Synergy: A Resource for Pastoral Care Givers

WHOM NEEDS PROTECTION?

2011-11-15T16:03:00.000-06:00

The sexual abuse scandal currently synonymous with Penn State is a stark reminder of how often we – the folks in authority – fail the “least among us”! As we have come to know, this failure was evident at every level: the young coach who witnessed the abuse; the beloved head coach who only reported it to the University president; the local police who failed to adequately respond; the state’s attorney who refused to pursue seeking an indictment; etc.

An almost universal response from those who knew of, either indirectly or directly, the alleged abuses of young boys was that they had “reported” it as was the policy. That is, they covered their own hind-ends by kicking it “upstairs”. Even when it became apparent that no action would occur, they did nothing!

Another troubling response – one which initially seemed dominant in many of the student reactions – was anger that the whistle-blowers were damaging the reputation of either Coach Joe Paterno or of the University! At least in their minds [?] such reputations were as valuable to protect as the right of youth to be protected in contact with adults.

Another response was the fear that reporting such abuse involving a high-ranking person would be potentially costly and/or damaging to them. One might lose his/her job. [The same reasons who so many employees fail to challenge illegal and/or unethical actions perpetrated by the corporations in which they work!]

Those “fears” were as also a dominant reason for those who refused to call 911 when the young Kitty Genovese was brutally beaten to death in a New York apartment courtyard – and is why many today are equally afraid to report crime.

Even in the Church we have seen such “fear” at work: “fear” that people would think badly about the church if her leaders were so seen; “fear” that the church would, or might be, sued if we acknowledged that such harm had occurred; “fear” that if the alleged perpetrator really did have a “call” from God we might be at risk if we put hindrances in his path!

What a contrast in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer! He could have safely remained in New York – but took the last boat back to Germany as WW II was starting. He knew the commandments clearly said to not kill. He knew that vengeance belonged to God. He knew that Jesus said to love your enemy. And, he knew there would be a good chance he would be killed if he worked to assassinate Hitler.

He knew – and experienced – all the same fears expressed by those involved in the Penn State scandals. Yet, he knew that as a disciple of Jesus it was his obligation to do all possible to protect those who were being killed by the German tyrant – even if that might consign his soul to eternal damnation!

We are not called to protect the organization! Whether that organization is a university, major corporation that employs thousands, or a church body – our duty is to the individual at risk.

That “duty” does involve risk. The reputation of the school or church might be blemished. The corporation might face economic ruin requiring large lay-offs. We might suffer – physical harm, financial, even death.

Bonhoeffer was moved by Isaiah’s words: he who believes does not flee. Might we do the same when we have the chance to protect the victim?

Cost of discipleship . . .

2011-10-30T05:24:00.000-06:00

At the last minute Renee & I learned of a play being presented at Provision Theater in Chicago – Bonhoeffer’s Cost [its run ends October 30th]. Its approach to Bonhoeffer was to present a man who was more than a brave and brilliant theologian. Rather, it revealed him as an individual struggling to discover what discipleship demands in the flawed world in which we live.

Timothy Gregory (Co-Creator & Artistic Director at Provision Theater] gives this quote as capturing the essence of Bonhoeffer:

We must learn to regard people less in light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer. [D.B., Letters & Papers from Prison]

The play, beginning the night of his imprisonment and ending with his execution, invites the viewer into his struggles as he reconciles himself to the costs which will be demanded. Much of the play focuses on the conversations between Bonhoeffer, a man of great intellect, and Klaus Klopstock, the prison guard, a simple man with a “steel plate in his head” due to a war injury incurred fighting the Russians.

These two “polar opposites” in almost every aspect of life, become closer than brothers as they seek a deeper understanding of what it means to “have faith”, to “obey the commandments”, and “to love your enemy even as you plot his murder”!

D.B. knows that seeking to kill Hitler is not just an act of treason under Nazi rule – it violates a basic tenet of what Jesus taught! While he believes it to be necessary [allowing evil to flourish is also sin], doing nothing is a failure to love your neighbor [who are being exterminated in the death camps as well as being forced to wage a war based on false premises].

Watching that struggle unfold was to be reminded of Luther’s dictum to “Sin boldly!” We don’t live in a world with clear choices of good and evil. Our choices are always co-mingled. “Good” always contains “evil”. There truly is no “pure altruism”.

And, understanding what Jesus taught becomes easier when the preacher is transparent with his/her own struggles. Anyone with a fair degree of sophistication is capable of devising word games which purport to simplify the paradoxes of modern life – and those word games almost always fail to fool the simplest in society! However, when they can see, hear and feel the preacher’s struggles – they get it!

Reformation in 2011 needs Bonhoeffer as we struggle with our challenges:

• Poverty is increasing at a time when great wealth is growing exponentially!

• Large world populations, with a different view of God/Allah, are actively engaged in bringing freedom to populations what have been oppressed for decades – while significant segments within Christianity argue more about people’s deeds rather than their sufferings!

• Luther thought the ignorance he witnessed amongst the people regarding Law & Gospel could be overcome through education – and that such would be facilitated as the printing press put Scripture into their hands! Today, almost 500 years later, there is an even greater ignorance as to what Jesus taught!

At one point in the play Bonhoeffer and Klopstock are discussing how Jesus’ teachings impose demands upon his followers – and Dietrich refers to those demands as a “cost”. Klaus, a less sophisticated individual, hears “cost” as if it were a membership fee – and wants to know what the amount of that “cost”. The audience laughs – but then it becomes clear that we are more like Klaus than we wish to admit! Surely with out food pantries and clothing drives and other charitable works we have “paid our costs” – haven’t we?

The peasants in Luther’s day grew clamorous in their demands against their leaders – and Luther grew most uncharitable towards them and their struggles.

Today, across our nation as well as around the globe, the “peasants” [the 99%) have grown clamorous. As yet, their demands are less well articulated than we might appreciate – yet, they are clear enough to be heard by “him/her who has ears”.

• Greed must not be hallowed as our national fiscal policy either privately or corporately.

How will we meet the cost of discipleship in our age?

The mentally ill are us . . . .

2011-10-02T06:45:00.000-06:00

The mentally ill in Illinois are under increasing stress as the Governor seeks to balance his budget on their backs!

Governor Quinn has proposed closing hospitals and treatment centers for the mentally ill. This just continues a trend begun decades ago.

In the 1950’s Illinois operated hospitals for the mentally ill throughout the state. I took part of my training for ministry at the Elgin State Hospital in 1955. At that time they had more than 6,500 patients with a wide range of diagnoses. It was one of 5 such institutions throughout the state, with a combined total of 55,000 beds. In 2010, with a significantly higher state population, the number of public beds in Illinois has shrunk to 1,500 – and Quinn proposes shrinking that further!

There were many factors besides budgetary that led to this down-ward movement in beds:

1. In the late 1950’s the first psychotropic drugs became available. This meant that greater numbers could have successful treatment of their symptoms, allowing more to live in the community.

2. Various public advocacy groups pushed for legal and political actions against the inhumane treatment that did occur in some public hospitals. The idea of them being a “snake pit” and a “cuckoo nest” were proclaimed in movies.

3. Many of the professionals in the treatment programs became enamored with the success of programs in Europe, especially in Holland, where psychiatric patients were cared for in private homes and with adequate out-patient services.

4. Politicians were supported in reducing the numbers of beds [saving money] but also encouraged to develop the local resources [which Illinois did for many years with facilities such as the Singer Mental Health Center in Rockford. Several of these were developed throughout the State – and Illinois became nationally known as a leader.

Today, however, the majority of the community psychiatric centers have been shuttered, the numbers of private psychiatric beds and treatment programs continue to shrink – and greater numbers of the mentally ill become housed within our local jails and state prisons!

They are imprisoned not because they are, by nature, criminal. They are imprisoned because their symptoms cannot always be managed with “pills” without adequate counseling and other therapies - and the public funds and the insurance payments for such therapies are lessened each year.

Today, in the Greater Rockford community, a family with a mentally ill child has to travel to the Chicago area suburbs if hospitalization is needed.

This fall, if Governor Quinn has his way with the budget cuts, the numbers of beds and treatment programs in Rockford and Dixon will shrink even further.

The Winnebago County jail, already close to [if not at] maximum capacity, will see even greater numbers of mentally ill persons because there are no other places for our law enforcement folks to house a mentally ill person when s/he is acting at risk to self or others!

My most recent blogs have referenced the ministries of Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Especially Niemoller’s poem:
   First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
   Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
   Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
   Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Today, in 2011, they are coming for the mentally ill.

Will you speak for them?

Will you contact Governor Quinn and your legislators that these are our family members and our neighbors – and they deserve better!

Bonhoeffer and Niemoller continued

2011-09-27T14:25:00.000-06:00

   As indicated, both Bonhoeffer & Niemoller raised significant issues as Nazism came to dominance:

• Initially, both hoped Hitler might restore Germany to a more promising future. The Versailles Treaty had imposed an onerous burden. Poverty was high. The Lutheran view of the two-kingdoms, secular and spiritual, made it more difficult to confront the political realm when civil programs contradicted the Gospel. Both spoke out. Both were imprisoned. One was executed.

• Bonhoeffer identified serious flaws in liberal theology! One was its contribution to the elevation of personal experience to an equal position with Scripture. Another was its reluctance to take stands – which helped many to see the church as having no relevance.

• Niemoller’s development revealed making choices relative to the events of the moment – and how he later had to confess, rescind & apologize for those choices. Such is easier in light of Luther’s exhortation to “sin boldly”. One cannot avoid making choices – and all choices are mixtures of good & bad. “Choose” – and then keep growing.

   Our world is radically different than theirs. Transportation, communication, technology - all make it easier to move beyond borders; to share knowledge with greater numbers of people; and to seriously challenge all efforts of claiming superiority for any one nation or belief system!

Yet the issues today are similar to those of the 1930s.

1. Certain groups/classes of persons are singled out as having especial relevance to the problems we face – e.g. persons with a different faith or a different sexual orientation.

2. Our economy’s radical changes in the past 2-3 decades have allowed one group to experience significant financial rewards – while causing others to suffer financial hardship. The numbers of folks in poverty keeps growing while we struggle with a more equitable way to distribute aid/assistance. Claiming fiscal debt as an excuse [ex causa > without cause], we see limits on programs to feed the increasing numbers of hungry or resources to treat the mentally ill or investments to develop educational programs that might prepare our children for life in the 21st century.

3. Often, perhaps to appear more “relevant”, liberal theology fails to identify those beliefs that are non-negotiable! This affords greater stature to those who claim the old “thou shalt nots”. Also, it makes it more difficult for youth to “rebel” – since there is little to push against!

4. In the United States, much of the progress today comes at the growing expense of the less fortunate.

5. While there are consequences if the clergy and/or the church fail to address these challenges – at this date those consequences are not as draconian as they were for Bonhoeffer & Niemoller.

   Unfortunately, we have not yet identified today’s Bonhoeffer and/or Niemoller! The flip side, tho, is the opportunity it grants each of us to dust off the educations received at seminary and to utilize those tools as we seek to preach and teach.

A. How might we, the called & ordained clergy, re-vitalize our own sense of Call so as to better confront the challenges which cause us to fear?

B. How does the historical critical approach to textual study address the struggles so many face when they seek to understand scripture? Living in a highly technological, scientific age makes it hard when seeking to understand many of the familiar stories. Our education gives us tools to help them recognize the “truth” in he story, while still affirming the story as a myth.

C. How might we re-structure the organizations to minimize the patterns of functioning so often as independent agents? Bonhoeffer & Niemoller assisted in forming the Confessing Church – and in the development of an underground seminary. This not only assisted & supported them – it gave others, equally disturbed at events, a place to come and be nourished.

We have the tools. We have the time. We have the freedom. Let us recognize the challenges and let us claim the opportunities.

Bonhoeffer and Niemoller

2011-09-16T13:28:00.000-06:00

I find myself thinking more often about the ministries of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller – both clergy in the time Hitler rose to power. Although both men spent much of WW II imprisoned, their significantly different paths to resistance offer insights as we face our “moral choices” today.

Niemoller was a man 100% invested in life as a German. In 1917 he enlisted in the German Navy and served as a very successful U-boat captain – earning the Iron Cross First Class. Then he tried his hand at farming – but gave it up due to a lack of funds for buying land and/or equipment.

He then decided to follow in his father’s footsteps. He went to seminary, was ordained in 1924 into the united Evangelical Church of the Prussian Union and in 1931 he became pastor at Jesus Christus Kirche in an affluent suburb of Berlin. In the early 1930s he was very conservative and supported those who would bring Hitler to power.

However, he spoke out against the Aryan Paragraph and joined Barth and Bonhoeffer in 1934 in founding the Confessional Church. Yet he also often spoke out against the Jews – stating in one sermon that it was their crucifixion of Jesus that brought them to their punishment!

No doubt, this man was a very perplexing enemy of the Nazis and Hitler. He was arrested in 1937, found guilty, fined 2,000 Reichmarks – and then freed with time served. Upon his release, however, he was arrested by the Himmler’s Gestapo. This time he was sentenced and interned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1938 – 1945. Probably it was his world-wide stature that saved him from execution.

Gradually throughout his life post-WW II he became an ardent pacifist, a campaigner for nuclear disarmament, a Vietnam War protester and active in the German peace movement

Bonhoeffer was 14 years younger. His experience with WW I was primarily the loss of his oldest brother, Walter. He surprised his parents, announcing his desire to become a theologian and a pastor. When told not to “waste his life in such a poor, feeble, boring, petty, bourgeois institution as the church”, this 14 year old replied: “If what you say is true, I shall reform it!”

From 1924-31 his life was primarily focused on academics. He spent time abroad in Spain as well as the U.S.; discovered Barth & Niehbur; experienced first-hand the “Gospel of Social Justice” as preached by African-American clergy – and, as he summarized, “..turned from phraseology to reality.” He believed the church was insensitive “to evident needs of the world” and “burying Christ in a load of religiosity”.

This led to his ordination in 1932 into the same Prussian united Evangelical Church. As Hitler’s power grew in 1933, he spoke to the need for the church to be resistant; worked with Niemoller to form the forerunner to the Confessing Church that was organized at Barmen in 1934.

Frustrated by the complacency he saw in his people, he spent time in London – then returned to Germany to organize an underground seminary at Finkenwalde – then was forced to flee to Switzerland in 1935. Over the next 3 years he obtained funding for the seminary and taught its students while “on the run” as the Gestapo shut down sites & jailed students. As WW II came closer, he had to choose between being drafted or refuse military service as a pacifist. In 1939 he left for New York – but returned before war erupted, believing he must stand with his people. He joined with others in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was arrested in April 1943: spent time in several prisons, including Buchenwald, and was hung April 9, 1945 at the Flossenberg prison.

Neither Dietrich nor Martin were saints! Both initially gave allegiance to the political structures, as preached within the two-kingdom theologies. Yet, they both realized that we are compelled by our faith to confront evil as it occurs in those kingdoms.

Niemoller is best known for this poem:
     First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
     Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
     Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
     Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

The next blog report will highlight who needs us to speak today in 2011!

ELIJAH and our economic crisis

2011-08-08T14:42:00.000-06:00

It was always stimulating to preach on texts which told the stories of the O.T. prophets. In Kings 19 we read about Elijah at a time of crisis – at least in his life as he saw it! Elijah has taken refuge in a cave when he hears the Lord saying, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” One can hear the pathos in his answer:

“I’ve been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.”

Certainly summarizes it very succinctly – “right now, Lord, life is not good!” However, if Elijah was hoping for some TLC such is dashed immediately:

“Go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”

Then ensues that wonderful scene in which a strong wind splits the mountain & breaks rocks, followed by an earthquake, then followed by a fire – and ending with the “sound of sheer silence”.

And bless him, Elijah hears that silence, wraps his mantle around his face & goes to the cave’s entrance. Maybe now the Lord will give him a kind word?

“What are you doing here, Elijah?”

OK – so maybe the Lord couldn’t hear him from the depth of the cave? So Elijah repeats:

“I’ve been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.”

“Then the Lord says……” a series of assignments!

• return to wilderness of Damascus

• anoint Hazael as king over Aram

• anoint Jehu as king over Israel

• anoint Elisha as your successor

* * * *

Fast forward to 2011. The economic calamities of recent years never seem to end! Greed and graft continue to hold reign in the financial industry as well as in our major corporations. Millions are unemployed with little prospects for being hired. Growing numbers in the U.S. are ill-fed, while in parts of the world are even starving to death daily. The casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan continue as does the violence in other countries.

Where is that cave?

And, if/when the Lord asks where we are? Well, we can tell him all the good we’ve done and all the evil that is out there and how our lives are at risk!

But we know the Lord will return – and, again, ask: Where are you? And, will give us our assignments.

1. Stop placing the blame “out there”. Yes, folks on Wall Street and in the banks and corporations and in politics have done many evil things – as such folks have always done throughout history.

2. Realize and accept that you have been unconscious for decades when it came to seeing what was happening. Accept how easy it was to deceive your self to believe you deserved whatever you wanted. How easy to not engage with politicians running for office so as to demand answers re: their values and goals.

3. Re-connect your age-old theology which recognized that “sin” – ie. being self centered – is your natural stance. If/when you worship, come in repentance. Seek ways to improve your communities. Reach out to the homeless, the lonely and the hungry.

Now is not the time to hide in a cave – regardless of how tempting. Now is the time to “gird up our loins”, get off our back-sides, and get involved in the work to which we’ve been called!

RANDOM BIBLE QUOTES AVOID DIALOGUE

2011-06-22T17:37:00.001-06:00

In my previous blog my concerns were the violence – verbal as well as physical – that is increasing in the issue of abortion:

    - patients coming to a clinic for an abortion must experience loud challenges to their very worth as human beings
    - violence, including murder, are increasingly “validated” if directed at abortion providers
    - persons seeking to affirm the legal and moral rights of persons to seek abortion are depicted meanly – again, both verbally as well as in print.

The Biblical passages used by the initial respondents to the blog not only do not address the concern about violence – they raise additional issues about which persons of faith have argued for centuries!
a. When does “life” begin? Quickening? Ensoulment? Birth?
      2000 years ago St. Augustine [and others] believed that through inter-course the male deposited a fully formed, albeit extremely small, person into the woman’s womb. There were some who believed that “quickening” [which occurred about the 40th day] was the point at which there was a live person in the womb.
     And, since 50-70% of all fertilized zygotes never achieve birth [failure to be implanted; spontaneous abortion; etc], it might seem that “nature” has a very “iffy” approach to protecting that “life” in the early stages!

b. Zygote, embryo, fetus – equally persons?
     Until the Middle Ages the common view [of popes, councils & theologians] held that individual human life – ie. ensoulment and/or personhood – began after b40 days for males and 90 for females. Aquinas, and others, did not believe that the early embryo had a soul. While they did believe abortion to be wrong – they did not see it to be murder!
     The Creation stories in Genesis suggest that “personhood” comes after birth. It is after God breathes life into them that they are held accountable as moral agents.
     While Exodus does affirm a punishment to anyone who causes a woman to “lose her child” – that punishment is not death [the usual punishment for murder].

c. Selective Judgment!
     The verses offered do lift up the worth of every living being – not just those residing in a womb! We, as a nation, wage wars in which thousands of innocent civilians are killed – and we accept that as collateral damage. We, as a nation, allow thousands of our fellow citizens to go hungry daily – and argue that such is due to laziness [avoiding or cutting programs that, as in the Book of Acts, treat us all as being of one community.]

d. S/he without sin cast the first stone!
     While the concept that we are all, by nature, sinners is debatable – my blog did not suggest any thought that abortion may involve sinfulness! My plea is to respect the woman as a responsible decision maker who has considered all the many options and decided that abortion is best for her! Why should she be held to a standard of liability that is not applied to others whose decisions also impact “innocent” lives?

Modernity gives us knowledge about the reproduction system far beyond that known by those in the early centuries of our religion. They were willing, however, to struggle as they sought answers – and, as subsequent data became known, were willing to change their pronouncements.

It is my hope that we might show the same care and concern for each other as they did – and seek ways to proclaim God’s Good News – rather than cruelly judging each other as imperfect beings – sinners!

"Religion" and Violence

2011-06-13T17:00:00.003-06:00

Particularly since 9-11-01, many of us have become aware of ways of violence used by people to control the lives of others. We have seen such violence especially used to control women in other cultures – keeping them from being educated; keeping them from exercising freedoms re: dress or driving or even being seen in public; even demanding violent surgery to insure that they experience no joy from intercourse [even with their husbands!].

The major share of that violent activity gets identified with an ultra-conservative crowd within Islam. Some nations enact laws to control that behavior of Muslims they find troubling:
- France bans women from wearing the face veil
- Other European countries enact similar constraints
- Even within the U.S. there are attempts to enact laws against any employment of Sharia laws

Such legal bans, perhaps understandable, are unfortunate:
1. They employ the same approach as that used by the oppressors we wish to curtail.
2. We know not to judge all of Islam on the basis of that conservative group! We know they misuse their own sacred writings – and succeed because much of the population under their control are uneducated and are unable to read the Koran for themselves.

What troubles me even more than those activities within Islam are similar activities within Christianity!
a. Visit the corner of Broadway and 10th on an early Wednesday or Friday morning! That is the location of the Northern Illinois Women’s Center [the only place within 14 counties where a woman may obtain a safe and legal abortion]. Watch the behavior as protesters against abortion surge towards the woman’s auto as she approaches the parking lot. Listen to the insulting and demeaning shouts she must endure as she walks to the clinic door.
b. Consider the subtle ways we allow Canon Law to structure controls on aspects of our society. Communities across the land with access to health care limited to Catholic owned/operated facilities are unable to obtain a tubal ligation, a vasectomy, or even as assisted pregnancy.
c. Think about the doctors and nurses, involved in providing legal and safe abortions, who have been murdered! The man who killed Dr. Tiller [while he attended his Lutheran church in Wichita] defended his action by invoking his understanding of what the Bible told him to do when children are victimized! This year we even had one state [South Dakota] attempt to pass legislation that would remove any criminal consequences for one who slays an abortion provider!

I know not to judge all of Christianity by the actions of those few! But if we Christians want the moderate Muslims to address their issues of violence – then it is time we Christians do the same!

Such behaviors are acts of “terrorism”. They are attempts to “bully” the woman. They are wrong!

I. We must communicate to our elected officials that we will not tolerate any of their behavior that cedes “aid and comfort” to these terrorists – and, we will judge such acts [when done] as being “terrorist” activities in themselves.

II. We must become involved in supporting those programs which, legally, are offering not only access to abortions – but full medical care for low income women! [Such as Planned Parenthood.]

III. We must educate our people that “personhood” does not begin at conception! As it says in Genesis 2:7 – “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” [NRSV]

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

2011-02-25T15:05:00.000-06:00

In 2011, with unemployment hovering at the 10% level [and even higher if you are a person of color or lack a good H.S. education] and hundreds/thousands putting their lives on the line in the Middle East to secure basic human rights, why are so many politicians across the land focusing their attention upon “reproductive rights”?

• The Federal government seeks to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood – an organization that assists poor women in seeking mammograms and pap smears and which does more than any other organization to curtail unwanted pregnancies.

• State governments seek to force physicians to make pregnant women watch a sonogram if they are considering termination of that pregnancy.

• Publicly licensed and accredited hospitals refuse to allow in vitro fertilization or tubal ligation or vasectomy – and will not allow a therapeutic abortion even to save the life of the mother.

• Anti-abortion groups continue to exert extreme pressure [up to and including murder] on those who would operate a clinic in which a woman could secure a safe abortion. They also operate so-called ‘Pregnancy Centers’ which refuse to refer a client for an abortion and exert pressure on the woman to place the baby for adoption.

Why are these actions tolerated?

 Almost 50 years ago we fought states whose laws prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

 Over 38 years ago, after years of efforts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was a legal right for a woman to seek and obtain a medically safe abortion.

 Since that time many of our major denominations have supported that right [to be fair, some see it as a tragic circumstance that ought to be avoid].

Almost within hours of the Roe v Wade decision, a clinic was initiated in Rockford to assist women seeking to abort their pregnancies. Staffed by fully accredited and licensed physicians and nurses and counselors, the clinic opened on the campus of a local hospital! This location recognized that this was a legal medical procedure – and provided close and available back-up assistance if an emergency arose.

No hospital employee was forced to participate and, while recognized the rights of people to protest – the woman could enter the medical campus without hateful shouting directed at her.

Then, in the mid-1980s, the hospital gave in to pressures. A group of local clergy informed the hospital that their parishioners would choose to go elsewhere for medical services. A group of physicians threatened to move elsewhere if [a] the Clinic was not ejected and [b] the physician was removed from staff privileges.

Today the Clinic operates from an old school building far removed from other medical care services. And, in 2011 only 13% of all the counties in the U.S. have services that will provide an abortion.

Have any of you visited the Northern Illinois Women’s’ Center on a day they are open?; to see what women have to endure in order to obtain a legal medical procedure? Do any of you know what the staff must endure – the threats of physical violence to them and their families as well as stalking when they grocery shop or yelling at their kids?

I ask again: Why are these actions tolerated?

LET'S YOU AND HIM FIGHT!

2011-02-21T16:17:00.000-06:00

A favorite tactic of a bully is to get others involved in fighting each other. That way the bully succeeds if keeping any scrutiny off him/her – and has the possibility that “you and him” will so hurt each other as to allow the bully to stay in power!

That seems to be the tactic being used across our nation as elected officials seek to deal with serious financial problems. Rather than serious discussion towards development of plans that would spread the tasks more equitably across all citizens, these “bully politicians” use the time-honored “let’s you and them fight”!

The “them” is always the label given to some group that can easily be accused of being the “fault” for our financial problems:
• In the 1930s as Germany struggled with her financial difficulties, their leadership identified the Jews and the Gypsies to blame.
• In the 1940s as Stalin increased control over the citizens of the U.S.S.R. it was child’s play to pitch one “tribe” or nationality against the other.
• At various times in our own history there have been efforts to place the blame on the “blacks”..African Americans.

And today, in February 2011, it is the Unions who are to blame for our financial woes.

Poppycock!

The average “unionized” government worker earns about $45,000 annually plus benefits. When s/he retires, they draw on average $19,000 annually [which is about what they would draw through Social Security]. In recent years these state workers have had forced days off without pay and reduced hours.

They are not the problem. Each of us knows it.

Of course it would be easy to mimic the approach and get everyone angry at the “them” – that 2% of the population who control more than 20% of our nation’s wealth. Easy – but just as wrong as it is when “blame” is assigned to any other group.

The financial mess of today does not have one single cause – thus, no one silver bullet will fix.

The financial mess of today will require sacrifices across the board – perhaps using a plan Luke describes in Acts 2:45. “They would sell their property and possessions, and distribute the money among all, according to what each one needed.” Sounds socialistic, doesn’t it?

Let’s demand that our elected leaders immediately cease all efforts which suggest one or other group is responsible for our financial woes – and, instead, demand that they work with us to develop plans and programs that will enable us to once again be a Nation in which each person can be gainfully employed at a wage capable of sustaining a family and of sustaining dreams for our children.

Let’s stop asking “you and him to fight.”

Stop! In the name of love.

2011-02-20T16:13:00.000-06:00

Sung by Diana Ross, “Stop in the name of love” is one of my favorites. Remember the words?

Stop! In the name of love; Before you break my heart.
Think it over.

I was originally going to title this blog, “Stop in the name of god.” but realized that in all the world’s major religious faiths, “love” is another name for God. Besides, I think “love” also more aptly describes my concerns.

When Matthew reports that Jesus said: “You will always have poor people with you…” {Mt. 26:11) he was not excusing us from all the many ways our God obligates us to care for the least among us! Not only the God of Abraham; not only the God whose son we call Jesus; but the God of each world religion! Irrespective of how people worship, all are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give refuge to the homeless, etc.

True, Jesus is reported to have said these words in response to a criticism from a disciple who suggested that the expensive perfume used by a woman to anoint him might better have been used to take care of the poor!

So even 2000 years ago, humans used the “poor” as a means of criticizing each other! Just as we do increasingly in 2011!

Have you noticed that efforts to solve the budget crisis at every level – federal, state and local – are attempts to further impact the poor! In Boone County, one of the first proposals was to eliminate a program at the Health Department that assisted the poor with contraception! On a state level, let’s go after the pensions of the teachers and nurses and other care givers! Nationally, let’s eliminate those programs that are snidely referred to as “entitlements” – as if it were bad to use your money that for years went to Social Security – and was for years annually raided – to help live in retirement!

And let’s eliminate programs at every level that some judge to be sinful! Programs such as Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio or the National Endowment for the Arts – which make us a richer and more educated nation.

But other programs many feel are even more sinful – programs that support a war industry without peer in the world or programs that make legal an industry that equips guns with the tools needed to kill dozens within seconds!

Those are our rights! The poor? So be it.

We maintain the myth of being a nation in which religion is important. And not just any religious faith – we support the myth we are a Christian Nation. If that is so, then let’s heed the words:

Stop! In the name of love before you break my heart. Think it over.

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

2011-02-12T11:48:00.000-06:00

Lately I’ve been thinking that Yogi Berra was correct when he said: “It feels like déjà vu all over again!”

Did we ever really have the ‘60s? A time when we marched for, and won, Civil Rights? A time when we joined together as a nation and began the War on Poverty? When we realized that slightly more than 50% of the population were women – and they deserved rights no less than ours as men?

Today, in 2011, Racism appears even more deeply entrenched than the 60’s – because we do not even recognize its presence! What, me a racist?

Today, in 2011, our War on Poverty has more aptly become a War Against the Poor! Every effort by government to “balance the budget” – from local to national – starts with cuts to programs whose purpose is to help the poor!

And today, in 2011, across the nation there are efforts to pass laws restricting the rights of women! Oh they might seem equal for both sexes – but increasing rules regarding contraceptives and other reproductive choices really place a greater burden on women. Women are the ones who become pregnant. Women are the ones who, for 9 months, need to carry the fetus until birth. Women are more frequently the ones who bear the burden of single-parent parenting.

Once there were efforts in society to insure that a woman would have access to a secure and safe place to terminate a pregnancy if she so desired. After the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Woe V Wade, Rockford Memorial Hospital made space available on their campus for one of their medical staff to open such a place A service that worked diligently to provide counseling for each woman to help her with the decision she made – regardless if she did or did not have the abortion.

Today, in 2011, elements in our community put enough pressure on Rockford Health System so as to force that service away from the campus. Today, many of those same elements, operate a program whose name appears to offer help for a problem pregnancy – but, in actuality, is a program that only helps if the woman opts to remain pregnant; a program that only supports abstinence only contraception; a program that is biased towards placing the baby up for adoption!

And those same elements send pickets to the Center where women can seek a medically safe abortion so as to shout invectives at them when they move from the parking lot to the Center. These elements only differ by degrees from those who have murdered physicians who do provide abortions!

Why have we become so enamored with sex as if that were the only issue about which God is concerned?

• Would not God be concerned with the way racism continues to negatively impact our schools?

• Would not God be concerned that the numbers of people living below the poverty line grows yearly – and that hunger impacts more children daily?

• Would not God be concerned that our wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians?

• Would not God be concerned at our running battle with others as to whose god is the biggest or strongest?

Why is it déjà vu all over again!”

Pompous Piety

2011-01-03T14:54:00.000-06:00

In line behind an SUV & waiting for a green light, this large sticker-message jumped to prominence. It was a quote from Pope John Paul II:

"A Nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope."

The message was clear – “anti-abortion”!

Still, it caused me to ponder all the other “messages” also possible:
• A nation that ignores the rising numbers of children – and adults – who go hungry every day is a nation without hope.
• A nation that ignores the thousands of civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by wars that were declared based upon dishonesty is a nation without hope.
• A nation that would rather support large profits for pharmaceutical companies, ignoring the millions left unable to obtain adequate treatment, is a nation without hope.

You get the idea as to where my thinking went – and where it is!

It is very easy to “sound” pious. That is no less true today then it was in Jesus’ time as well as in the times of most O.T. prophets. Religious people are easily swayed by “teachers of piety” who rather focus our attention on “little things”. “Things” like whether or not one should heal on the Sabbath! Or whether one should be friends with sinners – or even worse, worship with those who believe differently than we!

Such “piety” even extends to adorning scripture with an infallibility it never enjoyed until recent centuries. [Even Augustine stated that arguing over interpretations was foolish since none of the present day listeners really knew exactly what was said – or what the speaker meant.]
• So, in one local congregation there was negative reaction to the preacher suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale was a metaphor! “Are you saying, pastor, that the whale did not swallow Jonah?”
• In another, when the preacher suggested that the hostilities enacted by our nation were contrary to the message of Jesus, he was reminded that preachers should avoid talking about politics! [Meaning, of course, that the accusers were ignorant re: much of the O.T.!]
• And, fortunately in only a few other congregations, preachers led some parishes out of the E.L.C.A. to protest the decision re: homosexuality practices – while ignoring that the same O.T. book permitted the slaying of one’s children if they misbehaved!

Such “piety” is even extended towards judging whether or not science has validity apart from theological pronouncements [such as was true in the 16th century when Galileo was declared wrong]. So, when science suggests that some of our activities are causing environmental changes that are impacting global weather – one Federal legislator quotes from the story of the flood in Genesis to suggest the science is wrong. Or when science discovers evidence of life from 100s of thousands of years ago, they are refuted by giving numbers to the stories in Scripture and declare that the world is not that old! Or when science exhibits clear links between all creation [evolution?], they are refuted by quoting one of the Creation stories from Genesis. Again, even Augustine argued that when theology was challenged by the findings of science – it was the duty of theology to change!

These thoughts led me to give title to this form of piety – Pompous Piety. Pompous Piety is not directed towards one’s behavior – either correcting it or leading it – but towards making the person feel better. And, if that is the purpose of ministry we have moved almost diametrically opposite from the challenge of Jesus.

ON DOING GOOD

2010-11-21T14:25:00.000-06:00

Prior to the close of the 15th century, “good” was defined politically by the King/Emperor and religiously/theologically by the priest/rabbi/imam. Thus, “doing good” was essentially being obedient to the rules. True, occasionally there were attempts to define “good” as something other than simply obedience to rules. Jesus, in response to being called a “good teacher” asked why he was called good. “No one is good except God alone.” [Mark 10:18] He, then, went on to say that “doing good” meant giving away everything you own and following as his disciple!

Moving into the 16th century significant changes began, which continue their dynamic challenges to defining “good” even today:

• The printing press made possible greater education of even the peasant, enabling her/him to challenge authorities.

• The monolithic empire[s] began to face significant challenges which began to lessen the absolute power of political leaders to declare unilaterally what was good.

• The Age of Enlightenment broadened our horizons in every sphere of human study. The earth was not flat. The sun did not orbit the earth. Universes existed beyond our own.

• Now, in this 21st century, technology confronts us with neighbors around the globe – neighbors who are greatly different than we in customs and beliefs. Unless we wish to continue in a world in which these differences may only be settled on battlefields, we need to re-examine our own customs and beliefs relative to their being “absolutes”.

• Democracy and Capitalism and the Free Market have enabled greater numbers to enrich themselves. Our prosperity in the U.S.A. far surpasses any other nation around the globe.

These, and more, add complexity to the struggle to define and/or discern “good”. If the basic value of Capitalism is to make a profit; and, if Democracy and the Free Market endow me with certain inalienable rights – then is the sky the limit? If I’m smart enough to develop a financial system so complex that most are unable to understand – and if that system is able to skirt the fine line between “legal” and “illegal” – well, aren’t I entitled to the vast riches such processes may make possible?

For greater numbers today, the only impediment to any behavior is “getting caught”. A study developed by a Wharton accounting professor examined why educated top executives become inclined to fraudulent behavior. One is ego! Their over-confidence in their own abilities lead them to take chances with their firms – and, if those chances have negative results, their ego lets them believe that they will be successful in restoring prosperity. Two – is if the fear of getting caught is high or low! {Sounds like the process I used in my teens!]

Since the 16th century countless philosophers, theologians and others have struggled with trying to discern the ways by which “good” is defined and the processes whereby “good” is attained. Is it rule based – or by the ends? Is it something innate within us {like conscience?] or group pressure [likes laws?]

As we continue the struggle, it is wise to remember that pure altruism doesn’t exist – all of us have egos that tempt us to act as if are the center – the be-all and end-all. Further, it is wise to remember that all of us monitor our behavior with a glance to see if we will be caught [does anyone truly drive the exact speed-limit?]

Needed are serious conversations that support us in the realization that we are all in this “life-boat” together – and that any behavior that threatens to sink the boat has consequences for me as well as you!

The Blame Game

2010-11-18T16:00:00.001-06:00

It appears that every geographic political entity in our nation has significant financial problems. At the city/town, state and federal levels, spending is as levels beyond income!

Nor should that be surprising. Unemployment is high; workers often have to take reduced wages to keep their jobs; and, housing values have shrunk to new lows. Each of these factors means lower tax income for the governing bodies.

Anxieties and fears are natural responses. We know answers must be discovered – and, that such answers will probably be painful!

However, rather than engaging in serious and rational discussion, many politicians and pundits invite us to play the “blame game”.

• It’s the liberals fault.

• It’s the conservatives fault.

• It’s the fault of the poor.

• It’s the fault of the rich.

And, on local levels that game extends even to others in our own communities:

• The firemen get paid too much.

• The police get paid too much.

• The teachers get paid too much.

• Each of “them” should take a cut in pay – you name the percentage.

Yet, we know that the “blame game” solves nothing! As Walt Kelly taught us in the comic strip Pogo, “we has met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

There will be no solution without some increase in taxes at every level. Yes, times are tight. Yes, funds are limited. But the use of cell phones and the internet and hi-def tv are all higher, so some of us must have some money.

We need to confront those who would have us turn on each other as if “they” were the villains. We need to challenge politicians and pundits to engage us in serious conversations as to what services we might be willing to forfeit and what services might we be willing to pay an increased tax to keep.

Leaders in every human organization are imperfect creatures – as are we. It is my belief, though, that most leaders and most citizens want to work together to discern solutions rather than continue the “blame game: which only further polarizes us at a time when we need to unite.

The Existence of God - Part 2

2010-09-22T13:48:00.000-06:00

As stated in my prior blog on “The Existence of God”, this phrase from Mortimer Adler has become a challenge for me:

“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They even may wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if the God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion".

For almost my entire ministry there has been recognition of a need to re-think the basic creeds of the church. This is not because the apostles or the folks at Nicaea were wrong! Rather, our knowledge of/about the world today is radically different!

• Some of those differences might even have made it easier for the conferees as Nicaea. Quantum physics would support their struggles about “matter”, and whether or not Jesus was “in” or “of” or “out of”.

• Our awareness of a round earth, rather than a flat one, challenges us re: heaven as “up” or hell as “down”. We know there are many universes with multiple galaxies. If heaven and hell are actual structures “out” there, then travel to them might one day be possible. If, instead, they are only structures of thought, then Jesus’ descent after his crucifixion and his ascent days or weeks later must be re-worked.

• The Genesis creation accounts suggest that we humans were/are created in God’s image. Must we really throw accusations of paganism if some wish to include this awareness as they recite a creed or pray in the words of Jesus? Believing in “God the Mother Almighty, creator of heaven and earth” or praying to “Our Mother, who art in heaven” – these are not simply minor efforts towards inclusive language or being more feminine! They point to some deep aspects about creation and about who we are – aspects we are challenged to understand.

In his book A Case for the Existence of God, Dean Overman does a good job revealing that science and religion are not inherently incompatible. He gives excellent examples of how the insights of modern astrology, physics, mathematics and other sciences most often enhance or expand on the presence and realities of the spiritual.

Overman also is very clear: science is only able to take us so far. A “leap of faith” is still mandated.

- Not, however, a “blind” faith [which is more magical than it is faith].

- Learning that creation is billions of years old are not a rejection of the biblical stories and time-lines. Affirming that God is truly God means realizing that the process of creation is not for us to impose.

- Refusing, or being hesitant, to assign anthropomorphic details to God is actually an even greater leap of faith!

Such are starts. Certainly more needs to be examined:

 Since God IS God, there is a need to wrestle with other “tribes” in creation who see or name God differently.

 Since, or so it seems, that in creation God has given humanity the tools and skills to explore even the very “dna” of creation – blanket acceptance or denial of those explorations serves neither God nor humanity.

 Putting greater trust in this God should reduce the levels of fear so significant in society! We are not in charge! And, the One in charge obviously has shown love for that which has been, and is being, created.

More in up-coming blog reports.

Definitions Count!

2010-09-18T15:53:00.000-06:00

In the September 21st issue of Christian Century is the following headline – “Conservative Lutherans organize new church body”. The story refers to the formation of the North American Lutheran Church [NALC] by 18 congregations that have elected to leave the ELCA “following their decision to allow noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy and to allow churches to bless same-sex relationships.”

Such actions frequently choose to cloak their works as being “conservative” – I suppose as being the opposite of “liberal”.

Unfortunately the words “conservative” and “liberal” have come to have almost no accepted meaning that allows dialogue to proceed! The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines conservative as: “1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., and to agree with gradual rather than abrupt change; 2. cautiously moderate; 3. traditional in style or manner, avoiding showiness.”

The formation of another church body hardly seems, then, to be a “conservative” act!

Indeed, certain comments from varied leaders of the move seem to suggest else-wise:

1. Ryan Schwarz, vice chair of Lutheran CORE [the organizing group for the new church body] is quoted as saying that the “ELCA’s policy on same-sex relationships is a “symptom” rather than a cause of the unhappiness over the ELCA.” While many of us treat symptoms often casually, it is not usually good medicine! For example, a persistent pain in one’s chest “might” be muscular [and might be treatable with a muscle relaxant], but it could also be cardio-vascular and, if untreated, could lead to death!

One would like to think those wishing to form a new organization would invest the time and energy and serious study so as to investigate the causes for the symptom – rather than simply identifying the action of the ELCA as “un-biblical”.

2. Schwartz alludes to another occurrence as equally disturbing. “One ELCA synod held a service in which several versions of the Lord’s Prayer were recited, including one in which ‘the Mother who is within us’ was evoked. To us, that appears to be close to paganism.

Since being “conservative” means being “moderate”, one would hope that those in this new organization might take the time to study the many references to the feminine aspects of God – references which would suggest that God is both feminine and masculine!

3. When further queried as to why the dissenters simply didn’t join the “more conservative” Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Schwarz indicated that those joining NALC do not agree with Missouri’s “very literal” interpretation of the Scripture nor support its ban on ordination of women.

One wonders if Schwarz was present for any of the many ELCA Assembly meetings over the 18 years the issue was discussed! “Literal interpretation” of scripture was a major factor to those voting “no”. There were also the same arguments made as were made before the LCA [a predecessor body of the ELCA] voted to ordain women: “If the church through the centuries has held firm to the idea that women should not be ordained [or to the idea that marriage must be between a man and a woman], one should refrain from taking actions that would move the church in a new direction.

This is another issue that illustrates our need to seriously study about and reflect upon our understanding about and of God! Believing in a living and dynamic God who continues to move forward with creation can be scary. It often means giving up our securities – which become seen as helpful as hiding under our desks in an atomic attack [a wisdom of the 1960s]!

That is why we call our belief in God “faith”. “Faith” is not the absence of or the contradiction to “reason” It is the “leap” we must all take after we have used our reason to include all the knowledge available to us in the 21st century.

Existence of God

2010-09-16T15:32:00.000-06:00

For various reasons I’ve been re-thinking a phrase Mortimer Adler [former philosophy professor at both Columbia University & the University of Chicago] wrote decades ago about our need to think about our faith. He wrote:

“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They even may wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if the God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition .”

Coupled with that observation is one offered by Dean Overman in his book A Case for the Existence of God. Overman states:

“The answer one gives to the question of God’s existence influences one’s perception of the world, the concept of one’s place in the world, and the life one leads.”

“Thinking about one’s faith” and about the “question of God’s existence” have become high priorities for my life. Priorities demanded because of the many challenges of 21st century life.

• For almost two decades the E.L.C.A. struggled with the issues associated with homosexuality, especially as those issues relate to ordained service. Almost “regardless” of excellent study papers, many chose “not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought”!

• At the weekly Pericope study session we are confronted with stories and parables and incidents that “imply” an existence of God whose behavior towards creation is often at odds with what many generally believe. Do we still hold on to a “creed” which consigns Lazarus to heaven [because he suffered in life] and the rich man to hell [because he ignored Lazarus]? Do we still believe in heaven and hell as “real” places – or are they only mental concepts?

• The advantages we enjoy [in medicine, technology, et al] reflect the significant changes that have happened because of our understandings about matter, physics, “laws of nature”, etc. There is no desire to automatically accept these advantages without reflections on what they may say about old ways of thinking – nor is there a willingness to ignore them in hopes they will go away.

o Some of the advantages from quantum physics offer ways to view healing that are, in my opinion, more in line with the ways Jesus approached healing!

o Centuries after Columbus [or the Norwegian Erickson] proved the world is not flat and we readily accept the views of Copernicus and Galileo about the sun and the earth, how might we improve our teachings that, too often, still posit a flat earth in which the sun revolves around us!

o You, the readers, could probably add dozens of other advantages that demand we change.

• The idea of “neighbor” is radically different than the idea of my youth! Then, people of other faiths lived in far off lands that seldom entered my consciousness. It made some sense to support “missions” to them [although even then the idea that people in other lands who had never heard of Jesus were consigned to hell felt outrageous to me].

Today those “people” are now my neighbors. They frequently come with different answers to the questions about the existence of God. Doesn’t this require re-examining the idea that salvation is only through Jesus the Christ?

It is my belief that we – as pastors – are obligated to wrestle with questions of faith and God’s existence. That is why Lutherans require years of education rather than simply being “nice” young men or women. Our laity are well equipped to do many of the “pastoral” functions we often use as ways to avoid the serious study required by 21st century life.

If interested, stay “tuned” as I wrestle with these questions in future blogs.

Intractability

2010-06-14T15:53:00.000-06:00

Across almost every spectrum today, life seems increasingly defined by intractable positions:
- Pro-choice or Anti-abortion
- Acceptance of homosexuality as valid or Against homosexuality as valid
- Being Liberal or Being Conservative
- Accepting Climate Change as an issue with which to struggle or Rejecting Climate Change as a scam used to advance other causes
- Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Perhaps it has always been so – but it seems to me that it was once possible to engage in dialogue without demonizing or being demonized! One simply disagreed - and attempted to seek greater understanding of the “other’s” truth. Across every spectrum such “dialogues” were usually the pre-cursor of advanced knowledge or wisdom – or, at least were moments when folks agreed to disagree while still supporting each other as persons of worth and value.

Such increasing Intractability is one of our greatest threats today! It often paralyzes our governmental legislative activities; it threatens our mission as a Church; it impedes our efforts to seek solutions to modern crises [which, too often, result from holding fast to one or the other side as being absolutely true!].

It can be scary to be open to exploring a view that is seemingly the total opposite from one’s present position. While years later we may look back upon such fears as groundless or even silly, they were/are real at the time!
- If we ordain women, as the Lutheran Church in America proposed in 1970, what will happen? Is it against Scripture? Will it result in fewer men in ministry? Will we accept that women will/should do ministry differently?
- If we make various forms of birth control more easily available, will men and women be responsible sexually? Will we so reduce our population as to endanger our nations? Will it be possible for men to live as equals with women regards to family planning?
- How do we wrestle with issues about life and what actions might be acceptable?
o Is war ever “justified”? Is the life of a non-combatant [read civilian] of value or just “collateral” damage?
o Is abortion a valid choice for a pregnant woman?
o Is it acceptable for a person, being kept uncomfortably alive by modern medical technology, to request termination of all such technology? To even request that s/he be given the means of terminating that life?

If we are to move forward in this 21st century there has to be opportunities where women and men of good faith can engage in such discourse without being demonized or simply put in some “box”. There has to be willingness to identify those aspects about which all might agree. There has to be willingness to accept the “other” as being equally as sincere as one’s self – and a willingness to risk living in society with the “other” without either controlling.

Several weeks ago the young seminarian preaching at our church [on the Sunday in which Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead] reminded me/us that when matters become hard to understand, remember that the command of Jesus was to love each other. Certainly I’d heard that many times before – but on that Sunday it was like “Good News”. A reminder that I may never fully understand the “other”; that I will probably always need to live in a life of paradox; that sometimes living will be scary – BUT, all I am required is to Love the Other.

That Love, I believe, is the only way to begin easing the intractability which is so impeding life in 2010!

Catholicism versus Catholic

2010-06-05T11:41:00.000-06:00

Recent issues of the Rockford Register Star have printed letters re: the proposed acquisition of Rockford Health System by OSF. One, by a Barbara Fell, opposed it because: 1. “a religiously based system should not be allowed to dominate the community”; 2. “the problems that accompany overpopulation in countries like Haiti are because of the Catholic Church’s position on abortion”; 3. “crucifixes in doctors’ offices are offensive”. [As paraphrased by a subsequent writer.]
Dr. David Cheng wrote in support, particularly responding to Ms. Fell’s arguments by judging them to be “overt anti-Catholic sentiments” and thus, “less than credible”!
While legitimate arguments could be brought to bear on her alleged reasons for opposition, to dismiss them because Dr. Cheng perceives them as “overt” and “anti-Catholic” reflects a too common mistake in public discourse. One can be against certain beliefs and practices of “Catholicism” yet not be “anti Catholic”!
Significant research supports this. A large percentage of Catholics disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church about birth control – yet their weekly participation in worship would not support the idea they are “anti-Catholic”.
Many non-Catholics [myself included] are not anti-Catholic, but very much opposed to having teachings of the Roman Catholic Church direct our health care.
It is very important to our community that the dialogue regards to the proposed acquisition not be stifled by name calling!

We - not He!

2010-01-23T14:58:00.000-06:00

A familiar mantra of the 2008 presidential campaign was Barack Obama’s Yes we can!

Yes we can – reclaim the values of honesty, integrity and compassion that are (and, have been) so important in our nation’s history!

Yes we can – extend equal access to prompt and appropriate medical care to all of our citizens!

Yes we can – reduce our military spending abroad so we might re-build our infrastructures!

Yes we can – repudiate the culture of greed which brought us, and the world, to the brink of economic disaster; and, reclaim the culture that developed honest jobs and wages so all citizens could achieve the American dream!

Yes we can.

Hopes were high when Mr. Obama was sworn in as President in January 2009.
The financial catastrophe still loomed in the background, but there was hope that we had avoided falling off the cliff and that a stimulus package would help develop new jobs.
Millions were not insured for medical care, but there was hope that a bi-partisan effort in the U.S. Senate would be able to craft appropriate legislation to rectify the problem.
There were still significant partisan divisions, but there was hope that civility would enable us to have productive dialogue so as to craft ideas that took the best from all views!

Now, one year later, it is not uncommon to hear complaints re: the accomplishments [or lack] of President Obama! Even many supporters, my self included, have been heard to claim disappointment that we still have high unemployment, health-care reform appears moribund, Wall Street and greed appear to be back in charge, and our troops are danger’s way in two foreign lands.

Why doesn’t he . . . . . . .?

Then I remembered. Candidate Obama never campaigned on “Yes I can” – it was Yes we can.

As Pogo reminded us years ago, “I has met the enemy – and it is us!” Democracy is a participatory form of government. The problems our nation faces will only be resolved when we – the citizens – become involved. Letters to elected officials, at every level of government, are not a costly form of involvement. Letters to corporations, believed to be acting contrary to our public interest, are sensitive to public opinion because they do wish to make a profit.

We are a very fortunate people. We live, even the poorest amongst us, with luxuries beyond what large numbers of folks around the world can even hope to attain. We do have freedoms that folks still want to come here to enjoy.

So, Yes we can is still a valid mantra.

Let’s make 2010 a year when We get involved in making the dreams come true.

Reflections on Nature, Nurture and the Church

2009-11-12T18:09:00.002-06:00

Pussy cat, pussy cat
Where have you been?
I’ve been to London to see the Queen!

Pussy cat, pussy cat
What did you there?
I frightened a mouse under a chair!

It was at a large, downtown U.C.C. congregation in Honolulu that I first heard that child’s rhyme used in a sermon. My friend and colleague, Pr. William Miller, reminded the listeners of how often we miss out on “opportunities” because we become side-tracked with lesser pursuits. While it is in the nature of cats to pursue mice, a more educated cat might have seized the opportunity to discuss greater freedom for catnip with the Queen!

James Carroll, a columnist for the Boston Globe, a former priest in the Roman Catholic Church, and the author of several books focusing on the need for on-going reform within the Church, wrote: “By focusing exclusively on the abortion issue in the health-care debate, the Catholic Church is sabotaging its broader moral mission.”

His words could even be expanded further to include many denominations and their almost obsessive focus on any issue involving sex, sexuality, reproduction and science!
* In the E.L.C.A. we have pastors and congregations withholding funds from various ministries and exploring options for the creation of a new Lutheran entity!
* The political leadership in Washington D.C. is considering passage of a bill that would make discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transvestites – and the Roman Catholic Diocese has threatened to withdraw from the many contracts for social services within the city! These contracts operate homeless shelters, hunger programs, etc.
* The L.C.-M.S. has issued a letter of concern about the passage of a Federal bill making it a hate crime to inflict physical harm upon an individual because s/he is homosexual. The concern is that such a law might inhibit a preacher from labeling homosexuality a sin!
* Roman Catholic leaders in several large state dioceses are engaged in pressuring legislators in both the House and the Senate to include very restrictive language against abortion in any health care reform legislation.

The ministry of Jesus continues to be “Good News” regarding the love God has for all creation; that all people have worth and value regardless of their gender or financial worth or even sinfulness; and, that as his followers we are to love our neighbor and to seek justice! Such was the work in the early centuries – work that so impressed the political leaders that persecution was stopped and inclusion as the state religion was afforded.

Our world needs such a message today – and we, as followers of Jesus, have tremendous opportunity to witness to that love.

We ought not squander that opportunity with actions that seem to imply that God is single-mindedly focused on sex and any actions some see as aberrations!

Are we only able in 2009 to “frighten mice” under a chair – or will we be bold enough to direct attention on the many ways modern corporate life harms individuals and on how the focus on greed infected all of us? Will we let our “nature” direct us – or will we reflect the nurturing we have received because of God’s love?

Reflections at an Ordination

2009-11-03T16:48:00.000-06:00

On All Saints Day 2009 an Ordination Service was celebrated by the Northern Illinois Synod, E.L.C.A. at First Lutheran Church in Rockford, Illinois. It was a joyous occasion as Ordinands, families and friends, members of the congregations being served by these new Pastors, and colleagues in ministry gathered to observe and affirm their responses to the Call!

Sitting in that historic sanctuary there were many thoughts and feelings. One was to recall my own ordination back in 1957 – and to recall the admonition of our preacher that “one cannot be a good pastor and a poor father or a poor husband!” The only change needed in 2009 would be “or a poor mother or a poor wife”. One cannot use ministry as an excuse from the responsibilities that go with marriage and parenting.

There were at least two other thoughts which drew me to reflecting.

The First Lutheran Congregation and Edifice.
The First Lutheran Church confronts one with its awesomeness even from the parking lot. Twin bell towers stand at her entrance and the sanctuary, offices and parking lot occupy almost 2 city blocks! This sense of awe continues when you enter the Nave. Deep, dark wood, a surrounding balcony, and a center altar and pulpit help create an inner peace and a sense of security.

The congregation dates back 155 years, while the sanctuary dates back 140 years! While reflecting on that history I became aware that these men and women did not come as immigrants to “do” church – they came to “be” the church. “Church“ is not something one does one day a week. The beliefs and values and priorities were lived seven days a week. Their hard work built a community in which manufacturing enabled families to grow and flourish. Their sense of “communion” started a bank so as to enable folks to buy homes, get through tough times, and finance creative inventiveness. Their sense of “call” kept them true to their values in the work place as well. Profits were important – but profit at the expense of one’s neighbors was wrong. Re-investing those profits in parks and other community ventures was the “value” – not greed!

And one further thought on how they “are” church – they continue to minister even though the neighborhood and the community have vastly changed! At that Ordination Service a Children’s Choir sang and instrumentalists joined with the organ to lead the worshippers “lift up their voices”.

The Presence of Colleagues in Ministry.
Approximately 30 brothers and sisters in ministry wore their robes and joined the occasion as witnesses. Lutherans, United Church in Christ, Episcopal, Clergy and Associates in Ministry led the procession into the Sanctuary! Together they represented more than 500 years of experience!

The 17th verse of Luke 10 [the chosen Gospel] reminds us that after the 70 labored in the “towns and places where Jesus had intended to go” – they returned as a group!

The Presence of so many “colleagues in ministry” testifies to an important lesson for all in ministry. We do not serve as Lone Rangers! We are there for each other - to study together, to share ideas, to support each other when the going gets rough, and, even, to correct each other when our ministries stray off track.

I hope Carrie, Theresa and Sarah will keep these reflections in their memory banks as they begin ministry as “ordained” clergy. That they are part of a wonderful and mighty historic legacy – and that they are not sent as lonely warriors, but as disciples who are many and to whom they can turn.

A Time for Dithering

2009-10-27T10:26:00.001-06:00

Perhaps the Philosopher, author of Ecclesiastes, would add a new dyad to the verses in chapter 3. He begins with the powerful observation: “Everything that happens in this world happens at the time God chooses.” What follows are the words familiar to many. Then, I suggest the addition of this verse:
“He sets the time for dithering and the time for impetuosity.”

Former Vice President Cheney, and his supporters, accuse President Obama of “dithering” relative to a decision regarding the depth of our involvement in Afghanistan. “Send more troops” appears to be their desire! While entitled to their opinion, I am very pleased that President Obama is taking time about putting any more of our men and women in harm’s way.

Regardless of the choice made, “dither” is hardly an appropriate word! The dictionary offers these definitions:
Ø As a noun “dither” means an excited state of agitation!
Ø As a verb “dither” means to be nervously irresolute re: acting or doing!

The media reports suggest President Obama is being very resolute in his approach: talking with military advisors in the Pentagon, with Secretary of State, with elected members of Congress, and others who are knowledgeable about the issues in Afghanistan. There are no reports of his being “agitated”.

On the other hand, it might be an appropriate word for Mr. Cheney et al!

In Praise Of Doubt

2009-10-13T16:07:00.001-06:00

Women and men in many significantly different denominations struggle to balance the “ancient Wisdom” passed down through generations and the “modern scientific knowledge” that is so much a part of our age.
* Intelligent Design or Evolution?
* Is homosexuality a sin or is it a sexual identity with its genesis in many aspects of life?
* Abortion – choice or killing?
* Living in harmony with neighbors of other faiths or still sending missionaries?

The list could go on – and, it seems, the challenge inherent in the struggle gets harder. Friends who were present at the most recent E.L.C.A. Assembly report they felt almost torn apart as they listened to the discussions. Whether or not the speakers was at a Red microphone or a Green microphone, my friends sensed that these were people of integrity, but for whom there was no resolution.

One friend in particular went home angry at the dilemma he felt. This is a devout person, well read, and active in the local parish. He is aware that our awareness of and about homosexuality in the 21st century is light years different from the time of Leviticus or the time of Paul. He is also aware of the important role of the Bible in our lives as Christians.

He resents having to choose between Relativism or Absolutism. He believes [and, I think he is correct] that such a choice results in personal and communal loss regardless of the decision!

Peter L. Berger [sociologist at Boston U.] and Anton C. Zijderveld [sociologist & philosopher at Erasmus University] have written a book which could be helpful to those bothered by such a stark choice. The title of their book is In Praise Of Doubt and the sub-title is “How to have convictions without becoming a fanatic”.

I strongly recommend the book. It is especially written with a concern for the religious and political challenges of this 21st century. They also have a concern that society needs a strong and vibrant religious and political life for survival.

Their descriptions of how “doubt” – not a “doubt” that keeps one from action because all is relative – reminded me of what Paul Tillich once wrote in a paper on Pastoral Care. Tillich believed that all pastoral care is directed towards acceptance of three important factors in life: mortality [we are all going to die], guilt [we can never pull off perfection] and doubt [our knowledge can only go so far and then faith has to step in].

The book is only 166 pages in length and it is published by HarperOne. It lists for $23.99 – but Amazon will get it to you cheaper.

What are we so busy doing?

2009-10-11T15:04:00.001-06:00

These thoughts are a follow up to the comment by Wendi Gordon (9/29/09) re: the comments titled “Where have all the clergy gone?” My thanks to Wendi Gordon for helping move this issue further along.
Ms Gordon adds another factor interfering with today’s clergy having time is this reality: “..most clergy today are consistently working at least 50 hours a week and simply don’t have the time to add another meeting….”
Her point about long hours appears to be true from my observations. Clergy do work many hours a week and, often, at times that significantly interfere with their obligations to families and selves!
However, it seems that has always been the case. Surveys from the 1960s and 1970s indicate clergy were putting in greater than 60 hours a week – and these figures were often cited as de facto evidence of their dedication to ministry.
That raises the question – What are we so busy doing?
That question reminded me of an article, I believe it was by Robert Leslie that addressed the mental health of clergy. [It was included in Wayne Oates’ book on The Minister’s Own Mental Health.] Leslie identified five roles that clergy must perform: Pastor, Priest, Counselor, Educator and Administrator. A survey of clergy asked for ranking by 3 questions:
Which roles are most important?
Which roles are most enjoyable for you?
How do these roles occupy your time?
The answers to the first: Pastor, Educator, Priest, Counselor, Administrator.
The answers to the second: Pastor, Counselor, Educator, Priest, Administrator.
The answers to the third: Administrator, Priest, Educator, Counselor, Pastor.
Is it any different in 2009?
What really drives our “busyness”. [An old joke tells of a young priest who, one day, sees Jesus at the window. He wants to know what to do and searches for help. His calls are passed along up the line: Monsignor, Bishop, Cardinal and then the Pope. The Pope answers – “Look busy.”]
Are we reading our members correctly as to how our time is prioritized?
And, if the answers to question # 3 are still so completely different than # 1 and # 2, might this be some clue as to the cause of so much depression amongst the clergy?
I look forward to your reactions.

WHAT MUST I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?

2009-10-08T16:17:00.000-06:00

This could be an important lesson in these weeks following the 2009 E.L.C.A. Assembly. The young man’s questions – and Jesus’ answer – are strong reminders of the concerns at the beginnings of Christianity.
Being a follower of Jesus involved doing and not intellectual assent!
In this 21st century there are almost countless concerns at which our energies ought to be addressed.
Hunger is a national concern.
Many who are sick are unable to afford care, thereby suffering a higher rate of death.
Violence in our streets is killing our children.
Folks continue to lose homes as mortgages are foreclosed.

“How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God.” [Mark 10:23]

Jesus did not say “How hard it will be for those who don’t believe correctly to enter the kingdom of God.”

Maybe we might all take time these next 6-10 months to:
Take deep breaths – often!
Tithe!
Identify the poor in our areas – and make a commitment to serve them!

Just a thought.

Random Thoughts re: Health Care Reform - 1

2009-10-02T16:20:00.001-06:00

As one who began working in hospitals 61 years ago, the current national debate about “health care re-form” greatly interests me. Indeed, the public debate often replicates the inner debate which has engaged me for years. Those of us who have spent years involved in the care of the sick have long recognized that there were/are problems.
Certainly the lack of insurance has been, and remains, an issue.
Certainly the amount of reimbursement for services, as well as its tardiness, is an issue.
Certainly the many agents that come between patient and physician – be that agent an insurer or a government bureaucrat, is an increasing issue.
Certainly the vast disparities of qualities of care across our nation are an embarrassment.
Certainly . . . . well, you can insert your own list of problems.

One activity of my own inner debate would involve lengthy periods of time wrestling with the question:
If given unlimited power and money, what would I do to “fix” the system?
The time spent in that wrestling, over decades, has increased my understanding of (and sympathy for) those leaders who have, seemingly, been unable to develop their own fix! “Power” [such legislation, licensing, etc.] and “financing” will not solve our many problems involved in the care of the sick. Indeed, one is even able to make a strong argument that they are among the causes of the problems.

However, the over six decades of involvement with the care of the sick plus the hundreds of hours spent in internal debate on ways to improve such care have given me ideas which often seem not to receive sufficient consideration. Those ideas will be the focus of this presentation [and, subsequent ones].

A. What’s in a name?

Whenever I was involved in purchasing a house in which to live my realtors almost always gave the same advice – “Location, location, location!” Everything else desired to make the home a more desirable residence could be added or re-modeled. But – you could do nothing about ‘location’.

A similar mantra ought to be attached to attempts at “health care reform” – Diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis! Unless we properly diagnose the problem, no “cures” will work.

The first concern for diagnosis in this process we have labeled “health care reform” is that very name!

Up until the 1960s our major institutions for the care of the sick were known as hospitals. They were places of refuge to which the sick and infirm could retreat. They were places of hospitality, in which the sick could feel secure as s/he sought healing and restoration. They were places that had either been started by religious groups or by community governments in recognition of the moral imperative to care “for even the least among us”.

Gradually throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s these institutions began shifting away from being “hospitals” to be Medical Centers. Certainly there were reasons for such a shift. Services other than caring for the sick were initiated! Many of these represented different “costing centers”. And, quite frankly, “Medical Center” sounded more prestigious than “Hospital”.

Then, in the late 1970s and 1980s another shift in name occurred. “Medical Centers” became “Health Centers”. Proponents of a “wholistic” approach to the care of the sick [or is it “holistic”] often felt constrained by words such as “hospital” or “medical center”. But Health Center – now there is a theme around which we can all rally!

Ahh, but wait a moment stated many of those who cared for the sick! We take care of the “sick” – and there are years of experience that help define shat “sick” means. What, though, do you mean by “health”? The nurses and doctors and therapists and technicians are trained in caring for the sick – trained, licensed; accredited and experienced.

But there is almost no universal agreement on the definition for “health”! None. Nada.
One issue has to do with our understanding of what disease means.
- Is disease the result of forces external to the self? Bugs, Germs, Physical traumas.
- Is disease the response of the self to those external forces?
Another issue would involve problems of social or behavioral concerns:
- Are wrinkles in one’s skin a “health” issue?
- Are smaller breast sizes or erectile dysfunction “health” issues?
- Are arguments between spouses a “health” issue?
- Is depression a “health” issue or a natural response to loss?
Also, we have the issue of death!
- Is death the antithesis to health and to be fought at all cost?
- Is death the ultimate in the process of homeostasis – the “final” solution?
- Is the “naturalness” of death to be determined by age? I.Q.? Social status? Wealth?
- Is the “naturalness” of death to be determined by theologies? Is anything less than all-out treatment an abomination before God? Or, as an act of love for others should death be welcomed – even sought?

There are studies which suggest the need for adequate diagnosis also exists in treatment approaches. The reliance on technologies has greatly hampered the process of diagnosis because it almost solely only looks at externals. Decades ago the act of diagnosis involved anamnesis – “out of the memory”. Patients were asked to tell/narrate the story of their sickness – and, almost always, that story revealed important criteria for treatment:
- Placement of a cardiac stent was complemented with help with stress, diet, etc.
- High blood pressure also involved styles of living.
- Obesity was not just a consequence of food additives.
- Etc.

And, because my involvement in the care of the sick was as a response to my vocation, what of the religious factors in the care of the sick?
Factors that can be positive assets for health as well as factors that can mitigate against health?
Are there any “meanings” for sickness? [How often do religious folk exclaim that such and such is God’s will?]
Is the role of the religious institution limited to times when medicine cannot treat and/or death occurs?
How do the religious institutions foster “healthier” [or, less dangerous] activities?

This is enough for the first installment. Hopefully the 2nd will come shortly.

Random Thoughts re: Health Care Reform - 2

2009-10-01T16:22:00.002-06:00

In my childhood none of our friends – or my own family – had “health insurance”. Since those were the 1930s and 1940s there was no “shame” associated with being “uninsured”. The uninsured were the majority!

Being “uninsured” did not mean, however, we had no care for when we got sick:
I broke both arms three times by the time I graduated from high school. Five [5] of those were diagnosed and treated in our living room without any diagnostic x-ray.
My father experienced a myocardial infarct [heart attack!] and was treated and recuperated at home! The doctor made routine visits and dad “rested”. It must have worked as he lived 18 full and productive years afterwards.
My sister was treated for bronchial asthma – all via home visits.

Were we wealthy? No. My father was laid off twice during the depression – and never had any “health insurance” until he was past 55 years of age! The same was true for most, if not all, of our friends. There was this expectation that life occasionally confronted you with illnesses or accidents – and treatments were usually paid from ordinary income. That was possible because:
Most families had a broad spectrum of home remedies. We put Vicks Ó on our chests; drank a milk-vanilla-sugar mixture with up-set stomachs; wrapped sprains; etc.
Physicians made house calls.
Physician fees were usually less than $5.00 per visit.

Gradually, however, more and more citizens obtained “health insurance”. While there were many reasons for providing such coverage, the major factors were as ways for industry to grow wages during WW II when wages were frozen and later when they sought tax-free ways of increasing remuneration. This new “benefit” was not a response to the dictum in Matthew to care for the sick!

However – little effort was directed towards understanding what “health” means. “Home” and “Auto” insurance policies operated quite differently as they became directed towards the “unexpected” and/or the “catastrophic”. One did not ‘expect” the ‘Home” insurance policy to cover a periodic paid job because the old paint peeled or one’s spouse wanted the house to look differently. Nor, did one expect the “Auto” insurance policy to cover a lube or oil change – even though such would add to the ‘well-being’ of the auto.

Society has taken different approaches with their “Health” insurance policies. There was a gradual reliance upon them to finance such treatments and care that are, in any society, part of what is the norm! Instead, since we did not define “health” – then there is too often the assumption that “health” is the absence of disease. And, even more of a problem, “disease” too often comes to mean anything that causes a person to experience “dis-ease”!

It is my belief that unless we focus time and energy towards redefining what it means to be “healthy” or just what is “sickness/disease”, no “Reform” was have a chance of resolving the problems. Such a new “focus” will not be easy. It will involve persons from every walk of life – care providers, educators, religious leaders, economists and politicians.

We must also seek ways to contain, or even lower, the costs of such care! Those ways will, in most circumstances, be complex. There are, however, ways to lower costs that are not complex [or are at least less].
Is the value of a super-specialist 4 or 5 times greater than a primary care physician?
Does society truly need all the free-standing care facilities? The multiple, and expensive, diagnostic machines?
If computers were to initiate a paper-less business atmosphere, can’t we increase that function to avoid the time-consuming redundancies when seeking care?
If death is truly a “natural” event, is it necessary to make it a “medical” concern? If a person opts to die in her/his own home, the process becomes very complex. It takes physician to pronounce one dead. It takes a coroner to make certain your death did not result from foul play.
Just some thoughts!

In the 3rd installment of these Random Thoughts, it will be my goal to explore how some of the resources of religion can also play a significant role in these efforts at Reform. Stay tuned!

Where have all the clergy gone?

2009-09-28T12:49:00.002-06:00

In his Sunday [9/27/09] column [Rockford Register Star] Chuck Sweeny asked the question – “Where have the clergy gone?”. He commented that area clergy used to be active in most of the major issues of community life – education, housing, women’s rights, racism, and, the many well known problems associated with poverty. However, in his view, there has been almost silence in the most recent years.

Chuck’s question arose out of a conversation he had with Jesse Jackson while the latter was in Rockford relative to the shooting death that occurred in a local church. Jackson had expressed a desire to have local clergy join in support for an investigation that would affirm justice for all involved – the police, the family of the man shot, the members of that parish, and the greater community.

Others have voiced similar thoughts and impressions.
Just 40+ years ago the Rockford Minister’s Fellowship and the Rockford Clergy Association worked together to improve race issues that had arisen in regards to public housing.
Area clergy worked closely with varied women’s group so as to better insure women’s rights, especially related to reproductive rights. Concerned Clergy for Problem Pregnancies worked several years prior to Roe v Wade in assisting women as they sought counsel and help in seeking abortion services.
Clergy were involved in soliciting marchers when the Hispanic community sought to raise our consciousness about immigration.
Clergy were involved in seeking, and supporting, candidates for election to the Rockford School District Board – candidates who would begin the hard work in moving beyond the lawsuit that had placed us under Federal supervision because of racist practices towards our children.
The annual Crop Walk was such a big deal that law enforcement would get involved with the logistics.
Good Friday Services often involved up to seven clergy at numerous sites throughout the community. These mutual efforts were a loud reminder to all citizens that the religions had more in common rather than the few areas of disagreement.

The important question might be to identify what factors might have brought about such change? Certainly there have been “hot potato” issues with clergy on multiple “sides”. Yet that, alone, can not be the causative factor.
Clergy were on opposing sides during the Vietnam War – yet were able to stay in dialogue.
Clergy were on opposing sides when it came to integrated housing – yet worked together to identify ways to achieve justice.
Clergy disagreed about abortion, yet a majority could remain in discussions on the development of greater access to birth control and the development of better women’s health services.

Some say that today’s clergy are more inhibited by fear! As membership, attendance figures, and giving in many congregations have declined, some clergy often have greater concern that their behaviors might exacerbate those declines. Still others have reported “threats” of negative consequences, from ‘powerful’ members, if the pastor took a public position opposite from that held by the member. [And, in a time when many younger clergy carry a higher debt load from schooling and have an employed spouse who can not as easily move – the consequences of such threats may seem more real!]

Another possible reason reflects a seeming lack of ability to engage in intense academic and emotional debate – and yet stay in relationship with those on “the other side”. This is an important challenge now for members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The recent action at the 2009 ELCA Assembly regarding acceptance of gay or lesbian persons in committed relationship affirms an approach that respects “bound conscience”. We may disagree – even up to 180’ – but, recognize that each other’s position comes from serious study of all available data from all fields of study, and comes after serious time spent in prayer and meditation.

Others would, no doubt, suggest other factors that have served to keep clergy from cooperative dialogue about and involvement in major public issues in the community. Hopefully, those “others” will take the time to share their views.

Because – unless the religious leaders work together in discussions about the many issues, the community will decide we are irrelevant! That would be a terrible price to pay!

The Church Confessing? To what?

2008-08-13T15:21:00.003-06:00

The Diaspora is a “Journal of the Missions and Faith Communities that have evolved from the Church of the Savior” located in our nation’s capitol. A lead article in the Summer 2008 had this to say.

The famous German leader, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, came back to his homeland [from the US where he was safe] at the request of some in the German church who saw the awful rise to evil power of Hitler and his minions. He and they struggled to bring into being what he called the ‘confessing church’ to recall the biblical prophetic challenges to the wrongs they perceived in the state. Also to confess that the church had been quiet too long in coming to grips with this issue. “A time comes when silence is betrayal” is the way Dr. Martin Luther King put it.

In addressing this issue, Bonhoeffer asked “are we still of any use?” The same question must be asked of today’s churches. In his efforts to be faithful, Bonhoeffer was arrested, and died in prison before the end of WW II. If the institutional churches cannot speak out against torture and unnecessary war, what good is it to have pulpits? The elements of atrocity, manipulation, and indifference add up to a spiritual crisis.

In his response to my previous blog, Hubbie shared the quote from Judaism: “…anger at the sight of wrong done is holy. If the anger kindles into passion, it will become conducive to strife.” He later adds: “perhaps what that quote means is that anger can be a good thing, but that you need to wait to act upon that anger until it has matured into reasoned action rather than raw passion.” [Emphasis is mine.]

One of our tasks as preachers is to assist in the maturation of anger into reasoned action. We lead our people in prayer, often highlighting the evils in our world. We will be guiding our people in the ELCA initiative Book of Faith, a five year process with the goal of heightening the awareness of Lutherans regards Scriptures.

Each of the above are ways for the maturation of anger. However – the pulpit is a vital element that we must not waste! The maturation of anger requires that our anger be identified, made relevant, and defined as our response to wrongs.

It was/is wrong to manufacture evidence to support a war against the sovereign people of Iraq.
It was/is wrong to torture.
It was/is wrong to direct so much of our budget towards that war, while allowing our neighbors to go hungry.

“Are we still of any use?”, to ask the question of Bonhoeffer. Is our silence “betrayal” ala MLK?
Speaking out from the pulpit can be a scary action for any preacher. That fear, however, can be assuaged when we know we are not alone. When our sisters and brothers in other pulpits are also speaking out.

Seems to me a fairly strong rationale for joining colleagues in the weekly scripture studies!

ANGER Revisited

2008-08-09T13:07:00.003-06:00

A colleague/friend [thanks, Hub] commented that my previous Blog about anger might well leave folks the thought that I was saying/implying that anger is either bad or wrong. To whatever degree his observations are correct, I apologize.

ANGER is a gift with which we are created! Placing any moral judgment on it is extremely inappropiate - as it would be to so judge breathing or hunger or any other natural aspect of our created selves.

ANGER's purpose is very basic - protection. Watch a newborn baby. If hungry or suffering from wet diaper or being hurt - the baby's anger is automatically activated. As a newborn this gets commuicated with a lusty howl, a red face, and extreme action. No one claims that such reaction is "wrong". [Uncomfortable, perhaps, for the care-giver - but not wrong!]

ANGER, however, that is NOT acted upon - and as I said in the Blog is "nurtured" - opens the door to becoming a victim.

And VICTIMHOOD is a deadly state of being.

Vicktor Frankl, in his book "From Death Camp to Existentialism", told the story of a Jew incarcerated in one of the death camps of WW II. As he was being marched towards the gas house the prisoner said to the guard: "You're not taking my life. I'm giving it to you!"
This made the guard furious. One of those "No you're not!" / "Yes I am!" type exchanges took place.

Finally, the guard pulled the prisoner out of line and sent him back to the camp!
Frankl pointed out the man's refusal to being a victim. He was able to utilize his anger to claim, even in the face of being killed, that he was a human being with the ability to decide how he would die.

(Frankl's book, incidentally, might be a good place to begin our dialogues with out Jewish friends as we seek answers to the conflicts with the Palestinians. Has the Holocaust become more a source of maintaining "victimhood" rather than a call to action?)

The changes that need to occur in our nation these next months, regardless of whom is elected, will provoke many feelings - fear and anger amongst the most dominate. We in the churches, synagogues and mosques need to remind our people that "feelings" are not sinful. The issues are always what we do with them. Let us help them explore ways to use their feelings as "calls to action" rather than invitations to being victims.

Preachers, Prophets and Polemics

2008-03-18T10:40:00.001-06:00

Throughout history prophets and preachers have made direct references to requests for The Divine to cause ruin and destruction on peoples deemed to be living and/or acting in ways contrary to the Commandments of The Divine. There are even instances of The Divine making such pronouncements.
“God saw that human evil was out of control…God was sorry that he had made the human race in the first place; it broke his heart. God said, “I’ll get rid of my ruined creation, make a clean sweep.” [Genesis 6:5-7]
“Here’s what will happen if you don’t obediently listen to the commandments and guidelines that I am commanding you today. All these curses will come down hard on you:
- God’s curse in the city.
- God’s curse in the country
- God’s curse on your basket and bread bowl
- God’s curse on your children, the crops of your land, the young of your livestock, the calves of your herds, the lambs of your flocks.
- God’s curse in your coming in,
- God’s curse in your going out.” [Deuteronomy 28:13-19]
“This is a Message that the God of Israel gave me; “Take this cup filled with wine of my wrath that I’m handing to you. Make all the nations where I send you drink it down. They’ll drink it and get drunk, staggering in delirium because of the killing that I’m going to unleash among them.” [Jeremiah 25:15-16]
“You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You’re like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it’s all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh. People look at you and think you’re saints, but beneath the skin you’re total frauds.” [Matthew 23:27-28]
There are similar examples from most of the great religious leaders of history. That is what
Prophets and preachers do. Sometimes they are on target. Often they are not. But they serve a
passionate God – and passion has to be part of their assets.
Why then are so many seemingly scandalized by Barack Obama’s pastor, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright? He is a black man who served his country as a Marine. He is a servant of God, ministering to thousands of women and men, adults and children, who daily experience the consequences of centuries of racial segregation, bias and opprobrium.
In that context, it is not a challenge to understand Pastor Weight’s rhetoric. How dare we ask our black brothers and sisters to serve their country, endure the many ways of racial bias that rule in our society - and then join in saying “God bless America!” Does it not make greater sense to hear him, as a modern Jeremiah, proclaim “God damn America”?
We can use his remarks as an excuse to reject Barack Obama. But such use, at the least, suggests we are hypocrites- and, at the worst, racists.

Palm/Passion Sunday and Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-13T10:36:00.002-06:00

This week's Pericope study focused on the Palm Sunday-Passion dichotomy - and the usual comments on the fickleness of the "crowd". On Sunday they welcomed Jesus and wanted healing & life - and, by Friday they wanted his life.
On my way home, listening to NPR, the discussions were on the radical "fall from grace" of Eliot Spitzer. Hailed as the "Sheriff of Wall Street" and now vilified as a "john" - a user of high priced prostitutes.
One of the NPR discussants talked about the trouble humans have with heroes who are not perfect. As soon as any crack in the persona is identified the crowd shouts "crucify him".
This is not to suggest that Jesus fell from grace because he used a Call Girl business! But, the crowd turned on him because he failed to fulfill "their" agenda.
As Lutheran Christians we affirm that, by nature, we are sinful; we agree with Paul when he claims that he too often does the bad he wants to avoid.
An affirmation and an agreement easily forgotten when judging others.
Perhaps some reference to the Spitzer saga will aid some folks in attendance this Sunday see that our observance is not just a "nice" trip down memory lane!
We're really not any different than the crowds in Jerusalem during that fateful Passover.

Love as Jesus?

2007-05-03T17:45:00.000-06:00

“You must love each other, just as I have loved you.” (John 13:34)
We know about “loving with all our heart, soul and body”. We know about loving “as we love ourselves”. What does it mean, however, to “love each other, just as I have loved you.”?
o We really can’t say his love was ‘non-judgmental’. “White-coated sepulchers”, “generation of vipers” and other descriptive terms he used would certainly have been experienced as a judgment!
o We really can’t argue that his love was without boundaries. At times he pulled away from the crowds to be alone. At times his response was not as asap as wished (remember the sisters of Lazarus?). His response to his mother at Cana re: the wine shortage claimed a boundary (“my time is not yet come” John 2:4).
o We really can’t argue that his love was selfless. As a leader he wanted total commitment. “Follow me.” “Stay awake with me.” “Feed my sheep.”
§ We can say his love always reached out to those that society wanted to reject. The woman in adultery. The tax collector. The leper.
§ We can say that his love believed in its power! “Take up your bed and walk!” “Lazarus, rise.” “Your sins are forgiven.”
§ We can say that his love drew strength from knowing that G-d had a purpose for his life! Things may not seem clear or desirable to Jesus at the time – but his trust in God added power to his love.

Too often our love seems to be diffused and/or diminished because there seems to be rules that say our love as a Christian must be “nice”.
Ø When we speak out against political actions, such as pre-emptive war, there is a message to “speak with honey” so folks will join us.
Ø When we speak for justice for our sisters and brothers who are gay, lesbian or transgender, there is a message to remember that their behavior is a sin! [As if there is any behavior that is not a sin!]
Ø When we demand that G-d loves all peoples – Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, - we’re told that only Christians are invited to heaven [even though Jesus said “In my father’s house are many mansions.”] – and Jesus’ love never had a theological proof text as a requirement.

A United Church of Christ pastor once told me his definition of sin. “Any time I say, ‘this is it!’ I am sinning because I am claiming to be G-d.” (The Rev. Jerry Jud)

That is what keeps me from loving as Jesus loved. My struggle at not assuming responsibility for G-d – assuming that unless I make certain all the laws are kept, G-d is in danger.

If we were to so love, would the world go to hell more quickly? Would people really live with a licentiousness that disregards the other? Perhaps – although some could argue we are moving in that direction even as we strive to “keep the rules”.

Or would that love be so awesome, that others would be drawn to it?

Might be an experiment worth trying!

Ethics of Life and Death

2007-04-26T14:04:00.000-06:00

The varied media have, again, raised awareness of the tragic situation in Austin, Tx of Emilio Gonzales – a 17 month old child hospitalized with Leigh’s disease (a rare genetic disorder for which there are no known cures). CNN, Fox, the major networks, and most daily newspapers have focused on the struggle between parent and care givers.

Emilio’s mother believes he still responds to stimuli and that all treatment should continue. “I love my kid so much, I have to fight for him…that’s your job – you fight for your son or your daughter. You don’t let nobody push you around or make decisions for you.”

Austin Children’s Hospital believes continued treatment “inflicts suffering.” “We are inflicting harm on this child. And it’s harm that is without a corresponding medical benefit.”

“Who should decide whether or not to treat?” appears to receive the most attention. One ethicist, Dr Lainie Ross from the University of Chicago, thinks Emilio’s mom should “decide if his life is worth living.” Another ethicist, Dr Art Caplan from the University of Pennsylvania, believes “there are occasions when family members just don’t get it right. No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation.”

To the extent that our attention stays focused on the tragicness of the situation we will continue to avoid the many issues raised in such circumstances.
Arguments as to who may or may not “play god” are very non-productive!
Were we playing “god” when we put the child on the respirator?
If “god” is determined to keep Emilio alive, then neither our treatment nor its lack will be determinative.
The issue of adequate insurance for medical care is very relevant. Emilio is on Medicaid – and that government program almost never pays so as to cover costs.
As a parent expressing my desire for my child, do I automatically have the power to obligate the larger community to significant expenses? Only expenses related to treatment of sickness? Might I, also, obligate society to other costs associated with raising a child (food, clothing, housing, schooling, etc.)?
What should we do to provide medical treatment/care for the millions in our nation who do not have health insurance? The children unable to receive basic, routine vaccinations? The children whose diabetes goes poorly treated, resulting in other health concerns?
Are we willing to treat only those with access to the media? The dying child? The mentally disturbed college student who kills 32 others?
The issue of intelligent allocation of resources is one we often wish to avoid.
The resources (staff, medicines, dollars) spent to provide care for Emilio are not available for other children with greater prospects for quality of life.
The resources (staff, medicines, dollars) spent to provide “treatments” for thousands of others who are terminally ill – rather than providing “care” for them – place tremendous strains on our professional personnel (doctors, nurses, technicians, etc) leaving them less prepared to care for society as a while.
The monies we direct towards discretionary concerns [ie. wrinkles, fat, cosmetic needs, etc.) means less money to eradicate those diseases which still cause death.
The reality that we live in an imperfect world and that dying and death are integral to that world. Not every dilemma is resolvable by labeling “good” versus “bad”. Emilio’s mother, from all news available to us, is a “good” mother. Emilio’s treatment team at Austins’ Children, from all accounts, is a “good” team. Casting them in antagonistic roles does them all a disservice. And, it allows us to ignore our own mortality!

This issue, coming in these weeks after Easter, would be an excellent topic for discussion in our parishes. Does the “resurrection” speak to issues of the care of the sick at all?

WORDS

2007-04-25T14:32:00.000-06:00

Words
NPR recently carried a discussion re: meanings and uses of the words “conservative” and “liberal”. While we have moved from a culture that comfortably separates people on the basis of their skin color, the labels of “conservative” or “Liberal” enjoy significant use.
Denominations, as well as parishes within denominations, are labeled as “conservative” or “liberal” – usually in a derogatory fashion!
One’s few on how humans live out their sexuality are labeled “conservative” or “liberal” irrespective of what modern scriptural textual criticism or science have offered.
Political ideas are affirmed or denied insofar as they can be labeled “conservative” or “liberal”.
One’s position re: the war in Iraq is labeled “conservative” or “liberal”, rather than seen as for peace or for achieving stability.
Around the globe nations struggle with the issue of abortion, unable to develop dialog beyond the labels of “conservative” or “liberal”!

It occurred to me during that NPR discussion there appeared to be a large assumption! It was assumed that listeners would automatically know how the words “conservative” or “liberal” were being defined. Further, that those definitions were so well known as to not make any additional qualifiers necessary.

Yet, that is not how it has worked in my life. The majority of individuals who know me assign the “liberal” title to my thoughts and positions. Yet-
o in the 1960s I was a strong supporter of Barry Goldwater for President
o my approach to budget management in the parishes I have served as interim is very conservative
o my approach to how we use the earth and creation affirms ‘conservation’ as the norm.

There are similar inconsistencies in folks generally labeled as “conservative”. Individuals who supported mission trips to Mexico, led programs that asked people to take funds from their I.R.A. to support their parish, and who strongly pursued the use of technology in worship.

Indeed, one might reasonably conclude that the terms “conservative” or “liberal” actually cloud issues that require full discussion if resolution is to be attained. A conclusion that is even supported by a review of how the Cambridge and American Heritage dictionaries define them.
Ø Conservative: favoring traditional views and values; tending not to like change; tending to conserve/preserve natural resources
Ø Liberal: respecting & allowing many different types of beliefs or behavior; not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views or dogmas; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others

Most of us will discover ourselves defined by both words. I might “favor” a traditional view towards worship – and can respect a different approach. I can be “pro-choice”, affirm the choice of a gay or lesbian to seek a committed relationship, and be open to the religious creeds of non-Christians – AND – affirm that life does begin even before conception, affirm that the truths in ancient scriptural texts reflected cultural and knowledge levels of that day rather than being the norms for today, and continue to seek to follow the teachings of Jesus as appropriate for me [without the necessity of making them absolutes for all].

Let’s seek to have dialogue without resorting to inappropriate labels of “conservative” or “liberal”.

Do you love me?

2007-04-23T13:16:00.000-06:00

Jesus' question of Peter is no less critical in 2007. What might that mean as we contemplate the 32 dead at Virginia Tech; the 200+ killed last week in Bagdad; the hundreds/thousands of Iraqi children killed since the war started?
Easy approach is to feign impotence. "They" have all the power. We know that becomes a self-fulfilling act!
Take 15 minutes a day to:
1. Identify the issue that most concerns you.
2. Identify the folks with whom you wish to share that concern.
3. Write them a one page letter about your concern, asking them to work with you.
4. Trust the power that comes when 2 or more come together in a mission.

Synergy - an asset

2007-04-17T14:52:00.000-06:00

Webster gives two definitions for "synergy" -
1. An ancient theological doctrine holding that in regeneration there is cooperation of divine grace and human activity.
2. A cooperative action of discrete agencies such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the two or more effects taken independently.
It is my hope to create dialogues -
a. between trends and issues gleaned from avid readings
b. between colleagues [clergy & lay] involved in ministries.