Recently in Clergy Category
If you're in seminary or divinity school, and especially if you're in a Master of Divinity program, you're probably responding to a call to ministry.
There are lots of kinds of ministry - preaching, teaching, music, chaplaincy... and, along the way, you will probably settle on one sort of ministry or another - or several, perhaps changing your mind.
I'm not going to ask what sort of ministry it is.
Instead, I want you to imagine yourself serving the people you're called to serve. If you're thinking of parish ministry, imagine the congregation. If it's in a hospital, imagine the patients, families, and friends. If it's in the military, imagine the soldiers. If it's on the street, imagine the people you will serve there.
Spend at least a minute in this, if not longer.
Now I want you to think about a few things about these people you imagine you will serve.
I want you to answer this honestly.
Answer it to yourself.
If you're brave, go to this post on trans-cendental, or talk with your friends, and share the answers with others.
In short, do you have a picture of the people you will serve, and how diverse is the group? And how would you respond if someone outside your vision were to show up one day?
This exercise came to my mind today as I was reflecting on how I don't feel called to a ministry with transgendered people, but a ministry that includes transgendered people among many others. I'm going to continue to challenge myself to broaden my vision of those I would serve. Others may want to restrict their vision for purposes of a deeper work with a particular population. Either way, I think it's important to be intentional about this.
There are lots of kinds of ministry - preaching, teaching, music, chaplaincy... and, along the way, you will probably settle on one sort of ministry or another - or several, perhaps changing your mind.
I'm not going to ask what sort of ministry it is.
Instead, I want you to imagine yourself serving the people you're called to serve. If you're thinking of parish ministry, imagine the congregation. If it's in a hospital, imagine the patients, families, and friends. If it's in the military, imagine the soldiers. If it's on the street, imagine the people you will serve there.
Spend at least a minute in this, if not longer.
Now I want you to think about a few things about these people you imagine you will serve.
I want you to answer this honestly.
Answer it to yourself.
If you're brave, go to this post on trans-cendental, or talk with your friends, and share the answers with others.
- How much are these people like you?
- How much are these people different from you?
- How much diversity is there among the people?
- Are there people with different skin colors?
- Are there people with different ethnic backgrounds?
- Are there people who speak different languages?
- Are there people who are gay? Lesbian? Bisexual?
- Are there people who cross over or through gender boundaries? How so?
- What ages are the people?
- Are they rich? Poor?
- Do they work? Are they retired? Independently wealthy? Or do they have public financial support?
- Where do they live? Do they own? Rent?
- Are they comfortable in the space where they meet you, or uncomfortable?
- Do they have any physical challenges?
- Do they have any developmental challenges?
- Do they have psychological or emotional challenges?
- How well can they see?
- How well can they hear?
- Do they have an illness?
- Do they have family that loves them?
- Do they have friends?
- Do people avoid them?
In short, do you have a picture of the people you will serve, and how diverse is the group? And how would you respond if someone outside your vision were to show up one day?
This exercise came to my mind today as I was reflecting on how I don't feel called to a ministry with transgendered people, but a ministry that includes transgendered people among many others. I'm going to continue to challenge myself to broaden my vision of those I would serve. Others may want to restrict their vision for purposes of a deeper work with a particular population. Either way, I think it's important to be intentional about this.
Candidate and ordained minister the Reverend Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee find support for capital punishment in the death of Jesus:
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, "This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency."After all, if Jesus wasn't OK with it, he might have prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Matthew 39, Mark 14:36-39, and Luke 22:42-44.
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
