Man, some people will do anything to get out of text study. Last year, Dan suddenly "had" to get his appendix taken out (not expected), and today Sarah suddenly "had" to have a baby (fully expected, just a little early). . .
In all seriousness, welcome to the world, Claire Margaret. We are so glad you are here! :)
And congratulations to Momma Sarah and Daddy Chad!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Do Not Try This At Home
Dumb idea of the week: playing several hours of Wii last night (including but not limited to boxing and lightsaber duels) when I have five or so hours of holding a choir folder full of Messiah today.
Arms. . .so. . .sore. . .
Honorable mention: grabbing onto the knife-blade side of the little survival tool I was using to saw off small drooping branches from the bottom of the Christmas tree. Thankfully realized what I was doing before I gripped hard enough to cut myself.
Guess it's my weekend to make a run on the Darwin awards. . .
Arms. . .so. . .sore. . .
Honorable mention: grabbing onto the knife-blade side of the little survival tool I was using to saw off small drooping branches from the bottom of the Christmas tree. Thankfully realized what I was doing before I gripped hard enough to cut myself.
Guess it's my weekend to make a run on the Darwin awards. . .
Monday, December 7, 2009
Accept the Mystery
I love it when the Coen Brothers play in the wisdom end of the pool.
I finally got to see A Serious Man when I was on vacation in MN. I went to see it with Dad and Brenda, who were kind of disappointed any scenes with their Chevelle were left on the cutting room floor (according to Dad, the car was "just to the right of the frame" in the final shot of the whirlwind).
They also found it a little confusing (especially the beginning and ending), as did I - but I think that was the point. The movie is inspired by the book of Job, it's a study on suffering, and just like the book of Job, the movie offers no clear cut resolution or answers to any of the questions it raises. Readers/viewers can only live the question and accept the mystery.
So, in that spirit, I'm not going to try to unpack a lot of it either. . .but I did find it interesting the way "I haven't done anything" becomes a kind of refrain for Larry Gopnik. It's true - he hasn't done anything to deserve any of the troubles that keep coming his way, and that's consistent with Job's story. But that's kind of a radical departure for Coen Bros leads - often their films contain a rather Lutheran understanding of the bondage of the will, often they document how one poor choice leads to another, and to another, until you are trapped by your choices (or are in bondage to sin, as we like to say) and can now only choose between the lesser of two evils.
Gopnik is a stark contrast to this - he hasn't done anything, he hasn't chosen anything, good or bad. Yet all this bad keeps happening to him, forcing him into impossible choices between the lesser of two evils anyway.
And then, at the very end, when he finally does do something ethically questionable, when he chooses, perhaps, the greater evil - then the phone call from the doctor comes, and the whirlwind shows up.
So - is he now being punished for finally doing something because what he did was wrong? Is he about to get his comeuppance from God?
The movie doesn't tell us.
Live the question. Accept the mystery.
I finally got to see A Serious Man when I was on vacation in MN. I went to see it with Dad and Brenda, who were kind of disappointed any scenes with their Chevelle were left on the cutting room floor (according to Dad, the car was "just to the right of the frame" in the final shot of the whirlwind).
They also found it a little confusing (especially the beginning and ending), as did I - but I think that was the point. The movie is inspired by the book of Job, it's a study on suffering, and just like the book of Job, the movie offers no clear cut resolution or answers to any of the questions it raises. Readers/viewers can only live the question and accept the mystery.
So, in that spirit, I'm not going to try to unpack a lot of it either. . .but I did find it interesting the way "I haven't done anything" becomes a kind of refrain for Larry Gopnik. It's true - he hasn't done anything to deserve any of the troubles that keep coming his way, and that's consistent with Job's story. But that's kind of a radical departure for Coen Bros leads - often their films contain a rather Lutheran understanding of the bondage of the will, often they document how one poor choice leads to another, and to another, until you are trapped by your choices (or are in bondage to sin, as we like to say) and can now only choose between the lesser of two evils.
Gopnik is a stark contrast to this - he hasn't done anything, he hasn't chosen anything, good or bad. Yet all this bad keeps happening to him, forcing him into impossible choices between the lesser of two evils anyway.
And then, at the very end, when he finally does do something ethically questionable, when he chooses, perhaps, the greater evil - then the phone call from the doctor comes, and the whirlwind shows up.
So - is he now being punished for finally doing something because what he did was wrong? Is he about to get his comeuppance from God?
The movie doesn't tell us.
Live the question. Accept the mystery.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Next Year in a Real Recital Hall!
While vast improvements have been made to Skoglund since my days on the hill (the newer stadium seats are much more comfortable than the old wooden, backless bleachers), it's still kind of ridiculous to me that a music program the caliber of St. Olaf's has no large performance space built intentionally with acoustical quality in mind. Essentially, I've decided it's time to get the Christmas festival out of the gym, and so, I will henceforth end every Christmas Festival experience with this cry that hopes for the next experience to occur in its rightful place.
But I digress - obviously, I actually got tickets this year and spent Thursday night in Northfield. I refuse to eat lutefisk and was jonesing for Hogan Brothers anyway, so we got to town early enough to grab dinner there. Little did I know Northfield was having its annual holiday night on the town - Division St. was totally closed and turned into a pedestrian mall, and everyplace was packed. The line at Hogan Bros was so long that people who were in the front of it when we arrived were done eating by the time we placed our order and were looking for a place to sit!
At least we had some entertainment - while we were waiting in line, in an "only in Northfield" kind of moment, this group of carolers came in to the cafe. Caroling in itself not so unusual for this time of year, on this kind of night - what made it "only in Northfield" was the perfectly balanced and blended four part harmony they had going on (like a mini, roving St. Olaf Choir), AND the fact that a bunch of people in the cafe (myself included) joined them, in four part harmony, without the benefit of music or lyrics.
The Festival itself was particularly excellent this year. They used some liturgical dancers at the beginning, which was a nice visual element to incorporate; they also made some very creative interpretive choices (like on F. Melius' setting of Praise to the Lord, which was sung as a mass choir piece - instead of having the whole group sing the whole time as has been done in the past, it started with the Ole choir, then added Cantorei, then Chapel, then Viking and Manitou, so it kept building and building until everyone was joining in the glad adoration - gives me goosebumps just thinking about it again!); and the musical selection overall was varied and interesting, including a moving rendition of "E'en So Lord Jesus Quickly Come," sung in loving memory of Paul Manz.
Christopher Aspaas is also new since my days in Norway Valley, but I am greatly impressed with him and especially fond of his selections for Chapel Choir and Viking Chorus, and not just because he had them sing my Christmas Eve psych up song:
[This was the only youtube video I could find for this - this choir is ok, but the Chapel Choir was better! The version I listen to on Christmas Eve is this one by the Dale Warland Singers, which is indubitably the best! :) ]
In any case, the other pieces they sang (the rest of which were new to me) were also very enjoyable. I think he's a valuable addition to the faculty, and look forward to hearing what he does with these choirs in the future. . .hopefully in a new recital hall! :)
Happy Advent,
C.
But I digress - obviously, I actually got tickets this year and spent Thursday night in Northfield. I refuse to eat lutefisk and was jonesing for Hogan Brothers anyway, so we got to town early enough to grab dinner there. Little did I know Northfield was having its annual holiday night on the town - Division St. was totally closed and turned into a pedestrian mall, and everyplace was packed. The line at Hogan Bros was so long that people who were in the front of it when we arrived were done eating by the time we placed our order and were looking for a place to sit!
At least we had some entertainment - while we were waiting in line, in an "only in Northfield" kind of moment, this group of carolers came in to the cafe. Caroling in itself not so unusual for this time of year, on this kind of night - what made it "only in Northfield" was the perfectly balanced and blended four part harmony they had going on (like a mini, roving St. Olaf Choir), AND the fact that a bunch of people in the cafe (myself included) joined them, in four part harmony, without the benefit of music or lyrics.
The Festival itself was particularly excellent this year. They used some liturgical dancers at the beginning, which was a nice visual element to incorporate; they also made some very creative interpretive choices (like on F. Melius' setting of Praise to the Lord, which was sung as a mass choir piece - instead of having the whole group sing the whole time as has been done in the past, it started with the Ole choir, then added Cantorei, then Chapel, then Viking and Manitou, so it kept building and building until everyone was joining in the glad adoration - gives me goosebumps just thinking about it again!); and the musical selection overall was varied and interesting, including a moving rendition of "E'en So Lord Jesus Quickly Come," sung in loving memory of Paul Manz.
Christopher Aspaas is also new since my days in Norway Valley, but I am greatly impressed with him and especially fond of his selections for Chapel Choir and Viking Chorus, and not just because he had them sing my Christmas Eve psych up song:
[This was the only youtube video I could find for this - this choir is ok, but the Chapel Choir was better! The version I listen to on Christmas Eve is this one by the Dale Warland Singers, which is indubitably the best! :) ]
In any case, the other pieces they sang (the rest of which were new to me) were also very enjoyable. I think he's a valuable addition to the faculty, and look forward to hearing what he does with these choirs in the future. . .hopefully in a new recital hall! :)
Happy Advent,
C.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Everyone's a Critic
So yesterday Batman Jack and Batgirl Olivia busted through the wall of pillows that had been blocking the only way out of the ice cave in which they were trapped, only to be confronted with their nemesis, Blanketmaster. Blanketmaster is a nefarious fiend who covers his adversaries with a large magical blanket which makes them automatically fall into a deep sleep, even in the middle of the day!
But never fear, Batfans, for Batman and Batgirl bravely battled the Blanketmaster, wresting the magical blanket out of his hands and then using it against him, forcing him to fall asleep! While the Blanketmaster slumbered, Batman and Batgirl went to their lab and concocted a special potion and then fed it to him, freeing the Blanketmaster from his fiendish ways and restoring him to his original identity as mild-mannered Uncle Patrick.
Batman and Batgirl removed the magical blanket to awaken Uncle Patrick, who got up and moved to the couch thinking "This is the coolest comic book I've ever lived in!"
That is, until he sat down and Batgirl came up to him and said "This isn't a very good story."
Man, some imaginations are so demanding and hard to please! :)
But never fear, Batfans, for Batman and Batgirl bravely battled the Blanketmaster, wresting the magical blanket out of his hands and then using it against him, forcing him to fall asleep! While the Blanketmaster slumbered, Batman and Batgirl went to their lab and concocted a special potion and then fed it to him, freeing the Blanketmaster from his fiendish ways and restoring him to his original identity as mild-mannered Uncle Patrick.
Batman and Batgirl removed the magical blanket to awaken Uncle Patrick, who got up and moved to the couch thinking "This is the coolest comic book I've ever lived in!"
That is, until he sat down and Batgirl came up to him and said "This isn't a very good story."
Man, some imaginations are so demanding and hard to please! :)
Guitar Hero
I finally figured out the chords to Brandi Carlile's song "Dying Day" but I'm not web-savvy enough to post it on any of those open source chord sites, though having at various times benefitted from others work on those sites myself, I feel the need to put this out on the web somehow.
So - with an expression of great admiration for Ms. Carlile and the Hanseroth twins, and a disclaimer that this is the best I've come up with in attempting to interpret the song - it's in Bm and the verse is basically following the circle of fifths from Bm to G, but instead of going all the way around the circle to C F it finishes with E A (which not only sounds good but is kind of brilliant in relation to the lyric, which is about being away from the one you love - the singer hasn't come home yet, so you can't land there musically either, the circle remains incomplete). The tricky thing is, I know I'm hearing G#s in there occasionally, so I'm pretty sure her E chords are all major, not minor as the key would dictate.
The chorus is not circle of fifths but goes like this:
Bm G D G A D G
Bm G D G A D G A
G A Bm
The other tricky part is the chord played underneath her humming before kicking into the last time through the chorus - it took me a while but I finally realized it's an F# major - if you're barring the Bm just keep barring and shift your fingers over for the major, then back to the minor as you launch into the final chorus.
Enjoy!
C.
So - with an expression of great admiration for Ms. Carlile and the Hanseroth twins, and a disclaimer that this is the best I've come up with in attempting to interpret the song - it's in Bm and the verse is basically following the circle of fifths from Bm to G, but instead of going all the way around the circle to C F it finishes with E A (which not only sounds good but is kind of brilliant in relation to the lyric, which is about being away from the one you love - the singer hasn't come home yet, so you can't land there musically either, the circle remains incomplete). The tricky thing is, I know I'm hearing G#s in there occasionally, so I'm pretty sure her E chords are all major, not minor as the key would dictate.
The chorus is not circle of fifths but goes like this:
Bm G D G A D G
Bm G D G A D G A
G A Bm
The other tricky part is the chord played underneath her humming before kicking into the last time through the chorus - it took me a while but I finally realized it's an F# major - if you're barring the Bm just keep barring and shift your fingers over for the major, then back to the minor as you launch into the final chorus.
Enjoy!
C.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Main(e) Thing
So my friend Trina, Ms. Community Organizer Extraordinaire, has spent the better part of the past year schlepping across the great state of Maine trying to mobilize Mainers to protect marriage equality for their LGBT family, friends, and neighbors. Despite her and many others valiant efforts, on Tuesday the people of Maine voted to repeal their state legislature's decision to legalize gay marriage.
Some of the commentary that followed this decision focused on how, thus far, the states which allow for gay marriage have created this permission through judicial or legislative channels (and Maine was originally in this camp as well, as their state legislature passed a law to make gay marriage legal). Had Proposition 1 failed, Maine would have become the first state to affirm/allow legalization of gay marriage via a popular vote as well.
This has all prompted two questions in my mind:
First, is such analysis discounting "silent majorities?" I mean, so Maine and California have both taken legislative or judicial action which have been subsequently repealed by a popular vote. But states like New Jersey and Iowa have taken similar actions through similar channels and have not had those decisions challenged by a popular vote. Is it then fair to say that the failure to produce a proposition to repeal indicates a tacit public acceptance or approval of these actions? Will we give Iowa and New Jersey's silence and inaction on this matter the same weight as we've given to Maine and California's vociferous and controversial actions to repeal? In other words, is not bringing it up for a public vote a de facto popular vote victory? And if so, why aren't we saying that out loud?
Second, and more importantly (and I don't know why this never occurred to me sooner), why it is, in fact, so terribly important to make gay marriage legal with a popular vote?
I mean, maybe I misunderstood something in my high school civics class, but I've always been under the impression that our government was created with an intentional set of checks and balances, which were meant both to prevent one person (or group of persons) from assuming too much power, and to protect the rights of the minority. When a miscarriage of justice is committed by one branch of our government, the other branches have the right and obligation to correct or amend it; similarly, when a miscarriage of justice is committed by the larger society, the government has the right and the obligation to both correct that injustice and to protect those victimized by it.
Or to put it another way, when a popular vote denies equal protection under the law, it remains the government's job to provide it.
Which begs the question - are some judges "activists legislating from the bench," as some folks so often complain, or are these judges simply doing their job to ensure equal protection under the law? Where would we as a society be without the "activist" judges behind decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia? And similarly so, where would we be without "interest group" legislation like Title IX, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? And where would we be if Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had not boldly employed their executive powers to secure both the physical safety and constitutional rights of the Little Rock 9 and James Meredith, respectively? When popular opinion or vote denies equal protection under the law, it is the government's responsibility to provide it.
And that, to my mind, is what is going on here. LGBT people are currently being denied equal protection under the law, insofar as marriage allows one certain legal rights in relation to one's partner and any offspring or property shared with said partner. As such, it is entirely within the rightful sphere of influence of any branch of our government to correct or amend this injustice, regardless of the public's opinion, or official vote, on the matter. Now, I suppose you could debate whether or not marriage is an inalienable right that must be guaranteed to all people, but that's an entirely different argument than claiming the branches of government have no business acting outside of "majority opinion" on this issue.
So, while winning a popular vote to legalize gay marriage would certainly signal a "turning of the tide" as to whose opinion is perceived to be "majority," and while it should in theory, at least, shut down complaints about "activist judges" - I guess I don't see it as so crucial to legitimize actions taken by our government to protect our fellow citizens.
But then again, I'm an Upper Midwestern progressive, I'm predisposed to like government and believe in its potential to make the country and the world a better place to live. . .
Peace,
C.
Some of the commentary that followed this decision focused on how, thus far, the states which allow for gay marriage have created this permission through judicial or legislative channels (and Maine was originally in this camp as well, as their state legislature passed a law to make gay marriage legal). Had Proposition 1 failed, Maine would have become the first state to affirm/allow legalization of gay marriage via a popular vote as well.
This has all prompted two questions in my mind:
First, is such analysis discounting "silent majorities?" I mean, so Maine and California have both taken legislative or judicial action which have been subsequently repealed by a popular vote. But states like New Jersey and Iowa have taken similar actions through similar channels and have not had those decisions challenged by a popular vote. Is it then fair to say that the failure to produce a proposition to repeal indicates a tacit public acceptance or approval of these actions? Will we give Iowa and New Jersey's silence and inaction on this matter the same weight as we've given to Maine and California's vociferous and controversial actions to repeal? In other words, is not bringing it up for a public vote a de facto popular vote victory? And if so, why aren't we saying that out loud?
Second, and more importantly (and I don't know why this never occurred to me sooner), why it is, in fact, so terribly important to make gay marriage legal with a popular vote?
I mean, maybe I misunderstood something in my high school civics class, but I've always been under the impression that our government was created with an intentional set of checks and balances, which were meant both to prevent one person (or group of persons) from assuming too much power, and to protect the rights of the minority. When a miscarriage of justice is committed by one branch of our government, the other branches have the right and obligation to correct or amend it; similarly, when a miscarriage of justice is committed by the larger society, the government has the right and the obligation to both correct that injustice and to protect those victimized by it.
Or to put it another way, when a popular vote denies equal protection under the law, it remains the government's job to provide it.
Which begs the question - are some judges "activists legislating from the bench," as some folks so often complain, or are these judges simply doing their job to ensure equal protection under the law? Where would we as a society be without the "activist" judges behind decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia? And similarly so, where would we be without "interest group" legislation like Title IX, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? And where would we be if Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had not boldly employed their executive powers to secure both the physical safety and constitutional rights of the Little Rock 9 and James Meredith, respectively? When popular opinion or vote denies equal protection under the law, it is the government's responsibility to provide it.
And that, to my mind, is what is going on here. LGBT people are currently being denied equal protection under the law, insofar as marriage allows one certain legal rights in relation to one's partner and any offspring or property shared with said partner. As such, it is entirely within the rightful sphere of influence of any branch of our government to correct or amend this injustice, regardless of the public's opinion, or official vote, on the matter. Now, I suppose you could debate whether or not marriage is an inalienable right that must be guaranteed to all people, but that's an entirely different argument than claiming the branches of government have no business acting outside of "majority opinion" on this issue.
So, while winning a popular vote to legalize gay marriage would certainly signal a "turning of the tide" as to whose opinion is perceived to be "majority," and while it should in theory, at least, shut down complaints about "activist judges" - I guess I don't see it as so crucial to legitimize actions taken by our government to protect our fellow citizens.
But then again, I'm an Upper Midwestern progressive, I'm predisposed to like government and believe in its potential to make the country and the world a better place to live. . .
Peace,
C.
Murphy's Law Part 2
The day I am running late to get to Geisinger Medical Center (1/2 hour drive away when I'm lead-footing it) in order to pray with someone before an early morning surgery is - without fail - the morning Hermes the Honda's windows are covered in frost thick enough to require scraping.
At least I found a parking spot that wasn't in outer Mongolia, and they didn't take my parishioner back to pre-op right away, so I made it in time. But probably not so good to start the day with a couple of choice unprintables. . .
At least I found a parking spot that wasn't in outer Mongolia, and they didn't take my parishioner back to pre-op right away, so I made it in time. But probably not so good to start the day with a couple of choice unprintables. . .
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Because It's Dangerous to Take Ourselves Too Seriously
Personally, I'm a Honda girl, so I'm holding out for a Book of Faith Fit.
This did get one thing wrong - Bruggemann's not a Lutheran. Martin Marty is our prolific writer.
And Dan, before you say anything about the previous sentence, you're on notice that I'm no longer taking crap from you for name-dropping - according to this, it's an inherited disorder! ;-)
This did get one thing wrong - Bruggemann's not a Lutheran. Martin Marty is our prolific writer.
And Dan, before you say anything about the previous sentence, you're on notice that I'm no longer taking crap from you for name-dropping - according to this, it's an inherited disorder! ;-)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
It's October 22, is your Advent planning done yet?
Mine is. :-)
Well, at least the Sunday morning part of it is.
And it's going to be cool.
At least, as I see and hear it in my head right now, it's ridiculously cool. Goosebump-inducing, in fact.
(and that's not merely my ego talking, my secretary actually got goosebumps as I was describing it to her this morning)
Whether the execution proves to be as poignant as the theory remains to be seen. . .
So now the question is: Choral Girl, did I finally beat you to it this year? ;-)>
Well, at least the Sunday morning part of it is.
And it's going to be cool.
At least, as I see and hear it in my head right now, it's ridiculously cool. Goosebump-inducing, in fact.
(and that's not merely my ego talking, my secretary actually got goosebumps as I was describing it to her this morning)
Whether the execution proves to be as poignant as the theory remains to be seen. . .
So now the question is: Choral Girl, did I finally beat you to it this year? ;-)>
Cute Kid Stories (Future Rock Star Division)
Alex, of his own volition, started playing air guitar and air drums during the August youth service, imitating us "big kids" who were playing up front. :)
For last Sunday's service, we gave him a part. With a little prompting, he was able to lead us in the peace.
After we were done rehearsing Saturday, BJ let him noodle around on the trap set. He was in seventh heaven, and apparently told everyone he talked to afterwards "I played the drums!"
Sunday morning, every time BJ got up to play something else - the conga drum, the guitar - Alex was making a beeline for the drum kit! He was hilarious and ingenious, trying every which way to run around or through us to get to the big drums, putting shaky eggs or an Alex-sized conga in his hands only deterred him temporarily.
I think I know what he's getting for Christmas. . . :)
For last Sunday's service, we gave him a part. With a little prompting, he was able to lead us in the peace.
After we were done rehearsing Saturday, BJ let him noodle around on the trap set. He was in seventh heaven, and apparently told everyone he talked to afterwards "I played the drums!"
Sunday morning, every time BJ got up to play something else - the conga drum, the guitar - Alex was making a beeline for the drum kit! He was hilarious and ingenious, trying every which way to run around or through us to get to the big drums, putting shaky eggs or an Alex-sized conga in his hands only deterred him temporarily.
I think I know what he's getting for Christmas. . . :)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
That. Was. AWESOME!
I think I was on my feet pacing through the last four innings, but my Twinkies fought hard, fought back when the chips were down, pulled miraculous plays out of impossible situations, and are heading to New York as the Central Division Champions! Thank you, Metrodome fairy! :)
Goliath is a daunting foe, but a scrappy underdog has taken him down before. Stay focused, stay hungry, and keep riding the crest of this momentum, fellas!
Love,
C.
Goliath is a daunting foe, but a scrappy underdog has taken him down before. Stay focused, stay hungry, and keep riding the crest of this momentum, fellas!
Love,
C.
Wishin' and Hopin'
I'm trying to be all Midwestern zen about this tie-breaker tonight but. . .
. . .the Dome's had some very good mojo this week. There is all kinds of good momentum going into this game.
AND
. . .it would be poetic to crown the team's final season in the Metrodome with a World Series victory.
Fates, if you're listening, it's something to think about. :)
. . .the Dome's had some very good mojo this week. There is all kinds of good momentum going into this game.
AND
. . .it would be poetic to crown the team's final season in the Metrodome with a World Series victory.
Fates, if you're listening, it's something to think about. :)
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Evening Becomes Eclectic
So I hit "shuffle" on the ol' iPod, and here's what I heard on my walk tonight:
Dave Matthews Band
a classical guitar piece
a Spanish vocabulary lesson
Old Crow Medicine Show
Barenaked Ladies
part of a Mitch Hedberg standup routine
part of Dvorak's New World Symphony
an aria and chorus from Tannhauser
early Harry Connick Jr
Not a bad mix for a walk, actually. . .
Dave Matthews Band
a classical guitar piece
a Spanish vocabulary lesson
Old Crow Medicine Show
Barenaked Ladies
part of a Mitch Hedberg standup routine
part of Dvorak's New World Symphony
an aria and chorus from Tannhauser
early Harry Connick Jr
Not a bad mix for a walk, actually. . .
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Deep Thought for the Day
I heart Chris Scharen:
From faith as a way of life (Eerdmans 2008) p. 103
Grace, then, might better be understood as a work of God prior to our salvation, as the capacity for anything to be at all, and as the sense of beauty and possibility that infuses things. Out of this unfathomable grace and love, God seeks to turn us out of self-centeredness and to selflessness, as God is in God's own life as Trinity. Such abundant giving beyond oneself for the sake of a beautiful but broken world where God is already present, already loving and preserving, does not mean retreat from culture. Rather, it means immersion in it for the sake of God's desire to call all creation to new life, to a final reconciliation and peace that the biblical writers called "shalom."
From faith as a way of life (Eerdmans 2008) p. 103
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sing a Joyful Song at All Times
. . .when necessary use words.
This is awesome. Hat tip to Petruchio for showing it to me!
This is awesome. Hat tip to Petruchio for showing it to me!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Germination
There are some days as a pastor when you wonder whether anybody listens to anything you say, and whether anything you do is really making any difference in the world anyway.
Then there are nights like tonight, when you get to see a seed you planted a long while ago actually break up out of the ground and reach for the sun.
I had tried getting a yoga class going at our congregation a couple of years ago - I saw it as one of those "everybody wins" kind of situations, as we'd be providing something that would greatly benefit people's physical, emotional, and mental health, and not only to members of our congregation, but maybe even beyond, to folks in the surrounding community. I figured we'd maybe get 6-8 people who would take part. It never materialized, however, because the teacher I had been studying with suddenly fell off the face of the earth, never got back to me about the class at UIC (and I certainly didn't feel like I knew yoga well enough to teach it myself).
Fast forward two years: this summer one of our college-age members, whose degree is in recreational therapy, started talking about offering a yoga class at UIC this fall. People were signing up like gangbusters during August, tonight was the first class and I think we had at least 20 people there (of all different ages and abilities!)! And Kristie is a really good teacher, so I think they'll all be back - maybe they'll even invite a friend!
To God be the glory for giving the growth, always - but it's sure nice to see some seed I have planted come to fruition once in a while. :)
Then there are nights like tonight, when you get to see a seed you planted a long while ago actually break up out of the ground and reach for the sun.
I had tried getting a yoga class going at our congregation a couple of years ago - I saw it as one of those "everybody wins" kind of situations, as we'd be providing something that would greatly benefit people's physical, emotional, and mental health, and not only to members of our congregation, but maybe even beyond, to folks in the surrounding community. I figured we'd maybe get 6-8 people who would take part. It never materialized, however, because the teacher I had been studying with suddenly fell off the face of the earth, never got back to me about the class at UIC (and I certainly didn't feel like I knew yoga well enough to teach it myself).
Fast forward two years: this summer one of our college-age members, whose degree is in recreational therapy, started talking about offering a yoga class at UIC this fall. People were signing up like gangbusters during August, tonight was the first class and I think we had at least 20 people there (of all different ages and abilities!)! And Kristie is a really good teacher, so I think they'll all be back - maybe they'll even invite a friend!
To God be the glory for giving the growth, always - but it's sure nice to see some seed I have planted come to fruition once in a while. :)
In Christ He is My Brother. . .
I don't normally put my sermons on this blog, but this is one I feel compelled to share. I was away volunteering at the Churchwide Assembly, then on vacation, and last week we had an assistant to the bishop as our guest, so this past Sunday was my first time back in the pulpit and my first chance to address what happened in Minneapolis. Julia and John's story has been used by permission, though names have been changed and certain identifying details generalized to protect the innocent. May the Spirit give us all eyes to see and ears to hear and the strength to bear one another's burdens in love. . .
In Christ He is My Brother
Well, even though today is Rally Day, and even though we are blessing backpacks and briefcases, students and teachers, and the beginning of a new school year, and the lectionary has even conveniently given me some Scripture really appropriate for teachers, there in both Isaiah and James, this morning I’m going to do something I never do. I’m going to ignore the lectionary and preach a sermon that has nothing to do with anything else happening in today’s worship, but has everything to do with who we are and how we live together as the body of Christ. This is a sermon I feel the Holy Spirit gave to me while I was volunteering at the Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis 3 weeks ago, and I pray now the Holy Spirit will give all of you the ears to hear it.
I want to start by letting you know that going to the Churchwide Assembly was an incredible experience, and it made me very proud to be a Lutheran, because we are doing some amazing ministry – in our own backyards, across this nation, and throughout the world. The Churchwide Assembly is a chance to learn about and celebrate the ministry we are already doing, and to dedicate ourselves to new ministries that will meet the new needs and challenges arising in our midst. Among the many actions taken by the Churchwide Assembly were commitments to fund a global HIV/AIDS strategy, to both increase education and prevention efforts, and to provide resources to assist those already living with the disease; we also dedicated ourselves to developing a Lutheran Malaria Initiative, to help prevent and eradicate malaria, especially in Africa, by distributing mosquito nets, basically, bed tents, to be given to those who live and sleep in afflicted countries; we also committed ourselves to calling for long-overdue immigration reform in our own nation, and asked Augsburg Fortress, our publishing house, to develop worship and liturgical resources in Braille, to better include our sight-challenged brothers and sisters; and we voted to enter into full communion with our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church, an agreement that will help particularly rural or isolated congregations in both of our denominations to partner together in mission for Christ.
But my guess is that most of you haven’t heard a thing about any of these actions I just mentioned, because those are the things we are doing for the healing of the world. “Bo-ring” stuff as far as the media is concerned. What sells is sex and violence, so if you’ve heard anything about what happened in Minneapolis, I bet it’s about the decisions made regarding human sexuality, and the subsequent conflict, and potential schism within the church, as a result of those decisions.
In case you’ve been blissfully ignorant, and just so I know we are all on the same page, let me tell you what the assembly did decide. First, they approved, by the required 2/3 of the assembly, a social statement on human sexuality. This statement outlines what we as a church believe is healthy, helpful, and life-giving in relation to sexuality and sexual behavior, and it also outlines what we as a church believe is unhealthy, harmful, or life-taking in these matters. I would encourage all of you to read this statement for yourselves – you can either find it online, or, if you do not have access to the internet, call the church office and we would be happy to print you a copy.
The assembly also approved to allow congregations and pastors of the ELCA to provide pastoral care for their homosexual members as they best saw fit, acknowledging that such pastoral care may include the blessing of same-sex unions.
And the assembly also approved that congregations and synods be allowed to call whichever qualified candidate for ministry they believe the Holy Spirit is sending them, even if that candidate is a homosexual in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable partnership (or, to put it another way, if they are in a covenanted relationship like unto the marriage of their heterosexual peers).
These are the decisions that I’m guessing you have heard something about, though I imagine they were presented in a much more polarizing fashion than I’ve laid them out for you here.
My guess is that you also didn’t hear about the “boring” decision made in relationship to and in conjunction with all of these decisions about sexuality. That relatively boring, non-sexy decision that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commits itself to bear one another’s burdens, to love the neighbor, and to respect the bound conscience of all. I bet you didn’t hear that that decision overwhelmingly received the most support out of all the decisions that were made in regard to human sexuality. I bet you also didn’t hear that the assembly chose to move that decision up on their agenda so it would be considered first – and that 77% of the voting members, without yet knowing how the votes on the other considerations would play out – 77% of the people there said regardless of what happens, we are committed to each other. No matter how this turns out, we are committed to loving and caring for each other in the face of deep and often passionate disagreement; we are committed to respecting the conscience of not only those who share our opinions and scriptural understanding, but also and especially of those who do not share our opinions and scriptural understanding; we are committed to bearing one another’s burdens – that is, to bearing both one another’s relief and one another’s dismay. Because no matter how those votes turned out, my friends, whether those policies were approved or denied, it was certain a great many people in this church were going to rejoice and a great many people in this church were going to lament.
I don’t know if you realize it, friends, but this is probably the most earth-shattering decision that was made in Minneapolis – in the midst of a culture that constantly tries to polarize us, whether the camps we are being broken down into are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, mainline or evangelical, city or country, East or West, North or South, Pepsi drinkers or Coke drinkers, Steelers fans or Eagles fans – in a culture that is constantly trying to divvy us up and tells us repeatedly that we should only associate with like-minded people, for this church to stand up and say “No – we are committed to loving and respecting and bearing both the joy and the pain of one another, even in the midst of our disagreement” – that is a profound witness to what God has done and is doing even now in Christ.
And I have no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit is running loose in this church, as I saw this witness to Christ’s unity emerge over and over again that week in Minneapolis.
One of the speakers who came to the floor during the assembly was a middle-aged pastor who told a story from his internship 20 years earlier, when he was visiting a woman who was dying. Death has a tendency to make people awfully reflective, and in this case, it was not merely the woman but also her husband who was thinking back over his life, both joys and regrets. The husband was wrestling with a lot of guilt – you see, he had been an American bombardier during WWII, and had been involved in the carpet-bombing of Berlin. He was certain his actions had been directly responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, and he couldn’t forgive himself for that, and he wasn’t sure God could forgive him for it either.
Later in that very same week, this young student pastor was visiting another woman in the congregation, and in the course of conversation, discovered that she was a German immigrant, and had been a child in Berlin during the war. She herself had survived, but she had held her sister in her arms as the sister died from injuries sustained during the carpet-bombing.
In youthful ignorance, the student pastor blurted out “Do you know about the history of this man in the congregation? He could very well be the one who dropped the bomb that killed your sister! How can you go to church with this man?! How can you stand at the communion rail with him?!”
And the woman looked the student pastor right in the eye and said, “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”
In the midst of the sexuality discussions, another pastor got up to speak –white, male, about my age - he’s a friend of a friend, actually, so I also happen to know he is straight and married. He was speaking at a green microphone, which meant that he spoke in favor of the recommendations before the floor. But the first words out of his mouth were: “Is anybody else scared to death to be speaking at a microphone? I’m shaking here. . .please pray for me while I do this.”
And then we all watched as the man standing next to him at the red microphone reached out and put his hand on this pastor’s shoulder, bowed his head, and prayed for him for the duration of his speech, even as he was speaking an opposing point of view.
In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?
My friend Julia is a pastor in Minnesota, she was a volunteer coordinator for the Churchwide Assembly, she’s the one who recruited me to come and help out for the week. Her college friend John was not a seminary classmate of ours but he is also a pastor, in the South, he was also there for the week, not as a volunteer but as a voting member for his synod. John and Julia’s families are very close, close enough that Julia and her husband Jay chose John to be godfather to their daughter Judy. But, John and Julia’s families are also diametrically opposed in their scriptural understanding and their opinions on these matters of sexuality.
During the assembly, John became a recognizable face of opposition as he spoke several times at the red microphones. Throughout the assembly, as decisions were made that were pleasing to Julia but disappointing to John, she kept seeking him out to see how he was doing and to be a good friend and support him as he struggled with what was happening.
At one point late in the week, Julia was in the volunteer break room watching the proceedings on a closed-circuit TV, and one of our classmates from seminary, a woman named Jane, came into the room right as John was again speaking from a red microphone. Julia told Jane “That’s Judy’s godfather.” To which Jane replied, “Oh. . .huh. . .well, don’t you think you ought to be distancing your daughter from him?”
And Julia was so dumbfounded by the suggestion that she didn’t even know what to say. They had known of this disagreement between them long before Judy was born, and that had not prevented Julia and Jay from choosing John as Judy’s godfather, nor had it prevented John from joyfully accepting this role in Judy’s life. So why on earth, Julia wanted to ask, would the events of this week alter that relationship in any way?
Which is not to say that their relationship is always easy – John and Julia both would be the first to tell you that some days it’s very hard to not let this difference interfere with their friendship. But they both work at it, and they both bear with one another in love.
Maybe in the shock-induced absence of anything else to say, Julia should have simply looked Jane in the eye and said “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”
Certainly, there are those within this church – on both sides of this issue, because I hear it coming from both those who are deeply pleased and from those who are deeply disappointed by the decisions made in Minneapolis – but I hear all kinds of people in this church who think the only way forward from here is to separate and distance ourselves from those with whom we disagree.
And if that is where you are at, if your conscience binds you to distance yourself in any way from this body of Christ, I want you to know I will respect that, and I will respect you, and I will continue to love you and to bear the burden of these decisions with you, because in Christ YOU ARE my brothers and sisters, and I can hold nothing against you.
But I also must confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that the will to separate is not where I am at. A church which sorts itself out into only like-minded people is not the church that I want to belong to, and it’s not the church that I feel called to serve, because I believe we need each other: black and white, male and female, gay and straight, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Protestant and Catholic, mainline and evangelical, city and country, East and West, North and South, Pepsi drinkers and Coke drinkers, Steelers fans and Eagles fans. . .in God’s kingdom, I believe there is room AND there is need FOR ALL.
So the church that is committed to holding together and living together in spite of our disagreements, the church that communes with and prays for even those we may consider our enemies, the church that John and Julia work every day to embody - that’s the church I want to belong to. . .that’s the church I believe God is calling us to be. . .that’s the church I believe Jesus is even now creating in our midst.
THANKS BE TO GOD.
Amen.
In Christ He is My Brother
Well, even though today is Rally Day, and even though we are blessing backpacks and briefcases, students and teachers, and the beginning of a new school year, and the lectionary has even conveniently given me some Scripture really appropriate for teachers, there in both Isaiah and James, this morning I’m going to do something I never do. I’m going to ignore the lectionary and preach a sermon that has nothing to do with anything else happening in today’s worship, but has everything to do with who we are and how we live together as the body of Christ. This is a sermon I feel the Holy Spirit gave to me while I was volunteering at the Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis 3 weeks ago, and I pray now the Holy Spirit will give all of you the ears to hear it.
I want to start by letting you know that going to the Churchwide Assembly was an incredible experience, and it made me very proud to be a Lutheran, because we are doing some amazing ministry – in our own backyards, across this nation, and throughout the world. The Churchwide Assembly is a chance to learn about and celebrate the ministry we are already doing, and to dedicate ourselves to new ministries that will meet the new needs and challenges arising in our midst. Among the many actions taken by the Churchwide Assembly were commitments to fund a global HIV/AIDS strategy, to both increase education and prevention efforts, and to provide resources to assist those already living with the disease; we also dedicated ourselves to developing a Lutheran Malaria Initiative, to help prevent and eradicate malaria, especially in Africa, by distributing mosquito nets, basically, bed tents, to be given to those who live and sleep in afflicted countries; we also committed ourselves to calling for long-overdue immigration reform in our own nation, and asked Augsburg Fortress, our publishing house, to develop worship and liturgical resources in Braille, to better include our sight-challenged brothers and sisters; and we voted to enter into full communion with our brothers and sisters in the United Methodist Church, an agreement that will help particularly rural or isolated congregations in both of our denominations to partner together in mission for Christ.
But my guess is that most of you haven’t heard a thing about any of these actions I just mentioned, because those are the things we are doing for the healing of the world. “Bo-ring” stuff as far as the media is concerned. What sells is sex and violence, so if you’ve heard anything about what happened in Minneapolis, I bet it’s about the decisions made regarding human sexuality, and the subsequent conflict, and potential schism within the church, as a result of those decisions.
In case you’ve been blissfully ignorant, and just so I know we are all on the same page, let me tell you what the assembly did decide. First, they approved, by the required 2/3 of the assembly, a social statement on human sexuality. This statement outlines what we as a church believe is healthy, helpful, and life-giving in relation to sexuality and sexual behavior, and it also outlines what we as a church believe is unhealthy, harmful, or life-taking in these matters. I would encourage all of you to read this statement for yourselves – you can either find it online, or, if you do not have access to the internet, call the church office and we would be happy to print you a copy.
The assembly also approved to allow congregations and pastors of the ELCA to provide pastoral care for their homosexual members as they best saw fit, acknowledging that such pastoral care may include the blessing of same-sex unions.
And the assembly also approved that congregations and synods be allowed to call whichever qualified candidate for ministry they believe the Holy Spirit is sending them, even if that candidate is a homosexual in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable partnership (or, to put it another way, if they are in a covenanted relationship like unto the marriage of their heterosexual peers).
These are the decisions that I’m guessing you have heard something about, though I imagine they were presented in a much more polarizing fashion than I’ve laid them out for you here.
My guess is that you also didn’t hear about the “boring” decision made in relationship to and in conjunction with all of these decisions about sexuality. That relatively boring, non-sexy decision that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commits itself to bear one another’s burdens, to love the neighbor, and to respect the bound conscience of all. I bet you didn’t hear that that decision overwhelmingly received the most support out of all the decisions that were made in regard to human sexuality. I bet you also didn’t hear that the assembly chose to move that decision up on their agenda so it would be considered first – and that 77% of the voting members, without yet knowing how the votes on the other considerations would play out – 77% of the people there said regardless of what happens, we are committed to each other. No matter how this turns out, we are committed to loving and caring for each other in the face of deep and often passionate disagreement; we are committed to respecting the conscience of not only those who share our opinions and scriptural understanding, but also and especially of those who do not share our opinions and scriptural understanding; we are committed to bearing one another’s burdens – that is, to bearing both one another’s relief and one another’s dismay. Because no matter how those votes turned out, my friends, whether those policies were approved or denied, it was certain a great many people in this church were going to rejoice and a great many people in this church were going to lament.
I don’t know if you realize it, friends, but this is probably the most earth-shattering decision that was made in Minneapolis – in the midst of a culture that constantly tries to polarize us, whether the camps we are being broken down into are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, mainline or evangelical, city or country, East or West, North or South, Pepsi drinkers or Coke drinkers, Steelers fans or Eagles fans – in a culture that is constantly trying to divvy us up and tells us repeatedly that we should only associate with like-minded people, for this church to stand up and say “No – we are committed to loving and respecting and bearing both the joy and the pain of one another, even in the midst of our disagreement” – that is a profound witness to what God has done and is doing even now in Christ.
And I have no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit is running loose in this church, as I saw this witness to Christ’s unity emerge over and over again that week in Minneapolis.
One of the speakers who came to the floor during the assembly was a middle-aged pastor who told a story from his internship 20 years earlier, when he was visiting a woman who was dying. Death has a tendency to make people awfully reflective, and in this case, it was not merely the woman but also her husband who was thinking back over his life, both joys and regrets. The husband was wrestling with a lot of guilt – you see, he had been an American bombardier during WWII, and had been involved in the carpet-bombing of Berlin. He was certain his actions had been directly responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, and he couldn’t forgive himself for that, and he wasn’t sure God could forgive him for it either.
Later in that very same week, this young student pastor was visiting another woman in the congregation, and in the course of conversation, discovered that she was a German immigrant, and had been a child in Berlin during the war. She herself had survived, but she had held her sister in her arms as the sister died from injuries sustained during the carpet-bombing.
In youthful ignorance, the student pastor blurted out “Do you know about the history of this man in the congregation? He could very well be the one who dropped the bomb that killed your sister! How can you go to church with this man?! How can you stand at the communion rail with him?!”
And the woman looked the student pastor right in the eye and said, “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”
In the midst of the sexuality discussions, another pastor got up to speak –white, male, about my age - he’s a friend of a friend, actually, so I also happen to know he is straight and married. He was speaking at a green microphone, which meant that he spoke in favor of the recommendations before the floor. But the first words out of his mouth were: “Is anybody else scared to death to be speaking at a microphone? I’m shaking here. . .please pray for me while I do this.”
And then we all watched as the man standing next to him at the red microphone reached out and put his hand on this pastor’s shoulder, bowed his head, and prayed for him for the duration of his speech, even as he was speaking an opposing point of view.
In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?
My friend Julia is a pastor in Minnesota, she was a volunteer coordinator for the Churchwide Assembly, she’s the one who recruited me to come and help out for the week. Her college friend John was not a seminary classmate of ours but he is also a pastor, in the South, he was also there for the week, not as a volunteer but as a voting member for his synod. John and Julia’s families are very close, close enough that Julia and her husband Jay chose John to be godfather to their daughter Judy. But, John and Julia’s families are also diametrically opposed in their scriptural understanding and their opinions on these matters of sexuality.
During the assembly, John became a recognizable face of opposition as he spoke several times at the red microphones. Throughout the assembly, as decisions were made that were pleasing to Julia but disappointing to John, she kept seeking him out to see how he was doing and to be a good friend and support him as he struggled with what was happening.
At one point late in the week, Julia was in the volunteer break room watching the proceedings on a closed-circuit TV, and one of our classmates from seminary, a woman named Jane, came into the room right as John was again speaking from a red microphone. Julia told Jane “That’s Judy’s godfather.” To which Jane replied, “Oh. . .huh. . .well, don’t you think you ought to be distancing your daughter from him?”
And Julia was so dumbfounded by the suggestion that she didn’t even know what to say. They had known of this disagreement between them long before Judy was born, and that had not prevented Julia and Jay from choosing John as Judy’s godfather, nor had it prevented John from joyfully accepting this role in Judy’s life. So why on earth, Julia wanted to ask, would the events of this week alter that relationship in any way?
Which is not to say that their relationship is always easy – John and Julia both would be the first to tell you that some days it’s very hard to not let this difference interfere with their friendship. But they both work at it, and they both bear with one another in love.
Maybe in the shock-induced absence of anything else to say, Julia should have simply looked Jane in the eye and said “In Christ, he is my brother. How can I hold anything against him?”
Certainly, there are those within this church – on both sides of this issue, because I hear it coming from both those who are deeply pleased and from those who are deeply disappointed by the decisions made in Minneapolis – but I hear all kinds of people in this church who think the only way forward from here is to separate and distance ourselves from those with whom we disagree.
And if that is where you are at, if your conscience binds you to distance yourself in any way from this body of Christ, I want you to know I will respect that, and I will respect you, and I will continue to love you and to bear the burden of these decisions with you, because in Christ YOU ARE my brothers and sisters, and I can hold nothing against you.
But I also must confess to you, my brothers and sisters, that the will to separate is not where I am at. A church which sorts itself out into only like-minded people is not the church that I want to belong to, and it’s not the church that I feel called to serve, because I believe we need each other: black and white, male and female, gay and straight, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Protestant and Catholic, mainline and evangelical, city and country, East and West, North and South, Pepsi drinkers and Coke drinkers, Steelers fans and Eagles fans. . .in God’s kingdom, I believe there is room AND there is need FOR ALL.
So the church that is committed to holding together and living together in spite of our disagreements, the church that communes with and prays for even those we may consider our enemies, the church that John and Julia work every day to embody - that’s the church I want to belong to. . .that’s the church I believe God is calling us to be. . .that’s the church I believe Jesus is even now creating in our midst.
THANKS BE TO GOD.
Amen.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Catrina's Best of the Midwest Tour Part 2
So, after a couple days adventuring around the Twin Cities, we then took a little road trip to see more of the Upper Midwest. My dad and Brenda bought a camper at the beginning of the summer and have it parked down by the Root River, they've been after me to come see it when I'm home. So we spent a night with them at the camper, it was another gorgeous evening so we ate outside and had a nice dinner of grilled brats, corn on the cob, fresh tomatoes, and sundry other things. Then we went into Lanesboro for some ice cream, and to walk around and see the town a bit:
Then back to the camper for a bonfire, where I fumbled my way through some songs (haven't been playing much this summer, and while I could still remember chord progressions, I was struggling to remember the song lyrics that went with them):
Next morning Brenda made us a nice breakfast - it started out as pastries, then "You guys better eat some protein or you'll be hungry in a couple of hours" so she put some bacon and sausage on the skillet, then all of a sudden she came out with a bowl full of scrambled eggs. Dad warned us to get out of there before she started making French Toast :), so we got on the road toward Chicago, stopping for a while in Madison so we could visit with Nick and Acacia, who took us on a nice walk with a good view of the city:
We arrived in the Chicago 'burbs in the evening and had a fabulous dinner of Chicken Cacciatore with Sarah's family, who were gracious enough to host us for a couple of days. The following morning we caught the commuter train to Union Station and spent a whole day exploring the city. . .man, what didn't we do? We tried to see the stock exchange, but discovered visitors are no longer allowed near the pit (since 9/11). But, we did see Millenium Park:
some highlights at the Art Institute, the Sears (er, Willis) Tower (including the scary glass boxes - I was too chicken to go in, but both Adri and Burki stood in them):
and the Shedd Aquarium. We discovered the Museum Park area has a great view of the skyline:
We tried to go to the top of the Hancock Tower also, but our "Go Chicago" cards ran out at 5:30 pm, and we didn't get there until 6 pm. So we walked a good chunk of the Magnificent Mile back down to the Burghoff, where we had dinner. Then it was back to Union Station to catch the train back to the Gioe's, where we recounted our day over dessert (the Gioes are a very pro-dessert family, which is one of the many things I love about them!). Then, it was time to put this very full day to rest.
More to come, including: Milwaukee, Door County, and the Happiest Place on Earth. . .stay tuned!
Then back to the camper for a bonfire, where I fumbled my way through some songs (haven't been playing much this summer, and while I could still remember chord progressions, I was struggling to remember the song lyrics that went with them):
Next morning Brenda made us a nice breakfast - it started out as pastries, then "You guys better eat some protein or you'll be hungry in a couple of hours" so she put some bacon and sausage on the skillet, then all of a sudden she came out with a bowl full of scrambled eggs. Dad warned us to get out of there before she started making French Toast :), so we got on the road toward Chicago, stopping for a while in Madison so we could visit with Nick and Acacia, who took us on a nice walk with a good view of the city:
We arrived in the Chicago 'burbs in the evening and had a fabulous dinner of Chicken Cacciatore with Sarah's family, who were gracious enough to host us for a couple of days. The following morning we caught the commuter train to Union Station and spent a whole day exploring the city. . .man, what didn't we do? We tried to see the stock exchange, but discovered visitors are no longer allowed near the pit (since 9/11). But, we did see Millenium Park:
some highlights at the Art Institute, the Sears (er, Willis) Tower (including the scary glass boxes - I was too chicken to go in, but both Adri and Burki stood in them):
and the Shedd Aquarium. We discovered the Museum Park area has a great view of the skyline:
We tried to go to the top of the Hancock Tower also, but our "Go Chicago" cards ran out at 5:30 pm, and we didn't get there until 6 pm. So we walked a good chunk of the Magnificent Mile back down to the Burghoff, where we had dinner. Then it was back to Union Station to catch the train back to the Gioe's, where we recounted our day over dessert (the Gioes are a very pro-dessert family, which is one of the many things I love about them!). Then, it was time to put this very full day to rest.
More to come, including: Milwaukee, Door County, and the Happiest Place on Earth. . .stay tuned!
Murphy's Law
The one pocket which I neglect to check is always the one that has the used Kleenex and/or guitar pick in it.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Catrina's Best of the Midwest Tour Part 1
The blog's been fairly silent for a while because Adriana and Burkhard came to visit for a couple of weeks, so we were all on vacation in Minnesota and the greater Upper Midwest together. Apparently if this preaching gig ever gives out, I could make a pretty decent living as a tour guide. Here's a recap of some of the fun we had:
Hiking along the St. Croix River at Interstate Park
The Stone Arch Bridge and the St. Anthony Falls history loop along the Mississippi River
(the sun was in a bad spot for pictures at the time we were there, so this photo is actually from a couple years ago)
A Pint at Brit's, on the roof on a beautiful evening, watching the lawn bowlers
The next day we took a drive to look at all the old fancy houses on Summit Avenue, and thought we would just pop in to see the inside of the St. Paul Cathedral. A word to the wise: Saturday is not a good day to try this. We almost crashed a wedding, and when we went back a few hours later, almost crashed another!
Oh well, at least it was a gorgeous day to be on top of the State Capitol:
We followed that up with lunch at Cosetta's (no picture here, you just have to imagine the yumminess or click on the link).
We then made our way over to Minneapolis, where we were able to see the inside of Central Lutheran (no weddings because they were doing so much with the Churchwide Assembly), which had a lovely exhibit of He Qi's artwork. And then we strolled and shopped along Nicollet Mall before heading back to the 'burbs to meet some friends for dinner at Betty's Pies (5 layer chocolate mint pie. . .need I say more?).
More of Adri a Burki's great American adventure to come. Stay tuned. . .
Hiking along the St. Croix River at Interstate Park
The Stone Arch Bridge and the St. Anthony Falls history loop along the Mississippi River
(the sun was in a bad spot for pictures at the time we were there, so this photo is actually from a couple years ago)
A Pint at Brit's, on the roof on a beautiful evening, watching the lawn bowlers
The next day we took a drive to look at all the old fancy houses on Summit Avenue, and thought we would just pop in to see the inside of the St. Paul Cathedral. A word to the wise: Saturday is not a good day to try this. We almost crashed a wedding, and when we went back a few hours later, almost crashed another!
Oh well, at least it was a gorgeous day to be on top of the State Capitol:
We followed that up with lunch at Cosetta's (no picture here, you just have to imagine the yumminess or click on the link).
We then made our way over to Minneapolis, where we were able to see the inside of Central Lutheran (no weddings because they were doing so much with the Churchwide Assembly), which had a lovely exhibit of He Qi's artwork. And then we strolled and shopped along Nicollet Mall before heading back to the 'burbs to meet some friends for dinner at Betty's Pies (5 layer chocolate mint pie. . .need I say more?).
More of Adri a Burki's great American adventure to come. Stay tuned. . .
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Wanna Ha Gog?
Redemption comes in many forms.
Today, at the end of a very long day that was spent mostly with people too well acquainted with Death and All His Friends; today, in a space that I have most recently known only as a place of deep, unspeakable sorrow; today, redemption came in the waiting room of the maternity ward, as a smiling Alex handed me an empty plastic plate and asked, "Wanna ha gog?" (translation: Want a hot dog?). Today, resurrection broke in on all of us as we met and held his brand new baby brother.
Truly, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.
Thanks be to God.
Today, at the end of a very long day that was spent mostly with people too well acquainted with Death and All His Friends; today, in a space that I have most recently known only as a place of deep, unspeakable sorrow; today, redemption came in the waiting room of the maternity ward, as a smiling Alex handed me an empty plastic plate and asked, "Wanna ha gog?" (translation: Want a hot dog?). Today, resurrection broke in on all of us as we met and held his brand new baby brother.
Truly, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.
Thanks be to God.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Power of the Pentatonic Scale
World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival on Vimeo.
This is cool. I heart Bobby McFerrin. :)
Hat tip to Mr. Bowman for this link.
Nevermind
I'm feeling a little like Emily Litella tonight, not because of the health care rants, which I've been inflicting upon the good people of the world wide web both here and over on facebook.
No, this retraction has to do with my endorsement of my friend Meg, who is apparently no longer running for the St. Paul School Board. So, uh, St. Paul friends, please disregard that previous post.
No, this retraction has to do with my endorsement of my friend Meg, who is apparently no longer running for the St. Paul School Board. So, uh, St. Paul friends, please disregard that previous post.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
And Another Thing. . .
While waiting in the heat and humidity today, I was trying to read the book I brought along, but I couldn't help but overhear the conversations going on around me. This woman behind me was going on and on about the evils of socialism, and about her 80-some year old mother and how good she has it now. Why, her mother remembers the old days when old people just had to go to the poor house or their family had to take care of them, if they could. But now, her mother has such a nice life, she has enough food to eat, and can treat herself to the beauty parlor once a week (food and perks, I'm sure, paid for with social security), and lives in a nice apartment in a local senior high rise (I know this to be government subsidized housing), and she has Medicare - life is just peachy, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I finally couldn't take it anymore. I turned to this woman and politely said "With all due respect, ma'am, Medicare is a form of socialized medicine. Your aging mother's great life is in large part made possible by the government, the government is supporting her."
And she just kind of looked at me kind of dumbfounded for a second, nodded and said "Uh-huh" as if she agreed with me, then turned back to her companions and continued her diatribe against the evils of socialism.
I just honestly don't understand how people can be that ignorant. How can you, in the same breath, both rail against socialism AND laud an essentially socialist system from which you are personally deriving great benefit? A system which is sparing you, as the child, the bulk of the cost (in both time and money) of caring for your aging parent, and freeing you to take off to a second home in Florida for half the year (yeah, that was part of the conversation too)?
And for that matter, why are so many people so afraid of bureaucrats making decisions about what kind of care we receive when health insurance industry bureaucrats are ALREADY making the decisions about what kind of health care we receive, and have been instructed to make the company's bottom line, not your health, their guiding principle?
I finally couldn't take it anymore. I turned to this woman and politely said "With all due respect, ma'am, Medicare is a form of socialized medicine. Your aging mother's great life is in large part made possible by the government, the government is supporting her."
And she just kind of looked at me kind of dumbfounded for a second, nodded and said "Uh-huh" as if she agreed with me, then turned back to her companions and continued her diatribe against the evils of socialism.
I just honestly don't understand how people can be that ignorant. How can you, in the same breath, both rail against socialism AND laud an essentially socialist system from which you are personally deriving great benefit? A system which is sparing you, as the child, the bulk of the cost (in both time and money) of caring for your aging parent, and freeing you to take off to a second home in Florida for half the year (yeah, that was part of the conversation too)?
And for that matter, why are so many people so afraid of bureaucrats making decisions about what kind of care we receive when health insurance industry bureaucrats are ALREADY making the decisions about what kind of health care we receive, and have been instructed to make the company's bottom line, not your health, their guiding principle?
An Exercise in Self-Control
Q: What do you call a Democrat in a small town or rural congregation?
A: The pastor.
That joke is actually a gross generalization that has not proven itself to be remotely true in my current context. But wow, it sure felt true today. . .
Sen. Specter came to Bucknell for a town hall meeting today. I waited in line, outside, in the heat and humidity (one of the grossest days we've had this summer) for a chance to get in. I was actually the last one to get a seat - almost didn't get in at all thanks to the two upright patriots behind me who cut the line once we got in the door of the host building. The people in charge weren't going to let me in to the auditorium, but I was persistent in trying to talk them into letting me stand along the wall in the back, when suddenly there was one seat still available.
Part of me wonders if I should have been so persistent, because right now I am truly embarrassed and disgusted by the behavior of my fellow Americans. I understand that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on every issue, but there is no need to be disrespectful in the midst of disagreement. There was much more ignorance and arrogance on display this afternoon than there was reasoned, civil discourse. About 2/3 of the people in the auditorium exhibited tremendous disrespect both to the Senator and to the few people (maybe 5 out of 30) who asked questions or spoke in favor of any political theory shared with the President.
They literally booed, hissed, called names, yelled interruptions, and purposely created cacophanous noise so that you couldn't hear what the Senator or the person had to say. And then they cheered for the preservation of our freedoms (conveniently forgetting that freedom of speech extends to everyone, including those with whom you disgree - to his credit, Sen. Specter called them on that at one point).
One of the later speakers, who works for Geisinger Health Center (local hospital, nationally renowned for its care), shared a story of a recent patient, a Valley resident, who had a heart attack right after losing their health insurance, and spent their entire stay at the hospital - a time meant for rest and recovery - worried sick they were going to lose their house and their small business in order to cover the bills from this 3 day stay. This health care employee ended the story with a plea for universal coverage - not single payer national system, necessarily, but universal coverage for all Americans, and the jerks in the crowd actually booed that. Booed the idea that every American should be able to get medical attention without bankrupting their family.
It was all I could do to stop myself from running up front and hijacking a microphone and first, shaming them for their disrespect, and second, asking them: What if that heart attack patient was your neighbor? Not even in the universal Good Samaritan/Christian everybody's my neighbor kind of sense - what if they were literally your neighbor?
What if they were your grandfather?
What about when it's YOU?
A: The pastor.
That joke is actually a gross generalization that has not proven itself to be remotely true in my current context. But wow, it sure felt true today. . .
Sen. Specter came to Bucknell for a town hall meeting today. I waited in line, outside, in the heat and humidity (one of the grossest days we've had this summer) for a chance to get in. I was actually the last one to get a seat - almost didn't get in at all thanks to the two upright patriots behind me who cut the line once we got in the door of the host building. The people in charge weren't going to let me in to the auditorium, but I was persistent in trying to talk them into letting me stand along the wall in the back, when suddenly there was one seat still available.
Part of me wonders if I should have been so persistent, because right now I am truly embarrassed and disgusted by the behavior of my fellow Americans. I understand that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on every issue, but there is no need to be disrespectful in the midst of disagreement. There was much more ignorance and arrogance on display this afternoon than there was reasoned, civil discourse. About 2/3 of the people in the auditorium exhibited tremendous disrespect both to the Senator and to the few people (maybe 5 out of 30) who asked questions or spoke in favor of any political theory shared with the President.
They literally booed, hissed, called names, yelled interruptions, and purposely created cacophanous noise so that you couldn't hear what the Senator or the person had to say. And then they cheered for the preservation of our freedoms (conveniently forgetting that freedom of speech extends to everyone, including those with whom you disgree - to his credit, Sen. Specter called them on that at one point).
One of the later speakers, who works for Geisinger Health Center (local hospital, nationally renowned for its care), shared a story of a recent patient, a Valley resident, who had a heart attack right after losing their health insurance, and spent their entire stay at the hospital - a time meant for rest and recovery - worried sick they were going to lose their house and their small business in order to cover the bills from this 3 day stay. This health care employee ended the story with a plea for universal coverage - not single payer national system, necessarily, but universal coverage for all Americans, and the jerks in the crowd actually booed that. Booed the idea that every American should be able to get medical attention without bankrupting their family.
It was all I could do to stop myself from running up front and hijacking a microphone and first, shaming them for their disrespect, and second, asking them: What if that heart attack patient was your neighbor? Not even in the universal Good Samaritan/Christian everybody's my neighbor kind of sense - what if they were literally your neighbor?
What if they were your grandfather?
What about when it's YOU?
Monday, August 10, 2009
I Thought We Weren't In Kansas Anymore
One of the perks of living in Pennsylvania is that tornadoes, while possible, are supposed to be rare.
But you'd never know that from the weather we've been having this summer. There was a funnel cloud touching down in New Columbia and Watsontown just a few weeks ago, and yesterday afternoon we had another doozy with both "mild rotation" in the stratosphere and wicked bow echo straightline winds on the ground.
At one point, I seriously thought my windows were going to blow out. And I was torn between the desire to run quick and close the drapes (in the hope that they would absorb or at least slow down any flying shards of glass), and the fear of said windows shattering on me precisely as I walked into the living room to close said drapes.
In the end, courage (or stupidity) won the day, and I snuck up on the windows from the side (hoping potential damage would hit expendable extremities, not puncture vital organs).
I think my fears were well-founded, because when the worst of the storm passed and I opened the drapes, I was greeted by this:
But you'd never know that from the weather we've been having this summer. There was a funnel cloud touching down in New Columbia and Watsontown just a few weeks ago, and yesterday afternoon we had another doozy with both "mild rotation" in the stratosphere and wicked bow echo straightline winds on the ground.
At one point, I seriously thought my windows were going to blow out. And I was torn between the desire to run quick and close the drapes (in the hope that they would absorb or at least slow down any flying shards of glass), and the fear of said windows shattering on me precisely as I walked into the living room to close said drapes.
In the end, courage (or stupidity) won the day, and I snuck up on the windows from the side (hoping potential damage would hit expendable extremities, not puncture vital organs).
I think my fears were well-founded, because when the worst of the storm passed and I opened the drapes, I was greeted by this:
Saturday, August 8, 2009
We Will Love You
Our kids want to sing this next week at our youth service. I can't find any lyrics on the youth gathering website, and I have historically not had any luck getting Dave Scherer to answer emails about his lyrics.
So, that leaves me trying to pick out words over the distortion on this youtube video. I've listened to it several times, and this is the best transcription I can get. If anybody else wants to try to listen and fill in the missing words, or was there in person, or has heard him sing this somewhere other than a stadium full of 37,000 people (so you already know what the words are), or is a good personal friend of AGAPE*, please email me before next Sunday!
Jesus came a man in the midst of all our fear
and showed us that God's right here
Our sins are released
by God's grace
singing God's love all over the place
We will, we will love you
We will, we will love you
Justice rollin' down like a stream now
[misses? something] the oppressed go free
Justice [faced?]
by God's grace
singing God's love all over the place
We will, we will love you
We will, we will love you
Grace with jazz, God's love has music
Gotta beat, gotta listen to stay on key
Got drums and bass
songs of grace
singing God's love all over the place
We will, we will love you
We will, we will love you
To the people in the front
to the people in the back
to the people in the [class?]
to the people [????????]
[????????????????]
[????????????????]
to the people in the city
people in a small town
to the people on the right
to the people on the left
to the people, people that sorely get oppressed
to the people on the street
to the people in the pew
Jesus loved first so we will love you
Jesus Christ God's [????????????????]
[?????????????????]
Gotta hear God's word
Go and serve
Spread God's love all over this world
We will, we will love you
We will, we will love you
Friday, August 7, 2009
A Time for Burning
I just watched this most excellent documentary from the mid-1960s, which follows attempts by some churches in Omaha to promote inter-racial dialogue and understanding between fellow Christians during the heart of the Civil Rights movement. This is cinema verite at its finest, the people in the film spoke very candidly and cut right to the heart of the issue in many of their conversations.
The deeply saddening thing about watching this film is to realize how relevant the film, and the issues raised in the conversations it documents, still is today, over 40 years later (just last week a black ministerium colleague new to the area went to the farmer's market and was immediately accosted by a white person who asked them "You don't think you really belong here, do you?"). So much more dialogue and awakenings that are so needful but have yet to occur, so much more understanding yet to be gained by everyone. . .
The fascinating thing about watching this film is to realize that if you only substitute the words "gay and lesbian" for "colored" or "negro," the conversations between the white church members and pastors are the exact same conversations we're having today on the issue of sexuality. Seriously, I have heard, almost word-for-word, precisely the same hopes and fears given voice in the ELCA over the past few years.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But if you get the chance, watch this documentary. Better yet, watch it with a group of people and then talk about it afterward. You won't regret it.
The deeply saddening thing about watching this film is to realize how relevant the film, and the issues raised in the conversations it documents, still is today, over 40 years later (just last week a black ministerium colleague new to the area went to the farmer's market and was immediately accosted by a white person who asked them "You don't think you really belong here, do you?"). So much more dialogue and awakenings that are so needful but have yet to occur, so much more understanding yet to be gained by everyone. . .
The fascinating thing about watching this film is to realize that if you only substitute the words "gay and lesbian" for "colored" or "negro," the conversations between the white church members and pastors are the exact same conversations we're having today on the issue of sexuality. Seriously, I have heard, almost word-for-word, precisely the same hopes and fears given voice in the ELCA over the past few years.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But if you get the chance, watch this documentary. Better yet, watch it with a group of people and then talk about it afterward. You won't regret it.
Monday, August 3, 2009
An Open Letter to All Stupid People in the Universe
Someone called my cell phone in the middle of Saturday night and left a long, obscene message on my voice mail. Based on the giggling I could hear in the background, they and their friends clearly found themselves hilarious. I am not laughing, and am in fact in the process of tracking down the number that called so that I can report them to the authorities. In the meantime, I feel the need to put this out there for any and all stupid people in the world:
First of all, there are no circumstances in which an obscene phone call is funny. It is always a violation of the person you are calling. Imagine how you would feel if somebody made such a call to your mother or sister (I intentionally don't say girlfriend or wife here, because I can't imagine a woman self-loathing enough to date or marry someone with the emotional maturity of Bart Simpson). If you wouldn't find it funny or appropriate when done to someone you love, then it's not funny or appropriate when you do it to someone else.
Second, there are really no circumstances in which a crank call is funny. Only little boys find them hilarious. Little boys who have no empathic capacity for the person they are bothering at the other end of the line.
I myself have a job where, unless I am out of the state, I am essentially on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When I get a phone call in the middle of the night, it means someone is either already dead, actively dying, or in the midst of some other deeply serious crisis. That's the mentality I wake up with when the phone rings in the wee hours, and I know I have the span of three rings to pull myself together enough to deal with whatever kind of crisis is calling. Plenty of other people - like doctors, funeral directors, policemen, firemen, to name a few - also have "on-call" occupations, and would respond in a similar way. You don't just fall back asleep after being woken up like that, so it's extremely annoying to get a non-emergency call in the middle of the night. You are lucky my phone was off when you called, because if you had woken me up with this nonsense, on a Saturday night no less, you would have had hell to pay.
The sinner in me is hoping you get some karmic retribution - soon.
But the pastor in me recognizes that you clearly have some issues, and prays you find the help you need before you inflict yourself upon anybody else.
First of all, there are no circumstances in which an obscene phone call is funny. It is always a violation of the person you are calling. Imagine how you would feel if somebody made such a call to your mother or sister (I intentionally don't say girlfriend or wife here, because I can't imagine a woman self-loathing enough to date or marry someone with the emotional maturity of Bart Simpson). If you wouldn't find it funny or appropriate when done to someone you love, then it's not funny or appropriate when you do it to someone else.
Second, there are really no circumstances in which a crank call is funny. Only little boys find them hilarious. Little boys who have no empathic capacity for the person they are bothering at the other end of the line.
I myself have a job where, unless I am out of the state, I am essentially on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When I get a phone call in the middle of the night, it means someone is either already dead, actively dying, or in the midst of some other deeply serious crisis. That's the mentality I wake up with when the phone rings in the wee hours, and I know I have the span of three rings to pull myself together enough to deal with whatever kind of crisis is calling. Plenty of other people - like doctors, funeral directors, policemen, firemen, to name a few - also have "on-call" occupations, and would respond in a similar way. You don't just fall back asleep after being woken up like that, so it's extremely annoying to get a non-emergency call in the middle of the night. You are lucky my phone was off when you called, because if you had woken me up with this nonsense, on a Saturday night no less, you would have had hell to pay.
The sinner in me is hoping you get some karmic retribution - soon.
But the pastor in me recognizes that you clearly have some issues, and prays you find the help you need before you inflict yourself upon anybody else.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
This is Not Your Grandmother's Wedding March
I love - LOVE - their abundant and evident joy in this procession.
I love their creativity in the planning and execution of meaningful worship.
I love that they are not only bringing but celebrating their God-given gifts, gifts in which they take obvious delight, to this momentous occasion in their life together.
I love the metaphor of life and marriage as a dance.
I love that this song captures the anticipatory joy of both this particular moment, and the enduring life that lies before them (refreshing amidst a wedding culture that focuses so much energy on making this one day "perfect" and forgets or ignores the challenging and rewarding work of building a marriage over a lifetime).
I love that, in shaking up the "norm," they probably (hopefully) opened this congregation's eyes to see and hear and experience and reflect upon marriage and the marriage ceremony in a new way.
I love that this couple is using their unexpected celebrity to raise awareness and money for some of the least of these.
BUT (you knew a big but had to be coming, didn't you?). . .
Ever since watching this, I've kept asking myself, "If I was this couple's pastor, would I have allowed them to do this?"
And for all the things I appreciate in how thoughtfully and joyfully they carried this out, for all the good I can imagine it doing in this congregation and the world, the answer I keep coming back to is, "No."
And it's not because I think popular culture/music is godless - to the contrary, I find God all over the place in pop culture.
And it's not because I think dancing is of the devil - to the contrary, I think dancing is one of many beautiful, creative ways to express our joy and worship of the Lord.
And it's not because I'd be afraid of taking flak from members of the congregation who may find it irreverent - to the contrary, though I've learned the hard way that I do need to be wise as to who I invest such social capital in, if I knew this couple well and had a good working relationship with them, so that I trusted they were doing this as worship not merely for the spectacle of it, I would gladly absorb any blows that came our way, and vigorously defend the theology of their worship planning.
No, the reason I would say "no" is because, as a pastor, I have to think not only about the implications of the immediate moment, but also about the future implications of our actions and the precedents they would set. I have to be a good steward, not only of my relationship with this couple, but also with all future couples with whom I may be planning a wedding.
Suppose I say yes to a couple I know well, who either approaches me with an appropriate song or we work together to find an appropriate song. Now I've set a precedent. I may see my precedent as allowing for creative, well-planned worship. Others may interpret it as "She'll let anything go."
Now let's suppose the next couple who approaches me about a wedding wants a song of a similar musical style, but with completely inappropriate lyrics. Now I'm stuck having to argue the finer points of theology and appropriateness of worship music, and it could be very difficult to get them to actually listen to what I'm saying instead of closing off and sulking about me being unfair, or arbitrary, or showing preferential treatment to other couples. From there, things just have the potential to get ugly, and my relationship with them could be damaged quickly.
Lest you think I'm being paranoid, a good pastor friend had a situation - it wasn't even that they'd allowed for an exception to their church's wedding music policy previously, but they had a bride who was just insistent on having some completely inappropriate music in the service. When my friend said no, this bride started triangulating other members of the congregation, and even people who weren't members of the congregation but were mutual friends of this family and others in the congregation, causing all kinds of turmoil in the community and making my friend's life pretty miserable for a while.
So, with all the anxious energy and stress that already surrounds most weddings these days, I just find it easier to have and enforce a church policy that only allows for fairly well-defined "churchy" music at a wedding.
Maybe that make me a wimp. Maybe that makes me a curmudgeon.
Maybe that makes me way less open to the spontaneous joy of the Holy Spirit than I'd like to be.
But I just want something really solid in my corner when I go to the mat with a Bridezilla.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Vote For Meg
My friend Meg Luger-Nikolai is running for school board in St. Paul. Unfortunately, I live in Pennsylvania, so I can't vote for her. But if you have the great privilege of living and voting in St. Paul, you should cast a ballot for Meg. Trust me, she is very good peeps, but if you don't want to take my word for it, learn more about her here and here.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Unstarbucks
Starbucks began as a little independent coffee shop across the street from Pike Place Market in Seattle. I don't really know its history that well, but somewhere along the line of its growth, it hit a tipping point and became a nationwide phenomena, as ubiquitous as McDonalds.
I'm not really a coffee drinker, so I have no anecdotal taste memory to back up this suspicion, but I imagine somewhere during their rapid expansion, they also became the McDonald's of fine coffee. What I mean by that is: McDonald's is reliable mediocrity. It's not the best food you've ever had, but it's certainly not the worst either, and if you're on a long cross-country trip, you can be reasonably certain that any McDonald's you stop at will provide a clean bathroom and food that won't make you sick, food that tastes exactly like the food at the McDonald's in your hometown.
I have a feeling something similar happened to Starbucks, at least in perception if not reality. From my coffee drinking friends, I've discerned that Starbucks is many steps above diner or church basement coffee, but compared to what is available at the local independent coffee shop, it has become reliable mediocrity. Like I say, I wouldn't know if this is really true in terms of taste, but it certainly seems to be true in terms of perception - walk into any Starbucks across the country and it looks essentially the same, and will probably taste essentially the same - it's just one more symbol of corporate America trying to get us to brand ourselves.
But now the trend is against being branded. Now consumers (or at least, the hipsters who are the head lemmings we all follow over the next tipping point) are trending more toward the local, the independent, the microbrew. So, according to a report on Nightline last night, the wolf is putting on sheep's clothing - Starbucks opened a new coffee shop in Seattle that's not really a Starbucks - it's "inspired by Starbucks," and it's owned by Starbucks, but it's meant to imitate the little independently owned coffee shop on the corner.
There's a lot that could be said about this - observations on the way that what goes around comes around and how eventually everything and everyone revisits their beginnings (a sign of growth, according to T.S. Eliot, if when we get there, we see it again as if for the first time).
I guess I'm kind of more interested in the way that a similar cycle is happening in churches. Christian communities began as house churches, and after living through several decades of explosive growth in the "McChurch"/megachurch model, many emergent churches are going back to the house church format - small communities of accountability, support, and service that don't necessarily meet in buildings dedicated exclusively for the purposes of the congregation. They are going back to the local, back to the independent, back to the microchurch. And in many ways, they are the "unchurch," relative to most people's working definition of what the church is. Yet in many ways they are more truly the church than most "traditional" congregations, relative to the Bible's working definition of what the church is.
I don't really know where I'm going with all of this yet, just wanted to get it out there while I was thinking of it. . .crazy where a simple little Nightline report can lead one. . .
I'm not really a coffee drinker, so I have no anecdotal taste memory to back up this suspicion, but I imagine somewhere during their rapid expansion, they also became the McDonald's of fine coffee. What I mean by that is: McDonald's is reliable mediocrity. It's not the best food you've ever had, but it's certainly not the worst either, and if you're on a long cross-country trip, you can be reasonably certain that any McDonald's you stop at will provide a clean bathroom and food that won't make you sick, food that tastes exactly like the food at the McDonald's in your hometown.
I have a feeling something similar happened to Starbucks, at least in perception if not reality. From my coffee drinking friends, I've discerned that Starbucks is many steps above diner or church basement coffee, but compared to what is available at the local independent coffee shop, it has become reliable mediocrity. Like I say, I wouldn't know if this is really true in terms of taste, but it certainly seems to be true in terms of perception - walk into any Starbucks across the country and it looks essentially the same, and will probably taste essentially the same - it's just one more symbol of corporate America trying to get us to brand ourselves.
But now the trend is against being branded. Now consumers (or at least, the hipsters who are the head lemmings we all follow over the next tipping point) are trending more toward the local, the independent, the microbrew. So, according to a report on Nightline last night, the wolf is putting on sheep's clothing - Starbucks opened a new coffee shop in Seattle that's not really a Starbucks - it's "inspired by Starbucks," and it's owned by Starbucks, but it's meant to imitate the little independently owned coffee shop on the corner.
There's a lot that could be said about this - observations on the way that what goes around comes around and how eventually everything and everyone revisits their beginnings (a sign of growth, according to T.S. Eliot, if when we get there, we see it again as if for the first time).
I guess I'm kind of more interested in the way that a similar cycle is happening in churches. Christian communities began as house churches, and after living through several decades of explosive growth in the "McChurch"/megachurch model, many emergent churches are going back to the house church format - small communities of accountability, support, and service that don't necessarily meet in buildings dedicated exclusively for the purposes of the congregation. They are going back to the local, back to the independent, back to the microchurch. And in many ways, they are the "unchurch," relative to most people's working definition of what the church is. Yet in many ways they are more truly the church than most "traditional" congregations, relative to the Bible's working definition of what the church is.
I don't really know where I'm going with all of this yet, just wanted to get it out there while I was thinking of it. . .crazy where a simple little Nightline report can lead one. . .
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Breaking Up With NWA
I'm usually pretty loyal to the companies or products I prefer. All this time I've been excessively loyal to Northwest Airlines (in fact, while I've traveled other airlines for work, I don't believe I've ever bought a personal travel ticket on another carrier), primarily because they are a MN company, and secondarily because, being a MN company, Minneapolis was a hub, so I could get reasonable direct flights from the various places I have lived, even including a smaller airport like Harrisburg. In the past couple of years, those direct flights have been offered at increasingly ridiculous times of day, but I was still loyal, and in situations where I had to make connections, the other main hub was Detroit, which was at least on the way between my departure and destination.
But ever since this supposed "merger" with Delta (which now, to me, seems more like a hostile takeover), things have gone from bad to worse, and they have been slowly phasing out both Minneapolis and Detroit as a hub for the airline - it seems the direct flight to Mpls has disappeared, and the connecting flights through Detroit are getting rarer and increasingly offered only at ridiculous times. Now they always want to route me through Atlanta instead, which is stupid - why would I want to spend way more time on a plane than I need to, and travel deep into the south when my destination is northwest?
So, I'm sorry Northwest, but you've lost me as a customer. United may break guitars, but they fly through Chicago, which is on the way between MN and PA, and they offer flights almost every hour, so I don't have to travel at the crack of dawn or the deep of night (and the flights are about $70-$100 cheaper to boot). And in a worst case scenario, should I find myself grounded at O'Hare, I know people in Chicago, and/or I could rent a car and handle the drive by myself in either direction.
We've had a good run. . .I feel really weird ending it this way, but I feel like you've left me no other choice. You've turned into something I don't even recognize anymore. . .
Hope Atlanta makes you happy,
C.
But ever since this supposed "merger" with Delta (which now, to me, seems more like a hostile takeover), things have gone from bad to worse, and they have been slowly phasing out both Minneapolis and Detroit as a hub for the airline - it seems the direct flight to Mpls has disappeared, and the connecting flights through Detroit are getting rarer and increasingly offered only at ridiculous times. Now they always want to route me through Atlanta instead, which is stupid - why would I want to spend way more time on a plane than I need to, and travel deep into the south when my destination is northwest?
So, I'm sorry Northwest, but you've lost me as a customer. United may break guitars, but they fly through Chicago, which is on the way between MN and PA, and they offer flights almost every hour, so I don't have to travel at the crack of dawn or the deep of night (and the flights are about $70-$100 cheaper to boot). And in a worst case scenario, should I find myself grounded at O'Hare, I know people in Chicago, and/or I could rent a car and handle the drive by myself in either direction.
We've had a good run. . .I feel really weird ending it this way, but I feel like you've left me no other choice. You've turned into something I don't even recognize anymore. . .
Hope Atlanta makes you happy,
C.
Friday, July 17, 2009
United Breaks Guitars
This is awesome. Having had my own share of frustrations and runarounds regarding luggage damaged by Northwest (thankfully no Taylor guitars in my case), I love how he has fun while sticking it to the man.
Hat tip to Mary for the link.
Hat tip to Mary for the link.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I went to see the newest Potter movie tonight, and was not disappointed. It was very well done, and a fair adaptation of the book - and I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical going in, because book 6 is so full, I didn't know how they'd do it justice in a 2.5 hour movie.
The one thing I would question is that the book spends a lot of time helping Harry and the reader understand the psychology of Voldemort, which the movie spends virtually no time on at all. I can understand, I suppose, why they'd want to cut a lot of that out, because it's more heady and dialogue-y and doesn't lend itself so well to action and keeping the story clipping along. But it's kind of important to undergirding the 7th book, or at least, I think it is.
They also added an attack that's not in the book, which I find kind of curious - given all they had to cut out, why would they "waste" minutes on something that wasn't originally part of the story? Unless it was an attempt to convey the terror and danger of the times, that no one and no place is really safe (admittedly, you don't get a strong sense of that in the rest of the film).
Not related to the quality of the movie, but rather the quality of the movie-viewing experience: somebody brought their small child with them (like, 3 or 4 years old), who kept talking, loudly, through the first half of the film. I think they finally just left so they would quit annoying the other patrons, but I seriously wonder why on earth they would have brought a child that young to this movie in the first place. Yes, the Harry Potter series was written for children, but the intended audience was 'tweens and older - not toddlers.
People - it's a series about the epic battle between good and evil, and even if you don't know any better because you haven't read the books, the tone turned distinctly darker in the fourth movie (and book), when Voldmort returned in the flesh. The last two movies have seen the death of a Hogwarts student, and of Harry's godfather - you don't think it's going to get even darker before good wins the day? And you think it's appropriate to scare your toddler with this right before bedtime?
Sigh. . .Rich Melheim is so right. . .the world needs more parents raising children, not children raising children (a comment that has everything to do with maturity and nothing to do with age).
Ok, getting off the soapbox now,
C.
The one thing I would question is that the book spends a lot of time helping Harry and the reader understand the psychology of Voldemort, which the movie spends virtually no time on at all. I can understand, I suppose, why they'd want to cut a lot of that out, because it's more heady and dialogue-y and doesn't lend itself so well to action and keeping the story clipping along. But it's kind of important to undergirding the 7th book, or at least, I think it is.
They also added an attack that's not in the book, which I find kind of curious - given all they had to cut out, why would they "waste" minutes on something that wasn't originally part of the story? Unless it was an attempt to convey the terror and danger of the times, that no one and no place is really safe (admittedly, you don't get a strong sense of that in the rest of the film).
Not related to the quality of the movie, but rather the quality of the movie-viewing experience: somebody brought their small child with them (like, 3 or 4 years old), who kept talking, loudly, through the first half of the film. I think they finally just left so they would quit annoying the other patrons, but I seriously wonder why on earth they would have brought a child that young to this movie in the first place. Yes, the Harry Potter series was written for children, but the intended audience was 'tweens and older - not toddlers.
People - it's a series about the epic battle between good and evil, and even if you don't know any better because you haven't read the books, the tone turned distinctly darker in the fourth movie (and book), when Voldmort returned in the flesh. The last two movies have seen the death of a Hogwarts student, and of Harry's godfather - you don't think it's going to get even darker before good wins the day? And you think it's appropriate to scare your toddler with this right before bedtime?
Sigh. . .Rich Melheim is so right. . .the world needs more parents raising children, not children raising children (a comment that has everything to do with maturity and nothing to do with age).
Ok, getting off the soapbox now,
C.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Creating a "Culture of We"
I finally watched Michael Moore's SiCKO last week, and have been pondering it ever since. One line stuck out to me in particular, and that was someone in either Canada, Britain, or France (I forget now which place he was in at that point) explaining their nation's openness to nationalized health care by saying, socially, they have a "culture of we" whereas their perception of America is as a "culture of me."
That's very telling, and I would say, accurate, but not necessarily in the way the speaker thinks. As Moore illustrates in the film, for a culture of supposedly rabid individualists, we'll do just about anything for a neighbor in need: buy calendars; make straight-up donations; hold dinners, silent auctions, raffles, community carnivals, etc.
My question is - and has always been - why are we wiling to bend over backwards to raise thousands of dollars which, under our current health care system, makes really only a dent in the medical bills of the seriously ill and/or seriously poor, when we could be taxed an equal amount (or maybe even less than what we do in fundraisers) and everybody would just get the care they need when they need it?
This is where the "culture of me" comes in, I think. It's not that Americans aren't or can't be generous with our money, but we want control of where it goes.
We have a similar problem in the church. If we do a special appeal for a particular project, the money comes in, often much faster than we could ever anticipate (point in fact: we need a new fridge for the kitchen, which we announced the last Sunday in June - we met our fundraising goal this past Sunday, a mere three weeks later). If we would have just purchased the fridge out of general fund monies, it would have set us behind in our bills this summer, because getting folks to give to the general fund is like pulling teeth. I think we run a pretty tight ship, financially speaking, but nevertheless it's like the congregational mindset is not to trust the "institution" to spend their money wisely. But if they can give it themselves directly to a project, cause, or initiative they support, then they fund it very generously.
Extrapolate that now to the country - fiscal conservatives and libertarians are already naturally predisposed to distrust the efficiency and wise management of "big government," and you add to that the "culture of me" that wants to do good that I can personally see the results of and be generous to a beneficiary of my choosing - it's no wonder national health care has such a hard time gaining traction here, even though it's clearly in our best interest.
So here's the million dollar question: how do you take that generous impulse and bend it to create a "culture of we"? Will it only happen after enough people have been severely hurt by the brokenness of our current system? Or is there a way to draw it out of us, proactively, positively, before we get to that point?
That's very telling, and I would say, accurate, but not necessarily in the way the speaker thinks. As Moore illustrates in the film, for a culture of supposedly rabid individualists, we'll do just about anything for a neighbor in need: buy calendars; make straight-up donations; hold dinners, silent auctions, raffles, community carnivals, etc.
My question is - and has always been - why are we wiling to bend over backwards to raise thousands of dollars which, under our current health care system, makes really only a dent in the medical bills of the seriously ill and/or seriously poor, when we could be taxed an equal amount (or maybe even less than what we do in fundraisers) and everybody would just get the care they need when they need it?
This is where the "culture of me" comes in, I think. It's not that Americans aren't or can't be generous with our money, but we want control of where it goes.
We have a similar problem in the church. If we do a special appeal for a particular project, the money comes in, often much faster than we could ever anticipate (point in fact: we need a new fridge for the kitchen, which we announced the last Sunday in June - we met our fundraising goal this past Sunday, a mere three weeks later). If we would have just purchased the fridge out of general fund monies, it would have set us behind in our bills this summer, because getting folks to give to the general fund is like pulling teeth. I think we run a pretty tight ship, financially speaking, but nevertheless it's like the congregational mindset is not to trust the "institution" to spend their money wisely. But if they can give it themselves directly to a project, cause, or initiative they support, then they fund it very generously.
Extrapolate that now to the country - fiscal conservatives and libertarians are already naturally predisposed to distrust the efficiency and wise management of "big government," and you add to that the "culture of me" that wants to do good that I can personally see the results of and be generous to a beneficiary of my choosing - it's no wonder national health care has such a hard time gaining traction here, even though it's clearly in our best interest.
So here's the million dollar question: how do you take that generous impulse and bend it to create a "culture of we"? Will it only happen after enough people have been severely hurt by the brokenness of our current system? Or is there a way to draw it out of us, proactively, positively, before we get to that point?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
All Kfunned Out
(View from Ferris Wheel)
Took the Youth Group to Knoebels today (the "k" is not silent, as in knowledge; nor Norskified, as in Kjetil; it is hard and pronounced, as in k-nobles). It's a nice amusement park - clean, safe, reasonably priced, and best of all, no entrance fee. You pay-per-ride or buy a day-long unlimited bracelet/handstamp, but if you're not big on rides, you don't waste money just to get in and hang with your friends. Additionally nice - they have plenty of food for sale there but you can also pack a picnic and bring it with you into the park.
(Another View from Ferris Wheel)
I'm not much for rides, so I brought a book with and figured I'd be the designated stuff-watcher, but even I found plenty of rides that were more my speed: the Giant Swing (here: Italian Trapeze), the Scrambler (here: Merry Mixer), the Carousel, the Ferris Wheel, the Antique Cars, the Bumper Cars, the Train, and the Flume.
Digression: the flume I grew up with at Valleyfair has one large drop. This one has two, which girl genius figured out about 3/4 of the way up the climb for the first, realizing that plunge off to my right - the only one you can see when you wait in line for the ride - was not what we were currently headed for. "There are TWO flumes on this thing?" I cried out to no one in particular. The kids turned around and smiled at me, "Yeah. You didn't know that?" "No." WHOOSH!
A long, full day of fun was had by all. And now PC is ready to:
'knight,
C.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Audience of One
So yesterday I went to see Year One, and I was the only one in the theater! Granted, this was late Monday afternoon in Selinsgrove, PA, for a movie that's been in wide release for several weeks. But still, I don't think that's ever happened to me before - it was kind of weird, and made me wonder if, had I not been there and purchased a ticket, they would have run the movie to an empty theater anyway, or saved themselves the electricity.
But I digress. . .I knew going in it was supposed to be a crude humor comedy, so I wasn't looking for anything deep, just 90 minutes of mindless chuckles. Unfortunately, I didn't find it to be a particularly amusing or shining example of its genre. It was mostly Jack Black and Michael Cera doing their respective 21st century schticks in a variety of 1st century-esque garb; the majority of the jokes were blown in the previews I had already seen, in fact, the funniest part (to me) was Cain's great escape, which took maybe all of 60 seconds. And there were inexplicable gaping holes in the plot (like a scene where Michael Cera's character is being strangled to death by a large snake, that cuts to Jack Black and Michael Cera back in the village, no harm, no foul, no explanation of how they got away from the snake).
To Harold Ramis' credit, there was some witty dialogue here and there, playing off of sayings or events in the Bible (the whole movie is playing fast and loose with various parts of - and midrashic commentary upon - the first 22 chapters of Genesis). I got that and appreciated it. . .but then later I got to thinking (another unfortunate thing - can't shut my brain down for too long, even when I'm trying): given the general state of Biblical illiteracy in this country, how many people in an average audience would have picked up on those references? In fact, I'm kind of wondering how many people in an average audience would even realize he's using the Bible for source material?
Forbidden fruit, Adam, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, Sodom and Gomorrah - these are all stories that one would think even the most unchurched of people would be vaguely familiar with. But it's a post-modern, post-Christendom world out there; as a pastor, I can't make any assumptions about the Biblical literacy of the folks sitting in the pews every Sunday, let alone the folks who've never (or rarely) darkened the door of a church, synagogue, or mosque.
Which begs the question: if you don't know the source material the comedian is riffing on - is the joke still funny or relevant? Similarly for the preacher - does the sermon still bear or make meaning, and bring the Word to those who don't know the word?
But I digress. . .I knew going in it was supposed to be a crude humor comedy, so I wasn't looking for anything deep, just 90 minutes of mindless chuckles. Unfortunately, I didn't find it to be a particularly amusing or shining example of its genre. It was mostly Jack Black and Michael Cera doing their respective 21st century schticks in a variety of 1st century-esque garb; the majority of the jokes were blown in the previews I had already seen, in fact, the funniest part (to me) was Cain's great escape, which took maybe all of 60 seconds. And there were inexplicable gaping holes in the plot (like a scene where Michael Cera's character is being strangled to death by a large snake, that cuts to Jack Black and Michael Cera back in the village, no harm, no foul, no explanation of how they got away from the snake).
To Harold Ramis' credit, there was some witty dialogue here and there, playing off of sayings or events in the Bible (the whole movie is playing fast and loose with various parts of - and midrashic commentary upon - the first 22 chapters of Genesis). I got that and appreciated it. . .but then later I got to thinking (another unfortunate thing - can't shut my brain down for too long, even when I'm trying): given the general state of Biblical illiteracy in this country, how many people in an average audience would have picked up on those references? In fact, I'm kind of wondering how many people in an average audience would even realize he's using the Bible for source material?
Forbidden fruit, Adam, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, Sodom and Gomorrah - these are all stories that one would think even the most unchurched of people would be vaguely familiar with. But it's a post-modern, post-Christendom world out there; as a pastor, I can't make any assumptions about the Biblical literacy of the folks sitting in the pews every Sunday, let alone the folks who've never (or rarely) darkened the door of a church, synagogue, or mosque.
Which begs the question: if you don't know the source material the comedian is riffing on - is the joke still funny or relevant? Similarly for the preacher - does the sermon still bear or make meaning, and bring the Word to those who don't know the word?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Me and My Imaginary Friends
I've written before about the wild imagination of my young friend Olivia. I am happy to report she must have everything patched up with the princesses. I surmised this from yesterday's 4th of July picnic, where she happened to be the only child present. I think she was getting a little bit bored, and knowing that Auntie Catrina is always up for a game of tag, she asked if I wanted to play.
At first she wanted to play freeze tag, as we did the week before with Henry, Liam, and Jack, at Uncle Patrick's birthday party. Without the other kids there, I didn't think that was going to work - we had only a tagger and a taggee, no one to unfreeze whoever was tagged. So we were just playing regular tag, trading off being it, when about five minutes in, I seriously saw the lightbulb go off in her head, and she calls out "Catrina! I know how we can play freeze tag! My imaginary friends can unfreeze me!"
She was completely sincere, and I had to bite my tongue to keep from chuckling at the adorable earnestness of her thought. Instead I said, "Uh. . .ok. Wait, what happens if you freeze me? Can my imaginary friends unfreeze me?"
"Oh yeah, if you have some, sure!"
So, for the sake of freeze tag, I resurrected some old imaginary friends. And I can only assume, if Olivia's friends are willing to play along and help her at freeze tag, they've gotten their act together since last year. :)
At first she wanted to play freeze tag, as we did the week before with Henry, Liam, and Jack, at Uncle Patrick's birthday party. Without the other kids there, I didn't think that was going to work - we had only a tagger and a taggee, no one to unfreeze whoever was tagged. So we were just playing regular tag, trading off being it, when about five minutes in, I seriously saw the lightbulb go off in her head, and she calls out "Catrina! I know how we can play freeze tag! My imaginary friends can unfreeze me!"
She was completely sincere, and I had to bite my tongue to keep from chuckling at the adorable earnestness of her thought. Instead I said, "Uh. . .ok. Wait, what happens if you freeze me? Can my imaginary friends unfreeze me?"
"Oh yeah, if you have some, sure!"
So, for the sake of freeze tag, I resurrected some old imaginary friends. And I can only assume, if Olivia's friends are willing to play along and help her at freeze tag, they've gotten their act together since last year. :)
Friday, July 3, 2009
A Tip of the Hat
. . .to the Minnesota Supreme Court for finally seating the junior Senator, and to Norm Coleman for finally finding the grace to quit challenging the decisions of the judiciary.
. . .to the August Schell Brewing Company for snagging the best free stage line-up at the Fair this year. When the sun goes down, be sure to find yourself in Heritage Square to hear the likes of Billy McLaughlin, Storyhill, and The Front Porch Swingin' Liquor Pigs.
. . .to the August Schell Brewing Company for snagging the best free stage line-up at the Fair this year. When the sun goes down, be sure to find yourself in Heritage Square to hear the likes of Billy McLaughlin, Storyhill, and The Front Porch Swingin' Liquor Pigs.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Synod Assembly Part Deux
At long last I have time to recap Day Two of Synod Assembly, when we got down to the brass tacks of legislative action.
We had two memorials before us on the sexuality issue. For those unaccustomed to ELCA polity and related lingo - a memorial is a message that we as a synod send to the churchwide assembly, usually advising them to do or not do something in particular.
The churchwide assembly is not bound by these memorials- they can choose to pay attention to them or to ignore them. Often, a memorial can be the thing that gets a ball rolling for the national church - in fact, I believe we are currently at the place we are at in these conversations on sexuality because several years ago, a synod (or perhaps several synods) memorialized the churchwide assembly to generate a social statement on sexuality, and the assembly agreed that would be a good thing to do. Similarly, the Book of Faith initiative is also the result of a synod memorializing the churchwide assembly to "increase Biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world," and the churchwide assembly decided that this, too, would be a good thing to do.
The memorials before us were not so much to get a new initiative going, they were more of a weighing in with our opinion on controversial matters currently before the church. One memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to adapt their rules for adoption, so that passage of both the social statement and the recommendations on rostering policies require a "supermajority" (2/3 of the assembly), as opposed to a regular majority (51% - the current standard). The other memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to reject: the sexuality statement, the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church." Additionally, this memorial encouraged the churchwide assembly to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade).
I missed the discussion and vote on the supermajority memorial, and the beginning of the debate on the other memorial, as did a number of other folks, because we were getting ready for worship. We were installing authorized lay leaders in the service, and the new lay leaders and their mentors (of which I was one) were instructed to be vested by 9:30 am; the choir (of which I was also one) was also instructed to be downstairs to warm up by 9:30. This meant that probably 20-30 voting members were not on the floor of the assembly when these discussions began, and had no inkling of what we were missing. When I left the floor to vest they were in the middle of somebody's report, I did not anticipate them getting to legislative matters at all before worship, in part because they had been so careful the day before about not dismissing the elections committee to count ballots during the "quasi-committee of the whole," so that elections committee members could participate in the discussion.
I don't believe it was a sneaky political ploy, just an unfortunate miscommunication (the Bishop was honestly shocked in the afternoon plenary when he saw how many hands went up asking for the paper ballot we weren't given in the morning session) - but it was still unacceptable, and believe me, the synod office will be hearing from me about it so that they don't fall into the same situation in the future.
All of which is to say, again - I missed all the initial discussion (which from reports, started to get a little nasty on memorial #2), and the vote on the supermajority memorial (which was approved).
When we picked the matter back up in the afternoon, a colleague submitted a substitutionary memorial, that was not really a friendly substitution to the original memorial at all - the whereases were much more focused on lifting up the gifts of ALL members of the church and finding a way for ALL to serve, and the resolveds were to accept the social statement but reject any rostering policy changes for now, while continuing the discussion to find ways for our homosexual brothers and sisters to serve as rostered leaders of the church, and equipping and encouraging them as strong lay leaders in the meantime.
More debate and discussion ensued. The tenor of the discussion was less civil on this day, especially from those who favored the original memorial (one colleague kept trying to turn the discussion into more of a point-counterpoint debate and was very contemptuous of any argument he disagreed with; another resorted to the old "you're abandoning the Bible" ad hominum, then jumped from the matter at hand into a non sequitur about bestiality - I think in a lot of people's minds, they basically discredited themselves by their rhetoric and their tactics).
Ultimately, we voted to substitute the new memorial for the original, and then voted the new memorial down (85 in favor; 136 opposed), I'm sure because it had enough in it for everyone to hate: both those who wanted to reject the social statement and those who wanted to accept the policy recommendations weren't going to vote for it.
So in the end, we haven't sent any word of advice on to the churchwide assembly on this matter (other than recommending passage by a supermajority), which I think is actually a good thing. Because we believe (or at least, we claim to believe) that the Holy Spirit is at work in the workings of the assembly, thus we ought to trust the Spirit to do its thing, just as we ought to trust those elected to the churchwide assembly to be prayerful people with discerning hearts and minds in this and all other matters before the church. Maybe it's time our words and actions (my own included) reflected more faith in that belief.
Peace,
C.
We had two memorials before us on the sexuality issue. For those unaccustomed to ELCA polity and related lingo - a memorial is a message that we as a synod send to the churchwide assembly, usually advising them to do or not do something in particular.
The churchwide assembly is not bound by these memorials- they can choose to pay attention to them or to ignore them. Often, a memorial can be the thing that gets a ball rolling for the national church - in fact, I believe we are currently at the place we are at in these conversations on sexuality because several years ago, a synod (or perhaps several synods) memorialized the churchwide assembly to generate a social statement on sexuality, and the assembly agreed that would be a good thing to do. Similarly, the Book of Faith initiative is also the result of a synod memorializing the churchwide assembly to "increase Biblical literacy and fluency for the sake of the world," and the churchwide assembly decided that this, too, would be a good thing to do.
The memorials before us were not so much to get a new initiative going, they were more of a weighing in with our opinion on controversial matters currently before the church. One memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to adapt their rules for adoption, so that passage of both the social statement and the recommendations on rostering policies require a "supermajority" (2/3 of the assembly), as opposed to a regular majority (51% - the current standard). The other memorial was advising the churchwide assembly to reject: the sexuality statement, the policy recommendations, and "the concept that individual members, congregations, or synods have the authority to interpret or set aside Scripture on these matters apart from the consensus of the Church." Additionally, this memorial encouraged the churchwide assembly to accept the resolutions from Dissenting Opinion One (including but not limited to putting the kabosh on all discussions of sexuality for the next decade).
I missed the discussion and vote on the supermajority memorial, and the beginning of the debate on the other memorial, as did a number of other folks, because we were getting ready for worship. We were installing authorized lay leaders in the service, and the new lay leaders and their mentors (of which I was one) were instructed to be vested by 9:30 am; the choir (of which I was also one) was also instructed to be downstairs to warm up by 9:30. This meant that probably 20-30 voting members were not on the floor of the assembly when these discussions began, and had no inkling of what we were missing. When I left the floor to vest they were in the middle of somebody's report, I did not anticipate them getting to legislative matters at all before worship, in part because they had been so careful the day before about not dismissing the elections committee to count ballots during the "quasi-committee of the whole," so that elections committee members could participate in the discussion.
I don't believe it was a sneaky political ploy, just an unfortunate miscommunication (the Bishop was honestly shocked in the afternoon plenary when he saw how many hands went up asking for the paper ballot we weren't given in the morning session) - but it was still unacceptable, and believe me, the synod office will be hearing from me about it so that they don't fall into the same situation in the future.
All of which is to say, again - I missed all the initial discussion (which from reports, started to get a little nasty on memorial #2), and the vote on the supermajority memorial (which was approved).
When we picked the matter back up in the afternoon, a colleague submitted a substitutionary memorial, that was not really a friendly substitution to the original memorial at all - the whereases were much more focused on lifting up the gifts of ALL members of the church and finding a way for ALL to serve, and the resolveds were to accept the social statement but reject any rostering policy changes for now, while continuing the discussion to find ways for our homosexual brothers and sisters to serve as rostered leaders of the church, and equipping and encouraging them as strong lay leaders in the meantime.
More debate and discussion ensued. The tenor of the discussion was less civil on this day, especially from those who favored the original memorial (one colleague kept trying to turn the discussion into more of a point-counterpoint debate and was very contemptuous of any argument he disagreed with; another resorted to the old "you're abandoning the Bible" ad hominum, then jumped from the matter at hand into a non sequitur about bestiality - I think in a lot of people's minds, they basically discredited themselves by their rhetoric and their tactics).
Ultimately, we voted to substitute the new memorial for the original, and then voted the new memorial down (85 in favor; 136 opposed), I'm sure because it had enough in it for everyone to hate: both those who wanted to reject the social statement and those who wanted to accept the policy recommendations weren't going to vote for it.
So in the end, we haven't sent any word of advice on to the churchwide assembly on this matter (other than recommending passage by a supermajority), which I think is actually a good thing. Because we believe (or at least, we claim to believe) that the Holy Spirit is at work in the workings of the assembly, thus we ought to trust the Spirit to do its thing, just as we ought to trust those elected to the churchwide assembly to be prayerful people with discerning hearts and minds in this and all other matters before the church. Maybe it's time our words and actions (my own included) reflected more faith in that belief.
Peace,
C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)