5 Minutes for Rebuttal - This installment, "Why Bishop Hanson is Wrong"

This could be a new regular segment for this blog.  The name came from a church friend who happens to work for the largest defense contractor for the United States.  One Lent, I was leading a weekly series for adults on social justices issues.  One week, the topic was "War & Peace" and I essentially presented the a form of Ron Sider's argument, that Christians need to be willing to die for peace just as soldiers are willing to die for war.  After the session where I preached an idea of radical nonviolence, I went over to speak with my friend who joked, "I'd like five minutes for rebuttal."  In that light,  I present this post... and maybe the start of a series... ideas I've encountered recently for which I'd like to have five minutes to present a rebuttal.

1.  "We should have respect for all faiths."
Really?  Do you really mean that?  Should we have respect for the hateful faith of Westboro Baptist?  Should we respect the faith of the "pastor" in Florida who wanted to organize a burning of Quarans?  I simply have no respect for those faiths, and don't believe we should.  Maybe the original statement is fine... if we define "faiths," otherwise, I have an issue with that statement.

2.  Changing lyrics of any John Lennon song, especially "Imagine".
I understand you might not like Lennon's idea to imagine a world without religions.  I'm sorry.  As someone who identifies as a progressive follower of Christ, I must admit, I'm pretty much fed up with religions as well.  But if that idea bothers you, than simply don't use the song- no one's forcing you to use it.  But absolutely, positively, under no circumstances should you alter John Lennon's lyrics to accommodate your hyper-protectionism of your "religion".  Just don't do it.  Remember how you want to  have "respect for all faiths"?  John Lennon is a god to many, many people- don't desecrate their faith.

3.  ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's guest column in the Washington Post...
Last week, Bishop Hanson wrote a column for the "Guest Voices" space of the Washington Post.  I'm not very surprised, but I have seen multiple ELCA Lutherans praising the piece, stopping just short of calling it "prophetic".  I'm not going to spend a lot of time addressing the fact Hanson is very late to jump on the bandwagon decrying partisanship and political rhetoric (often hateful)- hell, even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert beat Hanson to it- or the fact that I actually felt the column was considerably weak.  Rather, I'll limit my real rebuttal to a brief comment of his:


"Christians whose hope and confidence come from the biblical witness... recognize that government is God's servant..."


Really?  Because I have some Anabaptist friends who would beg to differ- not to mention a significant number of Christian progressives and conservatives who see the government as anything but a servant of God.  Not to mention the horribly slippery slope that idea can create.  Simply, while Lutherans may have a confusing two kingdom theology, many Christians believe that their only allegiance and citizenship are in the Kingdom, and that they live as aliens in a foreign land.  Christians should feel no more responsibility to participate in any form of civic religions than the responsibility early Christians felt to participate to the cults of Roman emperors (which was "none").


[NOTE: Before posting this I happened to speak with a Mennonite seminary professor- not surprisingly, she strongly disagrees with Bishop Hanson's comment, and also believe that it goes against a popular belief among Anabaptists.  So, according to Bishop Hanson, those Christians who disagree with him must not get their hope and confidence from the biblical witness?  Unreal.]
[UPDATE: I received a note from someone who has taught at both ELCA and Mennonite seminaries who referred to Bishop Hanson's understanding as "naive" in light of Romans 13.]

Concerns regarding the climate at Palmer Theological Seminary

This is an email chain that started last week when I emailed administrators at Eastern University and Palmer Theological Seminary.  I wrote the email after feeling compelled to do so based on encounters I have had at PTS this year, the recent crisis of teen suicides that resulted from bullying, and as the result of an email sent out from EU administrators to the entire EU community.  What follows is the original mass email from EU administrators, my email, a response to my email from an administrator, and my follow-up response.  After my follow-up response.  I have replaced the names of the individual administrators with their titles.

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Student Development

To:  Eastern University Community

Date:  Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Subj:  Important Notice Concerning Harassment and Sex Discrimination

Dear Eastern University Community,

In the light of the tragic death of a student at Rutgers as well as the recent up-tick in “bullying” and other meanness that is facilitated through social media but also person to person and group to group, we want to state clearly that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at Eastern University.  We also want to emphasize that anyone who feels personally threatened or mistreated at any time and in any way by anyone or anything will be supported and cared for unconditionally.

Eastern supports equal treatment of people and in the spirit of this message, we also call your attention to the Title IX policy regarding sex discrimination.  

Please refer to the Student Handbook located here http://www.eastern.edu/campus/studev/handbook.html which is down-loadable as a PDF and search-able for Title IX, as well as other policies regarding how EU community members are expected to treat each other. 

Any person who might find him/herself to be a victim of bad behavior by others however major or minor, or anyone who observes this happening to someone else, is urged to contact any member of the Student Development staff or Student Services staff at any EU school for conversation, guidance and support.

--------------------

Vice President for Student Development

--------------------

Dean of Students

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Ryan Paetzold

To:  Chancellor of EU/Acting Dean of PTS

CC:  President of EU, Vice President for Student Development at EU, Dean of Students at EU

Date:  Thurs, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Subj:  Concerns regarding the climate at Palmer Theological Seminary

Chancellor [of Eastern University],

            I am writing to you as an alumnus of Eastern University (B.A. 2007, Biblical Studies and Youth Ministry), and as a current student of Palmer Theological Seminary (M.Div.) who is deeply concerned about the recent news of student suicides that resulted from acts of bullying.  Part of my concern is the specific climate I have experienced at Palmer which makes me fear that students, and professors, are often hostile and dehumanizing towards and in reference to people with different sexual orientations.  There are specific encounters I have had this year which deeply worry me.

            This past spring, I was enrolled in Holistic Habits for Ministry.  During the class, a student referenced a lesbian who was attending her church, and the student explained that as a result of the woman’s sexual orientation the church was not comfortable allowing her to use either the women’s nor the men’s restrooms because her orientation made her “not really a woman or man”.  While the idea that a person’s sexual orientation in any way negates their gender is offensive and dehumanizing (and totally incorrect), the professor did not in any way correct the student, and instead, the professor continued by explaining that in his church they will welcome homosexuals, but then “they will have to stop sleeping around”—as if “homosexuality” is in any way synonymous with “promiscuity”.

            During that same semester, I was enrolled in “Theology and Public Policy”.  During a discussion in that class a student made the comment that homosexuality is “the same as sex with animals”.  Once again, the professor in no way addressed the comment.

            While I understand there are different views on homosexuality, neither of those situations contributed toward intelligent dialogue, and they both led to what I felt was a hostile and dehumanizing environment.

            This past summer, I was pleased to be taking “Understanding Human Sexuality” during the summer term.  During the class we spent considerable time learning about sexual minorities- in terms of both sexual identity and sexual orientation. However, while we spent considerable time in regards to sexual minorities, we did not have even one voice from that community—neither in the texts, nor as a presenter or voice in the classroom.  This is beyond disappointing to me, especially considering that we have members of our student and graduate communities who are sexual minorities.  To me, attempting to understand human sexuality but not including any sexual minority voices, especially when sexual minorities are a topic of the class, is like having a class on ethnicities, but not including voices from any ethnic minorities.

            Further, when I read the email that I received this week from Vice President [for Student Development] and Dean [of Students], my discouragement continued.  Several times, the email references Eastern University’s policy against sexual discrimination, and even links to the policy.  While I appreciate Eastern University’s policy against sexual discrimination, sexual discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis of suicides that resulted from bullying over this past month.

            I currently have dual church memberships; one membership is with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the other is with a church that is a member of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists as well as the Baptist Peace Fellowship.  The policies regarding sexuality maintained by both Eastern University and Palmer Theological Seminary are incongruent with the teachings of the ELCA, the AWAB, and the BPF.

            Chancellor [of Eastern University], I fully recognize the adversity that Eastern and Palmer will face as a result of taking an official position against all forms of harassment and hateful attitudes and dehumanizing behaviors towards sexual minorities and those who support sexual minorities; I have faced such adversity many times at Palmer.  However, it is because of my undergraduate experience at Eastern, and the professors I learned from that have fostered in me the understanding that we must stand against all forms of hate, regardless of what theological stances we may have on homosexuality.  I firmly believe that nothing less than the moral identity of Eastern University, and Palmer Theological Seminary are at stake.  This is where the commitment to faith, reason, and justice is put to the test.

Most sincerely,

Ryan Paetzold

________________________________________________________________

From:  Vice President of Student Development

To:  Ryan Paetzold

CC:  President of EU, Chancellor of EU/Acting Dean of PTS, Dean of Students at EU

Date:  Thurs, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Subj:  Re: Concerns regarding the climate at Palmer Theological Seminary

Ryan,  Your e-mail concerns me and I thank you for copying me on it.   I want to  point out however that your statement in your e-mail to [Chancellor of EU] about my e-mail to the community is incorrect.

You wrote,

" Further, when I read the email that I received this week from Vice President [for Student Development] and Dean [of Students], my discouragement continued.  Several times, the email references Eastern University’s policy against sexual discrimination, and even links to the policy.  While I appreciate Eastern University’s policy against sexual discrimination, sexual discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis of suicides that resulted from bullying over this past month."

Ryan, I mentioned sex discrimination once in my e-mail and called attention to the Title IX policy as a separate matter, (I said, " Eastern supports equal treatment of people and in the spirit of this message, we also call your attention to... ").   Sex discrimination is a subject  that is important to remember when talking about how we treat each other.   Hurtful interpersonal actions and marginalization of people  based on biases, beliefs and misconceptions however, can occur in both these matters as well as many other areas and none of it will be tolerated here.

The link I provided is to the Student Handbook, not the Title IX policy .

The statement I sent out  is printed below for your review. [Posted above for this blog] 

As you know (I hope) I will  always make myself available to you to discuss with you, anything you find concerning.  My responsibilities with Palmer are informal but (as I hope you also know) I love Palmer and Palmer students and want to be helpful in matters there as needed. 

I hope that you will make an appointment to meet with [Chancellor of EU] soon so that you can discuss these concerns personally with him.  You will find him to be genuinely concerned about the well-being of all students.  [Vice President for Student Development]

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Ryan Paetzold

To:  Vice President for Student Development at EU

CC:  President of EU, Chancellor of EU/Acting Dean of PTS, Dean of Students at EU

Date:  Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Subj:  Re: Concerns regarding the climate at Palmer Theological Seminary

Vice President [for Student Development],

Thank you for your reply.  Please know that my formal tone is only an attempt to express my respect for you (as well as the other administrators).  I deeply appreciate that you have, indeed, always made yourself available to discuss any concerns.

I apologize for incorrectly stating that email linked to the Title IX policy... it linked to the Student Handbook which includes the Title IX policy.  I agree that "hurtful interpersonal actions and marginalization of people  based on biases, beliefs and misconceptions however, can occur in both these matters", my concern is that while the email named discrimination "on the basis of sex" (from Title IX), it did not name the issue as it pertains to the current crisis of young adult suicides, bullying on the basis of sexual orientation.  While I support the idea of appealing to the underlying principle of how we should treat each other, this is an issue where many people feel it is acceptable to make exceptions for how we treat sexual minorities, or people who support them; I have found this to be too common at Palmer.  Essentially, an epidemic of young adult suicides based on homophobia and on mistreatment because of sexual orientation feels like an odd time to specifically name sex discrimination instead of mistreatment because of sexual orientation.

While the email made me uncomfortable, my real issues of concern are the encounters I have had at Palmer this year.  My intent in my email was to express my concerns and to make sure that administrators are aware of the encounters which partly reflect the climate at Palmer.  Eastern University is important to me, and I am, and have always been, willing to do anything I can to help any of the schools.  If meeting with [Chancellor of EU], or anyone else, regarding my concerns would help the school, I am more than willing.

My intention is not now, nor has it ever been to force a theology upon anyone.  But, I do feel strongly that there is clearly a need to directly address hateful, and blatantly incorrect statements and attitudes towards sexual minorities and those that support them- especially at an institution which seeks to educate and to prepare individuals for ministry, and especially since sexual minorities are members of our community.

Simply, it is time to specifically address how we treat and talk about sexual minorities.

Sincerely,

Ryan Paetzold

_________________________________________________________________

At this point I received a personal reply, which I am not comfortable posting.

My Concerns for "Circle of Hope"

Let me say I take absolutely zero pleasure in calling anyone out.  I hate it.  But at this point, despite my extreme discomfort, I feel it is the responsible, and now necessary, thing to do.  A few preliminary notes...  First, for this post some names I have changed, some I have not; I have changed the names of anyone who was hurt in the situation.  Second, none of the emails that I will share were ever said to be private.  Third, I do not wish to dig up old issues, but I feel some context is necessary.   Fourth, I did ask for feedback regarding this post from a group of people whose opinion I admire- some were involved in this situation, others were not.

I started attending Circle of Hope, at the Frankford & Norris location, back in 2008, and I regularly attended for several months.  Circle of Hope has an email listserv called the “Dialogue”. Essentially, you subscribe to an email list, and then you are able to send an email to one address which will the forward the email to the entire list.  I am a fan of dialogue, so Circle’s Dialogue seemed like a great concept.  During my months on the Dialogue, I would receive emails from people looking for a roommate, looking to donate items, looking for a job, etc.  Essentially, the Dialogue was used to broadcast any sort of message.  Occasionally, it was used to talk about the past or upcoming week’s worship theme, or some theological idea or concept.  Usually, there was a popular understanding, and to go against it was a bad idea.  This is pretty much how I was removed from the Dialogue.  Someone had sent an email about the week’s upcoming worship theme from Romans.  Eventually, a comment was made attacking the military/war policy of President Obama.  I admitted that his policies are not ideal, but in my view they are certainly a step in the right direction from where President Bush was.  Oddly enough, this got me “banned” from the Dialogue- who would have thought, dialogue wasn’t allowed amongst the Dialogue.  The excuse for banning me was that I was not a member of the “community”; we’ll come back to this reasoning a little later.

While I was banned from the Dialogue, I remained on the listserv of an intentional community founded and overseen by Circle of Hope.  The community, Shalom House, seeks to work proactively work for peace on many fronts.  I was a member of this listserv as a result of overlapping interests and as a result of personal/social contacts.  Early in 2010 after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, Mennonite Central Committee published a memo that said while MCC was not thrilled with the constant presence of weapons by the U.S. military in Haiti, and with how those weapons were displayed, MCC recognizes that the U.S. military is probably the only organization in the world trained to be able to respond to such a disaster.  This memo was circulated on Shalom House’s listserv and immediately responses poured in suggesting that MCC has been “seduced by the militarism of the United States.”  Right away, I viewed that response as off-base and ridiculous, but I had learned not to disagree on Circle-affiliated listservs lest I be “banned” again.  However, in my experience, especially in the area of peace and war on an international scale (not to mention their international humanitarian work), I am not sure I find any other organization who’s work I respect more than MCC’s.  It just so happens that I also know the author of the Haiti memo; he is not seduced by the militarism of the United States in any shape or form, and he remains summon I deeply respect and admire.  Nonetheless, the response to the Haiti memo is another illustration that Circle does not take kindly to opinions that differ from their own- even if it is from a well-respected non-profit organization.

Now for the latest fiasco:

Recently, an email went out through Shalom House’s listserv to discuss the identity and role of peacemakers in regards to a recent sermon at Circle of Hope.  In the email, a link was given that led to a page that lists many of the sermons from Circle of Hope.  Pretty quickly, a reply was sent from someone who saw another sermon on the page entitled “How can those who have limited cognitive functioning know Jesus?”.  The replier (we’ll call her “Betty”) was incredibly upset and offended, partially because a member of her family suffers from a cognitive disorder. Betty went on to say, “i'm sorry, but i have grown to feel that the ignorance of this church far outweighs the good it does and no longer wish to receive information from this congregation or any of its affiliates.”  While I felt the language was quite strong, I did not necessarily disagree. Sensing the hurt, I sent a personal reply to Betty, thanking her for her courage in sharing her thoughts and also explaining that I thought there was validity to her concern regarding the sermon, and that I am also sensitive to the topic as a result of having a member of my family who is head-injured.

Approximately 20 hours later, the Circle of Hope founding pastor (“senior” pastor??), Rod White, sent a terse, “You may have received poor treatment, and I am sorry for that. But you obviously did not listen to the speech, since it addresses the very prejudices you decry.”  To be totally honest, I partially felt that Mr. White probably expected that Betty was already removed from the listserv, therefore she wouldn’t get this reply, and she wouldn’t be able to respond to what I felt was his dismissive reply.  I did forward the email to Betty as I felt she was entitled to it since it was, after all, a reply to her.  Unfortunately, while I felt Mr. White’s reply was inappropriate, I did not respond since I knew it would most likely get me banned.  That was until someone else (we’ll call him “Dave”) sent a reply that included the following:

By telling Betty that [s]he didn't listen to the speech, you not only nullify your apology for [her[ mistreatment but humiliate [her] before the members of the listserv. When you tell [her] [s]he didn't listen to the speech you are addressing the members of the listserv, not [her]. That alone is dehumanizing. But if what you say is true (that [s]he did not listen to the speech) then you either deny [her] feelings or accuse [her] of lying. The speech emphasizes how we must embrace rather than deny our feelings, so why not explore [her] feelings? The speech emphasized the importance of learning from people with disabilities. I think this would provide an excellent opportunity for learning, not only about disabilities, but peacemaking. 

Betty is hurt and alienated. Now you must make peace with [her]. 

By this point, I had learned that Betty had indeed listened to the sermon, multiple times. Additionally, she shared with me the specific concerns she had shared in a personal email to Rod concerning the content of the sermon and what she perceived as Circle’s attitude towards people with disabilities.  Those valid concerns ranged from the fact that Circle's facilities are not handicap accessible, and that Circle projects an attitude both spoken and unspoken, that they seek to serve the disabled as a way to enrich their own lives.  Motivated by the fact that I didn’t want Dave to feel alone, I also sent a reply:

Dave, I totally agree with you, and I think you said it very well. Rod, I feel your response was rather dismissive, and dehumanizing of Betty. Clearly, she was viewed as some part of the community to be on the listserv, so she should not be so quickly dismissed. I can only imagine how difficult it was for her to write that and to discuss the disabilities she knows all too well, and the treatment that has caused her pain. Further, I am sure she listened to the sermon (probably multiple times), yet, you publicly dehumanized her well after she had requested to be removed from the listserv (which was clearly written in her email). I'm willing to bet that she was removed from the listserv before your public (albeit very short) response to her. 

A short time later, Dave and I both received a personal reply from Rod White which seemed to be an attempt to justify his response.  Mr. White only admitted, “My tone definitely could havesounded dismissive.” [Emphasis added].  He further goes on to justify his comments by saying that better has a history of “hurtful, self-destructive actions.”  Maybe I’m crazy, but even if that claim is true, I think it was horribly inappropriate of Mr. White to share that information.  Not to mention, assaulting Betty’s character in no way justifies Mr. White’s response.

Shortly after this, Randy (again, his name is changed) posted to the listserv, thanked Dave and I for our comments as he had felt the same way, but was afraid to say anything.  Randy then suggested that the topic should be moved to the more general Dialogue as opposed to the Shalom House listserv.  As a result, I tried to subscribe once again to the Dialogue, however, Mr. White informed me that I was still banned and would not be allowed to join the Dialogue.  I contacted Randy to let him know that I would not be able to continue the conversation since I was banned from the Dialogue, and Randy informed me that Mr. White had emailed him and told him that he was also going to be banned because Mr. White claimed Randy was “misunderstanding too deeply”.

It seems Mr. White has taken the original unfortunate comments he made, and turned this into something much more hurtful and sad.

Not to be outdone, I later received an email from another pastor at Circle, Joshua Grace, reprimanding me for posting to the listserv in the first place, and then specifically criticizing Mr. White (which I don’t believe I technically did, I simply said his response was dismissive and dehumanizing).  My response to Mr. Grace included, “I did not request to be on the Shalom House listserv, but since I was on it, I felt obligated to reply when I saw a response the was dehumanizing and demeaning, and I will criticize such behavior whatever the source may be.”

Since this hoopla began, multiple people have told me that they were also banned from Circle of Hope’s dialogue, and/or treated rather poorly.  It feels like Circle is not really as interested in dialogue as they claim, and in fact, they become incredibly unhappy with anyone who disagrees. When Circle claims someone as a member of their “community” what they really mean is “church member” or someone who attends very regularly; this is apparent since the people who have been cast out included members of the neighborhood, as well as individuals who have close social and personal relationships with many members of Circle.  Further, the level of certainty (read as "arrogance") that Circle of Hope, specifically the leadership, must feel in order to cast out so many people while using excuses as "misunderstanding too deeply" is staggering.  Circle likes to often speak of “becoming the next generation of the church” (which, despite requests for clarification, that phrase seems to me another attempt by Circle to be cool- how can you be the “next generation”??), but they seems to be causing as much hurt and pain as any other typical American church. It also seems the next generation of the church is very defensive, and is easily threatened, since they are so eager to dismiss those who don’t fall into line with their thoughts and rules.

I have experienced many churches from various views points as a congregant, staff member, and volunteer.  And while I have seen many things in churches that have made me uncomfortable, I have never before seen anything this hurtful.

Again, my aim is not to cause hurt or anything of the sort; rather, it is to specifically address a situation that seems to be reoccurring: Circle of Hope seems to almost intentionally cause hurt, and to then cast out those who challenge it.

A challenge to my interfaith brothers and sisters in South Jersey...

Last weekend I was at the annual Ecumenical Advocacy Days in Washington, DC. While I've attended countless conferences, this was my first time attending EAD (though I've attended conferences by many of the organizations that happened to be presenting).

EAD's central theme this year was on immigration reform, but the conference covered far more with tracks focusing on the middle east, environmental justice, domestic issues, etc. The conference had many sponsors and organizations involved, almost all of them are worthy of respect and support. I'm going to specifically highlight two organizations at the end of this email. First, I shall rant.

I attended an excellent workshop on Afghanistan and Pakistan (and I happen to have a CD if anyone is interested...) But, it's easy to feel disillusioned and powerless after wrestling with that situation, and so many other incredibly important, but incredibly difficult and large scale situations. So many of these situations need a significant mobilization of people who not only care, but care enough to do something, even if doing something means dealing with an inconvenience.

Specifically, my problem is this: so many times I've come back from conferences deeply concerned about issues whether it be poverty, healthcare, the total lack of a homeless shelter in Burlington County, etc. The frustrating part is that I've quickly realized what a significant voice the faith communities in the Medford area could be, if only we got our act together, organized, and spoke to those in power (local freeholders, our senators, our congressional reps- one of whom, a democrat, consistently votes against healthcare reform). But I immediately run into obstacles... the most prevalent, from what I can tell, is pastors who are hesitant to preach the full Gospel due to possibly upsetting congregants and losing headcount for Sunday mornings (maybe that should read "losing tithes from the offering plate"). So, I end up frustrated, and too often feeling like I am alone with these issues, or an army of one.

But it hit me. In the very first workshop I attended, once again emphasized was the importance of going home and getting people involved to lobby our elected officials. I have a new suggestion: What if the heads of all of the organizations, and specifically churches, that lead these workshops actually issued directives themselves? What if the UMC Council of Bishops, or the ELCA Presiding Bishop actually issued a directive to get congregations out and meeting with elected officials? What if Bishop Hanson, the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, told all of the bishops within the ELCA, to tell all of their pastors within each of their synods, to tell all of their members within each of their churches that "This week, we need to meet, call, email our elected officials about our current immigration system."? I am not under the illusion that every member would actually follow that direction, but surely there would be more of a voice from the too often deafening silence of the Christian community, specifically in the Medford, NJ area. Instead of running workshops telling us to go home and rally people, the churches who are leading these workshops should issue the directive from the top, that is if the churches truly care about these issues and social justice.

So, I suggest that instead of the very few of us lobbying our elected officials, let's also place a few calls to the head offices of our denominations, asking those top officials to make these issues a priority in every congregation, not just at conference weekends... Surely, those officials (and even more so, our local pastors) have a deep interest in our membership at their churches. In fact, I'll even offer the polar opposite of Glenn Beck's advice- if your church doesn't talk about and ACT for social justice, leave the church. Turn in those pastors. Especially at a time when the social justice taught by Jesus throughout the Gospels is under attack, let's not ignore the important struggle that we must be a part of for justice for all creation.

As promised, two organizations specifically stand out in my mind, especially for the South Jersey/Philadelphia area:

Heeding God's Call is an organization that wants to eliminate the illegal purchasing of firearms. Their goal is to get gun dealers to agree to a code of conduct to prevent "straw purchases". This is an organization whose primary action is not legislative in aim, but rather an agreement with the gun shops. On their website, Heeding God's Call has many of the articles related to a gun shop in Philadelphia that was notorious (according to reports from the ATF) of being the source where many illegal guns used in crimes came from. Currently, Heeding God's Call is attempting to have The Shooter Shop in Kensington, Philadelphia agree to the code of conduct. There will be a nonviolent demonstration outside The Shooter Shop this Good Friday, April 2 at 4:00 pm. There will be a gathering for prayer at The Salvation Army, 1920 E. Allegheny Ave, 19134 before heading to The Shooter Shop in prayerful procession. For me, this is a much better place to spend Good Friday, as opposed to inside a church building.

The New Sanctuary Movement states on their website "When we see families in need or in danger, we are called by our faith to respond. We pledge our support to the families suffering from unjust immigration laws." This is a group of people of faith who believe that once our eyes are opened, they cannot be closed. The New Sanctuary Movement is already active in many cities, including Philadelphia.

Are there any churches in South Jersey with enough courage to join these movements?

Guide Posts & The Ethics of Blogging

So, again, I find myself wrestling with blogging.  I'll explain my current struggle, but first want to talk about a friend of mine...

So back in 2007, my final year at Eastern University, I had an intro to philosophy class.  It was kind of interesting because it was a class typically taken by freshman, but since I had transferred into EU, I ended up taking a few "freshman" classes in my final two semesters.  It was an early morning class (yeck), and I remember I felt the class was so-so.  But I usually sat next to, or near a freshman girl.  Two things about her stuck out in my mind:  First, she couldn't stand being at Eastern.  Second, she was kind of cute.  So, I naturally added her as a friend on Facebook.

Fast forward three-ish years.  I'm now a fairly progressive Christian, deeply concerned with issues of social justices, and frequently despairing over the state of U.S. politics.  She's now about to graduate Arcadia University as an International Studies major, and while agnostic, we often arrive at similar progressive viewpoints.

While I haven't seen her in years, Facebook has created a connection that while unusual, is becoming more and more common (I have a surprising number of relationships with people whom I've never actually met in person, yet have worked with, etc).

I have a handful of people in my life that I use as reference points, guide posts, mentors, or more of a mix of all three.  The majority of this people are older than me, and almost all are Christian (not really designed that way, but when I'm struggling with situations within the institutional church, they're familiar with that setting and often the struggles).  I recently admitted to my friend that I consider her as one of these people in my life that I use as a guide post to figure out if I'm going off track, going crazy, looking at things poorly, or even if I'm on the wrong side of an issue.

That was a great deal of background for what brings me back to my perpetual blogging dilemma.  This friend has a blog (and a darn good one at that).  It's strikingly personal, incredibly well written (to the point that it's almost intimidating), and amazingly honest.  It has created in me a desire to be equally honest and personal in a blog.  However, this blog is not the place for it.  While I don't update frequently, this blog has been shared with many people.  It's listed in my Facebook profile for my over 300 friends (many of which I haven't seen, and originated from projects I worked on in regards to faith and society). And, my vision for this blog was to write an specific issues, and struggles within faith, culture, and at the intersection of both, so sharing personal details (especially if I get anywhere near as honest as my friend, as I hope to eventually be able to do) does not feel safe, nor appropriate for this blog.

So, I believe I will be looking to start another blog- one that is more anonymous, or at least not one that is not directly pointed to after a search of the projects I've worked on.  My thought is that it will be somewhat inbetween this blog, and an all-out journal, and that while it is not easily searchable, I will share it with trusted friends.  I hope this change will make me feel more comfortable writing about personal situations, and personal struggles.

Oh, the ever intriguing blogosphere.

Top Ten Albums and Songs of 2009

I started this blog entry a couple of weeks ago, but accidentally lost the post due to my learning curve with an app for my Droid. Please note: the Amazon.com samples are downloads, all other links will take you to a new page to stream the content. Anyway, I gladly present my top ten songs & albums of 2009...

Top Ten Albums of 2009

1. Bell X1 - Blue Lights on the Runway (Amazon.com, XPN Performance)

2. John Forté - StyleFree (Amazon.com, XPN Performance)

3. Gomez - A New Tide (Amazon.com, XPN Performance)

4. Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros - Up From Below (Amazon.com, XPN Performance- a co-bill with Justin Townes Earle)

5. Susan Werner - Classics (Amazon.com)

6. Dave Matthews Band - Big Whiskey and the GrooGruz King (Amazon.com)

7. Sondre Lerche - Heartbeat Radio (Amazon.com, XPN Performance)

8. Shemekia Copeland - Never Going Back (Amazon.com, XPN Performance- a co-bill with Indigo Girls)

9. Ingrid Michaelson - Everybody (Amazon.com)

10. Roseanne Cash - The List (Amazon.com, XPN Performance)

Top Ten Songs of 2009

1. Bell X1 - The Great Defector (Sample from Amazon.com, Letterman Performance)

2. Gomez - Little Pieces (Sample from Amazon.com)

3. Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros - Home (Sample from Amazon.com, Letterman Performance)

4. Dave Matthews Band - Why I Am (Sample from Amazon.com)

5. Gomez - Airstream Driver (Sample from Amazon.com)

6. Dave Matthews Band - Funny The Way It Is (Sample from Amazon.com)

7. Bell X1 - How Your Heart Is Wired (Sample from Amazon.com)

8. John Forté - Play My Cards For Me (Sample from Amazon.com)

9. Susan Werner - Maybe I'm Amazed (Sample from Amazon.com)

10. They Might Be Giants - Why Does the Sun Shine (Sample from Amazon.com, Craig Ferguson Performance)

I was going to offer commentary, but nah. Check out these artists, and their new tunes.

Church Budgets and Starving People

The letter read, “…consider providing an additional one time gift of $100 or an additional gift of ten dollars each week…” I was confused. I was expecting a letter asking me to pledge money to the church for 2010, but this was something different.
The fact I am even expecting a letter to pledge money for 2010 is unusual for the church where I am a member because it is an exception to the program the church selected for this tithing campaign. The church selected “The Pony Express” which involves one family in the church writing their pledge on a card, adding it to a sack, and then hand delivering the sack to the next family on the list who will then rinse and repeat. To help promote this, the church even produced a video- complete with actors and even a talking horse (and it is searchable on youtube).
So yes, the letter in my hand was in addition to “The Pony Express” currently underway. Clearly, this is very important to the church, after all, they acted in and edited a video presentation, and sent out multiple letters to every family in the congregation. But it’s not that money is so important to the church that’s most troublesome to me, it’s the fact that it becomes a priority over the poor.
Earlier this year, I along with a small group, attended a church council meeting to present them with a letter:

May 11, 2009

Grace and peace to the Church Council at Lord of Life,
Lord of Life Church has long been committed to reaching our neighbors in need, as evident by the history of our mission trips that have reached our neighbors from Lumberton all the way to our neighbors in Galveston, TX. Social justice remains a concern for our church community, as members of the church are called to work with the Fuller Center for Housing, as our adult Lenten series focused on multiple social justice issues, and as congregants wrestle with texts such as Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, The Hole in Our Gospel, and The Irresistible Revolution. Clearly the desire for social justice is growing, especially in these challenging economic times, as is the desire to strengthen our commitment to our local community.
We have been inspired by Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Burnsville, MN and their “Three Promises Initiative” as referenced by Pastor Jones in his recent message on April 19, 2009. We believe these promises accurately reflect the intentions of the early church as found in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:45). It is in this spirit that we urge the Church Council of Lord of Life to take a further step in faith and promise to our family of faith that:

1. No one will walk the journey of economic hardship alone if they choose not to,
2. No one will be without a roof over their head,
3. No one will be without adequate food.¹

We agree with Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, MN that our “family" extends at least to everyone with a connection to Lord of Life, regardless of whether they are official members, and to friends and acquaintances of people with a Lord of Life connection.²
As brothers and sisters in Christ, we urge you to prayerfully consider publicly affirming these promises to our community.

Faithfully in Him,

Your brothers and sisters in Christ

¹Heavily borrowed from Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Burnsville, MN (http://www.princeofpeaceonline.org).
²Ibid.

Shockingly, the church council proceeded to have a debate (heated at times) about whether to make these promises. After an hour and a half of debate, the council voted to make the promises, and the pastor stated that he would announce the decision during the worship services the following week. That announcement did not happen. Honestly, I’m not sure if it ever did happen (though there are rumors it happened later in the summer). Even if the announcement was made to those who gathered for worship, that was as far as the “public affirmation” went, a far cry from the efforts and the affirmation of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Minnesota (my church didn’t even post it on the church’s website!).
I am bothered that a church which puts forth so much time and energy as long as it is a financial recipient, seems to have significantly less time for the poor.
The letter I received stated that because the church did not receive as many donations as were expected this year, the council had to dip into the “reserve fund” and to borrow money from the building account. Forgive my cynicism, but I’m pretty sure the poor don’t have a “reserve fund” or a “building account”.
I received the letter yesterday, and my anger has been brewing ever since. Today, I came across the headline “Record numbers go hungry in households in the US” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report). The article states, “50 million people in the US – one in six of the population – were unable to afford to buy sufficient food to stay healthy at some point last year.”

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands."

-Acts 17:24 NIV (Emphasis added)

"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whenever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

-Matthew 25:44, 45 NIV