The Lutheran Zephyr

I Cried Like A Baby

Today I was Approved for Ordination in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  Upon hearing those words, I cried tears of joy and relief and thanksgiving.

More thoughts and reflections later.  After a nice dinner with my dad and step-mother, and a stop at FedEx-Kinkos to download the Diane Rehm Show on my iPod, it's time to make the 3-hour drive home.

I'm going to be a pastor in Christ's church.  I still can't quite believe it.

Lord, have mercy upon me.
Christ, have mercy upon me.
Lord, have mercy upon me.

Faith, Politics, and Obama

I could write a missive about this issue, but I won't (I'm too busy preparing for my Approval for Ordination interview, which will take place on Friday).  But during one of my breaks from interview preparation I stumbled upon this disturbing piece of literature from the Obama campaign (hat tip to Blog from the Capital for the link):

Oh, boy do I get worried when politicians use their faith to promote their politics - whether from the Republicans or the Democrats, this kind of comingling of faith and politics bothers me.  I care not that Obama is a "Committed Christian" and more that he could be a good President.  And last I checked, being a "committed Christian" is not in the job description for the Presidency of the United States.

Much more to say on this issue, but I've got to run.

** UPDATE **

The Trail, The Washington Post's political blog, examined this flyer in Obama Emphasizes Faith in Kentucky a few hours after my post.  Check it out, and add The Trail to your feedreader.

"No We Can't" - A Pentecost Sermon

I've posted my sermon for the Festival of Pentecost, entitled No We Can't.  It's linked, along with all my extant sermons, at my sermons page.

I also finally got around to posting my Palm/Passion Sunday sermon, entitled In Between.

A blessed week to you all!

Why I Don't Like The National Day of Prayer

My blogging friend Eric, who blogs over at The Heart of a Pastor, disagreed with - took offense at? - my characterization of the National Day of Prayer as "an ill-advised blend of patriotism and religion" and an event "merging patriotism with the practice of faith" in last Thursday's post, National Day of Prayer, or Ascension Day?   He writes, "having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing . . . The NDOP is a time to pray...plain and simple."

I do not disagree that having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing.  Yet one of the reasons I do not like the National Day of Prayer is the political dynamic that takes place, particularly at celebrations of the National Day of Prayer in state capitals and in Washington.  It often becomes a pious photo-op for politicians, a chance for political and religious leaders alike to claim some faith-based agenda for our nation, and to speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" of our nation. 

[Question: how often do Jewish leaders speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage"?  "Judeo-Christian heritage" seems like a phrase that Christians use to sound inclusive while really attempting to claim a religious, moral, and historical priority in the retelling of the American Story.  But I digress . . .]

As I mentioned in a past post (see #5), I support setting aside special times to pray for our nation.  Prayer is good.  Pious political posturing?  Not so good.  (Don't ask me - ask Jesus).  Perhaps my friend Eric and others who participated in National Day of Prayer events did so with faith, integrity, and humility.  Perhaps such events took place without the political posturing of elected officials.  I certainly hope so.  But plenty of such events are tainted by politics and blurred by a civic piety that unites God and country in an unholy alliance.

Beyond the political posturing that takes place, the whole ethos surrounding the National Day of Prayer is troublesome to me.  Check out their website.  It has a banner that changes graphics, one of which reads:

Prayer!  America's strength and shield.  The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him, and I am helped.  Psalm 28:7"

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this statement.  Prayer is the strength and shield of people of faith.  The strength of our nation lies in its Constitution, its laws, and its (socially, culturally, politically, and religiously diverse) people.  We are not a country based on a prayer or a shared religion, ethnicity, culture, or common heritage (in contrast to many "old world" countries which are/were much more monolithic).  We are a country where freedom and laws, not bloodlines and heritage, define our common purpose and identity.  When we try to inject explicitly Christian lingo into our national identity, we misrepresent what this country is about (and we risk diluting our Christian faith, as well).

This National Day of Prayer (1952), along with the National Prayer Breakfast (1953) and the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), are all products of a political era in which America was locked in a Cold War with the "godless" communism of the Soviet Union.  As we defined ourselves over and against the Soviets, we wrapped ourselves in a civic-minded piety in which God was on "our side" against a "godless" enemy.  I described the problem with this kind of piety in a previous post, Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears:

And so from the lips of government power brokers this God of Country is proclaimed, a God that loves freedom and democracy - and market economies? - and which loyally stands at the side of our government. It is a God that nary challenges the Powers-That-Be, much unlike the God active in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, the martyrs, or advocates of social change over the centuries.  No, this is the God of Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, and if belief in this God of Country gains currency in our society it poses a significant threat to the teachings of our churches and the consciouses of our citizens.

More to write, perhaps, but it's getting late and my mind is going to mush.  G'night.

National Day of Prayer, or Ascenion Day?

Today is Ascension Day, when the church remembers Jesus' ascension into heaven.  I was hoping to write a reflection on Ascension Day - a day that I love in theory but have never celebrated liturgically - but my plate is too full, my desk too messy. 

Briefly, I think celebrating the Ascension is essential, because it is intimately connected with Jesus' death and resurrection, and - perhaps most importantly - to his promise to return to Earth (ie, the Second Coming).  Jesus' promised return will inaugurate the "resurrection of the dead" (which we confess in the creeds) and the Kingdom of God (for which we pray in the Lord's Prayer).  This promised Kingdom of God - described in countless parables and prophetic images - is our Christian hope, it is the future into which we are called to live today (see my post All Saints, All Souls, and the Return of Christ for more about my understanding of life, death, and the "after-life.").  It seems to me that our Christian life is largely shaped by what was (Jesus' death and resurrection) and what will be (his return and the promised Kingdom of God).

So, I was a bit surprised to see a local Episcopal church advertise on their sign not an Ascension Day service but a service for the National Day of Prayer.  Since when did an ill-advised blend of patriotism and religion trump the liturgical calendar, especially for our otherwise liturgically astute Episcopalian friends?  I'm all for praying for our nation - heck, we do it every Sunday in the Prayers of the Church - but this dedicated National Day of Prayer goes too far in merging patriotism with the practice of faith.  (I blogged about the dangers of blending prayer and government in Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears.  Two years ago I wrote a few pieces about faith and patriotism around Memorial Day.  Here are two of them: Praising God, Honoring Country, More Thoughts on God & Country).

For a good critique of the National Day of Prayer, check this post out from Don over at Blog from the Capital.

Well, that's all for now.  Have a blessed Ascension Day.

On Selecting "Alternate" Readings for Pentecost

Here's the lectionary lineup for Pentecost Sunday (May 11):

First Reading:
Acts 2:1–21
Numbers 11:24–30 (Alternate)

Psalm:
Psalm 104:24–34, 35b
R/ Send forth your Spirit and renew the face of the earth. (Ps. 104:30)

Second Reading:
1 Corinthians 12:3b–13
Acts 2:1–21 (Alternate)

Gospel:
John 20:19–23
John 7:37–39 (Alternate)

Note the alternate readings.  How do you go about deciding whether to use an alternate reading in place of the primary reading?  Both the primary and alternate are offered in the lectionary, though for each reading a priority is clearly given to certain readings (Acts, 1 Corinthians, and John 20 passages, respectively).  What criteria should govern my decision to choose the alternate reading?

(Perhaps some of you have few qualms about replacing the appointed lectionary readings for a given Sunday.  I err on the side of sticking with the lectionary, assuming it has an internal integrity and wisdom that I - working as a lone ranger - lack.)

For Pentecost Sunday, I'm inclined to choose the alternate texts for the First and Gospel readings.  Here's my reasoning.

I prefer the John 7 (alternate) Gospel text because the passage from John 20 (the primary text for the day) was included in the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Easter - the doubting Thomas story.  To repeat the text so soon just seems repetitive.  Plus, the John 7 text sets up a discussion of the gifts of the spirit and our grateful response - "out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water" - to God's graciousness.  That "grateful response" is something that we Lutherans have a difficult time addressing . . . good ol' Third Use of the Law (of which I'm a fan, though I know many Lutherans do not believe in the Third Use).

We may also choose to read the alternate First Reading from Numbers.  We may tell the Acts 2 story - the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - through a youth skit to be shared as the opening rite to our Pentecost service.  Plus, I really like the Numbers reading - it gives some deeper context - a prequel, if you will - to the familiar story of Acts 2.

So, what do you think?

Rev. Wright at the National Press Club

I'm getting fed up with the racism that is flying over the airwaves and online in response to The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's sermons and comments in recent days.  I strongly, passionately, and vehemently encourage anyone who has questions about Rev. Wright to read this transcript (via Fox News) of his presentation and Q&A at the National Press Club.  I found very little in his remarks to be objectionable.

And as for Obama . . . nice move, bucko, throwing your pastor under the bus.  Whatever happened to your different kind of politics?  Argh.

Praying for our Children

In preparation for my internship congregation's annual Children's Sunday, I looked for a collect to use as a Prayer of the Day.  I admit to being a bit bothered by the prayers for "young persons" found in Evangelical Lutheran Worship:

Young persons
God of all good gifts, your Son gathered children into his arms and blessed them. Help us to understand our youth as they grow in years and in knowledge of your world. Give us compassion when they face temptations and experience failures. Teach us to encourage their search for truth and value in their lives. Help us to appreciate their ideals and sympathize with their frustrations; that with them we may look for a better world than either we or they have known; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Young persons
Lord God of our ancestors, we thank you for what you have done and will continue to do with our daughters and sons. Walk with them in life, and keep the evil one from obstructing their path. You see all; you know where the water is deep. Keep them from danger. Order their steps and guide their feet while they run the race of faith. May the good work that you have begun in them be brought to completion at the day of Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship, pew edition, page 83

These prayers are so negative!  It's as if childhood is nothing but a path littered with snares and entrapments, "temptations" and "failures," "frustrations" and "danger," that require the condescending prayers and guidance of adults.  Don't get me wrong - these are good and fine things for which to pray - for all of life, not just childhood, has its perils - but the tone of these prayers is overly negative.

What about the blessing that children are?  What about what the (adult, "grown-up") church needs to learn from young people?  What about the vocation children have to grow into, learn about, and share the gifts God has given them?  What about children as the image of a God who came to us as a child?

Using some of the language of the second prayer listed above, I reworked the prayer to lift up a more positive image of childhood:

Lord God of our ancestors, we thank you for what you have done and will continue to do with our daughters and sons. Walk with them in life, and keep the evil one from obstructing their path. Grant parents and adults wisdom in caring for children, and respect for the gifts you give to the young. As Jesus welcomed children in his midst, may your holy church also welcome, bless, nurture and honor children. In the name of him who came to us as a child, Jesus Christ our Lord, we pray.  Amen.

I think we need to be careful not to be overly negative or condescending in how we pray for young people. 

What do you think?

 

33 died. Only 32 remembered.

Today is the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, and folks here in Virginia and throughout the country are keeping the Virginia Tech community, along with the families of those killed, in their thoughts and prayers.  State flags are flying at half staff.  At my church preschool today, about a dozen people wore Virginia Tech shirts or pins. 

We remember the 32 victims of the shooting.

But 33 people died that day.  Victim number 33, of course, was the shooter, Seung Hui Cho.  Nonetheless, at memorial displays and commemorative bell ringings, the count will stop at 32.  In popular perception, there were 32 victims that day.

But it is not enough to say that 32 were victims of violence, for victim number 33 also died of a gunshot wound.  There are 33 families mourning the loss of loved ones today.  33 body bags were needed on the Blacksburg campus last April.  33 people died.

Ignoring Seung Hui Cho risks ignoring the root causes of the tragedy in the first place - poorly diagnosed and treated mental illness, and easy access to guns.  We make him into a monster, not a victim, and thus his death is not to be grieved but to be received with gratitude and relief.  When we ignore Seung Hui Cho, we ignore why 32 others died and we diminish their memory.

On this day let us remember in prayer all those who died, and ask God to bring comfort and hope to their families.

Let the bells ring.  33 times.

Why the "Compassion Forum" Bothers Me

I don't have cable television - and thus no CNN - and I did not see the "Compassion Forum" on Sunday night, the discussion about faith and compassion with Senators Clinton and Obama.  But I've read some of the news coverage, including a skim through the transcript. 

The whole concept just bothers me.  I'd gladly ask questions of faith when my synod elects a bishop or when my congregation votes to call a pastor.  But why ask questions about faith to the person who wants to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?  I just don't see the point.

Kudos to John McCain - the Republican - for not showing up.  For once, we have the Democrats pandering to religious leaders while the Republican shies away from speaking of faith.

Clinton and Obama may each have strong faith.  They may also have passionate perspectives on the Designated Hitter.  They might also have opinions about whether Bob Dylan's performance at the Newport Folk Festival was an unfortunate sellout or a siesmic shift in the history of rock and roll.  But these are not the kind of issues that will come across the President's desk in the Oval Office.

Here's one question posed to Senator Clinton:

BROWN: Let's talk about your faith. And we warned people the questions tonight would be pretty personal. So I want to ask you. You said in an interview last year that you believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions.  Share some of those occasions with us.

Huh?  How is this relevant to the Presidency, to leading our military in war or our government in providing for the common good?

And here's a question posed to Senator Obama:

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe that God intervenes in history and rewards or punishes people or nations in real time for their behavior?

Again . . . huh?  How is this relevant?  We're electing a Commander in Chief, not a Pastor in Chief.  Give me a break.

To be fair, many of the questions were not explicitly about theology, faith or the Bible, but about social justice, freedom, and hunger, and other issues related to compassion around the world.  These (otherwise valid) questions could just as easily been asked in a normal presidential debate, but in the context of a discussion of faith (on the campus of a Christian college) these questions took on a greater hue of morality and faith. 

But again I ask the question - why?  Why do we need to ask faith questions of our political leaders?

Some will say that this kind of forum helps us understand who the person is, how she or he makes decisions, and what kind of leader they will be in the White House.  Perhaps this will help voters of faith relate to the candidates.  After all, voters in 2000 said that they found George W. Bush more likable than Gore.  Likability, relatability are important qualities these days in politics.  Whole lot of good that criterion did us.

When McCain, Clinton or Obama is sworn in next January as President of the United States, they will pledge to uphold not religious truth or faithful doctrine, but the Constitution and laws of this land.  Please, let us quiz our candidates on matters of law and governance, politics and policy, not faith and theology.

Perhaps in a few days I'll respond to the "substance" of the forum, to the candidate's answers and what their answers reveal about their personal faith and their politics.  And too, perhaps, I'll look at what impact having such a conversation has on political discourse and the separation of church and state. 

But . . . what if we had an atheist candidate?  If religious conversation is now a pre-requisite for becoming president we've set up an unconstitutional, uneasy, unnecessary, and unhelpful expectations for candidates to speak in terms of faith while they're running for the presidency.  That is, the Compassion Forum represents a kind of religious litmus test.  This can't be good for democracy and the first amendment.

And I also fear that this forum is bad for religion - for the political pandering it inevitably seeks, the religious lip service it inevitably generates, and the narrow presentation of faith that such a forum inevitably offers.  Is this good for anyone?

I pray and I vote, and I'm passionate about both.  But when I vote, I don't care if my president prays.  That is not why I elect a president.  Rather, when I vote I care that she or he can do a good job carrying out the tasks of the presidency.  And nowhere do I see faith or religion in the president's job description. 

Forums such as the "Compassion Forum" risk blurring the lines between religion and politics, and hurting both in the process.  And that bothers me.