yesterday, i went to my pastor's funeral.
the church was coldly austere and beautiful; the service emotional and wrenching. somberly dressed, clearly fighting tears, members of the church streamed in from all over the city, forming a line that rivaled one on Easter Sunday. a letter from the Mayor's office was read.
i held it together through Barber's 'Adagio', through the opening prayers but then came Psalm 121, which has always been a favorite of mine.
I will lift up my eyes to the hills—
From whence comes my help?
2 My help comes from the LORD,
Who made heaven and earth.
3 He will not allow your foot to be moved;
He who keeps you will not slumber.
4 Behold, He who keeps Israel
Shall neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD is your keeper;
The LORD is your shade at your right hand.
6 The sun shall not strike you by day,
Nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD shall preserve you from all evil;
He shall preserve your soul.
8 The LORD shall preserve your going out and your coming in
From this time forth, and even forevermore.
it made me think of her evident dedication to her calling, the joy and discipline she showed but also the strength she showed during her illness. it was almost too much to think of.
but there were moments of joy, too. laughter through the eulogy, the comfort of seeing all of us rise as one to sing the doxology, to recite the Apostles Creed, all of us praying together and reciting the 23rd Psalm (another of my favorites.)
and then, after the wrenching recessional as her casket was slowly wheeled down the long, straight center aisle led by a bagpiper and followed by the pastoral staff and her surviving family, the Tower Brass doing a boozy, ragtime arrangement of 'Just A Closer Walk With Thee' that made us all erupt in bursts of giggles and clapping.
the lesson here? in the shadow of death and sadness there is joy and grace. this is the gift that Christ has given us and for which, despite my personal failings and struggles, i am eternally grateful.
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
grief
i just got word that a pastor from my church died this morning. i'm in a mild state of shock.
it's so sad. she was a tough, spiritual, smart woman. her husband had a position with another presbytery in the area and they had two children. she had been gravely ill a number of years ago, fought it, came back to ministry stronger than ever and then, about a month ago, an infection set in. doctors were baffled, thought they had isolated it, did a couple of surgeries but, in the end, she lost her battle early this morning.
it's a serious blow to my church's staff. she was so strong, so smart. a good woman with vision, style, humor, and a steel magnolia quality that made you gird your loins during staff meetings. our senior pastor relied on her a lot and it's going to be difficult watching him, as well as the other members of the pastoral staff, grieve.
sudden death like this never gets easy to process.
it's so sad. she was a tough, spiritual, smart woman. her husband had a position with another presbytery in the area and they had two children. she had been gravely ill a number of years ago, fought it, came back to ministry stronger than ever and then, about a month ago, an infection set in. doctors were baffled, thought they had isolated it, did a couple of surgeries but, in the end, she lost her battle early this morning.
it's a serious blow to my church's staff. she was so strong, so smart. a good woman with vision, style, humor, and a steel magnolia quality that made you gird your loins during staff meetings. our senior pastor relied on her a lot and it's going to be difficult watching him, as well as the other members of the pastoral staff, grieve.
sudden death like this never gets easy to process.
Friday, September 19, 2008
being busy - and being invisible at church
good gracious!
this week has been a little bit full.
had a date on monday (went well), worked furiously to get ready to leave town for a conference meeting on tuesday, was in indianapolis on wednesday for my meeting, flew back, worked furiously on thursday to catch up and now - hey! more working furiously while also getting ready for a church retreat over the weekend, a birthday party and maybe a tennis date.
...
speaking of church, here's a little story i haven't had a chance to share. it reminded me that, as progressive as my congregation is, it has a LOOONG way to go to recognize something that Macon D over at Stuff White People Do has written about here and here. (And has posted a fine analysis of non-white reaction to what white people do here.)
i was with some church folks at a farewell reception for a church colleague. most of the people there were from Session, some i recognized from my years as Deacon, and some from my position as board member on the non profit organization housed at the church. in other words, these were not complete strangers to me.
but as the cocktail party wore on, it became clear that people did not recognize me to the same extent that i recognized them.
little old white ladies rushed up to me and cooed, 'oh, stacy! it's so good to see you here!' repeatedly, they did this - even after someone else had introduced me as 'Ding,' member of the Such&Such Board. oh, the stiff smile i'd wear as their eyes would blink and flutter and i could see their confusion, which probably sounded a little like this:
'what? but - but - stacy is The Black Girl! this is a Black Girl, so...this must be stacy! but she says she's not stacy! but she must be! why isn't she stacy?!'
sigh.
when i put in my requisite 90 minutes of cocktailing, i sat in the lounge area to check my messages on my cell phone. a man from the reception came up to me, hugged me and said, 'oh, stacy! it was really good to see you tonight!'
i had been standing next to this man when the departing executive director of our organization publicly thanked me for my service on the board - and said my name.
flatly, i said, 'i'm not stacy.'
he said, 'oh.' silence. uncomfortable silence as i stared at him, with my cell phone in my hand. i was not smiling.
he said, 'well, it was good to see you.' and rushed away while i really tried not think bad thoughts about white people - and failed.
who is stacy? stacy is the african american woman who runs the very successful tutoring and mentoring program at our church. stacy and i look nothing alike.
and, clearly, the white people i serve with at church think she and i are exactly the same person. this is not the first time this has happened to me. at our mission benefit, at a board dinner, and during coffee hour while i stand at our organization's table during a fundraising campaign - i am every other black woman in church except who i really am.
do white people really not see the differences between us? do we really blur and blend into indistinguishable shapes? are we just all brown and black and yellow blobs that float indistinctly in and out of white vision?
this is the kicker: not one person apologized for mistaking me for stacy. not a single word of apology passed their thin, christian lips.
this week has been a little bit full.
had a date on monday (went well), worked furiously to get ready to leave town for a conference meeting on tuesday, was in indianapolis on wednesday for my meeting, flew back, worked furiously on thursday to catch up and now - hey! more working furiously while also getting ready for a church retreat over the weekend, a birthday party and maybe a tennis date.
...
speaking of church, here's a little story i haven't had a chance to share. it reminded me that, as progressive as my congregation is, it has a LOOONG way to go to recognize something that Macon D over at Stuff White People Do has written about here and here. (And has posted a fine analysis of non-white reaction to what white people do here.)
i was with some church folks at a farewell reception for a church colleague. most of the people there were from Session, some i recognized from my years as Deacon, and some from my position as board member on the non profit organization housed at the church. in other words, these were not complete strangers to me.
but as the cocktail party wore on, it became clear that people did not recognize me to the same extent that i recognized them.
little old white ladies rushed up to me and cooed, 'oh, stacy! it's so good to see you here!' repeatedly, they did this - even after someone else had introduced me as 'Ding,' member of the Such&Such Board. oh, the stiff smile i'd wear as their eyes would blink and flutter and i could see their confusion, which probably sounded a little like this:
'what? but - but - stacy is The Black Girl! this is a Black Girl, so...this must be stacy! but she says she's not stacy! but she must be! why isn't she stacy?!'
sigh.
when i put in my requisite 90 minutes of cocktailing, i sat in the lounge area to check my messages on my cell phone. a man from the reception came up to me, hugged me and said, 'oh, stacy! it was really good to see you tonight!'
i had been standing next to this man when the departing executive director of our organization publicly thanked me for my service on the board - and said my name.
flatly, i said, 'i'm not stacy.'
he said, 'oh.' silence. uncomfortable silence as i stared at him, with my cell phone in my hand. i was not smiling.
he said, 'well, it was good to see you.' and rushed away while i really tried not think bad thoughts about white people - and failed.
who is stacy? stacy is the african american woman who runs the very successful tutoring and mentoring program at our church. stacy and i look nothing alike.
and, clearly, the white people i serve with at church think she and i are exactly the same person. this is not the first time this has happened to me. at our mission benefit, at a board dinner, and during coffee hour while i stand at our organization's table during a fundraising campaign - i am every other black woman in church except who i really am.
do white people really not see the differences between us? do we really blur and blend into indistinguishable shapes? are we just all brown and black and yellow blobs that float indistinctly in and out of white vision?
this is the kicker: not one person apologized for mistaking me for stacy. not a single word of apology passed their thin, christian lips.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
rendering unto caesar - or not
Remember this story from back in May?
Well, the Washington Post has another story as follow up:
But first, this: I happened upon this via The Revealer, a handy compendium of news about religion and media coverage of religion. They don't see what the big deal is:
Back to my original outrage:
For churches to bleat that their rights are being infringed upon by an oppressive government because they can't say 'Sarah Palin is teh bomb!' from the pulpit during an election year - I call shenanigans on that. Anyone who works for a non profit (like I do) knows there are ways around this code and ways to bend the code. Under the tax code, non profits are allowed a lot of leeway. We can talk about policies; we can offer opinions on legislation; we can even participate in direct lobbying and the limits are even broader if we participate in grassroots lobbying. During an election year, we just can't stand on our pulpits (bully or otherwise) and say 'Sarah Palin is teh shit!' because it's sort of like exercising undue influence on folks when voting is supposed to be a private civil matter.
Beyond the the self-serving, disingenuous goal-post-moving (which seems to be a contemporary hallmark of the radical Christian Right), I think it's interesting how the orthodox self-image of the Church has changed.
(Putting on Sunday School hat)
If the Church was meant to be called out from the world (to be separate from it, if you will), and if we accept the idea that national electoral politics are, well, secular , then why are certain church people agitating for an increased ability to be more...worldly?
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Because progressive churches don't seem to have a problem with the current tax code as it's written. My denomination, for example, is perfectly ok with keeping the wall between Church and State in place. For some reason we don't think it's necessary for our pastor to tell folks how to vote or who to vote for - we just let our actions speak louder than our words.
We don't even associate our missions or activities to politics (though we will participate in the lobbying process when it comes to negotiating real estate in Chicago) because we see our missions as a direct outgrowth from our Christian mission - to help the less fortunate, to be graceful in our life toward one another - basically, to live the frakking beatitudes like they mean something.
Do more socially conservative congregations *not* live their mission? I won't say that. (And some congregations are very active in publicly maintaining their particular community standards when it comes to issues like homosexuality, reproductive freedom and the like.) But I'll say that it's interesting that simply living their mission and vision isn't enough for these churches and the ADF; jumping into the political muck and dictating national policy that impacts everyone, regardless of individual religious affiliation, seems too attractive an opportunity to pass up.
Well, the Washington Post has another story as follow up:
Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.More about that later.
But first, this: I happened upon this via The Revealer, a handy compendium of news about religion and media coverage of religion. They don't see what the big deal is:
So news of a bid to stop a bid to overturn the ban requires the journalistic equivalent of explaining why a joke is funny. It's hard to get outraged over defiance of a law you didn't know existed. Maybe I'm wrong.Yeah, dude. You're wrong. This is a very big deal. Where the hell have you been? Anyone who goes to church (or works for a church board or school or any non profit organization) knows exactly what this law is and what the ramifications are if 501c3 organizations are allowed to participate in electioneering.
Back to my original outrage:
For churches to bleat that their rights are being infringed upon by an oppressive government because they can't say 'Sarah Palin is teh bomb!' from the pulpit during an election year - I call shenanigans on that. Anyone who works for a non profit (like I do) knows there are ways around this code and ways to bend the code. Under the tax code, non profits are allowed a lot of leeway. We can talk about policies; we can offer opinions on legislation; we can even participate in direct lobbying and the limits are even broader if we participate in grassroots lobbying. During an election year, we just can't stand on our pulpits (bully or otherwise) and say 'Sarah Palin is teh shit!' because it's sort of like exercising undue influence on folks when voting is supposed to be a private civil matter.
Beyond the the self-serving, disingenuous goal-post-moving (which seems to be a contemporary hallmark of the radical Christian Right), I think it's interesting how the orthodox self-image of the Church has changed.
(Putting on Sunday School hat)
If the Church was meant to be called out from the world (to be separate from it, if you will), and if we accept the idea that national electoral politics are, well, secular , then why are certain church people agitating for an increased ability to be more...worldly?
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Because progressive churches don't seem to have a problem with the current tax code as it's written. My denomination, for example, is perfectly ok with keeping the wall between Church and State in place. For some reason we don't think it's necessary for our pastor to tell folks how to vote or who to vote for - we just let our actions speak louder than our words.
We don't even associate our missions or activities to politics (though we will participate in the lobbying process when it comes to negotiating real estate in Chicago) because we see our missions as a direct outgrowth from our Christian mission - to help the less fortunate, to be graceful in our life toward one another - basically, to live the frakking beatitudes like they mean something.
Do more socially conservative congregations *not* live their mission? I won't say that. (And some congregations are very active in publicly maintaining their particular community standards when it comes to issues like homosexuality, reproductive freedom and the like.) But I'll say that it's interesting that simply living their mission and vision isn't enough for these churches and the ADF; jumping into the political muck and dictating national policy that impacts everyone, regardless of individual religious affiliation, seems too attractive an opportunity to pass up.
Monday, May 12, 2008
are pigs flying?: the religous right leaning to obama?
via Jack & Jill, this article seems to posit that the Religious Right is cracking up and the flotsam are breaking for Obama.
my first reaction was to go, Hmm. Really??
a few months ago, we saw the Religious Right (R2) go slightly nuts with their rejection of Romney, their pragmatic shunning of true-blue, 'not electable' fundamentalist Huckabee and their reluctant embrace of McCain.
but does that mean the R2 is going for Obama?
i'd say no. rather, what this article demonstrates is that the term 'evangelical' is just as diverse as the term 'progressive.' (as this primary season has demonstrated, there are schisms and fractures all over the liberal/progressive community. class, racial, sexual orientation and religious differences have uncovered a shifting and discomfitted coalition that hasn't had to face the fact in a very long while that not everything is about holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya, you know?)
there are an emerging group of evangelicals (like Jim Wallis) who, rather than focus on hot button issues like abortion and homosexuality or whether or not dinosaurs existed, tend to look at other 'values' issues like the care of the earth, the treatment of the poor, war, or human rights issues (like trafficking, immigration, rape in the Congo and Darfur, genital mutilation, etc.) through a lens that we would say is more 'progressive' than their counterparts in the R2.
but i'd be very comfortable in saying they don't represent the R2. who's the Religious Right? look at james dobson, hagee, and the current leader of the southern baptist convention. that's the religious right. and there is no way in frakking hell their constituents are going to break for the Dems.
i'd say this group the article, and the other links in the Jack & Jill post, describe moderate evangelicals. these are evangelicals who believe in actively spreading the gospel (as well as the power and necessity for conversion) by focusing on issues that can make the most impact on a person's life now, rather than later. with issues like poverty and the environment, they're not necessarily already preaching to the choir about issues that are 'easy' rallying cries for those already hanging out inside the fundamentalist clubhouse . these are folks who just built a different clubhouse - same tree, different branch.
can the Dems depend on this emerging moderate evangelical bloc?
no. well, maybe the Dems can depend on these folks for those issues that speak to a moderate evangelical sensibility - like AIDS, global poverty, war/peace, the environment, or human rights (outside of abortion and/or gay rights, unless the Dems can find a way to message reproductive justice and gay rights as part of human rights, or social justice, issues. which they haven't successfully been able to do for the moderate evangelical crowd because the Dems just haven't taken the time), etc.
(i keep drawing a line between moderate issues and hot button issues because i think those moderate evangelical issues are 'missionary' issues; you can build a nice youth trip or awareness raising campaign around these things. you can't necessarily do that around reproductive justice or gay rights without looking like, well, the Religious Right.)
this isn't to say that i think moderate evangelicals don't belong under our progressive big tent. quite the contrary. but if the tradeoff is to give on some fundamental progressive issues, like abortion or gay rights, just to curry favor with some moderate evangelicals as part of a measly electoral strategy, then i'm more than wary.
(and why is our first inclination to tradeoff, anyway? let other people tradeoff if they wanna vote for us!)
and if the Dems really think it's going to be a good idea to climb up on that slippery slope and begin to couch our values in even stronger language of religion, then i wonder what kind of weed someone's smoking up there in Democratic headquarters.
Jack and Jill Politics: Religious Right -leaning towards Democrats?
The New Republic has an excerpt of Jeff Sharlet's The Family that will give anyone pause about the benefits of mixing politics with religion. [via The Revealer]
my first reaction was to go, Hmm. Really??
a few months ago, we saw the Religious Right (R2) go slightly nuts with their rejection of Romney, their pragmatic shunning of true-blue, 'not electable' fundamentalist Huckabee and their reluctant embrace of McCain.
but does that mean the R2 is going for Obama?
i'd say no. rather, what this article demonstrates is that the term 'evangelical' is just as diverse as the term 'progressive.' (as this primary season has demonstrated, there are schisms and fractures all over the liberal/progressive community. class, racial, sexual orientation and religious differences have uncovered a shifting and discomfitted coalition that hasn't had to face the fact in a very long while that not everything is about holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya, you know?)
there are an emerging group of evangelicals (like Jim Wallis) who, rather than focus on hot button issues like abortion and homosexuality or whether or not dinosaurs existed, tend to look at other 'values' issues like the care of the earth, the treatment of the poor, war, or human rights issues (like trafficking, immigration, rape in the Congo and Darfur, genital mutilation, etc.) through a lens that we would say is more 'progressive' than their counterparts in the R2.
but i'd be very comfortable in saying they don't represent the R2. who's the Religious Right? look at james dobson, hagee, and the current leader of the southern baptist convention. that's the religious right. and there is no way in frakking hell their constituents are going to break for the Dems.
i'd say this group the article, and the other links in the Jack & Jill post, describe moderate evangelicals. these are evangelicals who believe in actively spreading the gospel (as well as the power and necessity for conversion) by focusing on issues that can make the most impact on a person's life now, rather than later. with issues like poverty and the environment, they're not necessarily already preaching to the choir about issues that are 'easy' rallying cries for those already hanging out inside the fundamentalist clubhouse . these are folks who just built a different clubhouse - same tree, different branch.
can the Dems depend on this emerging moderate evangelical bloc?
no. well, maybe the Dems can depend on these folks for those issues that speak to a moderate evangelical sensibility - like AIDS, global poverty, war/peace, the environment, or human rights (outside of abortion and/or gay rights, unless the Dems can find a way to message reproductive justice and gay rights as part of human rights, or social justice, issues. which they haven't successfully been able to do for the moderate evangelical crowd because the Dems just haven't taken the time), etc.
(i keep drawing a line between moderate issues and hot button issues because i think those moderate evangelical issues are 'missionary' issues; you can build a nice youth trip or awareness raising campaign around these things. you can't necessarily do that around reproductive justice or gay rights without looking like, well, the Religious Right.)
this isn't to say that i think moderate evangelicals don't belong under our progressive big tent. quite the contrary. but if the tradeoff is to give on some fundamental progressive issues, like abortion or gay rights, just to curry favor with some moderate evangelicals as part of a measly electoral strategy, then i'm more than wary.
(and why is our first inclination to tradeoff, anyway? let other people tradeoff if they wanna vote for us!)
and if the Dems really think it's going to be a good idea to climb up on that slippery slope and begin to couch our values in even stronger language of religion, then i wonder what kind of weed someone's smoking up there in Democratic headquarters.
Jack and Jill Politics: Religious Right -leaning towards Democrats?
The New Republic has an excerpt of Jeff Sharlet's The Family that will give anyone pause about the benefits of mixing politics with religion. [via The Revealer]
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
'crossing the line'
From The Revealer, I came across a little item pointing me to an interview between the Family Research Council and religious right activist Janet Folger about some electioneering activities the FRC has planned.
The usual (non-tax status threatening) stuff: pre-packaged sermons on hot button conservative issues, candidate comparisons (hmm) and then comes this:
"We're going," he said, "to prompt pastors and say to them that, you know, we really believe that they need to challenge some of the things, some of the thinking that we have going on in our society, which is that separation of church and state doctrine, that we really need to preach the Bible on these issues and apply them to the things that are going on in the culture today." [emphasis mine]
Uh-huh. Pastors really need to challenge that separation of church and state thing. Yeah.
You heard it, people. Right from the right's mouth.
Talk To Action Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith
The usual (non-tax status threatening) stuff: pre-packaged sermons on hot button conservative issues, candidate comparisons (hmm) and then comes this:
"We're going," he said, "to prompt pastors and say to them that, you know, we really believe that they need to challenge some of the things, some of the thinking that we have going on in our society, which is that separation of church and state doctrine, that we really need to preach the Bible on these issues and apply them to the things that are going on in the culture today." [emphasis mine]
Uh-huh. Pastors really need to challenge that separation of church and state thing. Yeah.
You heard it, people. Right from the right's mouth.
Talk To Action Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
one more time, this time with feeling
if you haven't already dropped dead from Obama/Clinton/Longest Primary Season EVAR Fatigue, then perhaps you have some thoughts on Wright, more distancing, the black church (whatever that is) and racial politics.
here's my thought about the whole thing:
Church. State. Divided.
why are we even discussing this?
[if anyone needs it spelled out: it's like the chocolate and peanut butter thing. if you don't want your politics to suddenly turn into the Nearer My God to Thee hour, then keep politics out of your churches - and keep your churches off the political radar. when the Church steps onto a public platform, all sorts of lines get blurred - and when the political process suddenly starts to require folks to make religious proclamations in order to pass some kind of political fitness test, then that's problematic too. movement in either direction pulls Church and State closer together until the one is indistinguishable from the other.
capisce?]
here's my thought about the whole thing:
Church. State. Divided.
why are we even discussing this?
[if anyone needs it spelled out: it's like the chocolate and peanut butter thing. if you don't want your politics to suddenly turn into the Nearer My God to Thee hour, then keep politics out of your churches - and keep your churches off the political radar. when the Church steps onto a public platform, all sorts of lines get blurred - and when the political process suddenly starts to require folks to make religious proclamations in order to pass some kind of political fitness test, then that's problematic too. movement in either direction pulls Church and State closer together until the one is indistinguishable from the other.
capisce?]
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Jack and Jill Politics: Rev. Michael Pfleger Holds It Down In Fox Interview On Wright, Farrakhan and "Hate"
Jack and Jill Politics: Rev. Michael Pfleger Holds It Down In Fox Interview On Wright, Farrakhan and "Hate"
Remember what I said about Fr. Pfleger when this whole Wright thing happened?
Well, now FOX News got the full on Pfleger experience - right in the face.
The last 3 minutes are awesome. I had to jump up from my desk at work and wanted to yell out, 'Preach!'
[and i'm really enjoying reading the folks over at Jack & Jill. they're on my feed.]
Remember what I said about Fr. Pfleger when this whole Wright thing happened?
Well, now FOX News got the full on Pfleger experience - right in the face.
The last 3 minutes are awesome. I had to jump up from my desk at work and wanted to yell out, 'Preach!'
[and i'm really enjoying reading the folks over at Jack & Jill. they're on my feed.]
Monday, April 14, 2008
'compassion' replaces 'religion'
so, did anyone catch the Compassion Forum last week? (or was it over the weekend? this way too long primary cycle is giving me a hangover.)
how neat that this forum jibed perfectly with my complaint last week that our public political discourse is not being served by the constant introduction of 'faith' - or compassion, whatever. (remember when we all thought Shrub was a 'compassionate conservative'? we all should have learned a lesson from that but, clearly, we didn't.)
anyway, if you caught it and have thoughts about it, i'd love to hear about it.
[and, over here at A Moderate Voice, the writer asks why we even needed this lame forum.]
how neat that this forum jibed perfectly with my complaint last week that our public political discourse is not being served by the constant introduction of 'faith' - or compassion, whatever. (remember when we all thought Shrub was a 'compassionate conservative'? we all should have learned a lesson from that but, clearly, we didn't.)
anyway, if you caught it and have thoughts about it, i'd love to hear about it.
[and, over here at A Moderate Voice, the writer asks why we even needed this lame forum.]
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Amen: Compassion Fatigue
LutheranChik's "L" Word Diary: Compassion Fatigue
Before I get lost in all the post-primary hand-wringing I just wanted to bring to y'all's attention this really thought-provoking post from LutheranChick about compassion fatigue, or that wall some people in the pastorate hit when, to use a business term, the ROI isn't forthcoming.
What would be an acceptable Return on Investment? Well, something indicating that an impact has been made; change or improvement, however miniscule.
After years of being senior pastor of a small community church, which came after being senior pastor at a medium Baptist congregation, my dad told me and my sister this past weekend that he's calling it quits.
"I don't want to stop being a pastor, but I don't want to be pastor of that church anymore,' he said, sounding more frustrated and angry than I've ever heard him sound. 'I've taken them as far as they can go and I'm tired. No matter how many sermons, bible studies, counseling sessions, nothing changes - they don't change. All that time I could have spent with my wife, with you daughters that I spent with them and it hurts."
My sister and I said, "It's about time. They were killing you."
So, in a way, this post is for my dad who's 64 years old and deserves a frakking rest.
From LutheranChik:
I have a friend who, through her church work, got involved with a similarly dysfunctional household. Soon she was being called in the middle of the night with requests like, "So-and-So is in jail. Can you go and bail her out?" She'd schedule doctors' appointments for the pregnant unwed daughter only to have the daughter refuse to comply with the healthcare provider. She'd arrange for the family matriarch to get hooked up with this or that social service, only to have the woman fail to show up for appointments or turn in paperwork. After many months of this, my friend was becoming physically ill, anxious and filled with guilt over somehow "not doing enough" for these people. "Whenever I say I'm done with them, I think, 'What would Jesus do?'" she said, tears in her eyes.
Maybe I'm just channeling the values of my hardworking blue-collar parents, but I can't help but think that at some point Jesus would tell immature, deadbeat parents to look for work, and pursue social services for which they're qualified, with the same energy that they look for excuses; and to make their children, rather than their own comfort and whim, the family priority.
...
In this Lenten season, this post also makes me think about Christ's short ministry and just how much it must have taken to be on that path of His, knowing where it would end and dragging those disciples behind Him as they consistently misunderstood His mission and vision. I wonder if he ever asked for a new group of guys who were a little bit more swift on the uptake.
And I think about the disciples, ordinary men struggling with everything they're seeing and hearing, following but getting some things wrong along the way. I wonder if they ever sat around and thought, 'WTH??'
...
The board that I sit on in my church governs our social service programs and we were in the middle of putting together some materials for external funding. Part of our standard language describes our mission as transforming lives which is a pretty feel-good claim to make. But the man who directs one of our programs said in a meeting once, 'We don't transform lives. We feed people. We give them clothes. We meet a material need. Are their lives transformed when they come to us, when we help them? I have no idea.'
His words were like a really cold bucket of water being thrown over my head. Is it even possible for us to transform lives?
Anyway, I hear you LutheranChik. Hang in there.
Before I get lost in all the post-primary hand-wringing I just wanted to bring to y'all's attention this really thought-provoking post from LutheranChick about compassion fatigue, or that wall some people in the pastorate hit when, to use a business term, the ROI isn't forthcoming.
What would be an acceptable Return on Investment? Well, something indicating that an impact has been made; change or improvement, however miniscule.
After years of being senior pastor of a small community church, which came after being senior pastor at a medium Baptist congregation, my dad told me and my sister this past weekend that he's calling it quits.
"I don't want to stop being a pastor, but I don't want to be pastor of that church anymore,' he said, sounding more frustrated and angry than I've ever heard him sound. 'I've taken them as far as they can go and I'm tired. No matter how many sermons, bible studies, counseling sessions, nothing changes - they don't change. All that time I could have spent with my wife, with you daughters that I spent with them and it hurts."
My sister and I said, "It's about time. They were killing you."
So, in a way, this post is for my dad who's 64 years old and deserves a frakking rest.
From LutheranChik:
I have a friend who, through her church work, got involved with a similarly dysfunctional household. Soon she was being called in the middle of the night with requests like, "So-and-So is in jail. Can you go and bail her out?" She'd schedule doctors' appointments for the pregnant unwed daughter only to have the daughter refuse to comply with the healthcare provider. She'd arrange for the family matriarch to get hooked up with this or that social service, only to have the woman fail to show up for appointments or turn in paperwork. After many months of this, my friend was becoming physically ill, anxious and filled with guilt over somehow "not doing enough" for these people. "Whenever I say I'm done with them, I think, 'What would Jesus do?'" she said, tears in her eyes.
Maybe I'm just channeling the values of my hardworking blue-collar parents, but I can't help but think that at some point Jesus would tell immature, deadbeat parents to look for work, and pursue social services for which they're qualified, with the same energy that they look for excuses; and to make their children, rather than their own comfort and whim, the family priority.
...
In this Lenten season, this post also makes me think about Christ's short ministry and just how much it must have taken to be on that path of His, knowing where it would end and dragging those disciples behind Him as they consistently misunderstood His mission and vision. I wonder if he ever asked for a new group of guys who were a little bit more swift on the uptake.
And I think about the disciples, ordinary men struggling with everything they're seeing and hearing, following but getting some things wrong along the way. I wonder if they ever sat around and thought, 'WTH??'
...
The board that I sit on in my church governs our social service programs and we were in the middle of putting together some materials for external funding. Part of our standard language describes our mission as transforming lives which is a pretty feel-good claim to make. But the man who directs one of our programs said in a meeting once, 'We don't transform lives. We feed people. We give them clothes. We meet a material need. Are their lives transformed when they come to us, when we help them? I have no idea.'
His words were like a really cold bucket of water being thrown over my head. Is it even possible for us to transform lives?
Anyway, I hear you LutheranChik. Hang in there.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
you're not the boss of me!
Kansas HS says female cannot ref boys game - Wednesday February 13, 2008 9:40PM:
"The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs."
So, there was this one time back in college when I was talking (er, arguing) with my dad about why women are supposed to be subject to the authority of men and why his sexism was a problem to me.
Dad: I'm not a sexist. It's what the Bible says, Ding.
Me: But that's only within the context of the church and/or a married relationship. (Which I still think is crap but I decided to give that to my dad to make the argument a little easier.) So, ok, women can't preach or teach men in the church and we're supposed to bow and scrape when we're married. Fine. But that doesn't mean that women are supposed to be submissive to ALL men, everywhere, does it?
Dad: (long pause)
Me: I mean, so there's a woman doctor. Is she just supposed to take a back seat to some random guy because he's a guy? What about if you were on a jury? Does that mean a woman can't be a foreman on the jury because there are men there? What about female bosses? Does that mean that because of a few verses about the place of women in church, that all women everywhere can't be in positions of authority? Because that's totally sexist and if you agree, it means you're a sexist, too.
Dad: (silence)
Me: Yeah. Thought so.
You know, I really couldn't be the feminist I am now if it hadn't been for my Dad.
"The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs."
So, there was this one time back in college when I was talking (er, arguing) with my dad about why women are supposed to be subject to the authority of men and why his sexism was a problem to me.
Dad: I'm not a sexist. It's what the Bible says, Ding.
Me: But that's only within the context of the church and/or a married relationship. (Which I still think is crap but I decided to give that to my dad to make the argument a little easier.) So, ok, women can't preach or teach men in the church and we're supposed to bow and scrape when we're married. Fine. But that doesn't mean that women are supposed to be submissive to ALL men, everywhere, does it?
Dad: (long pause)
Me: I mean, so there's a woman doctor. Is she just supposed to take a back seat to some random guy because he's a guy? What about if you were on a jury? Does that mean a woman can't be a foreman on the jury because there are men there? What about female bosses? Does that mean that because of a few verses about the place of women in church, that all women everywhere can't be in positions of authority? Because that's totally sexist and if you agree, it means you're a sexist, too.
Dad: (silence)
Me: Yeah. Thought so.
You know, I really couldn't be the feminist I am now if it hadn't been for my Dad.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
huck for president?
Shake, Rattle and Roil the Grand Ol’ Coalition - New York Times
The Enduring Strength of Huckabee - Andrew Sullivan
Holy Huck, Straight out of Flannery O'Connor - Oh, Dave
Meet the Press transcript, Dec 30, 2007 - MSNBC
do you want an ex-baptist preacher for president?
Huckabee has an interesting reply when Meet the Press' Tim Russert asks him about his pastor past:
MR. RUSSERT: But where does this leave non-Christians?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Oh, it leaves them right in the middle of America. I think the Judeo-Christian background of this country is one that respects people not only of faith, but it respects people who don't have faith. The, the key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict. I think the First Amendment, Tim, is explicitly clear. Government should be restricted, not faith, government. And government's restriction is on two fronts: one, it's not to prefer one faith over another; and the second, it's not to prohibit the practice of somebody's religion, period.
MR. RUSSERT: So you'd have no problem appointing atheists to your Cabinet?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists. I probably had some working for me as governor. You know, I think you got to realize if people want--say, "Well, you were a pastor," but I was a governor 10 1/2 years. I have more executive experience running a government. I was actually in a government position longer than I was a pastor. And if people want to know how I would blend these issues, the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor. I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol. But my faith is important to me. I try to be more descriptive of it. I just don't want to run from it and act like it's not important. It drives my views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease to hunger. Issues, frankly, I think the Republicans need to take a greater leadership role in. And as a Republican, but as a Christian, I would want to make sure that we're speaking out on some of these issues that I think we've been lacking in as a party and as, as a nation. [emphasis mine]
my question is, where does the separation between political animal and person of faith begin? if, as Huckabee puts it, faith is an intrinsic part of him, how can he separate that faith from future political decisions, made for a pluralistic society? Huckabee says that his evangelical past leaves non-Christians in the middle of America; i think that's fairly astute. it leaves them surrounded by a government led by an evangelical Christian and a citizenry that believes in the literal truth of the Rapture for the most part. if you were a non-Christian wouldn't you feel a little heebie-jeebie?
the attacks on huckabee from his own party are interesting, too. the times article mentions folks like limbaugh calling Huckabee a fake Republican because of his populist stances on poverty and i have to admit that i always feel sort of good about whatever makes limbaugh get his drawers in a bunch. but then i remember this is a Republican candidate we're talking about. his likeability, speechifying and surprisingly holistic views on education and poverty aside, he's still the man who's the most dangerous to a woman's reproductive freedom. again, from Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: And what would happen to doctors or women who participated in abortion?
GOV. HUCKABEE: It's always the, the point of trying to say, "Are you going to criminalize it?" That's not the issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if it, if it's illegal, it would be.
GOV. HUCKABEE: It would be. And I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about--I consider her a victim, not a, not a criminal. You would...
MR. RUSSERT: But you would punish the doctor.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor. I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead. There's something that just doesn't ring true about the purpose of medical practice when the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm." Well, if you take the life and suction out the pieces of an unborn child for no reason than its inconvenience to the mother, I don't think you've lived up to your Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm. [emphasis mine]
like his fellow social conservatives who shudder at the thought of women controlling their own fertility, Huck stops short of saying that those women should be thrown in prison. instead, he displays his unconscious devaluing of women by calling us victims. we aren't agents in the decisions we make about our fertility, but objects at the mercy of inveigling doctors or 'inconvenience.' whether his ideas stem from his faith or just a good old lack of trust in women's autonomy, they don't bode well for women's issues; do i want this man as president, wielding the power to appoint supreme court judges?
not so much.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
thanks to L-, this article in the NYTimes on the woman who was assaulted by her pastor husband: A Minister’s Public Lesson on Domestic Violence - New York Times
i'm reluctant to say that this story reveals a lot about the black community's attitude toward women, women in authority, gender roles or domestic violence but some of the attitudes described in this story (and in other stories about weeks and bynum) are familiar to me, since they were stories i'd heard from my own childhood church: the pressure for women to marry at any cost so they could enjoy sexual intimacy, the poor marital choice that follows, the accusations of homosexuality following a popular pastor, the vacillating congregation that empathizes with an alleged victim but also thinks she somehow 'deserves' her victimization.
i chatted very briefly with my dad about this story. it was brief because our conversations about gender tend to run a very short loop. sure enough, dad's attitude was a mish mash of hedging: 'well, of course the brother was wrong and the book should be thrown at him. no man should hit a woman. but you know, girl, she shoulda left that man alone. why was she running after him? she provoked him.'
roll of eyes. 'right, dad.'
when i watched the couples in my father's church this is what always got my goat: no matter what happened between a man and a woman - marital tension, infidelity, emotional distance, whatever - it was always the woman's fault. the man didn't have to take responsibility for anything, even if it was pretty clear that his contribution to the marital mess was huge.
the dr. sharon ellis davis mentioned in the article works with the Faith Trust Institute, an interfaith organization that educates about sexual and domestic violence in religious communities that was formed when it was clear that rape and domestic violence weren't being addressed adequately in various congregations. i find that stunning; a woman is raped or assaulted and can't go to her pastor, priest or rabbi because she's afraid of what her church will say. where is the failing here? with the victim of assault or with the religious leader whose beliefs about gender make him blame the victim for her own assault?
anyway. it's after 1 am and it's been a long day of unpacking, cleaning and running errands. i'm going to bed.
i'm reluctant to say that this story reveals a lot about the black community's attitude toward women, women in authority, gender roles or domestic violence but some of the attitudes described in this story (and in other stories about weeks and bynum) are familiar to me, since they were stories i'd heard from my own childhood church: the pressure for women to marry at any cost so they could enjoy sexual intimacy, the poor marital choice that follows, the accusations of homosexuality following a popular pastor, the vacillating congregation that empathizes with an alleged victim but also thinks she somehow 'deserves' her victimization.
i chatted very briefly with my dad about this story. it was brief because our conversations about gender tend to run a very short loop. sure enough, dad's attitude was a mish mash of hedging: 'well, of course the brother was wrong and the book should be thrown at him. no man should hit a woman. but you know, girl, she shoulda left that man alone. why was she running after him? she provoked him.'
roll of eyes. 'right, dad.'
when i watched the couples in my father's church this is what always got my goat: no matter what happened between a man and a woman - marital tension, infidelity, emotional distance, whatever - it was always the woman's fault. the man didn't have to take responsibility for anything, even if it was pretty clear that his contribution to the marital mess was huge.
the dr. sharon ellis davis mentioned in the article works with the Faith Trust Institute, an interfaith organization that educates about sexual and domestic violence in religious communities that was formed when it was clear that rape and domestic violence weren't being addressed adequately in various congregations. i find that stunning; a woman is raped or assaulted and can't go to her pastor, priest or rabbi because she's afraid of what her church will say. where is the failing here? with the victim of assault or with the religious leader whose beliefs about gender make him blame the victim for her own assault?
anyway. it's after 1 am and it's been a long day of unpacking, cleaning and running errands. i'm going to bed.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
father, may i? pt 2
so while i was writing yesterday's post on virtuous daughters being something akin to the ideal executive assistant, i kept thinking about various moments in my sunday school training.
what kept flashing through my memory were the stories and precepts about sacrifice for the glory of God: stephen, all the apostles, ruth, abraham, etc.
this is what christian tradition teaches - you give your heart, soul and mind to God. how did that become, for these alarmingly conservative groups, 'abnegate yourself before your Patriarch'? how does devotion to God become 'don't go to college, don't leave home, don't work outside the home and whatever you do, don't think you have dreams and aspirations that go beyond your biology'?
do you get what i'm saying?
while i believe the spiritual precepts in the bible are so, i have a hard time aligning the bible's historical context with these spiritual precepts. it isn't so hard to understand a father being 'in charge' of the women in his family back in the ancient day. women were chattel and functioned in a specific way in an agrarian society - they were how weath was consolidated, how labor forces were created, how tribed moved forward. without the biological function that women served, tribes and families died.
if someone wants to overlay a message from God to women based on the status of women as historical chattel, then that message would be 'women shall be thus forever.' but that's clearly not what the message is. the eternal message is about salvation, not about women's social position, which is something that is mutable and outside of the gospel, i think.
in other words, separate from 'love God yada yada yada,' is the way a virtuous woman was before the dawn of science and literacy, the way a woman is to be forever??
i don't think so.
what kept flashing through my memory were the stories and precepts about sacrifice for the glory of God: stephen, all the apostles, ruth, abraham, etc.
this is what christian tradition teaches - you give your heart, soul and mind to God. how did that become, for these alarmingly conservative groups, 'abnegate yourself before your Patriarch'? how does devotion to God become 'don't go to college, don't leave home, don't work outside the home and whatever you do, don't think you have dreams and aspirations that go beyond your biology'?
do you get what i'm saying?
while i believe the spiritual precepts in the bible are so, i have a hard time aligning the bible's historical context with these spiritual precepts. it isn't so hard to understand a father being 'in charge' of the women in his family back in the ancient day. women were chattel and functioned in a specific way in an agrarian society - they were how weath was consolidated, how labor forces were created, how tribed moved forward. without the biological function that women served, tribes and families died.
if someone wants to overlay a message from God to women based on the status of women as historical chattel, then that message would be 'women shall be thus forever.' but that's clearly not what the message is. the eternal message is about salvation, not about women's social position, which is something that is mutable and outside of the gospel, i think.
in other words, separate from 'love God yada yada yada,' is the way a virtuous woman was before the dawn of science and literacy, the way a woman is to be forever??
i don't think so.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
not just for the nfl: even pastors beat their wives
edmontonsun.com - World - Hubby charged in minister's beating
so. bishop thomas w. weeks (the 3rd) put the beat down on his wife, gospel singer/televangelist, juanita bynum in a hotel parking lot. he chokes her, 'stomps' on her, flees the scene, she ends up in the hospital, he's arrested and released on $40,000 bail, and then he goes to church.
his supporters, instead of fleeing from a so-called spiritual leader who has poor impulse control, have instead chosen to circle their wagons around him and say totally sheeplistic, insane things like:
"There are three sides to every story. Nobody has the right to judge anybody. God is in the midst of that and will work it out."
"We all make mistakes. He deserves another opportunity."
"Let's love and pray they stay together! It may be a blessing to us all!"
and then there's this love letter from a commenter on an aol board:
"He might have a short fuse. He was obviously tryna walk away from the situation and SHE followed him. A man can only take so much from a nagging ass wife."
ah, yes. the 'nagging ass wife.'
the mouthy, back-talking, sassy, 'don't know her place' emasculating jezebel that all men must beware.
according to church folk, here's the lesson for all you single church gals out there:
if your man has a 'short fuse,' it's no one's fault but your own nagging ass self for making him stomp you so hard in the face a parking lot attendant has to pull him off you.
i hate ignorance. i really really really do. and ignorance crossed with self-hatred and misogyny?
even worse.
[shudder]
sorry; i'm having a flashback to my old church where attitudes like this grew like rotten fruit on a tree.
ah, geez. and this morning, i came across a piece discussing Christian Domestic Discipline.
i really can't take church people's lame excuses for smacking a woman. (and there is a huge difference between consent and acquiescence. one implies enthusiastic participation, the other implies coercion.)
maybe that's what bishop weeks was practicing - just some good old christian domestic discipline.
so. bishop thomas w. weeks (the 3rd) put the beat down on his wife, gospel singer/televangelist, juanita bynum in a hotel parking lot. he chokes her, 'stomps' on her, flees the scene, she ends up in the hospital, he's arrested and released on $40,000 bail, and then he goes to church.
his supporters, instead of fleeing from a so-called spiritual leader who has poor impulse control, have instead chosen to circle their wagons around him and say totally sheeplistic, insane things like:
"There are three sides to every story. Nobody has the right to judge anybody. God is in the midst of that and will work it out."
"We all make mistakes. He deserves another opportunity."
"Let's love and pray they stay together! It may be a blessing to us all!"
and then there's this love letter from a commenter on an aol board:
"He might have a short fuse. He was obviously tryna walk away from the situation and SHE followed him. A man can only take so much from a nagging ass wife."
ah, yes. the 'nagging ass wife.'
the mouthy, back-talking, sassy, 'don't know her place' emasculating jezebel that all men must beware.
according to church folk, here's the lesson for all you single church gals out there:
if your man has a 'short fuse,' it's no one's fault but your own nagging ass self for making him stomp you so hard in the face a parking lot attendant has to pull him off you.
i hate ignorance. i really really really do. and ignorance crossed with self-hatred and misogyny?
even worse.
[shudder]
sorry; i'm having a flashback to my old church where attitudes like this grew like rotten fruit on a tree.
ah, geez. and this morning, i came across a piece discussing Christian Domestic Discipline.
i really can't take church people's lame excuses for smacking a woman. (and there is a huge difference between consent and acquiescence. one implies enthusiastic participation, the other implies coercion.)
maybe that's what bishop weeks was practicing - just some good old christian domestic discipline.
Friday, August 17, 2007
dear jesus, teach me to fry it up in a pan
from Feminary we get this nifty post about Southern Baptist Seminary offering a new set of courses for women (i.e, the wives of seminary students.)
gender studies? sorta.
hermeneutics of gender? a little.
historical context of women's lives in the bible? uh...
how to whip up a casserole, sew a dress, keep that quiver full AND help your husband with his greek?
exactly!
read on (bold and italics are mine because i just can't believe it):
lordy. lordy lordy lordy.
it's christian home ec. i can't take it. i really can't. there is nothing more nightmarish for me than hours of Home Ec specifically designed to bolster frakked up traditional gender roles. maybe if my mom had taken some of these courses she wouldn't have been so angry...she would have sipped the kool-aid and learned to play some hymns on the organ, like a proper pastor's wife.
OMG! you have to look at their brochure: the sanitary napkin font, the soft focus photo, the uplifted (white) face. it's a christian romance novel cover! and it has the ubiquitous lavender rose!!
some of their course offerings:
Embracing Femininity
i think i'll just stop there. my brain just broke.
gender studies? sorta.
hermeneutics of gender? a little.
historical context of women's lives in the bible? uh...
how to whip up a casserole, sew a dress, keep that quiver full AND help your husband with his greek?
exactly!
read on (bold and italics are mine because i just can't believe it):
Southwestern Baptist, one of the nation's largest Southern Baptist seminaries,
is introducing a new academic program in homemaking as part of an effort to
establish what its president calls biblical family and gender roles.
It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in
homemaking. The program is only open to women.
lordy. lordy lordy lordy.
it's christian home ec. i can't take it. i really can't. there is nothing more nightmarish for me than hours of Home Ec specifically designed to bolster frakked up traditional gender roles. maybe if my mom had taken some of these courses she wouldn't have been so angry...she would have sipped the kool-aid and learned to play some hymns on the organ, like a proper pastor's wife.
OMG! you have to look at their brochure: the sanitary napkin font, the soft focus photo, the uplifted (white) face. it's a christian romance novel cover! and it has the ubiquitous lavender rose!!
some of their course offerings:
Embracing Femininity
i think i'll just stop there. my brain just broke.
Friday, August 03, 2007
the meta-narrative of my fibroid: or, fibroids as God's feminist punishment
it is 4 days until Agatha-extraction. (i named my fibroid Agatha; it brings to mind a pink, lumpy old lady huddled in a warm snug place who's about to get evicted. a miss marple of uterine invaders.)
against my will and despite my best 'think positive-ness' my imagination is full of those awful NBC Dateline-esque news stories: Stone Philips fills the tv screen with his big impassive face and says, 'It was an ordinary procedure. One performed millions of times before on millions of ordinary women just like her. But, sadly, the family and friends of Ding would soon realize that sometimes tragedy strikes despite the ordinary."
or something lame like that.
i can't help but think that if the next 4 days was a plot point in a novel bought in the checkout lane at the supermarket, i'd be worried about Me about now. reading about the protagonist who has made some questionable decisions over the past year and blatantly flaunted a 'whatever' face to the world at large, i would be worried that the Author would take this opportunity in the narrative to 'teach Me a lesson'. (sort of like the annoying holly hunter show Saving Grace.)
in such a mass market novel, this would be the moment in the story where the hard drinking/smoking/sexing wench (Me) would be given the opportunity to Learn Something Valuable about strength in perseverance as she recovers from the stroke she's had because the anathesia was wrong and she struggles to form basic words;
or i learn the love of a good man as the doctor, who accidentally removed all my reproductive organs because he's a drunk, falls in love with me when i sue him in a malpractice case that will change the shape of litigation forEVER;
or maybe i learn the identity of the 5 people i'd talk to in heaven after i bleed out on the operating table because i forgot to tell my doctors i've been taking an aspirin a day to stop a toothache.
these are the mental stories that fill my days when i'm not paying attention. needless to say, i'm a little stressed out.
...
the other day, when i was with Roomie and some friends celebrating Roomie's birthday, i was asked how i was holding up.
i said, 'uh, ok. i'm just slightly anxious about, you know, dying.'
Roomie said, 'you have to go into it thinking you're going to die. it's liberating.'
'you know, that's SO not soothing,' i said. (although there was a little voice asking me, If you're so cool with your faith, how come you're anxious? then i told the little voice to shut the frak up - i'm a weak human, that's why!)
she shrugged. 'it's soothing to me. i don't know why you're worried. you have no issue with dying. you talk to jesus and stuff.'
i said, 'it's not dying. it's the southern baptist superstition that i could still be wrong. i mean, yeah, i've done and believed almost all of the right things - almost - but what if i could still go to hell? presbyterians have that 'sealed' thing. baptists? not so much. God has a crazy sense of humor and right when you think you're all right, BAM! He could let hell could getcha.'
Roomie said, 'you are crazy.'
another friend, who also grew up fundamentalist, laughed and said, 'no. punishment or the devil's always there. ready to get you.'
i said, 'see? you can take the girl out of the baptist, but blah blah blah. still there. and i was with B- last week? yeah. could totally be punished for being a tart and God will kill me and i'll go to hell.'
my laughing friend said, 'but that's not the worst case scenario. worst case scenario is you end up a vegetable.'
i said, 'SEE?? she gets it! that's it! i could end up a vegetable because i had sex last week and i'm really supposed to be a repressed baptist virgin my whole life until i get married!'
'totally. nutbag. the two of you,' my Roomie said. but she doesn't get it.
she made artsy-craftsy dioramas in sunday school while i memorized scripture, learned about the rapture and was told how everyone was going to hell to burn in eternal hell fire if they knew gay people or had sex.
(and, yeah. any comment resembling this will get deleted: 'well, if you were a REAL christian woman you wouldn't be so worried. i hope God sends you a blood clot and you end up like terry shiaivo. then you'll learn.')
against my will and despite my best 'think positive-ness' my imagination is full of those awful NBC Dateline-esque news stories: Stone Philips fills the tv screen with his big impassive face and says, 'It was an ordinary procedure. One performed millions of times before on millions of ordinary women just like her. But, sadly, the family and friends of Ding would soon realize that sometimes tragedy strikes despite the ordinary."
or something lame like that.
i can't help but think that if the next 4 days was a plot point in a novel bought in the checkout lane at the supermarket, i'd be worried about Me about now. reading about the protagonist who has made some questionable decisions over the past year and blatantly flaunted a 'whatever' face to the world at large, i would be worried that the Author would take this opportunity in the narrative to 'teach Me a lesson'. (sort of like the annoying holly hunter show Saving Grace.)
in such a mass market novel, this would be the moment in the story where the hard drinking/smoking/sexing wench (Me) would be given the opportunity to Learn Something Valuable about strength in perseverance as she recovers from the stroke she's had because the anathesia was wrong and she struggles to form basic words;
or i learn the love of a good man as the doctor, who accidentally removed all my reproductive organs because he's a drunk, falls in love with me when i sue him in a malpractice case that will change the shape of litigation forEVER;
or maybe i learn the identity of the 5 people i'd talk to in heaven after i bleed out on the operating table because i forgot to tell my doctors i've been taking an aspirin a day to stop a toothache.
these are the mental stories that fill my days when i'm not paying attention. needless to say, i'm a little stressed out.
...
the other day, when i was with Roomie and some friends celebrating Roomie's birthday, i was asked how i was holding up.
i said, 'uh, ok. i'm just slightly anxious about, you know, dying.'
Roomie said, 'you have to go into it thinking you're going to die. it's liberating.'
'you know, that's SO not soothing,' i said. (although there was a little voice asking me, If you're so cool with your faith, how come you're anxious? then i told the little voice to shut the frak up - i'm a weak human, that's why!)
she shrugged. 'it's soothing to me. i don't know why you're worried. you have no issue with dying. you talk to jesus and stuff.'
i said, 'it's not dying. it's the southern baptist superstition that i could still be wrong. i mean, yeah, i've done and believed almost all of the right things - almost - but what if i could still go to hell? presbyterians have that 'sealed' thing. baptists? not so much. God has a crazy sense of humor and right when you think you're all right, BAM! He could let hell could getcha.'
Roomie said, 'you are crazy.'
another friend, who also grew up fundamentalist, laughed and said, 'no. punishment or the devil's always there. ready to get you.'
i said, 'see? you can take the girl out of the baptist, but blah blah blah. still there. and i was with B- last week? yeah. could totally be punished for being a tart and God will kill me and i'll go to hell.'
my laughing friend said, 'but that's not the worst case scenario. worst case scenario is you end up a vegetable.'
i said, 'SEE?? she gets it! that's it! i could end up a vegetable because i had sex last week and i'm really supposed to be a repressed baptist virgin my whole life until i get married!'
'totally. nutbag. the two of you,' my Roomie said. but she doesn't get it.
she made artsy-craftsy dioramas in sunday school while i memorized scripture, learned about the rapture and was told how everyone was going to hell to burn in eternal hell fire if they knew gay people or had sex.
(and, yeah. any comment resembling this will get deleted: 'well, if you were a REAL christian woman you wouldn't be so worried. i hope God sends you a blood clot and you end up like terry shiaivo. then you'll learn.')
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
i don't read Hugo Schwyzer enough and i should. he's thoughtful, smart and takes care of something called a chinchilla. (yeeks.) but he's also one of the rare churchy guys around who writes about women, feminism and modern masculinity in a way that doesn't make me want to get in a black van, roofie a few guys and take a hammer to someone's penis.
(hey. sometimes i get angry. i'm bad. i know that.)
check out his post about male posturing and also his link to this blog that talks about grace and faith and choice. it's not about reproductive choice but whether faith is a choice. it's all very somber and honest and real writing about faith.
ok. now i'm going to leave my office and meet Roomie for a birthday drink.
(hey. sometimes i get angry. i'm bad. i know that.)
check out his post about male posturing and also his link to this blog that talks about grace and faith and choice. it's not about reproductive choice but whether faith is a choice. it's all very somber and honest and real writing about faith.
ok. now i'm going to leave my office and meet Roomie for a birthday drink.
Monday, July 23, 2007
vote for romney, vote for moroni
the conversation went something like this:
harry potter weekender #1: so who do you think will get the GOP nomination?
harry potter weekender #2: not giuliani.
harry potter weekender #3: ugh. please not giuliani.
hpw #2: it'll be romney.
harry potter weekendr#4: really?
ding: no way. not if they want and need the evangelical vote. say what you will about the fundamentalist, but they know their bible. there is no way in hell they'd vote for a mormon.
hpw #2: i don't know. at one point they seemed to like giuliani.
ding: yeah, because he's catholic. everyone knows catholic. but mormon? no way. let me put it this way. they'd rather vote for someone jewish than a mormon. jews are familiar. jews are the Chosen!
hpw#3: exactly. judaism is an incomplete part of christianity. and, eventually, they get saved, too.
ding: exactly. after the rapture and the tribulation, of course, but they get saved. it's the whole point.
(silence)
hpw #4: i am constantly surprised at the two of you and your fundamentalist, whacko childhoods.
(laughter)
hpw #1: but mormons and christians worship the same God.
ding: nope. fundamentalists and evangelicals know there is a huuuge difference between mormonism and christianity. they wouldn't vote for a jehovah's witness, either.
hpw #4: for me, the issue is romney used to be pro-choice! and now he's not?
ding: exactly, where are the flip flops for him?
hpw #2: then what'll they do? vote for hillary? i think not.
ding: they'll sit it out. they won't vote.
hpw #3: they won't vote.
hpw #2: i think that unlikely.
ding: not as unlikely as it is to expect a true evangelical, fundamentalist, southern baptist christian to compromise on their doctrine. again, say what you will about the fundies, but they know doctrine and they know that being a mormon isn't the same as being a christian or even a muslim. they think it's a cult. whacky.
hpw #2: what if romney had a running mate who was normal?
ding: well, that's different. but romney's still a whacko mormon. to, uh, the average evangelical, that is.
hear that, democrats??
all you have to do is present folks with this choice: an adulterous, pro-choice catholic or an untested, flip-flopping mormon.
we win!
God - Religion - Presidential Election of 2008 - Elections - Polls - Voter Preferences - Mitt Romney - New York Times
harry potter weekender #1: so who do you think will get the GOP nomination?
harry potter weekender #2: not giuliani.
harry potter weekender #3: ugh. please not giuliani.
hpw #2: it'll be romney.
harry potter weekendr#4: really?
ding: no way. not if they want and need the evangelical vote. say what you will about the fundamentalist, but they know their bible. there is no way in hell they'd vote for a mormon.
hpw #2: i don't know. at one point they seemed to like giuliani.
ding: yeah, because he's catholic. everyone knows catholic. but mormon? no way. let me put it this way. they'd rather vote for someone jewish than a mormon. jews are familiar. jews are the Chosen!
hpw#3: exactly. judaism is an incomplete part of christianity. and, eventually, they get saved, too.
ding: exactly. after the rapture and the tribulation, of course, but they get saved. it's the whole point.
(silence)
hpw #4: i am constantly surprised at the two of you and your fundamentalist, whacko childhoods.
(laughter)
hpw #1: but mormons and christians worship the same God.
ding: nope. fundamentalists and evangelicals know there is a huuuge difference between mormonism and christianity. they wouldn't vote for a jehovah's witness, either.
hpw #4: for me, the issue is romney used to be pro-choice! and now he's not?
ding: exactly, where are the flip flops for him?
hpw #2: then what'll they do? vote for hillary? i think not.
ding: they'll sit it out. they won't vote.
hpw #3: they won't vote.
hpw #2: i think that unlikely.
ding: not as unlikely as it is to expect a true evangelical, fundamentalist, southern baptist christian to compromise on their doctrine. again, say what you will about the fundies, but they know doctrine and they know that being a mormon isn't the same as being a christian or even a muslim. they think it's a cult. whacky.
hpw #2: what if romney had a running mate who was normal?
ding: well, that's different. but romney's still a whacko mormon. to, uh, the average evangelical, that is.
hear that, democrats??
all you have to do is present folks with this choice: an adulterous, pro-choice catholic or an untested, flip-flopping mormon.
we win!
God - Religion - Presidential Election of 2008 - Elections - Polls - Voter Preferences - Mitt Romney - New York Times
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
coming to a seminary near you: the pr0n elephant
Feministing has a riotous post about the big blue porn elephant that's making the church rounds as a way to educate congregations about our christian (i.e., hidden) porn addiction.
heh.
mark your calendars, folks. october 7 is porn sunday.
(and, hey. i got rid of my pr0n, thank you very much. it made me sad.)
heh.
mark your calendars, folks. october 7 is porn sunday.
(and, hey. i got rid of my pr0n, thank you very much. it made me sad.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
