An Uncertain Trumpet

Several years ago, I was at a local GOP convention through my work with Log Cabin Republicans.  As I was going about meeting folks, I realized that a gentleman from a church I used to belong to was a delegate to the convention.  It was nice to see him, but it was also interesting since this man never talked about politics in church and as far as I can tell, still does not today. 

It was interesting that I never knew the man's party affiliation.  It never came up in discussions.  He's always been a straight arrow dealing with financial and legal issues facing the church.  Politics just never came up in most conversation.

I share this because I am reminded by a post by Episcopal blogger Fredrick Schmidt about American Christianity and where it intersects with today's politics.  More and more, I want to be like this gentleman that I know, keeping politics out of the life of the church.

I'm not suggesting that the church should just not be involved in caring for the poor or speaking out when need be.  But I am saying that our involvement in politics has not as much elevated the body politic as much as it has brought the church down the to level of crass partisan bickering that we see so much of on TV and on the web these days.  The church is mimicking what we see on Fox News or MSNBC and acting accordingly. 

Schmidt is not amused and he calls for Christians to be willing to pursue the truth no matter where it leads:

Christians are no better at navigating the American political landscape than anyone else. The name-calling among them may have a religious ring to it, but it is depressingly similar to the tribal incivility on display everywhere else. And, sadly, when we are commenting on the larger political drama we drop the religious language and we are as nasty and unreflective as the talking heads on Fox or MSNBC. Some of the epithets I have watched Christians use in political observations on Facebook aren't even fit to reprint here.

For that reason, I am not at all sanguine about Christians transcending the terms of the current debate. That doesn't speak well for the rest of the claims that Christians make and that's deeply troubling.
Christians will necessarily commit themselves to a point of view, but they should all be committed to the pursuit of the truth, wherever it leads. They should be tenacious about gathering the facts. They should be scrupulous about avoiding distortion. They should be committed to civil and incisive debate about the issues. They should foreswear name-calling and character assassination. And they should be capable of considering solutions to the problems that face us that lie outside the ideological parameters on both the left and the right. If we can't do that, we really add little or nothing to the public debate.

But the problem facing the churches is the same that is so common in our society today: our insistence on being right instead of being loving.  Conservative and liberal Christians are sure that they have the answer to public policy questions and the other side is not only wrong, but probably not Christian.  Conservative Christians mimic their big brothers and advocate against tax increases and supporting what they see as "big government."  Liberal Christians follow their siblings, calling for taxing the rich and for the continuation if not enlargement of the welfare state.  Each side finds a few Bible verses to justify their side and condemn each other.

That said, we also face a far bigger problem: we want to believe that God is on our side and ours alone.  And there we definitely reach for our Bibles as weapons.  Schmidt says we can't expect the Bible to justify our position:

First, there is probably nothing in the Old or New Testament that can be applied directly and unequivocally to the debates that we are having. Ancient Israel was a theocracy with a king. The early Christian community was a church, not a country. The early church described in the Book of Acts was a minority movement within its own world. Its members did not exercise responsibility for shaping Roman policy. They did not issue currency and they did not elect representatives. So, we live, work, and vote in a completely different environment than those in which the books of the Bible were written.

We can debate the merits of big government, the size of federal budgets, the structure of the tax code, and the advisability of creating a welfare state. But the early Christian community described in the opening chapters of the Book of Acts, in which "all things were held in common and no one suffered need," is not a model for nation-building and it is not a model for creating a thriving, modern economy. To suggest otherwise is to rely on sloppy exegesis and anachronism. It is logically misleading and romantic nonsense.

What I wish to see in the modern American church is not a bunch of "red" and "blue" churches, but communities that seek to follow Jesus and are engaged in thoughtful discernment of public issues.  I want to see churches think about how best to help the poor, or spur economic growth, or what should be the scope of American foreign policies than just parrot what Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow said that day.  I want to see communities where liberals and conservatives can talk about these issues knowing they don't have all the answers.  I want to see a church where we are humble about our political beliefs and willing to rest on God's grace and mercy instead of the Democratic or Republican party platform.

In the end, I'm not asking that Christians never talk about politics or their ideology.  I am asking that we model a different way of being in the world, that we learn to be Christ to each other instead of demonizing each other the way the "pagans" do. 

In some ways, this has made me an uncertain trumpet.  I'm not as willing to sound the horns for battle like I used to.  Yes, I have my opinions and as a political blogger, I do express them.  But as a Christian, I want to exhibit something a bit different.  I want to be about community and love, instead of being right.  Life is about loving our friends and fellow Christians even if we can't agree with them.  It's about loving as Jesus love.  That's a trumpet I want to sound anytime.

The Backwards Church

A story about how a child with autism was welcomed into church:

Finally, when Max turned 13, I could bear it no longer. I brought him back for the one thing he always loved about church when he was a toddler: when it was over. So, that’s exactly when we showed up. We called it “backwards church.” People were pouring out of the sanctuary and we walked in! It was the coffee hour, which at our church feels more like a backyard barbecue — friends talking and laughing, children playing Nerf football. Max fit right in. But something else was going on: God was about to grab his spiritual tool belt.

Within minutes Max started helping some of the men who were stacking chairs in the sanctuary. Before we left, one of the men approached Max. He put his hand on Max’s shoulder and asked if he would like to be an official member of the “Grunt Crew,” the team of men who clean and stack the chairs after each service. Max straightened his back and gasped with a rush of air so cool and cleansing that it felt like menthol. One small invitation, that one touch, changed our lives and the life of our church. For six years now Max has been a member of the Grunt Crew. He’s even become a greeter, which for Max includes leaping and dancing when the worship music begins. Max still doesn’t sit through the service, but his joy in serving is contagious. And he is a vital part of our church. It’s as if being with Max, this boy without armor or pretense, who knows the privilege of church, lets us all feel a bit of victory too.

Putting Your Taxes Where Your Values Are?

Alan Brevere makes a good point regarding Warren Buffet's op-ed on taxing the super-rich:

I like Warren Buffett. I admire him. He has been very generous with his money over the years. But when mega-rich folks like Buffett write editorials arguing that the wealthy should pay more in taxes, I am always puzzled by one thing. If he thinks he should pay more why doesn't he just do it? He could, for example, not take those tax breaks that the government allows him to take. There is no law requiring Buffett to do so. Or he can actually make a contribution to the federal government. Instructions on how to do so are right on the website of the Financial Management Service, which is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury...

It's one thing to write an editorial stating what others should do. I would suggest to Mr. Buffett that if he is serious about his words, he will back them up with action. Uncle Sam has his hand out and will not reject his check. I highly doubt that he will even ask Warren for two forms of ID.

When I stand up in front of the folks in church on Sunday morning and I encourage them to tithe (which should be the minimum gift to the church, not the maximum), I better be tithing and more myself. Otherwise my words have no integrity. If I insist that individuals read their Bibles and pray, I better be doing so as well.

I should add here that I agree with Alan that taxes probably need to be raised, though frankly I'd like to know why we want to raise taxes.  Buffet simply says taxes on the rich need to be raised, but then does not explain what this increased income is for?  Will it pay for social programs?  Entitlements?  Stem the debt?  We don't know.  All we know is that the rich need to pay more.

That said, I think Alan's charge that maybe Buffet should put his money where his mouth is makes some sense.  I used to think this was just a useless charge from conservatives, but not any more.  Of course, Congress and the President have to duke it out in raising revenue, but nothing is stopping Buffet from making a donation in the meantime.

The issue of taxation is one that we as a society must debate.  But if people are going to make such statements as Mr. Buffet's, maybe they should also make sure they are practicing what they preach.

Jesus for President?

Like it or not, Jesus is running for political office.

Jesus has been running for office for quite some time now.  What's his platform, you say?  Well, it's whatever happens to be your political pursuasion.  Are you a Democrat?  Well, Jesus is about as blue as can be, supporting government programs and very much for raising taxes on the wealthy so they can pay their "fair share."

And if you are a Republican?  Well, Jesus is a super patriot, is against raising taxes and government spending.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. 

In light of the recent budget and debt mess that has finally be resolved, I've heard folks talk about how it's not simply wrong, but downright sinful to cut any social programs.  I've also heard others try to infuse their conservative fiscal agenda with holy talk as well.  I hear people talk about "What would Jesus cut," as if Jesus was somehow involved in social policy during his time on earth.

Being a mainline Protestant pastor, I've hung out with other pastors who are decidedly on the liberal end of the spectrum.  The way they talk, you'd think Jesus came to earth to give every Social Security and Medicare.  Conversely, conservative Christians have somehow made raising taxes some kind of mortal sin that should send one to the very gates of hell.

I'd like to give my sisters and brothers who are partisans a little advice: stop using Jesus to prop up your arguments.

Jesus walked on earth during the first century, long before there was anything like a welfare state.  Jesus didn't have a position on Medicaid or defense spending.  Last I checked Jesus wasn't issuing his view on US tax policy. 

Jesus did care for the poor and  called us to do so as well.  But you might notice that Jesus never said how that should be done.  Maybe Jesus was smart enough (or extremely gullible) to believe we could figure that out.

I think there are good and moral arguments both for and against government programs aimed at alleviating poverty.  I think there are good and moral arguments both for and against raising taxes.  Jesus didn't call us to support this or that ideology; Jesus called us to be faithful.  We have to discern how to be faithful to his call to care for the least of these and odds are we will come to different conclusions.  That's okay. I think God is a god that likes to give us a wide berth to come up with how to be faithful.

So, can we please stop asking what Jesus would cut or not cut and stop trying to make Jesus some kind of mascot for our political parties?  Jesus came to give us abundant life, not free health care or lower taxes.

Why Do We Hate Rupert Murdoch?

I've really never understood the amount of animosity towards media mogul Rupert Murdoch and now that he dealing with the current scandal in the UK over phone hacking, some of these "Rupert haters" are now dancing with glee. The New York Time's Joe Nocera, who usually is an even keeled columnist, is enjoying how the hunter has become the hunted:

Let’s be honest here. There is something undeniably rich about seeing the tables turned like this. When I see photographs of Brooks, or Murdoch, or his son James (who until a few weeks ago was his father’s heir apparent at the News Corporation), sitting in their cars, staring blankly ahead, I can just picture the paparazzi horde jostling to get a decent shot of its prey. Murdoch’s papers have always feasted on scandals like this, picking the bones of their victims. Now Murdoch’s the one whose bones are being picked...

“The schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw,” wrote The Wall Street Journal in an editorial on Monday, defending Rupert Murdoch and the News Corporation. (That’s right. After woefully undercovering the scandal in its news pages, The Journal’s editorial page is now leaping to the defense of its owner. Proving, yet again, that The Journal knows where its bread is buttered.)

Well, yes, the schadenfreude is pretty darn thick. Who would deny it? The whole thing reminds me a little of the ending of Ian McEwan’s wonderful novel “Solar,” in which the many awful things the central character has done in his long life suddenly come together to bury him in an avalanche of comeuppance. I’m O.K. with that.

Nocera then lists the sins of Rupert Murdoch, number being Fox News:

Although I generally admire entrepreneurs who build giant companies, Rupert Murdoch, despite giving us Homer Simpson, generally has not been a force for good over the course of his long career. His Bill O’Reilly-ed, Glenn Beck-ed Fox News has done a great deal to coarsen the political discourse. His tabloids have lowered the standards of journalism on three continents — and routinely broken the law on at least one of them. He had dumbed down his prestige papers, like The Times of London. He has run roughshod over cross-ownership rules meant to prevent one man or company from having too much power — and then used his lobbying might to get those rules diluted. He has put kowtowing to China ahead of freedom of the press, even killing a book set to be published by his HarperCollins unit that the Chinese authorities objected to. He has consistently used his media properties to reward allies and punish enemies. It’s a long list.

While I think it's important to look into the phone hacking mess to find out how far up the corporate chain it went, I think it's a tad premature to tar Murdoch with all of this, as if he order folks to hack into phones.

One of the sins that Nocera mentioned is the advent of Fox News and how it has cheapened the public discourse. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I have always said it has to right to exist. If people don't like Fox they can just ignore it. Also, its not as if political discourse was some kind of Eden before Fox. Fox News is just a symptom of a greater disease, and if it were to disappear tomorrow, we wouldn't all go back to being nice with each other.

All of this hate and schaudenfruede is a bit much. And frankly, at the end of the day it makes those that enjoy it look somewhat small and petty.

Maybe Murdoch is guilty. Maybe he did know what was going on at News of the World. If so, then he should pay the penalty.

But we don't know all the facts. Instead we want to see someone squirm simply because we don't like them.

I don't think that's right.

Repost: The Old Man and the Queen

This post is from 2008. One note: when this man dies, I will be at his funeral.

And I will cry.

As several denominations struggle with the issue of gay pastors, I am reminded of something that happened to me a few years ago.

I had just graduated from seminary and was doing my CPE at a local nursing home. I was still involved at the church where I was an intern and was asked to serve on the church board. It came to a vote and I was voted in nearly unanimously. I say nearly because one person voted against me. I knew who it was and so did many others. It was an elderly member of the church. He had some idea I was gay and many people assumed that was why he voted against me. After the meeting concluded, he asked me to come with him into another room. He explained that he prayed and studied the scripture on the issue of homosexuality, but his conscience was not swayed in favor. As he said this, he began to cry.

I was and still am touched by this guesture. He did have to speak to me to explain his actions, but he did. He might not approve of who I sleep with, but he did treat me with respect. This wasn't simply about being right for him, but about being loving.

Yeah, I know that his actions were hurtful. Yes, it would have been nice had he voted in favor. But I could respect his decsion even if it was wrong, because he valued me enough to respect me.

Why am I sharing this? I guess because sometimes those of us who fight for justice for GLBT folk tend to paint everyone and anyone who might disagree as evil and backward and not worth listening to. Many pro-gay people think saying anything that is against being gay is hurtful to gays and react strongly to anything that might be hurtful to gays.

But the thing is, there is a difference between words and people that do mean to harm and those that are just not there yet. There are people that truly hate gay people, but not everyone who might have an opinion opposing gay marriage or gay ordination is necessarily a bigot. And the fact is, I'm a big boy-I can handle an old guy.

I truly believe we must work for justice and inclusion in the church. But grace has to be part of the plan. The old man's opposition was tinged with grace and for that reason I could also respond in grace.

I still see the old man-he is now in his late early 80s, but still going strong. We are friendly to each other and he still treats me with the utmost respect and even sees me as Biblical scholar (?). And I love his tenor voice-which is still strong after all these years. I have no idea how he feels about me being gay or having a husband. But I do know that he has taken the command of love very seriously and I will truly weep the day this man leaves the scene. He has taught me about grace; and for that I am ever thankful.

Great, now I'm tearing up...

Graceful Conversation

I think in our day and age, we are losing the act of conversation.  It's kinda odd, in this time when we have so many ways of talking to each other, we really don't talk to each other, at least we don't talk to people who we happen to disagree with.  Instead, we stay in our little circles, unwilling to actually listen to someone who might disagree with us.

It's interesting being a moderately conservative guy in a room full of liberals.  At some point the conversation gets wanders around to someone like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann and everyone takes turns knocking down Republicans.  I start to get a little uncomfortable at all the trash talk.  I have to believe that the same thing goes in conservative circles.  Woe is the lone liberal that has endure that experience.

The sad thing these days is that we really don't know how to listen and talk with each other.  We seem to forget that each person is a child of God and so we hurl invectives at the other camp.  We are so full of righteous indignation that we are blind to loving our enemies.

As Christians, we need to learn to have conversations.  I guess it's kind of ironic that the person who has trouble with conversations is the one bringing it up, but there you go.  Yes, there were times that Jesus got angry, but there were also times that he listened to people.  At times, we have to learn to give up our need to be right, our need to be angry to learn to love the other- especially when we disagree with them.

Presbyterian pastor Janet Edwards wrote a wonderful post on conversation with adversaries, especially when it comes to GLBT issues.  Here's a snippet:

1. Approach the other person as a beloved child of God. See Christ in the eyes of the other person. Set aside every presumption you may have about him or her except that God loves this other, just like God loves you. This is often a mystery for me that our talk with help solve.
2. Trust deeply that the Holy Spirit has a word for you both. Watch carefully for the gift God has for you in your exchange with this other. It probably will not be the same gift for both of you. It will most likely be a still, small voice so you must listen hard for it.
3. Try hard to see things from the other’s point of view. Ask questions like: “This is what I hear you saying, is that correct?” or: “I want to make sure I get what you mean, is this what you said?” My own convictions have been strengthened many times by testing them against the other’s heartfelt words.

I think these words are important, especially for those of us that are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. We have to be willing to hear for the Spirit speaking even from those mouths of those we disagree with.

I don't think any of this is easy. But then, no one said following Jesus was easy.

Who's A Feminist?

I know I will probably stir some kettles with this one...

About 15 years ago or so, I remember listening to a call in show on public radio that talked about women's rights.  At one point a caller called in and talked about a friend of hers that was in many ways a strong feminist except that she was pro-life.  The caller asked if this woman would be consider a feminist.  The guest on the program responded: no, she could not be considered a feminist because of her stance on abortion rights.

I remember being rather shocked about that.  I can understand not agreeing with someone on that topic and I can see myself (I am pro-choice, by the way) have some issues.  But I didn't think this one issue should disqualify a woman from being...well, pro-woman.

There's a post up at the Her.menutics blog (one of many blogs from the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today), that talks about "evangelical feminism" in light of the prominence of two women in political ciricles, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.  Now, I'm not a fan of either woman.  I strongly disagree with Ms. Bachmann's anti-gay views and I agree with former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty in that the congresswoman hasn't done much during her time in Congress.  I think Palin does have some smarts, as evidence in this recent Atlantic piece, but I think she decided to play the role of outsider instead of competent governor.  I know it might distrub folks to see these folks as feminists, but in a way, they are.

Before people start throwing tomatoes at me, let me speak.  What I am trying to say here is that both women are very strong, opinionated women who have worked hard to get where they are.   I might totally disagree with their views, but these are not the stereotype of conservative women that hide behind their strong husbands. 

Does that make people especially my liberal feminist friends, uneasy?  Yeah, it probably does.  But then maybe we need to think again about what feminism means.  If it only means being pro-choice, then you have made it the same narrow kind of club that we accuse conservatives of doing.  However, if there is a diversity of ways of being a feminist, then maybe people can come together on issues where they agree to continue to uplift the role of women in society.

Okay, just let me get my umbrella.  Now you can throw your tomatoes at me.

Autism and Sex

I know it might be bad form for a pastor to be sharing an article about how people on the autistic spectrum achieve an orgasm, but since there are a lot of us out there that will find a partner or spouse, it's probably a good idea to share this.  So, read it.

"My Gay Marriage Harms Nobody"

The following piece is something I wrote for the political website FrumForum as a response to another author concerning the passage of same sex marriage in New York State. 

On September 15, 2007, I got married.

It was a pretty normal, run-of-the-mill event — as weddings are. It was held in a small, picturesque Episcopal Church outside of Minneapolis. The sanctuary was decorated with flowers. The families of both parties were there, beaming with excitement. The only thing that might not make this event a typical wedding was that I was getting married to another man: my partner, Daniel.

At that wedding, we pledged to be faithful to each other. Our relationship was blessed by the Episcopal priest and those gathered, including both of our parents. Our wedding (and Daniel was insistent we call it that) was soley religious, since Minnesota doesn’t allow for same-sex marriage. At some level, it didn’t matter that our marriage was not recognized by the state. It was important that we made a committment to one another in front of the gathered community and in front of God.

But a year later, it did matter.

Keep reading...

Photo: Engagement photo of Daniel and myself.

Sermon Podcast: June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011 (Trinity Sunday)
Texts: Matthew 28:16-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Click below to hear the sermon.

Sermons @ First Podcast: June 19, 2011

Aspies and Grief

Gavin Bollard has a great post on his blog regarding how persons with Aspergers grieve.  Maybe one of the big things about those of us on the autistic spectrum is that we don't have emotions.  The reality is we do have emotions, but they are expressed very differently than most neurotypicals.

Gavin shares a recent trauma, how it affected him and how others were affected by him:

We all deal with strong emotions, such as love, anger and grief in our own ways. My wife tends to cry things out but I often internalise them and take them on board as stress and at times, self-harmful behaviour. In the kids, these emotions can manifest as meltdowns or as general destructive behaviour. Sometimes there's nothing to see on the surface at all.

The point is that although we each feel these emotions and we feel them at similar strengths, our reactions vary widely both in intensity and visibility...

 

For some reason, our society seems to think that it's okay to quantify emotions based on visible reactions. If an event occurs to two people and the woman is crying while the man is not, then the woman needs the most care and attention because "she's the one who is really hurt". The solution is to talk in a quiet voice and bring lots of cups of tea and chocolates.

The man, by contrast isn't bawling his eyes out, so he's obviously not hurt. There's nothing that you need to do for him. There's no need to tread lightly because "he's not even upset".

In fact, if the event is of an appropriate level, for example the death of a loved one, then anyone not outwardly grieving is "fair game". You can take things out on them and you're more or less expected to say "what's wrong with you man?". The words "you don't care" should also be used in conversation to him.

Sound familiar?

It's something that many neurotypicals do and yet so few realise how wrong it is.

 Gavin's point is that just because someone is not crying doesn't mean that they are not feeling any emotion.

I saw this a few days ago and was planning to write something about it.  Like Gavin, life stepped in a provided an object lesson.  Late Wednesday evening, my Aunt Nora died.  For the last five years, she suffered the horrible affects of Alzheimers and was being taken away from her loved ones bit by bit.  I've known this woman since I was a baby, so of course it is sad to me.  But, I'm not really bawling my eyes out.  I'm rarely the one that is overly emotional in times like this.  For a long time, I wondered if something was wrong with me.  It's not that I didn't feel sad- it's just that I didn't react in the same way others did.

We live in this world where we expect people to grieve in a certain way.  But there isn't one way to grieve.  Those of us on the spectrum do feel sad and sometimes we can feel sad in ways far stronger than neurotypicals.  But we don't show it in the way that others do.

I think about this as I think about my Dad.  All of his sisters and brothers are now dead and he's the last one.  I know that he is grieving, but typical him, he doesn't show it.  I don't think this is because he is autistic, but he is the typical male of his era.  

But as someone that doesn't express emotion like others, I do understand and I will let him grieve in his own way.

Sometimes the tears don't show on the outside, but they do appear in our hearts.

Welcome to Theobot!

I think I forgot to tell folks that I now I am writing a lectionary blog called Theobot.  Don't expect sterling Biblical scholarship, but do expect some musings from a guy trying to figure out what God is saying in these texts. 
 
Check out the link to this week's post on the Old Testament text.

"Progressive Christians" and Yours Truly

I've been noticing lately within Mainline Protestant  circles, the rising use of the word "progressive" as a way to describe Christians who might have once used the term "mainline Protestant."  The biggest change to note is over at the religion megasite Patheos, which changed the name of one of their religion portals.  What was once called "Mainline Protestant" is now called "Progressive Christian."  That change has brought about a discussion of the term and there have been some fairly good posts about name change.

That said, I'm also a tad bit wary of the term.

Retreads: Change We Can Believe In

I wrote this blog post in March of 2010 on how persons on the autistic spectrum don't like change and how that relates to the modern Mainline Protestant congregation.



In my short time as an ordained minister, I am finding one the most challenging things to take on is congregational transformation. It's one thing to plant a church, quite another for a 133 year-old church to change some of the things its been doing.

In my 17 months at First Christian, I know that people approach change with fear and trepidation. It's scary. It's the unknown. It might lead to people leaving the church.

Change is scary because it wrenches us out of our well-worn ways of doing things. It takes us out of our safe routine. It's just damn uncomfortable.

Believe me, I know. I don't like change.

It's funny how this fear of change so relates to me, especially since my Aspergers diagnosis. One the traits of this form of autism, is that I tend to follow some well worn ways of doing things. I don't like surprises. I don't like things messing up my ordered life.

So, of course I end up with a life partner that lives life at the spur of the moment.

For someone who is autistic and likes his very ordered life which calms him to have someone in your life who loves to be spontaneous can seem like a nightmare.

Sunday Sermon: June 19, 2011

“Go.”

Matthew 28:16-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:11-13

June 19, 2011 (Trinity Sunday)

First Christian Church

Minneapolis, MN

It was fifteen years ago, around this time that I preached my very first sermon.  In fact, it wasn’t to far from here at Grace-Trinity Community Church in Uptown Minneapolis.  I remember being so nervous.  I didn’t really enjoy public speaking and to some extent, it’s still hard for me.  I remember counting down the days until I preached.  I practiced the sermon with the pastor of that congregation who continually told me to speak louder and to try again, and again, which only made me more nervous. My parents drove in from Michigan to see me preach.  I don’t think I sleep that much the night before.  I can remember that Sunday going up to the pulpit and reading my sermon to the gathered congregation.  And I think I didn’t do that bad of a job.  At least that’s what everyone told me.  I’ve preached many times since that sermon in June of 1996, but I’ve never forgotten the emotions surrounding that first time.

What made me so completely nervous was the fact that I was getting up in front of people feeling oh so very naked and vulnerable.  I was sharing my life with other people and that just made me nervous.  Somehow, I was able to get though that sermon.

Autism and Faith

I stumbled upon this blog post that offers tips for faith communities in becoming more welcoming to persons with autism.  There are tips for Christian and Jewish communities. And here is a post about autism within the Muslim community.

Sermon Podcast: Pentecost Sunday

June 12, 2011 (Pentecost Sunday)
Texts: Numbers 11:24-30, Acts 2:1-21

Here's what I preached for Pentecost 2011. Click below to hear the podcast.

Sermons @ First Podcast: June 12, 2011

Sermon Podcast: Palm Sunday

I thought I'd start sharing some of the sermons I have via First Christian's podcast page.  Here's one from Palm Sunday of this year. Click on the link below to hear the sermon.

"To Be Continued..."

The "Heresy" of Pacifism

A friend of mine and I had a very short talk yesterday about the use of the military and that got me thinking overall about pacifism in the church. Maybe it's just me, but there seems at times to be a kind of unspoken pacifism in the church. That in and of itself is not a bad thing in my view, I tend to believe every follower of Jesus should strive to deal with conflict in a nonviolent way. But it seems at times that the pacifism that is running around tends to be more ideological and less willing to deal with the situation at hand. In short, it tends to think more about the letter of the law and not its spirit.

In a perfect world, refraining from violence would be a perfect tactic in dealing with problems. But we don't live in a perfect world and the actors we deal with are not always rational actors.

In thinking about this question of war and the Christian faith, I did some surfing and stumbled upon the blog called the Row Boat by Nathan Schnieder. In a post written in 2009 entitled, "Niebuhr, Pacifism, Realism, Peacebuilding" he critiques Reinhold Niebuhr's essay “Why the Christian Church Is Not Pacifist.”

I have not read Niebuhr's essay (though I intend to). But I did like this review of the essay as well as some of Schnieder's criticism. Niebuhr's organizing take on the world, Christian Realism, is something that I wished was preached more in mainline Protestantism. There's a lot to dig into here, but I want to focus on Niebuhr's take on nonviolence. In short, we look at whether or not the nonviolence practiced by Ghandi was Christian or not:

Niebuhr asks how biblical modern nonviolence theory really is. In the first half of the twentieth century, peaceniks preached peace but generally lacked a method. But by the end of World War II, most believed they had found one in the work of Gandhi. The method of nonviolent resistance perfected in the Indian independence movement quickly began to take hold in the civil-rights struggle of black Americans. (For Niebuhr, as well as for Martin Luther King, the chief source was FOR member Richard Gregg, who lived with Gandhi in India before writing his classic The Power of Non-Violence.) Many Christian pacifists believed that Gandhi was in some sense a fulfillment of Christ’s promise.

Yet does Jesus’s scriptural example really have anything directly to do with Gandhian resistance? Jesus exhibited no interest in the overthrow of an unjust social order, beyond noting that its temples would crumble and its poor would always remain. He stood up for all sides of political divisions—centurions, tax collectors, oppressed Jews, and dejected prostitutes. Sure, he advocated taking blows without complaint, and did so himself; but he also spoke of swords and lashed out at merchants. Jesus’s witness was mainly pacifist, but it would be an exaggeration (and a disappointment) to say that this constituted Jesus’s essential message. Ascribing to him a Gandhi movement would be a stretch.

Schnieder then tries to explain Niebuhr's Christian Realism:

The sum of Niebuhr’s thought is often described as a Christian “realism.” It takes seriously the inevitability of sin and selfishness in human affairs, then seeks a set of social arrangements which provide a modicum of justice and the freedom for Christian witness to flourish.




Violence and war have a place in this. They have a certain necessity for him, though Niebuhr hardly had great confidence in their capacity for do-gooding. An adventure like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which sought to transform a crumbling society into a model democracy through transformative violence, was hardly something he could get behind. But an intervention in Darfur against a coordinated genocide, more likely yes.

Some folks say pacifism is biblical.  But then again, as Schnieder says, genocide was also favored in the Bible as well.  In the comments, Schnieder explains a bit more how Christians who take nonviolence seriously should make decisions:

I also mean to agree with Niebuhr that Christianity doesn’t equal Gandhian political struggle. Yes, there are resources in the Bible to support it, but there are also resources to support genocide. Jesus’s own efforts seem much closer to anti-political pacifism than political resistance. The point is: I think nonviolent resisters have to take fuller responsibility for their commitments. They can’t just say, “This is what Christianity tells us all to do, so we have to do it.” Instead (and I think this is actually more empowering), they should say, “I am a Christian, and I have come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do, and I find deep resources to guide me in it in my faith.”

Indeed.  We need to take responsibility for our actions instead of hiding behind the Bible. 

So what does this all mean?  Well I think that it means that not every war is a good war to get involved in or support and it also means that not all wars are bad wars to be avoided.  We have to be willing to look at the Bible and prayerfully consider what God would have us do and then in faith move forward. 

I think the best example of Christian Realism being lived out by a person is the foreign policy of President Obama.  More on that later.