Did the Wailin' Jennys break up? I ask because Heather Masse has been doing a lot of guest appearances on PHC this year - which is great, her voice is gorgeous, and it's always a treat to have her on the show. But if her availability is because the Jennys are on the skids, that would make me incredibly sad.
Why does it always seem like we lose daylight on this side of the solstice faster than we were gaining it in the weeks before? Is this a scientific fact, or merely a psychological illusion?
Is it possible to have blogger notify one of comments that need to be moderated? I didn't used to moderate comments, then some guy I didn't know posted a lengthy non-sequitur about Judge Sotomayor on a completely non-political post of mine (it looked like a form post that he was sticking onto any blog that wasn't moderated), so now I filter comments before releasing them to the blogosphere. The only problem is, blogger doesn't email me when I have a comment to filter. Do I need to adjust the settings, or do I need to just check in more often?
Finally, is it terribly obvious these are the things that came to me as I was procrastinating on my sermon? :)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Time After Time
A final recap of the synod assembly is coming, I promise, but for tonight, just a quick post because it occurred to me recently that I now mark time most often in relation to both agricultural cycles and who I've buried. This realization came to me when Breen mentioned they'd be canning cherries this weekend, and I actually thought to myself, "Isn't it too early for cherries? We did that last year when Ethel was actively dying, and that wasn't until mid-July."
It's a weird life we pastors lead. . .
It's a weird life we pastors lead. . .
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sex and the Synod Assembly
Well, this weekend it is Upper Susquehanna's turn to wrestle with the weighty matters before the church.
Bishop Driesen spent a good amount of his report on the issue of the sexuality statement and accompanying policy recommendations. He shared his perspective, which he has been transparent about since the report's release - he does not favor a change in policy at this time, both because of his interpretation of the Scriptures, and even moreso, because he fears the ramifications of condoning a plurality of practice across the ELCA. Though he made his convictions clear, he was also very clear about the fact that he does not believe those who hold opposing convictions are any less faithful or any less grounded in Scripture. He was also clear that he did not make his statement in order to distance himself from those who may disagree, and there would be no judgement or differing treatment on his part toward any who speak from an opposing point of view, and that he hoped we could continue with respectful dialogue and discernment.
Though, as I said, the Bishop has been transparent about his perspective and concerns since the statement and report's release , I was initially kind of upset that he "weighed in" in this way during his own report, because I thought it may unduly sway the voting members of the assembly. A large part of that is maybe a difference in our leadership styles - in council meetings and annual meetings, I try to hold back from commenting right away, precisely because people grant so much authority to what I have to say, and I want them to think things through for themselves and have true ownership in the decision, not just do something or not do something because I say so. The Bishop seems to prefer more hierarchical systems and claims his authority more quickly than I - not in a power hungry kind of way, but humbly, and with an awesome sense of responsibility to steward the authority which his office grants him. I can understand and respect that, even though I choose to lead in a different way. I can also understand and respect his concerns about the plurality of practice, even though I don't share them.
But I digress. I was less upset after talking to Andy about the report, because he pointed out that what it did more than anything was set the tone for the discussions yet to come, and it disarmed the mudslinging, ad hominum attacks, and vitriolic rhetoric (especially the "you're abandoning the Bible" arguments) into which these debates are prone to devolve.
At the next plenary, we voted to form a "quasi-committee of the whole" - which was a brilliant parliamentary move that gave us a block of time to actually talk about the issue without a legislative vote on the line, so that no one could prematurely end the discussion by calling the question. While we were not exactly talking with each other, we were at least not merely talking at each other, or stuck in a point-counterpoint debate. From what I can remember, 19 people spoke (including yours truly) - there may have been more, but when I got home and thought back to who went to the mics: 14 spoke in favor of the statement and/or policy recommendations (10 clergy, 4 laypeople); 3 spoke against (all clergy); 1 colleague I'm not sure about - I thought he began by saying he was against, but then the content of what he said sounded to me like he was for, and I'm not sure which part of his speech I misunderstood; 1 person spoke neither for nor against, but only to the point they believe the Churchwide Assembly needs to pass this by a "supermajority" (2/3 instead of 51%).
A few of the usual suspects who are reliably outspoken on this issue (on both sides) were conspicuously silent today. I don't know if the Bishop's report truly disarmed what they had to say, or if they are waiting until tomorrow's debate on the resolution. Mal sehen.
In any case, at the end of the quasi-committee of the whole, we then took a series of non-binding votes to get a sense of the assembly. The votes were as follows:
On the question of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
In favor: 100
Undecided: 58
Opposed: 107
On the question of the implementing resolutions (if the social statement is adopted, the action plan for how it will be implemented into the life of the church)
In favor: 126
Undecided: 53
Opposed: 86
We took each of the four resolutions of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies in order.
On Resolution 1, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
In favor: 116
Undecided: 37
Opposed: 113
On Resolution 2, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
In favor: 113
Undecided: 39
Opposed: 117
On Resolution 3, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound conscience of all.
In favor: 137
Undecided: 28
Opposed: 83
On Resolution 4, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America call upon its members to commit themselves to respect the bound consciences of those with whom they disagree regarding decisions on the call and rostering of individuals in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, in this church and with churches ecumenically and globally, and that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declare its intent to allow structured flexibility in the decision-making process regarding the approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call. . .(etc - it's long, read the whole thing on the link)
In favor: 114
Undecided: 45
Opposed: 113
Three things stand out to me about these nonbinding votes:
First, even here in this fairly conservative, traditional family values area of the country, we are closely divided on this matter.
Second, though as a whole we're not quite sure we're ready for them in our pulpit, it seems as a whole we are slightly open to the idea of acknowledging some sort of life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship between two people of the same gender. I'm frankly surprised that window has emerged here, and even though it's only open the tiniest little bit, it's a place to start, and from the perspective of justice, not a bad one.
Third, more than anything we seem to be longing for a way to respect one another and live together in spite of our deep differences (at least, that's my read on resolution 3's vote) - and that's a good thing.
So, that was how things went today. Tomorrow we will have another discussion/debate on a resolution asking us to reject the social statement, and 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," and 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 know - that's a heck of a lot to pack into one little resolution. And given how close the non-binding votes were today, I think it could honestly go either way. Mal sehen.
Whichever way it goes, I think we need to do a division of the house so that the Churchwide Assembly can see how narrow of a margin decided the issue.
Alright, I'm tired and I've got another long day tomorrow. If you're still with me, thanks for tuning in.
Peace,
C.
Bishop Driesen spent a good amount of his report on the issue of the sexuality statement and accompanying policy recommendations. He shared his perspective, which he has been transparent about since the report's release - he does not favor a change in policy at this time, both because of his interpretation of the Scriptures, and even moreso, because he fears the ramifications of condoning a plurality of practice across the ELCA. Though he made his convictions clear, he was also very clear about the fact that he does not believe those who hold opposing convictions are any less faithful or any less grounded in Scripture. He was also clear that he did not make his statement in order to distance himself from those who may disagree, and there would be no judgement or differing treatment on his part toward any who speak from an opposing point of view, and that he hoped we could continue with respectful dialogue and discernment.
Though, as I said, the Bishop has been transparent about his perspective and concerns since the statement and report's release , I was initially kind of upset that he "weighed in" in this way during his own report, because I thought it may unduly sway the voting members of the assembly. A large part of that is maybe a difference in our leadership styles - in council meetings and annual meetings, I try to hold back from commenting right away, precisely because people grant so much authority to what I have to say, and I want them to think things through for themselves and have true ownership in the decision, not just do something or not do something because I say so. The Bishop seems to prefer more hierarchical systems and claims his authority more quickly than I - not in a power hungry kind of way, but humbly, and with an awesome sense of responsibility to steward the authority which his office grants him. I can understand and respect that, even though I choose to lead in a different way. I can also understand and respect his concerns about the plurality of practice, even though I don't share them.
But I digress. I was less upset after talking to Andy about the report, because he pointed out that what it did more than anything was set the tone for the discussions yet to come, and it disarmed the mudslinging, ad hominum attacks, and vitriolic rhetoric (especially the "you're abandoning the Bible" arguments) into which these debates are prone to devolve.
At the next plenary, we voted to form a "quasi-committee of the whole" - which was a brilliant parliamentary move that gave us a block of time to actually talk about the issue without a legislative vote on the line, so that no one could prematurely end the discussion by calling the question. While we were not exactly talking with each other, we were at least not merely talking at each other, or stuck in a point-counterpoint debate. From what I can remember, 19 people spoke (including yours truly) - there may have been more, but when I got home and thought back to who went to the mics: 14 spoke in favor of the statement and/or policy recommendations (10 clergy, 4 laypeople); 3 spoke against (all clergy); 1 colleague I'm not sure about - I thought he began by saying he was against, but then the content of what he said sounded to me like he was for, and I'm not sure which part of his speech I misunderstood; 1 person spoke neither for nor against, but only to the point they believe the Churchwide Assembly needs to pass this by a "supermajority" (2/3 instead of 51%).
A few of the usual suspects who are reliably outspoken on this issue (on both sides) were conspicuously silent today. I don't know if the Bishop's report truly disarmed what they had to say, or if they are waiting until tomorrow's debate on the resolution. Mal sehen.
In any case, at the end of the quasi-committee of the whole, we then took a series of non-binding votes to get a sense of the assembly. The votes were as follows:
On the question of the social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust
In favor: 100
Undecided: 58
Opposed: 107
On the question of the implementing resolutions (if the social statement is adopted, the action plan for how it will be implemented into the life of the church)
In favor: 126
Undecided: 53
Opposed: 86
We took each of the four resolutions of the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies in order.
On Resolution 1, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
In favor: 116
Undecided: 37
Opposed: 113
On Resolution 2, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
In favor: 113
Undecided: 39
Opposed: 117
On Resolution 3, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another's burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound conscience of all.
In favor: 137
Undecided: 28
Opposed: 83
On Resolution 4, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America call upon its members to commit themselves to respect the bound consciences of those with whom they disagree regarding decisions on the call and rostering of individuals in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, in this church and with churches ecumenically and globally, and that this church, because of its commitment to respect the bound consciences of all, declare its intent to allow structured flexibility in the decision-making process regarding the approving or disapproving in candidacy and the extending or not extending of a call. . .(etc - it's long, read the whole thing on the link)
In favor: 114
Undecided: 45
Opposed: 113
Three things stand out to me about these nonbinding votes:
First, even here in this fairly conservative, traditional family values area of the country, we are closely divided on this matter.
Second, though as a whole we're not quite sure we're ready for them in our pulpit, it seems as a whole we are slightly open to the idea of acknowledging some sort of life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship between two people of the same gender. I'm frankly surprised that window has emerged here, and even though it's only open the tiniest little bit, it's a place to start, and from the perspective of justice, not a bad one.
Third, more than anything we seem to be longing for a way to respect one another and live together in spite of our deep differences (at least, that's my read on resolution 3's vote) - and that's a good thing.
So, that was how things went today. Tomorrow we will have another discussion/debate on a resolution asking us to reject the social statement, and 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," and 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 know - that's a heck of a lot to pack into one little resolution. And given how close the non-binding votes were today, I think it could honestly go either way. Mal sehen.
Whichever way it goes, I think we need to do a division of the house so that the Churchwide Assembly can see how narrow of a margin decided the issue.
Alright, I'm tired and I've got another long day tomorrow. If you're still with me, thanks for tuning in.
Peace,
C.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Public Service Announcement
For Valley cyclists looking for a fairly level, wide, safe path on which to ride: the new rail-to-trail path between Lewisburg and Mifflinburg is not yet ready for public use.
Sure, when you drive by it looks all tantilizingly good to go, because the railroad ties are up and a base level of gravel is down.
But it has not yet been packed and graded. It's rather like cycling through lumpy molasses.
Sure, when you drive by it looks all tantilizingly good to go, because the railroad ties are up and a base level of gravel is down.
But it has not yet been packed and graded. It's rather like cycling through lumpy molasses.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Singing For Our Lives
I'm normally wary of study results that coincidentally favor their funders agenda (like when the tobacco industry releases studies downplaying tobacco's harmful effects). But in this case, the truth proclaimed by this study is so abundantly self-evident, it could have been funded by a group of Trappist Monks and the results would have been the same.
So, thanks to Chorus America, we now know that singing is a key component to a fulfilling life and the successful pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Well, duh.
So, thanks to Chorus America, we now know that singing is a key component to a fulfilling life and the successful pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Well, duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)