Ponderings

Note: Revisiting Matthew’s remembrance of Jesus’ teaching on the law (Matthew 5), I was pondering what the parallels would be in our modern discourse. He named the legalism of the day, and then pushed beyond the legalism to the heart of the matter. Using a (preachable!) call-response motif, he was able to apparently embrace the law but challenge the hearers to a much more compelling (if difficult) response. Borrowing from this tradition, I began to wonder what Jesus might say about the legalisms of our day, the “wedge issues”. The following quotes were shared with our congregation (8:30am, 27 Apr 08) and then in a presentation to the Women’s Interfaith Conference of St. Louis (08 May 08).

You have heard it said, “You shall not kill unborn babies.”
But Jesus might say to us:

You shall not put women and children in positions of vulnerability,
economically and socially,
such that life is not welcomed and cherished.

You have heard it said that you shall not engage in homosexual affairs.
But Jesus might say to us:

You shall not close your minds or hearts to the possibilities
of loving and respectful covenants for yourself or others
that move beyond culturally defined norms.
You shall not limit liturgical celebrations nor define relationships
in ways that push people into closets and dark bars.

You have heard it said, “You shall have prayer in public schools.”
But Jesus might say to us:

You shall not implicitly or explicitly show preference
for any particular practice of prayer
such that would discourage any other practices.

While I was parked on CNN.com last Tuesday waiting for Lake County, Indiana to post their results, the people of Myanmar had just begun to count their dead.

As I sat between the surreal story of tens of thousands of people destroyed and the nail biting politics closer to home, I found myself noticing a tab on the page called “issues”. I clicked and discovered that the issues of this election year are, again, abortion, same gender marriage, guns, and stem cell research. The economy, immigrants, Iran and Iraq also appear, but the dominant concerns are clearly ones of personal piety. Me and mine.

While we squabble about issues of personal morality, tens of thousands of people whose lives were already tenuous have now been literally washed away. The hundreds of thousands who survived the storm are now perishing in the devastation that remains. Pouring salt on the wound is the bitter reality that even as the world wakes to the sound of crisis, the government of Myanmar has already expressed reluctance to open its closed doors. Although a lover of irony, the tragic proportions of this irony are haunting.

Public media can be misleading but in the case of what captures our American interest they seem to be sadly on point.

The Missouri Secretary of State’s office (conveniently found at www.sos.mo.gov) lists the ballot initiatives now circulating in our state. The list is not dissimilar from that at CNN.com and includes abortion, affirmative action, and stem cell research. And though there are a couple of initiatives dealing with more communal issues (renewable energy and health care), the only initiative on the approved list thus far is one limiting our official discourse to English.

Similarly the Christian Coalition announces that the seven political issues facing people of faith are: “conservative” judges, limiting stem cell research, protecting tax cuts, ensuring ‘Christian’ access to the internet, banning non-heterosexual marriage, and protecting Christians in the military.

All of these issues are worthy of our consideration and perhaps our vote, but none of these address the gross inequities of the distribution of wealth (and food) in our world that have rendered the people of Myanmar unable to cope with the devastating cyclone.

We ‘invest’ millions of dollars, hundreds of millions in fact, to debate sound bites and defend personal piety while entire regions of the world are without food and subjugated to the desperation of the most vicious junta.

The fiery words from the prophet Amos (ch 4-6) echo in my mind:

Woe to you “cows of Bashan” who “lie on your ivory beds” while the “widows and orphans starve”.

Of course, such teaching is deemed a distraction and can quickly earn a public roast. If we learned nothing else from Jeremiah Wright, certainly we learned the importance of sticking to issues of personal piety and not questioning the balance of wealth and power. If only our still speaking God wasn’t.

Note: What follows are my ponderings regarding the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s comments at the National Press Club this week. Important additional links might be his conversation with Bill Moyers and a letter from the Rev. Dr. John Thomas, President of the United Church of Christ. On May 18th, I hope you will join us in “sacred conversation about race“. Now, back to pondering…

I am a sheep.

I’d like to think that I make my own decisions, educated ones at that. But today I realized how easily I am led.

All day I’ve been muttering about the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s comments at the National Press Club. I’ve been watching Barack Obama’s numbers haemorrhage as he spent the day distancing himself from his once beloved pastor. I’ve been pondering ways to cherish the pride that I felt after Wright’s appearance on Bill Moyers in the midst of my disdain for what aired two days later.

That Fox news denounced the speech isn’t newsworthy. That Rabbi Lerner (Tikkun) and Huffington Post blasted him caught my attention. In fact, my news sources are just about as liberal as they come, and all had squarely denounced the speech and even Jeremiah Wright himself. And I too began to denounce the very man that two days earlier I heralded as a word of hope for my denomination (the United Church of Christ) and my faith tradition (Christian).

After a day of pouting, I approached the computer tentatively and typed “jeremiah wright” into the Google search bar. A blur of reports and predictions stared back. “jeremiah wright national press club” yielded another field of chaos. “jeremiah wright national press club transcript” hit pay dirt and began to read.

Who knew that preceding the incendiary sound bites was a reasoned and incredibly articulate address? The address is an exceptional primer in the history, importance, and tenor of the American black church experience. While he doesn’t mince a lot of words as he calls for the repentance necessary for reconciliation, he is undeniably brilliant and theologically on solid ground.

Having yet to read the words that had sounded so inflammatory, I moved beyond the prepared address into the question and answer period. Knowing my own skill at foot-in-mouth, I braced for the worst. Indeed I found the question, “In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?”

In classic Jesus style, Wright answered the question with a question. “Have you read Horowitz’s book ‘Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola’? Whoever wrote that question, have you read ‘Medical Apartheid’? You’ve read it?” After suggesting the importance of reading alternative views, he reminds the audience that governments have historically committed heinous crimes and concludes with, “I believe we are capable.” Any thinking person who has dared to take even a cursory look at history must conclude the same. We are capable.

Having faced the transcript, I went back to the You Tube clips and heard them with entirely different ears. Which is, of course, the point that the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright has been making all along. Whenever he was asked about a sermon quip, he asked if the questioner had listened to the sermon; inevitably they had not. Our judgements rendered upon sound bites are at best erroneous and at worst will lead us down the path of slaughter.

We are sheep. But there is good news, there are holes in the fence, some of them large enough to dance through if only we would. One of the largest openings is education. May we find the courage to walk through it.

On Thursday, May 1st, civic centers around the country will celebrate a National Day of Prayer.

Congress initiated this holiday in 1952 and President Truman signed it into law during the height of McCarthyism. This was the era of loyalty oaths in the Federal government and Hollywood blacklists. Reacting to communism’s atheism, our leaders added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and a National Day of Prayer to the calendar. At its inception, the commemoration was Christian but not intended to be exclusively so.

As the Moral Majority became a trademark rather than a definition, leaders within its movement had already been at work to provide definition and structure to the National Day of Prayer. A group that called themselves the National Prayer Committee established a National Day of Prayer Task Force in 1972. This group coordinates events around the country that essentially comprise our observance of the National Day of Prayer. Although not technically commissioned by the government, their website boasts that they are, indeed, the “official website” for the National Day of Prayer and the NDP Task Force functions with an implied endorsement that has yet to be challenged.

Shirley Dobson of Colorado Springs has chaired the NDP Task Force since 1991. Shirley works closely on this and other projects with her husband, James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family. The NDP Task Force actually makes its home on the campus of Focus on the Family. Although the values support prayer “regardless of current issues and positions”, the preferential option of Christianity is clear in the goal of “publicize(ing) and preserve(ing) America’s Christian heritage”. The volunteer application even offers a statement of belief that must be pledged:

I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God. I believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his miracles, the atoning work of his shed blood, his resurrection and ascension, his intercession and his coming return to power and glory. I believe that those who follow Jesus are family and there should be unity among all who claim his name.

As one who believes Jesus about God and seeks to experience the God made known in his life and teachings, I am a Christian. As a Christian, I could not in good faith sign this pledge and I am offended that it claims to be definitive of Christianity. In fact I find this hijacking of faith to be so deeply offensive that I have new found appreciation for those who simply walk away from organized prayer altogether. Communion with God transcends these narrow definitions, and our recognition of that communion must transcend our cultural barriers.

Because our God is still speaking, and people are still listening, an alternative to the NDP Task Force events are being offered this year. Called the “Inclusive National Day of Prayer”, this emerging movement is sponsored by Jews On First. Jews on First is a group committed to defending the First Amendment against the Christian Right. Their motto is “because if we don’t speak out, they’ll think we don’t mind.” They have encouraged us to contact our civic leaders in request of more inclusive celebrations and their website offers helpful talking points.

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed “official” National Day of Prayer folks have invited us to come to city hall on Thursday at noon. No one argues that a bit of prayer is good thing, but unless our intent is to support the hijacking of our faith, we might want to sit across the aisle wearing a prayer shawl or head scarf.

When our church was founded in 1920, the name chosen was “The Evangelical Church of Webster Groves”. The name signified two identities, our membership with The Evangelical Synod of North America and our location in Webster Groves.

Our name has been changed only twice in the succeeding 88 years, both occasioned by our denominational membership. When the Evangelical Synod of North America and the Reformed Church in the United States joined together to become the Evangelical and Reformed Synod of North America, we changed our name to “The Evangelical and Reformed Church of Webster Groves”. This first changed continued the pattern begun of using membership and location to name our community.

The second name change accordingly was inspired by another denominational shift. When the Evangelical and Reformed Synod of North America joined together with the Congregational Christian Churches in 1957 they formed our United Church of Christ. Correspondingly, our name needed to change.

Although the United Church of Christ was formed in 1957, it wasn’t until October 1963 that our name changed. Following our pattern, the likely name would have been “The United Church of Christ of Webster Groves” and this name was considered. Legend suggests that the special congregational meeting wherein our name was chosen was emotionally laden and more than a bit contentious. To adopt the name that was simply membership and location was to lose the word “Evangelical” in our name. Perhaps even more troubling was the lack of distinction from two other United Church of Christ congregations in our community, one just two blocks down Lockwood!

When we became “The Evangelical United Church of Christ of Webster Groves”, the word Evangelical conjured for our members and friends images of German heritage and the unifying spirit of Christ. Although fundamentalism was at play in the American landscape, the evangelical political movement that dominates our current landscape was not yet imaginable. For those unfamiliar with our rich heritage, the name Evangelical was simply a quirky word with neutral implications and it provided a linguistic distinction between our community and the one at 10 W. Lockwood Avenue.

In 1963, our community very much needed to be The Evangelical United Church of Christ of Webster Groves. We needed all three pieces of our name: history, membership, and location. What do we need in 2008?

As we’ve witnessed the media swirl around Trinity United Church of Christ, we have experienced a communal sense of moral outrage and shared identity. Not only do we resonate with the branding of the Still Speaking campaign, we shared a communal and whimsical defense of SpongeBob several years ago as we hung sponges on our Rainbow Fish Tree and went on MSNBC to tell our story as members of the United Church of Christ. Now more than ever, our membership name is significant for us.

On the other hand, our historical tag, Evangelical, has become misleading. Increasingly we find ourselves spending time deconstructing the cultural definitions of our name. If it weren’t actually functioning as a barrier, the dissonance between our community’s values and those of the evangelicals would be humorous. As we hear increasing numbers of stories of people afraid to enter our doors, we’ve stopped laughing.

Perhaps we are the United Church of Christ of Webster Groves. Clearly this is the pattern set by our founders. Interestingly, though, when we enter our zip codes into mapquest we discover a regional identity. In truth, our geographic tag is a bit misleading in that ours is a regional community.

What are the words that are most important for who we are called to be, both now and in the coming decades?