Monthly Archives: July 2012

About the Bread

Posted on by
2

a Homily for Proper 12B 

Text: John 6:1-21

Focus on the Feeding

 

English: Jesus feeding a crowd with 5 loaves o...

Jesus feeding a crowd with 5 loaves of bread and two fish (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the Feeding of the Five Thousand, we get one of the most recognizable stories of Jesus in the Bible. To many of us, this is quintessential Jesus. He feeds people. He performs a miracle. He instructs the disciples. He transforms how people are able to see the Almighty. It is iconic. Put up against the other iconic images of Jesus: Baptism, Good Shepherd, Transfiguration, Triumphal Entry, Crucifixion, etc.: this stands near the top.

What does that to us, do you think?

Is it the mystery? The “how’d he do that?”

Is it the majesty of the event? That it happened with five thousand people?

Is it the surprise? Turning five loaves and 2 fish into a feast?

Is it the generosity? That so many were given so much from so little?

Whatever the cause, this iconic message of GOD’s power in Jesus sticks with us. The same can’t be said for the second half of the story. The story of how the disciples went on ahead without Jesus, how Jesus avoided the grip of the crowd looking to crown Him king, how the storm and the walking on water make the disciples fearful. How Jesus hops in the boat and suddenly they reach the shore. For some reason, this part of the story is harder to stick with. Perhaps it sounds too much like other moments of surprising power.

Mark’s version of the story concludes with the daunting line:

And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

I wonder if the reason we focus on the feeding and not on the walking on water is because we don’t understand about the loaves.

The Loaves

On Friday Night, Rose and I ate at this little restaurant in Gladwin. We had the best fried whitefish we had ever had. Our plates were stuffed with two big pieces of fish, at least two handfuls of french fries, and bowl of green beans. The meal also began with a house salad and a roll. We were so stuffed! After eating our salads, we had no hope to finish the food off. We were sunk. Nevertheless, we tried. And our stomachs were over-filled. It was uncomfortable. But it seemed worth it.

From GOD giving the Hebrews manna while wandering in the desert to Jesus feeding these thousands of people, GOD’s focus is on enough. They eat enough. Not sufficient, right? Not the minimum necessary. They eat their fill. They eat enough. And yet too often, we are confused by this. Particularly in our realm of abundance. We eat, not until we are filled, but until we are overfull. And I think there is a difference.

More to the point is that what they are given is bread. In Jesus’s world, bread is your food. Bread is the difference between life and death. Bread gives life. Jesus teaching us about our daily bread, that each of us must have our daily bread, He is making a truly troubling statement. All of us must survive. All must be fed. All must have a meal on our table every day. And not scraps or the trimmings. Some good, fresh bread. It seems as if we do not understand about the bread.

Come to the Table

 

Mosaic in the Church of the Multiplication of ...

Mosaic in the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves und the Fishes at Tabgha near the Sea of Galilee (Yam Kinneret), Israel. According to the pious legend, in this place Jesus fed 5000 pilgrims with five loaves of bread and two fish. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How this story fits into the wider scope of this gospel is much more than a magic trick, as if this is one more proof of how awesome Jesus is. It is a profound testimony to faith. Faith in GOD’s abundance in a world of scarcity.

The people following Jesus are most interested in the miracles. They have seen great feats of power. They have watched demons get banished, the sick have been healed. They have witnessed a powerful servant who represents to them something more than prophet. But what? They aren’t willing to face the truth.

The disciples are similarly stuck on the tangible issues: how can we get these people to go home and eat dinner with their families, how much will it cost to feed all of them, how might we find food at Jesus’s request, how might we fashion a dinner out of so little? And what Jesus provides isn’t tangibles, but something more. His power exists outside of the tangible world. Where 5 loaves and 2 fish not only feed 5,000 people, but from the abundance, 12 baskets of leftovers are collected. This doesn’t happen in a land of scarcity. This can only happen in a world of abundance.

The disciples leave that world of abundance when they hop in the boat and leave Jesus up the mountain. The storm rages, hope seems to be lost. Last time, they were upset at Jesus for sleeping in the back of the boat, but now? They left him behind! And as he approaches the boat, He announces who He is. He says “I AM, do not be afraid!” He bears the power of GOD, the great I AM. And as he comes to them, they want Him in the boat. Then the chaos ends.

Wanting Jesus In Our Boat

At St. Paul’s it is far too easy to be like the disciples who make two big mistakes: they are fixated on their land of scarcity and they hop in the boat without Jesus. Looking at the Michigan economy, we certainly appear to live in the land of scarcity. Reading our financial reports, we certainly appear to live in the land of scarcity. Trying to put together a budget for next year, using last years numbers and only adjusting for inflation, we certainly appear to live in the land of scarcity. But Jesus brought the disciples to this spot to witness a break from that reality: a glimpse of not another world that lives far away, but a world that is so very near, we could touch it if we wanted. A world of such abundance that even the tiniest mustard seed could grow into a remarkable bush, and a boy’s grocery run suddenly feeds 5,000 people following Jesus plus all of the people they will meet. We aren’t to fixate on the land of scarcity but invest in the world of abundance.

The other mistake we can make is that we forget Jesus is up that mountain. We take off from the shore, certain Jesus has gone on ahead of us or that He’ll meet up with us later. It is a strange moment in the text, really. But there is something to it. Something to that idea that we move ahead without Jesus, without the One Whom We Follow. Perhaps our storms are so big and scary because they are created by Jesus’s absence, or by our failure to allow Him to participate in our plans. Maybe we take off without Him.

This morning we worship. We worship God in praise and prayer. We will gather around an abundant Table, sharing in the Common Meal. Then we will gather out in the Fellowship Hall for our Semi-Annual Meeting. May we learn from the mistakes of the disciples. May we see the abundance and know GOD’s work is enough. May we want Jesus in the boat with us. And may we be filled with bread; the very substance of life.

How’s the Other Guy Doing?

Posted on by
Reply

In weak economic times, we often look at our neighbors to see how they are doing. It is natural. We all know somebody that has lost a job or is struggling to pay bills. My family has been in that boat for a while, timing bills, some of which we weren’t sure would get paid.

We have two examples of similar conditions in the international community that can shed light on why looking at one’s neighbors isn’t enough.

English: Metropolitan Government Building in S...

Metropolitan Government Building in Shinjuku, Tôkyô, Japan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Back in the early 1980s, the world watched a titan collapse. Japan’s economy went bust and they made the choice to shrink their economy and cut spending. What resulted was the infamous “Lost Decade”. The ramifications of their decision were born out in a smaller, weaker Japan. Though they eventually regained relative economic health, they never regained their eastern dominance.

In the early 1990s, a similar economic panic fell upon the unifying German people. The wealthy West was uniting with a poor East. They similarly chose to cut spending and shrink the economy. The ensuing decade was not lost, however. Their hard work and sacrifice led to the slow-build of the most powerful economy in Europe.

So why did austerity work in Germany and not Japan? There are two obvious reasons.

One, Germany was in the midst of reunification. They had goals and tangible projects. The government was still involved in the creation of new infrastructure. The entire social safety net wasn’t scrapped, but in fact, was strengthened through a new, united voice. This is far from the case in Japan, in which they lacked either the common goal or the pressing need to continue improving the infrastructure and the government.

The second, and perhaps more important reason, is that the global economy was lousy in the 1980s and strong in the 1990s. Germany benefited from incredibly good rates on loans and could export vast quantities to booming Europe. The foundation of their economy could be easily raised up by the free-flowing cash from France, Spain, Italy, and Britain. On the other hand, Japan toiled away with high interest rates on its loans and a weak U.S. and Europe who were not willing to prop up a failing Japan.

Which sounds more like today?

The wider lesson for us is not only to look at where our friends and neighbors are at, but how everybody else is doing before we decide the best approach. It is clear that cutting back in lean times can work when the rest of the world is doing great. If not, it must be time to spend.

In your world, whether it be business, nonprofits, advertising, or the church, ask your neighbors how they are doing. But base your plans on how the other guy is doing. The one on the other side of town, the country, or the world. Because her success will determine yours.

Who do you need to check up on? Who is your “other guy”?

Experiential Teaching Is Not For the Weak

Posted on by
Reply

There is something about this story about a “fake kidnapping” that seems strangely wrong. Not in the idea of terrorizing youth or in the idea that we are an “overly judicious” society. There is something else.

Toward the end, we get the defense:

“It was a youth event, to illustrate what others have encountered on a regular basis,” he said, adding that the focus of the lesson was “the persecuted church” in other countries.

I am struck by this simple idea:

  1. There are people suffering.
  2. We all but ignore their plight.
  3. We cannot replicate that plight.
  4. So we have no hope of better understanding that plight.

I am reminded of those hunger weekends and the experiential poverty events that allow youth to simulate the life of people they have no understanding of. There is a bit of a condescending nature to them, but there is something alive in them as well. They are an attempt on the part of the church to observe and document unfortunate circumstances: to recognize evil in our world and turn our youth from evil.

I’m pretty sure that this youth minister made a really bad mistake. And I’m also pretty sure that the response is an overreaction. But most of all, I’m just sad. Sad that these youth and their leader weren’t able to having the learning moment they needed. And worse, someone is probably going to prison for it.

And that fact seems to miss the original point entirely.

My Friend: Right or Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

When sticking by our friends, we like to say

“My friend: right or wrong!”

to prove just how devoted we are. We want to show unconditional support. But most of the time we don’t actually mean unconditional support. We do have a condition: that our friends are actually decent human beings.

In other words, we don’t mean that unconditional support what so ever.

Or, to put it another way, perhaps the sign of being a true friend is that they will help you bury the body. As in, the body of someone killed in self-defense or in an act of retributional justice as seen in countless Hollywood movies. As opposed to the woman they offed in cold blood because they liked the way they smelled…and wanted to see how they smelled dead. Still sticking by that friend? Or the selfish and greedy friend? Or the abusive and judgmental friend?

The question isn’t really how devoted we are, it is when are we going to cut ties? How wrong is too wrong for friendship?

I was listening to an interview with Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi about their film 5 Broken Cameras. It is a documentary filmed by a Palestinian whose town and way of life has been  stolen from him and transformed by Israeli settlers. It is a town’s struggle to point out how awful and unlawful the occupation is and doing so peacefully. This trailer gives some snippets of the situation.

Granted I’ve never been one to give unconditional support to Israel anyway or to say “My friend: right or wrong” about anyone, but at what point do we stop thinking of Israel as the sort of friend we support without thinking? Because I’ve found my point.

Deliver us from the presumption of pardon and not renewal

Posted on by
Reply

a Homily for Proper 11B
Text: Mark 6:30-34, 53-56

[Sunday I preached without a script. This is an approximation of what I preached.]

Sabbath

Coming back from vacation, it is appropriate to get this gospel pericope about rest. Or lack there of it.

It was just two weeks ago when we covered the story of Jesus sending the disciples out with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They came home to find Jesus. They wanted to tell him all about it. No doubt they were exhausted and ready to fall down and get some rest. Jesus reassures them, saying “Let’s all go to some deserted place. We’ll rest. Get something to eat.”

But they don’t. Because they get into that boat and the crowd sees it, and beats them to the other side. I’ve got to say that by this time, if I were the disciples, I’d be saying

“Enough with the boat! Remember the last time you promised us rest, the crowd swamped us. The last time we crossed the water, the storms raged. No! No more boats!”

Remember how they returned to Jesus’s home only to get mobbed? They were hungry then and couldn’t eat. They couldn’t relax and rest. No rest for the weary.

This gets to what we know about Sabbath. That in the 7-Day Creation story, we get the world created in 6 days and on the seventh, GOD rests. This idea of Sabbath as rest from work was canonized by the Ten Commandments. But these disciples never seem to get any rest. There is always more to do.

No Rest For the Weary

On the way home from up north, Rose looked at me and said

“I’m not sure I should say this…”

which perked up my ears. Which also means now she had no choice but to say it.

“I love the time we had, but I didn’t get a vacation.”

Her work didn’t stop. She had extra arms to hold the kids and extra minds to distract them. But they were still around. She was never off duty for more than a few hours at a time. Mom was always on.

This is a lot like the way we see our work as Christians. No matter how much we want to take a Sunday off or punch the time card, hide in a closet, and complain about the SoB that is screwing everything up, we can’t. As followers of Christ, we are always following. No vacations. No rest. Always on. This isn’t some full-time job where we can go home at the end of the day and put our feet up. It is an always job. On 24 hours, 7 days. Always.

And lets be honest with each other. It is tiring. Being good all the time. Loving the unlovables. It wears us out.

That Desert Place

There is something in the way Jesus brings these disciples along. His use of these words deserted and rest. When he gets to the shore and sees these people, he sees them as sheep without a shepherd and so he teaches them. He is worn out and looking for respite, but he teaches some more. He is always teaching. And it makes me think we have got this idea all wrong. That this going to the deserted place isn’t a trip into solitude so that they all might relax and put their feet up, but to head off into the metaphorical desert.

Remember, right after his baptism, Jesus went into the desert. This was a traditional practice in the time that would do two important things for you. First it would cleanse you. Both physically and spiritually. Something about the heat, the perspiration and the drinking of water that pulls the stuff out of your system. Something about the sand as an exfoliating agent. Something about the solitude. Going into the desert cleans you up, just as it makes your feet all dirty.

The second important thing is that it is time away from the world, but it isn’t time away from work—GOD’s work. It is about ridding oneself of the cultural noise so that one might hear and experience GOD. This also happens to be the purpose of Sabbath.

So Jesus, taking the disciples away to a “deserted place” to “rest” isn’t about vacation or putting feet up and thinking about nothing. It was a trip into the desert to hear and experience GOD. So what happens when they get there? Jesus teaches.

We also get a big doughnut hole in our reading as the teaching goes on for hours and then moves right into the Feeding of the Five Thousand, which we cover next week in John’s telling. So the teaching and the feeding are Sabbath to the disciples.

Getting Better

In Eucharistic Prayer C on page 372 in the Book of Common Prayer, we have this wonderful part that covers this very idea. It is speaking specifically about the table and Holy Communion, but hear these same ideas:

Lord God of our Fathers; God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: Open our eyes to see your hand at work in the world about us. Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and nor for renewal. Let the grace of this Holy Communion make us one body, one spirit in Christ, that we may worthily serve the world in his name.

I particularly love that line that says

“Deliver us from the presumption
of coming [here]…
for pardon only, and not for renewal.”

We don’t come together to recharge our batteries. It is something more. We often think of life as a NASCAR or Indy race. We race around the track so fast, trying so hard to win; to beat everybody else. But the race is long and eventually we will run out of fuel or our tires will go bald. So we stop in the pit and the crew rushes out to fill up the tank or change the tires. And as they finish, our foot is on the gas again and we tear out of the pit so that we can drive really fast again.

Then we realize we need to strategize, so we refuel and change tires at the same time. It doesn’t matter if the tires are bald or if we still have half of a tank of gas. We do it at the same time to maximize our time out racing.

This is how we treat our lives and our faith. But it is nothing like what Jesus is talking about. There’s no race. No winning. No pits or pit crews. We aren’t refilling the fuel tank.

He sends us out with everything we need.

And when we come back, we do so, not when we’re empty, but when we need to be filled with what we can’t get anywhere else. We aren’t recharged, we are made better. Better parents, friends, lovers, children, leaders, followers.

Because here is where we learn to love. Always learning anew how and why to love.

A Pastor’s Response to General Convention #77

Posted on by
1

150 px

We aren’t the Rotary. We aren’t a country club. We aren’t civil society. We aren’t a local government. We aren’t a Lodge or an Order or anything like that. We are the church and the church is different.

We forget that sometimes. And in many ways. When we get together to set up the altar for Sunday, we often forget to pray before and after. When we gather to discuss the state of our campus and building, we neglect the theology of how and why we gather. When we have quiet moments at home, we neglect our reading of Scripture or devotionals. This isn’t always the case. But often it is.

All of those small things we miss add up to something important.

Those small things: extemporaneous prayer, theological discovery, scripture reading: are all part of what it means to be a devoted Christian. This isn’t the stuff of personal piety. This isn’t whether or not you cross yourself or bow or genuflect. This is the basics. This is the definition of participating in faith. You can’t very well be Christian if you don’t pray, wrestle with GOD, and read the Bible. And we can’t be a Christian community if we don’t do that, either.

What separates the General Convention of the Episcopal Church from any other gathering is that nothing is done without prayer, reflection, and Scripture reading. Nothing. The Episcopal Church is unique in this. We don’t rely on Robert’s Rules of Order to create winners and losers. We don’t follow current trends or quickly dash off in any direction. We don’t follow the orders of a dictator or a self-interested board of directors. This is what we do:

  • We gather every three years, with equal numbers of lay and clergy deputies in one chamber called the House of Deputies.
  • We also gather all of the bishops, active and retired, into one chamber called the House of Bishops.
  • And bishops and deputies serve on the various committees that gather to deal with the proposed legislation.
  • Legislation is most often proposed by a diocese or standing committee of the church and has been vigorously covered in that venue before coming to General Convention.
  • When the committees gather, they pray, listen, and deal with what people are saying.
  • If the legislation comes out of committee, it has already been prayed for and gone through rigorous theological conversation. It then must past through both Houses to become anything.

Final vote tallies and national headlines obscure all of the work that goes into it before the vote. All of the work meant to deal with what this might mean for the church and what it might mean for each diocese, congregation, and Episcopalian.

Nothing gets a simple up or down vote. And nothing is taken lightly. It is not subject to the whim of the few or current trends. It is all prayerful and deliberate.

It is what church is supposed to look like.

You’ll find attached to this an article from the Episcopal News Service describing all of the work of General Convention. In it, you may be surprised to discover they talked about a lot of things that isn’t related to sex. We dealt with growing concerns about structure, budget, and investment. We called for more conversation about what it means to be Anglican and that we are unable to sign onto the Anglican Covenant. We said that we need to study marriage. We committed to focusing on poverty and justice when and wherever we gather. We created a means of dealing with any dysfunctional relationships between a bishop and a diocese, we dealt with issues regarding the Sudan, Cuba, women and other underrepresented groups. And much more.

As for the matters of sex, the church affirmed the work of the Standing Commission of Liturgy and Music, which was asked at the last General Convention in 2009 to gather resources from around the country to develop a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions. They approved the rite for trial use over the next three years, under the authority of each diocesan bishop. In our diocese, this will mean that during the trial period, a couple must be contributing members of the congregation, be supported by the priest and the congregation, the vestry must approve, and then the bishop must approve. Lastly, this approval does not deal with matters of marriage.

Also, General convention determined that the church guarantees full equality in all aspects of the church to transgendered individuals, including ordination.

General Convention really is different. And this General Convention was particularly so. There was much discussion over the last year about needing to restructure the church, and many prominent voices throughout the church, including the CFO spoke to this need, giving their two cents about how it could be improved. In unanimously supporting one piece of legislation that was crafted out of 90 different proposals out of committee, then unanimously supporting it out of the Houses of Deputies and Bishops, The Episcopal Church has publicly declared with one voice that much of what we’ve been doing needs to change. A task force will be created and its work will be completed by November 2014. And come July 2015 at the next General Convention, we’ll have a pretty good idea of what our church will look like for the foreseeable future. And this is something we can applaud.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know and I would gladly hear them. You may also wish to speak with a deputy from our convocation, the Rev. Tracie Loffhagen or our Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Todd Ousley.

I have never been more proud of my church and more excited for its future.

Best Response to Doubters Yet

Posted on by
4

Tom Ehrich has written the best response yet to the anti-mainline and doom-and-gloom forecasts.

Conservative commentators like Rupert Murdoch’s stable and Ross Douthat of The New York Times are feasting on what they perceive as the “death” of “liberal Christianity.”
They add two and two and get eight. They see decisions they don’t like — such as the Episcopal Church’s recent endorsement of a rite for blessing same-sex unions. They see declines in church membership. They pounce.

 

Such “liberal” decisions are destroying the church, they say, and alienating young adults they must reach in order to survive.

 

Never mind that surveys of young adults in America show attitudes toward sexuality that are far more liberal than those of older generations. Never mind that conservative denominations are also in decline. Continue Reading…

CNN Asks Real Episcopalian to Debate Outsider

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner had I written my little rant about the media then did I stumble upon the Rev. Susan Russell’s conversation Sunday morning on CNN. She was invited to talk about The Episcopal Church’s decision at General Convention to confirm for trial use the liturgy produced for the blessing of same-gendered unions.

Speaking opposite her is Jeff Walton from the Institute for Religion and Democracy, an organization, as Russell correctly points out, who has for decades now, attempted to undermine prominent mainline groups, including The Episcopal Church, the Methodists, and Presbyterians. He describes himself as an Anglican, which intentionally sets him as representing the “con” position to Russell’s “pro”.

I am happy to see that they actually did interview an Episcopalian about General Convention, but it is too bad that they felt the need to make it a debate, and worse, fail to recognize the imbalance in the conversation. On the one hand is an articulate, well-intentioned priest in The Episcopal Church, and on the other is a person representing an organization intent on dividing the church for political reasons. A more appropriate conversation partner might be, say, someone who isn’t interested in messing with TEC. Just a thought. I’d even welcome a former Episcopalian or one of the schismatics who wasn’t part of the IRD because then there is appropriate common ground for conversation. But allowing yet another IRD spokesperson to poison the well of public conversation is inappropriate. Then again, they are one of those favorite places journalists go to get “the conservative perspective”, rather than actually finding a conservative without an anti-church agenda.

Dare I call this progress? I’m not so sure.

Bad Coverage of Good News

Posted on by
3

After a week of incredible, humbling work, the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church closed last week with a flurry of activity. A week of prayer, worship, discernment, and decision found the church wrestling with serious and substantive questions. More importantly, it appears, finding its voice. A new group of people I deeply respect have gathered under the name Acts 8 Moment, which gives me hope for the direction and future of the church. The Rev. Canon Frank Logue has put together some great videos describing what this means.

150 px

You wouldn’t know this if you read two of our most prominent papers of record. In the religion section of the Wall Street Journal and the opinion page of the New York Times, journalists with little familiarity with the governance of The Episcopal Church, and armed only with the political baggage of “the culture war” penned thinly-veiled screeds about the direction of The Episcopal Church. The first, written by Jay Akasie, was so full of errors and outside speculation, that it is nearly impossible to find any element of truth within it. Its premise was so deeply dependent on false and easily refuted claims, that none of his conclusions carry any weight. It is deeply disturbing to see such filth in such a formerly august newspaper as the WSJ.

The second, and much more clever of the two, was written by Ross Douthat, and published in the Sunday Review, the opinion page of the New York Times. This one, more “think piece” than straight editorial, failed the basic sniff test because everything about it sounded familiar. So familiar, in fact, that Diana Butler Bass was easily able to diagnose its problem: he was simply restating ideas from the 1970s about the decline of the mainline. The pernicious problem with his piece is that he hides the similar issues conservative Christians have had over the same time while falsely attributing current trends with past statistics. Then he makes the gravest sin of all in suggesting The Episcopal Church is operating without theological foundation: a charge so clearly mistaken and demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance of his subject.

I have chosen not to link to these pieces directly, but encourage you to read these two thoughtful responses from people with much greater knowledge of the subject matter, Scott Gunn and Diana Butler Bass. I also encourage you to read this one, written by a known conservative who finds the former article as hackish as the rest of us.

All of this reminded me of a report I heard about five or six years ago. I was listening to NPR’s On the Media and they interviewed two researchers who looked at how the media used “the religious perspective” on a topic. I went searching for the study online, but couldn’t find it. The two researchers looked at who was invited to speak on behalf of Christianity on TV with regards to big issues like war, sex, and the like.

I was floored at the time by two shocking measurements. The first found that more than 60% of the time, conservative evangelicals were invited to speak for all Christians, followed by Roman Catholics at >20%, and the remaining 10-20% was everybody else. As conservative evangelicals make up about 1/4 of all Christians, this was a shocking overrepresentation and a criminal under-representation of all other denominational groups.

The second thing they found was that the most commonly invited conservative evangelicals were big names, drawn from a small pool, with the same few high-profile pastors invited well more than anyone else. Those speaking for the many non-conservative evangelical positions were spread out with few prominent representatives of any one group getting much consistent TV time.

I did come across a much more recent study of how the media covers homosexuality which produces an example of a similar bias in the news for antagonism on the subject, but not to the level we saw back in 2006 of the much wider research group of all ethical subjects.

Much has been written already by my colleagues in response to these two mean-spirited pieces, and I certainly encourage you to read them, particularly Diana Butler Bass’s. Personally, my question is why did these two men write these pieces in the first place? And why did these two newspapers with lofty reputations print them, particularly as they are examples of poor journalism and are so deeply flawed?

Or to ask a different question. Why have they published such a nakedly partisan response to the General Convention? Are they implying a) that the results of Convention are inherently liberal and b) they can speak for themselves? If this is the case, then why has the beauty, theological adventure, and harmony of this Convention not been reported, so that the Convention can actually speak for itself? And isn’t it poor journalism to make such presuppositions to begin with?

Perhaps the biggest problem for the news media in understanding what has been happening at General Convention this decade is that The Episcopal Church is becoming driven less by secular notions and impositions and more by Biblical and theological ones. That the nature of a Convention in which both clergy and laity have a voice, that business is not done until all of the proposals have been prayed over and a way forward has been thoroughly discerned by broad groups of diverse people. That nothing is done by fiat or from a top-down, authoritarian model. That little is done in secret, back rooms by the Illuminati. They literally do not understand what we are doing. Or why. Especially the why. How this structure embodies the Baptismal Covenant and is focused on representing Jesus’s call to total ministry of the people.

This is why we don’t get called to talk about our own church. We are living a rebelious notion that the governing order of Western Democracy has as much to lose from a full-throated Gospel of Jesus as anyone else. That the intensity of the bright light of scrutiny shined on our own institutions in the U.S. might reveal that so many of them run counter to our Biblical, theological, and even traditional mandate to follow Jesus as Messiah. That our common, simplistic understanding of GOD’s blessing has no real relation to the Gospel. That the gospel is much more than belief and much more than adherence, but about practicing love in a way that makes the powerful uncomfortable.

So appropriate, then, that the late Woody Guthrie’s 100th birthday came upon us. He preached a dangerous message of unity and rebellion so very much like Jesus’s. As he wrote:

ALL YOU FASCISTS

I’m gonna tell you fascists
You may be surprised
The people in this world
Are getting organized
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose

Race hatred cannot stop us
This one thing we know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow
And greed has got to go
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose.

All of you fascists bound to lose:
I said, all of you fascists bound to lose:
Yes sir, all of you fascists bound to lose:
You’re bound to lose! You fascists:
Bound to lose!

People of every color
Marching side to side
Marching ‘cross these fields
Where a million fascists dies
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

I’m going into this battle
And take my union gun
We’ll end this world of slavery
Before this battle’s won
You’re bound to lose
You fascists bound to lose!

The Start of Brickation!

Posted on by
2

The Downs family have been having a great time on vacation. And as it nears its endpoint, I thought I’d put together a few pictures of one of our fun stops.

In downtown Traverse City, they had a special Lego storefront setup for the National Cherry Festival. There was no entrance fee, and kids were able to play to their heart’s content.

My favorite moment was when Sophia noticed a ramp for racing cars constructed from Legos. I have to admit, that it gave me bad pinewood derby flashbacks, but those were replaced by my favorite image: one that will be forever etched in the concrete block I call a brain. She sees a kid drop a car down the ramp, squeals, turns to me, and furiously grabs a handful of Legos. Then she runs behind the ramp and releases them to slide down the ramp.

Then she runs back to me to get more.

It was the sweetest thing. She eventually discovered the sets of wheels on an axle and then I fashioned a simple car, connecting two axles with one thin, long piece, which she adores. My attempts to make a fancier car are rebuffed. The simple one is the favorite. She grabs it, runs to the top, releases the “car” and watches it go!

Well, it is less “release” and more a push. Which means the car never goes straight down, but goes off-line and bounces off the walls. But I am amazed by her joy and excitement. And I am thankful that she is so happy to play so simply.