Recently in justice Category
Year C, Third Sunday after Pentecost.
Scripture: 1 Kings 21:1-21a, 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Those of you who are liturgically inclined may know that we're in "the season after Pentecost". This, and the season after Epiphany, are considered "ordinary time". "Ordinary time" just means we're not in a special fast or feast time like Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter.
The lectionary is a set of readings on a three year cycle. Many churches use the lectionary to determine what scripture will be read each week; some, like Hope, don't always follow the lectionary.
In ordinary time, the lectionary ordinarily provides two sets of old testament readings: one that follows the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, and another that chooses readings based on harmony with the new testament theme.
Ordinarily, only one old testament reading is used.
Ordinarily, the two old testament choices do not line up.
But this is no ordinary church, we are no ordinary people, and this is no ordinary set of readings.
Scripture: 1 Kings 21:1-21a, 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Those of you who are liturgically inclined may know that we're in "the season after Pentecost". This, and the season after Epiphany, are considered "ordinary time". "Ordinary time" just means we're not in a special fast or feast time like Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter.
The lectionary is a set of readings on a three year cycle. Many churches use the lectionary to determine what scripture will be read each week; some, like Hope, don't always follow the lectionary.
In ordinary time, the lectionary ordinarily provides two sets of old testament readings: one that follows the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, and another that chooses readings based on harmony with the new testament theme.
Ordinarily, only one old testament reading is used.
Ordinarily, the two old testament choices do not line up.
But this is no ordinary church, we are no ordinary people, and this is no ordinary set of readings.
Continue reading I Want That.
I attempted to register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary.
The seminary I attend, Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS), is part of the Association of Chicago Theological Schools (ACTS), which "was formed in 1984 by twelve theological schools located in the Chicago area to provide means for cooperation among the member institutions in the areas of student cross-registration, library access and acquisitions, interchange among faculty members in the disciplines of theological education, and communications between the schools." - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Students at ACTS schools may register at other ACTS schools:
Now, granted, there is a stated exception:
I attempted to cross-register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary (which has the awesome domain name of seminary.edu). I was aware that the seminary was more conservative, and I did not expect it to be easy to take a class there. But I was willing to sit with far more conservative students in a far more conservative school, in part to keep from having my graduation date from being pushed back another two years, and in part because I do not want to be estranged from my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.
I didn't want to go stealthily into the seminary for several reasons. First, I am not ashamed of who I am, nor the path taken to get here. While I don't advertise my sexual orientation or transgender history to everyone, I don't take steps to hide these parts of my life either. To do so is to walk in shadow, and I prefer to be in the light.
Second, to hide an aspect of one's life can result in feelings of betrayal should the secret be found out. It is damaging to a relationship when trust is broken: witness what happened with Ted Haggard.
Third, even if the secret is never found out (unlikely as a simple web search will find enough information about me), keeping a secret from those with whom one is in relationship creates an inauthentic, dysfunctional, and, dare I say it, sinful relationship.
So, to be as honest and authentic as possible in my relationship to the class, I sent e-mail to the professor teaching the class. I explained my background (Evangelical Free, Bible Students, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and United Church of Christ), my school affiliation (CTS), and my sexual orientation and transgender history. I asked for advice on what I could do to make the situation easier for everyone involved.
I did not expect the culture clash to be easy. I also did not expect, however, to be rejected from taking any classes whatsoever.
My e-mail to the instructor was apparently forwarded to the administration who, in a very polite but firm e-mail, explained to me that the school's admission policy is applied to cross-registered students. The seminary, in their catalog, under code of conduct, states:
Northern Baptist may believe my twenty-one year relationship with my spouse to be sinful and unChristian. They may believe my transition, twenty-five years ago, to living as my identified gender to be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.
They may well object to my behavior off school grounds, but they were not going to change that by rejecting my cross-registration. They can't make me a straight white male again by denying me the chance to study with their professor and students.
So exactly what is sinful or harmful about my taking a class at their school? Exactly what is made worse by my presence there?
At their school, I'm certainly going to hear about their viewpoint on homosexuality and transgender issues - especially since the class I was going to take was on the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Were they afraid that I would rebut the reading of the few verses applied to homosexuals as they were glossing over the dietary laws, mixing of fabrics, wearing of tassels, uncleanness of women during their periods and after giving birth, trimming of beards, and the Jubilee year? Were they concerned that I would point out that Levitical law says nothing about Lesbian relationships? Did they worry that I would point out that the word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is the same as the word "know" in Genesis 18:19? (I really wasn't planning on it.)
And, perhaps more to the point, how is this following Jesus' example? Did Jesus teach only the holy? Did Jesus not teach prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, Roman soldiers, and (at the cross) thieves and murderers?
I am disappointed that Northern Baptist Seminary chose to not honor its covenant with the Association of Chicago Theological Schools.
I am also sad that sixty faculty and staff are more afraid of me than I am of them.
The seminary I attend, Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS), is part of the Association of Chicago Theological Schools (ACTS), which "was formed in 1984 by twelve theological schools located in the Chicago area to provide means for cooperation among the member institutions in the areas of student cross-registration, library access and acquisitions, interchange among faculty members in the disciplines of theological education, and communications between the schools." - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Students at ACTS schools may register at other ACTS schools:
Available to the approximately 3,000 students currently enrolled at its member schools are 400 faculty, about 900 courses offered annually, and library collections of 1.7 million volumes and nearly 5,000 currently received periodical subscriptions.Except, in the case of at least one school, if you're gay.
- http://www.actschicago.org/index.html
Now, granted, there is a stated exception:
Exceptions to the process of cross-registration exist (1) during the summer term when tuition is normally paid to the school offering the course; (2) for D.Min. courses other than Pastoral Care and Counseling and for those students in the ACTS D.Min. in Preaching Program; and (3) in certain courses with limited enrollment. Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in certain courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to such courses.
- http://www.actschicago.org/catalog2009/cat06.html#how, emphases mine.
I attempted to cross-register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary (which has the awesome domain name of seminary.edu). I was aware that the seminary was more conservative, and I did not expect it to be easy to take a class there. But I was willing to sit with far more conservative students in a far more conservative school, in part to keep from having my graduation date from being pushed back another two years, and in part because I do not want to be estranged from my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.
I didn't want to go stealthily into the seminary for several reasons. First, I am not ashamed of who I am, nor the path taken to get here. While I don't advertise my sexual orientation or transgender history to everyone, I don't take steps to hide these parts of my life either. To do so is to walk in shadow, and I prefer to be in the light.
Second, to hide an aspect of one's life can result in feelings of betrayal should the secret be found out. It is damaging to a relationship when trust is broken: witness what happened with Ted Haggard.
Third, even if the secret is never found out (unlikely as a simple web search will find enough information about me), keeping a secret from those with whom one is in relationship creates an inauthentic, dysfunctional, and, dare I say it, sinful relationship.
So, to be as honest and authentic as possible in my relationship to the class, I sent e-mail to the professor teaching the class. I explained my background (Evangelical Free, Bible Students, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and United Church of Christ), my school affiliation (CTS), and my sexual orientation and transgender history. I asked for advice on what I could do to make the situation easier for everyone involved.
I did not expect the culture clash to be easy. I also did not expect, however, to be rejected from taking any classes whatsoever.
My e-mail to the instructor was apparently forwarded to the administration who, in a very polite but firm e-mail, explained to me that the school's admission policy is applied to cross-registered students. The seminary, in their catalog, under code of conduct, states:
In matters related to homosexuality:
1. Northern will not knowingly admit as a student any person having a homosexual lifestyle.
2. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a person is admitted to the Seminary and is found not to be a practicing homosexual, but to be striving to overcome homosexual tendencies, such a person will, in Christian love, be counseled to obtain the best help available so that with the power of God such a person may overcome the problem.
3. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a practicing homosexual is found to have been admitted to the Seminary, when such knowledge is discovered, such said practicing homosexual would be counseled to seek education elsewhere and to enter some other vocation, and failing voluntary withdrawal from Northern, would be disallowed to continue at the Seminary.
4. In no case would the Seminary recommend for ordination or for ministry any practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle.
This means they are reinterpreting the ACTS policy to say:5. Congruent with its policy of institutional integrity, Northern Baptist Seminary will not hire a practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle, and it reserves the right to dismiss from employment any such person on the grounds that it would conflict with the purpose of the institution.
- http://www.seminary.edu/about/PDFs/Seminary%20Catalog%202008-2009%20Revised.pdf
Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in all courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to all courses.This in order to prevent any homosexuals from taking any courses at their school, ever.
Northern Baptist may believe my twenty-one year relationship with my spouse to be sinful and unChristian. They may believe my transition, twenty-five years ago, to living as my identified gender to be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.
They may well object to my behavior off school grounds, but they were not going to change that by rejecting my cross-registration. They can't make me a straight white male again by denying me the chance to study with their professor and students.
So exactly what is sinful or harmful about my taking a class at their school? Exactly what is made worse by my presence there?
At their school, I'm certainly going to hear about their viewpoint on homosexuality and transgender issues - especially since the class I was going to take was on the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Were they afraid that I would rebut the reading of the few verses applied to homosexuals as they were glossing over the dietary laws, mixing of fabrics, wearing of tassels, uncleanness of women during their periods and after giving birth, trimming of beards, and the Jubilee year? Were they concerned that I would point out that Levitical law says nothing about Lesbian relationships? Did they worry that I would point out that the word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is the same as the word "know" in Genesis 18:19? (I really wasn't planning on it.)
And, perhaps more to the point, how is this following Jesus' example? Did Jesus teach only the holy? Did Jesus not teach prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, Roman soldiers, and (at the cross) thieves and murderers?
I am disappointed that Northern Baptist Seminary chose to not honor its covenant with the Association of Chicago Theological Schools.
I am also sad that sixty faculty and staff are more afraid of me than I am of them.
It's Easter Sunday, and churches across the world proclaim "He is risen! He is risen indeed!"
We can talk about the empty tomb as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, and then argue about whether it is a physical, spiritual, or metaphorical resurrection. We can talk about whether the resurrection means Jesus' triumph over death, over evil, over Satan, or an illustration of the promise of our own resurrection.
I think thousands of other preachers have "He is risen" covered. And so, my contrarian nature leads me to talk instead about the now available tomb.
Most tombs are single-use. You put someone in, and the tomb remains occupied. In some cases, there may be a crypt or plot where the remains of various family members will reside. But - unless the body is exhumed and moved elsewhere - graves usually stay occupied.
But here we have the unusual case of a tomb left vacant. What are we to do with a used tomb?
The practical thing is to put the remains of someone else in it. (You don't really want to make a former tomb into a restaurant.) So who will we bury in the tomb?
I have a suggestion.
We can bury ourselves.
Progressive and Liberal Christians don't often use the phrase "born again", but it is based in scripture: the Gospel according to John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and I Peter 1:22-25 says:
Fearfully, I make a suggestion that condemns me: we become dead to our own self-interest and seek to carry out Christ's command of love for others - especially the hungry, thirsty, strangers (homeless), naked (vulnerable) and imprisoned. For me, it means caring less about where I am going to eat and more about how I am helping to feed others. It means caring less about the declining value of my home and more about the homeless. It means caring less about my job security and more about people who are abused by family members, teachers, clergy, and others. It means caring less about my freedom to write a blog entry and more about those who - rightly or wrongly - are imprisoned and how to restore them to community.
I have to put my own selfish person into the tomb.
All is not lost, however, for from this death, a new person (with God's help) will rise: one who is more concerned with fellow human beings, one who takes risks, one who has faith that God will guide her along the way.
I pray for the courage to put my frightened, anxious self into the tomb.
We can talk about the empty tomb as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, and then argue about whether it is a physical, spiritual, or metaphorical resurrection. We can talk about whether the resurrection means Jesus' triumph over death, over evil, over Satan, or an illustration of the promise of our own resurrection.
I think thousands of other preachers have "He is risen" covered. And so, my contrarian nature leads me to talk instead about the now available tomb.
Most tombs are single-use. You put someone in, and the tomb remains occupied. In some cases, there may be a crypt or plot where the remains of various family members will reside. But - unless the body is exhumed and moved elsewhere - graves usually stay occupied.
But here we have the unusual case of a tomb left vacant. What are we to do with a used tomb?
The practical thing is to put the remains of someone else in it. (You don't really want to make a former tomb into a restaurant.) So who will we bury in the tomb?
I have a suggestion.
We can bury ourselves.
Progressive and Liberal Christians don't often use the phrase "born again", but it is based in scripture: the Gospel according to John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and I Peter 1:22-25 says:
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For,So what, in a progressive, liberal context, does it mean to be born again?
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you
Fearfully, I make a suggestion that condemns me: we become dead to our own self-interest and seek to carry out Christ's command of love for others - especially the hungry, thirsty, strangers (homeless), naked (vulnerable) and imprisoned. For me, it means caring less about where I am going to eat and more about how I am helping to feed others. It means caring less about the declining value of my home and more about the homeless. It means caring less about my job security and more about people who are abused by family members, teachers, clergy, and others. It means caring less about my freedom to write a blog entry and more about those who - rightly or wrongly - are imprisoned and how to restore them to community.
I have to put my own selfish person into the tomb.
All is not lost, however, for from this death, a new person (with God's help) will rise: one who is more concerned with fellow human beings, one who takes risks, one who has faith that God will guide her along the way.
I pray for the courage to put my frightened, anxious self into the tomb.
After the events of September 11, 2001, there were some who associated Islam with terrorism. There were some who asked "Where are all the so-called 'good' Muslims? Why aren't they condemning these attacks?" Of course, there were many Muslims who condemned the attacks, but the faithful - a minority in the United States of America - were not heard above the outrage of the majority.
Now we have a report of an alleged plot by a Christian cell:
As a majority, the silence so far has been deafening.
Now we have a report of an alleged plot by a Christian cell:
DETROIT -- Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral -- all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government. - APSo the logical next question is:
"Where are all the so-called 'good' Christians? Why aren't they condemning these attacks?"Let us see the Christian churches take a stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, condemning this type of behavior as antithetical to the way of Jesus. Let us hear the united voices of the faithful.
As a majority, the silence so far has been deafening.
So Glenn Beck says that Social Justice is the equivalent of Nazism and Socialism. Of course, Nazism and Socialism are about as alike as drought and rain, but we'll leave that alone. And Beck tells his viewers to leave their churches if they say anything about Social Justice.
So what's a church to do? Charity only, without calling for change in the system?
On the surface, that seems ok. We'll give to the poor to help them out, but we don't want any changes to our financial and social systems. Yet it is our systems that create and maintain poverty. Charity does not erase poverty, it merely treats the symptom.
Imagine a person who could not walk to where the food was. You could bring food to the person, but that person would have to eat again. The person becomes reliant on charity for survival.
What would Jesus do?
Sure, we have the parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus speaks about visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, but is that all Jesus calls us to?
Did Jesus bring the man crippled from birth a loaf of bread and a fish? Did Jesus hand the paralytic a meal?
Of course not. Jesus healed people and restored them to community. Jesus made people whole in body and social status.
And was Jesus content with treating prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, and others as unclean sinners to stay on the outside of society?
Of course not. Jesus ate with them and even said they would be getting into heaven before the (self) righteous.
Charity without change is a formula for continued dependence and subjugation. That is unethical, unjust, and unChristian. (It's also economically foolish, because it means keeping a class of people dependent on you.)
So I say:
If you belong to a church that offers charity but does not work for change, run as fast as you can and leave that church. It is not a church of Jesus Christ.
So what's a church to do? Charity only, without calling for change in the system?
On the surface, that seems ok. We'll give to the poor to help them out, but we don't want any changes to our financial and social systems. Yet it is our systems that create and maintain poverty. Charity does not erase poverty, it merely treats the symptom.
Imagine a person who could not walk to where the food was. You could bring food to the person, but that person would have to eat again. The person becomes reliant on charity for survival.
What would Jesus do?
Sure, we have the parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus speaks about visiting the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, but is that all Jesus calls us to?
Did Jesus bring the man crippled from birth a loaf of bread and a fish? Did Jesus hand the paralytic a meal?
Of course not. Jesus healed people and restored them to community. Jesus made people whole in body and social status.
And was Jesus content with treating prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, and others as unclean sinners to stay on the outside of society?
Of course not. Jesus ate with them and even said they would be getting into heaven before the (self) righteous.
Charity without change is a formula for continued dependence and subjugation. That is unethical, unjust, and unChristian. (It's also economically foolish, because it means keeping a class of people dependent on you.)
So I say:
If you belong to a church that offers charity but does not work for change, run as fast as you can and leave that church. It is not a church of Jesus Christ.
The free market works best, right? Supply and demand set the correct prices for goods and services. The consumer chooses the best options and thereby makes the best supplier successful.
This actually works for a lot of things - even for health care providers. For example: consumers will continue to use providers who offer a good ratio of quality care vs price. If the price goes too high, consumers will choose a cheaper provider. If the quality of care goes too low, consumers will choose a better provider.
Likewise, providers have an incentive to keep consumers (patients). It doesn't matter whether the patient sees the physician annually for a checkup, or weekly for chemotherapy: it is profitable to retain the patients you have and, when possible, add new ones.
Where this doesn't work is with insurance.
This actually works for a lot of things - even for health care providers. For example: consumers will continue to use providers who offer a good ratio of quality care vs price. If the price goes too high, consumers will choose a cheaper provider. If the quality of care goes too low, consumers will choose a better provider.
Likewise, providers have an incentive to keep consumers (patients). It doesn't matter whether the patient sees the physician annually for a checkup, or weekly for chemotherapy: it is profitable to retain the patients you have and, when possible, add new ones.
Where this doesn't work is with insurance.
Continue reading Why For-Profit Insurance Doesn't Work for Health Care.
I was thinking today about our tendency to help when it's convenient.
When we have a few extra dollars, we contribute to charity.
When we have extra food, we give some to the food bank (some of us offer the dented cans or things we don't want to eat).
Yet need does not wax and wane with availability. Homeless people don't disappear when there's a shortage of beds in shelters. People don't magically have enough winter clothing when there are no coats available. People aren't magically filled when there is no food available. And the needs of people for community don't disappear when churches decide they have no room for "people like that".
When we have a few extra dollars, we contribute to charity.
When we have extra food, we give some to the food bank (some of us offer the dented cans or things we don't want to eat).
Yet need does not wax and wane with availability. Homeless people don't disappear when there's a shortage of beds in shelters. People don't magically have enough winter clothing when there are no coats available. People aren't magically filled when there is no food available. And the needs of people for community don't disappear when churches decide they have no room for "people like that".
Continue reading When is it convenient?.
There was a certain rich man, who wore expensive suits and ate at the finest restaurants every day, and there was a poor man who begged outside his house.
And it came to pass that the rich man's investments collapsed, and his business was about to go bankrupt. And the rich man lifted up his eyes in torment, and cried and said, "have mercy on me, and send a bailout package ; for I am tormented in this economy."
And it came to pass that the rich man's investments collapsed, and his business was about to go bankrupt. And the rich man lifted up his eyes in torment, and cried and said, "have mercy on me, and send a bailout package ; for I am tormented in this economy."
My church is Plainfield Congregational United Church of Christ, part of the Eastern Association of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ.
An open letter, sent to Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, and Representative Jerry Weller and crossposted on Facebook, Pam's House Blend, and Trans-cendental
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Dear Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, and Representative Jerry Weller. I am a registered voter in the 11th congressional district of Illinois.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am appalled at the idea that the congress would even consider ceding its authority to the executive without congressional and judicial review, as stated in section 8 of the proposal from the Bush administration:
As a homeowner - and please note that I have a conventional mortgage that is not in danger of foreclosure - I am dismayed that this action focuses on the "big fish" of the financial world and ignores the rest of the economic ecosystem. Until we begin to resolve the problems of the millions of homeowners who were sold mortgages they could not afford (in many cases, when they were eligible for conventional mortgages), housing prices will continue to fall, construction sector unemployment will rise, and the foundation for such financial giants will remain shaky.
Finally, as a human being, I care at least as much about my struggling neighbors as I do about large financial institutions and retirement funds. It is our moral duty to help our distressed neighbors find a way to remain in their homes.
Please do not underestimate my resolve to support those who take the above into account, and to work for the unemployment of those legislators who ignore these issues.
Sincerely,
Cindi A. Knox
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Dear Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, and Representative Jerry Weller. I am a registered voter in the 11th congressional district of Illinois.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am appalled at the idea that the congress would even consider ceding its authority to the executive without congressional and judicial review, as stated in section 8 of the proposal from the Bush administration:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.As a taxpayer of the United States of America, I am disturbed by the idea that one man should be given "non-reviewable " authority over seven hundred billion dollars.
As a homeowner - and please note that I have a conventional mortgage that is not in danger of foreclosure - I am dismayed that this action focuses on the "big fish" of the financial world and ignores the rest of the economic ecosystem. Until we begin to resolve the problems of the millions of homeowners who were sold mortgages they could not afford (in many cases, when they were eligible for conventional mortgages), housing prices will continue to fall, construction sector unemployment will rise, and the foundation for such financial giants will remain shaky.
Finally, as a human being, I care at least as much about my struggling neighbors as I do about large financial institutions and retirement funds. It is our moral duty to help our distressed neighbors find a way to remain in their homes.
Please do not underestimate my resolve to support those who take the above into account, and to work for the unemployment of those legislators who ignore these issues.
Sincerely,
Cindi A. Knox
