CindiK

When the bully offers you a chance to take a free shot...

2013-05-07T21:00:00Z

Have you ever seen the scenario where the bully or tough person tells the person who's being bullied:

"go ahead, take your best shot"

In some stories, the less powerful person gets in a lucky shot (think David and Goliath). In others, the bully doesn't flinch. Then the bully retaliates.

It's a set up. The bully knows the person can't hurt them, so the offer to "take your best shot." Then the bully has an excuse to retaliate, because the other person threw the first punch.

But lately I've been seeing a disturbing variation on this theme: the bully acts first, and then offers the victim a shot at retributive justice.

I know a woman who discovered her husband was cheating on her... a LOT. Her husband's response was to offer her six months of faithfulness to her during which she could sleep with anyone she wanted, after which they would have an open marriage. To him, this seemed a reasonable way to settle the score.

He offered her something she wasn't interested in - the opportunity to stray - as a way of making up for him breaking their marriage vows. How is that compensation? And then he offered her a kind of marriage in which she was also not interested. In short: "I've taken from you what you wanted, but in return I'm offering you what you don't want."

I've seen situations where someone has said or written some awful thing about women, or people in same-sex relationships, or people of various races or religion. When called out on it, they offer the chance to say something awful about men, or heterosexuals, or white Christians. Somehow, this is supposed to even the score.

It doesn't.

When there's a power differential, the harm is disproportionate. If the elephant steps on the mouse's foot, it's not the same as when the mouse steps on the elephant's foot.

Instead, what if the person causing the harm:

admitted she or he was wrong
did his or her best to undo the harm
endeavored to not repeat the mistake
encouraged others to avoid the mistake

It's not as tidy as "take your best shot," but it's much more helpful.

Sins of commission, sins of omission

2013-04-27T13:30:00Z

Recently, an intentional bombing killed three people and injured nearly three hundred others. People in the USA wanted to know who was responsible. One suspect was killed, another is injured and is being held for trial.

Not long after, another explosion killed fifteen people and injured over 150 others. This wasn't an intentional explosion: no company wants their equipment and merchandise destroyed. But how did the conditions that allowed such an explosion come to be? Was it insufficient regulation? Lax oversight? Willful violation of the law and neglect of safety considerations? And what was the motivation behind these choices: profits for the shareholders? Low prices for consumers?

Still more recently, a building collapse in Bangladesh killed over ~~three hundred~~ one thousand people and trapped over two thousand more. Reports suggest that clothing workers were required to come to work in the building even after concerns about its soundness came to light. And what was the motivation behind these choices: profits for the shareholders? Low prices for consumers?

In the latter two tragedies, I benefit from the choices made that led to death and injury. My 401(k) is invested in funds that may well include the companies that chose profit over safety. I want inexpensive food, which in turn creates a demand for cheap fertilizer. I want inexpensive clothing, which drives demand for cheap labor overseas at the expense of employment in the USA and safety elsewhere.

Maybe that's why - despite the increased cost in human lives - we're not as loud about the latter two tragedies: we can put blame on two individuals in the first, but the other two involve choices we make. Our tendency to maximize our individual gains and minimize our individual costs are at odds with the overall well-being of people in the USA and elsewhere.

The parent or spouse or child of one of these tragedies grieves the same loss whether it was the violent intent of an individual or the collective neglect of a society. God forgive my sins of omission, and lead me to a better way.

Happy Anniversary, Us

2013-04-24T13:30:00Z

Fourteen years ago today, Mary and I exchanged vows & rings, and began a covenanted relationship. But we had been together for ten years before that (two relatively short breakups notwithstanding). So today, on the 24th day of April, we're celebrating 24 years together.

In that time, we've fought, cried, worried, laughed, loved, and cared for each other. We've survived surgeries, cancer, emotional upheaval, loss, and even seminary.

We haven't, however, been recognized by the government as a couple. The government of the United States of America regards us as mere roommates. While the State of Illinois will allow us status as in a "Civil Union," we're holding out for marriage.

Why marriage?

For one, we believe it's inevitable that marriage equality will come to Illinois. We already had a "church wedding" - a Holy Union. We were registered as domestic partners in another city where we once lived. If we now choose "civil union," we don't want to take another step to get the "marriage" title. Enough baby steps.

For another, we want the same status as others. You can say "a rose by any other name," but in the real world, words have connotations as well as denotations. Don't believe me? Would you buy rapeseed oil [that's not a typographical error for grapeseed oil] and, if so, what would you use it for? There will be a hint later on in this article.

Finally, we are confident that the federal government will come to recognize marriages regardless of the sex identifications of the couple. We are less confident that the federal government will recognize civil unions. In fact, it appears that many couples - same sex and mixed sex - prefer civil unions because they are not recognized the same way as marriage.

Marriage equality is a transgender issue

I don't care what you may or may not have heard from someone working for a national gay and lesbian rights organization: marriage equality affects transgender people.

If you've read deeply into my blog, or if you know me fairly well, you know that I have a transgender history. Assigned male at birth, I transitioned to living the way I identify over a quarter century ago, before I met Mary.

One reason we waited ten years to "tie the knot" was that I was still - according to the state of Illinois - legally male until 1998. We would have been able to legally marry, so why didn't we?

First: because we did not want to exploit a loophole that would allow us to do something that our cisgender gay and lesbian siblings could not.

Secondly, it would have required me to be the groom and husband, and that's not how I identify. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not all that butch. Ask Mary. Ask my mom.

For transgender people, the marriage issue is complicated. In some states, one remains legally the sex they were assigned at birth no matter what. In others, the sex marker can be changed only after certain kinds of surgery (requirements vary state to state.) In yet others, documentation from a physician or psychologist is all that's required. Transgender people can be considered different sexes as they cross state lines, causing their marriages to become valid and invalid many times in a cross-country trip.

I know one heterosexual couple who, had they identified as their birth sexes, would have no trouble getting a marriage license. But he was assigned female at birth, and successfully had his documentation changed to male. The state where she was born, however, won't change the sex marker and still has her listed as male. They can't get married because their documentation shows them both as male.

The issue gets even more difficult with non-binary or genderqueer people who do not identify entirely as male or female, and for intersex people whose bodies are not as easy to pigeon-hole in the "male" or "female" spaces.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a personal covenant of mutual support, care, and responsibility. It's important that the covenant be recognized by governments, health care providers, housing providers, and employers. It has real consequences for hospital visitation, inheritance, housing, and benefits.

There are some who say marriage can only be between people who can reproduce together. I've even heard of a Catholic priest who denied marriage to couples where one was infertile. But here's the thing: infertile couples can get married. It happens a lot, and often the couple knows this going into the marriage. I'm friends with a heterosexual couple who have been married for decades and who haven't even had sexual intercourse since the one time on their wedding night. Are they not married? Should they not be married?

There are some who say that allowing couples of the same sex to wed will cause a decrease in heterosexual marriage. My immediate reaction is to wonder how secure someone is in their heterosexuality if they fear that the availability of marriage to couples of the same sex will decrease heterosexual unions. But then I hear that marriage equality would water down the meaning of marriage. That's true if the important part of marriage is being of different sexes. However, if being an exclusive club for heterosexuals is one's primary selling point for marriage, I think the meaning of marriage is already pretty weak.

Myths about marriage equality and religious freedom

There are some who claim they need to be able to ignore our relationship for religious reasons. I understand the basis for these beliefs, but many religious institutions don't recognize marriages done by other religious institutions. Many don't recognize marriages between people of different or no religion. Some even do not recognize marriages between people of different ethnic backgrounds. These distinctions, however, are not valid reasons for denying a couple visitation in the hospital, or government or employment benefits, or housing. Such discrimination is illegal in the USA, and so should discrimination based on the sexes of a married couple.

There are some who claim that our marriage would threaten clergy: that they would be coerced to perform marriages against their will. This is untrue. Clergy have always been able to choose who they marry. No pastor, imam, rabbi, priest, minister, or other religious leader has been forced by the government to perform a rite or sacrament against their will. The only restriction is a negative one: they are not allowed to marry a couple the state does not recognize as eligible for marriage - though they can call it something else, like a Holy Union.

By any other name?

Oh, and as to that rapeseed oil question earlier: it's also sold under the name canola oil. Do you feel differently about it now?

If you're dead-set against my being able to marry the woman with whom I've spent nearly half my life, this article will probably not sway you. I don't think anything I could write or say would do so.

But if you're wondering what all the fuss is about, and why you should care one way or another, here are a few points to ponder:

If one of us dies, and the other is not able to access the one's survivor benefits, who will be supporting the survivor?
If one of us has high health care costs, and can't be covered on the other's insurance plan, and the other has no legal responsibility to pay, who's going to pay the health care bill?

I'll give you a hint: it's going to either be the government or the hospital. Either way, the costs are passed on to you.

But more simply: it's good to support couples who commit to each other. It hurts your marriage not at all if we marry. And even if denying same-sex marriage did cause people to choose partners of a different sex rather than partners of the same sex: do you want your heterosexual son married to a lesbian? How about your heterosexual daughter married to a gay man? Wouldn't you rather your children marry people who really love them and want to be with them for the rest of their lives?

As far as we're concerned, Mary and I are going to be married for the rest of our lives. The only thing that could change is whether the government recognizes it. It's about time that happened.

If you're in Illinois, please consider contacting your state representative in support of marriage equality. You can find more information at Equality Illinois.A National site is Marriage Equality USA.

For another viewpoint on marriage equality, see Esther and Kati Baruja's post Same-sex Marriage and my Faith on their blog ¡You will fill me with joy in your presence!

Sent

2013-04-07T15:30:00Z

Last week, we had a rollercoaster of emotion:

We had Jesus' satirical entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, mocking the entrance of Pilate.
We had the last supper, a feast is the institution of communion, which we will celebrate today.

Then we crested that first hill, and the rollercoaster started falling... fast.

Disciples argue over who will be the greatest.
Jesus predicts that one of the twelve will betray him, and that Peter will deny him.
While Jesus prays in the garden, asking for the possibility that he won't have to go through this ordeal, his disciples - his friends - fall asleep.
Twice.
Judas betrays him.
Peter gets violent, and cuts off someone's ear,
and later denies Jesus... three times.
Jesus is beaten
and crucified
and buried.

]]> Last Sunday, we heard part of the Easter message: that the tomb was empty, and that Mary of Magdala saw Jesus. But for the disciples, who haven't seen Jesus and can't believe what the women are telling them, the world looks pretty bleak:

Their leader is dead, and his body is missing.
Those who killed their leader may be looking for them next.

Then, in a locked room, Jesus appears to them. The disciples, understandably, are overjoyed. What did the disciples think would happen next?

Would things go back to the way they were before the crucifixion? That seems rather unlikely.

Would the Jesus who was unjustly accused, condemned, and executed exact revenge? That seems a bit against his teachings.

Would the Jesus who conquered even death now lead them against the occupying forces of Rome?

I think they were surprised by what happened next. In verse 21, we read:

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

Wait.

What?

"Jesus," I can imagine one of the twelve saying, "we just saw what happened to you. Those people are probably looking for us now. You cannot be seriously suggesting we do what you just did."

What does it mean when Jesus sends us the way God sent Jesus? This is the Jesus who said "unless you pick up your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple."

Lest we think this is a call to die a martyr's death, it's helpful to remember that crucifixion to resurrection spanned three days, and Jesus' ministry was three years. There's a lot more sacrificial living than sacrificial dying in Jesus.

Now Jesus meant the disciples, right? That being sent stuff doesn't apply today.

Well, maybe that includes clergy today. But it certainly doesn't include lay people, right? Remember that I'm not clergy.

I think it does include lay people. The United Church of Christ, like many protestant denominations, explicitly claims the priesthood of all believers. Here's what it says in "What Is the United Church of Christ" on the UCC website:

The Priesthood of All Believers. All members of the United Church of Christ are called to minister to others and to participate as equals in the common worship of God, each with direct access to the mercies of God through personal prayer and devotion.

I think this means we're all included in being sent.

So we're sent by Jesus as Jesus was sent by God. Maybe if we had a little help...

In verse 22 we read:

When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

When I was growing up, I didn't give the Holy Spirit much room. God was a given, and there were paintings and drawings of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit was a little harder to understand.

The truth is, even after all this time in the church and at seminary, the Holy Spirit is difficult for me to comprehend.

You know how, in particle physics, they say light is a particle and a wave at the same time, but sometimes not? (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) I think the Holy Spirit is like that for me. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is like a person I can pray to. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is something that moves through me like a wave.

But because the Holy Spirit is with us, however we understand it, we are able to do things we might not ordinarily be able to do. We may find ourselves more giving, more loving, better teachers, better listeners, more willing to go and more willing to welcome in. In short, the Holy Spirit helps us to be more like Jesus.

So we're sent by Jesus as Jesus was sent by God, and we have the help of the Holy Spirit. Is there anything else we should know?

In verse 23, we read:

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Now there's a very traditional interpretation of this verse that gives priests, through apostolic succession - that is, the laying on of hands from one ordained person to another - the power to forgive or retain sins. That's a pretty reasonable interpretation, but I want to challenge us to think of this verse another way:

Jesus is warning the disciples that forgiving - or not forgiving - has very real consequences.

Think about the times that Jesus didn't forgive:

Well, there was that one time when he threw out the money changers...
And he did call the Pharisees hypocrites...
And there was that one time he cursed a fig tree...

But, by and large, Jesus forgave. He forgave the woman at the well, and said the man was not born blind because of his sin or his parents'. Jesus forgave the woman who touched his garment, and the paralyzed man, and the woman accused of adultery.

And, as he died on the cross, when he couldn't do the forgiving himself, he asked his father to forgive those who crucified him.

Jesus wasn't just doing feel-good moments. When someone says "I forgive you," and means it, it changes our relationship with them, doesn't it? When someone forgives us, we experience forgiveness.

But when people don't forgive, we experience not being forgiven. What people say and do matters to us.

And as Christians, what we do matters. Remember that we are priests of the Church of Jesus Christ - I Peter 2:9 calls us "a royal priesthood" - and the forgiveness and unforgiveness we do has real consequences for people.

And, lest we let ourselves believe that we're in a position to decide who should remain unforgiven, let us remember that we are sent by Jesus. To many, we are the face of Jesus. When we forgive, people experience a forgiving Jesus, and when we judge, people experience a judgmental Jesus.

Imagine a Jesus who did not forgive the paralyzed man, or said the man was born blind because of his parents' sin. Imagine a Jesus who says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and then heaves the first rock himself.

That's not our Jesus.

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

We ought to seriously consider what sins we forgive and what sins we retain, because what we do not only affects the people around us, but reflects on the image of Jesus.

We are sent by Jesus as Jesus was sent by God.

We have the help of the Holy Spirit.

And what we say and do matters.

I have a little project for all of us this week:

Until next Sunday morning when we meet here again, I challenge us to think of ourselves as priests of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I challenge us to be aware that people who know we are Christians will see us as followers of Jesus.

I challenge us to be aware that what we bless and what we condemn have real consequences for people and for the Church as well.

I challenge us to not think lightly of ourselves as Christians. We are a royal priesthood. And what we say and do matters.

Peace be with you.

As God sent Jesus, so Jesus sent us.

Amen.

For Matthew Warren

2013-04-06T19:47:59Z

Rick Warren's son Matthew had a chronic illness. Recently, the illness overcame him.

I know many people who struggle with this illness, and I know nine people who have lost their lives to it.

It's an illness that presents itself many different ways. Sometimes others can see the symptoms; sometimes they cannot. Sometimes it responds to a treatment; other times it does not. Often, it grows resistant to treatment, and another needs to be tried.

It's an illness that makes patients feel like giving up on getting better. It hinders the ability of those suffering with it to do what they need to do to recover.

I know a lot about this illness because I, too, struggle with it. Even so, I do not know what it was like for Matthew, because each of us experiences this illness in a different way.

While I am saddened that, ultimately, the illness led to Matthew's death, I am grateful that he and I both believe in a loving God who knows the pain Matthew felt. And I am grateful that Matthew is now released from that pain.

I pray that those who know and love Matthew will be surrounded by love, support, and care. Know that your love sustained Matthew through years of illness, and that you have been a comfort to him on this side of the veil.

God bless you all.

The Week after Holy Week

2013-04-05T09:40:19Z

At RevGalBlogPals, Rev. Pat Raube asks five questions for her Friday Five: Kicking Back Edition:

1. What, if anything, are you doing to take your Easter season sabbath? Family? Vacation? Study Leave? Some combination of all three?

I'm not.

While I was involved with most of Easter Week, this week I am

working my day job
taking an 11PM-3AM shift with a homeless shelter
working on school work (graduation is in sight!)
preparing for leading worship on Sunday (the pastor will be away) which includes order of worship, sermon, letter to those unable to come to church, Friday e-mail to congregation
preparing for the defense of my Constructive Theology paper
preparing my monthly report to the church council

2. What is your favorite Easter season sabbath of all time?

My first one. Alas, it is some day in the future, so I don't have many details.

3. If you're not taking an Easter season sabbath, what is drawing your attention as the Revised Common Lectionary bids us bide awhile with Thomas and gang? Is there a Holy Hilarity service in your future?

I'm using John, and I'm only addressing Thomas with the children. What's got me interested is the change in the ministry here: the resurrected Jesus isn't going back to preaching, teaching, healing, and casting out demons; he's giving the job to the disciples.

4. What would be your ideal Easter season sabbath? If you could go anywhere, do anything, with anybody?

A cabin or cottage, by a lake, where it's warm enough that there's no danger of snow, with my long-suffering spouse who has put up with the last 14 years of my getting an undergraduate degree and an MDiv part time while working full time.

5. Tell the truth now: Any Easter candy left?

Yes! My home church sent baskets to all the students (even old seminarians like me) and I haven't TOUCHED mine!

Complications in GLBTQ Issues

2013-03-30T17:14:49Z

Civil rights issues are messy.

While I'm not a fan of complication for complication's sake (I preached a sermon on this), life in general is pretty complicated. And as one moves across the many dimensions where one side has greater power than the other, it gets very complicated and messy.

Take theology, for example: Christian theology, by default, is western, white, and male. From there one can go to feminist theology (women) or black theology (people of African-American heritage) or womanist (both). Then there's liberation theology - primarily Central and South-America - and Mujerista theology for women from the same region. Don't forget Post-Colonial theology for colonized areas such as South- and East-Asia. There's more and, besides, even this is terribly oversimplified.

And so it is in the civic sphere. It gets pretty tough, because a lot of us are fighting for crumbs, and sometimes we squabble when trying not to be the ones who starve.

To my mind, the people we ought to be helping first are the ones who are most vulnerable. If that means inconvenience to those with a lot, if not the most, power, that's unfortunate.

Yes, I want marriage equality. Yes, it's wrong that one person had to pay over three hundred thousand dollars in inheritance tax when her spouse died. Yes, that's an injustice.

It's unlikely, however, that it will kill her.

Undocumented queer people are vulnerable, and in many cases unnecessarily so because if their marriages were acknowledged, they would have a path to citizenship through their spouses.

Transgender queer people are vulnerable because many of us have difficulty with employment, and we may be fired or evicted or denied service in many places merely because we are transgender. Many of us rely on the people who would be our spouses if marriage were available. But we can't get medical coverage through our spouses because we can't be married.

And I'm just scratching the surface: how about undocumented transgender homeless youth of color who were kicked out of the house for their gender identities, may suffer with addiction, and now do sex work and are at risk for - or are infected with, HIV, hepatitis, chlamydia, syphilis, or gonorrhea? It's inconvenient to show a young street queen: what will people think? But pushing her underground doesn't fix anything. She needs help now, not after wealthy white queers - like me - are able to get married.

Yes, like me. One might think I'm stuck on the trans issue because I'm trans, and changes benefit me. But here's the truth: to most of the world, I am a fairly feminine middle class white woman who works in technology and is working toward ordained ministry. That's a position of power. I own a home. I have not collected an unemployment check in my life. I transitioned on the job and had only a little trouble. I have never been kicked out of a house, apartment, store, or other public accommodation for being trans. Marriage equality is probably the queer cause that will most benefit me and my female spouse.

However, because I have a transgender history, I am aware of the issues some of us face. I have increased sensitivity about it. But what I cannot do is speak for the most vulnerable because, frankly, I don't know what it's like to be that vulnerable.

It does, however, get under my skin when someone argues that we need to take care of an issue that mostly affects the wealthy and come back for the poor. It rankles me when it's suggested that the folks who are best tolerated by the general society should be the ones to get protections before we address the issues of those who are most often harmed.

I know some of these people may not be the easiest ones to put on a poster or Facebook image meme. The people who best fit with society's expectations are not, by and large, the ones who are suffering and dying.

What most amazes me is that the criticism I received was not from other LGBT people: it was from allies. And I am apparently not alone. Believe me, I appreciate those who stand in solidarity with us. But when the issues get complicated, when things get a little muddy, please don't tell those of us who have lived even a part of the issue that we need to get on message or cut someone some slack. Instead, please ask us why this is such a big issue for us. As much as you may think you understand the issues, you don't really know them unless you've lived them.

And if you do want to know about trans issues, don't ask me. I really have had an easy time of it. Instead, reach out to people who have been kicked out of homes, who have lost jobs, who have been denied housing and employment, who have been turned away from medical care, who have had to turn to sex work to survive.

The truth is, I'm an ally, too. And I have to remember that I don't know what a lot of transgender people go through. As an ally, I will not tell them to get in line. But I will tell other allies to listen to them.

So if you consider yourself an ally, please listen to some other voices. I'll give you a starter kit:Not all of these are trans, not every article is about transgender issues, but there are some important posts on each.

People are dying for you to see it's not so simple.

There's a lot more if you follow links or search a bit.

The Cross Is Old-Fashioned

2013-03-29T05:00:00Z

Anyone who knows the story of Jesus knows he died on a cross. Most know the story of the two thieves who died on crosses next to him. But Rome crucified thousands of people.

If Jesus had started his ministry in the 2000's...

...if he were killed today...

...would he have died on a cross?

Probably not. While there are still crucifixions today, they are far more rare.

But if Jesus were in the USA, he might die by a gun. Or he might die by lethal injection.

In Western Asia, it might be by gun, or by missile, or by improvised explosive device, or by something fired from an unmanned drone.

All over the world, people die by starvation.

What would it mean if Christians used a gun as a symbol? What about a syringe, representing lethal injection? Or an empty plate?

The cross means different things to different people, but let's remember what it really was: a deadly weapon. If we've forgotten that, maybe we need a new symbol.

Why my relationship with HRC is complicated

2013-03-28T13:00:00Z

A couple of days ago, I posted why I didn't have a particular logo as my avatar.

Now that the court has heard the arguments, and some people are turning their profile photos back to pictures of their kids or pets, I wanted to touch on my issues with HRC.

As a person who identifies as Lesbian, and who has been in a same-sex relationship for 24 year, I appreciate those who support my rights.

As a transgender person, I don't support those who try to exclude me from rights.

I could write an article about issues with HRCF and HRC over the years, but there are a lot of articles already out there that explain this pretty well, so I'm just going to link to them:

If you search a bit, you can find more.

It's one thing to inconsistently support a marginalized group.

It's quite another to advocate that one marginalized group be excluded protections so another can get them.

Why I don't have a particular logo as my avatar today

2013-03-26T14:01:06Z

There's an organization with which I have a fairly complicated relationship. It fights for my rights in one way, then alternately fights for and against my rights in another way.

There are two cases before the Supreme Court of the USA, for which there will be hearings today and tomorrow. Both are about marriage equality: one whether California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional in removing people's rights, and one whether the Defense of Marriage Act infringes on the constitutional rights of people who are legally married in their states.

The organization to which I referred at the top of this lengthy status has a logo that some people are using as a stand-in for their support for marriage equality. To my eyes, it really means they're supporting the organization. The logo itself says nothing about marriage. Even if I did not a complicated relationship with this organization, I would think twice about using the logo alone as my show of support: the same as I would in using the United Church of Christ Cross and Orb or Comma (even the rainbow one) for that reason. The logo shows support for the organization, not for the issue.

But I do have a complicated relationship with this organization. At its inception, when it was still called _____ Fund, it actively excluded transgender people from the protections it sought for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Later, after dropping "Fund" from the name, it claimed to be inclusive. Then it advocated removing transgender protection from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) so they could get it passed, with a promise to come back for transgender people later.

So I'm not inclined to publicize an organization with which I have a complicated relationship. It feels a bit like the person you date who says "I love you" in private but tells their friends "I would never touch that skank."

I've commented on the profile pictures of a few friends, noting that they were supporting this organization. Some understood, some didn't understand, and some got their backs up about it. I meant no offense: I'm merely pointing out that the logo points to the organization, not the cause.

Use whatever profile pic you like. On Facebook, I'm using one of my partner and me at our Holy Union, April 24, 1999. To me, that says a lot more about marriage equality.

Yipes.

2013-03-14T17:15:00Z

A call to ordained ministry consists of four parts:

General call, by nature of of baptism,
Interior call, or personal sense of call to specific ministry,
Providential call, or gifts and talents for ministry, and
Ecclesiastical call, or the church's affirmation of call.

I've been approved for ecclesiastical council, where #4 will be decided.

In this case, an ecclesiastical council is where the Fox Valley Association (FVA) of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ will invite all FVA clergy plus two adult lay people from each church and one youth lay person from each church to vote on whether I will be approved for ordination. In practice, far fewer people show up. Eleven churches must be represented in order for there to be a quorum.

Others may attend and be there while I am examined, but will have to leave the room with me when they discuss and vote.

If 75% of those voting say "yes", I will be approved for ordination. Other options include "Not yet", with suggestions for study and growth before a subsequent ecclesiastical council, and "No", which means I'm not a suitable candidate for ordination.

The ecclesiastical council is scheduled for 3PM June 2 2013 in Bloomingdale IL.

Here's What's Wrong with People Like...

2013-03-01T14:30:00Z

Maybe it's becoming more common, or maybe I'm just becoming more sensitive to it, but are progressives getting more judgmental lately - not just judgmental about conservatives, but also about other progressives?

What I'm seeing is a lot of what [some subsection of progressives] didn't do about [some issue] and [some group] does [something] that annoys me.

I'll admit to being part of the snarkiness. But it's Lent, and Lent is a period of fasting, prayer, meditation, reflection, and preparation in anticipation of the crucifixion and the resurrection. So today I'm making a commitment to be more helpful than hurtful, more encouraging than discouraging, more uniting than divisive.

Instead of saying "what you cisgender progressives failed to notice about the plight of transgender people," I'll say "as a transgender person, this is what I think would be helpful from cisgender progressives." Instead of saying "you who take time to criticize my religion really annoy me and I wish you would stop," I'll ask "tell me more about how you feel about my religion and why that's important to you personally."

I think it's not helpful to keep telling each other "you failed," "you're doing it wrong," or "I have no time for you." I believe that saying "try again," "here's an idea of a way that you could do even better," and "tell me more about your story" will create better opportunities for growth.

Maybe it would even be progressive.

What You Meant by That Post about the Oscars Was...

2013-02-28T10:28:26Z

I was going to write a post about what a lot of people really meant in their posts about various attempts at humor.

Then I realized that was arrogant.

I do not have some special ability to know people's motivations. And that's what troubles me about a lot of the conversation around attempts at humor in and at the Academy Awards: we don't know what the joke-tellers meant. Was it criticism of culture? Biting satire? Frat boy humor? Abusive misogyny?

Unless the joke-teller explains the joke-teller's motivation, we simply don't know for sure. So instead we're arguing about something we simply don't know.

That doesn't mean we can't deconstruct songs, jokes, and tweets. We simply have to recognize that our way of looking at the world necessarily alters the ways we received these ideas.

It also doesn't mean we can't judge the appropriateness of these communications. We can say that they could directly or indirectly cause psychological or physical harm to people.

I can say I was offended. I can say that I found it liberating. I can say that the target of humor was inappropriate. I can say that it shone a light on problems in our culture. I can say that, because of events in my life, the humor triggered an emotional reaction. I can say that I found the juxtaposition of disparate elements triggered cognitive dissonance that I experienced as humor. I can say that an attempt of humor made me feel less safe. I can say that it was clever.

But I'm not going to enter into the debate about what someone meant. Although...

...the very fact that there is argument about what these people meant by their humor tells me one thing:

If these jokes were meant to do anything more than make people laugh, if they were meant to communicate something deeper, they weren't very successful.

Too Busy to Die

2013-02-24T16:30:00Z

Reading: Luke 13:31-35

Podcast: toobusytodie.mp3

Vinnie and Denise - not their real names - were part of my family. They loved each other. They loved their kids. They also struggled with addiction.

One day, Denise found out she had tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Separately, Vinnie found out he, too, was HIV positive
Vinnie seemed to give up hope pretty quickly. This is not to judge Vinnie: it's hard to say why he felt the way he did - maybe it had to do with other stresses he had in his life, maybe it was the feeling of responsibility for his wife and kids, maybe the medications didn't work as well in him, maybe the side effects were too difficult to tolerate, maybe the disease had progressed farther in Vinnie than in Denise. Whatever the case, he lived less than two years after his diagnosis.

Denise, on the other hand, held on longer. Again, it's hard to say what kept her spirits up. There has been some research which seems to indicate that the amount of hope someone has can have an effect on health. That may have been the case here. I don't know for certain.

But the connection between hope and healing is not the main point of my message today.

In today's Bible reading, Jesus is getting a kind of diagnosis too. The Pharisees are telling him he has a terminal case of upsetting the government. I suspect that Jesus already recognized the symptoms. The Romans had been crucifying enemies of the state for some time, and John the Baptist had recently been killed. You don't have to be God incarnate, the Son of God on Earth, or even a prophet with a direct line to God to figure out that upsetting the rulers is going to cost you in the long run.

At this point, Jesus could have decided to lie low for a while, until things cooled off. He could have run away. He could have quit his ministry altogether.

Instead, Jesus kept doing what he was called to do in the face of certain death. Though he knew he had only so much time left, he spent it casting out demons and performing cures.

Not only does Jesus continue to do his work, he openly defies Herod. He is not going to let Herod tempt him into giving up.

Lent is a time of fasting, but it is also a time of prayer. It is a time of meditation and reflection in anticipation and preparation for the crucifixion and the resurrection.

It's a good time to meditate and reflect on temptation.

Last week, our Illinois Conference Minister - The Reverend Doctor Jorge Morales - preached a sermon on strength and courage in the face of temptation. In addition to the temptations to do things we shouldn't, there's another temptation: to not do the things to which we are called. Fear, doubt, and despair can lead us away from our callings in life. They can tempt us to give up.

But we don't have to give in to temptation.

In those last years, Denise became an HIV/AIDS educator. She taught in schools, in churches, and in other settings. She showed people that the face of AIDS was not just gay white men. She taught people that anyone could get this disease. She gave people with AIDS hope to carry on. And she taught that people with AIDS need love too.

Denise raised her four kids, and also adopted a child whose mother had died of AIDS. In those last years, Denise did not give up, instead, she found her calling: a ministry with the sick and with those who are well.

I don't know whether it has been done here, and I have never seen Kirk do it, but in some churches, the preacher will pick out someone in the congregation and single them out as someone who needs to hear the message. I haven't been here very long, but this internship is supposed to be an opportunity to take chances and learn.

There is someone in this church right now who really needs to hear this message: someone who is being tempted by fear, doubt, and despair; someone who has considered giving up.

And that person is me.

There have been times along the way that I have felt like giving up. I have let fear, doubt, and despair get the better of me.

I don't know how many years I have left. I'm actually fairly healthy. There's a good chance I have several decades left. My fear, doubt, and despair are less about the time I have left than whether I am able to do what I'm called to do.

I'm sure there are others here who've felt it, too: that fear that something will go wrong, that doubt that we will succeed, that despair that comes when yet another obstacle appears in our path.

We're often told to look to Jesus as our example, and I don't know about you, but for me, looking at Jesus as an example doesn't always work. I can give myself an excuse for giving up. After all, he is Jesus and I am not Jesus.

But then I think of Denise.

I'm sure Denise had her down times. But she did not let fear, doubt, and despair stop her from being who she was called to be and doing what she was called to do. She was too busy teaching, and loving, and caring to be dying.

More than eight years after Denise's diagnosis, I was with her children and other family members at the hospital, waiting for the doctor to arrive. Her eldest child was dreading the decision on whether to continue life support. Before he had to make that decision, a nurse let us know that Denise had passed away. Her son said "Thanks, Mom."

The work Denise did, and the hope she carried with her, may have helped her survive longer. Maybe not. I have no way to be certain.

But what Denise did was to live out those years she had left, instead of merely surviving. What Denise did with those last years directly changed the lives of hundreds of people, and who knows how many thousands were touched indirectly?

We have a choice: to give into the temptation to give up, or to boldly live out what we've been called to do and to boldly be who God dreamed us to be.

Giving up is deciding to just survive. Giving up may not add any years to our lives. It might just seem longer while we think of what we might have done.

In Lent, we're not only moving toward the crucifixion of Good Friday, but to the resurrection of Easter. And if we're going to prepare, we ought to be preparing to be an Easter people, a resurrection people, a living people.

The only way to really live is to be who we are and do what we do. And that leads me to my challenge to all of us this week:

I challenge all of us, including myself, including Kirk, to be aware of the temptations of fear, doubt and despair. And, when we see them, when we have the strength, to tell fear, doubt, and despair we're too busy casting out demons, performing cures, teaching, loving, caring, working, laughing, listening...
...living...
to pay attention to their threats.

Amen

Heavenly and Earthly

2013-02-21T14:30:00Z

One of the Lectionary readings for this coming Sunday (Lent 2) goes like this:

Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.

- Philippians 3:17-4:1, NRSV

I have a friend who is well-read in René Girard and Mimetic Theory, so I'll leave the imitation question to her. But what of this question of heavenly and earthly things? Surely the body needs to be fed - even Jesus ate - and drank.

During Lent, our fasting may take the form of self-deprivation, giving up something the body wants (or sometimes even needs). We do this so we can shift our focus to heavenly things. Deprivation alone does no good - it would be letting go of the earthly things without grasping the heavenly.

But what heavenly things?

I especially like the verse "He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself." For those of us who have struggled with humiliation in this life, there is the promise of something better.

So as we prepare for Easter week, let us give up those feelings of humiliation and grasp the resurrection promise in Jesus. The humiliation is temporary but the promise is eternal.