Fetchez la vache!

So Patrick's church is entering a float in this year's Dutch Days parade. Since their Vacation Bible School theme was "High Seas Adventure" - kind of a pirate-flavored schtick - they are making their float look like a pirate ship, bringing back a bunch of their decorations, and Patrick built a low-velocity catapult with which to toss candy into the crowd of parade-goers from said ship.

"How big is this candy catapult?" asked I, "Like, big enough to fling a cow?"

Oh, it is.

Not a real cow, mind you. Just a stuffed one.

But oh, once I get a cow in my possession, it is so on!

Pictures may be coming soon. . .

In the meantime, enjoy Monty Python and the Holy Grail in Legovision. :)

It's a Small World After All

So here's a weird case of truth being stranger than fiction:

Thanks to the wonders of facebook, this past week I got back in touch with an old high school friend who was a fellow original orator.

That got me to thinking about the last time I saw said friend, which was over a decade ago, when we were in college, our coaches had us all over to their house for a little O.O. reunion dinner - a really fun night, still a fond memory.

That got me to thinking about our coaches and wondering how life has been treating them, whether they are still coaching, etc.

Then tonight, a different friend's picture popped up in the rotation in the "friends" box. This friend, Susan, was also in speech back in high school (though she was from a different town/school, and I don't think she was in O.O., so we didn't compete against each other directly), and she is also a fellow Ole. But I think it's fair to say that we were at best passing acquaintances in high school, and we knew of each other, moved in a number of similar circles, at Olaf, but we really became friends at Luther Seminary.

I thought to myself, "I haven't talked to Susan in a while, I'll look at her wall, see what she's up to."

And I notice her husband's name is the same as the son of my old O.O. coaches.

In the part of the world I currently live in, his name would be quite uncommon (it's pretty Scandihoovian). In MN, however, it would be much more common. His last name in MN is incredibly common, but, because his first name (Trygve) is not as popular as, say, Lars or Leif, his name overall is still somewhat unique.

So then I'm debating with myself: "Nah, it can't be. I've known her husband's name. I've looked at the wedding pictures she has posted. I would have picked up on this then, right?"

So I looked at the wedding pictures again, and sure enough: my friend Susan's in-laws are my old speech coaches!

I feel dumb for not putting that together sooner. And I think it's funny how the timing of everything came together this week, that I was just wondering this afternoon how they were doing, and basically got sort of an answer tonight - all thanks to facebook!

And I think it's kind of crazy, when you stop and pay attention - we really are all far more interconnected than we realize. . .

Peace out,
C

A Little Light at the End of the Tunnel

Uff da.

Last Sunday feels like it was a year ago. I am both physically and emotionally exhausted, and the events that have brought me to this state include but are not limited to:

- the hospital's annual memorial service for families who have lost children

- the death of a beloved matriarch of my congregation

- my own far-away grandma undergoing surgery to remove cancer

- finding out a far-away friend battling cancer is having a terrible time with the chemo

- the death of my friend Meg's father

and

- announcing my resignation to the congregation (I am starting a PhD this fall, back at Luther)


Meg's father's funeral was today, and though I didn't really know him, I went to support Meg, Andy, and the kids. Breen, Patrick, and I kept Olivia and Jack occupied during the visitation so their parents could talk to all the people who came to share their sympathy. Regular readers of this blog know these are incredibly imaginative kiddos, so you won't be surprised to hear that I spent part of the afternoon playing "paper, rock, scissors" with a stuffed bunny. It was Olivia's bunny, and since it had no digits at the end of its paws with which to form a paper, a rock, or a scissor, she would have to tell me what item the bunny had "chosen."

Man, who knew that stuffed bunnies were so wicked smart? Hers managed to beat me 90% of the time. :) We also played several hands of imaginary "Go Fish" (imaginary because we didn't have any cards on hand). . .both Olivia and the bunny beat me 90% of the time at that, too.

But I didn't mind. Losing imaginary card games to stuffed animals is actually not such a bad way to end a very long and difficult week. . .

Photography by Jack

We had a baby shower for Breen and Patrick on Sunday. My buddy Jack (3.5) kept asking if he could use my camera to take some pictures. I think I'm gonna start calling him Jack Pollock, because as you can see, he's in a very abstract period in his work these days. . .













Finally, a portrait of the artist as a young man:

Mythbusting

Yesterday a friend's congregation voted to leave the ELCA over the sexuality issue. This friend is staying with the ELCA, which means their job and call is now over. Thankfully this friend already has another (at least temporary) call lined up for now, so they are not absolutely unemployed.

In a discussion of this on their facebook page, a classmate of theirs from seminary (someone I vaguely remember from my seminary days as well - this friend was a couple classes behind me) made a sort of snarky sounding comment about this being what happens when Church leadership pushes something forward, damn the consequences, and then criticizes people who are angry about it.

There was a lot I could say in response to this comment, but my biggest concern was to go after this myth that "liberal-agenda Church Leadership" was responsible for this, so I posted the following. I'm re-posting it here because in order to truly help take down the myth, this probably needs to be seen by more than just my friend's friends on facebook.

What I find so ironic about this is that the folks who are so angry about Churchwide Assembly decisions tend to fall on the literalist end of the spectrum when it comes to Biblical interpretation. And yet when it comes to the actual historical record of how this decision was made, they chuck facts out the window in favor of myths and conspiracy theories. I'm sure part of where they are getting that from is the Word Alone "Network News," which reads more like a Lutheran National Enquirer these days, but they send it to everybody whether you want it or not, and if people willingly read salacious trash, what can you do to stop them?

In any case, what I wrote is below. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. For non-Lutherans reading this, Higgins Road is where the ELCA's churchwide offices are located in Chicago - those who dislike the national church often use it as derogatory shorthand to refer to anyone or anything in the churchwide offices.




I am responding to Jasper's comment, and I apologize in advance if I come across tersely, but I am tired of hearing Churchwide Assembly decisions being blamed on "Church leadership so bent on making a change."

First of all, "Church leadership" did not make this decision, "the gay agenda" did not make this decision either - the regular old Lutherans (pastors and laity and bishops) who were sent to the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) on behalf of their synod are the ones who voted in favor of this change. And they didn't do it abruptly, they didn't do it in a vacuum, they did it after YEARS of of deliberate study and discussion of all aspects of the issue across the entire ELCA, they did it after DAYS of deliberate discussion and discernment (in both small and large group formats) within the CWA itself, and they did it in the context of prayerful discernment, as all decisions in the Assembly are handled.

Second, as a "consequence" of these decisions, no one is being asked to change their interpretation of Scripture or their understanding of homosexuality. No one is being asked to call a gay pastor, be they single or in a publicly accountable, monogamous, etc, partnership. What everyone IS being asked, and not by nameless, faceless, agenda-driven bureaucrats on Higgins Road, but by regular old Lutherans in congregations just like yours and mine, what we ARE being asked by these brothers and sisters in Christ, is to allow them to care pastorally for their own members in the manner they best see fit (regardless of their parishioners' orientations), and to allow them to call the pastor they believe the Holy Spirit is sending to them, regardless of that pastor's sexual orientation.

I'm not asking you to agree with CWA, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm not asking anyone to stay in the ELCA if their conscience binds them to leave over this issue. But stay or go, agree or disagree, I AM asking you to get the story straight (pun intended) when you talk about it with other people, especially those in your parish.

Peace,
C

The Dude Abides

. . .and now he's Clooney?

Before I left for MN, I finally saw Up in the Air.

Was it just me, or did anybody else find it significant that Sam Elliot was cast as the pilot who hands Ryan the card and has the serious meaning of life type conversation with him on the plane toward the end of the movie?

Follow my train: Sam Elliot played the omniscient narrator/God figure in The Big Lebowski, who also encounters the main character in a significant, somewhat mysterious, conversational way at the end. In that movie, he has a line about some folks being the encapsulating embodiment of their time, and for his day and age, the Dude was such a one. Up in the Air is about corporate downsizing in the late Aughts in America, and as such, Ryan Bingham is a representative figure of our time (our era's Dude, if you will). And Sam Elliot shows up toward the end of the movie, again playing a psuedo-God role, awarding Ryan with what he thought he wanted.

Subtle (or perhaps not-so-subtle) nod to the Coen brothers?

I'm just sayin. . .

Random Thoughts On Meaning and Truth

Some half-baked thoughts and vignettes sort of inspired by or related to David Lose's Making Sense of Scripture, which I've been reading of late. Just want to get them down before I lose track of what I was thinking.

First, something I learned, an answer to a pondering I had a while back, about why the Chronicler sanitized the Isrealite history: the Chronicler was from the southern kingdom of Judah - David was a homeboy, and the sordid exploits of he and his house were embarrassing, so they tried to clean it up a bit. Those who wrote the Samuels and Kings were from the northern kingdom of Israel, so it was no skin off their nose to emphasize the dysfunction of David's house.

Second, another thing I probably knew once but had forgotten and was reminded of: the Jewish scriptural canon was still being formed in the days of Jesus, and the prophets were among the scrolls that were not yet definitively settled upon as to whether or not they were scripture. To me, this makes Jesus' choice of Isaiah as the text for his inaugural sermon (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke) all the more interesting - to go, not to what was commonly agreed upon as the Word of God, but to something that was known but edgy and rather marginal in its status - kind of a bold move, adds another layer of meaning as to what Jesus' ministry would be about (and I think it's equally interesting, and still holds true, if you want to just credit Luke with the selection, instead of Jesus, since not every Gospel witnesses to this sermon).

Third, I was in MN this past week for some continuing education, and was pleasantly surprised to find a special exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Science Museum, so this also became part of my week's plans. It looked like an exhibit that's been touring the country, but the MN installment was altered because of a local scholar who disagrees with the conclusions as originally presented in the exhibit. The jist of the debate: many scholars believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are the product of the Essene community at nearby Qumran. However, other scholars believe it would be impossible for the Qumran community to produce such a vast number of scrolls, instead they contend that when it became evident that Israel would be sacked by the Romans in 70 CE, priests, scribes, and scholars in Jerusalem collected all the scrolls they could find and hid them safely away in the desert.

In any case, because of this local scholar's vociferous opposition to the exhibit's original presentation, this particular installment presents both sides - which I think makes the exhibit overall even stronger. Especially in these days when so many people of all persuasions want to put a lock on Truth, I think it's healthy for the public to go to an exhibit - at a science museum, no less (where things are normally presented with such factual certainty) and be met with two different interpretations, both thoroughly argued based on the "factual" evidence at hand, and be asked to consider the matter for themselves instead of being told what to think. I love that in the middle of the exhibit they have a "read more about it" area with a bunch of books on the subject and comfy chairs in which to sit and read them (and the day I was there, a number of people were doing exactly that). I think it's fantastic that the whole exhibit begins with a clay pot in a glass case that asks "What is the meaning of this?" and goes on to explain that on it's own, it doesn't mean much of anything, it requires a context to achieve meaning, and while science can tell us more about that context and what the thing itself is (when it was made, what it was made of, etc), faith and culture are ultimately what infuse the thing with meaning for us today. Just struck a lot of resonant chords with what Dr. Lose contends, that the Bible on its own, on a shelf, doesn't mean much at all, but it's the context (both original and modern) and what it does in our lives that gives it meaning and authority.

Before I move on to 4, just a couple of logistical notes in case anyone reading this is considering going to the exhibit: you should absolutely go (for the exhibit itself AND because the last part of the exhibit - perhaps also a special Minnesota addendum? - are gorgeous pages from the St. John's Illuminated Bible), but be aware it will take you a while to get through it. I read pretty much everything and listened to and watched almost everything and it took me 2.25 hours to get through it all. Other friends who went had spent 2.5 hours before they had to leave for their Omnitheater tickets, and they hadn't quite seen everything. And, other word to the wise - it's a little pricey because you have to pay for admission to both the special exhibit and the museum as a whole (Omnitheater is optional, though that's not immediately evident - if you don't want to see the film, which is not on the scrolls but on Arabia in general, be sure to tell them that, or the price will be even higher). So, since you've paid for the privilege, and as long as you're right there, don't forget to run up and down the musical steps a few times! They are the best part of the whole museum! :)

Ok, finally, fourth: today flying back to PA, I wasn't seated next to the raging extrovert, but there were two seated behind me, and of course, I couldn't help but overhear parts of their conversation. At one point they were discussing books and movies, and this guy started describing the movie Seven Pounds, which happens to be a favorite of mine. The thing was - he was butchering the plot. At first he was just adding inaccurate details (like Will Smith's character being a doctor, when he's an aeronautics engineer; or that he and his wife had children, which they did not), but I thought maybe he just has a bad memory for details like that. But then as I heard him describe further, I realized he completely misunderstood significant parts of the movie. I was tempted to turn around and correct him, but I didn't want to be the annoying know-it-all stranger interrupting their conversation. So instead I just made a note of it on the back of my boarding pass and decided to blog about it here. :)

Now, I will admit Seven Pounds is a bit confusing, especially in the beginning - it's kind of cryptic and poetically rendered, not unlike the Gospel of John. But based on his description, this guy seriously didn't get a good chunk of what was going on, even after watching the whole thing. And that just got me thinking even more about meaning-making and interpretation and truth/Truth, and I felt like it kind of resonated with Dr. Lose's discussion in chapter 3 about event, significance, and medium. As in, watching the movie was the event, and now on the plane he was using the medium of speech to relay the significance. But to my mind, he had the significance all messed up because he hadn't fully understood the event. Which begs a number of questions, including: how fully did the Gospel writers, say, understand the event of Christ? And how fully do we understand the event of God/Christ/the Bible in our lives? And how can anybody, any institution, any ideology, try to put a lock on Truth given that we may have misunderstood the event of Christ (in his own day and/or in ours) as thoroughly as this guy misunderstood the plot of Seven Pounds? All of which is not to say that we should never make any truth claims because we can never be absolutely certain of their truth. Instead, I think we just need to realize that any truth claims we do make are a matter of confession.

That's enough for tonight. Thanks for anybody who's still with me - can't say I didn't warn you these were half-baked. :)