The holy temple of hardware

One of the Washington Post reporters who covered the fire that destroyed Frager's Hardware store on Capitol Hill last night is Michelle Boorstein.

Michelle Boorstein

I immediately recognized her name because she is the religion reporter for the Post. How appropriate, I thought, sending the religion reporter to cover the fire at Frager's. 

For those of us who live in the weird old houses of Capitol Hill, Frager's was a temple where we went at least weekly to ask the priest what the mysterious thing was that just broke under the sink and what sin we committed to cause it to break. The priest would search deeply within the secret and hidden places within the temple, produce a mysterious replacement and and sent us home with instructions on what we had to do with it to live a better and happier life. We paid our tithe at the counter.We paid gladly.

It turns out that Michelle Boorstein helped cover the story because she happens to live in the neighborhood as she explains in this poignant personal essay.

Still, it was totally fitting to have the religion reporter cover the fire at Frager's. 

Prayers for Rev. Heiss and Bishop Webb

Rev. Stephen Heiss

The Rev. Stephen Heiss,  pastor of Tabernacle United Methodist Church in Binghamton, N.Y., has written an open letter to his bishop saying that he has officiated at several weddings for same-gender couples over the past several years -- including his daughter's wedding to her partner.

The letter is posted on the Reconciling Ministries Network blog here.

The Upper New York Conference has a brand new bishop just elected to be a bishop last year. I knew Bishop Mark Webb as an outstanding pastor when he was a much younger person years ago in another conference. I respected him for his commitment to reach people and his caring, balanced ministry.

It is hard to see brand new bishops who hardly have their feet on the ground yet having to deal with what they surely must feel to be a tension between their oath to uphold the Book of Discipline and a basic human rights issue like marriage.

Bishop Mark Webb

New bishops are just learning to exercise the authority of their office, so I suspect some of them can sometimes be a bit defensive when they sense their authority challenged.  I remember Bishop Webb as an unusually open, non-defensive pastor.

We are in the midst of a season of rethinking prejudices that are centuries old, that may have been assumed (like slavery and patriarchy) by some of the biblical writers, and that are deeply engraved in the psyches of some United Methodists.

So we should keep both Pastor Heiss and Bishop Webb in our prayers.

Stephen Heiss has taken a courageous and honorable position. Bishops need to remember that this is what they signed up for -- being a bishop in a time when our society is experiencing dramatic change in understanding issues of sexual identity. None of us, including bishops, get to pick the issues of the age in which we serve.

I  remember hearing someone say once that they wished they had lived in the time of the movement to abolish slavery when the issue was so clearly one of right and wrong and the biblical evidence was so clear. The issue of marriage equality is equally one of right and wrong and the Bible says little if anything opposing same-gender love as compared to many passages that seem to support slavery, but it may take a few decades for everyone to see this clearly.

We can not live in any other era. We need to live through the movement of the Spirit in our time. We cannot pick our issues. We can only choose whether we will stand with old understandings and the old law or with the grace of God trying to break through.

I still believe that rules in the Book of Discipline that discriminate against LGBTQ persons violate the United Methodist constitution, as the late W. Astor Kirk argued, if only there were a way to test it. 

May God guide both Pastor Heiss and Bishop Webb. 

Only men are spiritual leaders? What century is this?

 I got this announcement in an email this morning. I am stunned. I have removed the names of the sponsors, location, and speakers because I don't want to get personal. 

But, OMG, what does it mean when the spiritual leaders of this city are seen as only males? What century is this?

 City Father's Conference

A unique opportunity will take place in DC on June 6 (Thurs), 9am-4pm.  The vision for this conference is simple...sit at the feet of our city's spiritual fathers and glean from their wisdom.  Come together in a spirit of unity and honor those who have gone before.  Clergy, ministry leaders, and staff welcome.  This conference is not about the latest or the greatest...its about learning from those who have been faithful and fruitful for the long-haul. ...

Celebrating the Life of Bob Edgar

See also this article about Bob by RNS.

Remember to proofread

Hat-tip to Vernon Schmid

The year before retirement ... advice, please

I shared with the Foundry congregation yesterday my decision to retire next year -- July, 2014. You can find my letter to the congregation at www.foundryumc.org.

However, I still have 14 months to be here at Foundry. I am deliberating on what goals I want to suggest to our board for my work during the next year.

Reaching our capital campaign financial goal during the next year is essential. The new pastor deserves a usable, clean, efficient property to organize ministry in, as does the Foundry    congregation and the people of the city we serve.

I want to use the next year to leave Foundry energized and vital and open to new bold ministry initiatives.

So I am brooding on what work to focus on with my remaining time and energy.

Foundry has been a thrill to serve. This is an amazing congregation. Every Sunday the Foundry pews are full of commitment, theological thoughtfulness, curiosity, openness, and love .

One of the reasons that I announced my retirement 14 months in advance is so that Bishop Marcus Matthews and Foundry's board will have enough time to identify Foundry's next senior pastor and we  can organize the transition intentionally.

Advice, please, especially from retired pastors. What did you focus your energies on during your last year before retirement? In retrospect, what do you wish you had focused  on more during that last year? What would you have done less of?

IRD attacks Pentecostal scholar because they have "little doubt" as to his views on homosexuality

The Institute for Democracy newsletter logo

Being here in Washington, DC, I sometimes cross paths with staff members of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a far right advocacy group within mainline Christianity.  I have occasionally gone out of my way to ask them their opinion about certain issues because I believe they do represent the views of some people within our mainline denominations. 

I like the IRD people I have met. I assume that some of their ideas are partially true just as I assume some of my ideas are partially wrong (if I only knew which parts!) and that conversation between people who disagree is a good thing. 

Because I like the people I know over at the IRD offices, it pains me when they try to hurt people. It doesn't happen all the time but occasionally they target someone and try to damage or even destroy her or his career. 

Right now they are trying to hurt a Pentecostal scholar who has publicly stated that Pentecostals are not of one mind on the issue of homosexuality.  They are doing this, they say, because they have "little doubt" which side of the debate the scholar comes down on (the accepting side) even though they have produced no direct quotes of him saying this.

Understand that they are not just disagreeing with him about his alleged opinion. They are going after his ordination in the Assemblies of God church and they are trying to get him fired as the co-director of Evangelicals for Social Action, a position he is scheduled to assume in June.

Paul Alexander

The scholar is Paul Alexander, an ordained Assemblies of God pastor, who teaches at Palmer Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and who recently served a term as president of the Society of Pentecostal Studies (SPS). 

Jeff Walton

Jeff Walton, an IRD staffer, attended the annual meeting of the SPS. In his report of a speech Alexander gave at the event he quotes Alexander as saying: 

Some Pentecostal churches believe that homosexuality is a sin and oppose civil and human rights for LGBTIQ people. And some do not. Some members of SPS think homosexuality is a sin and some members of SPS think homosexuality is not a sin and want to work against heteronormativity and heterosexism.

This is presented as a direct quote from Alexander's speech. No problem.

But then Walton says: 

The SPS president left little doubt that he was among those in the latter category, detouring into a scolding about how an SPS member who presented a controversial paper on sexuality at the 2012 annual meeting experienced difficulties with her denominational officials after her presentation was brought to their attention.

Walton is able to produce no actual evidence in his report about Alexander's own position on homosexuality. He just says he has "little doubt" that anyone who acknowledges Pentecostals are not of one mind and who supports the freedom of a scholar to express an unpopular opinion about sexuality must be in favor of accepting gay people.    

As a result of Walton's article,  the head of the Assemblies of God church has issued a statement promising to investigate Alexander, saying: "I trust that there will never be a day in the Assemblies of God when a credentialed minister can continue to hold credentials and support any form of sexual immorality."

Mark Tooley

Mark Tooley, head of the IRD, has issued a press release calling for Alexander to be fired by the Evangelicals for Social Action because of his "flexibility on Christian sexual teachings" and his tendency to sound like a liberation theologian. 

However, at the same time the SPS is challenging the accuracy of Walton's report. Lois E. Olena, executive director of the  SPS told The Christian Post that Walton's report misstated the facts concerning  Alexander's speech.  

Walton replied with a statement that said, in part:   

  

My coverage of Alexander’s address to the society is based upon his orally delivered address, which I was personally present for. During this address, Alexander at times expanded upon and varied from his prepared statement. I stand behind the accuracy of the quotes.

No one seems to be noticing that Walton never actually quoted Alexander as saying that he was in favor of the acceptance of LGBTQ people in the first place. Walton just said it was of "little doubt" to him. Walton's accusation was all innuendo.

I suspect Alexander may believe that LGBTQ people ought to be accepted by the church. He seems to me to be an intelligent person. Nonetheless, each of us should be able to decide how much of our thinking we want to reveal at any particular point. If we acknowledge that opinions about homosexuality in our institutions are divided and support free speech about the topic, a reporter should not be permitted to announce  our personal opinion about homosexuality because he has "little doubt" what it is based on those statements. 

When I've had personal conversations with  IRD staff, they have not seemed to be mean people. I am confused about where these periodic attacks trying to destroy people come from (in this case not even based on fact but something IRD just felt to be of "little doubt"). 

These attacks are more than expressions of disagreement. They are attempts to hurt and punish people for their viewpoints or even for what IRD assumes their viewpoint might be.

Something about this doesn't make sense. What is it that sets off such unprincipled ruthlessness in what seem to be otherwise rational people?                 

No more hurting people ...

  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9999346/Boston-Marathon-bombing-Martin-Richards-family-ripped-apart-by-terror-attack.html

                    No more hurting people. Peace.

Is that not the very essence of all religious  traditions?

Are we not here to alleviate suffering?

The Prophet Muhammad taught us:  ”The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever.”

This is our response, as one human community: the suffering of others is our own suffering.

Our suffering is connected because our humanity is shared.
We are caught up in this woven pattern of humanity together.

If you can, bring joy and love to humanity.

If you cannot—and you can—at least cause no harm.

From Omid Safi's blog What Would Muhammad Do?  

Omid Safi is Professor of Islamic Studies at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Jesus and us doofuses

Find Rick Altergott's collected Doofus work at http://www.amazon.com/Doofus-Omnibus-Rick-Altergott/dp/156097494X

Between Easter and Pentecost this year at Foundry we are focusing on one Easter account -- the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24: 13-35.

I am thinking right now about Luke 24: 25. The disciples on the road to Emmaus have been explaining to the stranger (who is really Jesus) the events of the past week and how they were disappointed that Jesus had not established a kingdom of justice and peace in Israel the way they had expected.  

Verse 25 says: "Then he [the resurrected Jesus] said to them, 'Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!'"

Does that seem sort of harsh to you? 

Jesus did have the capacity to say things to his disciples (not to mention the Pharisees) that seem  pretty rough. He once called Peter Satan which doesn't seem very polite at all! (Matt. 16:23) 

Of course we don't know Jesus' tone of voice. 

I had a friend who sometimes --when I said something particularly stupid-- would call me Lord Duffus. (Although maybe he was saying Lord Doofus.) I always felt he said it in a loving tone of voice, although if you just read the dialogue it might sound harsh. 

My assumption is that we, his disciples, miss Jesus' point pretty often -- still today.

Two interesting things about this verse: 

1) The disciples were willing to listen to a stranger who, in effect, called them doofuses, and

2) Jesus called them not only foolish but slow of heart. 

I wonder what it means to be slow of heart? It is an interesting term.

Any ideas? 

    

A question I am thinking about this week

From the Gospel of  Luke's road to Emmaus story:

"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, but their eyes were kept from recognizing him" (Luke 24:15-16)

Why did they not recognize Jesus?

We it because Jesus kept them from recognizing him?

If so, why? Why would Jesus not want them to know who he was?

Or was it because something inside of themselves kept them from recognizing him?

The possibility of meeting Christ Incognito who chooses for us not to recognize him is a provocative thought. We would always need to be asking whether our assumptions about what Christ looks like are misplaced. Could this stranger really be Christ incognito?

Very provocative!

But so is the idea that something inside us may block us from knowing the resurrected Christ when we encounter him. Why are the eyes of our inner being unable to see Christ in our midst? 

Also a provocative question!

What do you think?