Ponderings

Leading the crusade for Amendment 2 and the protection of stem cell research in Missouri are altruistic philanthropists. Leading the charge against not only the amendment but against research as well are equally well intended church leaders. Will the real good guy please stand up?

Given that I’ve devoted my professional life to the institution called church, I would like to default to the church leaders but I’m wary. In a strange twist of irony, my family’s Sunday evening movie choice was “Kingdom of God”, a Hollywood rendition of the ancient Crusades. I cringed to see the endless flow of blood in the name of God. And though I would like to see the Crusades as an aberration, history is not so kind. The anti-Semitism that Hitler brilliantly captured was fanned by no less a saint than Martin Luther. Apartheid in South Africa had biblical definition. Salem, Massachusetts still bears the scars from the religiously sponsored frenzy that burned young girls as witches. The church has tragically found itself in bed with the forces of evil in many of our historic nightmares. Putting God’s name on an issue does not make it godly and the plethora of church signs against Amendment 2 does not make stem cell research sinful.

Admittedly I’m a bit squeamish about the deep pockets that are evidenced in support of Amendment 2. As a person who knows the price of the bananas at both Schnuck’s and Aldi’s, the money trough that feeds our campaign madness is unnerving. But before we pick up our stones, we should at least acknowledge that the Stowers Institute does not have a financial incentive with this initiative, quite the opposite. Stowers Institute’s goal is to ensure their right to give their money away, not to make more. Their goal is to be able to invest in health care research without leaving home (Missouri), the cutting edge of which is stem cell research.

Given Stowers Institute’s commitment to healthcare, they would not have been willing to divert research money for this campaign if religious politicians hadn’t made the campaign necessary. Although the vast majority of Missourians respect scientific inquiry and support at least some forms of stem cell research, our Missouri legislature has repeatedly tried not only to ban such research but actually to criminalize it. Bills have actually been drafted, and tax payer funds already spent to debate, the criminalization of stem cell research. Given the repeated attempts in the legislature, a constitutional amendment to protect research was deemed prudent. Such an initiative would be a waste of Stowers Institute’s money were it not for the tax dollars spent to make such research a felony. As a church professional, it is my shame that the religious voices in our legislature are more concerned about eggs and blastocysts than about children with Juvenile Diabetes and elders with Parkinson’s. These are the same legislators who claim a religious conviction for life while cutting funds for Medicaid.

I have not had the privilege of meeting Jim and Virginia Stowers, but I find myself wanting to stand between them and those who are wont to sling mud. And though I have no knowledge of the Stowers’ personal religious convictions, their sharing of their considerable personal wealth to fund scientific research for the sole purpose of health and healing is as close an embodiment of Jesus’ ministry as I’ve seen. If defining the good dares to move beyond the platitudes, my vote is with the Stowers and Amendment 2.

Red is the new purple in St. Louis.

I was talking with a friend today about the game tonight. I remarked that one of the delights for me in this particular World Series is that I can’t lose. I am a Michigander who loves St. Louis, I am proud of the Tigers (those little kittens!) while I am happily ensconced in red. My friend glared at me and said, “You live in St. Louis now.” After I smiled as innocently as I could, she was still glaring as she said, “Do you even watch the game?” Ouch. St. Louis-ans are loyal to the red.

For a few brief hours those who cherish life by fighting abortion and those who cherish life by protecting stem cell research all don the same color and cram into the same Metro stations. If Michael J. Foxx and Kurt Warner both lived in St. Louis, they would both be watching the game tonight. Veterans for Peace and the VFW folks look the same in their Cardinal regalia. In this amazing city, this amazing week, even the boundaries of faith erode as Christians, Muslims, and Jews all raise hands together to cheer for our team. For a few brief hours we are all cheering for the same team, we are purple in our red.

Purple is the color of hope. Although we may not agree about when life begins or how it ought end, I think all of us would agree that all of the children in our city deserve adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and education. If we can don the same color to cheer for some adult men running around the grass with bats and balls, we should certainly be able to gather ourselves around the children that live between us and the stadium. As we watch this strange coalescing of civic pride in service to a greater calling, I am reminded that we have a choice about what unites us. We can come together for a common goal as we have this week, or we can make strange bedfellows in pursuit of a common enemy. Our new purple is a choice for the common good.

And I wonder about the possibility of purple in this last week of campaigning. What would happen if this election was not about what divides and frightens us, but about the values that we share? This week is filled with laughter and friendship in our fair city, purple is a color joy. What would it be like to share this common commitment and joy as we worked together on roads, and schools, and healthcare? Win or lose, we are winners for having spent the week together being purple in our red. Is it too much to hope that we could continue the winning streak into the first week of November, appealing to the common good and cherishing the life abundant in our midst?

I like the new purple. Though I still smile when I see my home team, my heart is at Bush Stadium this week with the people in red.

See you on Sunday – in purple (or is it red?)!
Katy

My family of origin is shifting between gears. Sometimes I think we need a new clutch.

I have three brothers. One is the over achiever, one the talented under achiever, and one the black sheep. (I’ll leave it to them to tell you who is who.) Although I love each one dearly, my relationships with them have ebbed and flowed rather irrationally.

My primary role as the sister is to emote. I come from a family of little experience and thereby a low threshold for emotional displays. Gender roles designated that I would display the emotions appropriate to the occasion. “You’re so emotional!” was the response, but in a strange way it validated my role.

But in midlife with my brothers scattered across the Midwest, I am at a loss to play my traditional role and I haven’t yet found a new one. One brother is bravely navigating a hideously painful divorce, another struggling with a spouse’s potentially crippling diagnosis, and the third – thankfully! – is in a holding pattern. (He’s the baby – not yet 40. His day will soon come!) As I witness the ground shifting beneath us, I wish desparately to know my connection.

So when one of my brothers called today to share the latest chapter of the saga called life, I was deeply touched. I still don’t know my role. I can no longer be the designated emoter; I’m too far away, too removed, and simply too old for the childish games. And in this strange new land of transitions I’m not sure where a sister fits. I know only that I cherish him – each of the hims - and honor his journey and delight to know that I am included even without my assigned emotive cloak. And for today, in this autumn of life, it is enough.

These relationships born of chance not choice are backdrop with which we see the myriad of relationships in our lives. Imperfect, halting, fragile, broken even and yet enduring. Inescapable. The clutch may be worn, but it rises to the occasion and we shift into a new gear. Grace.

Just prior to yesterday’s Governing Body meeting I decided that it would be helpful to gather and share the various statements (of faith) that had been generated by our congregation in the past decade. The project turned out to be more complicated than I anticipated, I arrived to the meeting late with a totally unedited handout. Finding these statements on my computer was the first challenge, trying to make a coherent annotated layout was another.

Over the past years we have affirmed our basic Constitutional purpose statement in our Vision Statements of 1998, our Welcome (Open and Affirming) Statement of 2001, and our Shared Ministry definitions of 2006. This purpose was also woven through the statement that emerged from the Not Quite Round Table group that met in 2002-2003. (Now that I’ve gathered them together we’ll put copies in the Narthex information racks - lots of good stuff there!)

I’m really intrigued by the purpose statement because it is simultaneously both dated and timely; callling us in to worship, build community, and move back out into the world. We have alot of words and make alot of proclamations, but always we come back to this three-fold movement.

The avowed purpose of this congregation shall be to worship God, to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to celebrate the Sacraments; to realize Christian fellowship and unite within this congregation and the church universal; to render loving service toward humanity; and to strive for righteousness, justice and peace.

What I’ve not yet been able to discern is the source for this statement. A couple of years ago I discovered that Maplewood UCC had the same statement! Since then I have found several other (historically German Evangelical) also sharing our purpose statement. Clearly it is a distinctive part of our tradition, one that has stood the test of time.

Although the way we say it may change, we share this commitment with a long line of saints who have gone before. As we ponder the ways in which we will live out these commitments, I invite you to cherish with me our heritage as we forge new paths ahead.

Gathering to experience the transcendent,
building an educated and inquiring community,
serving in the quest for justice and peace.

I am deeply troubled by the religious voices of opposition to Amendment 2.

I spent a perfectly marvelous day with the women’s groups of two of our Webster Groves UCC churches (First Congregational and Evangelical) touring south city St. Louis churches. We were visiting to look at the incredible architecture, but we couldn’t help but note the signs and pamphlets related to Amendment 2 (which addresses stem cell research and cures for Missourians).

As I read the literature that is being shared by faith communities in opposition to the amendment, I was appalled by the misleading allegations. One claims that “the initiative will force Missouri tax payers to directly fund cloning and embryo destruction with absolutely no strings attached” (bold italics from the original). This is blatantly false. No where in the proposal is there any mention of taxpayer funding. None. Another claims that the amendment is “deceptive and misleading” with no substantiating data. Communities of faith have a responsibility to enter the cultural dialogues, but our voices are called to enhance the conversation not to poison the well or provide false information. I respect diversity. I respect that the spirit alive in our midst may well lead us to different conclusions. What I have no respect for is a lack of educated inquiry and blatantly false information.

My own personal decision is one in favor of Amendment 2. As a faith leader in our community, however, my plea is simply that we engage in honest and educated inquiry.