tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65368692024-02-19T22:01:10.351-08:00The Faithful SkepticLiving the questions...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger197125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1121490505628769922005-07-15T22:06:00.000-07:002005-07-15T22:08:25.633-07:00Moving!!Following <a href="http://www.onlywonder.com">Jay's</a> lead, I'm abandoning Blogger and moving to Wordpress with my own url. You can find The Faithful Skeptic from now on at: <a href="http://blog.brianpdx.net">blog.brianpdx.net</a>.<br /><br />See you there.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1118898047626925802005-06-15T21:51:00.000-07:002005-06-15T22:00:47.633-07:00Of mice and men...I discovered last Thursday evening that we had a mouse in our garage. I went out to grab a screwdriver and I saw the cutest little mouse sitting on top of a bag of birdseed. We've had cat food and birdseed in the garage for almost a year, but it took almost that long for the critters to find us. Being the humane person I am, I picked up a couple of live traps from Home Depot and so far I've nabbed two of the critters. But this reminds me of our house back in Salem.<br /><br />Our house in Salem was built in 1916 and the neighborhood was full of wildlife - mice, rats, nutria, felons, etc. Anyway, one day I discovered a gigantic rat on our deck. The rat was living in our basement and traveling through a crack in the foundation. My quest to rid ourselves of the rat evolved into a very Homer Simpson-esque episode. I started by hiding and trying to hit the rat with rocks as it ate our birdseed. No luck. I got bigger rocks. Still no luck. I rigged a contraption that involved a 4" x 6" post, bait, and a rope. My plan was to lure the rat under the post, pull the rope, and splat. No luck. Then I tried an old-fashioned trap. I managed to get my fingers a bunch of times, but no rat. Then I tried poison - the rat just wasn't interested. We finally just moved...<br /><br />What I've concluded from this is that most rodents are smarter than I am. Bummer for me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1118290659871240912005-06-08T21:11:00.000-07:002005-06-08T21:17:39.876-07:00Godless AmericaI listened to a great program on <a href="http://www.npr.org">NPR</a> tonight - it was "<a href="http://thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/290.html">Godless America</a>" from <a href="http://www.thislife.org/">This American Life</a>. <a href="http://www.juliasweeney.com/">Julie Sweeney</a>, who apparently was on SNL, does a bit from her one-woman play called "Letting Go of God." It was great. It felt exactly like where I've been over the last year. Anyway, I highly recommend it.<br /><br />I found out last week that I've been accepted into a Ph.D. program in Public Administration and Policy. I'm pretty excited about going back to school in the fall, but nervous also. A professor in my master's program gave me some advice about how to approach a Ph.D. program. He said that you need to know exactly what you want to do before you start. That's a problem for me - I have about a million ideas bouncing around in my head. I might try to work through some of them here...<br /><br />We'll see.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1118203439423031572005-06-07T21:02:00.000-07:002005-06-07T21:03:59.436-07:00God's Politics??I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but the most exciting thing that happened to me this week was that the world now knows who Deep Throat was! In case you missed it, it was Mark Felt, the number 2 man at the FBI during the Watergate years. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time – when I was a junior in high school we had to pick a book and write a report on it. Being one of the geekiest kids in the world, I picked “All the President’s Men” by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. In my paper, my guess was that L. Patrick Gray was Deep Throat. Gray was the number 1 man at the FBI at the time. Not a bad guess, if I do say so myself.<br /><br />Where I’m going with this is that you can probably tell that I’m a pretty political person. So when I read the lectionary readings for today I immediately jumped to the political ramifications. Then the part of my brain that reminded me that I’d like to be invited to speak again said, “you can’t talk about that at church.” But then I decided to ignore that part of my brain and so here we are.<br /> <br />The second text that Sarah read this morning refers to God’s promise to Abraham. The beginning of that reading starts “For the promise that he would inherit the world…” Paul here is referring to Genesis 12 – I’m going to read verses 1 – 3.<br /><br />“Now the Lord said to Abram (later called Abraham), ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”<br /><br />Now if you really unpack the text both here and in Romans, there’s some great stuff. Paul is laying out his argument that our salvation is based on faith, not law. The basis of our relationship with God is grace. Great stuff, really. But when I read that passage from Genesis and I hear “I will make of you a great nation” and “make your name great, so that you will be a blessing,” all I can think is this must be in the Republican Party platform somewhere.<br /><br />And you know, I could talk all about this stuff all day. I could tell you how Bush used Christian imagery in his speeches after 9/11 and how the much of the world sees the war in Iraq as a 21st century crusade. I could tell you about Republicans in West Virginia who sent out campaign flyers telling supporters that Democrats wanted to ban the Bible. I could tell you about evangelical Christian leaders who believe God’s man is in the White House.<br /><br />But then I’d calm down a little and remember the sticker we have on our refrigerator that says, “God is not a Republican or a Democrat.”<br /><br />But when I’m honest with myself, I know that most of us who proclaim the loudest that God isn’t a Republican or a Democrat, really secretly believe that God actually is a Democrat. Surely any true God of justice and mercy would align himself with the Democrats who serendipitously happen to be the party of justice and mercy. God couldn’t be on the side of people who care more about tax breaks for the rich than they do for poor, or so at least we tell ourselves.<br /><br />And I think that’s really the crux of the issue – that we all want to believe on some level that God is on our side and that he will bless us and curse our enemies. When we think about building the kingdom of heaven on earth we spend a lot of time looking in the mirror – we want to see ourselves and what we want reflected in that heaven.<br /><br />Those of us with strong political opinions want to see our leaders use our faith for justice and mercy – and unfortunately that means wildly different things to Democrats, Republicans, socialists, greens, and libertarians. We all want to think that our vision is what the world needs. Our personal Jesus (who happens to feel the same way about most issues as we do) will truly bring peace on earth. This all makes me think that most of us aren’t very good at knowing what we need.<br /><br />Jesus is a great example. Jesus was certainly not what many Jews had in mind when they were looking for the savior promised to them. In their messiah they wanted a warrior who would drive the Romans from the Holy Land and make them the great nation as promised to Abraham. Instead they get this guy who bums around in sandals, lives by the grace of others, and tells them that revenge is a bad thing. And really, if anyone deserved the right to bring down some good, old-fashioned revenge, it was probably the Jews at that time.<br /><br />But Jesus preached a message of peace, compassion and contrition. We see this message in the Hebrew Bible as well – this is from Psalm 51, versus 10-17.<br /><br />10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.<br />11 Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me.<br />12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain in me a willing spirit.<br />13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.<br />14 Deliver me from bloodshed, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your deliverance.<br />15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.<br />16 For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.<br />17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.<br /><br />As much as we hope for a leader who looks like us to come and lead the world to righteousness, I think our homes, our churches, and our political system could benefit from some compassion and contrition. Our call and God’s promise is to follow a radical Jesus that shocks, challenges, and above all loves us as much he loved those Jews and Gentiles in ancient Israel. <br /><br />But getting back to the scripture that we started with today, we can’t ignore the fact that God promised Abraham that he would make them a great nation. So what does that mean? I think we have to revisit the notion of what it means to be a great nation in light of the New Testament. Jesus was certainly a political figure, but he was counter-cultural or even revolutionary. He was a peacemaker and a prophet – someone who spoke the truth. <br /><br />I think what this means is that being a great nation and being blessed doesn’t necessarily manifest itself as political power. Our greatness comes not from seeing in how places we can hang the 10 Commandments (which are actually 11, but that’s another story), but rather in how we answer God’s call through Jesus Christ. How are we bringing peace, loving our neighbors, caring for the least of those among us?<br /><br />But again, I think God’s given us a pretty simple answer. This is from Micah, chapter 6, verse 8:<br /><br />“He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1118184291020882052005-06-07T15:36:00.000-07:002005-06-07T15:44:51.026-07:00Long Time...It's been a long time. I've been reading blogs selectively, working a lot, and being a dad and a husband. This might not be a good thing, but I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing my life. I'm still in a spiritual funk, but my home life and professional life are very good. Though there may be some good signs on the spiritual front.<br /><br />I preached in church on Sunday and got a lot of great complimens. I don't like to admit it, but I really like/need that kind of positive feedback (both personally and professionally). I'll post my sermon later. It probably would have been pretty risky for a full time pastor to say some of the things I did, but since I don't depend on preaching to keep food on the table I did it anyway. <br /><br />As I was preparing my sermon I got out a book I read about six years ago. It is "Jesus: A New Vision" by Marcus Borg. It was kind of Borg's academic companion to "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time." It was the first theological book I had ever read for my own edification and it had a huge impact on how I thought about Christianity and my own faith. It opened some doors for me in terms of reconciling what it means to have faith but also acknowledge that the Bible may not be literal/factual. <br /><br />It was a joy to crack it open, and I may just have to read it again. I'm also going to try to post on a more regular basis.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1111782091683347112005-03-25T12:03:00.000-08:002005-03-25T12:21:31.686-08:00Community & Outreach<a href="http://conxian.blogspot.com">David</a> made some good points about my discussion of community. He pointed out that our connection to community goes beyond just church growth, but also includes social outreach. I totally agree, but I want to explore some other dynamics that go along with that.<br /><br />One of the other characteristics of our particular "mobile/transient" congregration is that many people are involved in outreach efforts not connected with our church. Some people volunteer through work or other social organizations that they're involved with. Many of the opportunities are also tied to their faith. So I think one of the difficulties we have in getting people to commit is not that they don't recognize the place of social outreach in their christian faith, but that they're already reaching out in ways that fit their particular needs and interests.<br /><br />So if that's the case, what is our congregational response? Do we just say, "Cool! Let us know if we can help you?" Or, "That's great, but you need to be involved with the particular missions of this church." Or?<br /><br />What I'm getting at is that I think we need to answer the question of whether church is the primary outlet/mechanism for our social outreach, or is it a place that supports the outreach efforts of our members wherever/whatever they might be?<br /><br />I'll readily admit that I don't know the answer. I think in the United Methodist tradition we do a decent job of letting people know the proper place of outreach in our faith. But I think as churches become a <strong><em>part</em></strong> of our social networks rather than the <strong><em>locus</em></strong>, things get more complicated. In small churches, particularly, it is difficult to offer a range of outreach opportunities that will meet the needs/desires of all of our members. This is an opportunity for building on our connecting missions with other churches, but it also leads people to pursue their interests with other organizations - and I'm not sure that's all bad.<br /><br />I think the challenge is probably to find a balance and figure out a way that we can help people meet their needs and do outreach effectively.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1111641627631910632005-03-23T20:49:00.000-08:002005-03-23T21:20:27.633-08:00CommunityI've had some ideas bouncing around in my head for a couple of days that are finally ready to put down in some semblance of order. At a church meeting a couple of weeks ago we were talking about community - more specifically, what is the role of our church in our local community. Our pastor expressed dismay/frustration (I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing her opinion, but I think this is the general idea) about our lack of engagement with our neighbors (physically proximate). We discussed some ways in which the church could try to reach out to our neighbors and be more connected with our community. <br /><br />I didn't say anything at the time, but a couple of things struck me. First, I think we have a vision of what it means to be a church that is based on a mid-20th century idea of what church is. What I mean is, 50 years ago the church was the primary focus of people's lives and people tended to live around their church. But now, for most of the people in our congregation, the church is one part of their life. Their life usually includes other social outreach activities, and probably other religious activities. So to expect most parishoners to devote all or even most of their time to their church is probably unrealistic. <br /><br />Second, most people don't live near their church. Or probably more importantly, we don't choose our churches based primarily on physical proximity. Sarah and I live closer to our church than most of the people we worship with - in fact our pastor lives probably 15 miles away. I don't mean this as criticism - rather, it is indicative of the fact that our community is based on something other than physical proximity. <br /><br />What I'm wondering is if the future of our churches is based on building relationships with our physical neighbors? Not that we shouldn't try, but if most of our members have chosen to live elsewhere (for all sorts of reasons - work, school, family, etc.) should we instead focus on the things about our church community that have attracted our current members?<br /><br />I think we need to reimagine a parish/ward/district based church system and instead think about a system based less on place-specific attributes. Why couldn't we have two United Methodist churches right next door to each other if one was a traditional, high-church congregation and the other was a contemporary, alternative-worship style group?<br /><br />About four years ago I was doing some reading on social network theory. The idea is that people have networks that they maintain/develop to meet their social needs. Before communication (telephones) and travel (cars/airplanes) became cheap and easily available people's networks were limited to those that lived near them. Thus churches were based on parish/ward/district systems because people couldn't afford/couldn't manage to get to places further away. One way of looking at it was that those communities were "accidental." You couldn't choose who lived next door to you, and because of the limitations of travel and communication it was much more difficult to maintain relationships with those who lived farther away. <br /><br />But now, we're not bound to be friends with our neighbors because we can maintain meaningful relationships with people who don't live in our neighborhood/town/state/country. The consequence is that we can build more intentional networks. Social network theory is much more complicated than this, but my point is that maybe we should think about building our churches as intentional communities, rather than being bound by outdated concepts of church growth based on accidental communities.<br /><br />Am I nuts?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1110174597909818132005-03-06T21:40:00.000-08:002005-03-06T21:49:57.910-08:00Blogging HiatusSo, I ended up taking most of the month of February off. I didn't mean to, it just happened. I've still been reading some blogs here and there, but my mind has been occupied elsewhere. There's a long list of reasons, but here are some of the main ones:<br /><ul><li>I love being with my family - I'm constantly amazed by my wife's capacity to love and nurture us, and my daughter just turned one and I love her more every day, though that doesn't seem possible the day before;</li><li>My job, while very fulfilling, is taking up an increasing amount of my time;</li><li>I feel a spiritual void in my life and I'm unsure as to how to fill it;</li><li>I'm finding difficulty finding space in my life for my hobbies - for instance, I haven't read a book in almost two months (virtually unheard of for me).</li></ul><p>I also have a tendency to make life complicated for myself. I blogged a while ago about applying to law school. I heard last weekend that I was accepted. But I've come to realize that the schedule required by the law school would be impossible to maintain without devastating my life with my family. Thus I've decided to apply to a Ph.D. program in Public Administration and Policy. That schedule is much more amenable to family life and would probably be more fun, anyway. Rather than staying still, I'm always looking for the next thing. Part of me is inclined to think that's a problem, but the other part of me believes it is an essential part of my character. One of the characteristics that God gifted me is an endless curiosity and a desire to learn. </p><p>But I'm going to try to blog more often. I'm hoping that thinking about spirituality and religion in a more focused way might help to get me out of this funk.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1107408617158741332005-02-02T21:17:00.000-08:002005-02-02T21:30:17.160-08:00The truth about social security!As a United Methodist and being part of an aging congregation and denomination, Social Security is a huge issue. I'm sick of all of the misinformation floating around. The debate makes me think of a scenario like this:
<br />
<br />A person is building a house and their hammer breaks. A democrat shows up and tells them that their hammer isn't broken. George Bush shows up and offers them a screwdriver.
<br />
<br />The Democrats (for the most part) want to ignore that any problem exists and the solution proposed by Republicans doesn't actually fix the problem - it just costs us a ton of money.
<br />
<br />Here's the truth - in about 40-50 years, assuming NOTHING in the current social security law changes, Social Security will only be able to pay 70-80% of projected benefits. Clearly a problem, but Bush describes Social Security in that scenario as "bankrupt." Actually many economists argue that the problem can be alleviated through modest tax increases and benefit reductions.
<br />
<br />The issue is not the lack of privatization. The problem is a result of demographics. Social Security functions as a "pay as you go" system. The Social Security taxes we pay today aren't put away in some account with our name on it - they go to pay current retirees, for the most part. Right now there are many more workers in the system than retirees. Over the next 50 years that is slowing going to shift and there will be fewer workers paying into the system while there are more retirees. Private accounts are not going to solve a problem that is resulting from a fundamental shift in the demographic makeup of our society.
<br />
<br />Social Security was never intended as an investment mechanism for moderate to high-income Americans. It is a safety net. Private accounts aren't going to help the working poor - they'll primarily benefit the middle and upper economic classes. Meanwhile, the safety net will be broken.
<br />
<br />Bush needs to be honest about what he's doing and tell the American people that his plan won't save Social Security. The Democrats need to acknowledge that there is a problem. Everyone needs to start discussing this in terms of social justice and realize the system isn't primarily for those of us that have employer-provided pensions and IRAs.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1107235946521441902005-01-31T21:18:00.000-08:002005-01-31T21:32:26.520-08:00EthicsBeing a public employee, I hear a lot about ethics. We have a long "ethics" policy that delves into details like can we eat the cookies appreciative citizens drop off (yes), can we go on vendor supplied junkets to Vegas (no), and can we use our agency-supplied cell phone to call home in an emergency (yes, if it is short and infrequent - there's also a whole discussion of what constitutes an emergency, but that's another story). In government, ethics = rules.
<br />
<br />One of my professors in grad school said over and over that true ethics don't have much at all to do with rules. That was a little hard to comprehend at the time, but I think I understand it better now. For instance, as I've mentioned before, I work in a law enforcement agency. Law enforcement agencies tend to be very paramilitary. Thus chain of command is VERY important.
<br />
<br />Last week, my Police Chief was engaging in some behavior (political, primarily) that was detrimental to my organization as a whole. I was faced with a choice - violate chain of command and inform the overall agency manager, or keep to myself. I chose to go over my boss' head. This isn't about me being courageous - I used to work for the agency manager and they were so grateful for the information that they pledged to protect me if necessary.
<br />
<br />I'm sure we've all heard the saying, "Ethics are how you behave when no one is watching." Trite, but true to an extent. But I also think our ethics cut to the fundamental honesty of our character. Can we speak the truth, even if it will hurt? Today I had to tell an employee I couldn't give them a raise, as much as I value their work. That was the hardest conversation I've ever had to have with an employee - but I think that being a Christian helped prepare me to be honest.
<br />
<br />I think we need to talk more about ethics in church and how being a Christian should affect all areas of our lives. I know that I'm constantly challenged, and it would be good to walk through those challenges with others.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1106884471818436662005-01-27T19:43:00.000-08:002005-01-27T19:54:31.816-08:00SafetyI mentioned our small group event in my last post. During the event we had an interesting discussion on what it means for church to be a "safe space." Our congregation (prior to my family's arrival at the church) had an understanding of what that meant. We're now trying to work that concept with our new pastor.
<br />
<br />One of the people in the group said that there were a couple of key aspects of safety (I'm paraphrasing):
<br /><ul><li>The church should accept members and guests wherever they are on their journey of faith and recognize that people will always be in different places in terms of theology, worship, prayer, etc.;</li><li>The church should accept what a person can give in terms of their time, spirit and money realizing that lives are often complicated;</li><li>Members should be able to expect that confidences will be held, both by clergy and parishoners.</li></ul><p>My approach was that as a member of the leadership team, I need to be able to feel that I'm accepted in spite of my failures as a leader. I have a very stressful job and I don't want church to become a place I feel guilty about attending because I'm struggling with my leadership duties.</p><p>It was interesting to me how differently we identified what it means to be safe in church. I certainly agree with the three points above, but they're not at the top of my list. I'm realizing what a challenge it is to create a space that is truly safe for people. We need to create a space for people to grow and succeed, but also cope with failure. We need to be prophetic voices for truth, but recognize the different spiritual roads we all follow. We need to provide comfort and compassion, but realize when people need to carry their burdens closely.</p><p>What does it mean for you for church to be safe? Should church be safe?</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1106633300319045302005-01-24T21:59:00.000-08:002005-01-24T22:08:20.320-08:00It's tough being a Christian sometimes...I'm tempted to blog about Falwell's keen observation about the homosexual indoctrination in Spongebob Squarepants, but that's just too easy (and has been done better by others). One of our local radio hosts made a joke that Falwell would really be upset by the spinoff, Spongebob No-pants. Might have to watch for that one...
<br />
<br />Church is still tough. It's tough to go, and it's tough to be part of community that's suffering. But we made some good connections with other church members that live nearby this weekend, and that was a welcome ray of sunshine. We had a small gathering of members who lived in the local area at our house to help our pastor get to know us. That last part didn't go so well, but we enjoyed getting to know each other.
<br />
<br />It helps me understand the attraction of house churches. I think absent the formal agenda, we could have really experienced some great Christian community. But I also can't imagine leaving formal liturgy and the physical church completely behind. Maybe a small group will be the way for me to transition through this crisis?
<br />
<br />Sorry for the light blogging - dealing with major grant applications at work and personnel issues that test my ability to follow Christ in all aspects of my life. More on that later.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1106180746497024682005-01-19T16:16:00.000-08:002005-01-19T16:25:46.496-08:00Country VacationWe spent the last five days traveling to and visiting my wife's grandparents in NE Washington. It is always wonderful to be up there, out in the country, and experiencing a completely different way of life. One thing I really love is the sense of connection. On the day we were leaving, we were trying to decide our route out of town because of problems with snow and ice. My wife's aunt and uncle teach at the local school. They talked to another teacher who had just come the way were thinking of leaving. This teacher (who we've never met) called our grandparents and advised them about the road conditions for us.
<br />
<br />In our home town of 80,000 that would never happen. This woman who doesn't know a thing about us, took the time to call and give us information to help us make our trip home safely.
<br />
<br />I also love how welcome you feel at the church. We hadn't been there for five months, but the pastor remembers us and we're treated like family. We're treated like family.
<br />
<br />Where I struggle is that I know theologically we're desperately different. If they knew half the things that run through my head, they'd really wonder about me (and not entirely without justification). Probably some people in that church would tell me I'm not a Christian. At the least they'd have grave concern for my soul.
<br />
<br />So I struggle between being able to just embrace the loving connection of that community and wondering what they'd think if they really knew me. I don't believe I'm better than them or smarter than them, I just fear they might not be as willing to accept me and my crazy ideas as people in my home church are.
<br />
<br />What are the limits of Christian love? Should there be limits? Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1105662918037118472005-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:002005-01-13T16:35:18.036-08:00TurmoilMy church is in turmoil as we deal with the impact of a pastoral change. In the United Methodist Church, our ministers are itinerant. They work for the conference and are assigned to local congregations. So in a lot of ways the strength of the congregation is in the laity, rather than the pastor. But this recent change is desperately testing our congregation. It is an exhausting process.
<br />
<br />I really like the fact that our churches tend to based less on the success of a charismatic pastor and more on the strength of relationships and community. But the pastor is a such an important part of that community that they can and should have a tremendous impact on the church.
<br />
<br />But the trouble comes when a pastor doesn't connect with the laity or the laity doesn't connect with the pastor. How do we fix this?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1105575040485989862005-01-12T16:10:00.000-08:002005-01-12T16:18:20.133-08:00Insanity?<pre style="font-family: arial;" class="WMmessagebody">I've been silent for a long while now. There are a lot of reasons, most of them
<br />not very interesting. I have a lot going on in my life, particularly my
<br />professional life. But I've also been thinking about making a pretty major,
<br />life-changing decision. I've blogged before about my desire to attend seminary.
<br />I've talked about how I feel a call and the stress involved in dealing with
<br />that. But there's another call I've been feeling since I was in high school. I
<br />would start to think about it, then blow it off. But it always comes back. It
<br />is persistent in the same way I've heard other people talk about how God is
<br />constantly nudging them into ministry.
<br /><P>
<br />My dream has been to go to law school. I think there are probably a lot of
<br />obnoxious jokes here involving ministers & lawyers and heaven & hell, but I
<br />won't go there. So over the last couple of months I've been thinking seriously
<br />about applying to law school. There is an excellent program in Portland that
<br />would allow me to attend part-time and keep working full-time.
<br /><P>
<br />So I took the leap today. I've turned in my application. This is the furthest
<br />I've ever gone. I've requested lots of applications, started filling some out,
<br />but I've never actually turned one in.
<br /><P>
<br />What's this mean? I'm still trying to figure it out. We'll see if I get in.
<br />I'm excited and terrified at the same time. But I think God has a hand in this
<br />too.</pre>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1103041871890140362004-12-14T08:29:00.000-08:002004-12-14T08:31:11.890-08:00Sharing Christ's Love?I'm taking a bit of a blogging sabbatical this Advent season. But I'll be here now and then.
<br />As I've mentioned before, I work for a law enforcement agency. We have a program where we have several chaplains on-call who are available to respond to people who've just experienced tragedy in their life. It is a great idea.
<br />
<br />Here's where the program breaks down. We currently have five volunteer chaplains who are all non-denominational, conservative, evangelical Christians. Our chaplains have engaged in some of the following behaviors:
<br /><ul><li>refusing to cooperate with an effort to bring on Jewish or Muslim clergy so we can be responsive to all members of our community,</li><li>engaging in discriminatory behavior towards the one female chaplain in the program (e.g. refusing to schedule her for shifts)</li><li>refusing to honor requests for assistance from clergy of specific denominations </li></ul>Just to be clear, I don't believe all conservative, evangelical Christian pastors would behave this way. But what a horrible example of sharing Christ's love with those in need. I have trouble imagining why a pastor would not want someone to receive the pastoral care they want.
<br />The result of this disaster of a program is that most officers don't even offer the chaplaincy services to our citizens. We're trying to fix it, but what a mess.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1101793941233503632004-11-29T21:32:00.000-08:002004-11-29T21:52:21.243-08:00The world can be a pretty crappy place...I now work for a police agency and so I get to hear all sorts of wild stories. Some of them are pretty interesting, but one today was very sad. Our detectives are on the verge of breaking up a large, local prostitution ring. Their big break was when one of the prostitutes was sent to the hospital by her pimp.
<br />
<br />This girl is 16 years old and has been "hooking" for two years. She's pregnant and a meth user, but has been trying to cut back since she learned that meth is bad for the baby. She's turning 20-30 tricks a week for $35 each. Her pimp (who happens to be a woman) would drop her off at migrant camps and she'd work her way through one man at a time.
<br />
<br />One of the officers was talking about prostitution in our town and kept referring to these women as hookers, whores, and street-walkers. I understand that officers can become jaded and not see the humanity of the people they work with, but I kept thinking how cruel it was to refer to this girl as a whore.
<br />
<br />I'm sure her life is more complicated and filled with more pain than I can imagine. How is it our society can tolerate a system that turns 14 year old girls into prostitutes? What is America to this girl? What is the American dream to a 16 year old girl supporting herself through prostitution?
<br />
<br />I don't have an answer, but I wish I did.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1101184515779197842004-11-22T20:25:00.000-08:002004-11-22T20:35:15.780-08:00Shame on me!I'd like to be able to say that I haven't been blogging because of my new job. Unfortunately that's not true. In truth, I've been in a bit of a religious funk. It's hard to say what's caused it, but the result is a deep spiritual disconnect.
<br />
<br />So I started to think this weekend about the times when I've felt closest to God. Some of those have been at church. What I realized was the one constant has really been music. I haven't talked about it much on this blog, but I've spent a lot of my life involved in music. Through high school and college I played in band. When I graduated college I was an excellent tuba player and a passable bass trombonist. I can sing a bit and slowly hack my way through easy music on a piano.
<br />
<br />That's all to say that I really feel like I experience God when I'm making music. But starting about four years ago I had to put aside my music (which involved playing in a community band) to focus on other things - mainly working full-time and going to graduate school full-time simultaneously.
<br />
<br />I think I'm feeling the lack of that connection and need to find a way to bring music back into my life - now while balancing family and full-time work. I'm also going to try to be better about blogging.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1099671164591181602004-11-05T08:09:00.000-08:002004-11-05T08:12:44.590-08:00Read thisThis is from a column by Robert X. Cringely. Read the whole column <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html">here</a>.
<br /><em></em>
<br /><em>...</em>
<br /><em>Back to the election. If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain't us.
<br />
<br /></em><em></em><em>Back in 1986 I talked Penthouse magazine into giving me an assignment to write the story: "How to Get a Date in Revolutionary Iran." The premise was that hormones are hormones, and those wacky kids in Tehran, most of whom could still remember the Shah, had to be finding some way to meet members of the opposite sex. So I headed off to Iran to find out the truth. If you are interested in such stuff, the only time a single man and woman not from the same family could be together in private back then was in a taxi (he being the driver), so all the teenage boys who had or could borrow cars turned them into taxis. This, of course, put all the power in the hands of the woman since she could see him but he had to take pot luck.
<br /></em>
<br /><em>I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.
<br /></em>
<br /><em>It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.
<br /></em>
<br /><em>Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind.
<br /></em>
<br /><em>Now put this in a current context. </em><strong><em>What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn't get it and he'll proudly NEVER get it.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><em>Welcome to the New Morality.</em>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1099612960626705102004-11-04T15:59:00.000-08:002004-11-04T16:02:40.626-08:00It's going to be a long four years...<em>"I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals,"</em> <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_el_pr/bush_34">said Bush</a>.
<br />
<br />In other words, you're either with him or against him. Sigh.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1099598279839063772004-11-04T11:56:00.000-08:002004-11-04T11:59:30.680-08:00Sometimes it stinks to be rightSo last week I <a href="http://brianpdx.blogspot.com/2004/10/predictions-anyone.html">predicted</a> Bush would win 52% - 47%, with Nader coming in with 1%. Actual results so far show a Bush win, 51% - 48%. Pretty darn close, if I do say so myself. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that Nader played less of a role than I thought he would. Hopefully he'll wander off into obscurity now.
<br />
<br />I hope the Democrats use the next four years to learn from their mistakes and really build momentum for the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 presidential election. Another thing the Democrats need to do: reclaim the moral authority to talk about values. As Jim Wallis says, the Republicans have convinced America that they are the only party that can talk about values, and the only moral issues that matter are abortion and homosexuality.
<br />
<br />Democrats need to build some serious relationships with Christian progressives and start talking seriously about morals and values. Democrats need to forcefully reject the attempts of Republicans to narrowly define what is "moral." Talking about meeting the needs of the poor and marginalized in our society is a moral issue. Guaranteeing access to healthcare for all citizens is a moral issue. Fighting for religious tolerance and against government establishment of religion is a moral issue.
<br />
<br />I'm seriously considering registering as a Democrat. The Democratic Party needs to hear the voices of Christian progressives. How do we make sure they get the message?
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1099598178490279282004-11-04T11:54:00.000-08:002004-11-04T11:56:18.490-08:00Defending OrthodoxyRecent discussions on this blog have basically come down to what is orthodox? How far is too far? When is an idea too crazy? I think when we have these discussions what we run into is the desire to defend orthodoxy. It is about drawing lines. Who is in and who is out.
<br />
<br />But I've been wondering, who are we defending orthodoxy for? I think the desire of Christians to strictly define what is orthodox is a mechanism of institutional and organizational survival. The fear is that without strict boundaries of acceptable thought the organization (the Church) will lose its distinctiveness. But how does that translate into spreading the good news? I think the inclination to defend orthodoxy is destructive to the mission of the church, because institutional concerns trump the ability of Christians to share Christ's radical message of love and grace.
<br />
<br />Think of Martin Luther King Jr. Certainly his message was well outside "orthodox" for many southern Christians. But almost no one would argue now that people of color should be excluded from the church. Think of the movements within mainline denominations to allow women to participate in ministry. Again, outside of orthodoxy. But most Christians now would never think of denying women the right to be full partners in ministry.
<br />
<br />Those social movements trumped the desire to defend orthodoxy. What if gay/lesbian/bisexual rights are the next movement? How are conservative Christians keeping the church from sharing the good news in the name of orthodoxy?
<br />I think crazy ideas are good things. They're not all right, but we need to have space where we can think wild thoughts and ask crazy questions. Crazy questions like, "why does God love me?" "How can God forgive me?" When we try to limit thought to what is appropriate and orthodox, the body of Christ suffers.
<br />
<br />I'm going to leave you this quote from Jeffrey John (read the <a href="http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/Article.asp?UID=76">full article here</a>):
<br />
<br />... If you're ever disillusioned by other Christians it's your own fault because you shouldn't have had illusions in the first place - either about them or yourself. We are all on the margins where God is concerned, but he holds his nose and he uses what he's got. If he wants to use a bad-tempered old bag to feed the poor of Calcutta, who are we to say otherwise? If he wants to use a rampant adulterer to bring freedom to a billion black people, who are we to complain? It was probably their sins that brought them to God in the first place. The question for us is, what comparable good have we achieved to balance out ours?
<br />
<br />The Church that Jesus first assembled was a gang of sinners and rejects. Any Church that is His Church ought to know that it is the same. It has to show the same kind of love, the kind that includes and embraces first, then let’s the love do the healing from the inside. That’s what Catholic means. Michael Marshall once wrote: ‘the test of genuinely Catholic Christianity is not that it makes good people better, but that it makes bad people holy’.
<br />
<br />Or as Oscar Wilde, another good Catholic put it: We are all in the gutter; but some of us are looking at the stars.
<br />
<br />Thanks to <a href="http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/">Father Jake</a> for the link.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1098938429290161122004-10-27T21:38:00.000-07:002004-10-27T21:40:29.290-07:00Conferencing...I've been at a conference all week. Heard one "inspirational" speaker. He made a good point though. He said that people who survive (based on a book by a Holocaust survivor) and thrive have two characteristics:
<br />
<br />- They have a goal for every day
<br />- They take control of their attitude
<br />
<br />Its a good message and I am realizing that I have control over the type of day that I have.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1098762504121235262004-10-25T20:40:00.000-07:002004-10-25T20:48:24.120-07:00Three reasons to vote against Bush...that no one but me will probably care about.
<br />
<br />1.) Bush appointees to the Federal Communications Commission (including Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell) are extremely unfriendly to local governments. Proposed FCC rules will limit the ability of local governments to collect franchise fees from telecommunication utilities. Those franchise fees pay for essential services like police and fire.
<br />
<br />2.) The Bush Administration is proposing reduced funding for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants that provide local police agencies with equipment like radios, bulletproof vests, cars, and other essential gear. Bush appointees are also proposing to eliminate the Edward Byrne and Violence Against Women Act grant programs, that fund domestic violence prevention and recovery services across the country.
<br />
<br />3.) The Bush administration delayed $2 billion in funding for local first responders for months after 9/11 after the House and Senate had approved it. Meanwhile, local police and fire agencies bore the burden of increased security costs based on the new terror alert system. Remember, the police and fire fighters that died in 9/11 worked for the City of New York - not the federal government.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536869.post-1098457633860928812004-10-22T08:05:00.000-07:002004-10-22T08:07:13.860-07:00Predictions, anyone?Anyone care to call the presidential race? Here are my predictions:
<br />
<br />1.) All of the polls will be wrong (more on this below).
<br />2.) There will several lawsuits, regardless of who wins.
<br />3.) Bush wins: Bush - 52%, Kerry - 47%, Nader - 1%
<br />
<br />There are a couple of reasons the polls will be wrong. Polls typically poll "expected voters." Those are usually people who have voted recently, kept their address at their local elections office updated, and actually answer their phone. But both liberal and conservative groups have been running very successful voter registration drives. There are a lot of new voters on the rolls that don't fit the "expected voter" mold. Thus they're not getting asked who they are going to vote for.
<br />
<br />An interesting aside to this discussion is an <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041021.html">article by Robert X. Cringley</a>, who argues that the widespread adoption of cell phones is also complicating the issue. For the last 50 years, about 95% of US homes had land line phones. But an increasing number of people are switching to cell phones for their primary phone. But it is illegal for pollsters to call cell phones! A lot of these new, young, registered voters only use cell phones and they're not getting polled!
<br />
<br />What this means is that the polls are likely not giving us good information. The election is really going to come down to turnout. Will the Republicans be more successful at turning out conservative Christians, or will the Democrats turn out more young people? I feel much more confident in the ability of the GOP to turn out evangelical Christians than in the ability of the Democrats to turn out young people. But I could be wrong. I hope that I'm wrong.
<br />
<br />Final prediction:
<br />
<br />4.) After the election, the Democrats will ride Nader out of town on a rail and force him to emigrate to Antarctica. Or Greenland, maybe.
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0