Pentecost

We're trying something crazy in worship today. We've purchased a bunch of indoor sparklers, which we will distribute to each person. During the prayer of invocation we will light them all, too-obviously symbolizing the coming of the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire. Should be, um, dangerous.

PIF Redux Part 1

I've been thrown by the experience of no longer feeling impending doom around every corner, no longer slipping into morose contemplation at every opportunity, but it hasn't stopped me from rewriting my PIF (the first one was written, like everything else I've done for the past few months, in the midst of a pretty severe depression). Here is the new PIF for your reading pleasure, in four parts:

Characteristics of the church or organization you would like to serve and the unique gifts, skills and experiences you would like to bring to the position:

I am part of a generation of people who do not go to church, who often aren’t interested in church, who perhaps have even been hurt or turned off specifically by church. I have remained part of a church community for my entire life for a few simple reasons. The first reason is that I found ways to make my life meaningful through loving God and loving others.

Another reason is that I have been nurtured by the church, even when my own home and family life were most difficult growing up. I am thankful to be nourished by the church since then, as a student and as a chaplain. I have been able to find, in the church, an outlet for my creativity and passion, designing new worship experiences, using drama and music and art, writing poetry and organizing for justice. I have also been pushed and challenged by the church, her teachings, her history, and her present conflicts.

I found that the church has accepted me, that through it I have become part of the family of God. Because the church’s doors have always been open to me, I believe that her doors must remain open for any others who wish to come, taste, and know that God is good. I welcome the challenge and opportunity in everyone who comes through those doors.
In the church I found God - in worship, in service, and in community - and God saved my life, is making me whole, and has prepared me to go out and be a leader and follower, preacher and prophet, pastor and counselor, ordained minister and flawed, growing human being.

Stupid Obsessions Of Mine

1. I have floral wallpaper in my bathroom. Every time I'm in there I count how many blossoms of a particular color are on it even though I have it memorized.
2. I have never played a match of tennis, nor been to a live match, nor even watched a match on TV, but I follow the results of Men's Singles very closely and have been for the past 5 years. I am particularly obsessed with Rafael Nadal.
3. I check my email about 20 times a day.
4. I put my watch, cellphone, keys, and wallet in the exact same place every night before going to bed.
5. I feel like I have to complete every single side-quest and mini-game in computer RPG's which pretty much makes WoW feel like a bottomless pit to me.
6. When I make To-Do lists I check things off as I complete them, then cross them out as I complete "sets" of tasks, and then black everything out when the list is done. It feels like I accomplished more.
   
7. If I can possibly help it, I start every single day with a swig of orange juice.
8. I always eat red M&M's last.
9. Once I realized I had posted to this blog everyday for the first 10 days of May I felt like I had to finish the month that way.
10. #9 was the only reason for this post, but putting up one stupid obsession didn't seem like enough and if it was going to be a list then it had to have 10 things on it.
    

The Jesus Signal

From Sinfest.

Ethics and Homosexuality

If you aren't tired of hearing me go on about different modes of moral reasoning and their relation to debate on homosexuality hop on over to Viola's. She responded to an email I wrote her and got a conversation going. If you're inclined to comment, respect her rules, since I don't want her blaming me for sending a bunch of rabble-rousers over. :P

Recruitment 101

Not a Sin: Gay Parents

A while back there was a conversation on this blog about same-gender parenting and wishing a study had been conducted to dispel some homophobia. Check this out:

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

via The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children — Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 — Pediatrics.

h/t Drew Tatusko.

Blind Spots

We all have blind spots. We all have areas of our moral imagination that we have left unexamined, or in which we have made commitments that are in contradiction with the rest of our moral character.

The Church has had some enormous blind spots over the centuries. It takes quite a blind spot to imagine you are serving the Prince of Peace by burning witches - or that you are upholding the purity of the Church by prosecuting heresy. In every era the Church has been blinded, as well, by the prevailing culture into drawing boundary lines between people who we should be proclaiming have been made one in Christ. We draw lines to exclude women, or savages, or homosexuals. While we proclaim liberty with one breath, in our next we are keeping certain people in captivity.

A truly remarkable example of how destructive these blind spots can be is the life of John Milton Chivington. He is rightly excoriated in the history books as the man responsible for the Sand Creek Massacre. After encouraging a group of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho natives to treat with him under the American flag, he led 700 US Soldiers in an attack on the unarmed encampment murdering around 400 women, children and elderly Native Americans. The victims were scalped and mutilated, and soldiers were seen later showing off "trophies" - scalps, fingers, and genitalia.

We would assume that a man guilty of such an atrocity must be deeply violent, and probably harbor beliefs of his own racial superiority. He never demonstrated remorse for the massacre in his life, and even threatened people who testified against him in congressional hearings about the event. One man, Captain Silas Soule, who served under Chivington and was present at Sand Creek, refused to follow Chivington's order to fire on the encampment. Soule testified against Chivington in the hearings and was later murdered by a soldier loyal to Chivington. So we are dealing with a guy who was absolutely convicted that his actions were justified.

So here is the twist - Chivington was an ordained Methodist minister and a committed abolitionist who had received death threats, and been moved for his protection, because of his preaching and acting on behalf of slaves.

How could a man committed to the gospel, who indeed gave his life in service to the Church, and clearly understood that service to mean risking his own life to free others from oppression and violence, then turn around and feel justified in murdering hundreds of unarmed human beings?

One parishioner remembers hearing John Chivington in a sermon, say:

It is an abuse of the dignity of God's children, an abuse of God's son Jesus Christ, to keep any human being in bondage...

Compare that with these words from the same man:

Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians.

Back Off This is My Flock!

A weird experience I never expected to have:

A man came into my congregation as a guest, a pastor from another community. At my invitation he preached in worship and held a Q&A session afterword about his ministry. Following the Q&A one of my parishioners approached him with a private question and he proceeded to offer her pastoral advice. The advice wasn't well received. This parishioner came to me later that day in tears and here is what surprised me - I was emotionally very protective of this person and angry at the man who came in from outside and mucked around with my people.

Now, I disagreed with his approach and felt his advice was off-target, but I wonder if I still would have been miffed even if I'd agreed with him. I thought his behavior was presumptuous, not so much because it transgressed on my territory but because, as an outsider, he doesn't know my people, whereas I am spending a lot of time and energy getting to know them precisely in order to justify the privilege I have of being approached by them with these kinds of questions. Furthermore, since he was a guest he went home and will probably never see this person again whereas I am likely to have to deal with this person's hurt feelings for a while.

What do you think - am I just overreacting? Is it silly to be protective of members of my congregation? Is it some outmoded patriarchal control impulse? Or is it legitimate?

The Kirk Gets It Right

The Church of Scotland voted to dismiss the objections against the appointment of Rev. Scott Rennie, an openly homosexual minister, to Queen's Cross parish in Aberdeen.

Hurrah for them! May we puritanical Americans follow suit sooner rather than later.

The best thing about this decision is that it came against the backdrop of pressure from outside the church. Baptists and free-church members were the most prominent protesters proving once again that "guardians of orthodoxy" among American Presbyterians are more in line with the radical reformation and fundamentalists than with the Reformed branch of the church.

Congratulations to Rev. Scott Rennie who must have suffered plenty over the past year waiting to hear if the church would come to her senses and let him serve Christ. Many blessings on your ministry in Aberdeen.

Master...of Divinity!

Yeah, that's right, they gave it to me.

Who woulda thunk it?

Enough Politics

Seems like most of my posts lately have been about politics. I'm starting to get tired of it so I'll probably be taking a break from it for a while. I doubt I'll back off of the torture issue, but you can all read much better political commentary from other sources. This space should be more about pub-talk and theology. I've gotten off track. That's what happens when my other friars aren't prodding me about my soap-box tendencies...

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Obama's speech today was extremely disappointing. He spoke about a number of things and though it had some nice high-minded ideology in it, at almost every turn he undermined his supposed ideals with his plans. He supports rule of law, but plans to continue indefinite detainment without legal recourse. He favors transparency, but plans to continue keeping plenty of things in the dark. He loves accountability, but plans to fight any attempt to actually hold people accountable for breaking laws if he thinks it will get in the way of his agenda.

Most disappointing to me is his continued opposition to any kind of truth commission or investigation of torture. He characterized the push for investigation as partisan finger-pointing playing right into the hands of the Sean Hannity and friends:

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

Torture is not a partisan issue. Upholding the rule of law is not a partisan value. It is not finger-pointing to try someone for a crime that evidence and witnesses and documentation clearly indicates they committed. What does he mean by "re-litigate"? I know that the thrust of his rhetoric is all about us moving forward and not looking back and he wants to give us the idea that all of that stuff is in the past, but it is disingenuous. This stuff can't be "re-litigated" because it has never been "litigated". We still don't know the whole truth. We still haven't actually held anyone accountable for anything. We're not asking to redo anything we're asking Obama to do what he promised to do - uphold the law.

I understand that Obama doesn't want his presidency defined by this, but it's not his choice. He says he wants to avoid partisan politics but by refusing to set up an independent bi-partisan commission he is ensuring that this remains political. It doesn't matter if there are economic matters or military matters that Obama thinks should take precedence, this isn't a political decision it is a law-enforcement decision. Is there evidence that crimes were committed? Yes. Then we are obligated to investigate and take appropriate action under the law.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Terrorism is not unique, it is ancient. Every President ever has alleged that their own circumstances were unique and required a new set of rules (or rather the breaking of all the old ones). It is not absolutist to say that national security cannot be a justification for breaking the law. Thus, whether there is transparency or secrecy, there must be accountability under the law. Or rather, whether that is an absolutist statement or not, it is also right.

Obama you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I think Glenn Greenwald put it well:

The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does: effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them (indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds). Like all political officials, Obama should be judged based on his actions and decisions, not his words and alleged intentions and motives. Those actions in the civil liberties realm, with some exceptions, have been profoundly at odds with his claimed principles, and this speech hasn't changed that. Only actions will.

The ironic/maddening/terrifying/tragic thing is that Cheney gave a speech immediately after Obama's and while their rhetoric couldn't have been more opposite, their actual positions are difficult to distinguish. Obama may be more dangerous than Cheney ever was, because with Cheney you know he is a villain - he rides into town proudly wearing the black hat, but Obama looks and sounds convincingly like a good guy.

Put Harry Reid in Gitmo

The Democrats in congress are spineless cowards. In other shocking news, water is wet.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to block the closure of Guantanamo. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) held a press conference afterward saying that he opposes the transfer of detainees to prisons in the US. Reid was incoherent and pedantic clinging to his talking points like a frightened meerkat:

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

Of course, this pedantic fear-mongering is borrowed right out of the Republican play book and is completely ignorant since there are already dozens of convicted terrorists in prison on American soil including this handful of fellows in my own state of Colorado:

Zacarias Moussaoui, Conspirator in the September 11, 2001 attacks
Omar Abdel-Rahman, "The Blind Sheik"; involved in 1993 WTC bombing
Richard Colvin Reid, Islamic terrorist, nicknamed the "Shoe Bomber"
Wadih el-Hage, Conspirator in the 1998 US embassy bombings
Mahmud Abouhalima, Islamic Mujahideen leader, 1993 WTC bombing
Jose Padilla, Convicted of aiding terrorists
Mohammed A. Salameh, 1993 WTC bombing

There are over 2 million people incarcerated in this country and only 240 detainees in Gitmo, of which only a handful are actually "high-value" prisoners. Don't you think we can handle this? Are we now more cowardly than during WWII when we had thousands of Nazis, Italian soldiers, and Japanese soldiers detained in this country throughout the whole war?

Of course, maybe the people at Fox News who went around showing pictures of people in Muslim head-gear and asking "would you want this person living in your backyard?" weren't so crazy. Maybe what Harry Reid and friends are really afraid of is that most of these detainees were wrongly imprisoned in the first place and all of them were illegally held without a trial and maybe moving them to American Prisons would just bring us one step closer to the day that we actually release them entirely. But that would involve admitting we were wrong, so it's highly unlikely.

I propose we throw Harry Reid in Gitmo and allow him to cool his heels while waiting for the President and congress to come up with a suitable plan for transferring the detainees. I certainly don't want an idiot like Mr. Reid in my backyard.

An Iron Cross

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." Dwight D. Eisenhower

Killing Jesus was an act of war. It was a declaration by one empire founded on the might of legions, of eternal enmity against the empire of the prince of peace. All violence ever since has been the continuation of that war, which is asymmetrical because the forces of heaven cannot be defeated. They are so utterly superior to the pathetic warlords and petty fiefdoms of this world that they do not deign to take even a single life in the process of their conquest. They are assured of victory by virtue of God's commitment to resurrection.

Because heaven is unassailable we lob our missiles at one another, taking grim pleasure in the piling up of collateral damage which is what we have consigned ourselves to be. We take shots at God and hit our children and then claim victory. We are all terrorists breathing hatred and destruction. Mad kings in our skull-sized kingdoms we are obsessed with murder. We line the roads with rebels on crosses; millions of souls pierced for our transgressions, and every one our self.