Between Jericho and Jerusalem

2011-05-14T06:15:00.000-07:00

A Devotion on Exodus 2:11-14 for Mid Morning Suffrages,

Thursday of the Third Week of Easter.

Given to the the Association of Confessing Lutherans of Ohio at Fairborn,

May 12th, 2011

Moses looked left, and Moses looked right, and then Moses slew the Egyptian in a righteous rage. Yes, Moses hated injustice and oppression, Moses loved righteousness and the Law. Because of this trait God had seen to it that he would be drawn from the Nile by Pharaoh's daughter. Moses was the right man for the job.

He looked left and he looked right and there was no one. A curious gaze. Was it just to make sure that no one was watching? Was it a gaze to see if someone else was going to do something about this outrage in front of him? Was an Egyptian coming to stop this madness? Was a Hebrew coming to stand with his brother? Was it a gaze to see if someone was there to help Moses stop this?

But Moses did what those who are passionate about justice, those who love the right are prone to do: Like any activist, he acted. In his blow on the Egyptian, he used all the skills of war and sword that the palace of Pharaoh could teach. It was no wonder that the palace responded as it did. Using Pharaoh’s generosity against Pharaoh never ends well, even today. It is no wonder Moses’ life was going to be sought from him.

And the oppressed? They see the splendrous skills of the artists of war and oppression every day. They have seen many swords. They know swords do not distinguish between Hebrew and Egyptian blood. Another sword in the hand of another prince of Egypt is merely another sword in the hands of another prince of Egypt. Their question is: “Do we need another sword? Are there not enough swords? We will die now at their left hand, we will die then at their right, so what is the difference? If they make us powerful enough to fight with them now, they must deal with us after their victory. Does it not occur to the conquering king that he neither needs or wants catapult operators living close to the walls of the castle once it is his?”

He backed up God’s great plan by 40 years, this Moses. He was the right man now at the end of the first third of his life, his heart was filled with the passions he would need. He knew Egypt’s court better than most. He knew their ways and means and the language, he knew their arts of war. He had seen the plight of the Hebrews. In short: He was not ready.

I found myself at Jim’s* house in September of 2009 and “the vote” as we now euphemistically call it, arose ever so briefly “It is quiet in the desert,” was his response and he spoke them with the kind, knowing, undeserved smile that often graces his face and is shared with friend and foe alike, “There is a lot of peace there. Don’t disturb it. Just let is settle over you.”

Moses entered the desert of Midian with all his faculties of war and fight for righteousness fully intact. He showed it at a well in Midian right away, fighting again for the underdog. Yet, the noise of Moses soon faded and the peace of the desert settled on him like its sand; sand he once thought was good for burying dead Egyptians. He spent the next third of his life there, looking left and looking right and seeing himself alone; a nomad. So, the desert forced him to look deeper and deeper, again and again, but now within and there also he looked left and he looked right and eventually he saw inside no one at all.

The desert in all her peace is a killer as well. She killed the Egyptian inside of Moses and buried him in sand. All the skills of war, all his training in the fine art of palace intrigue and palace politics left him. There was no one on his left as he looked that way within. He looked right and there was no one there any more either. The desert had killed the Hebrew, so used to being the obedient servant, so used to live in the continuous compromise of being a captive minority, as well. He took up being slow of speech in the desert. She has time like she has sand. Moses no longer drew on the language of a prince at court, a man of power and means, nor on the language of the defeated. Those men within were dead. He looked left, he looked right, and there was no one left to speak. All that was left was the desert with billions of grains of sand below and billions of stars above, stars and sand once promised to Abraham.

At the end of the second third of his life, now too old to fight, too old to compromise God comes to visit Moses. Moses has now learned not to look left and not to look right. There will be no one there who will last. Their absence was no longer a cause of grief or anger. Their presence would not have been cause of strength or celebration. Moses will now look up and learn the language of God.

A Cautionary Tale

2011-03-04T07:54:00.000-08:00

A Lord in the realm was attacking the castle of the King. It was a struggle for supremacy, rule to the realm, and the right to determine the future of the land and all her citizens. The peasants of the realm were either in the castle, on the side of the lord, or honestly busy growing the very food both sides were relying on.

The emperor over the Kingdom had sent word that he had a lot in common with the Lord, though the King had been with him form many years. This discouraged the peasants who fought on the side of the King. Many left. Emboldened, the Lord made a major push to conquer the castle. This time, he succeeded. A breach was made, the weakened defenses were slowly overcome. The breach was now big enough that the castle's defenses were no longer an impediment to storming the castle.

The Lord sat high in his saddle and commanded his lackeys to strengthen the attack. His final order before he rode toward claiming his prize? "Kill all the trebuchet operators."

You see, when you storm a castle to live and take power there, you are now the new king that will become the target of the next Lord. Those who live by the sword die by it. Those who live by the way of poison will die that way as well. Those who live by political intrigue and subversion will likewise fall by it. The ends, my dear colleagues, and you know who you are, do not justify the means. The means are evil and will destroy even those who helped with the finest of motives. It is not safe to be a trebuchet operator, no matter what side.

Santa Claus and the Liturgical Church

2010-12-23T07:32:00.000-08:00

There is something good to be said for living in a liturgical church that values history. I am realistic enough to know that not all of the ELCA is interested in history, I know well that many think history is a waste of time. I am here to suggest that maybe in the case of Christmas and the fat little man who has become a rival symbol of it, valuing history and remembering it in liturgy is a good corrective.

To make my case, let me tell a little story: My daughter was 7 years old and, being a pastor's kid, had grown up in church. For a number of her conscious years, she had celebrated the 6 of December or the Sunday closest to it as a remembrance of St. Nicolas of Myra. You remember him, yes? Patron saints of children, secret givers, butchers, sea farers; attendee at the council of Nicea where history suggest that he walked up the the heretic of the day, Arius, and decked him. An aside: my kids are studying martial arts; is it because they knew of that story and want to be ready for the attack of the heretic? Never mind . . . He was kicked out of the council but readmitted after making a repentant apology. Anyway, the good saint has a place in my heart and is somehow remembered in the liturgy of the church where I am presiding at worship.

My kid and I were at the local IGA, waiting at the cash register. An older man was in line behind us and leaned down toward my daughter asking: "SO, what is Santa going to bring you tomorrow?" My sweet daughter, without hesitation replied: "Santa Claus was an important man in the church, he was a great man and a saint, he loved Jesus very much but he is dead. We give each other gifts at home in honor of Jesus' birthday." In my head I was doing a victory lap around the check out lanes. "The kid gets it!" The old man sputtered, looked in my smile crossed face, and with some annoyance replied: "Well I believe in Santa. Too bad he is not coming to your house."

Kids learn from what adults dare to teach. My kids grew up with Saint Nicolas of Myra as an example of good Christian charity but no more. They know him as mortal, unable to squeeze down chimneys, without nary a reindeer or a home where they would have been prevalent. They know him as a devout and passionate Christian who dared to live the Faith into which they also where baptized. I would submit that that is far more lasting and important than some romantic notion of Norman Rockwell childhood believes that adults sometimes idolize as a cute stage of childhood. History can and should be allowed to help form true Christian faith. The liturgical church has history and a means to make it a catalyst in that faith. Are we church enough to use it?

Thoughts on January 18

2010-01-18T06:15:00.001-08:00

This post will be misunderstood. Not just maybe. It will be. I will say what I think anyway:

Back in the 70, while I was in college, a monumental election took place. Well, not really. It was merely Carter vs Ford. I admit, I liked Carter. He seemed different. He was not the standard political type. He was an engineer. He promised to do things different: He was a moral man and his administration was going to reflect just that. In all honesty, it did. Carter deserves his reputation as a moral, honest man.

He made mistakes. Every president does. He had high obstacles. Every president does. He had challenges. Ever president does. He was eventually defeated by Reagan. The reason, to me at least, was that, like a good engineer, Carter wanted to discover and define the problems that faced him so that a solution could be articulated and implemented. He did this in public. That was his mistake. He was defeated by a man who only spoke of his dreams and visions for America, not of her problems and he refused to be sidetracked into pathology. So while Cater wanted to talk about the gravity of the challenge, Reagan wanted to talk about the glory of the victory over the challenge.

Carter went away quietly in 1981. He reemerged as a humanitarian. A quiet champion of the poor at home and abroad. He did it not in word but in word and deed by his work building houses for the poor.

Carter is getting old and age, and the information age with its need for new fodder to rip apart, devour, and spit out, has brought a different Carter. His last book on Israel has brought him much scorn. If only he had kept quiet. Maybe all of us are in danger of becoming caricatures of ourselves if we are left to talk long enough. It certainly seems to be true for pastors who forget to retire and actually sit down.

Our nations heros often died young. John Kennedy comes to mind. How would his image have fared had he lived on and had an extra 30 years to make a nuisance of himself? We will not ever know. His image was and is faithfully kept clean and without blemish by old friends and admirers and a horde of people who stand to profit from it politically.

I wonder about Martin Luther King in this respect as well. He is rightly beloved because he seems to have understood that one could not oppose another human being by making that person less than human and less worthy of dignity and respect than oneself. As much as he knew the pathology of the society, of which he lamented in his personal letters from prison, he rose to speak of visions of a redeemed future on the horizon. Would he have kept that balance had he not been killed? His image and legacy, like JFK's, is carefully maintained and preserved and the question I pose has really no answer.

Many years have past since the 60's. Thanks to kabillion news or commentary channels on cable, the fine art of pathology is flourishing. Not only is G.W. Bush's presidency still being exegeted but so is Clinton's and Reagan's. We live in a large bowl where everyone is screaming about the wrong and outrageous that they see. Would MLK have escaped? Would Reagan, had Alzheimer's not taken his brain, have escaped? Both of their followers have gotten caught inextricably in this maze of screaming about wrong and outrage. Today, sitting down and lamenting the lot of your class, race, profession, geographical enclave, political persuasion, religion, or sexual persuasion are almost mandatory. There is no vision right now, anywhere. There is only tallies of wrongs and harsh reparationist or retributionist remedies, all claiming the right of the victim to define right and wrong as well as the right to define the proper corrective measure. But these corrective measures all lack an important thing: a vision of a redeemed future.

So today we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.-- good for us. Will we today speak of wrongs and reparations and fixes or will we speak of the visions and dreams that Acts 2 promised the people of God? Without them, no right will ever be seen as right and no solution to a wrong will ever move us closer to a future that is any more righteous than the present, it would be merely "different."

The people of God must quit complaining and begin to dream again.

The Dreaded Cycle

2009-10-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

Kuebler Ross famously said that grief takes the path of anger, denial, depression, bargaining, and acceptance. Any ELCA reader might want to check where on this scale they fit. If you are nowhere on it then, good for you. Yet in a significant portion of the church, how significant we will never know because there is no mechanism to determine that and those who could do not want to, the grief cycle is in progress.

To recapitulate: In late August, the Church Wide Assembly of the ELCA passed a social statement that posed the appropriateness of gay marriage and then proceeded to expand that decision with a number of further resolutions that would open the door to gay, partnered clergy. This day had been long in the making. It was resisted by an odd coalition called CORE. It was driven by a focused faction called LCNA that had raised funds for years and was expertly managed ad advised. It is said that they also had Higgins Road and the Presiding Bishop on their side. Reports are that the latter has said at a Hein Frei lecture that he was hoping the ban on gay clergy would end during his time in office.

The former, Higgins, is easier to call. The news releases are clear: Be mad if you like but look, we are doing such good stuff. A recent news release touted the gracious invitation by a gay pastor to a CORE board member with the implication that the revisionist side is ever so gracious and the conservatives are all reactionary by withholding funds from the ELCA. That withholding will hurt our efforts to wipe out malaria in Africa.

A distraction: Malaria would better be fought by giving the African nations access to DDT again. The UN talked them into not using it. Zimbabwe reintroduced DDT and cut malaria by 90%. It must also be mentioned that the malaria initiative is a UN millennium goal. We merely signed on to it. There will be money but no DDT.

For that matter, the withheld money will not just go into socks or mayonnaise jars. It will go to mission, some defined by Matthew 28, some defined by Luke 4, where the center of ELCA mission- think seems to be. Social ministry is not mission. We have found that out at the congregational level a long time ago.

But here we stand. One side is celebrating a victory and is reported to be scheming, yes that is the right word, to solidify the victory. The conservative side is in the process of making that easy. Most of them have withdrawn from ELCA interaction on national and local levels. They are in but not really of the ELCA. CORE is in the process of making a loose association, a "synod," a network shall we call it, so congregations can ignore the ELCA and their own bishop. How this will work is not entirely clear to me.

The greatest side effect that I see is that the next round of Synodical assemblies will have elections to leadership positions without conservative candidates or votes on the floor. The result is obvious. Even with inept maneuvering synod councils, CWA delegates, and certainly bishops will be left of center. The only question to be answered is: "how far?"

Th wisdom of the spiritual directors of the church has been that one is not equipped to make decisions in the state of grief, which brings me back to Kuebler Ross. Right now most conservatives are in depression. Go to any web discussion site like ALPB and you will note that the number of posts by ELCA conservatives has dropped dramatically. I recognize that a number of them are also working behind the scenery to find ways to organize but on the whole the right side of the house is in grief and right now in the state of depression.

So what will happen when the next CWA has given the opportunity to bargain? Surely that bargaining will not bring a better result for the right. What will acceptance look like? It has been pointed out to me that being in a church body but not participating in it and keeping it at arms length at all times begs the question whether one is actually still in that church body. I myself have likened it to the onset of a divorce. One spouse has moved into the guest room and has made it known that they are done with the marriage. I have seen only one household remain somewhat intact afterwards. Visualize his and hers refrigerators with locks. My friend Scott points out to me that this situation is unstable. For the spiritual good of the congregation one must either accept the situation with all its implications and stay or one must accept that one is no longer of the ELCA and therefore there is only harm in staying.

Policies and manuals are now being written. Their publication will most certainly start another round of outrage. If the ELCA truly wants to bear with one another's burdens one must wonder what"burden" might be put on the revisionist side. Since much of it will have to be out to synod votes that now will no longer contain right side voices it is not likely that there will be any burden bearing going on any time soon.

The Old Testament tells of times when everyone went to their own tents and did as they saw right. Whenever this happened horrible things would follow. We in the ELCA are now in the place where all of us have been intentionally sent to our own tents to do as we see fit. This cannot fail but end up in the same places as it did in times of old. May God hurry the steps of Philistine and judge.

Glad to be left behind at home

2009-08-19T07:35:00.000-07:00

It is said that a fox, its foot caught in a trappers snare, will gnaw off its leg to make a break for freedom.

I have broken a promise I made to myself. I had promised that I would not watch the ELCA assembly online. But I have. I am I should say. It is on the other side of the screen. Having watched most of this morning's session, I consider myself fortunate to not be there. Like the fox, I would be gnawing off my leg or arm to get out of the hall.

I know, there will be proud reports made by the organization. I know, nobody will step to the important mics and be down in the mouth. I know, they all will wax eloquently about all sort of stuff. If you were not eloquent, proud of what you have done or well spoken, you like are not asked to take the mic.

Frankly, what I hate is the glitz. I hate the poster boy speeches, you know, the ones that start: "I remember a soldier I was ministering with and . . ." I really hate someone at the mic who gives a greeting but then wants to have the assembly sing a song that goes with her speech and I really get enraged when that same person then presumes to be the conductor of the assembly. But most of all, it is the glitz. This is a sales meeting. Short and simple. I hate it when my synod does this. I hate it when the ELCA reps import this to my synod. And I am really glad I am not in Minnesota to have to sit through a week of it.

We Will Make the Wrong Decision

2009-08-17T08:26:00.001-07:00

The great big dance in Minneapolis will begin in a mere 2 hours. Oh the things we will decide. Actually, I don't really think there are as many things as it seems. At least there are not 7 days worth of things to be discussed and hashed out. Much of the assembly, as any church assembly, will be used for non legislative matters. Much will be given to reports. Much will be given to "greetings" from various dignitaries and ministry partners. It happens at every assembly. As a church, we are proud of what we do. As a bishop, like a pastor at annual meeting, Mark Hanson will want to give report to the church that shows that the church- wide expression of the ELCA is efficient and faithful in what it does.

There will also be more worship at this assembly. The bishop has made that known. The delegates or voting members will be invited to worship with one another at preset intervals so that they have the experience of worshipping in peace next to those with whom they disagree, which also entails worshipping with those who are present to organize for the defeat or passage of the ministry proposal before the assembly this week. Therein lies the rub: Worship at assembly in a divided church is precarious business. It might be worship, it might stink to high heaven. Who knows but God what the spirit of the worship is at the moment.

It also does not serve the spirit of worship at the assembly that the various sides have made it clear that whatever the decision might be, they will soldier on to make their side's position dominant. The assembly can worship all she wants. If some, if not most, of her members are of a different spirit the chance for spontaneous conversion of the church are slim. They might be at peace but they will not be of one mind.

And the church, the ELCA in this case, is not worshipping with the assembly if you allow me to say so. Yes, we are praying, but each of us are in the same boat as the assembly. We either have plans to fight or flee, or at least, we have done a careful dance between the positions that will no longer be possible next Sunday and we watch quietly to see how we will pull the rabbit out of the hat this time.

Even worship aside, for practical reasons, we will make a bad decision. You note that I have not predicted which way the lot will fall this week, and, yes, lot is the right description as the outcome might just as well be random. The decision itself is the problem. Neither side has given the indication that they are willing to support or live with a decision that does not go their way. Both side must have, I assume, a strategy to solidify the political victory, should they gain it, or a strategy to win the war in 2011 should they not.

In other words the factions, but more important, the average ELCA member, pastor, or congregation has today an opinion which decision they will or will not support, even if they do not endorse any officially. That means that whatever the decision might be this week, the church, the organization that is about to have a decision making assembly, will not get behind the decision as one people. It is as if a congregation decides that they might want to build a new wing to the house but only a few really want to talk to the architect and many have no intention whatsoever to support the project.

Often, the case arrises that two congregations in similar places and positions have made important decisions. They might have decided to go whole hog with modern worship or they might have decided to do the opposite and go whole hog with high traditional worship. Both congregations succeed. It happens all the time and baffles the experts. The common thread in both cases is the pig. You know, the whole hog, the giver of bacon. Commitment of the whole body to go with this decision without listening, much less rewarding second guessing. In a binary decision, the commitment to the decision after it has been made is more important than the choice itself. (Friedmann, Failure of Nerve)

In the ELCA, in 2009, concerning the matter of gay ordination, dissent is built into every vote and decision we ever take or make. Next Sunday there will not be 100% buy-in, or 90%, or even 70%, probably not even 60%. That makes whatever decision the ELCA makes this week the wrong decision.

Organizations that make the wrong decision are forced to flounder until they die or, in weakened form, finally make a decision that all the membership can sign on to. That time has not come for the ELCA, though numbers suggest that the time will come. For now, we will make the wrong decision.

Gobsmacked

2009-06-08T04:06:00.000-07:00

One is ethically and morally bound to admit when one is wrong. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. My last post on the 2009 synod assembly is an instance of me being wrong.

Where to begin? Well, first of all the tone at the microphones was decidedly muted. No blatant accusations or slurs, no snap psychological diagnoses of other speakers. There were some muted comments from the people in the seats but that was about it. Time had been set aside to discuss the human sexuality issues. It went by peacefully. Only one speaker approached the mic for the discussion when the resolutions came to a vote. One speaker, the runner up in the last election for bishop, stepped to the mic and began to read bishop Peter Rogness' letter to his synod in Minnesota but he was cut off because he had no permission to quote the piece in toto neither, I would think, was the thing in order from a parliamentary stand.

All of them passed. Yes, all of them passed both the pro and the con resolutions, though one was ruled out of order because it would have memorialized the CWA to set parliamentary rules for itself after CWA had already done so. We passed it all others without much discussion and we were civil about it.

Did we talk it through? No. We passed it on to CWA. That may actually be mature. Why, after all, kill yourself today about matter that we really do not influence. We will get CWA's voting results and then we can figure out what it means at home.

Other resolutions also passed with minor changes. An argument was raised about the veracity of the scientific claims in the Earth Keeping resolution. The resolution was really not helped by the claims that all scientists were in agreement. It would have been improved by a theological rationale that did not sound as if it had emerged out of a 5th grade Sunday School class but it passed.

The Braille resolution passed after the writer explained that Augsburg Fortress was not in the process of producing ELW materials in Braille. My apologies to her for my comment in the last post.

The resolution about the ELCA being too theistic passed as well. No discussion. It will be an interesting clergy conference.

Hunger- passed. Of course

Book of Faith- passed. Of Course, but it was amended to make it less legalistic. No every meeting of synod has to begin with bible studies.

It all passed, including the budget, without a peep.

I am gobsmacked. I also have no idea why this sudden calm.

The financial reports were good. the ELCA thanked the synod for being one of only 8 who did not decrease mission support. The budget was not questioned.

Workshops were held and appreciated.

It must be said that the assembly was lightly attended. Just over 400 showed up compared with close to 700 last year. Only 7 elected positions were contested. Yet, an analysis escapes me right now past maybe this: We are tired in Southern Ohio.

Yes, Virginia, there will be a 2009 assembly

2009-06-01T07:29:00.000-07:00

There is no bishop's election this year, so things are a lot less tense prior to the assembly of the Southern Ohio Synod. Anyone who has hung around here for any length of time, knows that this sort of calm tends to be shattered at assembly by one or more, what shall we call them, discussions? This year will probably be no different. I would predict that the budget will be contentious but that would be redundant, as the budget discussion always turns into a near shoutfest.

This year, it seems, is the year of resolutions. Normally, we deal with 2 to 4 of them, the rest artfully ruled out of order prior to the assembly. This year we where mailed 10, yes, 10 resolutions. The obvious ones first: There is one that comes to us from the Columbus area and asks us to call on the National assembly to follow their passing of the great 2009 sexuality statement with specific actions. As expected, the resolution call for actions intended to make the great issue of the day, homosexuality, an accepted mainstream reality. This year, we also will consider 3 resolutions to the contrary, calling on the ELCA to reject the statement, the policy changes, and the Church Council's ruling on the need vote threshold.

A quick translation: We will spent significant time on the synod floor insulting each other. I might be surprised by this year, but if the last years are a good way to tell the future, then there will be somewhat uncivil debate.

One resolution is the usual no brainer: we are against hunger. OK move on.

Another one wants to set a minimum age for ordination. I have no idea what evils I should fear here that make this necessary. We do have a candidacy process that is in place to take care of immaturity even if it is found in 60 year old bodies, but if we must, oh well.

Yet another resolution calls on us to become a Book of Faith Synod and start every meeting with reading and meditation on scripture. This synod has the habit of dedicating a third of its assembly to lectures by theologians and biblical scholars, a habit instituted by a previous assembly many years ago. One has to wonder if the scholars will count as Book of Faith or if this merely adds more protocol. But then, who would vote against the bible?

There is a "green" resolution in the materials that asks us to . . oh why list it, you know what it likely will say. What caught my eye was that the drafters asked that a commission be established that will provide "leadership, oversight, and direction" to the congregation and synod. "Oversight?" "We are from the Southern Ohio Synod Earthkeeping Team, komrad, where are your electric bills? Where is your green curriculum? Where are the carbons of your advocacy letters?" One must wonder why anyone would write "oversight" into such a resolution. In Southern Ohio one might also wonder if one is not being paranoid. Maybe there was an ulterior motive. Maybe Not.

A resolution about Braille resources is likely to be pitched before we get there. They exist and the drafter probably merely ran out of patience in locating them. Benign stuff this.

The greatest eyebrow raiser is the remaining resolution. It claims that the ELCA and the SOS are loosing members because we are perpetuating a "theistic understanding of God." Yes, you read it right, we are loosing members because we believe in the existence of God and because the all have an immature faith, referring to God as "the man upstairs." An aside: I have heard the "man upstairs" lingo from Christians over the years. Further contact with them tells me that their faith is much more nuanced than to take either" man" or "upstairs" literal. Yet. the resolution was offered by one who is not doing nuance these days. It has been pointed out to me that the thing reads as if the drafter has just completed a university class on the theology of Bp. Spongg. Anyway, what to do. The resolution merely asks that we gather and discuss the problem. But how do I vote for a nothing resolution that is based on a stream of drivel masquerading as a preamble? One will and must hope that the drafter will proceed to make an ass of himself on the synod floor and therefore the whole thing will go down, sunk by a laity that has had it with nonsense. We must hope.

We will meet in a theatre style auditorium this year; no tables, no way to get out without stepping over many other attendees. This venue has been used before and was a travesty then. That alone will be a reason for increased blood-pressures. Worship will be at the big church across the street. Ordinations will be had. The clergy will march in an sit in the overflow, never to be seen again by the congregation. Lovely.

There you have it. I see at least 3 good fights this assembly. I will make sure to have plenty of Ibuprofen and an ample supply of Tums available, along with a bible, a Book of Concord, and a copy of Robert's. Come by if you need any of it.

The Kids Get it . . .

2009-04-02T08:10:00.001-07:00

A short note about a recurring notion that seems to flow through the debates that are contorting the ELCA these days.

At the last conclave someone, speaking on the hot topic of the day, gay ordination, noted that: "We could just go on and then our kids will finally get this right. They get it, you know . . ."

If I read this correctly then we old whipper snappers should just bloody well shut up and let the young geezers, who apparently are so much wiser and better informed and up to date, determine what is right and wrong.

I was young once, 30 years ago. I "got" all kind of things then, much of it listed in the new sexuality statement's section on practices the church opposes. I also note that the kids "got it" when Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung, and Timothy Leary for that mater, preached their messages.

I must wonder what kind of argument this might be. We are to let those who have not been seasoned by life and who have not been fully catechized make decisions of gravity? It is said that men rush their pregnant wives to the hospital as liberals but drive home with their first child securely ticked into the baby carrier in the back seat as conservatives, especially if the child is a little girl. There is some truth to this. Much of what the kids "get" is best not observed by their elders and sometime even the law. Those same thing are best not observed by these "kids" when their own children "get it."

Whatever we might think about making decisions in the ELCA, this is certain: We are not absolved from the duty to teach the next generation thoroughly before we set them loose. There is no deferring the matter to the next generation. Teaching must be now and its content better hold hands with the wisdom of millennia gone by.

China Needs Tea!

2009-04-02T05:58:00.001-07:00

No, I am not a malcontent in my denomination. I am, however, very much amused by things that go on in the ELCA. Our latest national project: the Brand campaign, is one of those amusing things.

Two things: The ELCA has bought national TV time on CNN, FOX, diy, HGTV. I would have left out FOX and signed up for MSNBC instead. Why? Because FOX is viewed by conservatives who, if Barna and such are correct, much more likely to have churches to go to and see the point of going already. MSNBC folk are younger and more liberal and would actually be impressed that a church would spend its days and energy to help the poor.

I also note that all these are good, solid white, middle class channels. Why not put a couple of spots into BET? That would send a underrepresented group the message who we are. Or better in my area: CMT or ESPN. Go for broke: SPIKETV. I live in redneck country. They don't watch HGTV, they call Tom Raper mobile home sales, service, and moving when it is time for a new house. They don't watch diy, they get out the hammers, tar paper, and ladders and go to work. But they do watch sports and wrestling, they luv country music and say to their spouse: "why didn't we think o' dat" when they watch "My Big Redneck Weddin'."

But it goes on: The ELCA also bought TV real estate on local TV in: Minot- Bismark- Dickson, ND, Minneapolis- St. Paul, MN, and a couple of other upper midwestern markets. Good heavens! Why, man? These are places were Lutherans are thick already. There they are already advancing. Bart spent time in the upper midwest once upon the time. It is a lovely place. The Southern Baptists in town pulled up stake one day. They could not make a go of it. The map at the PCUSA office in Bismarck has more pins marking closed churches than it has live ones. Most denominations are pulling out. The Lutherans are just refusing to leave. Sometimes it is good to be dug in hard- other times, not so much. In this case it has worked. We stayed when no one would and now we are growing.

Where I live, we are having our $&es handed to us for the same reasons that they are being successful in Dickson. Lutherans are not even a known quantity in many of the places I travel in spite of the fact that we have a Lutheran University in Western Ohio. If we need the ELCA to spread the word about our identity it is HERE!

Oh, I get it: It's April 1st! No?

I have another note on the whole thing. If the Lutherans in my county are known for anything it is our social conscience and our social service. We cannot "outlayback" the Church of the Bretheren or the Vineyard movement. We cannot "outcasual" the Baptists and we cannot "outrock" the "community churches." We have tried for years to be the most active in caring for the poor needy or just about anyone who needed a friend. These efforts have not gone un- noticed. People flock to our food pantries, eat our free lunches, and write thank you notes for the desperately needed help we gave; and then they go to the Pentecostal church down the road . . .

Service is commanded by our Lord. At least I think it is. My congregation does it well, maybe even too well. What we are not known for is being the church were Jesus comes to visit on Sunday morning, where the hem of his tunic is touched every worship, where he gives himself utterly to those who would visit. We are merely known to give of ourselves, and they are not interested in us. And they should seek more than us and we should give more than us. But that is not part of the Brand Campaign.

I am glad to hear that people in Minnesota and North Dakota will learn more about "Our Brand." I ask the boffins at ELCA headquarters but one question: These good people have been Lutheran for a while: If they do not know these things do you really think they will get it just because it is on TV?

Son of "Get off the lawn, you darn kids!"

2009-03-31T14:18:00.001-07:00

It is the fate of pastors to occasionally gather in, what shall we call it: "conclave?" Well, it will do. The nice parts of such gatherings is that pastors see one another and hear each other think. On the other hand, we have to hear each other think. Sometimes a bad and a good are rolled into one.

It is my observation that most pastors have far too much to say, including me. I am working at keeping my mouth shut these days and it is not easy.

Another thing that is nice about conclaves is that we visit different churches. The only horrid thing is that we visit different churches. Sometimes good and bad . . .

I admit I am getting old. I know what a "Sanctuary" is. I have not adjusted to the new way of calling things. I don't plan to either. That strange little canticle after the Lord's Prayer is called "The Agnus Dei" not the "communion song." Everything that follows the line: "The Lord be with you . . .," in the communion liturgy is called the "great Thanksgiving" not "Thanksgiving at table." The latter, by the way, is often spoken lovingly by my 8 year old and goes something like this: "Come Lord Jesus, be our guest . . ." The place we worship is called: "The sanctuary" maybe "the chapel" but not the "worship center."

I quibble? Perhaps. But the "worship centers" I have been forced to enter all seem better fit for basketball and most of them have arrangements in some corner to make it possible to serve coffee at worship. You may call me old fangled, but it just don't seem right. There is a frightening casualness about serving coffee at worship. I am unsure which Czech writer I steal this line from but it applies: It suggests an unbearable lightness of being; an unbearable absence of any sense of the gravity to the holy moment of worship when hearts are supposed to look up and long for the Lord to come to them as they gaze at the host and the chalice lifted up.

Our new fashioned "worship centers" betray an attitude that speaks more of the real presence of the "community," or the the real presence of the pastor, the worship team (another ill chosen term), or the choir, but not of the real presence of Christ.

May God bless the pastors and congregation who none the less have begun to use this kind of language anyway. But I really would love to have them quit interrupting worship by telling me where the bathroom is and how much they appreciate my presence.

Global whatever . . .

2009-03-28T07:20:00.000-07:00

Over at ALPB.org on the online section there is a thread that obsesses that my bishop, Cal Holloway, was sent by the National Council of Churches to speak to congress about global warming. The usual objections and responses I have come to expect have arisen. Some claim that the global warming is a hoax, some that he should not have gone and that a lay scientist should have been sent instead, some that this sort of advocacy never works, another wants everyone to shut up until a transcript has been produced, notarized and attested by the clerk of Congress I presume.

Strange as it might seem, Bartemaeus was in engineering school in the 70's. A quick guess, please, what climate issues we were worrying about then. Well, got your answer? GLOBAL COOlING. Yes, it is the truth to tell. Click here and you will see an old Newsweek article from 1975. The language sounds totally familiar: "We are all as good as dead unless something is done!"

What to say? I am sure Bish. Holloway made clear that the church cares about creation. I am sure that he made clear that the effects of all changes tend to hit the poor first and hardest. That would be consistent with how he operates. I have no idea whether he got into the science of the matter. I hope not, since it is true that science is not the church's hometown or battlefield.

Mission and witness to the living God are our hometown. But, the National Council of Churches or the Ohio Council of Churches come "home" only reluctantly. In other words, they love social issues but are not so strong on the issues of spirit. I understand, mind you, that they shy away from the latter because the NCC and OCC contain many denominations and they really have no way to reconcile theological differences. How do you go on mission with someone who disagrees with you fundamentally on something as obvious as baptism, as Lutherans and even liberal Baptists do. But if you cannot go on mission, what is left?

I am not at all upset that Bish. Holloway went and testified, but it is a "so what" moment. What authority does the NCC have in the world when it cannot even talk about matters of the spirit, its bread and butter if it is "church," to its own?

The congressional record now contains Bish. Holloway's words. I fear that they will not matter even one vote worth when the matter is finally made to into legislative form. No, those votes will be bought with pork instead.

The day will surely come when the phrase "thus sayeth the Lord" will once again shut any other lips, open all ears, and make hearts tremble. This is not that day.

If Not Now, Soon. We Can Hardly Wait

2009-03-02T14:38:00.001-08:00

It is the rare Sunday any more, when no cell phone disturbs the worship service even in our little rural churches out in Western Ohio. Ash Wednesday was no exception. A phone rang in the middle of the choir anthem and it was ringing in the pocket of one of the choir members.

Bartimaeus used to shake his head when he heard a few years ago that a bishop in Germany had forbidden his pastors to answer their cell phones during worship. How does a pastor even conceive of the idea to do so? But then I know plenty of pastors who would, for various reasons, actually do this. So, until cell phone jamming becomes legal we are forced to make dreaded and strange announcements at the beginning of our services. Surely, the Kingdom of God will be a cell phone hole or it will not be the Kingdom. Perfect reception still in Hell- but the phones will never stop ringing and the only thing they'll ever say will be: "Can you hear me now?"

Here is a good read if ever I saw one

2009-03-01T05:34:00.000-08:00

Someone once remarked that studying the book of Galatians as a preparation for the great ELCA sexuality statement was an odd choice. They were right of course, but for all the wrong reasons. If you click on this link: LINK you will be whisked away to a place where the book of Galatians has just been published by Christianity Today and now the angry letters are pouring in.

Bartimaeus notices with some sadness that these letters all sound familiar. These could be letters to the Lutheran made in response to any article that does not include complete support for anything any congregation wants to do. It would be reassuring to think that the ends justify the means in church work. That is obviously not true on the surface. But, it is also not true at a deeper level. We are currently not totally in agreement what the end of the church actually might be. For my money the church is to work on the end of brining all people to Christ and Baptism. Many other way-points are needed towards that end to be sure, but those way-points cannot become the end that the church aspires to. To be inviting, a term that trumped anything in the days of Bartimaeus' seminary days, is only a beginning. At some point the second half of the great commandment must also be observed: "Teach them all I have commanded you." There is a peculiar lifestyle implicit in Christianity that is often exclusive of other options. Saying no to other options is often not received as "inviting." Sometimes the knife has to separate bone and marrow so to speak. It cannot be otherwise.

And so it goes at the start of March which is coming in this year like a polar-bear. The ground was frozen in Ohio and Pennsylvania on February 2nd so if they had not forcefully awoken that weasel or groundhog or whatnot in PA there would not have been a hibernating rodent to see its shadow. We expect a milder end to March even if unwarranted interference with the old ways of farmers say otherwise.

Hide the Beer! The Atheists are coming

2009-01-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

Over in Europe atheists have had it with us believers and, under what is assumed to be the guidance of Richard Dawkins have begun an advertisement campaign. I hear that some of their signs are also showing up on the east coast.

You read above my simple response.

What a boring idea really, life without any transcendence. Even Sartre knew that only despair was to be had when the Holy Spirit was expelled from the inner depth of the heart.

Read That Carefully..

2008-11-13T05:51:00.000-08:00

Bart was driving down the congested freeway system in %^$#@%$^ and was hoping to find some traffic news. The only traffic station worth while here is &%^$ which broadcasts news and traffic every 15 minutes or so. After almost suffering a stroke listening to some talk radio program finally a news reader came on. The usual news for late 2008: "You are a s good as broke! Go to the social security office now. Why wait?" Things are bad in Southwest Ohio these days. But then she read an interesting sentence:

"There are fears that GM might fail without the government's help."

Now read that sentence. O.K.: Which word did you put an emphasis on? "Fail?" That is probably what the writers were hoping for. But what what was read that morning was:

"There are fears that GM might fail without the government's help."

I was stopped so no accident resulted from the fit of laughter that followed this rendition of the sentence.

But, the nerve of GM! They might actually fail; and without the government helping them to go under. How dare they!

Tossed About like Driftwood on a Stormy Sea

2008-11-03T08:37:00.000-08:00

One of the bane of my existence is the ever present push to have what is secondary raised to prime importance. That which is primary ends up looking ridiculous as a result. Every once in a while the technical department at this congregation or that seems to gain the upper hand over the sensibilities that should guide decorum decisions for worship. Examples:

I know the soundman made a passionate case about having the mic closer to the speaker's mouth and following the movement of the head, but, Good Grief, these people look like Madonna look-alike wannabes. I note that these picture come from the ELCA website. I hope the pastors in these pictures will eventually go back and tell the sound department that they are done looking like cyborgs and that the tech crew better find a better way to make it all happen. We can only hope.

How Hard Can It Be? (Part IiI)

2008-10-13T07:32:00.000-07:00

I owe you, good reader, the last part of my posts on my travails concerning the candidates in the 2008 race for the White House. Today I wish to talk about John McCain.

If you are of a liberal persuasion you will be shocked to hear that I occasionally stop on Fox News when channel surfing. Rest assured that I land on its anti pod, MSNBC, as well and often. One finds good things on FN. Among them biographical sketches of candidates. I found the part of the John McCain version thereof enlightening.

It seems that Senator McCain, after he mustered out of the Navy, decided to seek a career in politics. Not any politics would do for him either. It had to be congress. So, he and an advisor looked around and found a conservative district in which the reigning GOP representative was retiring. The day, the very day, that this Representative announced his retirement the McCains bought a house in Phoenix, Arizona. The locals naturally though him to be no more than another carpetbagger. They were right: He was a definition of the term.

John McCain worked hard for his election. He knocked on thousands of doors and spent a large amount of his wife's money. But in the end he was still an Out of Towner. His opponent was happy to point this out. He made the mistake to confront John McCain about his residence history at their televised debate. McCain's reply? "Hey pal, the place I lived the longest in my life was Hanoi." In other words: "I am a war hero. You have no right to challenge me."

To be sure, the good people of Arizona did not suffer from having John McCain as their representative or senator. What bothers me here is this: thirty years ago John McCain ran for Congress on a platform of being the outsider and the war hero. Today John McCain is running on the platform of being the outsider and the war hero. First, he is a man of honor who did bleed for the nation. No argument. But honor is bestowed on you for valiance and courage. It is not a debt on which you collect again, and again, and again. After a while it quits being honorable to do so and all claim to honor becomes questionable.

Second, after awhile any claim to be the outsider vanishes. In John McCain's case I would argue that it vanished the day he made a calculated, GOP supported run for the House of Representatives from the 1st district of Arizona.

But a true GOP loyalist insider he is. His current campaign is proving it. It has been noted that his performance has been schizophrenic this year. Sometimes he is the John McCain who ran against the GOP bright boy G.W. Bush in 2000, sometimes he is the captive voice of the congressional GOP. No one knows who will show up for the next rally. No wonder he is being booed though even that may be staged. Over at Magdalene's Egg they think that it is an attempt by John McCain to get his soul back knowing that he will loose. Perhaps. If so I hope the Lord Jesus Christ will help him wrestle his dignity and soul out of the devil's grasp. I would say that the devil has had it for a long time, perhaps as long as that Congressional race thirty years ago.

I confess, I am a registered Republican. I became that in 2000 seeing Bush and McCain duke it out. The wife helps the Democrats pick candidates and I chose to do the same for the GOP. Besides, I like the John McCain I saw then. He is not that guy no more and, just maybe, he never was. He, like Clinton and, yes, Senator Obama, is one of those personalities who just seem to think that they should be running things and be doing it now. No tedious wading through the stages that give them experience on how things work. No. I want to be in charge and be adored and loved.

Perhaps that is why you and I are not in line for the office. We are not narcissistic enough. But really, is narcissism one of the job requirements for a servant of the people? It would seem that instead it would be a great impediment. Again: What qualifies these two? Could you, dear reader, not do better> Except for the narcissism part, how hard can it be?

How Hard Can it Be? (part II)

2008-10-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

To make my thinking from the last post clear let me explain why I support neither candidate this year and will probably vote holding my nose come November 4th: I start with Senator Obama. I note first of all that he is largely unvetted. That is to say, very little is actually known about him, he has no great paper trail, and in most movies he would be a "also appearing" character. That in itself in not unknown in American politics. G.W. Bush, though he had more of a trail, was likewise left alone about his past in 2000.

Senator Obama on the other hand seems to like it that way. I gather that from the episode with Jeremiah Wright. When the unfortunate excerpts of a sermon Wright preached were aired last spring, and I assure you that I suspect that there was much more to the sermon than the snippet, Senator Obama was quick to make a speech on race, religion and America. So far so good.

But then Wright went to the Washington Press Club. As he was being asked questions he, in his slightly combative style, made clear that he was "not Senator Obama's spiritual advisor." As a matter of fact, he said: "I am his pastor and when he comes to power I am after him also." In other words, Wright said: I am his pastor, a prophetic pastor at that and you, Senator Obama, know that. I believe in the principles of justice that I preached from my pulpit and if you violate them I will hold you accountable as much as I hold any other politician accountable from that pulpit.

It was after that moment that Mr. Obama threw Wright under the bus. Much has been made of the "convenience" of Senator Obama's membership at Trinity. It is, I add, a very active and justice and mercy oriented place. Most conservatives thought that the association between the two showed lack of judgement on Mr Obama's part. Some thought it showed insincerity. All those I leave to others to explore and discuss. My problem is that Senator Obama threw Wright under the bus precisely at the moment that the latter promised to hold the former accountable to Christian principles of justice.

I suppose that Senator Obama believes in the rudimentaries of Christian theories of justice and mercy. The reason for his action seems to rather be a matter of not wanting to be held accountable. That bothers me. Some will quickly object that it should be a pastor's duty to support his parishioner and that Wright was being offensive. That suggests a misunderstanding of the office of pastor on their part. It is our job to support and uphold our people. But we do that not only through kind "there, there's" but also by calling our people to account. In short: we preach a Gospel that promises grace but we also preach on the demands of God most high. It is most certainly true that what Pastor Wright was saying was a traditional pastoral plan: I will hold you accountable to the words of the Lord to whom I have introduced you.

So, here is my gripe: How can you be president if you really do not like being held accountable? Have we not had eight long, hard years of that? Have we not had enough?

I repeat then what I said last post: Are we sure these two (and I will let the other one have it tomorrow) are the best candidates we could find? I so, any of us should be perfectly able to do this job. How hard can it be?

How Hard Can It Be?

2008-10-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

Some obscure post over at alpb forum gave me an idea.

I am not one who really wants to speak out on politics but occasionally things come to my ear that I just cannot help but scream mild expletives about.

One of the candidates for president was recently at a rally. Yes, for his own cause! What a dumb though on your part! Well, you could have wondered. It sounded more like a baptist service with all the shouts of acclamation and response to what was said. But in short, the candidate complained about his rival's health care plan and then made light of the other one by observing that, being a senator, he, the opponent, was getting government health care. So, he reasoned, why should he be against government health care (his words) for everybody?

The difference between Truth, Lies, and Bawlderdash, observes H. G. Frankfurt, is that a lier knows the truth but intentionally obscures it. A "Bawlderdasher" on the other hand is not concerned about truth. He has left it behind somewhere if he really thinks it actually exists in the first place. No, a Bawlderdasher just talks. He hopes that his sincerity and wit or his charm will carry the day. He talks away appearing educated and knowledgeable but in reality he has done neither research nor has he given careful though to the logic in what he says. Needless to say, he has not thought about results or consequences either.

So here we have a candidate for president , a United States Senator, complaining about the health care insurance of another United States Senator; insurance they both enjoy I am sure. That alone should give us reason to say: "Hmmm." But then consider this: If you are a senator, who do you work for? Yes, the Senate, a branch of your Government. Who insures Joe Lunchbucket? Joe's employer. Who then should ensure a senator? Think, think, think.. what's right answer?

So what I hear is this U.S. senator complaining that that U. S. Senator (Ooo, that kind of language, "this on" and "that one", is also being debated now. Ooo.) is getting health care through his employer which is exactly what that senator though would be the best solution to health care.

I am sure it sounded good when this senators staff pitched him this line of thinking at the staff meeting before the rally. But, honestly, no one really though it through and since it was deliver with enthusiasm to a friendly crowd that wanted to be amazed anyway it drew the required cheers and "amens."

This senator is neck in neck with that senator in the polls. One of these geniuses will be president. To paraphrase the word over at Magdalene's Egg:" Our search for a president that "s*#$s less than the last will not end in November.

This is all a very long introduction to the point of this post: If these two is the best we as Americans can bring to the fore for the position of President, given that we had over 150 million folks who are constitutionally eligible, could you, gentle reader not do a better job?

How hard can it be?

The Center of What?

2008-08-03T10:55:00.000-07:00

In some speech at the Southern Ohio Synod Assembly the words: "Well, Columbus is the center of our synod," were spoken. Bartimaeus came accross the following map:

http://archive.elca.org/research/synoddata/updown03/updown44.pdf

In what universe is the math such that the dots on this map suggest a center in Columbus? London perhaps- Xenia maybe, but Columbus?

It goes again to show, we really need a fact checker at synod gatherings.

Get off the Lawn, you darn kids!

2008-07-07T05:35:00.000-07:00

I admit it- I am very grouchy today and not but a bit tired. The problem? Well, it all started 200 years ago and, as often is the case, a lawyer was at the center of it. You see, this guy got himself involved in government. Somehow lawyers and government meet all too often but I digress. He got himself involved with government and in 1814 found himself in the position of hostage negotiator. Why they did not take him as a hostage as well I don;t know but then- he was a lawyer. Anyway: he negotiated the release of his hostages and was ready to cross the battle lines over to his own side but while he was talking a naval battle had commenced so he was left watching the whole thing from the other side of things as the Brits shelled Fort Mc Henry.

It appears that fashionable gentlemen of those days were required to engage themselves in artistic pursuits and he was no exception. He was a poet and belonged to the Anacreontic Society a group of men who enjoyed poetry and had named themselves after the Greek poet Anacreon who had written many a love poem and many a drinking song. In a way, they enjoyed poetry and drink, but I digress again.

The story is that he was remembering the theme-song of the society, a song penned by John Stafford Smith known as: "To Anacreon in Heaven" and wrote a poem that described the battle in verse to fit the song. His name was Francis Scott Key and the result was the national anthem. A nice effort of poetry and song if it had not been for the; "rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" line, but I get ahead of myself.

Meanwhile, 600 years earlier someone in mainland China became increasingly concerned about the spirits of the dead that were hanging around and decided that a really, really loud boom would drive them away. The Chinese are a quiet people- it makes sense. Anyway, gunpowder was the result of it all and not only that, they discovered that by adding lithium carbonate they could color the boom red, by adding magnesium they could color the boom white and by adding copper chlorite they could make a blue boom.

Put all these streams of history together and you end up at Crazy Charlie's in Indiana or Kentucky where they will gladly sell you Class 1.4G Explosives, also known as "Fireworks," if you but sign on a piece of paper promising that you will not light the stuff. Again a lawyer was involved. You can sell the stuff as long as the customer promises he wont' use it. Brilliant!

So July 3rd came. Now, the sheriff had made it known that, even though fireworks are illegal in Ohio, they would not enforce that during the Independence Day weekend because there would just be too many complaints to handle anyway and fireworks started to go off at sunset. I lay in bed until 2AM when they finally stopped that night. The same happened on the 4th, and the 5th. Only, on those days the neighbors did not knock it off until 4AM.

On Sunday I rose for church with a glorious 3 hours of sleep and therefor tired and very grouchy. But that is O.K. I have lawyers I can blame.

A Case against Motherpie and Applehood

2008-06-17T16:46:00.000-07:00

Bartimeaus is tired and just a bit cranky today. It is not the kids or the job in general that is making me that way, neither am I tempted to shout at small children taking a shortcut across the corner of the church lawn. No, it is the adults that are giving me heartburn today.

How many times have you seen this happen: Someone in a meeting asks "what do you see as the most important issue we need to address in the next 3 to 5 years?" By the way, that question drives me to drink all by itself, but I digress. The answer will invariably be something like this: "Well, we need to do something for the kids. You know, the youth..." Everyone will immediately nod in agreement and plans will be made to make plans so that plans can be made that eventually say that someone not in the room at that time will "work with de youth."

The next time this happens around you I invite you to interrupt very forcefully and shout something like this: "We really, desperately need to work with the 40 and 50 year olds. You know, the ones who are still raising some kids while at the same time worrying about more kids that have left the house and on top of that having to deal with the rapidly advancing decrepitude of their own parents all the while having to manage their own emerging medical problems. Those are the ones who are in the greatest danger of getting tired of being loving. Look: Here they are saving for their kids education while the kids rebel all the while wondering how Mom will afford to continue living in her place. They are the ones who are at the greatest risk of having the phone ring coldly at night announcing disaster with their child or parent. They are the ones who will look into the eyes of two generations of they love and speak hard truths. They are the ones most supportive of pastor splitting their time between visiting their parents in hospital or nursing home and running a youth outing while their own hearts are in turmoil all the while over the state of both those generations. But they won't say. They hope pastor will be there for them 30 years down the line when it is their turn to wither in the nursing home or hospice. For now they struggle to keep from running away from their lives in a middle age rage of failing hormones. They really, really need Jesus NOW. We should have a middle age crazy ministry."

It is my guess that you will be stared at blankly. Then, after some silence, someone will suggest: "Well, we could do something for the kids.."

Southern Ohio Synod Assembly: What then shall we say?

2008-06-04T09:13:00.000-07:00

There are cooking pots with handles to the right and cooking pots with handles to the left and cooing pots without handles, but those are called school buses. There are school bus that drive to the left and there are school bus that drive to the right and there are school bus that go nowhere, but those are called cooking pots. There are cooking pots with handles to the right and ...

Life is fun in a two dimensional universe. The Southern Ohio Synod is probably ill understood as two dimensional. Anyone who looks at the bishop's election and thinks that this is two defined sides fighting it out is probably mistaken.

Let us for example take the race for Synod council Central Ohio Clergy as an indicator for how things split out. The conference nominated two pastors long associated with one side of the troubles, for the position. As I noted in a previous post, bishop Sauer nominated the incumbent for that position from the floor. Where the all of this a matter of two, closely opposing sides, then that race should have been a squeaker. Instead, the incumbent won by a 2 to 1 margin in a runoff ballot.

When we do the math we then discover that up to 120 might be counted on the side of , what can we even call it? “Discontent?” “We want/ need Change?” On top of that, most delegates to synod assemblies do not know any of the players and often vote by age, sex (not and issue in this race), or the charming sense of: “Let's give someone else a chance to be on council.”

The strongly discontented crowd, the crow that wants to wrest control of the synod to themselves, for reasons I am sure they believe just and blessed, is probably smaller than 100, at least in delegates to this assembly.

On a side issue: I am not so sure what the discontent is actually focused on but as Saturday showed, the budget is the battlefield suggesting trust as one issue, though, since this is the ELCA, interpretation and enforcement of sexual conduct policy is likely also at work.

What shall we then make of the 298- 235 vote margin? First: on each side there are bound to be a portion of the vote that was cast in true and honest conviction that, based on what they saw in this or that candidate, their choice just happened to be the best candidate. I salute these people. They seem to have risen above the political nonsense of the day.

Second: A number of votes for Bishop Holloway were bound to be an acknowledgment of his 12 years in office. That is a respectable way to choose in my book. The synod is working well in many places though disagreements on that can readily be found. Many folks are happy with their bishop's assistants and cast a surrogate vote for them by returning their boss to office. Again, a respectable, though not a spiritual choice.

Third: At the same time there seem to have been a number of votes, probably around 50, who wanted change but did not want Wilson and therefore settled into another term for Holloway. An equal amount likewise wanted change but thought they could live with Wilson though McKee was their first choice. Of the first batch we must hurry to state that downright hate for Jim Wilson might not be the issue, they might merely not see him as the leader they hoped to have in the bishop's office. Why change if the change was not a marked improvement after all?

The danger in Southern Ohio is to see all of this as a failed coup attempt. The vote 6 years ago was certainly interpreted that way and the aftermath served well to reinforce that perception. The budget debate we suffered Saturday could likewise give one rise to think along those lines. Coups are not unknown in Ohio; it is said that the venerable Bishop Sauer came to office in just such a manner. Many votes for the office that followed went to 5 ballots. It is therefore not unreasonable to think that we were watching our synodical DNA taking us for a stroll.

Bishop Hanson was quick to point out that this kind of divisive contentiousness is currently ingrained deeply in our nations culture and that our assembly suggests that we let it creep into our life as church as well. He offered help to exorcise it. We pray for him in that project. It is not good for us or the church beyond us to live this way. There are greater things afoot than Holloway or Wilson and I am sure they'd agree.

Southern Ohio Synod Assembly: What did you say?

2008-06-03T10:55:00.000-07:00

In my synod, we observe Sunday as a holy day. Yours truly came off this weekend exhausted enough to check out Monday so this last or at least penultimate post on the assembly comes a bit late. As in the last 5 years we did budget by ordeal on Saturday morning. I am beginning to be amazed by the fact that the same issues emerge every year.

One of these issues is that Upper Arlington Lutheran Church decided some years ago to cease giving to the ELCA but continues to give to the Southern Oho synod. Visit our friend at "Church of the Acronym" (see top right side of this blog for hers) for more information on this.

Many a speaker, again, wondered what they would tell their congregations at stewardship time since this sets such a bad example. One speaker rose to announce that his congregation now gives some of its tithe directly to the ELCA. Others rose to demand detailed accounting of the payroll. Yet others want to see exactly what was given as designated gifts, and they wanted to see it NOW. No motions are ever made, but the work up to some very aggressive motions is always in process.

Be not alarmed, gentle reader, we do this every year. We are used to this by now. I add, quickly, that at my congregation we never once wonder about what Upper Arlington is doing with its money when we make stewardship decisions. We worry more about who this Lord is, whom we serve and who we are and how we will respond to all that even with our money. Somehow, Upper Arlington or any of the other west-side Columbus congregations are doing does never enter the deliberation.

As every year the synod office and council get beaten up and offer very little defense. As every year, the budget passes. I note that this year- the budget ugly feast followed Bishop Hanson's remarks yesterday, that it was time to look beyond division and embrace the fact that we are a diverse synod.

The budget debate led to some strong comments by Hanson in his question and answer session. Some say "he let us have it." If by that one means that he named the demon then, yes, he did. He ended his speech by offering a conflict resolution process. Much of the assembly was positively impressed by this, some were moved to tears One report claims that Jim Wilson, the runner up for bishop, was one of the latter, though I seem to remember him stepping to the mic at budget debate as well.

Clearly Hanson's comments from Friday had been ignored. Much needs doing here in Southern Ohio. Some, I am sure, were taken aback by Hanson's broadside. One must hope they will none the less come to the table because it will not be possible to operate a synod when every assembly ends on the note of angry division. Eventually, the assembly and the synod will be tuned out by many congregations. One must pray that Bishop Hanson will be heeded and can in turn deliver a process that will make a synod of us again.

Southern Ohio Synod: Who is that man at the microphone?

2008-05-31T04:55:00.000-07:00

The assembly really did not conduct any business other than elections today and, boy, did we elect them. May new council members were elected. It turns out that the name that bishop Sauer put into the hat yesterday was actually the incumbent, whose conference had voted to not float his name again. He was re elected on 2nd ballot.

The assembly heard from many guests including the bishop of East Tanzania and the bishop of Kazakhstan. The latter was a pure delight to listen to leading many to ask: "Who is that man?". Speaking through a translator, he non the less managed to have the assembly both in tears and in uncontrolled laughter. He presented Bishop Hanson with a traditional Kazak hat and then joked: "Now we have the ELCA under a Kazak cap." He mentioned that he had intended to give the hat to Holloway but at the time the election was still in progress and Holloway stood at only 46% of the vote. He said he did not want to interfere in our process.

I am impressed with Bishop Hanson. He worked very hard to pull the assembly away from the politics of bishop's elections and see it more as a "call" process. He circulated among both sides freely and spoke to them openly. From what I can see, he shepherded the process all the way to the point that, as I discovered, he seems to have gone to the counting room as the final ballot was tallied and prayerfully attended the work. The election crowd appreciated his presence.

The result of the election was that Holloway was elected to a 3rd term by a vote of 298- 235 over Jim Wilson from Columbus. That is a repeat of 6 years ago. An analysis of all this follows in a later post.

Hanson rose to speak after the applause and asked the privilege to make some observations. He invited the assembly to think how they would interpret the result. Will we see it as a sign of division or diversity. He was most certainly aware that the election in Southern Ohio had been highly politicized and had been done in a divided synod. He stated that he knew of our divisions and fights. For what it is worth, even the Bishop of Kazakhstan felt that it was terribly political and not very spiritual.

Much work will nee to be done to build bridges. I do not believe we understand each other in Southern Ohio and as a result we do not trust each other, not even with the Gospel.

Saturday's business is budget and two mundane resolutions, but as this is Southern Ohio, the budget is bound to be another hot debate.

Of all of this, more later.

Southern Ohio Synod Assembly: The opening day

2008-05-30T04:22:00.000-07:00

It was a day occupied by Welcomes, introduction, presentations, nominations and lectures. The great walkout turned out to be a bust. I counted 4 pastors and 3 lay people who left as the Archbishop of Cincinnati rose to address the assembly. It was almost invisible.

Nominations were made. I note that the former bishop put a name in to oppose his own pastor for synod council, a move that certainly speaks volumes. The nominating ballot for bishop was taken and contained so many names that I quit writing them down after a while. As usual a lot of delegates honored their favorite pastor by giving him a vote on opening ballot. I understand, but that is taking the process lightly.

The previous nominees were also on the list but it looks like at least one of them will not make it to the round of 7. The next vote is not until today so the real news does not start until today.

As is the case often, the vice president of the synod, Tom Taylor, is being the lay vote of reason and common sense. He responded to the Archbishop and, to my ears, his speech had been planned to rebut and chide the walk out participants if necessary. As the walkout was basically a flop a lighter tone prevailed.

We shall see if that continues. The fiscal plan was introduced but will not be considered until Saturday. Already someone wants to amend it but since money was the root of our troubles 6 years ago, that is to be expected. Saturday will show if the amendments are hostile in nature. Many I spoke to assumed that they are.

By tonight a bishop will have been elected but the news will not go out until tomorrow morning unless the process ends before the 5th ballot which I do not see happening

Southern Ohio Synod Assembly: The Dance; a followup

2008-05-28T05:53:00.000-07:00

To make sure we do not make it sound too ominous it serves us well to mention the following: After getting the original invitation to the walkout forwarded, someone else forwarded a response, written by a pastor on the west side of the state. I was impressed how thorough this pastor was in his own research and analysis of the matter and how he managed to write in a very sober and non combative manner. Anyone who thinks that this synod is occupied solely by hysterical forces is mistaken.

The bishop's response to the matter was equally measured and calm. Yes, regrettably, someone else forwarded that to me as well. It is not that I mind reading the bishop's response, on the contrary. On the other hand, I do not need to read everything that anyone says about any and all things.

None of this makes the matter less tense as those who want to act out will probably not be dissuaded by rational argument but then again, minds have been spoken.

Southern Ohio Synod assembly: The Dance has already started!

2008-05-26T16:40:00.000-07:00

I live in the back waters of the Southern Ohio Synod. I knew this when I moved here. The big and weighty things that happen tend to happen in Columbus not where I live. There is some good in this and some bad. The good is that often I do not have to listen to the more "edgy" ideas and proposals.

Yet this last week things caught up with me anyhow. A friend of a friend forwarded an email to me. Believe it or not, a pastor north of Dayton wants me, and every other pastor who's email he could find, to help him embarrass the Archbishop of Cincinnati by walking out on his speech at the Southern Ohio Synod Assembly. The Archbishop, says this colleague, has not done enough to protect children in his diocese and besides, he has pled no contest to the neglect charges filed against him. The colleague has even written to our national bishop and asked him to intervene with our bishop so that the Archbishop might be : "dis- invited."

It is these "fun"ideas that are spared me, usually, by living in backwaters. How does one even evaluate such an idea? Charity forbids me from saying what I really think but I will say this: THE 60'S ARE OVER! ACT LIKE AN ADULT!

Yes, dear reader, our synod is blessed with many an obsolete hippy or hippy wannabe. The colleague in question actually does not look like a hippy and neither is he really old enough to have "been there" in '68 but somehow the "we gotta protest" bug has infected him as well.

Other have speculated that his real intent is to embarrass Bishop Holloway and that might indeed be the case but who can know. At the end of the day, it will be the whole synod that suffers the black eye along with those who have worked to improve Lutheran Catholic relations here and nationwide but when you are an activist who has finally found a cause, I guess you don't care.

Things continue to be curious. Welcome to Ohio.

Southern Ohio Synod Assembly: The Prelude

2008-05-26T06:52:00.000-07:00

This week the Southern Ohio Synod of the ELCA will hold its annual assembly. This year we will hold an election for Bishop again as we do every 6 years. The bishop might be re elected or, maybe not. Who can tell right now.

Some thoughts are in order about our process. As of last year we have a "primary" in place. It is uncharitable but it is a fitting description of what has been going on. Potential candidates have been discovered, their curriculum vitae have been distributed, and then a beauty pageant ensued. It might sound uncharitable but that is what it looked like.

It needs to be noted that the traveling road show of candidates did a) not include the sitting Bishop and b) was not called for by the original resolution that asked for candidates to be discovered. In either case, a system has now been put into place that assures that the office will be seen as a political office that one campaigns for, not a spiritual office that one considers accepting if asked to do so.

To make the matter more complicated, the synod was asked to state what gifts it hopes to find in the next bishop. These gifts emerged not out of a careful process of discernment but out of a vacuum of "what do you want." The result of such a survey is predictable. So, we ended up reading a list of all the gripes and complaints, the type which adults normally agree to respectfully disagree on and of which they will then no longer speak. Many a boss in secular employ has been run out by such a cubical rebellion. Gather all the history of every paper cut that the boss did not say "there, there.." and "kiss, kiss.." to and you have a case against him.

At some point we need to ask: As a pastor would you want to do your work with every pastor in the synod looking at your people saying "I could do that better?" Don't get me wrong, competition s not bad and complacency must be shunned, but if we want "Bishops" we need to treat the office like it was intended by history or, finally change the name to "president." Let us remove the idea that the bishop can be the pastor to the pastors while we are at it. You can be pastoral in your dealings but in the end you hold their life in your hands, at least their professional life. The two Administrator and "Boss" and "pastor are not mixing well in my opinion, but they don't ask me about these things.

Life will be interesting for the next 5 days.

Stay tuned.