Ponderings

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?

In honor of tax day (April 15th) the Institute for American Values released a study entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States.”

An inflammatory title, perhaps, but insomuch as the article addresses the plight of childhood in America, the alarm is appropriate. Today in America, 12.5 million children are hungry, 1.2 million children are homeless , 69% are reading below grade level , and a third will not graduate from high school. These numbers are, from any view, totally unacceptable.

Why are so many of our children hungry, homeless, and undereducated? While everyone can agree that no child ought to be hungry in a land of abundance, political roads diverge as we identify the cause(s).

Ben Scafidi (Economics, Georgia State University) decided to look at the number of these children who have only one parent, and imagined a world where each of them had two. Most of these single parents, he points out, are moms. In fact, one of his assumptions (which he admits might be ‘conservative’) is that zero single dad households would be lifted out of poverty by marriage because (again, his ‘conservative’ estimate) there are no single dad households in poverty. Therefore, while single moms need a male to emerge from poverty, single dads do not need women. If we could get a man into every home, we could, he reasons, end poverty.

The goal of ending poverty is certainly laudable, but just in case we are not moved by nameless children, Scafidi appeals to us as taxpayers. Although the Children’s Defense Fund would point out that our communal support for vulnerable children is woefully lacking, Scafidi suggests that we could actually spend less and get more with a communal emphasis on marriage. He identifies the percentage of poor children in single parent homes and assumes that the equivalent percentage of spending is attributable to marital status. Eliminating single mothers (and their children) would save an estimated $112 billion dollars, annually.

To be sure, one way to lift our children out of poverty would be to add additional wage earners (of either gender) to each home. Single moms would be helpted not only by an additional male wage earner but also by a female one. This welcome of additional adult support in female form is probably not the intent of the study’s sponsors. Given that the Institute for American Values is a self-professed leader in the movement to “save” marriage, the indirect support of Scafidi’s study for lesbian families is an ironic if unintended byproduct.

Before we rush to the altar or cash the refund check, though, I would like to revisit one of at Scafidi’s assumptions. He correctly identifies that single dads fare better than single moms do, a reality that deserves more attention. In fact, dads (men) consistently earn more than moms (women). The United States Bureau of Labor that reports that working full time, women earn only 77.5% of what men earn. Looking at the salary numbers, the AAUW suggests a different approach to the problem Scafidi identifies. They point out that if men and women who share the same hours, education, union status and geographic location also had the same salaries, women’s annual family income would increase by $4000 and poverty would decrease by half. Despite all of our efforts and protestations to the contrary, sexism in the payroll department is irrefutable.

Although Scafidi is technically correct in suggesting that an additional adult (male or female) wage earner to the family will reduce poverty, the more immediate and just response is to raise the mother’s salary.

Co-sponsors of the study include the Georgia Family Council, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest
http://www.familyhomelessness.org/pdf/fact_outcasts.pdf http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/edu2.asp
http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes/WIT_nineseconds.pdf
http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes/WIT_nineseconds.pdf

When I started seminary in 1985, I was as homophobic as the average American. Although uncertain of my own views on sexuality, I was not uncertain about the expectations of the Christian church. I had pilgrimmaged through an array of American Christian expressions, and none of them was gay friendly. Like most ministers of my generation, I assumed that a call to ministry and a same gender relationship were mutually exclusive.

Very quickly, however, the leadership of the seminary (United Theological Seminary, New Brighton MN) assured our class that if we had a problem with homosexuality it was our problem and we needed to deal with it, quickly. After all, they explained, in the United Church of Christ we have been ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy since 1972 and in the wake of the AIDS crisis, we cannot afford to spend time revisiting bad (exclusive) theology. In a time when silence equaled death, these leaders were not willing to be muzzled.

I admit that I was a bit perplexed but hugely relieved. Already I knew that this new denominational home was manna from heaven. Having slogged my way as a woman through “no women need apply”, I had no need to hang onto my homophobia.
Still, we were not naive about search committees. The ideal minister, I was keenly aware, is a (heterosexually) married man. Women are a distant second. Same-gender couples need not apply. In the two decades since leaving Minnesota, I have been repeatedly surprised by how unlearned these lessons still are. My first churches were in Michigan, an Open and Affirming Conference that worked very openly on behalf of equality. Even so, when an Open and Affirming church nearby was searching for a new pastor, my friends assured me that, as a woman married to a man, it was traitorous for me to apply. There were so very few truly open churches.

Coming to Missouri was even more eye opening in the dissonance that is ours in the United Church of Christ. Not only was this Conference not Open and Affirming, they had actually passed a resolution agreeing to not talk about it! When our congregation moved through the process, acting our way into being before finding the words, the Conference actually discouraged us and provided no overt support for our process. Epiphany UCC was the one oasis in St. Louis that held the light as we journeyed. In the years following our movement, there have been many more. Having acted our way into being as a Conference, new churches on the journey are now receiving support and encouragement. Increasingly our diverse St. Louis families have nurturing choices for worship. Truly much has changed.

Having come so far in the past couple of years, I was totally blindsided by the action of a nearby congregation. On May 30th the congregation gathered and voted to terminate their contract with their beloved pastor. Beloved or no, he had shared with him that his orientation was not, as they assumed, heterosexual. And they felt deceived.

This leaves me with a couple of important observations about our cocoon. Foremost is gratitude for the nurture and safety of our local church community. It is a choice that we make daily, a choice to believe Jesus about welcome, a choice to be vulnerable with one another, a choice to believe that we are worthy. Our choices, woven with together with the Spirit, have created an environment that enables growth and fosters compassion. Truly, ours is a blessed community for which I daily give thanks.

My other awareness, however, is that it is time for the butterfly to emerge. Enough is enough. The safety that has become second nature to many of us is sorely lacking in our world, even within our local UCC congregations. Our Governing Body and staff are spending Saturday afternoon in a visioning retreat, considering what it means to be a ‘leader’ for our still speaking God. The timing could not be more perfect.