The X Word

Athletes are fighting our culture wars again. They're dealing with backlash from language.

There's all sorts of words that can't be used in polite or impolite conversation anymore. There's "The N Word," "The F Word," "The L Word," "The R Word," "The B Word,"  "The F Bomb," and "The K Word" among others that just can't be used in language anymore.

By the way, if you aren't familiar with "The K Word," it's "The C Word" but that word makes my wife so angry I don't even say "The C Word."

The latest two offenders have been Kobe Bryant of the Los Angles Lakers and Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls. They both dropped "The F Word" in a game setting, Bryant at an NBA Referee, Noah at an unruly fan. Bryant was fined $100,000 and Noah $50,000. In an explanation, Bryant was fined $50,000 for the word and another $50,000 for directing it at an NBA employee.

One of the apologies that has been made by sportscasters on behalf of these athletes can be summed up with "When using these words as insults, they are not used to compare the insulted person with the people represented in 'The X Word' nor are they to derogatory to the people represented in 'The X Word.'" This lets them and us off the hook way too easily.

What the apologists are saying is that if a pro player says that someone "throws like a bitch" he is not saying that he throws like a girl. Really?

So if a pro player says "you're my bitch" he says that he owns you on the field of sport, but not owns like a man owns a woman? Really? If it's not ownership then why the possessive pronoun? And women are fine with this concept of ownership?

It has been said "there is no direct connection between the insult and the people represented in the insult," but that's a lie. If no connection were intended and if no derisive intent were intended then it wouldn't be an insult would it?

This charade is being addressed, at least by the NBA with fines, but the sports radio apologies have to stop. The reason it truly has to stop is that it lets us off the hook too. If the pros don't mean it then we don't mean it either do we? Really? If it starts on the playground then it's not going to stop at the pros.

OBLIGATORY NOTE ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
At one time, for maybe about fifteen minutes in the early 1990's, political correctness was about treating people with dignity and respect. It quickly seemed to turn into not offending anybody. There is a difference. One comes from a place of positive action and the other is from the negative. There's always a place for positive action. Negative never comes from a healthy place or goes to a healthy place.

So in conclusion, I'm not saying you can't bust someone's chops, working with a college baseball team some years ago I learned baseball players, coaches, and umpires are some of the great chopbusters of this age. But there is a right way to do it, and there's a way that costs money. Let's do the right thing.

Church Vision

I have been contemplating church purpose statements lately. I don't mean mission statements, I don't want to think about Mission Statements yet. That's more than what I am playing with in my mind right now. What I am really looking at is a statement of the thing that defines who we are as this part of the Body of Christ here and now.

Chain of Lakes Church, Suburban Twin Cities (From the PC(USA) Mission Yearbook, April 29, 2011)

"We are called to be an authentic, Christian community where: strangers become friends, friends become disciples, and disciples impact the world."

The First Baptist Church ministered to by Pastor Rich (in Kevin G. Ford's "Transforming Church" Salt River Press, 2007, ff. 56.)

"A Safe Place"

Heritage Church in Moultrie, Georgia (From Ford's book, page 86)

"A passionate community of disciples who significantly impact their world for Jesus"

First Presbyterian Church of Longview, Texas (http://www.fpclongview.org/)

"Glorifying God and Enjoying Him Forever"

First Presbyterian Church of Berryville, Arkansas (the congregation I formerly served)

"To gather and welcome the broken people of the world and through God's word make us one."

There are many, many others. Some of these are mission statements, some of them ways to describe how they define themselves as community. If your church has a statement like this, I welcome you to join the happy discussion. 

Change That Never Comes Easily Will Continue Not To Come Easily

It appears that sometime this afternoon or this evening, The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. will pass amendment 10-A (The full text of the amendment can be found on pages1-2 on this link.). In a prior blog post, I wrote "Many say this is the amendment about allowing the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. It is more accurate to say this amendment allows for the nomination to ordained office for gays and lesbians." A friend reminded me that this is not the only truth.

The passage of this amendment will also allows heterosexuals involved in sexual relationships outside of marriage to be ordained and installed. (I always knew this was true. I myself have taken a gracious path with betrothed, engaged, and "engaged" persons involved in ministry.) He has also reminded me this prohibition has touched older members of the church in committed relationships who don't marry because of decreases in pension and social security benefits between two singles and one couple. I forgot all about them.

Some would say the second paragraph isn't the point, the prohibition was written to deal with gays and lesbians, not heterosexuals. To this I say "It always stinks when law is interpreted as written and not as originally intended or envisioned." Believe me, those pensioners who are "living in sin" were not the target of this rule, but they were under it.

Anyway, after today and effective July 11ish, this will no longer be true. So what do I hope comes of this?

Hope 1--Humility in celebration, graciousness in defeat. This is the third time this change has come before the church and it will change this time. I honestly don't recall the "global" reaction the last time the church finished voting on this, and maybe that's a good thing. I hope beyond hope that this is how the church will respond, by forgetting the way everybody responded the last two times. But after reading white letters, blogs, and tweets from both sides of the issue, I have only limited expectations of this outcome.

Bruce Reyes Chow was the Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA). In a recent twitter post he wrote, When ordination standards change in the Presbyterian Church (USA) I hope one expression of my joy will be graciousness. Wonderfully said, elegantly written.

Hope 2--A sense of scope and perspective beyond "I have such a complete handle on the word of God I know for a fact that if the vote doesn't go my way a hard rain is going to fall." Pardon this snarky hope, but so often people on both sides of the Presbyterian Ordination Argument have in one way or another said just this. Yes, I say both sides.

Michael Jinkins is the President of Louisville Seminary and said this today on the Faith and Leadership blog:

Whenever I hear someone say that the situation we face now is graver, more challenging than any we have ever faced, I stifle a laugh. Our low point surely was at the beginning of the Christian movement. We muttered and worried in that room long ago and could not imagine that Christ was raised from the dead, risen with healing in his wings, and with his death and resurrection had judged even our highest aspirations as inadequate. He pronounced our greatest hopes as infinitely too small.

Friends, it's not the end of the world. (That isn't scheduled until later this month.) The church has had many moments of controversy and has had it's embarrassing and shameful moments. But guess what, this is nothing compared to what the first disciples knew after the scene in Gethsemane and before the Resurrection. Nothing.

So friends in Christ, Christians of the Presbyterian Church (USA) persuasion, after tonight's votes, pray. Pray for the church. Pray for your friends. Pray especially for your friends who don't agree with you. There is going to be a change and change never comes easily. This change is going to be particularly charges.

On, and one more thing: Go and serve God.  In the end, that's the only change God really honors. If we do nothing, who the church ordains will not matter a lick.

Nope, Nothing Is Certain

In a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy on November 13, 1789 Ben Franklin wrote: Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

Well, guess what--Franklin was wrong!

For legal purposes, a corporation has the same rights as every individual person. But with government bailouts of "corporations too large to fail" there is now corporate immortality.

Also, there are corporations that do not pay corporate taxes. These are very big corporations too.

So we actually have individuals in this country that can't die and don't pay taxes. It looks like Franklin was wrong after all. I don't think he'd be happy with that.

Half-Baked

I hate half-baked thoughts. I have so many that I have gotten over them, but they are bothersome, particularly when it comes to blogging.

As I have admitted in this very cyberspace, my thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden bother me. It's great that the perpetrator of so much death is now dead, but is causing more death reason for celebration? I think the answer is yes, some. How much is too much, as my friend said "unseemly," is the big question I'm not prepared to answer.

Yesterday the Presbyterian Fellowship (mentioned in my "The Sly Is Falling" post) sent out its next letter. They talk about "Dual Citizenship" in the PC(USA), in the "regular" denomination and in their new "more obedient" version. The full text of the letter can be found here. Again, they say they don't want to leave the church, they just want to be a safe haven for the "like minded."

This time, I'm going to take a day or two before responding. I'm not going to jump head long into where angels fear to tread.

But I think the beginning of what I have to say is this, as the "fat kid" and now the "fat man" I have long known what it's like to be on the outside. From kickball to dating to seeking a call, I have often been on the outside looking in. Suddenly, people who have traditionally done the excluding see themselves as the excluded, and it bugs me.

Whatever, I haven't figured it out yet. Maybe a big part of what I need to mull over is where my arrogance and my ignorance come together as I consider the words of others. Thanks be to the God who knows the answers, even the ones that don't get shared.

On the Death of Osama Bin Laden

It was a Tuesday morning at seminary in Austin, Texas, I was learning the Hebrew alphabet. After class I went to the Financial Aid Office because I needed to do some paperwork. It was there that I heard of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Listening to it on the radio was surreal. It was like listening to H.G.Wells "War of the Worlds," but this time it was real.

Last night, just after midnight, I couldn't sleep so I turned the TV on to ESPN. After about a minute I noticed the "BREAKING NEWS" logo at the bottom of the screen. This is where I learned of the death of Osama Bin Laden. I changed to the news and watched. Since then I have wondered how to respond to the death of a terrorist who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. Rabbi Shmuli Boteach has posted his response on algemeiner.com. I enjoy much of what he has to say.

But let me start with where I disagree. He says "Judaism stands alone as a world religion in its commandment to hate evil." He goes on to say that Christians don't understand the words of Jesus, he knows that because he has studied the New Testament and has even published a book sourcing it throughly. Let me take this sidetrack for a criticism of the Rabbi, what Christians call commentary and Jews call midrash exist to help teach and understand the word of God. You are allowed your commentary, but as I am unqualified to teach you your faith, you are equally unqualified to teach me mine. Instead, let's find common ground.

Saying that, his closing comment is where the rubber hits the road:

"I hate Osama bin Laden but I will not rejoice in his death. It would have been better for the world had he never been born. But once he was, and once he directed his life to unspeakable cruelty, it was necessary for him to be stopped and killed. And for that I give thanks to G-d and the brave soldiers of the American military for making the world a safer, more just, and innocent place."

These are good words.

Evil is to be hated. Evil is to be fought. Justice is to be honored and celebrated. Death is to be mourned. To dance on one grave is to dance on all of them. Honor the soldiers who won this battle. Honor the soldiers who have fallen fighting this battle. Know that it was necessary to end the reign of terror caused by Osama Bin Laden and know that the battle doesn't end with his death.

So these are my first words on the death of Osama Bin Laden. My problem with my own words is that right now it seems like wet concrete. There is plenty of substance, but it's not ready to bear the full weight of what it will eventually support. I guess there is nothing to do but let it cure until it can bear the full weight.

Someone wrote last night that the celebrations of Bin Laden's death were unseemly. I agree with him, but I understand this spontaneous, emotional outburst. Catharsis is never tidy.

May's Newsletter Article

Dear Friends in Christ,

This spring we are conducting a daring experiment. Well, it’s not really an experiment; it’s as old as the Church of Christ itself. Then again, it’s pretty daring in this congregation and in this world. What are we doing that’s so different, we’re celebrating the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper during every worship service from now through Pentecost. Yes, we’re having communion every Sunday through June 9^th. Seeing as how we have never done it like this before, I imagine you have some questions. I hope to answer some of them for you here.

Let’s begin with the most basic question: Why do we celebrate the Lord’s Supper at all?  According to John Calvin, “Christ is the only food of our soul, and therefore our Heavenly Father invites us to Christ, that, refreshed by partaking of him, we may repeatedly gather strength until we shall have reached heavenly immortality.”

In other words, since we are fed in Christ and the Heavenly Father invites us to feed at the table, we should be fed. This is what makes celebrating the Lord’s Supper daring. We believe the Lord feeds us spiritually by the bread and the cup. This is absolutely one of the boldest most daring things we say, but we don’t say it. Our Lord says it; we just repeat it.

Because of this, I believe it is better for us to be fed regularly.

Another question is “How often do we have to celebrate the Lord’s Supper?” Presbyterians have two answers to that question, a minimum number and a maximum number.

The minimum number of times we celebrate the Lord’s Supper is once per quarter, four times per year. The maximum number of times is every worship service. This would include services that aren’t on Sunday mornings, weddings, ordinations, installations, circle meetings, session meetings, youth retreats, trainings, and every other worship setting as approved by the Session. There’s a lot of wiggle room in there between the minimum and the maximum, but that gives each congregation the freedom to consider what is appropriate.

The next question that might come to mind is “Who decided we should have communion more often?” That decision was made by the Session as recommended by the Worship Committee. And yes, it was me that asked the Worship Committee to consider this, but it’s because I believe celebrating the sacraments is important to the Body of Christ.

So why now, why celebrate the Lord’s Supper through Easter? Why should we celebrate this sacrament more frequently at all? The Session chose to celebrate through Easter for two reasons. To start, this is the season after Jesus instituted this sacrament, so now is the best time to start. Second is that we are a sacramental people, we believe these visible signs of God’s invisible grace have power in our faith and our lives. Finally, sometimes we just need the reminder of what our Lord commands us to do, and the last thing he told his disciples to do was to take, eat, and do this in remembrance of Him.

There’s one final point that deals more with how we have interpreted the Supper over the years. Some say that they don’t want to celebrate the Lord’s Supper frequently because it makes the sacrament less special. This does make a point, familiarity breeds contempt. Some fear that if we celebrate the supper more often it will mean less. I can’t stop people from feeling this way through fancy words and rhetoric. If this is how you feel, lofty arguments won’t mean a thing, but I want to offer a different perspective.

Others say that when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper frequently, they find it difficult to see a loaf of bread or enjoy a sandwich without thinking about the Lord Jesus and the meal he shared with his disciples. To this, I say amen and amen.

Let us remember what our Lord has done for us. Let us remember the meal he instituted, the death he suffered, and the resurrected life he leads and promises we share. This is the meal we share; his life, his death, and his resurrection. So come, let us share this meal together. Let us come, taste and see, that the Lord is good.

See you in Church,

Paul