanted to kill them”. Only one voice of reason prevailed, and the crowd “simply” had them flogged.

Hate crimes based on religion is listed as the second highest cause on the statistical lists published by the FBI. Any one of us could be a target for anyone who hates. This legislation protects us all, as individuals and as community.

I wish it weren't necessary to add yet another label to the federal hates crimes that already exist. Knowing that it is against the law to perpetuate a crime involving “assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, attack with an explosive device, arson, etc.” towards anyone should be enough. There should be no need to expand the language of the laws that already in place, but evidence is compelling that there is a need.

According to FBI statistics dating back to the early 1990’s, when the term “hate crime” was first factored into reports, the number of such crimes reported by law officials hasn’t changed much. In 1995 and again in 2005, there were approximately 8,000 hate crimes reported. The numbers were only slightly higher in 2000 (approximately 8,400).

While more than half of those crimes were motivated by racial prejudice, crimes against religion and sexual orientation accounted for between 30-35% of the rest. Those numbers do not reflect the incidents that go unreported. About 40% of homosexual adults report being physically attacked because of their perceived sexual orientation.

The language of the current hate crimes legislation evidently is not specific enough. Additional labels are needed if the laws are going to protect those who most need protection.

There is a mis-perception that adding more specific language to the hate crimes bill will limit American’s freedom of speech. This is false. There is a mis-perception that hate crimes only hurt the victims, and this is also false. Hate crimes are perpetuated against communities, not just individuals. As HR 1913, a hate crimes bill passed by the federal House in 2009, states: "Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive."

As long as freedom of speech protects the rights of all Americans to speak their mind, there will be those who abuse others with hateful and hate-filled words. There will be talk-radio hosts who make outrageous claims such as the one I heard a few weeks ago on WLW who said something along the lines of: “The cause of obesity is that we aren’t allowed to bully the fat kids anymore. They don’t know they are fat, because we can’t tell them. So they get fatter.”

There is little protection from name calling or verbal attacks, but there is protection from assault for those who are the most vulnerable. The question is, is it enough? My answer is, not yet.

Open the Eyes of Our Hearts

Blind Bartimaeus might be jumping for joy, had he read the news that the US Senate voted Thursday to pass Hate-Crime legislation that has extended its language to include protection for people who are targets for violent crimes due to their sex or sexual orientation. You see, Bartimaeus knew what it was like to be on the margins of society, crying out to Jesus. And he knew what it was like to have people (especially those who presumed to speak on the authority of Jesus) try to silence him.


This blind beggar refused to be defined by his "disability" or what others expected of him. He refused to be limited by what he "should or shouldn't" do. Bartimaeus refused to be silenced. He cried all the louder, And we are told, right there in the 10th chapter of mark that Jesus heard the cries of this man on the margins and asked him to "Come".

The Church (capital "c") is empowered with and burdened by an authority to "speak for Christ". Too often, there are still those who would silence the voices of those on the margins... those whose cries are easier to ignore.

Those might be the silent cries of abused children and women, who beg for no one to notice.... and pray for someone to notice. Or the shouts from the Sudan, where villages are exterminated in what can only be called what it is: genocide. Or the giggles and cries of children in worship... whose parents have felt shamed by annoyed glares and so finally choose to just stay home.

Those may be the cries of women who long to accept God's call to ministry in denominations that will not allow their voices to be heard.

Or the cries of so many broken-hearted people who simply long for a place to worship God where they will be welcomed without judgment because of who they are, where they are from or what path their lives have taken... immigrants... unwed mothers... gays, lesbians or transgendered persons...

Today, the voices of our congregations should join in giving praise that we are one step closer to "doing the right thing" in protecting those who have been marginalized, silenced and victimized due to some label that can never define them for who they really are: children of God. That is the only label that matters.

Open the eyes of our hearts, Lord, that we might hear and see the cries, and speak the only words you would give us authority to speak on your behalf: "Tell them to come."

When Graven Images Bother Me

Last Friday, during our usual bargain hunting at a local Goodwill Store, my jaw must have dropped halfway to the floor. There on a shelf I saw what had to be the LAST thing I ever thought I would see! It was a ceramic figurine of Jesus with children, but unlike any I have ever seen (or want to see again).

This one depicted Jesus playing football with two little boys. They were in uniform, helmets and all. Except, not Jesus. He was in his "uniform"- a white flowing robe. No helmet or mouth guard.

One little boy had just grabbed him to tackle him. I know it was a tackle and not a hug because of the pained look on Jesus' face. Jesus was about to go down. That white robe was gonna get dirty.

I stood in shock- not sure if I wanted to laugh or wanted to cry. For some reason, this figurine bothered me... bothers me still. Why?

I have a figurine of Jesus welcoming the children of Matthew's Gospel. "Let the children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as those that the kingdom of heaven belongs." (19:14) It doesn't bother me. The children are neatly dressed and sitting on Christ's lap or kneeling beside him. Their garb is reflective of Biblical times.

I have a picture of Jesus welcoming the children in more contemporary times, still based on the same passage from Matthew. It doesn't bother me either. In fact, I love it! There is a child in a wheelchair, a little girl holding a "Raggedy Ann" doll, an Asian girl, an African boy... Their garb reflects all times and all places.

I even love the idea that Jesus' love surrounds our children at all times, including playtime. Woven into each verse of Brian Wren's song "Bring Many Names" is an image of God as playful, warmly embracing each child, growing and constantly on the move. Why shouldn't Jesus play football with our children, too?

Perhaps what bothers me is this little subliminal message, flashing in my mind, that reminds me of all the families that seem to worship sports instead of Jesus, our Savior. Even in the "Heartland of America", Sunday mornings have been taken over with games and practices for travelling sports teams, and parents are choosing to commit to these activities rather than committing their lives and their children's lives to faith.

Perhaps I see a figurine that places Jesus on that playing field, about to be tackled, as irreverent, a graven image and just a bit "tacky".

My husband says that the only thing that bothered him was that you can't play football in a robe! Perhaps I need to just lighten up. Perhaps.

But, perhaps I need to also take seriously the commandments that warn me that God is a jealous God who will not tolerate coming in second to any other gods- not even the little brown sphere. They are pretty clear about graven images and the misuse of God's holy name.

That bargain item at Goodwill may not be much of a bargain after all!

Fueled by Fear Not Faith

My husband's nephew has muscular dystrophy, affecting his heart. A simple cold could put him in the hospital. Pneumonia could be deadly. During cold and flu season, my sister-in-law insists that all visitors have had their flu shots. If we choose to visit then, we abide by that rule. Otherwise, we stay home. We choose to care for one another. It's what faith has taught us to do.

As a Christian pastor, I wondered what religious grounds there could be for placing other human beings in danger. Christianity places great value on human life. Surely, all citizens are called to be in community with one another, caring for their neighbors. Faith teaches us that.

Yet some parents, claiming religious freedom, whether they subscribe to any particular faith or not, are choosing to not vaccinate their children. I contend it is often not a religious decision at all, but one that is based on fear. It's a decision that affects more than just their own children.

In 2007, the director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division said that choices about vaccines have far-reaching consequences. "When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you".
If people don't want the vaccine, fine. Stay home. Don't spread the illness.

What right does anyone else have to make medical decisions that affect, not only themselves, but also the community they live in? What right do they have to put MY children at risk by refusing to vaccinate THEIR children?

In fact, I found few religious "groups" with religious edicts keeping them from having vaccinations. Despite dietary laws, both Judaism and Islam make exceptions for medical treatments derived from forbidden animals.

There are some who oppose vaccines that are developed using cell lines from aborted fetuses, but do not object to synthetic vaccines. (The four new H1N1 vaccines approved by the FDA do not use aborted fetal cell lines, but chicken eggs instead.)

The decision to not vaccinate seems to stem more from fear than faith. Some oppose only vaccinations that protect against sexually transmitted diseases, fearing they give the impression that the behaviors are somehow acceptable. Most are afraid of the small risk in taking the vaccination. This is no surprise! Fear is the fuel that seems to drive American fundamentalists. They are not alone.

A current report from the Center for Disease and Control says that, in an effort to stop vaccinations against polio, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan have "issued fatwas opposing vaccination as an attempt to avert Allah's will, and as an American plot to sterilize Muslims. The Taliban have kidnapped, beaten, and assassinated vaccination officials."

It should be no surprise that this is one more thing the "terrorists of talk radio" share in common with the Taliban. Some cite the text of Matthew 18:6 as a Biblical command from Jesus to do no harm to their children. Jesus warns that to harm “one such as these” will have dire consequences.

Funny. When asked, Jesus said the greatest command was to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I only hope my neighbors love me enough to be vaccinated... or at least enough to stay home if they are ill.

Witnessing Unity in Community

The things we can learn from nature... A few years ago, I watched a program on PBS about the red-tailed hawk who lives on the windowsill of a high-rise on 5th Avenue, just across the street frm Central Park in New York City. The locals, who named him "Pale Male" met him with both positive and negative reactions. Some recognized immediately that he was a natural predator who might help control the pidgeon population, as well as taking care of some rodents. Otherrs, who actually like the pidgeons, were not so thrilled.

The documentary followed the saga of this lone bird who somehow managed to call a mate to Central Park the first spring he was there. No one knows where she came from. They named her "First Love", and celebrated as the two red-tails mated and formed a nest together on the building across from Woody Allen's penthouse. For two years, people gathered and watched, hopeful that the nesting would produce chicks. Finally, in the third mating season, the pair produced three small chicks. New York was in love!

People gathered daily near the model boat pool to watch and learn about nature in ways that those of us who live in rural areas take for granted. One woman commented that her farmer friends couldn't imagine what all the fuss was about! Red-tailed hawks are not an endangered species, but there had never been a documented pair in New York City.

People watched, fascinated, as Pale Male relentlessly hunted to find food for his family, fought off predators, and tenderly coaxed his fledglings to learn to fly-- in a way that was not natural to hawks, since hawks usually learn to fly by hopping from brand to branch. This nest was on a window ledge, perched precariously over traffic.

People gathered from all walks of life. Homeless and jobless mingled with multi-millionaires. Scientists patiently and amilably chattered with toddlers who expressed delight in something new. People of great diversity came together and, for a time, found something to care about in the midst of the struggles of daily life.

As the chicks prepared for their first flights, people prepared for possible disaster. There were so many dangers-- windows they might fly into, traffic to fall into, other predatory birds to injure these young, inexperienced hawks. A woman with a terminal disease spoke of "feeling their fear"... of relating to what it is would be like to face the unknown with confidence... to just let go and soar.

How often do we cling to window ledges, afraid to just let go and soar?

When they finally left the nest, one by one, there was something almost spiritual about the whole thing for those who had faithfully gathered, hopeful and watchful, eager to share that experience with one another and these wonderful creatures. For just a moment, these diverse people were ONE.

God created us to be individuals... unique and diverse in our personalities and beliefs... with different abilities and strengths, gifts and talents. God brings us together to be ONE with each other and ONE with our Creator, reminding us every day through the world that He/She created to let go of our fears... and soar.

It has been eighteen years now since he arrived in New York City. At the time of the documentary, he had survived three mates and taken a fourth, and raised twenty-three chicks.

Think of all the lives that have been bettered by the coming together around that model boat pool in Central Park to witness the miracle of life. May we, too, see miracles in what others take for granted. may God show us, also, ways to come together- "That They May All Be One" (the motto of The United Church of Christ).

The Gasp Heard Round the World

President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is reported that this was unexpected, taking both the White House and the world "by surprise". Reporters indicate that a gasp could be heard in the room as his name was announced because he had not even been "on the radar" as a possible nominee.

Rush and Glen will have a lot to talk about today. According to a London correspondent on CNN's "American Morning" show, the Brits "choked on their tea" when they heard his name, and the International press is already weighing in on whether he deserves the award or not. Ed Rollins, CNN's Republican Consultant, on the same program, wondered if the Nobel Prize was the president's "consolation prize" for losing the bid for the 2016 Olympics. Gasp!

"But I don't mean any disrespect to the president", he repeatedly assured viewers.

The Taliban is reported to be outraged by this development because they say that the president has not done anything to promote peace in the Middle East. (I predict this will be something else that the "terrorists" of talk radio will have in common with the real terrorists in the world.) Gasp!

CNN's team of reporters indicated that now the pressure is on for President Obama to live up to the expectations of the award. Really? As though the pressure wasn't on him before this? This is news?

The award was given to honor his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I, for one, have hope in my heart this day, that one day Isaiah's vision of "The Peaceable Kingdom" will find reality on earth... that the lion shall lie down with the lamb... If peace is to become reality, it begins one person at a time doing our part.

Mr. President, someone clearly believes in your efforts. There will be critics, naysayers, scorners and scoffers. Please do not let their malice divert your focus. There will be those who laud you with praise and honor. Please do not let the glory get in the way of your "extraordinary efforts" towards peace.

Just keep faithfully working to bring people together in conversation. Be encouraged and empowered to continue raising your voice to promote peace and understanding in the world. Be true to who you were created to be. Thank you for doing your part. I pray that the rest of us can and will do ours.

Why Shouldn't I Pray for Glenn Beck?

In a recent blog on the Washington Post website, David Waters suggested that Glenn Beck might be the "most prayed for man in America at the moment." It seems that Glenn recently asked his followers to pray for him because of the "big money" that is trying to silence him. His request for prayers was countered by Jim Wallis over at Sojourners Magazine. Jim said, basically, that praying for Glenn might not be such a bad idea. He said, "...let's take Glenn at his word and pray for him to have wisdom as he speaks out on these issues. Tell Glenn you're praying for him - that he'll choose hope over fear."

After an assignment for my public theology class to "listen to Rush and Glenn" and respond, I would tend to agree with Mr. Wallis. He needs all the prayers he can get! I was not prepared to read, however, the onslaught of hate-filled responses to the suggestion.

The comments left for Mr. Waters were filled with hate and anger from every side. There are those who wrote to condemn Mr. Beck. Others scoffed at Mr. Wallis. Some spewed hate at organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. Very few seemed to agree that praying for Glenn Beck is a good idea at all.

Why shouldn't I pray for Glen Beck? Why wouldn't every "progressive" Christian do so? Why wouldn't all Christians pray for him... and for Mr. Wallis... and for President Obama... and for Osama bin Laden for that matter.

Jesus taught: "You have heard it said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may all be children of your Father in heaven..." (Matt. 5:43-45)

Whether we agree with Mr. Beck or not, my faith teaches me that he, too, is a child of God. I may hate what he says, but my Lord tells me to love him and pray for him as a child of God. Perhaps we need to ask for prayers ourselves, that we might be able to follow the teachings of the One by whose name we are called.

I'll pray for you, if you'll do the same for me!

Making Space for Praise

"This is the day that the Lord has made! Let us rejoice and be glad in it."

I am thinking about what that means this morning... to "be glad in" a day. Last night on that show that my husband and I watch, but hesitate to admit to (Desperate Housewives)... a mother told her son, "You know it takes more effort to be miserable than happy"... or words to that effect. That's so true!

They say that you use many, many more muscles in your face to frown than to smile. To be joyful-- to PRAISE God, should be as simple as breathing in. It should be, as I prayed in the pastoral prayer yesterday, the only thing we CAN do... the only option of a response to the One who Created and Creates us.

When I taught voice lessons many moons ago, one exercise I did with students was to help them see how much air goes in when you simply open your mouth and make the space. No great gasp for air is needed to have sufficient breath to sing a song.

The same is true for praising God. We just need to make SPACE for it in our lives. We need to simply open up our hearts and let it be the natural response from a grateful heart to the One who is the Giver of the day.

This is the day that the Lord has made. I can choose to be happy and rejoice in it.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

The Religious Right is not always wrong. That admission makes me squirm. In the coming week, I have been given an assignment in my Public Theology class to listen to some of those voices from the "other side" that, quite honestly, raise my "hackles", whatever that means. Perhaps I'll just say they raise my blood pressure and leave it at that. But nothing gets me madder than when I agree with them!


So, when I read articles by progressive Christians lobbing hardballs at the evangelical conservative Christians, I am sometimes uncomfortable when they begin using the same kind of name-calling and negative labeling as the conservative side. (Oh, the language may be slightly higher brow, but the intent to sling mud is just as real.)


Marilynn Robinson in Hallowed Be Your Name" seems to be indicating that the current evangelical movement is totally devoid of care for social justice and welfare issues. "For a self-declared Christian movement, it shows startlingly little sense of responsibility for the vulnerable in society." She goes on to lift up the Matthew 25 passages in which Jesus likens himself to the poor and vulnerable, as if to say that the evangelicals are not caring for the poor.


I would not be so quick to point fingers. I would propose that many evangelicals, as well as progressive Christians fall into the category of thinking that they ARE caring for the poor. They contribute to food banks, participate in CROP walks, donate to Church World Service or other faith-based charities. True, those progressives who would also wear the label of "social activist" would argue, quite correctly, that these are short-term solutions that do not address the long-term problems of poverty.


True, this method often keeps the giver in an elevated position "over" those who are "less-fortunate", and the giving probably makes the giver feel better about themselves, elevating that position even higher. But unless that person, church or organization is actively working against those who are actively working to reduce poverty, knowing that this is what they are doing, I think I would have a difficult time in calling them... what?


People who only claim to be Christians? Neofundamentalist frauds?

Not every conservative Christian is "demon spawn", nor are they always completely off base in their positions. Mis-guided, perhaps... probably... and sometimes downright wrong. But not always.

In coming blogs, I will write to some of these issues where there IS common ground, shaky as it may be. Phrases such as "pro-life" and "family values" have been claimed by the Religious Right, and I will argue that they do not have exclusive rights to them. On the other hand, the phrase "Open and Affirming" has been pidgeon-holed in the United Church of Christ to mean only one thing, when I believe it belongs to more than just the LGBT issues.

Maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to raise our voices in commonality and find our way to God's Truth as revealed in the life and person of Jesus, the Christ.

And maybe, just maybe we can find our way to recognizing the Christ in each other on both sides of each issue and everywhere in between.

And may, just maybe, we can stop calling each other names and begin calling each other brothers and sisters in Christ.

Set Free and Set Up (to Fail)

Set Free and Set Up (to Fail)

Freedom isn’t justice when the person being set free isn’t free to find success. Freedom isn’t freedom when it limits a person’s ability to survive, let alone succeed.

‘No’ is just a word
That people say when they're afraid
And if you say "no" to me
Then I will fight you till I'm free.

Say freedom, brotherhood
Justice, just say ‘yes’.
(“Freedom”, sung by Madonna)

As a religious leader in a mainline Christian denomination, I take seriously Jesus’ mandate to care for the most vulnerable among us. This includes a growing number of mentally challenged, developmentally handicapped and troubled youth who find themselves dependent upon a faulty social services system and/or an even more flawed (in my experience) juvenile corrections department.

As a pastor in a rural community in America’s Heartland, I am all-too aware that this is not just a problem in the inner cities, but one that plagues also the rural communities. There are simply not enough “community-based services” to meet the needs of this population to begin with. The problem worsens for those who are allowed to slip through the cracks in the system.

As a mother to three special needs adopted children, one of whom was abused every way possible in his birth home before becoming abusive himself, this issue hits far too close to home. Our son is falling through the cracks of the juvenile justice system, gaps that are larger than we ever could have imagined. What’s worse is that he’s falling through those cracks in spite of having parents who can advocate for him, which is more than most juveniles in the “system” have in their favor.

Our son, whom we adopted at age 6, is mentally challenged, developmentally delayed and has a long list of psychiatric and psychological issues to contend with. He spent nearly two years in a children’s psychiatric center, as experts worked relentlessly to find just the “right” combination of medications and therapy to make him stable enough, behavior-wise and emotionally. That “lull” lasted almost two years before he began violent and harmful outbursts, as well as abusive behavior towards other children.

For the past six years, he has been incarcerated in, first, a court-ordered therapeutic institution and later, after re-offending, in a juvenile detention center. He was released nine months ago to a facility that my husband and I both believed was his best hope for a transition into a normal life-- whatever that is going to mean for him.

However, when he reached the age of 18, the detention facility allowed him to go off his psychiatric medications. I must admit that he functioned without them far better than I expected that he would. The structure of the detention facility was evidently rigid enough to offset the effect of having no psychiatric medications.

So, he began this transition without the medications that might have stabalized his behaviors and thinking patterns a little better. The facility that accepted him received nothing about his history prior to the arrest. Worst of all, this transition took place just before Christmas, which social workers agree is the worst time to move children who have been in abusive situations. He was set free, but set up to fail. And fail he did. Wonderfully.

He was immediately sent back to juvenile detention, even though the facility was willing to take him back. At the hearing, his parole officer promised to never send another juvenile back to that facility because, instead of calling him immediately, the therapists had showed some compassion and understanding of what a child like ours would need in order for the placement to succeed.

In the past week, he was released again to a different placement. This time, at least he has been on his medications, and a 30-day supply was sent with him. We were promised by the Department of Corrections that this transitional housing placement would assist him in finding a job, getting his GED, applying for the waivers that he will need in order to receive the social services he qualifies for, due to his disabilities.

Within 48 hours, one of the administrators told us that we had been somewhat deceived. Yes, he said, they can and will do those things for our son, as long as he is there. But lately, he said, the DOC has been dumping these boys in the apartments, and cutting off the finding within just a couple of weeks! With no where to go, they wind up on the streets of one of the larger cities in our nation. They’re being set free and set up to fail.

Yesterday afternoon, we received a phone call indicating that he had threatened staff and “had to be gone by midnight”. We were told this morning that a warrant had been issued and they would be arriving to transport him at any time. There were no guarantees that he would still be there when we arrived, but he was there. We expected to see a child who was out of control. Instead, he was calm. He seemed to have no sense of what was about to transpire, and indeed, when we questioned both he and staff, it seems that most of the “threatening” was simply threatening to leave. Yes, there had been “attitude”. There had been anger. But he hadn’t even torn his room apart!

His parole officer offered a solution: We could take our son and admit him to a hospital with a psychiatric unit. She was willing to free him from parole if we did that. What? I repeat: What? Never mind that he does not even have health insurance. Never mind that the papers for Developmental Disability services have not yet been filed. Never mind that there are waiting lists of months… sometimes years for some of these services. Let’s just clear him off of our “to do” list with the Department of Corrections.

No, thanks.

Our phone calls to several of the suggested hospitals were unsuccessful. If he was not an immediate threat to himself or others, they would not admit him. Even if we had found such a place that would accept him (which we did not), the length of stay approved by an insurance company is usually only ten days. What then?

According to the Report of the Re-entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community, about two out of every three people released from prison in the U.S. are re-arrested within three years of their release. Statistics are clear, our prisons are filled with people who are, like our son, mentally challenged, developmentally delayed or mentally ill. When they are released without supervision or support in place, there are few choices for them. Many wind up living under bridges or in alleys. They’ve been set free, but they’ve been set up to fail.

Jesus taught that the Spirit of the Lord had anointed him to “heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed…” Our son is fortunate to have parents who will advocate for him, and do their best to try to keep him off of the streets. By the time these boys are “in the system”, many of the parents have already given up on them. It is both a matter of doing what is right and just that we, as disciples of Jesus Christ take action to see that those who are released have the opportunity to succeed. Only then can the captive be truly set free.

Freedom, brotherhood
Justice, just say ‘yes’

'Cause ‘no’ is just a word
That people say when they are lost
And if you say ‘no’ to me
Then I will fight you till I'm free.

Those of us with a voice must speak out for those who have no voice. We must fight until “freedom” really means “free”.

Set them free, but set them free to shine, to sail, to succeed.

September 25, 2009

Envisioning a Clear and Just Choice

The weekly question posted to a panel of religious leaders at The Washington Post's online edition asks: Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring practices?

As a Christian, the question for me is not whether a religious charity that receives federal monies should be allowed to discriminate as much as it is why a religious charity would do so in the first place. It just isn’t right! But, that may be my “UCC bias” showing. I suspect that it’s not quite so simple an answer. In some cases, there may be reasons for hiring bias that have some validity. I may not like it, but that may be the case.

I also suspect that this may be a case where I am “Pro-Choice”. While I could not make the choice to discriminate for myself, I am not sure I would want the Federal Government telling my Christian congregation to hire someone who, for example, practiced a pagan religion, whether we received Federal grant monies or not. There is not a clear-cut answer for me.

What is totally clear, however, is that a religious charity receiving federal grant monies should never be allowed to use any of that funding to pay salaries or operating expenses if they choose to practice discriminatory hiring procedures. Furthermore, those funds should be used strictly for programs that do not discriminate against those who benefit from them.

Poverty does not discriminate against race or gender, sexual orientation or mental capacity. Disease and disaster strike regardless of physical limitations or educational levels reached. Religious charities receiving Federal grants should never be allowed to turn their backs on or close their doors to a person based on that person’s personal beliefs. It just isn’t right.

“Anyone who knows, then, the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (James 4:17, NIV)
A greater judge than I will have the final word.

Grace Knows No "Zero Tolerance"

There's no room for making mistakes anymore if you are a teenager. What used to be teasing is bullying. Schoolyard pranks have devastating consequences. First-time "screw ups" are often treated as if they are perpetuated by repeat "offenders". There is no grace shown. "Zero tolerance" means just that: ZERO tolerance.

My own daughter learned this the hard way. In the middle of her sixth grade year, we received a call asking us to pick her up from school. She would not be playing in the basketball game that night. She had been involved in a "bullying" incident. She, and two other students were assigned three days of in-school suspension.

Many tears later, the story was revealed that these three "good kids" had sent a note to a little girl asking, "Will you be my girlfriend?" They signed another boy's name to it. It was a childish prank, meant to make fun of a girl who had very few friends. Not a nice thing to do, we all agreed, but bullying?

School officials, who incidentally did not follow the policy as outlined in the school handbook, confirmed that this was the first time she had ever been in trouble. "But we decided to have a zero tolerance for bullying." Bullying? Stupid kids' stuff, maybe... but bullying?

A young man, the grandson of a friend, had everything going for him. An honor student assured of scholarship offers, he was about to enter his senior year of high school. A few weeks before his birthday, on a hot summer's night, a friend convinced him to hang out in the stadium at the high school football field.

One thing led to another, which led to the boys climbing onto the roof of the high school, just to see if they could do it. When his friend suggested they take the next step, breaking into the school building to mess around, the boy declined. He'd never been in any kind of trouble and didn't want to get caught. He stayed on the roof while his friend went ahead and broke in.


Stupid kids' stuff. Right? Am I the only one who remembers all the times that the students on my hall at college talked about getting up on the roof of the conservatory of music? (This was usually after a couple of wine coolers had been consumed.) The only reason I never did it was that there wasn't a ladder. You had to stand on someone's shoulders to get through the trap door in the band room.


It was stupid kids' stuff until my friend's grandson was attacked and caught by the guard dogs who were brought in to find out who had set off a silent alarm at the school. It was stupid kids' stuff until the police carted him off along with the friend, not caring that only one of them had actually gone in the building. And because of the school's zero tolerance policy, my friend's grandson was immediately expelled... for his entire senior year.


Remember, this was an honor student who had never been in trouble before!


This is not an isolated incident. Contrary to what you may believe (and what I believed), the zero tolerance policy started long before 9-11 or the Columbine shootings. You only need to check out the Internet for examples that can be traced back two decades or more. And yet, I would propose that since 9-11 and Columbine, incidents where zero tolerance is used (and perhaps abused) have increased in proportion to our fears.

According to a report put out by the Virginia Department of Education, zero tolerance policies, "originally intended to apply only to serious criminal behavior involving firearms or illegal drugs" have been extended to include a number of behaviors and incidents. In 1998, the number of African American students suspended or expelled from schools was out of proportion to the percentage of students who were African American! This problem is reflected outside of schools as well.

A "google search" of the phrase, "zero tolerance", yields examples that include racial profiling by police or misusing misdemeanors to get "undesireables" off the streets.

No, my friends, this is not "stupid kids' stuff" anymore!

I do not propose that it is a good idea to allow kids to carry weapons to school or engage in illegal behavior. I do not even propose that there should not have been consequences for my friend's grandson. I am not suggesting that even my daughter should not have had consequences. Consequences teach lessons. What I am suggesting is that if these reports are accurate, "zero tolerance" is flawed and needs to be reexamined.

"Kids will be kids"... perhaps. A truer statement is that kids will make mistakes. Sometimes they are stupid ones. Those mistakes don't always have to ruin a young life.

Perhaps I understand grace from a "point of privilege" since Christianity teaches me that by grace we are saved. It is fortunate for us all that grace does not follow a policy of "zero tolerance". If it did, I would have been lost a long time ago.

Singing the Lord's Song in a Foreign Land

A parody on Psalm 137:
"By the rivers of Twitter, we sat down and wept when we remembered phone calls, conversations on front porches, and holding hands with our best friends. There on the laptops, we hung up our pens and pencils, for there our captors asked us for tweets and blogs. How can we sing the songs of the Lord in this foreign land?"

There is no weeping (yet), from this new immigrant to this new landscape of technological communities, but there is admittedly a bit of fear and trembling.

Is this the Promised Land or a vast wilderness that will find me wandering and grumbling? Will I trust that God will provide what I need for the journey and has a marvelous destination in mind for me? Or will I be too fearful to take that first step?

God, I give myself to You for this journey. I trust that You will lead and will clear my confusion, focus my understanding and free my mind to Your truths. Amen.