Tabitha woke me at 1:30am Monday. She said, “I don’t want you to be alarmed…” Which is absolutely not how anyone wants to be awoken! So I was alarmed.
Tabitha continued, “There’re police outside our house. Yellow tape’s stretched across the street, starting at our fence. And there’s a dead body on the sidewalk at the corner.” Now, I understood her words.
The Star Tribune has details. As far as I know currently, several people in two cars got into an argument, which escalated to a point they felt it appropriate to exchange gunfire in my residential neighborhood. The cars sped away.
Waking up my neighbor, whose house on the corner shelters two smart, pleasant pre-teen girls. One person, who was shot, got away with non-lethal injuries. Another’s corpse lay on the concrete at the stop sign I drive by daily; in front of a home whose front yard is a jungle of wildflowers and perennials, with which the kind owners spend hours every weekend, tending into a billowing mass of verdant beauty. I left for work this morning as firefighters were washing blood off those flowers.
What may surprise you, however, is that I don’t feel suddenly unsafe. Indeed, I stared at that dead body with neighbors for awhile; annoyed, rattled, but also horrified at myself that I wasn’t disgusted. I think I’ve been growing callous to my neighborhood’s violence and crime, which may help me get by. But I don’t like it. It doesn’t feel holy. I told that to a preacher friend, who responded, “I think the balance that we strike between horror and callousness is the balance between holy and human.” Amen.
Another reason I don’t feel more unsafe now is my wife’s a statistics and policy guru, who taught me, years back, that violent crime usually occurs in patterns, i.e. predictably. Thus, when a stranger invaded the home in my neighborhood earlier this month, and killed the owner, the story exemplified what many fear when they hear “North Minneapolis.” But it’s a huge exception to the rule. Most gun violence is very different.
The #1 cause of gun deaths, after all, is suicide, not accidents or murder. And when homicide does occur, it almost always includes several of the following factors- a) domestic violence, b) gun ownership, c) involvement in crime, d) substance abuse, e) other-stuff-Tabitha-remembers-but-I-can’t. In other words, because my wife doesn’t beat me, I don’t own a gun, I’m not a criminal, nor do I hang out with any, or have a cocaine problem, my risks for violent death are way low. And studies show that my higher-crime neighborhood barely factors in.
Which isn’t to say all gun owners put their families in danger (unless they’re storing ammo with their weapons, or not using good safes...), or anyone who smokes pot, or who’s ever been convicted. It’s simply observing that the risks of violence rise when these factors combine with poverty, anger, systemic racism or plain ole sin.
That doesn’t make what happened last night okay or understandable. It just describes my staid reaction. I’m unsatisfied, though, with that reaction. It feels smug. Like I’m unfairly distancing myself from folk whose lives are more threatened. And that’s not okay, for me to say, “Well, as a middle class, law-abiding white guy, I wish those people would get it together!” “Those people” are my neighbors, and more important, God’s children. So whatever causes these enduring patterns of violence shouldn’t be ignored, or blamed on folk whose lives I don’t fully understand, whose values I’ve never been forced to adopt. I know many have preferred “solutions” to ending those patterns- from banning handguns to universal open carry- and I can’t say which I think you should support. I don’t even know which I think are best! But I don’t believe our status quo works. I was horrified enough by that corpse to admit that.
Nor do I believe we followers of the Prince of Peace should accept violence as “the way things are” without a sustained prayer that things won’t be that way forever. May we accept a role in changing things. May that dead man’s family finds healing.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Mission First…
I’m writing from Columbus, Ohio, where people from throughout our denomination have gathered for our bi-annual General Assembly. We do some of the business of being church together in these meetings- discussing and voting on pressing issues of social concern, church structure, receiving reports from General Ministries. But mostly- this is my favorite part- it’s a big family reunion. People I only see frequently on Facebook are here in person for reconnecting, conversating and enjoying the fact that we’re in the same family together, gathered around the Table of Jesus Christ. We are privileged to be Disciples!
I thought you’d be interested, though, in one of those business items, something that was the theme of our General Minister and President’s keynote address. She’s calling the church to engage in a new initiative she’s dubbed Mission First, whose intention is what the name says: As a church, we should put our mission in prime position.
We know that can be hard. Concerns about finances, building maintenance, conflicted relationships among members and more can so often- sometimes too often- become our focus. Indeed, for many churches, it sometimes feels like that’s the only reason they gather together or use their gifts and talents; to solve the problems facing the institution of the church. All that, of course, is critical. Without faithful and occasionally challenging conversations about budgets, we can’t pay our staffs or keep the lights on. Without an effective physical plant, we can offer quality hospitality or use our space for good programs and gatherings. Without caring effectively for one another, and healing relationships that break, we aren’t community, we aren’t the people of God.
That said, Jesus didn’t call us Disciples to pay budgets, build buildings, or know one another solely for that sake alone. We’re called into mission. Or, as Jesus put it, to help God’s Kingdom come on earth. That requires we constantly be thinking about how our church affects the world beyond our walls. That demands we use our creative energies for updating and imagining the work we can do to lift up neighbors, especially “the least of these.” All that and more is mission. And mission is the “why” of church.
Increasingly, our GMP is saying, it should also be the “what” of our churches. What do you imagine your role is in the mission of God’s church? I write it that way intentionally. I don’t just mean, “What do you do to help Plymouth Creek survive and thrive?” God wants more. God wants our identities aligned with God’s identity. God wants our language to emerge from spiritual sources, not simply the culture that surrounds us. You aren’t just people I know. You are my sisters and brothers in faith. Therefore, what you do because you are associated with this church can and should matter to the mission of God.
Do you ever consider that fact before you arrive for worship on Sundays? What about when you’re relaxing at home, wondering what to do with your free time, whether to watch another episode of The Walking Dead or Dancing with the Stars, or to use those moments to brighten the souls of people in need? Imagine what could happen if you and I, and more people in our church, and in our sibling churches around the country, made answering such questions in ways that reflect the glory of our glorious God a major life priority!
That’s what this Mission First initiative, as I understand it, intends to spark. Next year, there will be gatherings in many locales to kick the conversation off. I’m not sure when and where those will occur in our corner of this nation, but I’ll keep you informed. There’s no reason, however, we need to wait. You have been baptized, and therefore included, and therefore called into the Mission of the God of Resurrection in our world, in our midst. The necessary steps to make that call a greater reality only wait for your decision to make them. What will you do? Whom will you serve? How will you make God’s Mission first place in your life next year, tomorrow, today?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
I thought you’d be interested, though, in one of those business items, something that was the theme of our General Minister and President’s keynote address. She’s calling the church to engage in a new initiative she’s dubbed Mission First, whose intention is what the name says: As a church, we should put our mission in prime position.
We know that can be hard. Concerns about finances, building maintenance, conflicted relationships among members and more can so often- sometimes too often- become our focus. Indeed, for many churches, it sometimes feels like that’s the only reason they gather together or use their gifts and talents; to solve the problems facing the institution of the church. All that, of course, is critical. Without faithful and occasionally challenging conversations about budgets, we can’t pay our staffs or keep the lights on. Without an effective physical plant, we can offer quality hospitality or use our space for good programs and gatherings. Without caring effectively for one another, and healing relationships that break, we aren’t community, we aren’t the people of God.
That said, Jesus didn’t call us Disciples to pay budgets, build buildings, or know one another solely for that sake alone. We’re called into mission. Or, as Jesus put it, to help God’s Kingdom come on earth. That requires we constantly be thinking about how our church affects the world beyond our walls. That demands we use our creative energies for updating and imagining the work we can do to lift up neighbors, especially “the least of these.” All that and more is mission. And mission is the “why” of church.
Increasingly, our GMP is saying, it should also be the “what” of our churches. What do you imagine your role is in the mission of God’s church? I write it that way intentionally. I don’t just mean, “What do you do to help Plymouth Creek survive and thrive?” God wants more. God wants our identities aligned with God’s identity. God wants our language to emerge from spiritual sources, not simply the culture that surrounds us. You aren’t just people I know. You are my sisters and brothers in faith. Therefore, what you do because you are associated with this church can and should matter to the mission of God.
Do you ever consider that fact before you arrive for worship on Sundays? What about when you’re relaxing at home, wondering what to do with your free time, whether to watch another episode of The Walking Dead or Dancing with the Stars, or to use those moments to brighten the souls of people in need? Imagine what could happen if you and I, and more people in our church, and in our sibling churches around the country, made answering such questions in ways that reflect the glory of our glorious God a major life priority!
That’s what this Mission First initiative, as I understand it, intends to spark. Next year, there will be gatherings in many locales to kick the conversation off. I’m not sure when and where those will occur in our corner of this nation, but I’ll keep you informed. There’s no reason, however, we need to wait. You have been baptized, and therefore included, and therefore called into the Mission of the God of Resurrection in our world, in our midst. The necessary steps to make that call a greater reality only wait for your decision to make them. What will you do? Whom will you serve? How will you make God’s Mission first place in your life next year, tomorrow, today?
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Friday, July 17, 2015
Knees…
I had a good conversation about prayer last week. Essentially, I remarked, in response to a challenging situation, that I’d be spending some time in prayer about it, since that’s what we religious folk do. We listen to sisters and brothers when they’re hurting, planning for surgery, or otherwise facing something important. And we offer to pray, which we then do, at home or even right there and then!
Thus, at least, is the intention. I’d be the church’s biggest hypocrite if I pretended that every time I’ve uttered that phrase, “You’ll be in my prayers,” I did so immediately, and for the proper number of days. The thing is, sometimes I don’t pray. I forget, or get busy, or focus only on my desires and worries like the selfish sinner we all can be, or I’m angry with God, so I stay off my knees. For whatever reason, occasionally I’ve responded to folk in need with an offer to pray, almost without thinking. And while I certainly intended to do to it, I didn’t. Please forgive me!
I wish that weren’t so. But I’ve never developed a regimented, structured prayer-life. I doubt I will. And I think Jesus is fine with that. God made each of us different. I respect those who pray ten minutes in the morning, twenty at night, fifteen over lunch. They struggle with keeping their prayer-life fresh. I struggle with keeping mine active.
But it matters to me still. So I’ve tried discovering ways to build more moments with God into my routine. Mealtime prayers are typical, now. I’m trying to shape reactions to events into brief opportunities for remembering God. When I see a person hurting- “God, help her.” When the sky is beautiful- “God, well done!” The goal is keeping up communication, not becoming a stranger, which can happen with God when your spiritual instincts are like mine. And the need for that goal became personally obvious last week.
You see, Tabitha and I learned that our foster son is headed home before school starts. That, of course, is great news. The point of fostering is to love and support a child who’s endured tough stuff, until he’s able to return to a more stable home.
I’m also heartbroken, because all that loving and supporting means he got under my skin, in mostly wonderful ways. So I’m going to miss him. And while I know we’ve been building toward that and even preparing for the pain of him going home, it still hurts, as it was always going to. Thus, I’m both proud of myself and a mess!
So I told someone about it last week, and we discussed praying for the situation, and that’s right. Like the old Motown song, whenever we call God or need God, God’ll be there. God’ll be around. But we also remarked that it’s probably good I’ve been trying to be in communication with God recently. That way, when I dropped to my knees, I wouldn’t have to begin by excessively reintroducing myself!
Which put a new frame for me around the topic of daily prayer. Usually, I think about praying regularly as a religious duty, me fulfilling God’s expectations. And, really, my own expectations! Because I don’t consider prayer odious. I love to do it…when I get around to it. But I was struck by this notion that consistent prayer is useful for building us up, preparing us for when the storm clouds arise, keeping our anchor lines maintained, for when we’ll really need to pray. Maybe you find that interesting too. We get closer to God, primarily, because God’s worth it. But so too because, when our time to relay on that unbreakable rock arrives, we’ll know better how to fall.
In any event, that’s what I’ve been thinking about. If you’ve got better insights into prayer, please let me know. Also, will you pray for my family, when you think it? And for our foster son, that his transition home will bring joy and peace, now and for years to come.
It’s been a privilege to be part of his journey. Thank you for helping us along the way.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thus, at least, is the intention. I’d be the church’s biggest hypocrite if I pretended that every time I’ve uttered that phrase, “You’ll be in my prayers,” I did so immediately, and for the proper number of days. The thing is, sometimes I don’t pray. I forget, or get busy, or focus only on my desires and worries like the selfish sinner we all can be, or I’m angry with God, so I stay off my knees. For whatever reason, occasionally I’ve responded to folk in need with an offer to pray, almost without thinking. And while I certainly intended to do to it, I didn’t. Please forgive me!
I wish that weren’t so. But I’ve never developed a regimented, structured prayer-life. I doubt I will. And I think Jesus is fine with that. God made each of us different. I respect those who pray ten minutes in the morning, twenty at night, fifteen over lunch. They struggle with keeping their prayer-life fresh. I struggle with keeping mine active.
But it matters to me still. So I’ve tried discovering ways to build more moments with God into my routine. Mealtime prayers are typical, now. I’m trying to shape reactions to events into brief opportunities for remembering God. When I see a person hurting- “God, help her.” When the sky is beautiful- “God, well done!” The goal is keeping up communication, not becoming a stranger, which can happen with God when your spiritual instincts are like mine. And the need for that goal became personally obvious last week.
You see, Tabitha and I learned that our foster son is headed home before school starts. That, of course, is great news. The point of fostering is to love and support a child who’s endured tough stuff, until he’s able to return to a more stable home.
I’m also heartbroken, because all that loving and supporting means he got under my skin, in mostly wonderful ways. So I’m going to miss him. And while I know we’ve been building toward that and even preparing for the pain of him going home, it still hurts, as it was always going to. Thus, I’m both proud of myself and a mess!
So I told someone about it last week, and we discussed praying for the situation, and that’s right. Like the old Motown song, whenever we call God or need God, God’ll be there. God’ll be around. But we also remarked that it’s probably good I’ve been trying to be in communication with God recently. That way, when I dropped to my knees, I wouldn’t have to begin by excessively reintroducing myself!
Which put a new frame for me around the topic of daily prayer. Usually, I think about praying regularly as a religious duty, me fulfilling God’s expectations. And, really, my own expectations! Because I don’t consider prayer odious. I love to do it…when I get around to it. But I was struck by this notion that consistent prayer is useful for building us up, preparing us for when the storm clouds arise, keeping our anchor lines maintained, for when we’ll really need to pray. Maybe you find that interesting too. We get closer to God, primarily, because God’s worth it. But so too because, when our time to relay on that unbreakable rock arrives, we’ll know better how to fall.
In any event, that’s what I’ve been thinking about. If you’ve got better insights into prayer, please let me know. Also, will you pray for my family, when you think it? And for our foster son, that his transition home will bring joy and peace, now and for years to come.
It’s been a privilege to be part of his journey. Thank you for helping us along the way.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
A rebuttal…
Last week, I shared thoughts on the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. I received an articulate response disagreeing with me. At issue wasn’t a critique of my theology. Rather, the person questioned the process and implications of this new right becoming law.
Here’s the counterargument, in brief: The responder worried about an unelected body inscribing into the Constitution something that wasn’t there and should be decided by state legislatures, and that such non-representative government is dangerous. I hope that summary’s fair! I responded because I thought this concern was valid and important. Here’s an edited version, written- mind you- by Shane the Citizen, not Shane the Pastor:
“I appreciate your thoughtful response! It led me to re-read what I wrote. When I said that I agreed with the Court's decision, I was thinking about, "Should gay men and women have the right to marry," not, "Should the Supreme Court be arbiter of that question." In other words, to me it was a moral, even theological question about marriage. The process of federal policy-making wasn't on my mind. So I'm glad you took it that direction! As a citizen, I'm of two minds…
On the one hand, I share your concern about an unelected body making a clear shift in federal social policy. Other Supreme Court decisions aren't so fundamental. They arbitrate ambiguous legal situations, and I'm glad it exists as a non-partisan entity to do that. Look at countries without our tradition of an Independent Judiciary; corruption in the courts is too real. It's become commonplace on the right and left to assume the Supreme Court is just an extension of our divided politics. Mostly, I think that's wrong, and those justices take their unique role in our system seriously.
Nevertheless, the gay marriage question was about something deeper: who counts as fully "one of us" in American society. Essentially, that's a political question, no legal; decided by elections, not courts. Simply because "my side" won this case doesn't mean I should be naive about the precedent it sets, and think that, when the court changes, my side won't be targeted next. As you say, that's a dangerous form of government, possibly compromising the judiciary itself.
On the other hand, it's not entirely unprecedented. Before the question of "should gay folk be allowed to marry" was debated, the question of "should African-Americans be provided separate, but ostensibly equal schooling" was debated. The resolution to that question- also about who counts as fully "one of us”- was a Supreme Court decision, not legislative act. As I recall, the constitutional basis was the same as in this recent case, the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provision.
Should that have been left to the states? I don't think so, since it was obvious that many states then wouldn’t treat their black and white citizens equally. Maybe that's a constant tension in the Federalist system; different states will take different stances on the same question. And often that's fine, but when the conflict is "who counts as fully American” (i.e. gets to vote, marry, receive citizenship), I'm in favor of federal solutions. Call me a Hamiltonian, or fan of Henry Clay...
Anyway, I do wonder whether the better course was one pursued by earlier generations. When women achieved voting rights that was by constitutional amendment. Same for African American voting rights. In other words, would a national campaign for a marriage equality amendment have been better than a Supreme Court decision? It would've taken longer. It may have also avoided the un-democratic aspect of justices making essentially political determinations.
After all, while the Constitution is our enduring, foundational document, its great genius (or one of them!) was building change into its framework- i.e. the amendment process. That way, it remains alive and accountable to future generations, not dead. If we the people don't like that it doesn't contain a federal marriage definition, well, it allows to write one in! If we don't pursue that route, perhaps we don't care as much about it as we claim? Or maybe we're worried it'll take longer than we want?
Sorry for the over-long response. You got me thinking! I don't think I've resolved anything. But I'm glad for your disagreement. It reminds me that the Founders highest hope was that citizens would be engaged not only in policy-making, but engaged with each other. All sides bringing their best to challenge and refine others' thoughts and aspirations. Too often, nowadays, people don’t engage with, but scream at each other. And constant disrespect for fellow citizens whom you disagree with is a dangerous precedent for government too.”
So there’s my rebuttal. I hope it was, at least, interesting! And please, take the responders’ cue: if you disagree with me (or anyone), engage. Stewing in silent frustration doesn’t make anyone better, amen?! There’s room at the Table for all.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Here’s the counterargument, in brief: The responder worried about an unelected body inscribing into the Constitution something that wasn’t there and should be decided by state legislatures, and that such non-representative government is dangerous. I hope that summary’s fair! I responded because I thought this concern was valid and important. Here’s an edited version, written- mind you- by Shane the Citizen, not Shane the Pastor:
“I appreciate your thoughtful response! It led me to re-read what I wrote. When I said that I agreed with the Court's decision, I was thinking about, "Should gay men and women have the right to marry," not, "Should the Supreme Court be arbiter of that question." In other words, to me it was a moral, even theological question about marriage. The process of federal policy-making wasn't on my mind. So I'm glad you took it that direction! As a citizen, I'm of two minds…
On the one hand, I share your concern about an unelected body making a clear shift in federal social policy. Other Supreme Court decisions aren't so fundamental. They arbitrate ambiguous legal situations, and I'm glad it exists as a non-partisan entity to do that. Look at countries without our tradition of an Independent Judiciary; corruption in the courts is too real. It's become commonplace on the right and left to assume the Supreme Court is just an extension of our divided politics. Mostly, I think that's wrong, and those justices take their unique role in our system seriously.
Nevertheless, the gay marriage question was about something deeper: who counts as fully "one of us" in American society. Essentially, that's a political question, no legal; decided by elections, not courts. Simply because "my side" won this case doesn't mean I should be naive about the precedent it sets, and think that, when the court changes, my side won't be targeted next. As you say, that's a dangerous form of government, possibly compromising the judiciary itself.
On the other hand, it's not entirely unprecedented. Before the question of "should gay folk be allowed to marry" was debated, the question of "should African-Americans be provided separate, but ostensibly equal schooling" was debated. The resolution to that question- also about who counts as fully "one of us”- was a Supreme Court decision, not legislative act. As I recall, the constitutional basis was the same as in this recent case, the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provision.
Should that have been left to the states? I don't think so, since it was obvious that many states then wouldn’t treat their black and white citizens equally. Maybe that's a constant tension in the Federalist system; different states will take different stances on the same question. And often that's fine, but when the conflict is "who counts as fully American” (i.e. gets to vote, marry, receive citizenship), I'm in favor of federal solutions. Call me a Hamiltonian, or fan of Henry Clay...
Anyway, I do wonder whether the better course was one pursued by earlier generations. When women achieved voting rights that was by constitutional amendment. Same for African American voting rights. In other words, would a national campaign for a marriage equality amendment have been better than a Supreme Court decision? It would've taken longer. It may have also avoided the un-democratic aspect of justices making essentially political determinations.
After all, while the Constitution is our enduring, foundational document, its great genius (or one of them!) was building change into its framework- i.e. the amendment process. That way, it remains alive and accountable to future generations, not dead. If we the people don't like that it doesn't contain a federal marriage definition, well, it allows to write one in! If we don't pursue that route, perhaps we don't care as much about it as we claim? Or maybe we're worried it'll take longer than we want?
Sorry for the over-long response. You got me thinking! I don't think I've resolved anything. But I'm glad for your disagreement. It reminds me that the Founders highest hope was that citizens would be engaged not only in policy-making, but engaged with each other. All sides bringing their best to challenge and refine others' thoughts and aspirations. Too often, nowadays, people don’t engage with, but scream at each other. And constant disrespect for fellow citizens whom you disagree with is a dangerous precedent for government too.”
So there’s my rebuttal. I hope it was, at least, interesting! And please, take the responders’ cue: if you disagree with me (or anyone), engage. Stewing in silent frustration doesn’t make anyone better, amen?! There’s room at the Table for all.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Tradition transitioning…
A phrase used by many proponents of last week’s Supreme Court decision opening marriage to same-gendered couples was Love Wins. I have mixed feelings about that. Let me explain.
Firstly, you already know I’m one of those proponents. Yet I don’t consider most opponents unloving people. Some, unfortunately, are motivated by bigotry and hate, though not the majority, I hope. Certainly many I know who don’t share my open and affirming values don’t intend un-loving attitudes toward LGBTQ neighbors. They simply struggle to reconcile their sincere faith with gay marriage. Fair enough. In other words, I consider them loving Christians. Who I disagree with. And would like to persuade otherwise. Nevertheless, I don’t want to speak like they’re on Love’s losing side. They’re not.
But here’s a deeper reason I question that phrase. Many claim this decision redefined marriage. I suppose that’s legally true. But consider an argument I read several years ago: “Traditional” marriage was redefined before the gay rights movement even began. Marriage traditions, of course, have been evolving since civilization emerged (remember Abraham’s several wives?!). But the most recent version of “traditional” marriage began changing as women’s roles in culture expanded
After all, the one-man/one-woman marriage definition traditionally assumed men earned paychecks while women organized homes. Alternative economic activities were often pursued (Tupperware parties!!!), but that was the basic financial arrangement. Thus, a future spouse’s ability to effectively play his/her role was paramount. And since extended family were often affected, parents were heavily involved in the wife/husband selection process.
Put simply: It used to be that other things were more important to marriage than love.
Then around the late 1800s, women began volunteering and working more outside the home, received voting rights, better education, increased prestige and earning power. Suddenly, the “traditional” economic foundation of marriage shifted. Relationship qualities like tenderness, respect and mutual admiration grew in importance, compared with a woman’s cooking, cleaning and childrearing. Love became the quality valued most. Not that every marriage expectation changed for everyone. Nor were “traditional” marriages always unloving. But a real, and transformative, shift occurred in Marriage, The Institution.
Fast forward to when LGBTQ citizens began demanding society no longer consider them immoral, sick or deranged, but as people, proudly beautiful as anyone. It was natural to ask, “Why not us,” since straight couples were marrying based on love. Why not, indeed! Marriage, The Institution had changed. Rigid male/female divisions of labor were no longer assumed. Love won already. What mattered now was whose love gets counted as “proper.” To me, love is love and, therefore, divine.
But if that argument’s right – that traditional marriage changed decades ago and we’re now simply playing catching up – are we losing something in this transition? Possibly. But I don’t think the critical threat is either same-gender relationships or changed gender roles. Rather, I worry about our culture’s shallow understanding of love.
I mean, if we’re now basing one of THE fundamental relationships- marriage- on love, we’d better appreciate love in its fullness, right?! We’d best not consistently mistake lust or convenience for love. We mustn’t sentimentalize or overly romanticize it. Have you heard how large the pornography industry has grown? Sickeningly so. Instead, we need to celebrate that real “love is patient…kind…not boastful…arrogant…rude…It believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends (1 Corinthians 13).” If that’s our standard for marriage, then by God, let’s get as many involved as have the desire! But if we’re defined by fleeting infatuations of Hollywood-style “love”, then we’ve got bigger concerns than who’s with whom at the altar.
Ultimately, though, this speaks to why I’m most excited about last week’s decision. By seeking inclusion in Marriage, The Institution, the LGBTQ community did society a favor. We’ve hopefully reconsidered why we value marriage, what creates an effective marriage, how love’s greatest aim is lifelong commitment. If so, that’s wonderful! Which isn’t to say we should now resurrect prohibitions to divorce. Marriage’s evolution into a less oppressive institution remains a great blessing. I simply believe that we’re all better if more people have the chance to love better.
In other words, love didn’t win. We all did.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Firstly, you already know I’m one of those proponents. Yet I don’t consider most opponents unloving people. Some, unfortunately, are motivated by bigotry and hate, though not the majority, I hope. Certainly many I know who don’t share my open and affirming values don’t intend un-loving attitudes toward LGBTQ neighbors. They simply struggle to reconcile their sincere faith with gay marriage. Fair enough. In other words, I consider them loving Christians. Who I disagree with. And would like to persuade otherwise. Nevertheless, I don’t want to speak like they’re on Love’s losing side. They’re not.
But here’s a deeper reason I question that phrase. Many claim this decision redefined marriage. I suppose that’s legally true. But consider an argument I read several years ago: “Traditional” marriage was redefined before the gay rights movement even began. Marriage traditions, of course, have been evolving since civilization emerged (remember Abraham’s several wives?!). But the most recent version of “traditional” marriage began changing as women’s roles in culture expanded
After all, the one-man/one-woman marriage definition traditionally assumed men earned paychecks while women organized homes. Alternative economic activities were often pursued (Tupperware parties!!!), but that was the basic financial arrangement. Thus, a future spouse’s ability to effectively play his/her role was paramount. And since extended family were often affected, parents were heavily involved in the wife/husband selection process.
Put simply: It used to be that other things were more important to marriage than love.
Then around the late 1800s, women began volunteering and working more outside the home, received voting rights, better education, increased prestige and earning power. Suddenly, the “traditional” economic foundation of marriage shifted. Relationship qualities like tenderness, respect and mutual admiration grew in importance, compared with a woman’s cooking, cleaning and childrearing. Love became the quality valued most. Not that every marriage expectation changed for everyone. Nor were “traditional” marriages always unloving. But a real, and transformative, shift occurred in Marriage, The Institution.
Fast forward to when LGBTQ citizens began demanding society no longer consider them immoral, sick or deranged, but as people, proudly beautiful as anyone. It was natural to ask, “Why not us,” since straight couples were marrying based on love. Why not, indeed! Marriage, The Institution had changed. Rigid male/female divisions of labor were no longer assumed. Love won already. What mattered now was whose love gets counted as “proper.” To me, love is love and, therefore, divine.
But if that argument’s right – that traditional marriage changed decades ago and we’re now simply playing catching up – are we losing something in this transition? Possibly. But I don’t think the critical threat is either same-gender relationships or changed gender roles. Rather, I worry about our culture’s shallow understanding of love.
I mean, if we’re now basing one of THE fundamental relationships- marriage- on love, we’d better appreciate love in its fullness, right?! We’d best not consistently mistake lust or convenience for love. We mustn’t sentimentalize or overly romanticize it. Have you heard how large the pornography industry has grown? Sickeningly so. Instead, we need to celebrate that real “love is patient…kind…not boastful…arrogant…rude…It believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends (1 Corinthians 13).” If that’s our standard for marriage, then by God, let’s get as many involved as have the desire! But if we’re defined by fleeting infatuations of Hollywood-style “love”, then we’ve got bigger concerns than who’s with whom at the altar.
Ultimately, though, this speaks to why I’m most excited about last week’s decision. By seeking inclusion in Marriage, The Institution, the LGBTQ community did society a favor. We’ve hopefully reconsidered why we value marriage, what creates an effective marriage, how love’s greatest aim is lifelong commitment. If so, that’s wonderful! Which isn’t to say we should now resurrect prohibitions to divorce. Marriage’s evolution into a less oppressive institution remains a great blessing. I simply believe that we’re all better if more people have the chance to love better.
In other words, love didn’t win. We all did.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Sacred space…
I spent Wednesday morning redesigning our worship space. I’m hoping it looks good! It’ll certainly look different. I’ve changed our sanctuary design before, but never so drastically.
Let me explain. You’ll recall that we’re anticipating a remodel and new construction this summer. Some of the rooms whose walls will be demolished or carpet replaced host child care center kids. Specifically, infants in cribs and toddlers just learning to wobble on their own two feet. Those precious little ones need somewhere to go when the work gets going!
Originally, we hoped to keep them in place while we built new classrooms, then move them into those spaces while we renovated old spaces. But plans, as a rule, change, and ours have too. Particularly, due to conversations with the city and delays in funding, we’ve had to flip-flop so the remodel happens before new rooms are built.
That means the babies and wobblers needed a plan B. So with Board approval, we offered use of our sanctuary as temporary classroom space. The littlest ones will go in the Fellowship Hall, older ones in our worship space. Thankfully, our church’s builders designed an adaptable sanctuary, such that our chairs, instruments and most everything else can move as the needs of our congregation evolve.
And evolve they’re doing, amen?! If you’ve been around for some time, though, you know another thing is true: our chairs, however lovely, are fragile. Specifically, the front legs have a tendency to break when moved around a lot, and the spacers that hold our hymnals have frequently required mending. Hence a question I spoke with folk about after church on Father’s Day: How can we both accommodate the kids’ needs during construction while not ruining our chairs along the way?
You see, the move had already begun as of that Sunday. State child care licensors needed to see the center set up ASAP, to approve it or recommend changes. Thus, we opened our sanctuary for kids on the 15th. They got approval (wahoo!), then tore down for worship on the 21st, meaning I spent Saturday afternoon moving chairs and getting things prepped. I didn’t relish the thought of exerting such energy weekly, particularly if it meant hurting our worship furniture. But if needed, we’ll do it.
To which, someone suggested an interesting idea: What if we avoided this weekly set-up-and-tear-down game, by simply allowing the center to keep their stuff in place over the weekends, while we worked around it? In other words, they challenged me to reimagine a more compact worship space that didn’t use the entire sanctuary. Several chairs would need removing. Worshippers would be closer together than typical. The orientation of table and pulpit would shift. But the benefit would be that we’d protect our stuff and energy, while giving the center a break from their weekly rearranging work. That’ll reserve energy for building together, such that come Fall, we’ll never have to play that set-up-and-tear-down game again!
I’ll be honest. I was skeptical about that suggestion, but I could imagine how, if it worked, it could be good for everyone. So I took a stab at figuring something out, which we’ll worship in together soon enough. We’ll then see whether it’s cozy or cramped, intimate or just too hot for summer! I don’t know if we’ll think the sanctuary’s (temporary!) multipurpose look will seem cluttered and ugly, or a welcome statement of our burgeoning partnership and generous hospitality.
I will say that I enjoy the symbolism of our people being made to sit closer together. After all, for this project to work, it’ll take all of us, together, working and dreaming as one. Just like we did when the sacred spaces we worshipped in during our decade without a building in the 80s were a YMCA, hotel ballroom, Plymouth Playhouse. In other words, while this set up will feel new to those of us who’ve never known Plymouth Creek without this sanctuary, it won’t be unprecedented. Just a group of Christians figuring out the best way they can to honor God, and follow Christ’s lead.
That, I believe, is worth changing things up for!
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Let me explain. You’ll recall that we’re anticipating a remodel and new construction this summer. Some of the rooms whose walls will be demolished or carpet replaced host child care center kids. Specifically, infants in cribs and toddlers just learning to wobble on their own two feet. Those precious little ones need somewhere to go when the work gets going!
Originally, we hoped to keep them in place while we built new classrooms, then move them into those spaces while we renovated old spaces. But plans, as a rule, change, and ours have too. Particularly, due to conversations with the city and delays in funding, we’ve had to flip-flop so the remodel happens before new rooms are built.
That means the babies and wobblers needed a plan B. So with Board approval, we offered use of our sanctuary as temporary classroom space. The littlest ones will go in the Fellowship Hall, older ones in our worship space. Thankfully, our church’s builders designed an adaptable sanctuary, such that our chairs, instruments and most everything else can move as the needs of our congregation evolve.
And evolve they’re doing, amen?! If you’ve been around for some time, though, you know another thing is true: our chairs, however lovely, are fragile. Specifically, the front legs have a tendency to break when moved around a lot, and the spacers that hold our hymnals have frequently required mending. Hence a question I spoke with folk about after church on Father’s Day: How can we both accommodate the kids’ needs during construction while not ruining our chairs along the way?
You see, the move had already begun as of that Sunday. State child care licensors needed to see the center set up ASAP, to approve it or recommend changes. Thus, we opened our sanctuary for kids on the 15th. They got approval (wahoo!), then tore down for worship on the 21st, meaning I spent Saturday afternoon moving chairs and getting things prepped. I didn’t relish the thought of exerting such energy weekly, particularly if it meant hurting our worship furniture. But if needed, we’ll do it.
To which, someone suggested an interesting idea: What if we avoided this weekly set-up-and-tear-down game, by simply allowing the center to keep their stuff in place over the weekends, while we worked around it? In other words, they challenged me to reimagine a more compact worship space that didn’t use the entire sanctuary. Several chairs would need removing. Worshippers would be closer together than typical. The orientation of table and pulpit would shift. But the benefit would be that we’d protect our stuff and energy, while giving the center a break from their weekly rearranging work. That’ll reserve energy for building together, such that come Fall, we’ll never have to play that set-up-and-tear-down game again!
I’ll be honest. I was skeptical about that suggestion, but I could imagine how, if it worked, it could be good for everyone. So I took a stab at figuring something out, which we’ll worship in together soon enough. We’ll then see whether it’s cozy or cramped, intimate or just too hot for summer! I don’t know if we’ll think the sanctuary’s (temporary!) multipurpose look will seem cluttered and ugly, or a welcome statement of our burgeoning partnership and generous hospitality.
I will say that I enjoy the symbolism of our people being made to sit closer together. After all, for this project to work, it’ll take all of us, together, working and dreaming as one. Just like we did when the sacred spaces we worshipped in during our decade without a building in the 80s were a YMCA, hotel ballroom, Plymouth Playhouse. In other words, while this set up will feel new to those of us who’ve never known Plymouth Creek without this sanctuary, it won’t be unprecedented. Just a group of Christians figuring out the best way they can to honor God, and follow Christ’s lead.
That, I believe, is worth changing things up for!
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Friday, June 19, 2015
New beginnings...
I opened my computer Monday to the shock of news I’d hoped to hear for years. Archbishop Nienstedt, leader of the Catholic archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul, had resigned from his position.
On some important level, this event doesn’t concern us Protestants. Nor can I claim well-studied knowledge about the man and his leadership, simply impressions and vignettes that built over time. Besides, my six year-old reminds me often, “Shane, when someone gets hurt, you’re never supposed to laugh.” And that’s right. Christians shouldn’t gloat, ever. We’re called to love mercy.
Nevertheless, I think it’s very good he’s gone. This resignation provides an opening for renewal in that church and the broader religious community. Perhaps a kinder, more compassionate and open Christianity will emerge in the public consciousness, one long held at bay.
Let explain why I say that. My hairstylist grew up Catholic. He’s gay. His parents were highly involved in their small Catholic church for decades. Until 2012, when the archdiocese funded an aggressive campaign to write marriage restrictions into our state constitution. At the Archbishop’s insistence, priests were asked to distribute anti-LGBTQ messages and materials, use their religious authority to sway votes. My hairstylist’s parents decided they supported their son more than Archbishop Nienstedt’s inflexible ideology. So they left the church home they’d long loved, which hurt their souls. But they loved their son more. I told him I found that act spiritually courageous, that it rang of the Gospel to me.
Many more families wrestled with such painful division due to the archbishop’s desire to deny LGBTQ citizens equal rights. I, obviously, don’t agree with his theology. But that’s not the issue. I respect diverse beliefs. But this went beyond theology for me. The situation felt like a powerful man using Jesus-speak to actively contribute to other people’s marginalization, without shame or caring. I find that troubling.
Besides, I heard colleagues say, “Shane, this isn’t why I became a priest. I wanted to show mercy to the poor, help the hurting, guide the lost. I didn’t want to fight culture wars. But that’s what my leadership demands.” May these faithful servants now breathe fresh, freeing air.
Finally, while writing, I just overheard child care kids outside my office, waiting for the bathroom. A boy just said, “Hey, don’t touch my body!” It was two three year-olds innocently wiggling for wall position. But those words evoked the issue that’s haunted our Catholic sisters and brothers for years. And, more importantly, has haunted the lives of too many victims of clergy assault. Not only the abuse, the unconscionable cover-ups too.
I lead our region’s clergy ethics investigation committee. So I’ve pondered what I would do if someone accused a clergyperson I know and respect of crimes against children. My answer: I’d cringe at the thought, pray it’s untrue, and immediately contact police. The protection of innocent victims is more important protecting my church or colleagues. Under this archbishop’s watch, though, clergy were given more special treatment than victims, some of whom were sidelined or silenced. Whatever after-the-fact child protection procedures were instituted (and I’m told they were good), justice demands accountability.
So a new beginning looms. I’m glad for our Catholic neighbors. And for us. After all, if you look past culture warriors, and encounter Catholic teachings and ministry regarding serving the poor, welcoming the stranger, advocating peace, they do it as well as-often better than!- most denominations. I think this leader stymied local efforts to unleash that full goodness on our community. That’s unfortunate, because given his church’s size and prestige, a more robust Christian witness was possible. We could’ve helped more people, and lost less worshipers to disgust.
The new archbishop, of course, won’t necessarily embody the merciful, compassionate leadership my priest friends long for, that I’d love to see and partner with. But I trust the Holy Spirit to whisper words of hope and grace always. May the Pope listen for that guidance as he decides who leads our neighbor Catholics next.
And let us pray for the former archbishop, grateful he stepped down, finally. May he find a renewed focus on care and devotion, rather than division or fear.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
On some important level, this event doesn’t concern us Protestants. Nor can I claim well-studied knowledge about the man and his leadership, simply impressions and vignettes that built over time. Besides, my six year-old reminds me often, “Shane, when someone gets hurt, you’re never supposed to laugh.” And that’s right. Christians shouldn’t gloat, ever. We’re called to love mercy.
Nevertheless, I think it’s very good he’s gone. This resignation provides an opening for renewal in that church and the broader religious community. Perhaps a kinder, more compassionate and open Christianity will emerge in the public consciousness, one long held at bay.
Let explain why I say that. My hairstylist grew up Catholic. He’s gay. His parents were highly involved in their small Catholic church for decades. Until 2012, when the archdiocese funded an aggressive campaign to write marriage restrictions into our state constitution. At the Archbishop’s insistence, priests were asked to distribute anti-LGBTQ messages and materials, use their religious authority to sway votes. My hairstylist’s parents decided they supported their son more than Archbishop Nienstedt’s inflexible ideology. So they left the church home they’d long loved, which hurt their souls. But they loved their son more. I told him I found that act spiritually courageous, that it rang of the Gospel to me.
Many more families wrestled with such painful division due to the archbishop’s desire to deny LGBTQ citizens equal rights. I, obviously, don’t agree with his theology. But that’s not the issue. I respect diverse beliefs. But this went beyond theology for me. The situation felt like a powerful man using Jesus-speak to actively contribute to other people’s marginalization, without shame or caring. I find that troubling.
Besides, I heard colleagues say, “Shane, this isn’t why I became a priest. I wanted to show mercy to the poor, help the hurting, guide the lost. I didn’t want to fight culture wars. But that’s what my leadership demands.” May these faithful servants now breathe fresh, freeing air.
Finally, while writing, I just overheard child care kids outside my office, waiting for the bathroom. A boy just said, “Hey, don’t touch my body!” It was two three year-olds innocently wiggling for wall position. But those words evoked the issue that’s haunted our Catholic sisters and brothers for years. And, more importantly, has haunted the lives of too many victims of clergy assault. Not only the abuse, the unconscionable cover-ups too.
I lead our region’s clergy ethics investigation committee. So I’ve pondered what I would do if someone accused a clergyperson I know and respect of crimes against children. My answer: I’d cringe at the thought, pray it’s untrue, and immediately contact police. The protection of innocent victims is more important protecting my church or colleagues. Under this archbishop’s watch, though, clergy were given more special treatment than victims, some of whom were sidelined or silenced. Whatever after-the-fact child protection procedures were instituted (and I’m told they were good), justice demands accountability.
So a new beginning looms. I’m glad for our Catholic neighbors. And for us. After all, if you look past culture warriors, and encounter Catholic teachings and ministry regarding serving the poor, welcoming the stranger, advocating peace, they do it as well as-often better than!- most denominations. I think this leader stymied local efforts to unleash that full goodness on our community. That’s unfortunate, because given his church’s size and prestige, a more robust Christian witness was possible. We could’ve helped more people, and lost less worshipers to disgust.
The new archbishop, of course, won’t necessarily embody the merciful, compassionate leadership my priest friends long for, that I’d love to see and partner with. But I trust the Holy Spirit to whisper words of hope and grace always. May the Pope listen for that guidance as he decides who leads our neighbor Catholics next.
And let us pray for the former archbishop, grateful he stepped down, finally. May he find a renewed focus on care and devotion, rather than division or fear.
Grace and Peace,
Shane
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)